Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (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. NW (Talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist genocide

AfDs for this article:
Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other editor edit conflict prevented production of normal tagging for AfD discussion. POV of this article is irreparably flawed. There is no improvement in article since closure of last AfD (talk page listed previous AfD as being in August, not 1 week ago). Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and dispute this AfD process. This nomination is against WP:BEFORE and I believe is an attempt to forum shop. It is against WP:BEFORE because the article is currently under a request for move, which should be closed by an admin any time now (7 days after original posting) - with 11 editors in favour of moving, and two against. (the nominator of this AfD "conditionally" for, although that may be a position borne out of sarcasm). It's forum shopping, as an RfC was called earlier today by one of the other opposed editors, with as yet no impact on the consensus, and not even that has been allowed to run its course. A lot of work has been done to get agreement on how to move forward, and the title change is the first step.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second this, per the above. Pure forum shopping, and not constructive. --Anderssl (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but a WP:SOAPBOX for anti-communist rhetoric, incorporating WP:EXTREMIST views. It should be Deleted and salted. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invite others to take a look at talk:Communist genocide#Requested move II and the discussion to re-write the article based on good RS, removing the contentious word genocide, and the ambiguous grammar of "communist". This discussion is based on how to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and a consensus has emerged. (as for salting, another editor opposed to the article's existence/move has unilaterally salted the destination article title while discussion was ongoing.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found more evidence of forum shopping and canvassing by Simonm223 (talk · contribs). In addition to holding this AfD just as consensus on how to improve the article had formed (and while there was an RfM and RfC still open) he has also opened a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard calling for speedy deletion and mentioning this AfD. He did not notify the Communist Genocide talk page of his discussions there. Seriously, is this not all rather against policy?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The forum shopping charge is baseless -- there is currently an ArbCom case surrounding off-Wiki canvassing and other policy violations on a number of articles, including the last AfD for this article. As demonstrated on the evidence page, the previous AfD was probably illegitimate; just looking at the numbers it is quite likely that without this orchestration by a "cabal," the previous vote would have been "delete." csloat (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - are you arguing that it is baseless because some other people were canvassing in a different AfD? That doesn't make sense. As for the article in its previous state at the time of that AfD - I would have voted for delete as well, all too happily (and the e-mail list helps to make sense of the number of keeps, which surprised me too). However, I am arguing "keep" now because we have changed the focus of the article from "Those damn Commie bastards" to "What analysts say about the connection between ideology and mass killings" (while trying to bat away the POV warriors) and are trying to reflect the RS that is there - RS that had not been brought up until recently. If you read the talkpage, you'll see that those who are doing the re-write are generally those who were opposed to the article's old content rather strongly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused about the charge of forum shopping as Simon223 corrected me below. Sorry about that. The problem with this article is that the changed focus leaves nothing but a POV SYNTH essay - stringing together three obscure sources (at least one writing outside of their area of expertise) to make a claim that we then support with numerous examples of genocidal actions that are not connected to the discussion among the three sources (who actually aren't talking to each other either). Now, if there was a focus of academic discussion on the question of "is Communism ideologically connected to mass killings?" among more sources who actually talked to each other, even debated this topic at conferences, etc) that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. After months of trying, the best people have been able to come up with is three sources who aren't even talking to each other, and are not treating the question as an external question that is academically debated anywhere -- hell there is more academic focus on the question of whether democracies cause war and yet we don't have Warfare under democratic regimes. If we were to remove all OR from this article there would be those three quotations left and nothing else, and even with that those quotes' connection to each other (and to a verifiable scholarly discussion) is tenuous at best. csloat (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The supposed "forum shopping" in question was mentioning the AfD on two relevant noticeboards; the NPoV one (as this article, even in it's current form is a big PoV violation) andthe Fringe board, as another editor suggested on the talk page that I take up my WP:EXTREMISM concerns regarding a source used in the article when I decided to post the AfD (since removed) there. I am sorry but I don't see listing an article on two noticeboards, neither of which are politically oriented, as being "forum shopping" looking at WP:CANVAS I don't believe I acted incorrectly. Simonm223 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is a rather strong form of forum shopping because there was an RfC and the RfM that both showed that people wanted to re-write the article. Posting messages to noticeboards about an AfD would be fine, if done neutrally - such as "There is an AfD regarding Communist genocide." - without any attempt to push it one way or the other. However, your post to NPOV noticeboard reads "The PoV of this article is irreperable. I am sure that if a Genocides perpetrated by Democratic States page were created it'd probably get speedily deleted as such it has been nominated for AfD. The whole article is one big WP:SOAPBOX for WP:EXTREMIST anti-communist positions." This is just the same as "Come and vote to delete this article. It's really bad!" i.e. campaigning. Your post to WP:FRINGE noticeboard is better, although your bald statement "it involves WP:EXTREMEIST" is curious, as you have been one of the people obstructing the attempt to get rid of WP:extremeist language in the article - i.e. the removal of the word genocide from the title. ("Communist" and "mass killing" are not WP:Extremist.). Extremist language in any case is not grounds for deletion, but for changing. You also did not leave any courtesy notices on the talkpage or here about your notifications.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. Whenever one nominates an article for Afd it's because they have an opinion about it. And citing the fact that people are willing to improve an article that exists as a reason deleting it is "forum shopping" is also silly - if we have to keep the article we might as well improve it but that doesn't mean I think it should be kept. csloat (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been moved to Mass killings under Communist regimes Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - (editconflict) I can't understand how this had to come for a second discussion. