Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Resistance as an instance of CT

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Resistance to Nazi occupants was a manifestation of terrorism. Taking into account that Communists were the leading force in Yugoslavian, Italian, Chinese, Malayan, Vietnamese, Soviet and other resistance movement, I believe, we need a section devoted to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources which say that the communists fighting Nazis were in fact terrorists? That strikes me as a rather odd statement. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, read carefully my posts. I wrote that EB (the "Terrorism" article) describes resistance (concretely, French resistance) as terrorism. Since there is no articles in EB devoted to such a category as Communist terrorism (it uses the term "revolutionary terrorism", which includes, among others CT also), it does not separate Communist from non-Communist resistance, therefore, the term "terrorism" is applicable to both.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even Black Book of Communism did not mentioned resistance to Nazi as an example of "terrorism" or "terror" by Communist organizations. May be Nazi labelled them "terrorists"? Biophys (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This your "even" hardly makes sense, because the main point Courtois was trying to make in the BB was the similarity between Nazism and Communism, so, it is quite understandable that the resistance was not mentioned in the BB as not fitting into this concept. In addition, as I already explained, the resistance was characterized as terrorism by EB, which is a reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You will require more that one source to show this concept is notable, personally I have never heard of anyone who fought the Nazi`s being described as terrorists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, might you point to us to the exact spot where EB makes the statement that equates to "resistance to Nazi occupants was a manifestation of terrorism." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is:

"Some definitions treat all acts of terrorism, regardless of their political motivations, as simple criminal activity. For example, in the United States the standard definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” The element of criminality, however, is problematic, because it does not distinguish among different political and legal systems and thus cannot account for cases in which violent attacks against a government may be legitimate. A frequently mentioned example is the African National Congress (ANC) of South Africa, which committed violent actions against that country’s apartheid government but commanded broad sympathy throughout the world. Another example is the Resistance movement against the Nazi occupation of France during World War II." (EB)

@Paul, your interpretation is completely mistaken. The intent of the passage is that the general definition of criminality of violence regarding "terrorism" does not necessarily apply to popular insurgencies reflecting the broad will of the population (as opposed to acts of terror directed against the broad population, which are clearly terrorism). This is completely in line with scholarship which specifically alludes to movements which started as communist terrorism against authorities and subsequently took on popular support, giving rise to insurgencies. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the TLAM's concern, EB mentions French resistance among "frequently mentioned examples".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PS you failed epically to address my concerns, you need more than one source to show this notion is notable. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, since only reasonable concerns need to be addressed I do not think I need to provide additional sources in a situation when Encyclopaedia Britannica describe resistance as a frequently mentioned example of terrorism.

However, since I do have other sources, I can present them here as an act of my good will. The second source is Scott Atran, Genesis of Suicide Terrorism (Review), Science 7 March 2003: Vol. 299, no. 5612, pp. 1534-1539 DOI:10.1126/science.1078854. In the first paragraph of his review Atran states that, although no strict definition of terrorism can be proposed, the US State department definition of terrorism ("the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.") is frequently used for for purposes of statistical analysis and policy-making; this definition is fully applicable to French Resistance movement. I believe noone can question the fact that Science is a top scientific journal, and that the articles published there are among the most reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You have read that wrong, what Atran is saying is that the US state debt definition would render the French resistance as terrorists not that they were terrorists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Atran clearly says that, following this definition, the Resistance fighters are rightly characterised as terrorists. Note, he does not argue that this particular definition is wrong, his point is that no comprehensive definition of terrorism exists, and cannot be proposed (the viewpoint shared by many authors). Therefore, "one side’s “terrorists” may well be another side’s “freedom fighters”", and if we are going to discuss all examples of usage of terrorist tactics by Communists we should not restrict ourselves with just the examples of usage of terror against "good guys" only. Nazi (and other Axis authorities) were the Communist enemies, the Communists widely used terrorism against them and their collaborators, and I (along with Atran) do not see why should we ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail x 3 PS, he says under the US State Dept that they would be deemed terrorists, he does not say they are terrorists. And were the French Resistance communists? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Your style is becoming more and more close to that of Mark Nutley. Please, try to be polite if you can. I also recommend you to keep in mind that, since no universal definition of terrorism exists, every particular definition is subjective, and, in that sense, it is impossible to discriminate between "true" and "false" definitions of terrorism. The State Dept's definition is not better or worse than any other. The article already labels some freedom fighters (in Vietnam, Malaya, Africa) as "terrorists", and I do not see why we can ignore the obvious fact that Communists used the terrorist tactics also against truly "bad guys".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Try at least to seem to observe WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Address the issues and not the editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And which issue had you addressed in this post?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Epic fail is a term used worldwide and is hardly impolite, if Nutley used it that is hardly surprising, a great many people do. Please refrain from attempts to call me a sockpuppet in future. The fact still stands, your source does not say what you seem to think it does, it says under the State Dept definition then the FR would be terrorists, it does not say they are terrorists, nor does it say they are communists. Find a source which says those who fought the nazis were terrorists and then we can talk further. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Had I wanted to call you a sockpuppet I would make that openly. I just advise you how can you avoid such accusations in future. In my post I meant not the words "epic fail" (I do not remember if Nutley used it), but an overall impolite tone.

