Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Absent such a consensus, a deletion would not seem to be possible here, because the case has not been made that any WP:OR/WP:NPOV issues this article may have cannot be remedied through editing or renaming. I'd like to note that the conduct of some editors particularly on the "delete" side was rather poor. In particular, allegations of bad faith or prejudice on the part of the other side are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Sandstein (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communist terrorism

Communist terrorism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a POV-fork of terrorism. The quotes used to support the term largely do not use the word terrorism, and use of the term terrorism to describe the assassination of the Emperor Alexander II is blatant revisionism. Terrorism scores 45 million Google hits. "State terrorism" scores 368,000 Google hits. "Communist terrorism" scores 5,500. Top hit is this article. Second is YouTube. Third is "slantedright.blogspot.com". I think you get the idea. A few book sources use the term, but not as a term distinct from the obvious intersection implied by the title, and not as a major thesis, not even as chapter headings as far as I can tell, only as meaning terrorism carried out by (e.g.) communist insurgents: passing mentions not asserting a terminology. I don't see any mainstream sources expounding this term, the sources roughly divide between reliable sources that don't actually support the term (such as the quote from Nechaev which uses the word misery, which is then implied to be terrorism by novel synthesis) and blatantly unreliable sources such as Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Neologism in the meaning "state terrorism by a state claiming to be communist". Original Research, Novel Synthesis and WP:FRINGE. Anarchists and populists are mixed up with communists here, so that the term loses all meaning, typical of coatracks. Be prepared for the defenders putting their comments wherever it pleases them (even before or in the middle of the text of the proposer) to make the debate unreadable and confusing. It happened last time. If it is repeated, I propose the solution chosen for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination): move all threaded comment to the talk page. And be prepared for the usual swarm of Russophobes. It happened last time. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that solution is all that useful, really. It just means you have to read two pages to get the same thing most AfDs give you in one. Just being really WP:BOLD in moving off-topic arguements should be enough. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apart from being simply stupid and against the very nature of AfD (AfD is a discussion; a discussion involves cross-communication, refutation of points where appropriate, and questions asked and answered. What that does is essentially turn AfD into the one thing it isn't supposed to be: a vote. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I did say: "if it is repeated" and at this moment I am glad to say it has not repeated.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Paul said: "be prepared for the usual swarm of Russophobes". Is that an appropriate argument to delete an article? I am Russian myself and strongly object using such arguments here. This is not an article about Russia.Biophys (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not an argument, just a warning to other contributors here. Fortunately, people here can easily have a look at the discussion of the first AfD. And see that Russia was part of the argument. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not seeing any actual reason to delete here--although I think article may need to move moved to a name with less POV (for instance, Communist organizations accused of sponsoring terrorism). MrPrada (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Rename Keep important article, but perhaps rename as "Terrorism in Communist states," - this may be more neutral as it allows space for any right-wing or pro-democracy elements that may be involved in situations in the various Communist states. Vishnava (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Heh! So: change the title, and rewrite the article to exclude the OR and include a different subject. Perhaps delete and make a new article would be easier... Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no reason to delete this article. It does need a bit of cleanup. MrPrada (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could move the page to a POV-neutral title, keep the contributions of good-faith editors to keep us free of potential GFDL violations, and rework the article while preserving the history and the ability to retain any useful information in the history. Deleting edit histories should never be looked upon this lightly, especially when all thats needed is a page move and a rewrite. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not only about terrorism by Communist states, but also about terrorism by communist organizations, but the terrorisms by organizations and states are sometimes difficult to distinguish.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I had only meant that the article title could be modified to be more neutral-sounding, permitting the inclusion of details on possible terrorist causes/reaction coming from right-wing or other groups, explain the circumstances behind specific acts of terrorism, or explain the difference between terrorism inspired by communist ideology (state and organizations), and by pure despots (akin to Saddam Hussein, Stalin's and Kim Jong-Il's personality cults etc.). I realize that it is not easy, and convinced by Biophys, I change my opinion to a simple keep. Vishnava (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Nomination is completely without merit. "Communist terror" turns up 18,700 google hits, "communist terrorism" turns up 6,980 google hits and "Maoist terrorism", just to use one possible additional term, turns up 1740 hits. Of course search engine hits are just one indicator of notability. In the U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, communist groups are only second to Islamic. Plainly this subject is notable. It has been used in the mainstream media, see here and here, by major encyclopedias, and in academic journals (here, here and here. Anyone who's heard of the Red Brigade, November 17 or FARC know it's communist terrorism; this article is plainly proper. It is not a POV fork but a separate notable subject. It certainly makes as much sense as the eco-terrorism, narco-terrorism and bioterrorism articles. This nomination is plainly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the nominator's part. If there is POV in the article that can be fixed and is not a basis for deletion. Mamalujo (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a good look at what the nominator said. There is no doubt that there is some evidence for "communist terrorism" being used in the sense of insurgency. The problem is the WP:COATRACK here: the most important part of the article is about state terrorism by communist states. In order to keep the coatrack, the authors also included the PLO and claimed it was founded, sponsored or whatever by the Soviet Union. Such info belongs in the PLO article. Note that most people who propose a re-name here are proposing a re-name to something like "state terrorism by communist states" (which would also deal with the POV in the title, which in that meaning is also a neologism) so your examples do not justify keeping the article. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, revisionist neologism. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and rename I disagree that this is a POV fork. It's a subset of the topic but a large enough issue that it deserves its own page. It is obviously a noteworthy subject. I do think that the title "Terrorism in Communist states" sounds more neutral and would be a better title.