Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Two Articles

This article arguably refers to two distinct phenomena: state terrorism and non-state terrorism. There may be a case for splitting it with a disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.117.221 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting this article is a sensible suggestion. The article as it stands deals wit two different topics: 1) action by a state against its citizens and 2) acts by individuals or groups against the state. Dealing with both topics in one article results in a lack of clarity. I propose to split the article into two during the next few days. AbelBergaigne (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm reconsidering: there is not necessarily a clear distinction between the two kinds of terrorism. Terrorist action by individuals and groups, if successful, can contribute to that group seizing power. The group, when in power, can continue to use terrorism to achieve its goals. In these cases revolutionary terrorism morphs into state terrorism and it would not be useful to have separate articles. Let's keep one article but make clear that successful terrorism by individuals against the state can turn into terrorism by the state against individuals. AbelBergaigne (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We need sources that describe the topic. The article is just a WP:COATRACK. TFD (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The same old saw. Wikipedia has a whole series of articles about terrorism motivated by ideology. This is no different from any other. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that explains Communist Terrorism so that we can improve the article. TFD (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the legal definition of terrorism and little if any consensus in other disciplines. I suggest that for this article we use an etymological definition. The Concise Dict. of English Etymology: 'Terror, dread. L. terrere: to scare, make afraid. Skt etc ...'. ODEE: 'terror. So terrorism, ist'. Therefore: terrorism; acts that cause terror. Communist is not a problem: who subscribes to communism (however understood). Communist terrorism: acts intended to cause terror by persons, organisations or states subscribing to communism. The article is full of sloppy language and poor logic.AbelBergaigne (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No we need a source that defines "Communist terrorism", not a source that defines Communist and another that defines terrorist. Compare with Persian cat - not necessarily a cat from Persia. TFD (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, if I say it is a "blue sky" outside, no one will ask me for a definition of "blue sky" (different from asking why the sky is blue). Similarly, one only has to look at sources which discuss various instances of Communist terrorism to see that it is terrorism motivated by or serving Communist ideology or masters. There is an entire evolution which starts with revolutionary terror before (Soviet) Communist terrorism which is all part of the story. You maintain there is no schoolbook definition putting Communist terrorism in a tidy neat little box, therefore it does not exist. There is no tidy little box--that is normal. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

   For example, if you search communist terrorism Cengage (a premier provider of educational materials), you will find various articles and presentation which all, academically, discuss "Communist terrorism" without stopping to define it. And why is that? Because such a definition as you seek is unnecessary. If you are verklemmt over it, the "definition" is simply what falls under its umbrella according to academic and scholarly sources. You insist on constructing a requirement whose only effect is to stymie progress. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If no reliable sources define "Communist terrorism", then it is your own personal opinion. Compare this article with the others in the series. We are able to establish that left-wing terrorism, right-wing terrorism, etc. are clearly defined types by providing reliable sources, not just original research based on the fact that some writers have put the two words together. TFD (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, "blue sky" would refer to something else other than what it is? It's just like the departed Communist genocide--which term had hundreds of sources--which you insisted lacked definition. Meanwhile it was clear from sources that the term referred to genocide committed by Communists as well as genocide directed against Communists. Editorially, there is material in other articles which has been removed from here by identifying Communism as an "X-wing" philosophy. Seems like that is editing on personal opinion as well. All I have seen (my perception) on the part of some is a concerted effort to kill the article and call anyone supporting it POV communist-bashers. But that's just my opinion, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A pity, but I take your point about the Persian cat. If there is no consensus on what the term means, we can't know what we're talking about. If it can't be defined and it's largely POV, it does not belong as a separate entry in WK. AbelBergaigne (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that as far as I see, every other article on "X" terrorism mentions "X" as ideological motivation or justification, whereas the protectors of communism have insured the lead for this article makes no mention of ideological motivation and pretends the term is merely a label assigned to a collection of events but otherwise divorced from it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Peters, since you repeat your old arguments, let me remind you the arguments I already put forward: although most events you suggest to combine under the title "CT" have been labeled as such by some authors, they remained not interconnected, and many authors provide different explanations for their primary causes (which are different in each particular case). For instance, so called Malayan "Communist terrorism" was de facto a national-liberation movement, which, as recent studies demonstrated was not a part of a global Communist plot. The same can be said about Vietnam, because many sources describe Ho as nationalist who used a Communist ideology as a tool for national liberation. In addition, many sources simply refuse to apply the term "terrorism" to anti-colonial or anti-authoritarian fighters (Vietcong or "Forest Brothers", no matter). Another example is the German "CT" during 1930s: this is a pure Nazi invention, which describes the thing that never existed, and was used by them to come to power. Leftist movements are one more example: some of them were supported by the USSR, similar to how the US supported Islam terrorists fighting against the USSR (in both cases ideology played no significant role). The list of examples can be prolonged.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Other articles mention "x" as an ideological motivation because that is what sources say. But you just brought up "blue sky". Is a CT a communist who commits acts of terrorism, or must there be a communist motivation? You need reliable sources to explain this. Note also that acts of terrorism have also been carried out by fascists, we do not have an article fascist terrorism. I would equally oppose such an article not because it is "POV fascist-bashing", but because there are no sources supporting the use of that terminology. TFD (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you keep bringing up the Malayan emergency rather ignoring the entire period of revolutionary terrorism going back to the assassination of Tsar Alexander. Your exceptions do not establish the rule. As for "leftist", there is quite a bit there that qualifies as communist terrorism which some editors insist on calling something else. @TFD, please feel free to create an article on Fascist terrorism, absence of one does not justify the deletion of another. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, you might start with the Italian elections of 1924, which are described as being "marred by Fascist terrorism." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start complaining about articles which are Nazi-bashing. Such a contention would be no less ludicrous (my perception of editorial worthiness only, of course). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Peters, firstly, that is the big question what is a rule and what is an exception, because I argue (following what the sources say) that all Communist led national liberation movements can hardly be described as "CT".

Secondly, your reference to the assassination of Alexander II demonstrates the problems with your education, not with mine: the terrorist groups engaged in XIX political killings in Russia were not Communist, they were the predecessors of the non-Communist and non-Marxist left Socialist Revolutionary party, the party that was only a temporary and tactical ally of Communists.

Re your suggestion about fascist terrorism, it is an invitation to start original research, so TFD will be correct if they will ignore such a proposal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, if liberation follows a communist theology and in pursuit of that theology conducts terrorism, it's still terrorism motivated by communist ideals. The "goal" does not change the "means." If you murder someone to achieve a theologically motivated goal, it does not change the nature of murder.

Please stop insulting my education. The first problem with the article is that it purports CT is merely a term. That prevents the construction of any sort of history of CT starting with its roots, which are are I describe and you deride. Please give the saw that I have "problems" of various sorts a rest. Your problem is your self-admitted pro-Soviet (ergo pro-at least some Communists) bias.

Lastly, given that references specifically discuss "fascist terrorism" with regard to the 1924 Italian elections—that would be Fascist terrorism, capital "F", the original Fascisti, there is zero original research involved. Would you feel better about Communist terrorism if we also had an article on Fascist terrorism? Ah, perhaps that can also just be a "term," for example, used by Stalin to create fear of Hitler. (And we do know Soviet propaganda is full of such references.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be original research and anti-fascist POV-pushing to put together the fact that Italian Fascist party members committed acts of terrorism, Hitler and his European allies terrorized people and the recent Norway killings and call the article "fascist terrorism". TFD (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Peters, since Communism is intrinsically atheistic, I see no relation between your reasoning about theologically motivated murder and Communism. Your reasoning can be formulated as follows: (i) Major premise: "narodovol'tsy were revolutionary terrorists who killed peoples for political reasons"; (ii) minor premise: "Communists kill peoples for political reasons"; (iii) Conclusion: "Narodovol'tsy were Communist terrorists (or the predecessors of Communist terrorists)." This is a pure logical fallacy, and I have no desire to continue the discussion that is based on absolutely false syllogisms. I strongly suggest you to stop your soapboxing and provide some reliable non-fringe source that performs a comprehensive analysis of all what is, in your opinion, "Communist terrorism" (a separate phenomenon, not separate and unconnected terrorists acts committed during various historical periods for various reasons by people who shared Communist doctrine), and defines it clearly and unequivocally. Until such a source has been provided, all reasoning about "blue sky", etc, are just your own, unsubstantiated opinion, and the article can be nothing else than a description of CT as a term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my use of the word "theology" in the wider sense of religious theology, scientific theology, political theology. I am not at all advocating the syllogism you create; but thank you for it, as you use a syllogism to dismiss the anarchist terrorism of the Narodnaya Voyla as an antecedent of Communist terrorism, which it clearly is. After the crackdown and widespread arrests, those released resumed their terroristic ways just in time for the 1905 revolution. Didn't their ranks include Stalin's brother? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The terrorism of Narodovol'tshy was the predecessor of political terrorism in general, not of CT. Please, provide the reliable source that states that Narodovol'tsy were the predecessors of specifically Communist terrorism. I would say the opposite, the Socialist Revolutionary Boris Savinkov's terrorism was the pure example of anti-Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like to read a book or article that explains Peters V's theories on communism and terrorism. TFD (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