Regarding the issue we discuss, I have provided two sources that describe French resistance as terrorists (although they imply no negative connotations in this case).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You ought not make such accusations directly or by implication, read WP:NPA. You have not made your case whatsoever, your second source does not say that which you think it does. Until you present further sources which say resistance fighters were A Communist and B terrorist this discussion is over. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am making no accusations, I am just pointing your attention at the fact that your posts are redundantly impolite. By no means can it be considered as a personal attack.

Regarding sources, your request for additional sources hardly follows from our policy. Nevertheless, below is a quote that clearly confirms that anti-Nazi organisations had been engaged in terrorist activity:

"It might be useful for comparative purposes to realize that the European underground movements, so well developed during World War II, and so efficient in their systematic terrorist activities, were by any standards huge organizations. For example, the Polish Underground Movement (Armia Krajowa) in 1944 had over 380,000 "front line" troops plus at least an equal number of "support" members totalling 760,000 people. The total membership of the Italian Resistance was somewhere between 150,000-200,000; the French Resistance (FFI) for the Northern and Southern zone, about 425,000. " (JK Zawodny - Journal of Conflict Studies, 1981, p 24-31)

I believe, there is no need to provide a source to confirm the obvious fact that Communists were among the best organized part of French and Italian resistance.

Anticipating your argument that the groups employing the terrorist tactics is not necessarily a terrorist group, let me point out that many "terrorists" that are being discussed in this article have been described by many sources as partisans who used terrorism as one of several tools for their struggle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe, there is no need to provide a source and in that you would be wrong, as stated already, you need sources which say these groups were A Communist and B terrorist. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Per our policy, the sources are needed for statements that are likely to be challenged. Do you challenge the statement that Communists played a prominent role in Yugoslavian, Italian, French etc resistance? If yes, you just demonstrate the holes in your education.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect I may just have to give up on you, you refuse to respond directly to my questions and statements. You will require sources which state "Any resistance group were communist/Marxist/Maoist/Stalinist terrorists". What you are doing is taking one source (EB) which says the actions of french resistance could be called terrorism. You are then looking for other sources which no doubt will mention communist partisans and combining the two to create a narrative. This is WP:SYNTH, this is why I have repeatedly said, you will need sources which explicitly state "Any resistance group were communist/Marxist/Maoist/Stalinist terrorists" and good luck on your quest for such a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are withdrawing your previous definition? "...terrorism committed by communists is CT...." (19:12, 11 September 2011) If so, would you mind explaining what this article is supposed to be about. TFD (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A search for "terrorism" + "French resistance" returns 1,140 hits on Google books. A cursory reading of the first page of hits shows that reliable sources say that the French Resistance used terrorism and that the German government called them terrorists. It meets TLAM's definition of CT. However it would be pointy to include it. TFD (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, do you accuse me in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia? If yes, then what point, in your opinion, am I going to demonstrate?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No. But as discussed above, CT was a term used by governments to associate Communism and terrorism in the public mind. The Nazis, the British and the Americans all used the term, but it fell out of use in the 1960s. Scholars categorize terrorism according to its objectives, and the term is rarely used to describe actions which the government of the day happens to support. TFD (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The term has been used by different sources in quite different context. Not only governments used it, and we need to discuss all events to which this term has been applied.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well no one has presented any sources that support that. TFD (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean that no one has presented sources that use the term in a different context than as a term used by governments to associate Communism and terrorism in the public mind. TFD (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Some non-governmental sources use this term for LWT, and, I have to concede that they had some ground for that. Thus, if we consider Maoism as a version of Communism then the acts of terror committed by Maoist parties' members can be characterized as CT. It this case LWT and CT are synonyms (although the former is more common), and that is not propaganda. In addition, we need to discriminate between the propagandist characteristics of some activity that took place in reality (Red Terror, activity of Sendero Luminoso, etc) and some totally imaginary events, such as "Communist terrorism" in Germany on the eve of Nazism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Various authors may occassionally refer to LWT as CT, although there are several other synonyms that are more common. The term CT is confusing. None of the LWT groups were associated with the Communist Party, while what governments labelled "Communist terrorism" is not classified as LWT. In fact much of what was labelled CT was not even terrorism. TFD (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Assetion of what you know to be the truth seems not in accord with how Wikipedia operates. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Merely repeating what has already been well-sourced. Since I am not the author of any of those sources, your comment is confusing. In any case the onus is on you to provide sources showing that the views for which you argue so tenaciously have received any recognition. TFD (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"I believe noone can question the fact that Science is a top scientific journal, and that the articles published there are among the most reliable sources" Well it would appear PS was incorrect on this statement, "even such top ranked journals like Science and Nature do not fully warrant reliability of the materials published there" The irony it burns :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

