Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing 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 keep‎. While POV-forking can be a legitimate concern with such a topic, there is clear consensus here that this is a valid spinoff about a subtopic of the broader article on political terrorism, and as such there is no strong argument to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of Political terrorism. Any content that isn't irredeemably biased belongs there along with all other political terrorism material. This page should be deleted and set to redirect to Political terrorism. This has been previously discussed at AfD and the consensus was overwhelmingly for a delete. AlanS^talk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Terrorism. AlanS^talk 08:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree that the nature of this article begins as a POV fork. By the same logic, if we delete this or merge it to Political terrorism, should we also try to do the same with Right-wing terrorism? --TheLonelyPather (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wholeheartedly agree that Right-wing terrorism should be listed also. I listed this because it was brought up at the NPOV Noticeboard. I've just spent half an hour leaving notices in the talk pages of everyone that was involved in the original discussion so my hands are feeling a bit sore now. You keen on listing Right-wing terrorism? AlanS^talk 09:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Right-wing terrorism also previously has an AfD with exactly the same results as the previous AfD here (strong consensus for delete). AlanS^talk 09:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLonelyPather, I've listed Right-wing terrorism also now. AlanS^talk 09:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AlanS! Sorry for not getting back earlier. Yes, you have my support for listing Right-wing terrorism. TheLonelyPather (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a fork of political terrorism. As pointed out in Terrorism#Types, it is one type of political terrorism. The article is referenced to reliable sources that define the topic, and it is used as a category by reliable sources.

If all the political terrorism articles (there are seven) were merged into Terrorism, the length of that article would require new articles be created for them.

Left wing terrorism is distinguished from other types of political terrorism not only by its objectives, but also the its organization, types of targets chosen and other factors.

TFD (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, but the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective, a point of view. For example if you're in the United States most of the population might refer to the Republicans as "right-wing" and the Democrats as "left-wing", whereas a lot of the rest of the world (the other 7.5 billion of us) would probably say that both US parties are very definitely hard-right. It's all a matter of perspective. So when you start calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing", whether you like it or not you're taking a perspective. There is no objective position on this. AlanS^talk 15:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the case of left-wing terrorism, scholars do not consider it to be a matter of perspective at all: left-wing terrorism is typically defined as terrorism with the specific aim of overthrowing capitalism. Action Directe, Baader-Meinhof, etc. You could also list various nationalist movements that intend to overthrow a colonialist/imperialist/etc government with socialist/communist rule, like the Official Irish Republican Army or the FLQ, though these mostly tend to be discussed primarily as nationalist groups. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terrorism studies, left wing terrorist refers specifically to revolutionary socialist or communist groups who intend to use terrorism in order to start a revolution. That is clearly explained in the article and its many sources. It's unfortunate that terrorism scholars use concepts that some Americans might find confusing, but that's not a criterion for deletion.