@Paul - There you go again, if Narodnaya Voyla was parent of all political terrorism of the modern era, then it is parent to Communist terrorism as well. As for particular connections: (a) evolution of Russian terrorism (b) familial continuity,... I suppose I'll have to write a proper introduction at some point and see what you and TFD think of it--although I have to say we don't appear to put much stock in each others' editorial opinions these days. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to reach the roots, why not to start with zealots? One way or the another, if Narodnaya volya was a predecessor of not only CT, I don't see how the discussion of Narodnaya Volya can add anything to your concept that CT was some specific and unique type of terrorism, which was different from other types, and which have been continuously evolving during XIX-XXI centuries. I cannot deny my connection with my father, however, my biography starts with my birth, not with the birth of my father.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Didn't their ranks include Stalin's brother?" You probably meant Lenin's brother? Yes, they did, however, does it prove your idea? I don't how it can.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The term CT appears neutral, but it's charged with ideological significance. It means different things to different people, and the article inevitably becomes partisan. If there's no consensus, the article should present two definitions and express different interpretations (equal validity), each backed by authoritative sources (good research). The content needs to be rebalanced. The events in Cambodia in the 1970s and the Chinese Civil War are dealt in just two lines each. In the interest of balance, both need fuller treatment. AbelBergaigne (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Terrorism" is not neutral, making your objection a bit of a red herring. There are plenty of (academic) sources about "communist terrorism", except while editors have no issue with "Islamic terrorism," for example, here, "communist terrorism" is "two words put together." Really, that Narodnaya Volya is shown to influence Irish terrorism does not detract at all from its being the antecedent of CT. There are no opposing definitions of CT that I am aware of; there are those who call communists something else and therefore maintain their acts of terrorism are not CT. (Article history can be most illuminating.) On the other, yes, I did mean Lenin's brother. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources. TFD (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "There are no opposing definitions of CT that I am aware of" There are no definition of CT others than "Terrorism committed by communists".

Re "does not detract at all from its being the antecedent of CT." I am not aware of examples of Communist terrorist acts of the narodovolian style (an isolated terrorist acts committed by a small group of individuals against some officials) until 1960s. Such terrorist acts went against the classical Marxist doctrine and were condemned by Communists as useless or harmful. In contrast, the mass terror campaign, Communists resorted to during some periods of history had nothing in common with the individual terror.

Re Islamic terrorism, this is a rather clear phenomenon: starting from the Ismailites, islamic terrorism was practiced by small groups of Muslim religious fanatics against Kafirs as a part of their jihad. By contrast, what is considered as Communist terrorism by different authors during different periods of time included such different events as anti-colonial wars, national liberation partisan movement (including anti-Axis resistance), imaginary acts of terrorism (such as a Reichstag fire), assassination of political opponents (with the primary goal to eliminate concrete persons, not to create an atmosphere of fear and terror, which hardly was terrorism at all), individual terrorist acts of narodovilian style committed by young leftist activists in 1960s-90s, mass terror campaigns committed by Communist authorities, etc. Do these events have anything in common except the fact that the word "Communism" had been more or less frequently used in their context? I saw no reliable sources confirming that, and, despite repeated requests from TFD you refuse to provide such a source.

In connection to that, I suggest you to stop your soapboxing, because such behaviour started to become disruptive. If you have some source to present, please do that. If not, do not distract others from their activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul, disagreeing with you is not "disruptive." Having "communism" in common is there being a common (self-)identified political ideology that the individual, group, or state practicing terror/committing acts of terrorism subscribe to. That the "ends" of these individuals can be seen as different (one person's liberator is another's oppressor) is immaterial. That the lead of the article does not even mention Communism as an ideology reflects how far this article has strayed from reflecting mainstream scholarship. Pointing that out is purely constructive behavior on my part. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You again write an essay which misconstrues my point, that being, "X terrorism" (Islamic being merely an instance of X) where it is clear that, regardless of motivation or intended ends, the perpetrators of X terrorism claim X as an ideology, whether political or religious. I did not state adherent of Islam are like Communists, either historically or theopolitically. Am I really that unclear in my points? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The types of terrorism are defined not based on the ideology only. Islamic terrorism has been defined as such because various Muslim terrorists in various places and historical epochs used more or less identical tactics, and this tactics had its roots in some aspects of the Islam doctrine. And I do not think that, e.g., mass killing during the Pakistan civil war was an example of Islamic terrorism (despite the fact that it was committed by Muslims). By contrast, the events discussed in this article are dramatically heterogeneous, and they can be summarised as follows:

"Communist terrorism combines all real or perceived acts of what some authors believe to be terror committed by some Communists"

This is a typical example of synthesis. Therefore, I request you either to provide the reliable mainstream source in support of your totally unsubstantiated claim, or to stop. (Since I don't have to prove the opposite, I do not have to provide any sources). Your essays contains no fresh ideas and are pure soapboxing. In future, no sources, no discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism is not terrorism carried out by Muslims but terrorism carried out in order to further Islamic goals. Terrorism supported by Abu Nidal, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi is not called "Islamic terrorism" although all four were Muslims. Even anti-Muslim extremists do not call it that. TFD (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You are both spending time discussing broad concepts or examples of terrorism attached to ideology and why they all don't apply here, make "communist terrorism" a synthesis, etc.

   There are more than enough sources on "communist terrorism." Not to mention the expected "terror" and "terrorism" variations including "Bolshevik" and "Red." @Paul, your contention that "whatever sources say constitutes communist terrorism is communist terrorism" (my paraphrase) = synthesis brings the issue into clear focus. First, you use "some" = classic weasel word to cast all sources into doubt. Next, you label as synthesis precisely what constitutes best practices regarding lay editors writing encyclopedic content. You demand a coherent definition. You (should) know that such a definition does not exist; nor does your hoped-for homogeneity. That terrorism inspired or justified by one of the most widely-dispersed political ideologies in the 20th century (in particular) should be in any way homogenous is your synthesis, as such homogeneity would be truly miraculous. Best practices in writing encyclopedic content mean we represent what sources state about the topic, period. Not demand synthesis of a WP:ONLY definition which is then used as a litmus test for what content is, or isn't, included.

   In any WP article, what drives content is what reliable sources say about it. What drives the lead is the summary of that content. I'm sorry if that's not a fresh idea or represents soapboxing. If you are looking for the gap between our editorial positions, that would be it. Best practices are best practices, they cannot be best practices in other articles but be "synthesis" when applied to this article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:First, you use "some" = classic weasel word to cast all sources into doubt. First, "some" is considered an unencyclopedic weasel word best to avoid in articles. Second, its usage in the article talk pages do not cast any doubt whatsoever, you merely portray Paul's correct usage of the word "some" as an attack at your sources, which it is obviously not. (Igny (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Holy cow, people still claiming no sources exist? I recall loads of sources were presented before, check the archives. For example the book International terrorism--the Communist connection: With a case study of West German terrorist Ulrike Meinhof[1] discusses communist terrorism. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin, noone wants to deny the fact that the term "Communist terrorism" is frequently used as a synonym of more popular "Left-wing terrorism". However, they are just two names of the same phenomenon. What we argue about is whether the idea that CT is a single phenomenon that was gradually evolving from Narodnaya volya through Red terror, Great Purge, perceived Communist terrorism in pre-Hitlerite Germany, Chinese Cultural revolution, Malayan Emergency, KGB assassinations, Vietnam War, Leftist terrorism in Europe, Japan and America, etc., or it is a term that during different historical periods was applied by different writers and politicians to describe quite different manifestations of violence that had more or less direct relation to Communism. You source does not refute the second viewpoint, which is much more correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you would have to show that the book develops a concept of "Communist terrorism" that includes both the Red Brigades and their supposed Moscow sponsors. Even then a book from the World Anti-Communist League with an author best known for his anti-climate change science disinformation campaign hardly represents mainstream scholarship and probably does not even pass rs. TFD (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All I have to show is that Communist terrorism is a notable topic discussed in reliable sources:

• "communist parties were active in many Third World countries throughout the Cold War period. During the 1940s and 1950s groups linked to these communist parties conducted terrorist campaigns in Malaya, the Philippines"
• "Some communist movements and communist parties were violently activist, adopting armed insurgency and terrorism as viable options"
• "In the 1980s, however, the image of state- sponsored terrorism was of the Communist terrorist trained and controlled by the Soviet Union"
• "communist terrorism was not part of an orchestrated conspiracy, it did influence behavior. Some terrorists scoured the works of Lenin and Trotsky, as well as other Russian revolutionaries, to formulate theories, tactics, and ideologies."
• "In this context one should mention communist terrorist organizations, such as the 'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine', which enjoyed support from the Soviet Union"

This has all been discussed before in the archives, do we really have to do this all again? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter or principle I only read the first source presented. Anyone can google search and it is not my role to do your research for you. Your first source does not use the terms "communist terrorist" or communist terrorism". Therefore your comment "Communist terrorism is a notable topic" is false. TFD (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, I respectfully disagree. "Communist terrorism" is definitely a notable concept, and we don't need in additional sources to prove that. For instance, in the case Martin referred to the CT has been used as a synonym of the Left-wing terrorism. The only question is if it is a single concept, or it is a heterogeneous conglomerate of different poorly connected or totally unconnected stories. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose CT can be used as a synonym for notable concepts. But Martin and Peters have in mind a concept that connects all the various usages into a single concept. TFD (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Peters does, however, I am not sure about Martin. In any event, if he shares this idea he definitely needs to provide mainstream sources supporting it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Single concept" and "heterogeneous" are not mutually exclusive. Communism itself is an ideology and an evolution that has led to its being heterogeneous in its geopolitical instantiations, but still bound to its origin. Terrorism as a tool advocated for, accompanying and supporting Communism, and wrought by Communists whether individuals, groups, or states, is no different. @Paul, the fatal flaw in your argument is that you mistake something which has aspects of being heterogeneous with something that is disparate and disconnected. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Under "heterogeneous" I obviously meant "multiple concepts", which are disparate and disconnected to each other, so the article can say the CT is either single or multiple concept, and these two statements are mutually exclusive.

With regard to your definition of terrorism ("Terrorism as a tool advocated for, accompanying and supporting Communism"), you directly misinterpret the facts: terrorism is a tool used, among other extremists, by various revolutionaries, including some Communists, it is not specific to Communism, and it is frequently condemned by Communist authors. Although some Communist authors advocated the use of revolutionary terror as a part of their concept of dictatorship of proletariat, they rejected terrorism as a tool for the revolutionary struggle (as contradicting to the Lenin's concept of revolutionary situation).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me if this sounds rather like wordsmithing to me.

1. heterogeneous = meaning multiple concepts: you confuse multiple branches of the tree which beget multiple varieties all going back to a common source with discontinuity and unconnectedness; because something does not appear same does not mean it is not connected or does not share a majority of historical DNA; common DNA = single concept, many offspring
2. terrorism is not specific to Communism: this is a red (no pun intended) herring of the first order, as is not all Communists promoting the use of terrorism; as long as terrorism is directly linked to Communism and Communists, that is, an ideology (whether that ideology advocates or it is merely used to justify) and its adherents/practitioners (and we can also talk about inspiration of non-Communist terrorism as part of the article), it qualifies as a bona fide member of CT
3. by your standard of associative properties, there can be no such unity as "alphabet soup" because the letters are all different.

I have a proper introduction to the topic started somewhere but do not have proper time to devote to it at the moment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We might also consider whether collaboration might not improve if we went back to a version of the article before it was (my perception) POV-gutted. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, you need sources that explain your theories. See the two terrorism articles I created: left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism. I was able to use definitions and examples from reliable sources, because they are commonly used and understood terms in terrorism literature. TFD (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Well, I already explained what I meant under "heterogeneous", so I have no desire to waste my time in the debates over what the word "heterogeneous" means. If "multiple concepts" transmits my though more correctly, let's forget about "heterogeneous".
2. Red herring is per se a weasel word that hardly is an argument. However, whereas no universal definition of terrorism exist, different authors use it quite differently. I myself am more inclined to support the vision of the author of the "Terrorism" article in Ensyclopaedia Britannica, who separates the state terror and individual (or group) terrorism into two different concepts. From this point of view, which is widely accepted, btw, the Communist state terror is not terrorism. Although many Communist leaders resorted to state terror when they were at power, they never (probably, with some exceptions) used terrorism as a tool to come to power, because that contradicted to the Marxist concept. "Communist terrorism" (aka Left wing terrorism) emerged rather recently, and not as a result of the development of the mainstream Communist movement.
3. By my standards, noone is allowed to publish the results of his meditations and considerations on the WP main space. Provide the non-fringe sources that combine all what you see as CT into a single concept, or leave the page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claimed adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during the revolutionary struggle and also in the consolidation of power after victory.<ref name=martin>{{cite book |title=Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues |last=Martin |first=Gus |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2009 |publisher=SAGE |location= |isbn=9781412970594 |page=218 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uJ6MeYq_FbkC |accessdate=}}</ref>

"Many Orthodox Communists have emphasized revolution over reform and offered a vision of the working classes sweeping away the capitalist system. Some of these communist movements and parties had adopted armed struggle and seen terrorism as a viable option; on the other hand some dissident leftist terrorist organisations, such as some of those in Western democracies, had little faith in the working classes, believing them to have been corrupted and sometimes argued that "liberating violence" was necessary to spur the revolution on.<ref>Martin, pages 223-4</ref>"

Pre-gutting by yourself and others. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory. Your text is not too bad, but it is not for this article. Noone denies the fact that some Communists resorted to terror or terrorism as a tactics to achieve some goals. However, "terrorism committed by Communists" and "Communist terrorism" is not the same. Whereas I have nothing against writing the article that describes various aspect of terrorism in context of Communism, this article should be not about some specific form of terrorism named "Communist terrorism".-Paul Siebert (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First, not my text, just the article before it was hacked down to a disambiguation page.

   Second, illogical and impossible. Your meme that "terrorism committed by Communists" and "Communist terrorism" are not the same can only be true if (and only if) "terrorism committed by Communists" is terrorism committed by adherents/proponents of Communism or exploiters of Communism for their personal gain, but which terrorism itself is completely absent of any connection to same-said communism, communist system, or any related motivation. Your statement would be true if, for example, a Communist bought an orange at a fruit stand, ate it and discovered he was allergic to citrus, and in a fit of rage he returned and bombed the fruit stand. That would qualify as "terrorism committed by a Communist" which is not "Communist terrorism." For your contention to be valid, the vast majority of acts of terrorism committed by Communists must be similarly devoid of any connection to or even slightest whiff of influence or hint of Communism. Perhaps you have sources you can quote which support such a contention? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We have the same arguments at Christian terrorism where anti-Christian editors try to label all Christians involved in terrorism as Christian terrorists, e.g., the KKK, McVeigh, Rudolph, Breivik. And my message to them is the same. we use the definitions in serious literature not individual editors POV. When Irish Catholics, fascists and Communists jointly engaged in terrorism in order to end British rule, it is not called Christian terrorism, Communist terrorism and right-wing terrorism, but simply nationalist terrorism, because that was the objective of the terrorism campaign. If you do not like that, then get an article published and persuade the world. But please do not start your campaign here. TFD (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not advocated for anything that is not in the literature. You pass over my point about ideology and motivation—which is critical. You and Paul Siebert wish to deny the existence of any interconnectivity in CT, which makes it a phenomenon, not a two words stuck together in a "term" with no intrinsic meaning. The literature does discuss modern instances of terrorism and where, or where not, it crosses over—with the widespread and freely given and uncoerced support of the populace—into an insurgency/popular uprising. That does not change the origin of CT as CT. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism motivated by communist ideology is called left-wing terrorism. There is an article about it. If that is your definition then this article should be a re-direct. TFD (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "I have not advocated for anything that is not in the literature." You presented no sources so far (despite our numerous request), which demonstrates the opposite.