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your title may be ambiguous, as it could be taken to refer to anti-communist insurgencey against communist regiems. The article is not about that. I suppose you may mean "Terrorism by Communist states" or "State terrorism in communist states". The problem is the article is structurally a train wreck, as part of it is indeed a badly sourced POV fork and another part is about something else, but very well sourced. Delete would solve that. One set of people could then start writing an article on something like communist terrorist insurgency, which would be very easy to source, and another set of people would then have the very difficult task to source the most important part of this article, referring to terrorism by communist states all the while ensuring that it does not turn into a POV fork of terrorism or state terrorism. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Of course, terrorism in Communist states wouldn't include Mamalujo's examples, because Greece, Italy, and Columbia aren't Communist states.Ben Standeven (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and rename. If there is POV in the article, that isn't a reason for deletion; that is a reason for regular editing to occur, and to be taken to RfC and Third Opinion if that doesn't work. The title, however, should be something more neutral, such as "Terrorism in Communist states" as suggested above. That, however, is also something that should have been taken to the talk page rather than AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to work towards balance. itsa definable subject, and editrial difficulties should not be bypassed by removing articles. DGG (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Can you explain why you are saying it "definable subject"? Relata refero has brought a significant argument in the discussion that the term "communist terrorism" is not used in any major peer-reviewed journal, there is no etymology of the term, when it was coined, who first used it etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy and Paul. Everyking (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite clearly POV fork. Wikipedia is not soapbox. I am assuming good faith and will try to be civil as much as possible in a hostile environment, but what I can guess the article was written with political motivation by right-wing pro-capitalist agenda pushers. The keep votes are bad faith votes, very likely based on political motivation. I can see there is a systematic anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist bias in wikipedia, I have no idea how to counter this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the anti-communist bias could easily be dealt with by changing the title, but that would of course immediately expose the fact that the article is a coatrack. There is bias in the article, but that is probably rather anti-anarchist bias. What do the assassination attempts on the Russian tsars in the 19th century and the later Soviet Union have in common, except for the name Ulyanov? I am still wondering why they did not go back further in time, since a straight line can be drawn to the French Revolution, Pugachev's Rebellion, the Iconoclast rebellion in Flanders in the 16th century, the Münster Rebellion, the Peasants' War and Spartacus, all perfect examples of left-wing insurgency terrorism. As for those who say "improve it then" - the problem in the article is structural.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Take it from Otolemur, there is no such thing as Communist terrorism. This from Otolemur's user page: "'Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. Publish their names. Seize all their grain from them. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram. Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucking kulaks.' —Lenin" Mamalujo (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? It was Lenin's order to suppress counterrevolutionary elements and Kulak resistance, who were known for exploitating the poor. Not related to any concept of "Communist terrorism". You are calling Lenin a "terrorist"? United States threated to bomb Pakistan to "back to the Stone Age" after the Sept. 11 attacks if Pakistan refused to help America with its war on terrorism.[1] Will it be US terrorism? Certainly not. Have you come in this AfD for some constructive purpose or with some pro-Wal-Mart/pro-Bush agenda? This place is for discussing this article, not for discussing any quote in any user's page. If you have any argument or any scholarly reference detailing any concept of "Communist terrorism", then discuss that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Guy. See WP:SYN. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not POV fork of terrorism. Terrorism comes in different varieties (see Template:Terrorism), and terrorism by communist organizations and states is one of them. Google hits are irrelevant. This article (including term "Communist terrorism") is sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources, as one can see from references in this article. This article did not change much since first nomination when the decision was "keep". The term is well known and notable. There are many dozens of designated Communist terrorist organizations. Even more such organizations existed in the past.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per consensus reached in November. The phrase seems like one people would legitimate look up on an encyclopedia. Other issues seem like Wikipedia:SOFIXIT in nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Even if Wikipedia did binding decisions, which we don't, there were sufficient dissenters and insufficient contributors overall to make the term "consensus" problematic in that context. Consensus is represented by policy, in this case WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS. You could help by identifying a few reliable independent sources which discuss "communist terrorism" as a theme, as opposed to mentioning it once in the middle of a sentence. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Here's one: Karnow, S. Karnow, S. Cory Aquino's downhill slide. New York Times Magazine; 8/19/90, Vol. 139 Issue 4833, p24, 5p, 2c, 1bw Profiles Philippine leader Corazon Cojuangco Aquino. Declining popularity; Weak leadership; Dissent among military; Communist terrorism; Philippine's past history. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If kept, please move to "Communist political violence" as is the case with ("Zionist political violence", or "Palestinian political violence").Bless sins (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we have Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism articles, and rightly so. By the same token, this article should stay. However, "Communist terrorism" subject is much bigger than Palestinian or Zionist terrorisms. It includes two parts: (a) terrorism by organizations with communist ideology (main subject of this article), and (b) Terrorism/terror by communist states. Latter subject could be also described by an additional article Communist repressions. This however does not invalidate "Communist terrorism" article. As about renaming, do you also suggest to rename Terrorism to Political violence? That would be odd. Right now, "Political violence" is a redirect to "Terrorism". This is wrong. Any war is a "political violence" but not necessarily terrorism.Biophys (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I think we have altogether too many articles on foo terrorism, where the subject is not established as distinct from terrorism of any other kind. There is no evidence that Zionists are more likely to be terrorists than are Communists, Muslims or Seventh Day Adventists for that matter (well, maybe that's pushing it a bit far). In most cases they boil down to: terrorism by angry people, crossed with list of angry people. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