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, upon learning of the canvassing in the previous AfD, I know understand what happened here. This article only exists because of a Cabal's actions. If it is not deleted, I think that this might be an excellent first article for WP:PSRP to take a look at. (The formation of the group was inspired by my thoughts that the articles might be savable, which changed upon learning of the cabal action.) Irbisgreif (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. That was a different AfD. As far as I know, there has been no canvassing to "keep" this time; and the article is vastly different from what it was. It's regrettable that a cabal interfered (and made the article worse), but I believe we've got the POV people under control now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's been nothing of the sort this time, I'm not saying there is. I simply get annoyed at the idea of a cabal like that getting what they want. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and dispute this AfD process. as well. This article is factual, but the nominators seem to be suffering from Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT Keep it for now, and let's have more debate before we delete this content. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Entirely disinterested in result 01:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Close this process early and unresolved The article is tripe. However, the article deserves at least 14 days, if not 30 days, after the move, to allow for rebuilding out of the located academic sources that explicitly theorise a link between Communist thought and mass killing. The purpose of the move was to rebuild the article on the basis of RS's theories, instead of on SYN/OR. Revisit an AFD after 14-30 days. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strike that...let's give it some time...at least this AfD attracted attention to trigger some re-write-efforts. On my watchlist now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started a re-write - removing genocide from the centre of the article, as that was one of the key SYNTH issues. I have also taken out a lot of the basic anti-communist stuff, and phrased the lede to indicate that it is certain specific events that have attracted academic interest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination was a bit premature as editors should have a chance to fix the newly renamed entry. However, it looks rather grim, especially under the new supposedly more neutral title. If there is a notable concept linking communist political ideology to genocide it certainly is not known as "mass killings under Communist regimes". How about "mass killings under ..." feudal monarchies or theocracy or republican regimes or etc. If it were acceptable here to structure entries like this we'd have over 30 million instead of 3 million. We can't just start listing mass killings that were sponsored by regimes identified as communist and pretend like it is meaningful. Is it factual, sure, but part of what WP:V and WP:N give us is a standard by which to judge concepts as meaningful. We assume to some extent that if something is covered by reliable sources then it is meaningful and therefore fodder for an encyclopedia. Using sources to actually show that "Communist genocide" is a meaningful concept (if that is possible) would have been the right way to go about this.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and delete as WP:SYN if no serious effort to rewrite is being undertaken. "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is not a term that is commonly being used (8 hits on Google, none at Google books), so it cannot "refer" to anything (as the article's first sentence asserts). The quote containing the assertion that Friedrich Engels was talking about "racial trash" (which he apparently never did), taken from a book that is characterized as "controversial" by its own publisher, must either be removed or put into context. The most important step is to ascertain whether there is any scholarly term for what the article calls "Mass killings under Communist regimes" or not.  Cs32en  17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be a synthesis, and the subject itself doesn't appear notable. These regimes have little in common, so grouping them like this is pure bias. I'm British, and sad to say we used to be pretty good at genocide. Verbal chat 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verbal, you're not the only one, but you appear to have overlooked the recent talkpage discussion on how to get rid of the WP:SYNTH. I agree that "communist genocide" was a POV synthesis, which is why I and others have moved to get rid of genocide and the use of "communist" as a way to blame communism in general, and have co-operated in trying to find decent RS. Here is a starting list (aka what we could find on google books) of RS that specifically link the three regimes (USSR, PRC and Dem. Kampuchea) as special cases worthy of analysis. While not all of them agree with the proposition that a specific kind of ideological zeal was a key element (rather than dressing on straightforward repression), they all agree it's a pertinent question.
Basing the article on these sources means that (a) the article is not a random collection of anti-communist diatribes and (b) has an organising principle based on RS: these killings as an object of historical analysis. It means that the article has a narrower, less grandiose focus, which will be easier to keep clear of OR SYNTH and POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's just go through these sources one by one, shall we?

  • Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801472733.
Does not argue for this category nor does he discuss a preexisting academic debate over "communist mass killings." He uses the title but does not define them nor indicate how a mass killing differs from other mass killings by being "communist." In fact, one of your own sources, the conference paper you link, admits as much -- it doesn't disagree with Valentino as you assert, and it doesn't treat "communist mass killing" as an idea being debated in scholarship -- quite the opposite, in fact: it takes Valentino to task for using a category ("communist" mass killing) that is inconsistent with his own arguments and that therefore invalidates his conclusion. The authors of this paper never study "communist mass killing" and they do not debate the question of whether such a thing exists; they are taking Valentino to task for sloppy scholarship, and his use of that category is one example of how he is sloppy. This is no more notable or encyclopedic than any other scholarly errors a random scholar makes.
I don't see any evidence that Kiernan studies a category of mass killings referred to as "communist mass killings." You appear to be claiming that because he mentions several examples cited in the article he is endorsing the concept? That begs the very question that remains to be proved.
See above, this is the source you claim argues with Valentino and treats his category as legit but in fact they dismiss his category summarily and they don't bother to discuss it; they simply use it as an example of his poor scholarship.
I don't understand this one. The page you link to discusses the "four main motives" for "mass political murder" but never mentions communist mass murder. The motives have nothing to do with communism in fact -- convenience, revenge, fear of pollution, and we never get the fourth in the preview you link. Nothing about "communist mass killing" here.
  • Gray, John (1990). "Totalitarianism, reform and civil society". in Ellen Frankel Paul. Totalitarianism at the crossroads. Transaction Publisher.