Re "You and Paul Siebert wish to deny the existence of any interconnectivity in CT" Some interconnectivity does exist, however, it is insufficient for combining it into a single concept. What is, for example, a connection between the Khmer Rouge genocide and the Red Army faction terrorist attacks?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned Cengage's academic materials, for example, as what is represented in mainstream curricula. There's plenty out there. The issue is that TFD and you appear to contend "Communist" + "terrorism" is little more than an arbitrary juxtaposition of words. Your mantra of "single concept" is, IMHO, designed to deny "common origin." And do you really need me to document a timeline which ties the Khmer Rouge and RAF? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It you think that the Khmer Rouge and the Red Brigades are both examples of a subject called CT then please provide an example of an article where someone has made this connection. Then we can determine the degree of acceptance their theory received, whether there is consensus support for it, criticisms, alternative views, etc. Then we can write an NPOV article. For example, we have an article called Jewish Bolshevism about the theory that Communism is part of the international Jewish conspiracy. While I am not a proponent of this theory, I accept that it merits an article. However if someone were to point out that many Communists were Slavic and suggest an article "Slavic Communism" then I would want to see some literature about this. TFD (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I could 'document a timeline' that ties the Khmer Rouge to the Boy Scouts. That would be WP:OR. And so would your 'timeline' be, unless you had a source for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason our only interactions seem to be your drive-by insults? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Per the original lead prior to gutting and stilted rebirth, both fit here as both sought to achieve communism in their countries, regardless of tracing back ideological connections. Full congruency is not required. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The source that combines KR and everything bad about Communism in a single concept does exist. It is a Black Book of Communism (an introduction) and Malia's foreword. This source have been severely criticised for that. Thus, Michael David-Fox (Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5, 1 (Winter 2004): 81–105.) writes about the intrinsic flaw of the Malia's concept of "generic Communism", which is de facto any party movement found by intellectuals. David-Fox demonstrates the flaws of this concept using Khmer Rouge as an example:

"Pol Pot’s study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge’s murderous anti-urbanism."

You may also be interested to read the Walter Laqueur's "A history of terrorism" (Transaction Publishers, 1977. ISBN 0765807998, 9780765807991). On the page 11-14 he describes a history of terrorism and defines several waves. First of them (mid XIX century) was Irish, Makedonian, American (worker's) terrorism, Russian Narodnaya volya (non-Communist), etc. The second wave (from 1902) was sponsored (in Russia) by Socialist Revolutionary party, and the third one (from 1917) was the terrorism committed mostly by anti-Bolshevik forces (assassination of von Mirbach, Uritsky, etc). The Communists are mentioned by Laqueur only as victims. Therefore, I expect you to present sources (Author, title, book/journal, year, volume, page, and quote) that clearly support the ridiculous idea that Russian XIX century terrorism was a progenitor of what someone calls "CT". If not sources will be provided, the discussion is senseless, and your behaviour will meet a definition of WP:DE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources? Sure. This is Stalin's biography by Edvard Radzinsky, just to start from something. He quotes strategies by Pyotr Tkachev and especially by famous terrorist Sergey Nechayev as an example of strategies later actually used by Stalin and Lenin. The terrorism by Stalin started before the revolution, e.g. the famous 1907 Tiflis bank robbery and other terrorism acts arranged by Kamo on orders from Stalin ( "Kamo" means "Komu" ("to whom?") in Russian. "To whom" ...what? To whom bring the parcel with a bomb). As about the officially terrorist Socialist Revolutionary party, that was one of two parties (together with Bolsheviks) who took power in October revolution. Also keep in mind that Narodnaya volya wanted to build the socialism by the means of individual terror (hence it was arguably a socialist/communist party). Lenin also referred to Narodnaya Volya as their revolutionary predecessors. Remember, they "wake up" ... whom? There was even song about this: "v Rossii nikogo nel'za budit'" ("no one should wake up anyone in Russia",but I am leaving for vacation and ccn not contunue here, sorry ). Biophys (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are good sources that Communists were ghastly people. But you need a source that supports your thesis that there is something called "communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Radzinski is not regarded as a historian in the West, he is a playwright, so if you obtain your historical knowledge from this source you knowledge is definitely distorted and incomplete.

Secondly, the activity of Kamo was primarily devoted to obtaining the money for the Communist party, it was a robbery for political reasons, and it was hardly terrorism.

Thirdly, noone denies the fact that Narodnaya volya or Esery advocated some form of peasant socialism. The problem is that that had little connection with Communism, and sometimes directly contradicted to its main principles.

Fourthly, your quote ("v Rossii nikogo nel'za budit'") is imprecise, Naum Korzhavin wrote "nel'zya v Rossii nikogo budit'" . Your inaccuracy speaks for itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a perfectly workable lead with a sourced definition before gutting, transplanting, etc. Let's just return to that to start. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the old lede written based on the Black Book of Communism, this is hardly a good starting point. This book is highly controversial, and we cannot write this article using this book as a main source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and on your "fourthly", I see both "в России никого нельзя будить" and "Нельзя в России никого будить" attributed to Korzhavin. You might research more and explain discrepancies or alternate versions constructively and insult the editorial abilities of others less. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the latter, that is what appears in the following verse:

Мы спать хотим... И никуда не деться нам

От жажды сна и жажды всех судить...

Ах, декабристы!.. Не будите Герцена!..

Нельзя в России никого будить.

PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the former, I do see Novodvorskaya using that quote (in quotes) in her writings. Unfortunately, I still have work to do tonight, so that's the limit of my research at the moment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I think that the attempt to join a serious discussion using the book of playwright Radzinsky (whose historical exercises are regarded as potboiler by serious western historians) and incorrectly cited verses as the sources is much greater insult. If someone has no sources or fresh arguments to present, he should not spam this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one canuse that source. Are yo aware of how much repetition of the same couple of points has occurred on this single talk page? And Vecrumba is not the chief offender by a long shot of "spamming" this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, read the discussion carefully. I didn't blame Peters in anything.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that it does not discuss "communist terrorim". TFD (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It does discuss acts by communists which are widely considered "terrorism". I recall the claim that (paraphrasing) only exact matches count is not in any Wikipedia guideline or policy, though it does seem one of your strongest arguments, or at least one of the most iterated. Unfortunately, iteration does not make it into being a policy on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is discussing several poorly connected things, each of them is known under the name "Communist terrorism", and each of them has another name, which is mainstream. In other words, the article is a collection of minority views, and should be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This debate is going nowhere as you and TFD insist that terrorism committed by communists in keeping with following Marxist theories, in support of communist ideology, is only terrorism which happens to be committed for reasons only loosely associated with communism. And you conveniently label any use of "communist terrorism" in scholarship as two words strung together being only a label (term) and having no further significance--as in the (according to you two) vast instances of "communist terrorism" it's more aptly called something else.It's not up to you two to judge or qualify the use of "communist terrorism" in scholarly sources, that is WP:OR at best, censorship at worst; wherever sources discuss communists perpetrating terrorism in support of their communist-inspired goals, that is what this article is about. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Acually it is called "left-wing terrorism". And stop accusing other editors of original research when they ask you for sources for your conclusions. TFD (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are making conclusions. I'm merely suggesting "Communist terrorism" is what sources say it is. Curious that it always harkens back to Marxist theories and it's in pursuit of communist aims. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Peters, these debate is going nowhere because you and Martin push a rather ridiculous idea that Communist did relied on terrorism for coming to power. Not only this idea is not shared by majority mainstream sources, it directly contradicts to the very concept of Marxism: according to Marx (and Lenin), the proletarian revolution occurs only when all needed material prerequisites have exist for that, and no terrorist acts can accelerate this process.
You continue to push this idea despite my numerous attempts to point your attention at the sources that directly contradict to it. Not only you provide no sources in support of your idea, you totally ignore the sources I provide. That is hardly a constructive approach.
You problem seems to stem from your belief, which is supported by some minority sources, that terrorism is just a usage of terror. As a result, you conclude that the fact that many Communist regimes resorted to state terror is sufficient for speaking about Communist terrorism. However, obviously, that is not the case.
As I already wrote on this talk page, terrorism is intrinsically impossible to define strictly, however, many sources, including such sources as Encyclopaedia Britannica do separate terrorism (which is the weapon of small groups of individuals, who have no serious perspectives to come to power), partisan warfare (whose participants are involved in real combat, and eventually are able to come to power), and state terror (a usage of terror by the state against its own civilians). These three forms of violence are profoundly different, and, to speak about "Communist terrorism" as a strategy of Communists is intrinsically misleading, because serious Communist parties (except probably Maoist ones) resort ot terrorism very unfrequently.
It is also necessary to note, that not only Communist parties do not use terrorism, they condemn the activity of terrorist leftist groups, whose members are, as a rule either ex-Communists (expelled from their parties for radicalism), or non-Communists. Moreover, as I already wrote, it is necessary to mention in the article that sometimes the influence of official Communist parties leads to decrease of terrorism (for instance, in South Africa).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The debate does not progress because there is a lot of argument over what communist terrorism is not, even when referred to in that manner in sources and confirmed to have Marxist ideology at its foundation. Jesus did not advocate terrorism, that does not mean there are not Christians who commit terrorism in His name. As you indicate, Marx himself believed individual acts of terror would, in the end, be more of a hindrance than a help. Nevertheless, even Marx commented positively on the assassins of tsar Alexander II ("sterling people through and through"). And yes, there were endless polemics over terrorism, yes or no, Bakunin being a proponent. But even there, Trotsky, believing terrorism was dead in Russia (eventually to resurrect itself in Mexico to Trotsky's detriment), still thought it might have its uses in stirring the proletariat elsewhere in the future.