we have Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism articles, and rightly so

Actually, no we don't. They are just redirects to the Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence pages. Personally, I think Communist political violence would be a much more appropriate title for this article, because much of what is discussed is not terrorism per se but planned acts of sabotage etc. Also, the title as it currently stands conflates the tactic of terrorism (ie non-state actors killing innocent people for political ends) with political terror (repressive means employed by states against their own people) and state terrorism (terrorism promoted by states abroad). As such it is quite misleading.

However, I also have a concern with lumping all communist states and movements together like this because, for one thing, it promotes the impression that communism is some sort of monolithic movement, which is far from the case. It would seem to me to make about as much (or as little) sense as having an article on Capitalist terrorism. I mean, what is really gained by lumping all these disparate groups together, except as a means of denigrating the ideology in question?

The title also leaves the impression that terrorism is intrinsic to communism, which is only one POV and a tendentious one at that. So I see a lot of problems with this article. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Communist political violence could be created, but it would be an article on a different subject. It would include all wars conducted by communist countries because any war is a "political violence", no matter if it is "just" or not, although wars are usually not regarded as "terrorism". Biophys (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you back that opinion up with reliable sources? Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wars are in a category of their own and are practically never described as "political violence". So I really don't think that would be a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, wars are violence and they are conducted for political reasons. Anyone could reasonably argue they belong to "political violence". Such renaming would be a problem, not a solution.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a notable topic with verifiable sources. The article needs a lot of editing work and may even need to be split as mentioned above. However, such discussions do not belong in an AFD but on the articles talk page.
• Delete. A phrase completely unknown in the academic discussion, with good reason, as it is completely content-free. Relata refero (disp.) 22:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a term completely unknown in academic discussion, why are there so many papers that contain the term? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are practically none except where its used as shorthand for other things, and none in any major peer-reviewed journals that I've found. It doesn't seem to listed as a keyword in the appropriate citation searches either. Its completely unknown in the sense that it is being used as a coatrack for this article. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about a combination of words. It is about a subject of terrorism by communist organizations and states. This subject is notable and described in multiple reliable secondary sources, as clear from sources provided in the article. If one has problems with article title, let's discuss renaming rather than deletion.Biophys (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Has this subject been studied as a whole? Or have individual examples been studied? You haven't provided any citations of the former, only citations of the latter which happen to use "a combination of words". That's simply unacceptable. We don't need to discuss renaming if notability hasn't been established. Simple google searches on the "combination of words" are rightly considered irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are numerous sources about this subject as a whole. For example, Black Book of Communism has a whole chapter entitled "Communism and terrorism" explicitly on this subject, althouth a combination of words is different.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism is not numerous. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Please see books "Communism and terrorism" by Karl Kautsky and "Spetsnaz" by Victor Suvorov (included in the article). Want more? Then let's improve this article rather than delete.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

