Talk:Left-wing terrorism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comparison to Right Wing Terrorism Source Poorly Sourced

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

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

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

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

References

Modern Left Wing Terrorism?

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

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

I added a new section.[1] I do not see any reason to expand this section since sources on left-wing terrorism give it very little attention. Revolutionary Struggle is an anarchist group. Anarchist terrorism is generally classified separately. TFD (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

They support anarcho-communism, not anarchism. Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it a branch of anarchism? TFD (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD, that's what I had been wondering, whether we might find suitable sources for an update for any modern left-wing terrorist activity, activity which uses actual weapons and targets humans rather than property, as actual terrorists do. Revolutionary Struggle uses weapons, though they're Anarchists, somewhat like Black Block -- which is neither left nor right -- only without weapons other than what's at hand. Doing Ye Ole Google, it does appear that left wing terrorism is virtually non-existent or, despite dedicated efforts to be politically relevant, have been successfully suppressed by governments to the point of irrelevance. Black Block looks to have started out left wing, but they attacked property rather than people, and used weapons at hand: rocks, trash cans, gasoline. So I don't see as if they apply for purposes of the extant article either.

And now that you mention it, the last round of Arab Spring was somewhat left wing which spun off a hand full of short-term armed conflicts which political powers obviously classified as "terrorism," yet that effort to overthrow the ruling class was successfully suppressed despite a few old rascals getting dragged out in to the street to be replaced by new rascals. It looks like there's not enough modern left-wing terrorism to warrant an update. Anarchist groups that come and go belong elsewhere, yes.

Thanks! SoftwareThing (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Since you need help discovering what Black Bloc is, Black_bloc will help you. Good luck. SoftwareThing (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Small critiques

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

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

I think the reason for the neglect is that left-wing terrorism is under-represented in the sources. That could be because research on left-wing terrorism was developed in the 1970s and only examined current left-wing terrorism, while left-wing terrorists in Africa operated in the 1950s and early 1960s. Also, it could be that much of the terrorism in Africa such as by the ANC, was seen as ethnic/nationalist, rather than left-wing, even if carried out by mostly left-wing groups. The Animal Liberation Front and similar groups are more likely to come under special issue terrorism. the definition of left-wing terrorism in this article is "terrorism meant to overthrow conservative or capitalist systems and replace them with communist or socialist societies." That was never the objective of terrorist actions by the ANC or ALF. The ANC for example no longer carries out terrorist attacks even though South Africa is not socialist.

If you want to add groups, I would ask that you provide sources that connect them with left-wing terrorism.

TFD (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The claim "Animal Liberation Front who has been known to take part in terrorist activities" is not supported by historic fact, neither the ALF nor the ELF can be considered "terrorists" since neither unorganized groups (1) actually comprise a group or (2) actually commit any terrorist acts yet even more strongly (3) neither the ALF nor the ELF can be considered to be "left wing," they are loosely-coupled individuals who commit criminal acts against property, not politically-motivated acts against humans.

For purposes of the extant article, editors should be certain that what constitutes left-wing terrorism matches the behavior and activities of actual terrorists, historically aligned with the traditional definition of what constitutes terrorism. There is a prevalence these days to try to label any act of criminality "terrorism," and because Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, care from editors must be taken to stick with testable, confirm-able facts without labeling mere criminal actions to be "terrorism."

I would add that the so-called Black Block individuals and the individuals who proclaim themselves to be Antifa likewise do not rise to the level of actual terrorism inasmuch as their histories to date do not legitimately afford such labels. That could change as time progresses, in the event such people actually organize and actually commit acts of terrorism, but for now, ALF, ELF, Black Block, Antifa, or actually-organized groups like Sandy Hook Promise et al. fall far short in their ideals and activities of what can be considered to be "terrorism." The FBI maintains a definition and, despite politically-motivated occasional divergence from their own norms, the FBI's definitions exclude the sole commission of mere crimes. SoftwareThing (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

US Section Needs Expanding

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

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

I don't see anything in Mark Essex suggesting terrorism, it appears to have been a spree killing. 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers ditto. Nor is the 2019 Dayton shooting called a terrorist attack - it was a mass shooting and "A preliminary assessment did not indicate he had a racial or political motive". Editors can't decide if something is terrorism, see the discussions above. So these shouldn't be added. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No reliable sources categorize these as left-wing terrorism and none of them are mentioned in articles about left-wing terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Note on 41.182.149.210 adding "Antifa" to article talk page