   As for your separation by:

1. no hope to rule,
2. hope to rule,
3. ruling,

that does not impact the equation of motivation by political ideology—nor does it matter whether or not the originator of the ideology was himself a pacifist or a terrorist (my Jesus comment). You postulate that #1-#3 above, that is, the end game for those committing acts of terror, defines "profoundly different" forms of violence. The dead do not care about ideology or end games. In all cases, either the authorities or the populace or both are the victims of acts of terror; what is "profound" in these acts is not their difference, but their indifference to the life of the individual.

   I am the first to make the point that nothing is cut and dried, and there I believe we agree. I see that as an opportunity to expand content to discuss the use of terror by adherents of Marxism, colloquially communists, regardless of their aims or whether they transition from terrorists to a full-fledged insurgency, et al., while you appear to advocate that "not cut and dried" equals a reality so fragmented as to be ultimately meaningless and not worthy of an article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism that is inspired by Marxism is called left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That presupposes all Marxists are leftists are Marxists.

Terrorism by communists or communist regimes inspired by Marxism is called Communist terrorism. The original article prior to its relentless reductio ad disambiguation had a perfectly workable lead. A rose by any other name is still a rose. As I see it, the choices are

1. We acknowledge the existence of communist terrorism as more than an otherwise meaningless juxtapositioning of two words.
2. We write a richly informative article regarding the same, including covering the main characters in the play in detail.
   or
3. We continue the standoff.

There's no train leaving the station. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do not like that fact that terrorism inspired by Marxism is called left-wing terrorism then you need to get the experts to change their terminology. TFD (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like "communist terrorism" is used sufficiently in sources. We don't eschew "communists" in favor of "leftwingers", do we? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The sources that use the term "Communist terrorism" can be subdivided onto three categories. First type sources mix "terror" and "terrorism" (a viewpoint that is shared by only part of scholars), so the state terror of Communist regimes is considered as a part of terrorist tactics. I do not think we can write this article based on this viewpoint, because that is not the sole mainstream viewpoint, and because WP already has the articles devoted to the Communist state terror. The second part of sources treats Communist national-liberation movements as terrorists, and call them "CT". This is not the mainstream contemporary viewpoint (and you can see that easily by reading the Malayan emergency or Vietnam war articles). And the third type of sources uses the term "CT" to describe what is known as Left-wing terrorism. I agree that "CT" and "LWT" are just synonyms in that sence, however, as far as I know, the latter is being used more frequently than the former. We cannot have separate articles for these two terms.

If we agree that there is the difference between "terror" and "terrorism", a viewpoint shared by many sources, which cannot be ignored, we have to concede that no CT existed before 1960s: by contrast to other leftists, pre-revolutionary Communist parties had not been engaged in terrorism, because that contradicted the the Marxist doctrine, after coming to power, they suffered from terrorism of their opponents (both leftist and rightist), which did not prevent them, however, from unleashing the state terror campaigns in many cases. National liberation and anti-colonial movements were also not terrorist, according to many authors. Only in 1960s some leftist groups resorted to terrorism to implement some Communist goals, however, since all (or most) of them were in opposition to parliamentary Communist parties, majority sources describe them as "Left-wing", not "Communist".

In summary, I do not propose to delete this article, however, the article should be re-written based on the ideas described in this post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If there was no communist terrorism before the 1960`s as you somewhat bizarrely claim perhaps you can explain what Lenin meant when he said "It is a mistake to think the NEP has put an end to terrorism. We shall return to terrorism, and it will be an economic terrorism" on march 3 1922? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would appreciate if you refrained from "bizarre" or similar words in future. That is hardly a sign of civility or politeness, and by using such words you make your own position weaker.

Secondly, thank you for your question. The term "terrorism" used by Lenin, Kautsky or other politicians during those times referred mostly to what is currently described as "terror" (without "ism"), i.e. to state terror. Many contemporary sources do not mix these two things, and I think we should follow what they tell. Of course, a reservation should be added to the article that some sources consider Communist state terror as terrorism, and the references to, e.g. MKUCR, Great Purge, Cultural Revolution and similar articles should be added to this article. However, the terms "state terror" and "terrorism" should be separated, and this article should be devoted primarily (although not exclusively) to the latter.

Regarding the Lenin's phrase, I think we need to see some secondary source for the interpretation of the term "economic terrorism". The most likely, Lenin's "economic terrorism" was supposed to have virtually nothing in common with how we understand this term now, and it was more an allegory. In any event, if you have some reliable source that analysed this Lenin's thesis, please, share with us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Section break

If something is bizarre then that is what I will call it. I think you are in error, terrorism is terrorism, it matters not when it happened or if it were state or non state actors doing it. If a communist government committed acts of terrorism against the populace then that is communist terrorism, the same goes for non state groups such as the Red Brigades. What I see in your statements above are your own opinions, do you have a source which says Lenin did not mean terrorism? There are plenty of sources after all which describe the red terror, holodomor, mao`s famine and uch as terrorism. BTW Lenin he said he would return to terrorism, thus he was already committing it The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, read what, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica says on that account. It says:

"Although terrorism in this usage implies an act of violence by a state against its domestic enemies, since the 20th century the term has been applied most frequently to violence aimed, either directly or indirectly, at governments in an effort to influence policy or topple an existing regime."[2]

In other words, many present days authors, by contrast to earlier writers, do distinguish between state terror and terrorism. Yes, the term was coined to describe what we now see as "state terror" (during the French revolution), however, this term has evolved since those times, and we should stick to present days meaning of this word.

Regarding "plenty of sources after all which describe the red terror, holodomor, mao`s famine and uch as terrorism", much greater amount of sources describe these events otherwise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That i an interesting piece of WP:OR, were in our cite does it say the term has evolved? All it says is that it is now used more frequently to non state actors. I see naught there to change my opinion, sorry. What do other sources say of the events I wrote of then? Were they perhaps terrible mistake? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-read the quote. It says: "Although ....., since the 20th century the term has been applied...". That means that the application of this term has changed since 20th century, and I have no idea on how can these words be interpreted in another way. In any event, we have the reliable source that states, clearly and equivocally, that the term "terrorism" is currently applied predominantly to the group and individual terror against a state, and the fact that early Communist used virtually no such a terror is well known.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry no, your seeing what you wish to see, it does not say it has evolved or changed, only that it is now used more frequently for non state actors. "The terrorist potential in Lenin's program was unmistakable, as his fellow Bolshevik, Trotsky, proudly acknowledged in a singularly forthright work on the natural connections between terrorism and revolutionary communism" Political parties and terrorist groups By Leonard Weinberg pp 49 The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can equally say that you are not seeing what you don't want to see (in that sense, you change from "most", as EB says, to "more" speaks for itself). Regarding Weinberg, yes, that confirms what I say: some authors describe this tactics as terrorist, however, many more do not. In that situation, especially taking into account that we already have the articles about Communist state terror, I do not understand why do we need to obscure the subject, which is rather complicated even without that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert why

I have reverted IGNY`s edits as pike is an historian, See Here Please I also reverted TFD as the entire Malaya section is poorly written and is very wrong, I shall rewrite it and post here for discussion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not see whether somenone is described as an historian as of major impact. I eagerly await you Malayn Emergency re-write. TFD (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