His point was that there may be errors even in reliable sources. However, we assume that the information in reliable sources is correct, unless it is in conflict with other reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You TLAM seem to come to the understanding that my posts (even those made in past) have to be read carefully. The problem is, however, that, according to the standard formula ("have read and understood"), it is insufficient just to read them. I never stated Science and Nature are impeccable, my point was that they are among the most reliable sources, so it is highly unlikely that the material published there contains errors. Therefore, the priority should be given to this type sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

One editor recently removed (I believe appropriately) a POV tag. Another recently reverted it. If there is not a current dispute explicitly explained on the talk page, the tag doesn't really belong there. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". That policy goes on to state:

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

These tags are not meant to be a permanent badge of dishonor. If there is a valid dispute it should be clearly stated on the talk page, otherwise it is appropriate to remove it and I or another editor will properly do so. Mamalujo (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

An AE I am going to submit is not about this particular content dispute, which I am not even going to discuss at AE in much detail. It is about TLAM's persistent disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings. If you have any comments with regard to TLAM's behavior in general, you would be welcome to comment there.

With regard to this particular content dispute, thanks for starting a discussion (something TLAM should have done), and I will come back here sometime later. (Igny (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

If you do not actually explain what you believe is not neutral in the article I will remove the tag again, per policy. And you have some cheek calling me a disruptive edit warrior. Time to start collecting diffs methinks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support that POV tag. I have added a {Multiple issues} tag, since the article needs copyediting throughout. I have done something about the lead; but I am reluctant to touch the remainder because I find the material repugnant. I will, by way of compromise, be happy to polish things after someone else does the job. Issues include grammar, punctuation, referencing (order of entries; irregular page references), and much more.

I have also applied three {fact} tags, in the lead alone. The statements concerned are not given proper citation, despite the appearance. It looks as if the initial statement is supported in the first few citations. But in fact only one of the three sources in that paragraph (Clymer) seems to include the phrase "communist terrorism", and not in its own text but in a quote from a source it characterises this way: "one document intended to influence public and congressional opinion". This sort of thing confirms the suspicion that there is a strong point of view shaping the article. I recommend that this be addressed; and indeed I am inclined to start an RM, because the title itself is rather clearly biased. Would the community accept an article headed "Capitalist terrorism", cataloguing such things as CIA involvement in Chile, or covert US sympathy with (or collaboration with) the wholesale slaughter of suspected communists in Indonesia? With respect to all here, I think not. A neutral point of view, manifest particularly in our neutral expression of ideas, is hard work for everyone. But it is crucial to the Project's integrity.

Noetica^Tea? 11:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Point of fact: United States and state terrorism exists. Edited by TFD. Left-wing terrorism ditto. Right-wing terrorism ditto. Christian terrorism ditto. Sory -- the fact is that many articles with many titles quite equivalent to Communist terrorism exist, and are edited by the same people who decry this article's title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and they all have clear definitions and are supported by a body of literature. Notice the U.S. article is not called "American terrorism" because sources do not call it that and that title would be POV. TFD (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. The objection does not concern coverage of the terrorism in question, but bias and accuracy in the coverage. There is no article Capitalist terrorism (though sources do use that term) to cover US-sponsored atrocities, because that would be biased and inaccurate concerning a political and economic ideology; so also with "communist terrorism". Noetica^Tea? 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDE there is no need for citations in the lede at all, putting in CN tags on a lede which is already heavily cited is ridiculous. To say the title is not neutral is also pointless as there are more than enough sources which discuss communist terrorism. TFD please read Europe`s red terrorists, it goes into extensive detail about communist terrorism. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations are not needed if the statement is supported. Please, demonstrate (on the talk page) that this statement is supported by RS and it is uncontroversial.

In any event, I suggest to finish with MKuCR first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What is MKuCR? Noetica^Tea? 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes. See also Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the tags. It's not that complicated. If there is a good faith basis for the tags, that needs to be stated here explicitly so it can be dealt with. Please see my links above in this section, if you don't understand. And "I find the material repugnant" is not a valid basis for a POV tag. Mamalujo (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Your revert of last edits is a good justification of the tag. By the way, your revert has been supplemented with misleading edit summary: the edits you reverted did tell about state terror[1], although the order was different, to reflect the recent vision of the term "terrorism". You should either self-revert or restore the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article retains serious problems. I will restore the tags. TFD (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As there was no consensus for the changes by PS I have reverted back to the last stable version. @TFD if you do not clearly articulate what you think is not neutral in the article then the tag can quite justifiably be removed, the same @ Igny who restored the tag, did not go to talk, and when prompted said he will come back later. Read the tag, it is quite clear in saying that if no reasons are given then it ought be removed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Noetica`s tags

Noetica has just put a failed verification tag [2] on a source I added. I should like for him to explain were in policy it states a term needs to actually be in a source? The source states that the USSR (communist I believe) undertook acts of terrorism. How then does it fail verification? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I said "see discussion" in my edit summary; you should give me a moment to post here! I was stopped just now by an edit conflict, with you.