These two gentlemen are dissatisfied with communism for any reason. One of them is a Soivet defector and other is an anti-Marxist author. To quench their personal anti-Communist thirst, these two people wrote two books slandering communism in any way. Are these two books describe the etymology of the phrase "communist terrorism"? As Relata refero questioned, are these books describe the subject as whole or collects individual examples? If they collect some invidual examples of terrorism to constitute a concept "communist terrorism", that is unacceptable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, almost anyone who writes about Communist terrorism was somehow "dissatisfied" with communism (and who likes terrorism?). I am dissatisfied with Soviet communism too. I lived there. But there are 500+ books about the Communist terrorism , as clear from the search by Piotrus below. Obviously, a notable subject.Biophys (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you any answer to the later questions? What Relata refero asked. Are these books describe the subject as whole or collects individual examples? If they collect some individual examples of terrorism to constitute a concept "communist terrorism", that is unacceptable. Also see WP:GOOGLE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, they describe the communist terrorism as a subject. One can look in the books. One can simply look at titles "Communism and terrorism" of a chapter in Black book and of the entire book by Kautsky.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You carefully ommitted the original question raised by Relata refero. "they describe the communist terrorism as a subject". Subject? The question is that who founded this subject? Who coined the term "communist terrorism"? Are the books describe this? Is the term "communsit terrorism" described in any major peer reviewd journal? If not then this phrase is an unknown neologism used by Western authors without discussing its etymology. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. On the one hand, Communist states and organisations have used terrorism since 1917. (And the prehistory section is important too, as it traces the origins of the phenomenon, which did not arise in a vacuum.) Moreover, the sourcing appears competent but could use improvement. On the other hand, improvement really must take place - I'd like to see more theoretical discussion, more overviews, rather than a simple paragraph-by-paragraph listing of Communist entities that have used terrorism. Biruitorul (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per all the reasons given in the first AfD debate, I don't see what's changed since then. Communist terrorism is no more of a POV fork of Terrorism than are Islamic terrorism, Eco-terrorism, Narcoterrorism or Nationalist terrorism, just a specific form of terrorism that warrants a separate article. Martintg (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I fancy the others are specifically discussed and studied. Except for the last, which I have trouble with. Also, otherstuffexists. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of Martintg's articles are really re-directs and one of them is at least as controversial as this one, and flagged as such. OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. This is a very valid and necessary article, part of Category:Terrorism by genre. Over here in (West) Germany, the Red Army Faction killed dozens of people, while in the GDR, the communist state killed hundreds who tried to run from it. All that in the name of communism. BTW, where's the large trout, for slapping the nom? -- Matthead  Discuß   14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Whenever you are using the ambiguous "while" to connect two different entities, you are probably using Novel Synthesis. The members of the Baader-Meinhof gang were offered asylum in the GDR, but many refused and after leaving prison joined political parties unconnected to the SED. Horst Mahler is a nice example: it may even be argued that he was first and foremost a Palestianian terrorist, whereas his mentor, Günter Rohrmoser (we need an article about that guy fast, as he is also the theoretician behind people like Rita Verdonk, Geert Wilders, Jean-Marie Dedecker, and I am only mentioning people in the Low Countries ...), was always pro-Russian (except under Yelstsin, of course). Not the same "communism". Note that by virtue of Biophys's OR that perpetrates the whole article: "Communist states and Communist entities cannot be easily distinguished" the Chilean Concertacion should be called a communist terrorist organisation, since they also gave asylum, to Erich Honnecker.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reason why Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism were deleted - the subject is too broad. The article, as it stands now, merely lumps together all violent acts other than wars performed by various entities (states and organizations) claiming to be communist in some way or other, even when these states and organizations opposed each other and did not recognize each other's claim to the label of "communist." We should only have an article with the name X-ist terrorism if X is a single organization or an alliance of friendly organizations working together. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a valid topic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  Please see discussion above on why a simple search of a phrase on google books is not adequate. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - per past consensus and user:Biophys. Ostap 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - This is an obvious POV fork, and I agree with what Nikodemos said. I suspect the only reason it's still up is because this is an anglophone based website where our indoctrinated hatred for communism overshadows our common sense and ability to make fair judgment on something of this nature. A capitalist terrorism or democracy terrorism article, no matter how well sourced, wouldn't last a week. Krawndawg (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced article, concept really exists, and certianly is not a POV fork. Certianly do not move, as nothing is wrong with current title. It obviously is a notable term worth an article. Yahel Guhan 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Concept really exists? Can you prove? Can you state some major academic journals analyzes the term? "Notable term"? On which basis? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unknown neologism used to tie together disparate phenomena.PelleSmith (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Today is very popular to write POV stuff about communism --Rjecina (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject seems notable and article is well referenced. -- Vision Thing -- 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT. Sincerely. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also can you explain on which basis you are saying "subject seems notable"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Holy cow, 108 books with "communist terror" explictly in the title [2], and you ask for a basis for the subject's notability. Martintg (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• democracy terror has that beat at 130 hits. WP:GOOGLEHITS. Krawndawg (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above, the argument provided by Relata refero, why a simple search of a phrase on google books is not adequate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as unacceptable fork and egregious misuse of the site to promote this nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Kill with fire - POV fork, unacceptable, inappropriate and complete nonsense. The material is going beyond references and misquoted to push author’s fork views. I was wondering why it was survived earlier. Therefore, a strong reason to delete.
  --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The central book of Communism, The Capital, doesn't contains calls to engage in terrorism. --71.119.163.188 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - As per many posts above, the teachings of communism don't promote terrorism. The concept of "communist terrorism" is original research and this article is a POV fork which would be more suitably named "Terrorist acts committed by communists". Sbw01f (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply. POV fork of what article?. We do not have Terrorist acts committed by communists. Do you suggest renaming? If you do, this article should be moved, not deleted.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No I do not suggest renaming it. I suggest deleting it, which is why I started my post with the word "delete". Sbw01f (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist acts committed by communists will be a blatant POV-push job. Terroist acts committed by others also, Terrorist acts committed by democrats, Terrorist acts committed by monarchists, Terrorist acts committed by anti-communists. There are several anti-Cuba, anti-Communist terrorist organizations Note terrist acts committted by nationalists also. Many terrorist organizations are nationaist terrorist organizations. There are Christian terrorist organizations also, Terrorist acts committed by Christians. There are White Suprematist terrorist organizations also. So Terrorist acts committed by White people. The title Terrorist acts committed by communists will be misleading as it will suggest that communism promote terrorism. Some terrorist organizations claim they are "communist" do not imply that Marxism promote terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you just reveal your plans to delete all other articles in Template:terrorism? Terrorism is often motivated by ideology, and communism is widely known as an ideology that promoted hatred, "terror", terrorism, political repressions, and other crimes during the entire 20th century, as described in many hundreds books. But you know this very well. Do not you? It was you who posted this order by Lenin in your user page:

1. Hang (and make sure that the hanging takes place in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers.

2. Publish their names.

3. Seize all their grain from them.

4. Designate hostages in accordance with yesterday's telegram.

Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of kilometres around the people might see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling and will strangle to death the bloodsucking kulaks.

Taking and executing civilian hostages-"bloodsuckers" is obviously a terrorism motivated by the communist ideology per numerous sources.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be your opinion that it's "widely" known as that, but a few fringe books don't substantiate your claim. You haven't addressed the point that communism as an ideology doesn't promote terrorism. Terrorism articles should be confined to specific attacks, known organizations/people, and terrorism promoting ideologies. Also, someone already pointed out that quote from his userpage, pay attention and stick to the issue. Sbw01f (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.