First if something is wrong it ought to be removed, IGNY was most certainly wrong to try and belittle pike in such a manner. Your opinion on why the Malayan terrorists are called CT is neither here nor there, they were called communist terrorists because they were communists who carried out terrorist acts, the entire section is poorly written and a great deal is wrong. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you also removed content regarding state actions described as communist terrorism, might I ask why? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles are about topics, per WP:DISAMBIG. The (conflicting) definitions used in the lead do not include CTs. It would like merging the articles on London, England and London, Ontario. TFD (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see your point, the article is about communist terrorism, no definition is needed, just sources which describe terrorist actions carried out by communists. There is no conflict there, just common sense. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not revert a proper attribution to the person who called this and that communist terrorism and what-not. It is best to avoid the weasel wording in the future. Besides I do not understand why Pike's title is removed by you. He was firstly US information officer, and only secondly a leading historian in Vietnam war. (Igny (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

He is a historian, as has been pointed out. How long did he work for the state dept? He has written hundreds of books and articles on the aspects of the war. You need to self revert. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been explained to you before. CT = "terrorist actions carried out by communists" is a definition, but you have provided other definitions that contradict it. If that were the definition, then this sould be a POV Coatrack, a bit like an article about plumbers who commit terrorist acts and calling it "plumbing terrorism". TFD (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out no definitions, terrorism committed by communists is CT, get over it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If a group of "plumbers' adopted what they called a "plumbing ideology" calling for terrorism in advancement thereof - yes there could be a "plumbing terrorism" article. Cheers - as you can see it would not be COATRACK at all. Collect (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

That's right. It would only be a COATRACK if we defined plumbing terrorism as "terrorist actions carried out by plumbers". TFD (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you two talking of plumbers? This is not a Ben Ten article. The simple fact is, any action carried out by communists whether it be state or non state which has been described as an act of terrorism is communist terrorism, it does not have to have the exact wording "Communist Terrorism". I will also point out that WP:COATRACK is an essay, not a policy, so stop quoting it as if it were gospel. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source. TFD (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pike

Pike is published as a historian in mainstream academic journals. For the purposes of his expertise here (and in his biography, where someone is attempting to make him out not to be a historian), he is a historian. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, common sense prevails, now all we need is someone to edit the article to actually say that as I am unsure if I am currently allowed to edit main space. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it appears I am not to be banned or topic banned, Is there any objections to Pike being described as an historian in this article? The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The section is devoted not to Pike, but to the Vietnam war, therefore, the most appropriate way the text should be written in should be:

"Among the Viet Cong acts described as terrorism by many American authors, such as Douglas Pike, the Dak Son Massacre was arguably the largest one. On December 6, 1967 the Viet Cong used flamethrowers on civilians in the village of Dak Son, killing 252 with the majority of those burnt alive being women and children.

In addition, as Ed correctly noted on your talk page there is no dichotomy: "American secret service officer vs historian", therefore, it would be correct just to characterise him as an "American author" (the link to his article provided all needed information).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Ed meant on Pikes article, not this one. I believe people ought know from first glance that Pike is an historian, he was the most prominent scholar in the field after all. And he was not a secret service officer, he was an analyst for the state dept. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Ed's notion is equally valid in both cases. To add about Pike that he is a historian is redundant (most authors cited in this history article are historians); to add that he is prominent would be not neutral (many other authors cited here are prominent too).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When did Pike get discharged from his service and join academia? I traced the weasel sentence from the older version of this article,

The Massacre at Huế has been described as one of the worst communist terrorist actions during the Vietnam War.

to his work published in 1977. He was working for the State department back then, was he not? (Igny (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

It would appear your argument would rule almost anything Kissinger wrote as being not RS if working for the government is a disqualification. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, by accepting my version we would make all this dispute redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re is a disqualification. I did not say that. I just think that a proper attribution rather than using weasel words is rather important for encyclopedia. (Igny (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

We should not represent to readers that statements of government officials are somehow informed academic opinion. TFD (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha - so all papers by Kissinger are no longer "academic opinion" eh? Not. There is no reason to make such a statement which says "all government officials, who otherwise would have an informed academic opinion, misrepresent the truth in everything they write" or the like. In fact, such a claim would absolutely violate WP:RS in the first place. Sorry - that statement above is errant, wrong, and grossly offensive to all who have ever served any government. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD are you saying that the person who has been described as a leading historian and foremost scholar on the Vietnam War and the Viet Cong in the world is not an academic opinion? He was described as a scholar on these matters as far back as the 1970`s. Attribution is not needed for a leading scholar in the field regardless of his past employment. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

When Kissinger made statements on behalf of the Nixon administration, they should not be presented as "academic opinion". We do not write about "environmental expert" Newt Gingrich, "constitutional law expert " Barack Obama, etc. Why? Because unless we are writing propaganda, we do not pretend that partisan sources are independent. TFD (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You are so far afield in that position as to make any extended remarks useless. We do not refuse to allow any source just because the writer was a "government official." The allusion to "environmental expert" for Gingrich is silly -- but he was apparently instrumental is establishing an "inter-disciplinary Environmental Studies program." He is, moreover, a former history professor. Obama's field of expertise was as a "constitutional law professor." Such material is, morevover, in the wikilinked BLPs and is not needed here. In neither case would I think of deprecating any of their writings because they were "working for the government." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not saying that we should "refuse to allow" the source, merely that we should distinguish between people's statements as government/political spokesmen and as academics. The fact that a government spokesman happens to be an academic does not provide greater weight to his comments. TFD (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that government employee's articles are thus not "reliable sources" per WP:RS? I would love to see the section which says that! I do not think the aim is to give "greater weight" to the reliable source, nor do I think that a government employee should be relegated to being a "lesser source." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop this ridiculous dispute: Pike was both a government employee and a scholar. I think, it would be quite correct and neutral to describe him as "an American author" (which neither understates nor overemphasises its reliability) and to close this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I just wrote, "Not saying that we should "refuse to allow" the source". Could you please not misrepresent what I wrote. TFD (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pike became an historian after he retired from government employment in 1981. Seriously guys, do we also continue to claim Putin is a KGB/FSB agent or do we say he is now a Prime Minister? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Pike became part of US anti-communist propaganda machine long before he became a historian. Your reliance on one-sided coverage of historical events is amusing, but it is not really fitting WP. Why no one yet mention claims by another prominent American historian Gareth Porter here yet? (Igny (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Source for the charge? Or is it just something you "know"? Absent a reliable source for your charge, the weight of your post is nil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

From [3]

Pike apparently made no effort to inquire into what in fact did happen in the later period of the communist occupation. Saigon officials in Hue told Len Ackland in 1968 that those who were killed by the NLF when it prepared to leave the city in the face of Saigon and U.S. military pressure were officials and anti-communist political party leaders who had earlier been on the list for reeducation.

Understanding the techniques of distortion and misrepresentation practiced by Saigon and U.S. propagandists in making a political warfare campaign out of the tragedy of Hue is as important today as it was when U.S. troops were still at war in Vietnam. It goes to the heart of the problem of facing the truth about the Vietnamese revolution and the American efforts to repress it by force. The screen of falsehood which has been erected around the Tet Offensive in Hue was and is but another defense mechanism for the U.S. government and much of the American public as well to avoid dealing honestly with the real character of the struggle there.

There is Google, you know. Don't side with one truth, make an effort to find criticism of the claims you are adding to the article on WP. (Igny (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

Three things. One, your source does not say pike was a propagandist, and you ought retract that statement as he does have a family you know. Two, Your source appear to be self published. Three, the majority of dead were found in mass graves outside the city after the VC retreat. Get a real source which says Pike was a propagandist or remove your slur. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is the "Hue Massacre" by the historian Gareth Porter published by the Indochina Chronicle, No. 33, June 24, 1974, pp. 2-13. TFD (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is written by an anti war journalist who claims to be an "Investigative historian" The link does not lead to the "Indochina Chronicle" at all. There does not seem to be a website for said journal at all. And his ideas are obviously fringe and not even worthy of discussion. Majority of sources agree with Pike on the Massacre at Hue. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Egads. We describe Pike as a historian not "author". The use of "author" and not "historian" leads the reader to believe Pike merely writes about the topic as opposed to be an acknowledged expert. Let's not play games on credentials nor make assumptions about what readers know. For example, when it comes to history, most Americans can't name the first three presidents let alone know who is, or isn't, a bona fide historian. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a copy of the article, as the magazine is no longer published. You do not appear to be showing even-handedness. A government official is called an historian, while Porter is an "anti war journalist" and "fringe". Why have Wikipedia at all when people can ask the government what to think? TFD (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And you did not also note "But in an appearance on The Today Show in August 1978, Porter agreed that the Khmer Rouge regime was guilty of mass killings and mass starvation" which seems to belie the articles he had written earlier? IIRC, he had previously insisted Pol Pot didn't kill people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Procedural comment: this discussion thread is branching into different events in the history of Communism while it started out being a question about Pike. If the question is still how Pike should be described, can't someone 'call the question' on that? Give a specific formulation, or maybe a couple of alternatives for how to describe Pike, and get people to give their opinions. If you can't decide on a tag-line for Pike in this article (author, historian, State Dept employee, apologist, whatever) unless you determine his credibility first, why not branch that discussion over to Talk:Douglas Pike and not weigh down this talk page with too many issues. Another place to work on Pike's credibility (if that is at the key issue for you guys) is at Hue Massacre, a long article where his work is directly quoted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::TFD all sources since the 1970`s have praised Pikes scholarship, he is no government flunky, he is an historian. Porter is an anti war protester he was during the vietnam war and he still is. His article from the 70`s is fringe as all reliable sources back Pikes accounting of the massacre, perhaps you ought read up on the person you are trying to use to discredit Pike. Ed I would prefer not to have this discussion on the Pike article, his family may read it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of time has passed since the Vietnam War, as well as the Malayan Emergency and the civil wars in southern Africa, and people no longer see the world the way they did then. We should not be using books and articles written by government spokesmen and anti-war journalists at the time, but use modern texts that reflect modern thinking about these conflicts. TFD (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Re all sources since the 1970`s have praised Pikes scholarship, he is no government flunky, he is an historian. Noam Chomsky would disagree.(Igny (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC))