Now, I asked for a citation to be supplied for the very first statement by applying a tag; I would not have done so if the lead were clear of citations, so that the reader does not expect them there. In any case, the citation that has just been supplied in response does not support the statement that "communist terrorism is a term that has been used to describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace" (and the citation is opaque to readers anyway, being incorrectly formatted). See the location cited, where the phrase "communist terrorism" is not used. For that reason I have now applied a {failed verification} tag. I grant that a source need not use a term that is generally under discussion, in most cases; but here the claim allegedly supported by the source is directly about that term; yet the source neither uses it nor says that it is used. You could supply sources that use that term; but you do not do so here.

Noetica^Tea? 21:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring my question, now lets try again, which policy states an "exact term" needs be in source? The source states that the USSR (communist I believe) undertook acts of terrorism. How then does it fail verification? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have not read my careful answer carefully. I will not repeat it. Please try again. Noetica^Tea? 22:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have read it, you say the term does not appear in the source, so I ask again, which policy says an exact term needs be in a source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One cannot source the use of a term to an article that neither uses nor mentions the term. Shall we waste more editors' time by bringing this to a notice board? TFD (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that a reliable source which says the USSR carried out terrorist actions against it`s own people is not communist terrorism? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the source does not support your claim that "communist terrorism is a term that has been used to describe actions carried out by communist states against their populace". Please do not misrepresent sources and inject your own unsupported opinions into articles. TFD (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No. "Terrorism" and "state terror" is not the same, according to most sources, and the opinion TLAM advocates should be mentioned in the "controversy" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lede to reflect the article per WP:LEDE I hope this will resolve the supposed POV issues certain editors feel exists. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, is the article called "Various acts of violence by communists"? If anything, your rewrite made the article worse, unless you would propose to rename it. (Igny (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

Changed it to communist terrorism, it would be nice if you actually articulated what you think is POV about the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

RS say that CT was a propaganda term used by the Americans etc. in order to associate Communism and terrorism together in people's minds. Since this article is merely an attempt to associate Communism and terrorism together in people's minds, it is pushing a POV that went out with the hula hoop. There is no support that any serious writer today uses the term. Even the World Anti-Communist League, whose members chaired the "Museum of Communism" that you consider a rs for Communism, dropped this particular slogan decades ago. TFD (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC) [statement altered in italics to meet TLAM's concerns. TFD (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)]

And other RS sources do not make that claim that you "know" is the WP:TRUTH. Cheers - but this has been rehashed a great many times - and Wikipedia policies do not require that precise article titles be found in books in the first place. Collect (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have presented the sources many times. However you have never presented any sources to support your opinions. And the onus btw is on the person who wants to insert information to provide support. Also, you might want to read WP:NPOV, because your continual postings here and on other talk pages appear to ignore this policy. TFD (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there is but one source which says that communist terrorism was a propaganda term, and that is mentioned in the article. So per NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" your argument holds no water. I have never cited the World Anti-Communist League as a source, nor have I claimed it reliable, retract your obvious error. You say no serious writer uses this term, this is belied by the sources already in the article. Now apart from your opinions which have no weight here point out which views in reliable sources are not currently reflected in the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, several sources say that. But there are no sources that describe the term in any other way than as what the U.S., U.K., etc. called insurgencies in south-east Asia. You in fact have inserted a website run by a foundation set up by the WACL (or whatever their name was at the time). TFD (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your assertions are palpably errant again. Cheers - but as you do not have consensus behind you, you likely will not get consensus behing you with those arguments. Collect (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And for the last time, state which views are not reflected in the article per NPOV. And remove your statement that I have either cited or claimed the WACL is reliable or I will. If no actual reasons within policy are given for the POV tag within the next few days then it will be removed, per policy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not a right of veto. I see no reasonable concerns here that have not been addressed by TFD. In the situation when a discussion has stalled (despite numerous RfCs) we need to go to mediation. I will be able to participate in this mediation in December. Who else agrees?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the widespread proposing of mediation by yourself not the best next step forward. I personally see no intractable issues on which debate has been exhausted despite the repetitive nature of said debate over certain editorial positions. I agreed to mediation for Holodomor because (a) there are different issues involved there beyond a general polarization of positions and (b) it was proposed by an outside uninvolved party. I agreed despite knowing in advance there will be a massive rehashing of everything back to the creation of the article as a result. Until I see how things go at Holodomor, I will not be participating in or committing to other mediations which all touch upon, inter alia, portrayal of the Soviet legacy. In the meantime, I suggest we continue our dialog on content here and elsewhere. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And should TFD actually give a reasonable concern I will deal with them, he has however not done so, and neither have any other editor who keeps the POV tag on this article. I will not wait till december for mediation as I have seen no actual reason given as yet for this POV tag. I will give it one more day then remove it unless some concrete reasons are given. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, the only sources that actually define CT say it is a term used by European powers to describe Asian insurgencies. You have been unable to provide any other definition. Also, see WP:DISAMBIG. If this article is about the use of the term CT, then it becomes a coatrack to provide extensive material on the actions of groups labelled CTs. If on the other hand it is about a specific topic, then it is POV to group different topics with the same name into the article, for example by combining Stalin's reign of terror with the Weathermen, unless you can find a source that uses the term CT and categorizes both as CT and that there categorization is broadly accepted by the academic community. TFD (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again I ask you for a reason within policy to retain the POV tag you reverted into the article and you come up with your own personal opinions. The topic is obvious, see the title communist terrorism. Actions described as communist terrorism naturally belong in this article. I do not understand your need for a specific "term" as no policy exists which state a term is necessary for an article. Do not cite an essay to justify a POV tag. Follow the rules, if you believe that communist terrorism has only been used to describe Asian insurgency's then present the sources that they might be added to the article. However be aware that this contention is easily disproved, Europe's Red Terrorists being a prime example. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@Peters. Although I agree that mediation is not the best step forward, I have to concede that the best way (a respectful discussion when both sides want to persuade each other by providing reasonable arguments and reliable sources, and simultaneously are ready to accept the other's viewpoint is the oppinent's arguments appear to be stronger) is not working here (as well as during other similar discussions). In that situation, we definitely need in some mediator whose participation will prevent someone from ignoring the other's arguments instead of addressing them.
Re "I personally see no intractable issues on which debate has been exhausted despite the repetitive nature of said debate" The repetitive nature of these debates is a direct indication that the issue has become intractable. Thus, despite the fact that multiple reliable sources have been presented that confirm that the term "Communist terrorism" (and "terrorism" in general) is primarily seen as the acts of non-government organisations, the lede is being persistently rewritten to reflect the POV of few users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