Americans indeed use the terms left and right as slurs on their opponents. They also call each other socialists and fascists. It doesn't mean that those terms have no meaning. TFD (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like a fine WP:SPINOFF given content length of related articles, does not appear to be a POVFORK. If you do notice NPOV issues like UNDUE weight, it's worth bringing them up in the article talk page. Note previous AFD is more than 15 years old. —siro χ o 10:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons elaborated above. I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining NPOV given the level of controversy both around xxx-wing and "terrorism," but the controversies should be discussed in the article rather than glossed over. Leifern (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i think this is a well-reasoned AfD proposal, and, as was said in the previous AfD proposal's comments:
The problem isn't the content per se, but that the topical description begs the question. The editors should consider restructuring things and either folding it into other articles on terrorism or creating a new one around "political pretexts for terrorism" or some such title. While I appreciate the effort of creating balance, I don't think it'll work here.
commie (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Right-wing terrorism also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Keep Meets all criteria for a separate article. Addressing the AFD rationale, this is a "sub article" (rather than a POV fork) on a topic that is so huge that it needs sub-articles. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Right-wing terrorism, merge them back into Political terrorism. If Political terrorism needs to be split, split it by continent or country or some other geographic basis, not by left-right. The result of this current split is inevitably to remove context: to show terror acts by each side of the left-right spectrum independent of what the other might be doing. Also: there is a great deal of political terrorism where it may be very difficult to categorize it objectively as left/right, especially where it remains controversial exactly who were the perpetrators (the assassination of Malcolm X being a clear example of this). And what about times when those who might best be characterized as centrists used terror tactics (I'm thinking of the consolidation of the royal regime of Carol II in Romania in the late 1930s. And is it really still "leftist" terrorism when you had the factional fighting of the last months of the rule of the Committee of Public Safety in the French revolution, especially when René Hébert was executed? - Jmabel | Talk 15:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs some work, but there is much more worth keeping than when discussed in 2006. This is a fairly widely discussed concept, and the article could and should include discussion of how the term is used - what acts are described as left-wing terrorism, and by whom? We shouldn't be shy of having articles on controversial or contested concepts, so long as there is appropriate context. Warofdreams talk 20:54, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as this is focused on the broader aspect of the term with a few well-agreed on examples from academic sources, this is a reasonable article alongside the "right-wing terrorism" article. There's a large number of Google Scholar hits so it is a clearly notable term within academics. Now, whether this should be merged into Political terrorism is another story, which is a fair option, but that should be discussed separately. --Masem (t) 13:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure what bias the nominator is implying. I'm also concerned by the nom's comment that the problem with calling things "left-wing" or "right-wing" is very much issue of perspective. We're not talking about whether or not offering free school lunch or expanding Medicare is left- or right-wing. We're talking about whether Marxist-Leninist terrorists are left wing. This is only a matter of perspective if you're a) further left than Marxist-Leninists, an already quite far left position, or b) simply ignoring how "left-wing terrorism" is defined by academic sources. -- asilvering (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering do most of wiki's editors who reside in the US get that? Fully a third of the population in the the US considers Bernie Sanders and AOC to be communists when by what you and I consider to be objective standards it's questionable if they even rate as socialists. This is the same population that are mostly editing these articles. AlanS^talk 00:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AlanS so what you're saying is, because some Americans aren't experts on a topic, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it? I don't see how this makes any sense. When we edit Wikipedia we're supposed to write using what reliable sources say about a topic, not what a clueless minority thinks or doesn't think about a topic. -- asilvering (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering I can find sources from the US, which consensus says are reliable sources, which refer to Bernie Sanders as a communist. When everything and anything can be either left-wing or right-wing given the POV that someone is willing to push we can end up with messes. I think it best to have an article about political terrorism and remove any POV forking. AlanS^talk 11:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source that describes Sanders as a communist, because I have not seen any. TFD (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times has referred to him as a Communist here. WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources lists The Washington Times as a marginally reliable source for politics and science. Might not be the best source but is still listed as a reliable source. I didn't even search that hard. I hope I've highlighted the problem. AlanS^talk 13:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an opinion piece in a paper listed as "marginally reliable". That does not highlight the problem with consensus or reliable sources. Also, again, we are talking about left-wing terrorism here, not whether it's communist to eliminate private health insurance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"marginally reliable" is still reliable and the page we're currently discussing is a page to do with politics which the Washington Times has numerous coverage on. There can be issues with reliable sources and the way in which people selectively look for them in order to suit their POV. I selectively looked for one that called Bernie Sanders a communist and I found it and I don't hold that POV. AlanS^talk 00:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the publication, it fails rs because of Wikipedia:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

The editorial is by Tim Scott, former governor of Wisconsin.

Not every fact claimed by every politician in an editorial is true. Some politicians for example claim global warming is real, others say it isn't. They can't all be right. And reliability of course means that we can assume their statements are correct. TFD (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says something about the rest of the material for the whole of the publication (opinion piece or not) if they publish rubbish like that. AlanS^talk 04:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that probably accounts for why they're listed as "marginally reliable". -- asilvering (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There can be no doubt that the subject is notable. I don't see any point in merging it as it's a notable subject in its own right. IIt needs to be sourced on multiple clearly reliable sources. Ignorance of some editors is never a reason to delete an article. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a very clearly defined subtopic that shouldn't be merged. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SPINOFF. Like the right-wing article, this does not appear to be a POVFORK. The argument that you can't define left- and right-wing would mean TNTing a huge swatch of articles because, like it or not, that split is ubiquitous in modern sources and has been for roughly two centuries. The argument that you can't always discern the motive in a left-right fashin is a superb reason for keeping the two articles as spinoffs from Political terrorism. Most of the other valid arguments are opportunities to improve this article, Political terrorism, or Terrorism itself, not for deleting the article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not see any policy based reasons for deletion for the two articles on left and right wing terrorism. The topics' notability is established by the academic sourcing. Some of the delete voters seem to think that the articles' content is based on what editors consider to be left or right wing. But the sources say the perpetrators' objective must be establishing a socialist/communist state or a fascist/rw authoritarian state respectively. The literature explains how ideology determines the types of participants, their choice of targets and other features. While the terms left, right and terrorism may be ambiguous, it is an etymological fallacy to assume that means terms using those words must also be ambiguous. TFD (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.