@ TFD the book from which Pike is sourced is from 2008, That I believe is still deemed a "modern" text, and Pike was not a government spokesmen, and neither is Lanning who wrote the book which is the source. @ Igny, your source is a joke, they quote Porter (discredited), they give a first number of 200 dead? All reliable source give far higher figures, they blame US bombardment? Most victims were found in mass graves after the VC fled. Again, get a reliable source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See [4]. (Igny (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

Re:was not a government spokesmen, and neither is Lanning who wrote the book which is the source.I am sorry, did you mean U.S. Army lieutenant colonel Michael Lee Lanning, or someone else?(Igny (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

(ec)Yes I can see how a publisher of graphic novels is a reliable source, but they also do cookbooks so yes I`m sure their fine. And the opinion of one person? Who specializes in latin american affairs? Come on. And yes, that lanning, funnily enough he is not a spokesman, The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand that correctly that you dismiss Chomsky's and Porter's opinions as not reliable and continue to claim that Lanning's and Pike's claims are without any bias? (Igny (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

Yes, your sources are a joke. And truth be told, anything written by Chomsky is suspect, his bias`s are well known after all. Lannings book is published by Texas A & M University Press Pike is hailed as the expert in this field. Porter is a journalist and anti war activist. Chomsky (you linked to his site btw, self published?) has numbers which are way off, and his writings on vietnam have been massively criticized. You need to produce some reliable sources. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good. I rest my case. (Igny (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

You actually thought you were making a case? Interesting. Feel free to try again should you ever find a reliable source, The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Viet Cong buried the dead doesn't have any bearing on who committed the massacre. It could have been the American bombing, plus a few reprisal killings of government officials by the Viet Cong, all buried in the same graves to clean up the city. Also, why are the Mayor and Police Chief of Hue, who gave their figures of 200 and 300 soon after entering the city when it was retaken by American forces, considered untrustworthy, while figures based on a mistranslated NLF document are given respect? Why won't you even print that there are serious doubts about these figures in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.99.92 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TLAM, do you understand the difference between an author reporting what someone said and that writer endorsing what they said? Are you aware that Lanning does not refer to Porter as an historian? Are you aware that when Porter wrote his comments he was employed by American intelligence to promote the American view and that his book was published by the U.S. mission in Saigon? You may believe everything the government tells you, but that is not how NPOV works. TFD (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gareth Porter

Likely should get a separate section -- after all, he insisted Pol Pot didn't kill masses of people, etc. [5], or that it was simply a mater of self-defence. [6] associates Porter with making political claims and not evidentiary claims. It is nice that a person whose positions were so thoroughly discredited (saying Pol Pot only killed maybe 2,000 people) should be used to contradict Pike who has not had such a forced reversal of claims. But heck -- NPOV should allow the discredited Porter to be cited - along with the later facts which belied his defense of Pol Pot. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:"discredited Porter". Since a non-discredited Chomsky supported Porter's characterization of Douglas Pike, your argument is not more than a straw man fallacy. You've just found a mistake published by Porter the mistake which he himself later denounced, and yet you now conclude that all Porter's claims have been false. That was a non-sequitur and a straw man. (Igny (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

Pike on the other hand actively defended Pol Pot, claiming (as late as 1979, two years after Porter's testimony) that Pol Pot was a "charismatic" and "popular" leader and said "most" Cambodian peasants "did not experience much in the way of brutality". Even ten years later, he was arguing for the Khmer Rouge to be included in the Cambodian government.[7] TFD (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The US, along with China, were known to support KR, who were the opponents of pro-Soviet Vietnam. It is not a surprise that Pike, being an American author, shared these views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you making the astounding assertion that the US supported the massacres of millions? I would hope not. Porter denied the deaths. Pike is not, and does not appear to have been an apologist after the massacres, while Porter remained an apologist and massacre-denier. By the way, even Hitler was "charismatic" - that adjective does not imply approbation of anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert is merely pointing out the fact that the U.S. supported Pol Pot. TFD (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's restore

Sorry for not following all details of this lengthy discussion. There was a very specific and well sourced information in this article, as summarized in the following two sections [8]. I believe it should be restored.Biophys (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The first section deals with the state sponsored terrorism and should be discussed in the article devoted to that subject. The second section is about sabotage (not terrorism), and, more importantly, about alleged sabotage. Moreover, these sections contained mostly allegations, were based on hearsays and unverifiable statements, which served as an additional arguments for their removal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is "hearsay", everything is supported by multiple RS. Biophys (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

These RSs mostly reproduce various unsupported claims. It is especially valid for the second section, which is devoted not to terrorism, and even not to sabotage, but to the allegedly planned sabotage. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Not so. The Molniya (explosive trap)s were actually found in Europe (a matter of fact). Most other claims are supported by multiple RS provided in book "KGB in Europe" by Christopher Andrew (historian). A couple of claims were published in books by GRU and SVR defectors but never officially disproved. Biophys (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, the question being why was it removed? The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained why.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean your explanation above? If so your wrong. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Does not meet even TLAM's definition of terrorism carried out by Communists. It's mostly conspiracy-theory stuff anyway, I'm surprised 9/11 isn't included. TFD (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What definition of terrorism carried out by communists have I got then? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"I have pointed out no definitions, terrorism committed by communists is CT, get over it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC) (my emphasis)" TFD (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

strangely enough that is not my definition, it is what reliable sources say. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If that were true then you have been able to present one of these "reliable sources". In any case, that definition does not include Muslims and other non-Communists, which is what the section was primarily about. TFD (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Cite for the strange claim that somehow Muslims can not be Communists? Cheers - this sort of blanket statement ill-suits the discussion, to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See Benningsen's "The Communist Party and Islam" (SUNY, 1989). Communism and Islam are "absolutely and irreconciliably incompatible".[9] In any case, I have not read anything saying that Islamic terrorist groups such as al Qaeda are Marsist-Leninist. TFD (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support noting that the reams or repetition on this talk page and archives shows precisely how much verbiage contains so little new argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the above posts contain at least some new arguments, your post contains no arguments, and, therefore, can be safely disregarded per WP:VOTE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas the nature of my comment was clear and to the point, and I see Boojums aimed at me. Cheers - your comment is far afield here. Collect (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you resorted to mention of such a well defined term as "Boojum" is an indication of how vague and inconcrete is the text we are discussing. Of course, such an unencyclopaedic content cannot be included in WP in any event.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should Douglas Pike be described as a historian or a US foreign service officer in this article?