I don't see any evidence that Gray argues for a theory of "communist mass killing," though all we have is the one quote in the article from a third party. But what we really need here is not just one source that argues thus but some kind of evidence that this is part of an ongoing scholarly debate on a particular issue or topic. That simply is not the case here. You cite these articles as proof that this is not just "a random collection of anti-communist diatribes" but that is not what the issue is. It's not that they are diatribes; it's that there is no group of academics actually studying this concept in a visible way. csloat (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, but that doesn't address my point in support of deletion, hence I still think the article should be deleted. Remove the communism label and include all mass killings/genocides, etc, and I might change my mind. Or just delete, per all good arguments here. Verbal chat 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I understand you correctly, you would only be happy with a SYNTH article that attempted to find common ground in all mass killings? Surely not. The whole point is that there is RS highlighting as qualitatively significant specific phenomena and their relationship not with communism per se, but a specific type of communist utopian radicalism, as the lede says. I agree that even the new title isn't perfect, but this AfD isn't helping people find a way of moving forward with genuine reflection. It was called hours before the RfM was procedurally due to be closed (an attempt to close it earlier due to clear consensus was spiked by one of the other few opponents to the move), at which point the re-write was due to begin. Consensus already was to move away from Communist genocide as POV - and yet half the delete votes are based on a reaction to that old title. The AfD looks like stalemate; I'd be far happier with a consensus to keep for the moment.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, you don't get me correctly. I'm glad you admit this article is violating SYNTH though. Still should be deleted. If you want to write a different article, write that different article - userfication is a possibility. But this article should go. Verbal chat 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a right of reply - I've not admitted SYNTH at all in how we are trying to re-write the article, quite the opposite; I've no idea what your motivations are for saying that I have. I've honestly tried to address your concerns about the RS I provided above. However, it's also your right not to explain your opinion further.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I don't understand people who first seem to claim that there were no Communist genocides, and now seem to claim that there were no Communist mass killings. More than 100 million people were killed, there's a definite pattern, claimed in good academic sources, e.g. "The Black Book of Communism." If reknowned French historians can write on this - why can't Wikipedia? Smallbones (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't that these things didn't happen. They did, and they each get their own article. However, they are grouped here together for one reason, to try and glue communism and genocide together as concepts, the POV that this pushes is both obvious and ridiculous. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it dropped the "Communist" bit, and was a collection of notable mass killings/genocides/whatever that would be fine with me (be they communist, democratic, capitalist, third world, Martian,...). It's the synthesis which is the problem, as Irbisgreif says. Verbal chat 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks are completely misunderstanding WP:NPOV here. Some extracts from the policy:
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
... Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV".
The folks above say that the article is POV. But it is not the editors' POV. The Black Book of Communism has the POV you are complaining about, the Lost Literature of Socialism has a very similar POV, even the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe seems to have a similar POV (from the NY Times [1] " a resolution passed in July by the parliamentary assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe equated Stalin with Hitler for regimes that “brought about genocide, violations of human rights and freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”") These POVs are from significant scholars and organizations. They MUST be included in Wikipedia articles if we are to write about Communism, about Genocide. Other POVs of course should be included as well. Smallbones (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People are starting to use the wording of the POV policy to defeat the POV policy… Equating Stalin with Hitler is one thing, but equating a political system with Hitler is another. Feel free to mention, in the Stalin and Hitler articles, that people equate them. (I'll bet, if I searched, I could find similar consensus equating Mao and Stalin.) This doesn't mean that there's an established theory linking communism and genocide. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the changes to the article since the AfD began, the phrase "genocide" is slowly being relegated to a minor aspect (except in direct quotations) It's not in the lede at all now, and the holodmor section needs re-writing too (these things take time, you understand). This is precisely because no general RS link between communism and genocide was ever sustainable, a point I myself argued in the talk pages. This is also why genocide has been taken out of the title, and why the article does not focus on communist states in general, but only on those where RS analysis has suggest either that there is one, at least insofar as a radical utopian version is concerned. So your objections are at least in part being met.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if these points of view are notable, then we would create an article about these POVs, not about the subject that these POVs refer to. Otherwise, the article is a POV fork at best.  Cs32en  05:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the good efforts that are being made currently to rewrite according to RS's. This nomination was clearly premature, and not constructive. --Anderssl (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now) Still the same issue before. No notable, widely accepted link to the ideology and the "mass killings" in non-fringe sources. Furthermore, some of the incidents are not widely considered "mass killings", or their status as such disputed, so it is POV to present it in an article titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes". As such, this article is pretty much propaganda. Triplestop x3 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Agree that in the old version of the article, a lot of material was not actual genocide (let alone mass killings). However, in the re-write, the topic is limited precisely to those things which have been called mass killings by RS (and linked by RS to radical ideology), and indisputably are (purges, Cultural revolution, Khmer Rouge), with the notable exception (but noteworthy mention) of the holodomor, which has been considered as part of the "social experiment" by some authors, but is disputed by just as many.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead states "The extent to which these killings can be attributed to the ideological commitment of the governments (and thereby be a product of a certain kind of communism) is in dispute." Is this even a notable concept? The page just seems to simply list out certain events. Triplestop x3 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a re-write. This AfD interrupted productive discussions on what to do once the article moved, and a few of us have been editing in haste (that lede is my fault). I cannot stress enough that consensus on moving forward had been achieved to salvage what had been an awful article - with the exception of a couple of editors, one of which proposed this AfD just as the move was about to take place, while the other unilaterally reverted/salted an earlier attempt to move (and start rewriting) based on already clear consensus.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take a look at a random one of the sources. "George Watson, veteran anti-communist[3] a historian of literature holding a fellowship at St. John's College at the University of Cambridge,[3][4] claims in his book 'The Lost Literature of ...". That sums up the problem pretty nicely. I just don't see how there can be any actual substance to this page without it being ridiculous POV. Triplestop x3 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Communist genocide] Random split