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

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

AntiFa

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

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

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

The problem is that we don't have any reliable sources describing their activities as terrorism, as opposed to say groups like the Weather Underground. The closest we have is that some reliable sources think it possible that some members may resort to terrorism in the future. Note we don't call the pro-life movement a terrorist group, although some supporters have carried out terrorist attacks such as the Atlanta bombing. TFD (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderwearable (talk • contribs) 08:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

There is also the issue of "predictive editing" of articles where a volunteer editor might suggest that a group or organization or an individual may some day qualify to be included or mentioned in an extant article and "proactively" add text in an honest effort to improve articles. The Antifa arena does tend to appear to be violent inasmuch as they are opposing fascism, opposing Nazis and white supremacists, all of which gets -- as intended -- fascists to react in violent ways despite Antifa attempting to adhere to non-violent ideals, but have seen property damage being committed by people joining Antifa demonstrations, prompting supposition that some how property damage equates to "terrorism" which it does not.

Terrorism is political, it's an effort to use asymmetric warfare against people or governmental institutions as a means to effect political or social change. What Antifa is doing is opposing fascism, an ideology, and they do not hold as a motivational factor the change of any political system aside from the United States government harboring numerous fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists in various disperse entities, yet again, Antifa does not meet any expected aspects of what could be considered to be "terrorism."

Still, it's good seeing you volunteer to improve Wikipedia! Your text on Antifa's activities might best be placed in the Wikipedia article that covers Antifa. That work that you did -- references and citations -- would be valuable added to the Antifa page. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia doesn't use terms such as terrorism lightly, we need authoritative sources, usually government bodies. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Clarification and/or source on recent US example

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

2017 Congressional baseball shooting has more details on this. Per that article, Virginia District Attorney Bryan L. Porter described it as terrorism against Republicans. That article should explain this more clearly, and with better attribution. This article should cite a reliable source directly supporting that this was left-wing terrorism. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Per no synthesis, we can't just find a statement that he was left-wing and that the attack was terrorism and call it an act of left-wing terrorism, we would need a source that said that. The topic is defined in this article as "terrorism meant to overthrow capitalist systems and replace them with Marxist–Leninist or socialist societies." There is no evidence that he was a Marxist-Leninist or undertook this attack in order to overthrow the capitalist system. His support of Sanders, who was condemned by revolutionary communists in the U.S., makes it unlikely. Furthermore, expert sources often do not categorize lone wolf attacks, since it is difficult to analyze their motives. It could be for example that he had mental pathology and was motivated by revenge. And left-wing terrorists plan their attacks in order to have a good chance of getting away. TFD (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that shooting does not meet any aspects of what is considered to be terrorism, though I would add the note that Republicans often described it as terrorism against Republicans any time they don't get to violate other people's rights, when extremists attempt to impose Theocracy against the United States and the U. S. Constitution puts a stop to them, extremists consider that to be "terrorism" and "oppression." Point being that proclamations by extremists aren't rational, leave alone significant references or citations in, well, anything.

If the extant article suggests even remotely that the shooting was "terrorism," that claim or suggestion needs to be removed entirely. SoftwareThing (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism-The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The Virginia Attorney General concluded it was an act of terrorism. Why should any editor regard the above as acting in good faith? That is hyper partisan babble that has no place on any talk page. Point being the single largest and most exhaustive government investigation into the shooting declared it an act of terrorism but because hyper partisan editors don't like that conclusion it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:C800:2260:CC08:972F:C0EF:499A (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

So? TFD (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It would seem that some people would like to pretend that some random Republican calling something "terrorism" some how makes it so. Hodgkinson was killed after his shooting so he was never charged with a crime leave alone terrorism, and no legitimate law enforcement entity anywhere in the country with oversight on the event even remotely suggested that it was terrorism other than a Republican AG who attempted to play pretend.