@TLAM. The topic is not obvious, simply because "while these embellishments have identified and clarified important aspects of the terrorist enterprise, the concept remains unavoidably subjective, especially so in the case of anticolonial terror." (Public Choice (2006) 128:7–39) In other words, there is no consensus among scholars about a possibility to describe anti-colonial movements as terrorists. "Conor Cruise O’Brien, for example, refuses to attach the terrorist label to anyone resisting an authoritarian regime (Crenshaw, 1990, p. 13)."(ibid). Therefore, Vietnamese resistance to the authoritarian South Vietnamese regime was hardly terrorism. I will not reproduce numerous sources and quotes devoted specifically to Malaya, Vietnam, etc, because all of them have already been presented, and can be found in the talk page archives. Therefore, and taking into account that "the concept of terrorism is one of the most disputed terms in the social sciences."(Alexander Spencer, Questioning the Concept of ‘New Terrorism’ Peace Conflict & Development, Issue 8, January 2006), all materials about real or alleged acts of "Communist terrorism" must be supplemented with needed explanations and reservations, and the alternative opinions on these events must be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

PS, if majority of sources say the Viet gong or NVA carried out terrorist actions then it does not matter what labels O`Brien does or does not attach to said groups. Also this is your own personal opinion, or WP:OR I believe is the correct policy. I have looked in the archives, the only source presented which states CT was a propaganda term is already in the article. So you have one source whose author does not label certain groups as terrorist, so what? Read WP:WEIGHT if majority of sources say the VC carried out acts of terrorism, or the Malayan communists then that is what wiki has to say, this is policy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Firstly, bare number of sources are not sufficient to judge about the weight. Per WP:SOURCES the sources that have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments have more weight than non-academic sources or the sources that mention the issue just tangentially.
Secondly, recent sources are preferable as compared to the, e.g. Vietnam war sources.
Thirdly, the number of sources that describe them as terrorists should be compared not only with the number of sources that question this statement, but also with the sources that use different terminology: 2,210 sources use the term "Malayan emergency" to describe the anti-colonial war in Malaya, and only 631 source describe them as "Communist terrorims", so the WP:WEIGHT may work against your viewpoint in that case. In addition, additional sources that directly contest the concept of Malayan Communist terrorism have been mentioned during the discussion, so you probably haven't looked trough the archives carefully.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you daft? Naturally the Malayan emergency is called the Malayan emergency. That is hardly a shocker now is it. The question is how many of those sources call the actions of the communists terrorism. And yes, I have looked through the archives and no there is but one source which is already in the article which says CT was a propaganda term. If I missed one please repost it. I just looked at the first source in your Malayan emergency link, it has the phrase communist terrorism in it twice. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:if majority of sources say the Viet gong or NVA carried out terrorist actions That is your personal opinion unsupported by any RS. Of course it is true if you only try to search for "VC Communist terrorism", and quite possibly majority of the sources with your search criteria indeed say that VC carried terrorist actions. I say the majority of sources that claim that are invariably US war propaganda. In support of my claim here is a quote from Military Propaganda: Defense Department Films from World War II and Vietnam by Claudia Springer:

Avoiding enemy images was consistent with the Administration's mystification of enemy identity. U.S. officials alternately cited the Russians, Chinese, North Vietnamese, and Viet Cong (their label for the National Liberation Front) as the enemy, but ultimately they relied on the term "Communist" with all its negative associations already embedded in the public imagination.