  • Speedy close - we just had this discussion last month & nothing has changed since then. This should be closed and the issues taken to the talk page so that they can be addressed. This article has been through an AfD, a merge discussion, and 2 rename discussions in the last 45 days, and now a 2nd AfD??? Enough already! Let's try actually working on the article instead of just putting it through one debate after another and wasting everyone's time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, all described genocides have their own articles, joining them under this umbrella article has no encyclopaedic value and serves certain political purpose (POV) New seeker (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Give them some time to rewrite the article. It certainly is salvageable. ƒ(Δ)² 11:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While it's undeniable that there've been mass killings under the Communist governments mentioned in this article, what about the US-backed Central American death squads of the 1980s? Not to mention that the anti-communist Nicaraguan contras were considered death squads too! So are we going to hold all governments to the same standard and start new article about "mass killings under democratic regimes" etc.? And then we have Augusto Pinochet, whose free-market policies were also accompanied by the Caravan of Death? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a soapbox filled with WP:SYNTH. While there have been communist "genocides", the idea of a communist genocide movement is nuts. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article is no longer called communist genocide.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase then. WP:POV-y (by its very nature) synth that fails to portray world history in context. Better? Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really (sorry). How is an article about the academic analyses of the three great communist purges POV? There is RS that is clear that these were unusual events whose common ideological radicalism makes them stand out - whether or not the radicalism is a product of the forces that also led to the mass killings, or a contributory factor. These are analyses that seek to compare them to other acts of oppression and terror (your world context for you there). That is, it's a topic of serious academic debate. It's not mudslinging against communists (it was Soviet-backed Vietnam that stopped the Khmer Rouge). I and several others now trying to improve the article were dead against "Communist Genocide", as it's clearly POV. A lot of the arguments in this AfD apply to how the article was. We are honestly trying to put in place an article where such concerns can be addressed and balance achieved.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's synthesizing those three events into some ideologically linked category that brings about the POV. Each of the three events is notable and deserves a separate article with separate treatment but lumping them together as Communist genocide or mass killings under communist regimes is no more appropriate than lumping together The Holocaust, the Indian Wars, and the Phillipine-American War under Democratic genocide or mass killings perpetrated by democratically elected regimes. Please note I understand WP:POINT and would be just as likely to AfD such an omnibus Democracy related article as this one. I would, however, support an article on Politically Motivated Mass Killing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it is completely irrelevant whether you think these three events are related or not. The question is whether this kind of connection is made in reliable sources. If you think it is not, then you need to address the sources that are given in the article, one by one. If you manage to firmly establish that no such link is made in the sources, and/or that the sources don't count as RS, it should be no problem getting consensus to delete the article. For now you and those who support this AfD have not done this - and this is probably not the right place for doing it, since that discussion is well under way on the article's talk page. Which makes it quite hard to understand what purpose this AfD is supposed to serve. --Anderssl (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these events are not connected in reliable sources and therefore it is pure synthesis to connect them. If you believe that these events are connected then you should have your original thesis presented in academic literature, gain consensus in the academic community and then cover them in a WP article. But it is not the role of Wikipedia to present original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you lecturing me as if I didn't know what synthesis and original research is? There is a legitimate discussion going on about specific sources on the talk page of the article, while you are just throwing out general remarks about Wikipedia policies. Engage constructively with the central issues in the debate if you want to help bringing this discussion forward. --Anderssl (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not lecturing you merely pointing out that we should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This article basically combines different sources in order to develop a general theory of communist mass killing which is not presented in any of the sources. So far we have Gray and Valentino who both advanced a connection between communism and killing but their theories are different. We also have numerous fringe theories, which again have no consistency and anyway are better presented in their own articles. None of the editors seem concerned about the various theories and the article is merely an attack page that lists isolated incidents that present communism in a bad light. But that goes beyond what Wikipedia is supposed to be as a tertiary source. It is not supposed to publish original thought but to report thought published in reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, is the "general theory" that is developed in the article, and that doesn't exist in the sources? --Anderssl (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The theory that there is a category "communist mass killings" that is qualitatively different from non-communist mass killings and that is the topic of some kind of scholarly or encyclopedic focus in reliable sources. csloat (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editor here (but neutral on the AfD): Could you examine the debate over the George Watson source at talk and the article. Both Watson and the Black Book claim a qualitative difference (but I'm not convinced these are RS, or that Watson and Black Book's introductory claim that Communism is evil are actually academic or notable). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either constitutes an RS for this article; Watson perhaps, though his expertise is not in these matters, and he bases his conclusion on an argument that is entirely discredited within "Marxist" intellectual circles. Most people do not think this obscure essay by Engels represents "communism" per se. But even if these 2 sources stand alone, they are not in dialogue with each other or with anything else -- building an entire article based on a concept drawn out of two unrelated articles like this is still WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) "Mass killings under Communist regimes refers to the use of large scale mass killing, carried out by some Communist regimes, notably the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Chinese cultural revolution, and the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. These killings are commonly attributed to the regimes' Communist ideology, for example in The Black Book of Communism, though the extent to which these killings can be attributed to the ideology is disputed." The Four Deuces (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That lede is currently disputed and has changed several times in the past 12 hours - as the four deuces knows perfectly well because he's been on the talkpage recently (trying to include JFK conspiracy theories and accounts of 1980s serial killers and other such AGF activities.)
To the substantive point, The Four Deuces has stated that "these events are not connected in reliable sources" and in his next comment "Gray and Valentino...both advanced a connection between communism and killing". (Gray and Valentino are both impeccable RS). I struggle to reconcile these two statements. That two authors have different views on the connection is called a difference of opinion; the disagreement is on how necessary/deep the connection is (and the article, as editing develops, I intend to include those RS that dispute the connection. The aim is to report on the academic (not polemical) debate.) Four Deuces' comments here and on the talkpage are difficult to follow if they are meant seriously.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TFD goes to the article and adds lists of events that fall clearly outside of the topic (such as a whole section on "Soviet serial killers") - and then s/he goes to the AfD to complain about how the article doesn't establish the connection between "isolated events"... And then he wants us to still assume good faith about his edits? --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two conflicting theories: one states that communist idealism meant that the ends (utopia) justified the means (mass killings). The other theory states that communists deliberately targeted minorities and implied no altruistic motivation. Furthermore, we have theories that killing is part of the ideology written by Engels (although in the lost literature) and of course there are conspiratorial theories that have no academic acceptance. The article does not even mention whether it is about small "c" or big "C" communism and does not take definitions of communism or mass killings from sources. Common to all these theories is that they have not entered mainstream academic theory even as minority or fringe theories. While all these theories deserve coverage they really belong in their appropriate articles, and it is synthesis to combine them in one article when no reliable source has drawn any connection between them.
To make matters worse, the article hardly dwells on these theories and instead duplicates details of events that are covered in other articles. It does not seem to matter either whether these events are covered in the mass killing theories.
You state that you wish to include RS that dispute these theories. The problem is that they have not received sufficient attention for there to be sources disputing them. Furthermore Gray and Valentino are really primary sources for their own views rather than secondary sources which are required for an article. (I do not dispute that there are reliable secondary sources for the events described in the article.) So basically the article is original research. Could you please read the appropriate section WP:OR and ask yourself whether any article could be written that does not violate that policy.