For the extant article, we would require suitable references and citations from law legitimate law enforcement entities formally and officially classifying Hodgkinson as a terrorist. Lacking that, any such supposition is wishful thinking. SoftwareThing (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Female members

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

It would be interesting to see what research has been done on gender distribution among left wing and right wing terrorist organizations. One might look at [[2]] except that the Wiki page falls far short of actual membership numbers adn only lists some of the organizers and activists.

Oh: And most people would consider the Irish Republican Army to be far right wing rather than left wing despite Ireland's bid for freedom and self-rule from foreign powers, something which are left wing ideals.

I expect that gender distribution among left-leaning terrorist groups when they used to exist were something around 70% male, 30% female. We might perceive females to be represented in higher percentages than the usual mix since popularized television shows and movies with previous generation's left wing terrorists showed women as taking lead roles, something that never actually happens outside of fiction. SoftwareThing (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

IRA terrorism is considered to be ethnic/nationalist. They were fighting for the reunification of Ireland rather than any specific ideology. Hence unlike other forms of terrorists, they were able to negotiate a settlement. TFD (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

abcnewsradioonline.com is a blog

Note that the abcnewsradioonline.com web site is a blog, it's not ABC News, it's a far right wing Republican extremist propaganda web site and is not a legitimate reference or citation, ergo the right wing propaganda proposed was removed. Doing a WhoIs on the domain name, one can find hints on the individual who registered the domain, however it's hidden behind a registry wall, it's not a legitimate ABC News web site, it's anti-American right wing propaganda attempting to pretend that it's ABC News. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Undoing Antisemetic Sourced Material

Newimpartial you are continually trying to revert edits. Discuss your reasoning here in the Talk pages before engaging in an edit war. Your first undo had the reasoning of:

"No sourced connection to the Left".

This is nonsense as I have placed up to 6 differently sourced articles to backup the information I placed on this article. As I stated in the comments, read the sources! Your second reason to revert the changes was:

"We have no definitions of "left" and "right" except what we find in reliable sources - personal intuitions don't matter. Reals over feelz."

Once again, you are not reading the sources. As a knowledgeable person in this field I am here to tell you one of the basic points of U.S. politics, is that the Democratic party is always considered left-leaning and the Republican party is always considered right-leaning. This is not what you call "feelz". This is fact which can be explored, but I do not wish to clutter the article by placing unnecessary sources to prove to just you that the Democratic party is considered left-leaning. Discuss here before continuing your unfounded edit war.12.227.66.34 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please leave this material out of the article, per WP:ONUS, since it is not part of any stable version and its inclusion is (obviously) contested.

Also note that this article concerns Left-wing terrorism, not "left-leaning antisemitism". Obviously the latter is a real phenomenon, but including references to the NAZI movement or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting as examples of "Left-wing terrorism" is simply not going to happen. Newimpartial (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the material that is to be added and that is in dispute.

Anti-semitism has been a cornerstone of terrorism activity from the early days of the Nazi party in Germany and its rise in the United States and the Middle-east[1]. Attacks on Jewish-identifying populations in the United States have increased in attacks such as the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting that left eleven dead in 2018.[2] In 2020 left-wing proponents advocating anti-semitic ideals have included high-profile personages such as the left-leaning Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib.[3][4][5][7][8] Many of the these discussions concerning hatred towards Jewish-descendants come from disputes over land-rights between palestinian-arabs and Israel[6].

Sources:

Let's break this down. The first sentence provide a very brief history background on a type of antisemitism terrorism that is widely known and accepted as historical. This is to introduce the next item to the reader and can be modified if there is an issue with wikipedia rules about this content on this page. Second sentence, This historical act of terrorism is key to the main issue that is being introduced and provides the reader context as to why antisemitism is so closely linked to terrorism. The user can then follow the link to the wiki page "Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting" for more information and is why I only included one source as more sources here are not necessary. Third sentence, The year "2020" is included to let the reader know during what time this issue began to emerge and not create the idea that this issue was widespread as left-wing before this time. Furthermore, a specific person, Rahida Tlaib, is used as she is the person that is at the forefront in the sourced articles that tie her in with the left-wing U.S. Democratic party. As she is currently a living person, several sources are used here to provide context and inform any challenger that may claim this information is unfounded. No original work was added here as the sources provided all the information shown and no additional connections are made on my part as a wiki-editor. Lest sentence, This sentence provide more information onto the issues that are being discussed alongside the mentioned anti-semitic terrorism. As for the claim that this article is for left-wing terrorism, not left-leaning, well left leaning is left-wing politics and the Democratic party is the U.S. left-wing political party. Remember that wikipedia is not a place for own own opinions, but a place where we source all our content, even the content that you may be inclined to personally deny. Please help me to make sure all sides of the story are heard and that neutrality stays constant. If you have and material that states otherwise as to what I am trying to add, then present your sourced material.12.227.66.34 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Do any of the above sources actually refer to left-wing antsemitic terrorism? If so, which ones, and where in the text? Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look through the articles you can see the connection that the autheors if the articles make with the remarks made and their connection to the Tree of Life shooting which is incontestably antisemitic terrorism. Here is yet another article from another news source that states the antisemitism. I am unsure if you are taking the time to read the sources, but all the articles are there for their positions to be noted. read especially the last two article in the list about the congress linking the statements made and antisemitism and the additional connection the authors make to the tree of life shooting.12.227.66.34 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The new source you just cited does not refer to any shooting or other violence. Which source are you saying actually attribute antisemitic violence to left-wing ideology? Sources that do not do so, are irrelevant here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, read sources 7 and 8. Congress makes the connection directly. Also, source 9 only speaks about statements and connections to antisemitism, not violence during the time of the article, sources 7 and 8 are articles referencing the connection to violence in the tree of life shooting which makes it terrorism now as opposed to just being anti semitic statements in the past.12.227.66.34 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I have now reviewed these sources in detail, and neither of them links the Tree of Life synagogue shooting to left-wing ideology. Your argument is apparently that some left-wing politicians are antisemitic and some antisemites are terrorists, but even if those things are both true that would not show that any particular acts of antisemitic terrorism are related to left-wing ideology. More importantly, your interpretation of these sources is original research, in that it reaches a conclusion that the sources do not arrive at themselves. We are therefore unable to use this material in WP articles. Newimpartial (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to point out a mistaken belief, here, the Democratic Party is not a "left-wing political party" The democratic Party is centric, they are a middle-ground Political Party, they just seem to be "left wing" in the eyes of some people because the Republican Party is so far right wing fascist authoritarian that the Centric ideals which most Americans harbor appear to be "left." If you want to see what an actual left-wing political party is, look at the "green" Political Parties around the world. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Also to make a point, I am not stating that the Democratic party is an extreme left party, although some groups within the party are. The claim is that the Democratic party is a left-wing political party. You can reference more sources on this in the wiki page Left-wing politics. You will find the Democratic party there.Also, please note that while the democratic party has left of center ideals, this encompases moderate and extreme view that are held by different groups in the Democratic party. The Democratic party and the Republican party are the only two main political parties in the U.S. and they are more of a catch-all for extreme-left/center-left and extreme-right and center-right ideals. It cannot be said that either party is completely extreme or, as you state, middle ground. This ties in with the left and right politics assignment and not distinguishing between extreme-left or extreme-right as those are more specific fields than left and right.12.227.66.34 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Discussion that may be of interest to individuals here

Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 revert

Regarding my revert of Nweil's addition, the relevant discussion is on my talk page. TL;DR: Members of the far-left Party for Socialism and Liberation cornered off 18 police officers and were charged with attempted kidnapping and incitement of a riot. None of the sources given label the incident "terrorism" or the perpetrators "terrorists". The perpetrators were also not given terrorist charges. Nweil has yet to provide reliable sources calling the incident terrorism, which has led me to assume that it is their own conclusion. In other words, it is original research. I will take no further action until a consensus is reached or an administrator intervenes, although I believe the latter is unnecessary prior to a consensus. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As seen in this research from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, the incidence of terrorist barricade hostage events are on the rise and especially so in western countries. The tactics fit terrorism and the ideology fits left wing. So the only thing missing it seems is an RS calling a spade a spade. I don't have that to provide.Nweil (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Per no synthesis, we cannot take a definition from one source and information from another and combine them to form a conclusion not stated in either source, which in this case is that the attack by the PSL was a terrorism. Politically motivated violence on its own does not necessarily equate to terrorism, and it takes an expert to draw the line. Furthermore in Yates v. United States 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished between teaching the forcible overthrow of government as an abstract theory, which is protected free speech, and taking concrete steps to achieve that goal.