...paints a picture of aggressive, unscrupulous Communists receiving orders from China and North Vietnam to subjugate the people of Southeast Asia through random terrorist acts. In keeping with Washington's rhetoric, the methods, not the motives, of the enemy are attacked.

Looks familiar? (Igny (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

From one source you extrapolate that majority of sources which say the VC used terrorism are US war propaganda? And what of books written after the war? Interesting, however it is not difficult to refute that "viet cong terrorism" 574 hits G Books"viet cong terrorist" 427 hits G Books The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM, it is not up to me to provide a source, but up to you. Please provide a source explaining the topic you think this article should be about. I am looking forward to a source that explains how the Malayan insurgency and the Viet Cong and the Weathermen are all connected. I love conspiracy theories and look forward to your reply (eagarly, with bated breath and extreme enthusiam.} TFD (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The topic of the article is in the name the Malayan communists, the VC and all non state groups are connected by the same thing, communist ideology. As you have again failed to respond to my questions I see no further point in dialog with you, your a waste of bandwidth. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@TFD. I'd suggest you pick up just about any history book dealing with communism. Communism was an international movement, connected and coordinated. It is not called a conspiracy theory, it is an historical factual political conspiring. Of course, the degree of connection, cooperation, control etc. varied according to time and circumstances, but that the communist movement was concerted is a fact. Mamalujo (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mamalujo. I see that the article and the lede has evolved to the right direction during last days. Although I do not think that all POV issues have been resolved, I have a hope that they will be probably resolved in close future. Therefore, I do not object against removal of the POV tag by you. However, if remaining POV issues will not be resolved during the reasonable time, I'll restore the tag.

Re "Communism was an international movement, connected and coordinated." That is both right and wrong. During certain periods of history it was a connected and coordinated movement. However, that was not the case for post WWII period. Thus, recent studies demonstrated that Communist led anti-colonial uprising in Malaya was not the part of a global Communist conspiracy, but it was an initiative of the local Communist party. Similarly, according to majority views, Viet cong movement was primarily a nationalist movement, and Ho was primarily a nationalist, who tried to use the Soviet support to achieve his own goals. Another example is Cambodia: the actions of Khmer Rouge were severely condemned by the Communist Soviet Union, and were defeated by Communist Vietnam, whereas the democratic US supported Pol Pot (at least, politically). The Sino-Soviet split, or Sino-Vietnamese war were even more striking examples of the absence of any global coordination in the Communist world.

And one more point. The lede needs to be fixed, because it is logically inconsistent. It currently states:

"Communist terrorism are actions carried out by groups which adhere to a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideology which have been described as terrorism. State actions carried out by the Soviet Union[1][2], the People's Republic of China[2], North Korea[3] and the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia[4] have all been described as terrorism. Non state communist groups such as the Red Brigades, Front Line and the Red Army Faction[5] have also engaged in acts of terrorism in what is known as Propaganda by the deed[6]. These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system."

However, under the "groups which adhere to a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideology" we obviously mean "the Red Brigades, Front Line and the Red Army Faction" and other left-wing terrorist groups, because the "states" can hardly be considered as "groups". I suggest to switch these pieces of text. In addition, since no generally accepted definition of terrorism (and Communist terrorism) currently exists, it is incorrect to start the lede with something resembling a general definition. In other words, I suggest the following changes:

Communist terrorism is the term that have been used to describe some actions carried out by left-wing terrorist which adhere to a Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideology, including the Red Brigades, Front Line and the Red Army Faction have also engaged in acts of terrorism in what is known as Propaganda by the deed. This term had also been applied to describe Communist-led anti-colonial or revolutionary movements in Malaysia, Vietnam and some other countries. State actions carried out by the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, North Korea and the actions of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia have all been described as terrorism by some authors. "

The last sentence of the lede ("These groups hope that through these actions they will inspire the masses to rise up and overthrow the existing political and economic system.") is redundant, because different opinia exist on that account. For instance, many author argue that most terrorist groups have no clearly articulated political strategy.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose your changes based on the fact that a great deal of what you have written is wrong. "most terrorist groups have no clearly articulated political strategy" This is true for most right wing or national terrorists, not so for Marxist groups who have always had a manifesto. The VC were not an anti colonial insurgency they fought against their own people. The Malayan communists were a minority group of Chinese with no backing from the locals, that is not an insurgency. There is no need to have left wing terrorism in there at all, the article is about communist not left wing. Also I do not think "Term" is appropriate given the drama it has caused, the article is about terrorism committed by communist groups or states it is not about a "Term". The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Re "not so for Marxist groups who have always had a manifesto" Do you know the difference between the "strategy" and "manifesto"? I can explain you on the elementary level. "I want an ice cream!!!!" - this is a manifesto. "(i) To get an ice cream, I need to go and buy it. (ii)To buy it I need some money. (iii) To get money I have to ask my dad. Therefore, my steps should be "iii", then "ii", then "i"" - that is strategy. The sources available for me demonstrate that many terrorist groups had just manifesto, but they had no strategy.