• Historian pike has been praised for his scholarship and is described in all sources as the leading expert in the field. [10] with but one line in all obituaries and other sources mentioning his foreign dept service. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question is incorrectly stated, because, as you have already been explained on your talk page, these characteristics are not mutually exclusive. For instance, David Glantz is both Colonel (retired) and Professor, and both titles are used by different sources. Therefore, it would be correct and uncontroversial to say that Pike is an "American author". I already made this proposal, but you seem to totally ignore it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to describe him as anything. He's wikilinked to his BLP. Writegeist (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Using term "historian" gives an undue weight to American anti-communist POV, since Pike has been characterized as instrumental in US war propaganda efforts by numerous sources, see a section on Pike above. Using his proper title in State Department service on the other hand should not besmirch Douglas Pike in any way. Either way his claims should be properly attributed. "American author" sounds strange given there are other American authors who criticized Pike's account on these event. (Igny (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

What numerous sources? All your sources thus far have been junk. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• US foreign service officer The book refers to Pike as a "writer", quoting his book The Vietcong strategy of terror, which was published by the United States Mission in Saigon in 1970, where Pike was employed for nine years by the United States Information Agency to "explain and advocate U.S. policies". While Pike would contribute to academic knowledge as an historian, I think that calling him an historian (something the source does not) would be an endorsement of his views and therefore a violation of neutrality. TFD (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Historian as that is the profession of the person involved. [11] is a reliable source calling him an "historian." [12] the New York Times called him an "expert" and that President Clinton consulted hm about Vietnam in 2000. Also:

Mr. Pike provoked attacks from antiwar partisans by publishing evidence, hotly disputed by some, that North Vietnamese troops massacred civilians at Hue during the Tet offensive in 1968. But he was far from a cheerleader for the South Vietnamese, strongly criticizing their organizational weakness compared with that of their well-organized northern foes; he had made himself particularly expert on the structure of Vietnamese Communist forces and their order of battle. His persistent message was that the war was so complex that final judgments were necessarily elusive. 'Vietnam has become the great intellectual tragedy of our times,' he wrote in 'War, Peace, and the Viet Cong' (M.I.T., 1969).

• • Thus - considered an expert by President Clinton, published by university presses, noting that the Hue massacre was "hotly disputed by some" but clearly implying that "some" != most historians, seems more than adequate to list him as an historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note also [13] from the New York Times (which referred to him as an "historian" numerous times, by the way). Pike was a sufficient historian and expert to write a featured book review of two major works by Karnow and Isaacs. Proof positive that the NYT considered him an historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Neither: balance any POV issues with other sources - WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV simply requires that potentially biased sources be identified, and that is already done in the article by including Pike's name and linking to his WP article (an occupational qualifier might be appropriate if he did not have a WP article). It appears that the deeper issue here are claims that Pike is biased, and that bias should be communicated to the readers. The best way to address that concern is to see if there are any sources that state that Pike's views on terrorism is anti-communist, or a propagandist, or otherwise biased, then those sources can be used to add balancing material immediately after Pike's assertion. If there are no such sources that refute/dispute Pike, then just leave Pike's comment on its own. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • • Um -- the New York Times and LA Times are biased in some way when they repeatedly name him as an "Historian"? UCBerkeley had him head the Indochina Center - they are noted as biassed against the left in some way? Sorry - he was an historian, and was respected as such by UCBerkeley, the NYT (His books, all on Vietnam, were praised for their authoritativeness. In The Washington Post, Col. Harry G. Summers Jr. called his book on the North Vietnamese Army, 'PAVN: People's Army of Vietnam' (Presidio, 1986), 'without question the best work available on what is now the world's third-largest military force.' ), LAT, etc. His position on the Hue massacre was unchanged in 1996 [14] belying claims that his position was proven false by anyone. Etc. Historian. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no WP policy that requires us to identify the occupation of every person named in this article, particularly when that person has a WP article, particularly when there are some editors that feel that the person's occupation is in question. Just include what Pike has to say, period. If some editors have sources that say Pike is wrong or crazy or whatever those sources can also be included to balance the material. Nuances about Pike's occupation should be addressed in the article on Pike, not here. --Noleander (talk)

• Historian And regarding wikilink to Pike's biography, there has been historian dilution via experience and credentials placement, for example, at his biography too, the last I looked. @Paul's self-attributed objective proposal of "author" (abject lack of "historian") is guaranteed to be read by a reader unfamiliar with Pike as diluting objective valuation of his expertise. Same with TFD's "US foreign service officer," which, again, diminishes his status as historian and implies bias in favor of the US government simply by its mention. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Igny, what is "biased" is the tendency by some editors to label anything which is critical of communism, the Soviet legacy, etc. as communist "bashing" and Soviet "bashing", i.e., "biased" at best. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
    • That is absolutely untrue. I have always insisted that all political groups be treated in a neutral manner, and have defended neutrality for right-wing and liberal groups as well. My view is that readers do not need to be told what to think. If we present the views of experts in a neutral tone, then they have enough intelligence to form their own opinions. In this case we do not need to lend credibility to someone employed by the U.S. government to present their policies in a favorable light as an historian. BTW, when we distort history in order to present a POV in a positive light, then we alienate people who otherwise might agree with us. TFD (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re V. In a similar debate here, you labeled Prof. Simonyan's support of official Russian position with regard to Occupation of the Baltic states as WP:FRINGE simply based on your personal contentions (i.e., with out any source provided in support of your claim) that his views were minority and thus he was nothing more but an advocate of the Russian fringe view. In the debate here I actually provided several RS unambiguously labeling Pike as US war propagandist, and yet here he is a historian according to you? That is just demonstration of your double standards. (Igny (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

• Comment The following sources all call pike an Historian. Hagopian, Patrick (2009) The Vietnam War in American Memory: Veterans, Memorials, and the Politics of Healing University of Massachusetts Press ISBN 978-1558496934 Topmiller, Robert J. (2006) The Lotus Unleashed: The Buddhist Peace Movement in South Vietnam, 1964-1966 University Press of Kentucky ISBN 978-0813191669 Rigal-Cellard, Bernadette (1991) La guerre du Vietnam et la société américaine Presses universitaires de Bordeaux ISBN 978-2867811227 Anderson, David L. (2011) The Columbia history of the Vietnam War Columbia University Press ISBN 978-0231134804 All from the academic press, all highly reliable sources. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • And I am almost certain that they would all have noticed his position at the US State Department as well? I haven't checked them out, because frankly this is a non-issue. There are sources out there that mention he was a US State Dept employee and there are sources that mention he was a historian. And I am also taking a wild-arsed guess here, but I would suggest that many sources make mention of both facts. I don't think you understand, what Douglas Pike is or was is absolutely irrelevant for this article, for this is an article on Communist terrorism, not Douglas Pike. It seems that editors are drawing their battle lines in the sand over an absolutely irrelevant issue. This is not directed at you, but to everyone involved in editing this article, is it really that difficult to write in the article...."According to Douglas Pike yadda yadda yadda" and leave it at that? For every keystroke that editors are wasting on this trivial non-issue, it is one keystroke less that could be devoted to actual improvement, expansion or creation. I know that in the time that it has taken me to remind all editors of this, I could have uploaded probably half a dozen or so photos to Commons, or filled in some references on another article. Priorities people. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There is no need to call him anything. As noted above he has his own article, so wikilinking to his name is enough. His article is where the fact he is regarded as both a US government employee and a historian can be discussed. This article is not the place for it. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry, no double standards here. If we describe Dyukov as a "historian" in the the Soviet Story article, then we can certainly are editorially obligates to label a bona fide historian such as Pike as such. Dissing Pike's credentials in narrative is a double standard. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not apologize. US Foreign service officer is by no way dissing Pike's credentials. Attempts to discredit Noam Chomsky and Gareth Porter which occurred on this talk page above or ru:Симонян, Ренальд Хикарович here were based on your personal contentions and clearly was dissing their credentials. By no standard these scholars were any less prominent than mr. Pike.(Igny (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

Well apart from the fact that your sources were not RS, neither were the authors historians, Chomsky is an activist and philosopher and Porter is a journalist and self proclaimed investigative historian. Perhaps those reading Ignys comments in this thread ought read the one he has pointed to. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I got your point and in fact pointed it out when I mentioned "attempts to discredit... Chomsky and Porter". You might also notice how high and relevant I valued your characterization of these scholars. (Igny (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC))

I did not try to discredit anyone, it amuses me that you will insist on calling Pike a government flunky, even though all sources praise his scholarship, but insist on calling two activists one of whom is but a journalist scholars. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@Igny, regarding prior dialog noted, e.g., "The fact that Russian officials use the word присоединение (joining, incorporation stressing what in their view was a voluntary event) rather than аннексия (literally, annexation) is a red herring [my emphasis], considering that annexation is one of acceptable translations of the term присоединение", that is your personal contention, as joining = voluntary and annexation = forcible, but in Soviet historiography "annexation" is portrayed as an act in accordance with the express wishes of the peoples of the Baltic states. which gives rise to interchangeability in Russian language sources of a certain ilk, but runs counter to the fundamental meanings of the two distinct terms under international law. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Historian, Pike achieved notability as a historian and foremost scholar on the Vietnam War and the Viet Cong. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Either historian or a wikilink Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)