The January 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol was more violent than the PSL "kidnapping" and posed a greater threat to the U.S. government, but no experts call it a terrorist attack either.

TFD (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

FBI Director Defends Agency In Testimony, Calls Jan. 6 Attack 'Domestic Terrorism' SoftwareThing (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

CHRISTOPHER WRAY: That attack, that siege was criminal behavior, plain and simple. And it's behavior that we, the FBI, view as domestic terrorism. SoftwareThing (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I said, "no experts call it a terrorist attack either." I am referring to academics writing in academic sources, particularly when they attract support in those sources. Note that the DOJ hasn't charged let alone convicted anyone of terrorism in relation to the attack. Anyway, even if it were terrorism, it was more serious than the PSL attack. TFD (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully that will change. The majority of indictments so far are those which open the door to acquiring the terrorists and seizing evidence, or in the case of some of the more dangerous terrorists with previous convictions or Christian terrorist affiliations, remanding until trial. While the Department of Justice classifies these terrorists as terrorists, handing down indictments classified as such by Grand Juries is rare, it's after Grand Jury indictments which enable prosecutors to seize enough evidence to supersede indictments with terrorism charges.

It's also somewhat irrelevant whether academics classify Republican / Christian / Islamic terrorism as terrorism, it's the published definitions by the Department of Justice -- at least in the United States -- which describes what incident terrorist acts are and what, when, and how to classify an individual and group as "terrorism." SoftwareThing (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that it is early yet, the terrorists committed their attacks against the United States only 2 months ago, and there are some 400 CHristanic Republicans identified so far with some 300 already indicted, which is a lot of work for 18-momnth Grand Juries, and even more work for prosecutors to size the evidence that they can use to advance terrorism charges -- and other charges using predicate terrorist acts. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, academic sources do classify Islamic and right-wing terrorism as such. Wikipedia articles are in fact based on academic opinion not government edicts. Governments differ on a range of issues. Do you think we should accept pronouncements by North Korea or Iran for example? The U.S. government also has come up with some crazy things. The lied about both Gulf wars. Donald Trump said global warming was a Chinese hoax and gave unreliable information about COVID-19. If the U.S. government decides that the world was created in 7 days, do you think we should change the articles about astronomy and evolution?

Another issue is that Wikipedia policy presumes innocence until guilt is proved or admitted. That's also a principle in U.S. law. We can't treat information as fact when it isn't even considered as such under U.S. law. Incidentally, it is a BLP violation to refer to accused people as terrorists, even on talk pages.

TFD (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You guys are highly off topic on a talk page about the article for left wing terrorism. Have no idea how January 6 is even relevant. If you want to chat do it elsewhere Nweil (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

My point was that even more egregious examples of U.S. political violence including the most recent example of the Jan. 6 attacks are not considered terrorism. I hadn't counted on SoftwareThing being against violent right-wing protestors too. TFD (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Canada

I removed this section as unsourced.[3] While another editor helpfully pointed out that part of the paragraph on the FLQ was sourced, there is not claim in the source that it was a left-wing terrorist organization. Sources I have read group them with nationalist terrorist groups such as the PLO, IRA and ETA, rather than with left-wing groups such as the Red Brigades or Weather Underground.

The editor also said that information about the Squamish Five was sourced in their article. However no claim that they were left-wing nationalists is made there. Based on the information in that article, they would more likely by classified under anarchist terrorism rather than left-wing terrorism.

Note that left-wing terrorism does not mean terrorists who happen to be left-wing but terrorists whose primary objective for terrorism is to establish a socialist society. That doesn't apply to either of these two groups.

TFD (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Left-wing violence" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Left-wing violence. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 22#Left-wing violence until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources

We need a majority of reliable (esp. academic) sources that describe May 19th Communist Organization to be a terrorist organization. I checked a few (1 etc.) and it does not seem to be the case. See MOS:TERRORIST:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization [..] terrorist [..] – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST is a guideline, which means "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." One exception I believe is in articles about terrorism where the description has consensus support in academic writing. Using INTEXT attribution (e.g., "according to Professor So-and-so") can be a weight violation, because it implies that other experts may have different opinions.