Re "The Malayan communists were a minority group of Chinese with no backing from the locals, that is not an insurgency." You will be surprised to learn that significant part of Malayan population were ethnic Chinese. And, before making such weird statement about Malayan emergency you should at least read the main article on this subject.

Re "There is no need to have left wing terrorism in there at all, the article is about communist not left wing." All Communists are left-wing (although the reverse is incorrect), so the reference to some more general category is definitely needed. However, if you want to remove any mention of such left-wing terrorist groups as Red Brigades, we can discuss it.

Re "The VC were not an anti colonial insurgency they fought against their own people." They fought against one of the worst authoritarian regimes in Vietnamese history, against the regime that murdered peoples. In any event, you definitely need to read the Vietnam war article. Try to edit that article first, and then, if your edits will be supported, we can speak about this article. WP must be self-consistent.

Re "the article is about terrorism committed by communist groups or states it is not about a "Term"." "What is terrorism?" No consensus exists among scholars about that. Therefore, despite the fact that that seems self-evident for you, the term "terrorism" is deeply subjective. We cannot accept your style as totally unencyclopaedic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And no, Red Brigades are a communist terrorist group, the source in the article explicitly states this. You do not fight an insurgency against your own people, you fight a revolution. But that is beside the point, all sources say the VC carried out terrorist attacks, do you perhaps have one which says they did not? Yes no consensus exists on terrorism, however if a reliable source calls an act terrorism then there is no issue with it being in this article. I am of the opinion you ought create a section for this discussion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Some sources call them Communist, but more sources call them "left-wing" (as opposed to the official parliamentary Communist party of Italy).

Not against "own people", but against authoritarian Diem's regime.

Yes, I do. Many sources describe VC as partisans that sometimes resorted to terrorist acts, but who were not terrorists. Some of those sources have been already quoted by me during the talk page discussion.

Yes, a agree that that should be in the article. However, that should be in a special section, not in the lede, and it should not be presented as universally supported viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. re your last revert, let me explain that I do not think that the POV issues have been fully resolved. I just hope that we are probably approaching a consensus, so there is no need in immediate restoration of the tag. That position is just a demonstration of my good faith, and I expect some steps to be taken by you and others in a responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lede

@PS Regarding your proposed changes above, regarding the Malayan and VC. Will this compromise suit? Actions taken by the Malayan National Liberation Army and the Viet Cong have been described as terrorism but it is disputed if such actions during an insurgency can in fact be deemed terrorism(your refs here) You said you have sources which dispute the terrorism v insurgency thing? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight in Vietnam section

I am leaving all the arguments against inclusion of this section into this article aside for now. The current presentation of the material in this section however gives undue weight to US war propaganda. (Igny (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

Sources which state that the sources used in that section are in fact US war propaganda please. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Here it is for starters. (Igny (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

Lets try again, were are your sources which state the sources used in this article are US war propaganda? And I believe we discussed that particular source before? A polemic from 1973? From an anti war activist? Please get a decent source for once. All the sources used in the Vietnam section are quite modern texts, do try and get with the times. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You asked for a source, I provided one. Do you have a more decent counter-argument than calling Chmosky an anti-war activist, which he indisputably is? (Igny (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

And look what the publisher had to say Counter-Revolutionary Violence – Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course as the publisher did not in fact publish it what you have there is a very old self published heap of crap. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What you found was an attempt to censor a book. Next time, try better and find a review of the book by a scholar, such as this, rather than opinion of a politically motivated publisher. (Igny (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

And which scholar wrote that amusing tale of conspiracy? There is no name there that I can see. I also find it ironic that you tag section for undue and try to use a selfpublished polemic from 40 odd years ago as a source :o) perhaps you ought reread undue? I shall remove your WP:POINTY tag on the morrow, your a joker. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the name [[3] That is a self published site, get a real one. And preferably not a fanboy who worships chomsky lmfaoThe Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

TLAM, you need reliable sources that categorize the North Vietnamese as CTs otherwise you are just regurgitating State Department propaganda abandoned in the 1960s. By the way, the year is now 2011, the war is over Vietnam is our friend and the old propaganda has been replaced. TFD (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says what

While I am not a fan of thesis-style referencing, readability is fairly awful in places with every other sentence starting with "According to XYZ,...statement" that "Statement (XYZ)" or "Statement (XYZ,year)" if more than one author's work is referenced might improve the flow. And there is no consistency between content added and cited versus content which is added and actively attributed to an individual.