The Four Deuces (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken on sourcing policy (and out of innocence again?). Personal opinion pieces are not the same as respected academic analyses. Furthermore Valentino has received hundreds of citations in the five years his book has been available, so has Gray's work. I suspect you actually know this already. (If it was your version of events, everything would be opinion. Peer review is just opinions of a few other people, after all). Now, your problem is that there is material that duplicates material elsewhere. I absolutely agree. That's why we need to re-write the article to avoid the content forks that were there. Your arguments are not grounds for deletion, but grounds for an overhaul. It's a shame that you've been awfully good at blocking that overhaul, no matter how much that's been out of your claimed ignorance of procedure, technical matters, citation policy, or indeed discussions on the talk page of which you were and still are a part.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if instead of questioning other editors' intentions and understanding of policy you would actually explain what your points of difference are. An article that combines two different theories is synthesis. Using sources that have not entered mainstream sources is promoting fringe theories and the fact these theories are heavily quoted by polemical writers of makes the article inherently biased. Your statement that Valentino and Gray have received mention in other sources is not helpful: who mentions them, do they mention their theories of communist killing and what do they say about them? As I stated the correct place to cover these theories is in other articles. For example we have an article called The Black Book of Communism, which I believe you agree is a fringe source. It may be that communist mass killings will develop into a generally accepted but controversial theory within the academic community. WP articles are not supposed to provide credibility to theories that have not been accepted by the academic community or to publish original research that is not published in reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Book is certainly not fringe but it is controversial, which is why we are discussing its removal from the lede as inappropriate. Analysis of the question in general has been going on for several years, not yesterday. The article will reflect future scholarship as and when it becomes available. As for your intent, how about this and this?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mass killings under communist regimes is a vague title that implies no agency or reason, and the standards we appear to have accepted allow controversial theories to be included. There is nothing in the title that prevents the inclusion of mass killers who lived under communist regimes at least one of whom was a Communist Party member. It is not even original to see crime as a result of social conditions brought about by economic systems. The theory that Communists killed Kennedy was proposed by Nathaniel Weyl and assassinations by Communist officials is part of the theory advanced in The Black Book of Communism and there are even proven cases. On the other hand I do not know why you are defending an article that clearly violates WP policy, but I concentrate on discussing the policy rather than why you do not follow it. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall stop feeding you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again it would be more constructive to discuss issues of policy and article content rather than making unrelated comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

genocidal communist regimes have often escaped detection and comment. Until recently, few people knew that for political and economic reasons, communist elites ever since the Russian Revolution have sanctioned the genocide of between 85-100 million people (Courtis 1999). Until relatively recently, intellectuals and politicians with socialist leanings, including French communists such as Sartre, have refused to address the occurrence of genocide in communist activities because this fact would challenge their ideological commitments.

--Termer (talk)

The quote you gave is not by White and Marsella but is from an article by Rebecca Knuth, Chair of the Library and Information Science Program at the University of Hawaii and a noted expert on libricide, who as your reference shows draws her information from the Black Book of Communism. (Already I can see some problems with this source.) Foo's claim appeared to be a criticism of the motives of fellow editors. However the opposition to the article does not stem from a denial of specific events but from the synthesis and reliable source issues in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article had WP:SYNTH and WP:RS issues, which it doesn't, such allegations would not be bases for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy but is something that should be addressed at the articles talk page.--Termer (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termer, have another look at WP:DELETE. And denial has nothing to do with it. There is no-one on either side of this issue who are denying that communist regimes have committed horrible crimes. By arguing like this you are handing free points to your opponents. --Anderssl (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, under its current title (Mass killings under Communist regimes). It's a valid topic to explore in an article, whether or not the conclusion is that the instances are linked by an ideological factor. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia article. It should not be an essay with a "conclusion." As explained here. csloat (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda familiar with WP:NOR; I've been around here for a while. I'm not suggesting an essay, nor a conclusion determined by WP editors. But it's perfectly possible to have an article that explores whether a certain notion is or is not true. Consider Life on Mars or Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact or whatever. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For topics where there is notable ongoing academic and popular discussion of, sure. The alleged inherent connection between political economic systems and genocide is not one of those topics. csloat (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd happily have supported deletion if this was still under its old title ('Communist genocide'), but now it's been moved to 'Mass killings under Communist regimes', I feel it's acceptable. As Wasted Time R says above, this is a valid topic and the subject of genuine academic analysis; and I don't believe we have any other article on the subject. While I expect it to remain a magnet for partisan editors on both sides of the 'Communist history wars', that in itself doesn't justify deletion; and besides, it's already improved a great deal from the mess of POV/SYNthesis it used to be. Robofish (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the specific improvements? All I've seen is a slightly different set of POV/SYN problems than we had before, but the same underlying problem is clearly there. csloat (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new section called "Academic analyses" has been added, which discusses the treatment of the topic in three RS. A bunch of unrelated events and nonsense has been purged from the article. There is lots left to do, but we will get it done if the extremists on both sides will allow us to implement actual improvements, instead of focusing on procedural debates. --Anderssl (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks to me just as I said - a slightly different set of POV/SYN problems than we had before, but the same underlying problem. Sorry. csloat (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for that incredibly specific rebuttal. And good luck with the AfD. --Anderssl (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell more do you want? You cite a section that is completely bogus as proof the article is getting better? Anyway I took apart the sources cited one by one above. csloat (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want something more specific than "completely bogus". The only specific arguments by you I have found above concern Watson and the Black Book, there are more sources than those in the Analyses section - the most important seems to be Gray. And you cite "Most people think" as the basis of your argument - how about a reference? That would actually be something constructive.