The term terrorist is often but not always contentious. Western states routinely refer to armed groups they oppose as terrorists, while groups they support are called freedom fighters. When Western powers switch sides in a conflict, they reclassify the groups, so that terrorists become freedom fighters and vice versa. But if a group's sole purpose is carrying out terrorist attacks, then the description is rarely contentious.

In most of the cases, the description of left-wing terrorist group is taken from textbooks on terrorism, which I believe should be the standard. However, that is not he case with the U.S. group and therefore should be removed unless someone shows there is consensus that they came under the category of left-wing terrorists. Bear in mind that left-wing terrorism is not left-wing + terrorism but has a specific definition.

TFD (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent assessment

I reassessed this article today and rated it as a Start article, but honestly it is more of a list article or glossary of left-leaning terrorist organisations. This article would benefit from a more focused article body and a shorter list of only the most well-known examples. Yue🌙 19:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That's how left-wing terrorism is written about in terrorism textbooks. Basically, the article lists all notable left-wing terrorist organizations. There's not really a lot more high level information about them. They use terrorism in order to provoke a communist revolution. TFD (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Textbooks on terrorism are not exhaustive lists of notable examples, and neither are non-list articles on Wikipedia. A good textbook explains the topic concisely and gives a few examples. A book titled something like "Terrorism Around the World: A to Z" would give an exhaustive list. This article, as well as the article Right-wing terrorism, is more like one part "Left-wing terrorism" and another part "List of left-wing terrorist groups". Yue🌙 01:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:TERTIARY: "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." One of the sources for the article is "Typologies of Terrorism" in The New Dimension of International Terrorism

By Stefan M. Aubrey. Note that is how Aubrey presented the topic. If you think there are sources that present the topic differently, then please provide them.

Incidentally, there is no reason to assume symmetry with right-wing terrorism, which is a different topic. Left-wing terrorist groups were highly organized, few in number and internationally coordinated, while right-wing terrorism is typically carried out by individuals or small groups and has little or no coordination among them.

TFD (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is this article Western-centric?

This article, in its lede, writes of Western left-wing terrorism having recently declined, but that it is common in insurgents in the developing world.

The point is, who cares that it has declined in the West? We should be global in outlook, instead of dismissing such terrorism as a minor, "foreign" issue. Perhaps only a sixth of the world's population is Western; this article is thus a farce of far-left canvassing and whitewashing. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your criticism. That's not what the article says and balance is achieved by describing left-wing terrorism wherever it happened, rather than based on relative populations. No idea what you mean by "far left" bias. TFD (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It said that left-wing terrorism has declined in the West with respect to other forms of terrorism. That is not relevant, and focuses too much on the West, dismissing it as "foreign" or minor because it has "declined" in the West, etc. Basically, what I'm saying is that in referring to the West like this, we become dismissive of terrorism elsewhere. That is myopic. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

To put it another way: If left-wing terrorism has declined on a global level, then that should be sourced and mentioned. (it is, in describing how many groups until the 1990s have disappeared.) Cherry-picking how it has declined in the West is not, however, relevant, in the lede. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The article points that out because that is considered to be important in reliable sources.

The sources make a clear distinction between left-wing terrorism in the West and the developing world. A dozen or so middle class Americans or Europeans living underground is a different type of organization from a guerilla army living in the jungle. TFD (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this up for deletion?

I've read the comments above, and I still don't know why this is being nominated for deletion.

Everyone above seems to have complaints centered around a single point; that this article could use a serious update. It could be more detailed, and that is doable.

I think this page should be left up and should be updated as needed,one because left wing terrorism is a thing, and it would be nice if we could read about it like we cna read about right wing terrorism, and two because Wikipedia is all about neutrality, and having a page on right wing terrorism, and then deleting the one about left wing terrorism seems a bit non neutral, no?

Yes, the page in question is shaky, but why not build on what is there, instead of deleting it all together? Ladytethys (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Miss(?) Account-that-was-made-today, you should share your thoughts over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism (2nd nomination), because that is where the actual deletion discussion is taking place. Yue🌙 03:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

That editor made 2 edits and vanished. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)