Just thinking out loud and offering up for comment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction is now in effect

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, and after a discussion at WP:AE I am placing this article under 1RR. No editor may revert this article more than once in any 24-hour period. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. Violations of the 1RR may be reported at either WP:AN3 or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor references

Article looks heavily biased to me (oh well, it's part of politics section), but even worse is the lack of proper references. Currently they do not conform to Wikipedia:Citing_sources — if you use this sort of short references, then all of them should be fully presented in bibliography, which is not the case right now. Kjhasd (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Crass case of source distortion

I am going to remove the following sentence, which contains a crass instance of source distortion:

Other acts described examples of Soviet state-sponsored terrorism include the deaths of an estimated one million World War II prisoners of war, who were used as slave labor and frequently worked to death [footnote: "Moeller page 33"] and attacks on the Catholic Church in Eastern Europe.[footnote: "Zugger page 444"]

This is grotesquely misquoted. What Moeller actually says on the page cited (in the context of a discussion criticizing how early West German politicians relativized German Nazi crimes by comparing them with Soviet crimes) is this:

West German politicians compared Jewish victims of National Socialism with victims of Communism in many other ways […] The ubiquitous term "millions" joined together victims of many sorts. "Six million disappeared" was the count not only of Jewish victims of Nazi terrorism but also of expellees—the victims of Communist terrorism—and contemporary estimates placed the number of POWs who had died in Soviet captivity at well over a million.

So, first all, Moeller isn't calling anything "Communist terrorism" himself; he is summarizing things that German politicians in the 1950s were saying. He isn't saying anything at all about "slave labor" and being "worked to death". He is also not putting the number of dead POWs at one million; he is merely saying that those were contemporary estimates. Most importantly, he isn't identifying the POWs with whatever was meant by "victims of Communist terrorism". He is enumerating several distinct cases, linked only by the fact that they were things that contemporary German politicians described as having affected millions, including the German expellees and the POWs. It is syntctically not quite clear whether the phrase "victims of Communist terrorism" is meant as referring back to the expellees or to yet another different case, but what it most definitely doesn't refer to is the following phrase dealing with the POWs.

The second footnote still needs scrutiny. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

HK 1967 riots

nuffin regarding the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist riots? it is also kind of terrorism, left wing, communist, terrorism! －yhynerson1 (talk, contribs) 14:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Did Lenin like terrorism or not?

In the last paragraph, the very first sentence, it says Lenin denounced terrorism and also thought it was a useful tool. How was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnadeus (talk • contribs) 08:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Viet Cong

WP:LABELsays only call something terrorism if it is widely called terrorism. Viet Cong was not widely called terrorism. Only but the US Government. Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of terrorism. See hereApollo The Logician (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:LABEL refers only to what is said in Wikipedia's own voice, and therefore has no bearing on the scope of an article like this. In fact, virtually every factual claim in the "Vietnam" section is specifically attributed to a named source—and not one of those sources is the U.S. government. Vo, Pike, Valentino, Pedahzur, and Dommen all satisfy WP:RS, and several are renowned for their expertise on Indochina; in particular, Pike was one of the world's leading authorities on the VC. It is rather telling that you deleted the "Vietnam" section while leaving the much more dubious "Cambodia" section—which consists of nothing beyond a single sentence labeling the Cambodian genocide "an act of terrorism," based on one weak source—intact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It refers to labels as statements of facts. Viet Cong is being called terrorist. Stop POV pushing.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The article needs to be re-written. The term "Communist terrorist" was a term used to referred to Communist insurgencies during the Cold War. Certainly terrorism as normally understood was one of the tactics used, but the term Communist terrorism was broader so that even conventional warfare was considered terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)""

No, plenty of other people victimized by the Viet Cong and their backers in Hanoi feel the same way. especially Vietnamese in the south who were attacked by them ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dosskitty, Josealejandro9735.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 21 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Josealejandro9735.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article

This article is a real propaganda page. There is nothing more to say. -- Avatar9n - 23 January 2012, 19:17 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the objectivity on this article. It shows also because of the Revert Ban. I'd like to propose a change, as adviced in the warning message when editing: The picture top right says 'FARC terrorists Colombia'. I think this is too easy. The FARC is in a war and a non-acknoledged guerrilla-army. Therefore I propose changing 'terrorists' into 'guerillas'. WithDefiance (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

WithDefiance: I have removed the image. We do not describe FARC as a terrorist group in Wikipedia voice (MOS:TERRORIST). --MarioGom (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is not objective due to the nature of its subject. There are many different actions that right-wing observers would consider terrorism, from collectivisation to bombing attacks. To put all of them in one article serves no purpose except to slander the communist ideology. Lucydesu (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Cambodia

I don't think one opinion from one historian is a good reason to add the Cambodian genocide to this article. Lucydesu (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

State department reliability

The U.S. government, including the department of State, has a history of making false accusations against communist movements and spreading propaganda. I don't think we can consider what they say a reliable source for this article. Lucydesu (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Indonesian rebellion not terrorism?

I believe that under most definitions of terrorism the communist rebellion in Indonesia would not be considered an act of terrorism, but rather an insurgency, and as such it does not belong in this article. Lucydesu (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)