--Anderssl (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuted Gray and Valentino above as well. The problem is you're pointing to information that doesn't constitute evidence of what we're talking about and calling it "evidence" and then challenging me to prove that it's not "evidence." Consider burden of proof here. For Watson just go through the discussion on the talk page from a couple months ago; I provided more than enough references there and I believe you were part of that discussion, so you already know this. Or do the damn research yourself, it's pretty easy to use google books on Watson's interpretation of the Engels essay. Or you can avoid all this by meeting your burden of proof in the first place; show that Watson's evaluation of an obscure essay is damning for "communism" as a political or ideological system. And, finally, show that "communist mass killings" is a specific category of mass killings under consideration by a community of scholars or analysts or commentators. We still don't see this anywhere. csloat (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall laying claim to "evidence" anywhere, can you give a diff? I also cannot recall taking part in a discussion about Watson months ago, and I can't find it in the archive. (the latter mainly because I can't actually find the archive - anyone know how to browse it? Somehow i can't find the link...) There is one discussion ongoing on the talk page now, but I haven't noticed you contributing any sources there. Given that the discussion earlier was dominated by extremists (on both sides), whereas the current discussion seems much more focused and reasonable, it would be great if you can provide the references one more time, since it is kind of hard to trawl through all the chaotic arguments from before. As for burden of proof, that seems kind of weak, given that this AfD was called before the article was even moved to its current title and the current rewrite effort was begun. Give us a month or at least a couple of weeks to work on it, and then we can talk about burden of proof. What would be the damage in letting fair-minded, balanced editors make an attempt at improving the article before we discuss deletion?--Anderssl (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you "laid claim" to "evidence"; but if that's not the point of referring to this information, I'm not clear on what it is. It looks to me like you are arguing these sources constitute evidence of a phenomenon with academic standing; if you're not doing this, what is your point? I can't find the archived discussion either so I know what you mean, but let me recount the discussion (I believe my primary interlocutor was Termer there but I thought you came in for a comment or two; perhaps that was AmateurEditor? My memory fails me)... Anyway using google books, we can get into the nitty gritty of this -- we can find multiple mentions of the quote from Hegel that is used in the Engels essay which is misattributed to Engels by Watson. We have Ian Cummings pointing out that "later Marxist thinkers" specifically refuted Engels' Hegelian notion and that "a people without a history" could still have a future. We have Bereciartu arguing that this remnant of Hegel in Engels makes for an "incoherent" account of the national question in Marxism and that ultimately in Marx himself "the colonial problem presupposes an evident modification of the thesis of the peoples 'without history'." (p69). We have Nimni arguing that "the most common interpretation" of the dissonance between this passage in Engels and the more common Marxist approach to the national question is "that Marx and Engels had no theory on the national question and so were inconsistent in their discussion of it." (p. 34). You can read a lot more at the google books link and see for yourself, as I advocated earlier. The problem is that Watson takes this essay and assumes that because it is by Engels it therefore represents a core principle of "communist" doctrine - yet it was not at all articulated that way and was in fact simply repeating the analysis of Hegel in the context of sentiments extremely common in that day and age. It would be as if I started an article on Mass killings under capitalist regimes with a quote from Thomas Malthus advocating murderous population control policies and argued that these views show an inherent ideological connection between capitalism and mass killing. What Watson is doing is taking an obscure bit of material from Engels and interpreting it, without looking at what Marxist scholars have done with this material over the ages since it was written. You say that the burden of proof is weak because you need a few weeks to work on the article - I'm not the one who chose when this article should go up for deletion, but the issues and arguments have been bandied back and forth for months, and so far the best you guys have come up with is this feeble quotation from a literary theorist and something called the "black book" of communism. Look, there either is an "academic" analysis of this as a real phenomenon or there isn't. If there is, there would be books, journal articles, conferences, and other academic forums focused on this question. How long does it take to unearth this material? I don't mind giving you another few weeks to get your act together but I'm not convinced that more evidence will materialize that is more substantial than what we've seen so far. csloat (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) So a bunch of people disagree with Watson. Thanks for providing these summaries. Some of this should certainly be added to the section where Watson's claims are discussed. But it's not our job to referee - honestly, in the way you are concluding, it really sounds like you are doing a little OR? Shouldn't we just note the criticism and leave it at that? I honestly don't think you have provided convincing arguments that all of the source in the article are "bogus". As for "you guys" I don't know who you mean. I'm not among the ones pushing the claims put forward in the article, I'm just arguing that there should be a proper process where the various viewpoints and sources are properly discussed before we decide whether to delete or keep - in other words, an reasonable attempt at building consensus, rather than just screaming at each other. --Anderssl (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to believe you are serious. I'm not suggesting we "referee" and I'm not suggesting doing any OR. As I said, there either is an academic analysis of this problem or there isn't, and it is clear from the sources that there isn't. There isn't any "screaming" going on; just an attempt to look closely at the sources "you guys" - that is, those people advocating "keep" -- are pushing as some kind of proof that this topic has some salience. csloat (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, try. Unfortunately it is not "clear" that there is no academic analysis of the problem - unless you want to assume that all those voting 'keep' are either doing so in bad faith, or we're just stupid. Otherwise, there is a need to make it clear to us how this subject is not worthy of an article. This has not succeeded so far - there is objective evidence to that effect on this page. --Anderssl (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try what? I really can't keep arguing with you as you completely ignore the substance of my arguments over and over and then slip into borderline attacks. I never called you stupid. I'm explaining what the "objective evidence" actually says, and it clearly turns out not to be "evidence." You ignore my arguments and accuse me of calling you stupid -- I don't think your approach is helpful. csloat (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to take me seriously (you were indicating that you found it hard). About the substance of your argument: You are listing a bunch of people who are arguing against Watson's claims about Engels (if I understand you correctly). That might well be an indication that Watson is wrong. But I don't think we should try to judge whether that is the case or not, since this discussion is about WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability, not WP:Truth. It also sounds to me that your notion that the sources need to "talk to each other" is a little too strict - I can think of some good examples of very important academic works within my own fields of speciality, which do not really talk to each other. They would still be notable for mention in an article like this, including appropriate criticism. If I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting you, please feel free to correct me. --Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As an academic it is perfectly acceptable for you to take different sources and evaluate and compare them and synthesize information in them. Even journalists do this. But encyclopedia articles are different, and should not contain synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're misunderstanding. I didn't cite articles that mention Watson. I googled the phrase that Watson quotes as "evidence" of a connection between "Communism" and "genocide". Watson attributes the phrase to Engels; Engels was actually quoting Hegel. The books I chose to cite were just the top three hits on Google books -- just a random sampling of what actual scholars (not "veteran anti-communists") who do talk about this passage discuss. None of them even address such a dispute over the relation between communist ideology and genocide because it's just not a serious topic. The things they do discuss are very different, as I cited above. Sure, they do show Watson is wrong, but not by actually addressing Watson - his thesis is not even on the radar screen for most of them. See for yourself - this search turns up 40 books, while this one turns up only one (and that's a different "Watson"). So yeah the Four Deuces is correct; it would be synthesis to create a "debate" out of these sources. csloat (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AGF on the good faith issue; it may help. As for the "myriad of valid sources" - the problem is that these sources are not all talking about the same thing, and they are being interpreted as evidence of a category of analysis they do not support. Having multiple sources does not make this less of a synth violation, unfortunately. You claim that the "article has been improving by leaps" but that isn't the case at all. It has become a substantially different article, but it has not been improving in the sense of addressing the issues raised in this AfD. csloat (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Synth has nothing to do with deletion policy. Please name one of the 13 reasons for deletion that are part of WP:Delete. Smallbones (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)

While the article meets 6 of the thirteen reasons for deletion, the one that most clearly matches WP:SYN is the restriction against original theories and conclusions which links to a page discussing among other things WP:SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - this is supposed to be an article "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"?!! Please look at the 1st 16 footnotes. They include The Great Terror, The Black Book of Communism - very well known books that say Communists committed mass murder as part of their commitment to Communism. You don't like these sources, but that is irrelevant. You tried to get the "Lost Literature of Socialism" removed because it didn't fit your prejudices, but the WP:RSN said it was obviously an RS academic source. It's patent nonsense to say that the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. Smallbones (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do you use terms like "it didn't fit your prejudices". You should assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The statement that "but the WP:RSN said it was obviously an RS academic source" is incorrect. The RSN did not attract much outside comment and there was no agreement among the people commenting on it as is obvious if you read it.[3] A non-academic book by an academic writing outside his area of expertise is hardly "obviously an RS academic source". None of these books are acceptable as secondary sources for college papers or theses at reputable universities or for peer-viewed papers in academic journals. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of accusing others repeatedly in bad faith and personal attacks please read what WP:GOODFAITH is all about The Four Deuces!: Accusing others of bad faith Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termer, I did not accuse Smallbones of bad faith. Please read my comments again. (You may have misunderstood me because the English verb to assume can have two meanings: in this case I am asking someone to assume that I am acting in good faith rather than asking them to act in good faith.) The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have ignored the last but saying "You should assume good faith and avoid personal attacks" is very clear and it fits the pattern: in the context of this article it's at least the 7th accusation of a personal attack against you. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] If you think that by accusing other editors repeatedly in personal attacks against you is helpful in a content dispute, sorry but you're mistaken.--Termer (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comments inappropriate and ask that you strike them out. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as long as you strike out all accusations of personal attacks against you, (I left the diffs for your convenience) I'm more than willing to strike out me reminding you that It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New split

  • Keep for now, to give article time to improve. Nomination feels premature in current situation.--Staberinde (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:SYN which despite a very odd suggestion above is clearly one of the most primary reasons we delete entries. Some argue that improvements have been made but I see none. If anything a recent name change has been a step in the wrong direction per WP:NAME which the entry regulars avoided entirely in their misguided good faith effort to reduce POV.PelleSmith (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't start lawyering about name changes and WP policy, this is an important topic and all of the energy spent arguing here could have been spent improving this (or other) articles. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unfortunate that "wikilawyering" is so often used as a meaningless catchphrase used to dismiss policy suggestions. You may be better served changing or deleting WP:NAME. Why have guidelines if people dismiss them? Anyway the naming issue is not so much a violation of policy as an example of what is wrong with the entry. If the entry is truly not an original synthesis, as it appears to be, then there should be a cohesive subject matter to discuss based on reliable sources which recognize it as such. Under the old name there was a cohesive subject but it wasn't clear if this subject was discussd as such in reliable sources. The new name makes matters worse by moving away from specificity thereby inviting the addition of a broader and even less related set of information. There is no wikilayering just a suggestion that matters have gone from bad to worse.PelleSmith (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called specificity was actually POV. It depended on a POV reading of the word genocide (which does not have a stable definition), which basically allow any old POV shit to be thrown at the door of communism, and a presumption in the title that the killings were perpetrated because of something essential to communism per se (and there was an anti-Soviet cabal organising themselves to this effect). The relationship between communism and what happened in the three countries we are now focussing on is debated in the literature, ranging from the Black Book and Watson which see communism as essentially evil, through historians that see a certain kind of ideology as a key component, others who identify the political system as producing the conditions for mass killings (and thus the totalitarian aspect is key), and others who say that there is nothing distinctive about these killings to make them separate from other similar events in non-communist countries. It's POV to have a title that presumes only one of those views is correct. I would have thought that was obvious.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if "Communist genocide" is a valid topic, then there need to be quotable references that actually discuss "Communist genocides" as a topic in its own right. If we find that the phrase "communist mass killing" is just used incidentially for a few individual cases, such as "mass killings in the Soviet Union", we will write an artile about mass killings in the Soviet Union. Horlo's opinion that "communist mass killings" per se are "an important topic" is completely irrelevant. this is a textbook case of WP:SYN, what the article is in fact doing is presenting a collection of "here are mass killings we found that were perpetrated by regimes that also subscribed to communist ideology at the time". As long as we do not have the references to establish a notable theory to the effect that mass killing is somehow an inherent feature of communism, this is not a valid topic. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is no longer "Communist genocides" for the very reason you suggest - it was about to be changed according to clear consensus when one of the few people opposing the change put up the AfD just as the change was being made. "Mass Killings" is preferred in literature. The debate is indeed broader than simple ideological causality. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What reason is that? I see no agreement between your argument and Dab's criticism of what seems to be the broad and arbitrary scope of the current entry. The entry you have described above is actually one about "The relationship between communism and mass killing" and not "Mass killings under communist regimes". You do not gain neutrality by making a less meaningful entry title that invites what Dab describes. When I first saw this discussion the following was written on the entry talk page about the new consensus: "not only must facts be RS demonstrated, but facts can only be placed in relation to a scholarly academically published theorisation of a structural link between Communist ideology (in general, or in a specific incarnation broader than a single state / movement) and mass killings". If the relationship between 1) communism and 2) mass killing is not a notable topic then there should not be an entry about it (even if the name is deceptively broad). If it is notable then it can be established in reliable sources. The issue is not being discussed in this manner for a variety of reasons, among them the lame and confusing name change.PelleSmith (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the plural noun "mass killings" used in the title instead of the gerund of the verb "mass killing"? This is itself rather confusing because it suggests less clearly that the subject matter is as VK suggests about the disputed relationship between an ideology and "the act of murdering a large number of people", and instead suggests that it is a list of atrocities that resulted from such acts within the context of communist political control.PelleSmith (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Killings not killing is referred to in the literature; plural is appropriate because it's not just one country, but events in several. "Communist genocide" can be read as accusing communism per se rather than particular regimes in history that publicly justified the killings with communist rhetoric (debate /how much this rhetoric was actually cloaking other issues is part of what the article should cover.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my longer comment about "The relationship between mass killing and communism" you have not responded. Regarding my picky issue with word choice in the current title, there is something rather fundamental about the difference that is not being grasped here. As you and others have clearly pointed out this entry is supposedly about a disputed link between communism and mass killing and it is not simply a catalog of mass killings which happened to have occurred under communist regimes. Am I correct? The latter would clearly be a violation of WP:OR, however your title unfortunately is most clearly an expression of just that. It is a sloppier way of saying "Incidents of mass killing under communist regimes". If you use the gerund you do not suggest specific incidents but instead a general category or type of incident. This is why WP:NAME tells us to use either singular nouns or the gerund of verbs unless accurately labeling the subject matter clearly demands a plural noun -- if that is the case then once again the entry is not about a disputed relationship but instead a collection of incidents whose grouping is arbitrarily being made by wikipedia editors ... WP:SYN. I should add that the entry itself rarely ever used the plural noun(s) "(mass) killings" so if this is standard in the literature the entry does a horrible job reflecting it.PelleSmith (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be an argument for a re-write (POV), not for deletion (notability).radek (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Last vote involved a multitude of editors a lot of whom did independent research before casting their votes. I do agree that there was some shortcomings to the original article, but then most attempts to improve the article were torpedoed by some of those who didn't manage to delete it previously and who more or less explicitly stated at the time "we won't let you improve the article and just wait for another delete vote". As such this is a clear example of forum-shopping.radek (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your cabal had agreed not to edit on pages that are the subject of the ArbCom inquiry? Am I misreading the temporary injunctions? It seems to me that this is clearly within the scope of the injunction; particularly since your cabal's actions on the previous AfD are explicitly part of the inquiry. csloat (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no comment on the specific content of this article and the extent to which it ought to be improved, but obviously various Communist regimes have been responsible for millions of deaths and dscribing the links between the deaths and the shared (to a certain extent) ideology of those regimes, the progressive development of mass murder, etc. through reliable sources seems worthy of an article.Faustian (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and all of the above pre-split votes count too. Straberinde - you don't get a revote, or a new split; this isn't the Ukrainian Election or the Florida Recount. This article started out as criticism of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge. Since then the Article became POV to an extreme, and was hijacked by POV anti-Communist editors. People seem to forget that the Khmer Rouge Regime was destroyed by Communist Vietnam, the same country that Capitalists tried to destroy. The whole article is a joke, with anti-Communist scholars being given the same space as Nobel Prize Winners. As if their analysis is equal. Nor have I seen too many attempts to improve the article. All I've seen here is blatant POV pushing. "Mass killings under Communist regimes refers to the use of large scale mass killing, carried out by some Communist regimes, notably the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Chinese cultural revolution, and the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Academic debate has centred around the similarities and differences in the factors causing of these three cases."
Yeah, one was genocide and two weren't; "but let's lump Russia and China in there, cause it fits our POV", seems to be the dominating logic of the editors of this article. And what I am seeing, is that certain editors love pushing their POV, and when neutral editors get sick and tired of it, and want the article deleted, they suddenly compromise, with please of "well ok, we will rename it, give this article time to improve, don't delete it, have a heart". And then the article is kept, the neutrals leave, and the POV game begins again. I can easily cite World War, as a massive Imperialist Catastrophe; after all, no one will argue that Six Empires fought WWI, and that it wasn't an Imperialist War. I can also bring in example of Native Americans being given "smallpox blankets" as examples of Imperialist Genocide. So to repeat: People seem to forget that the Khmer Rouge Regime was destroyed by Communist Vietnam, the same country that Capitalists tried to destroy. The whole article is a joke, with anti-Communist "scholars" being given the same space as Nobel Prize Winners. Their analysis is portrayed as if it was equal, because it suits the POV of certain editors. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user above is upset because his eulogies to Solzhenitsyn get taken out (and not only be me) - although Solzhenitsyn's comments are left intact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are choosing to attack my emotions, over attacking my argument. Well that's one way to argue. Won't get you very far; it doesn't work against me. Now please try again, and go against the argument this time.HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the above editor is upset and why do you think your comment is relevant to this discussion? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thw writer votng to delete, above, (HistoricWarrior007 ) reveals his own POV when in his statement he writes "The whole article is a joke, with anti-Communist scholars being given the same space as Nobel Prize Winners" implying that if a scholar is anti-Communistihe is somehow a "lesser" scholar. We also see a strawman argument when he erroneously claims, based ont he quote he provided, that the mass killings in China nd Russia were labelled as genocide (although there is contrversy about that, with some scholars claiming genocide and others arguing against this. HistorWarrior reveals his own POV yet again when he takes the sideof those who claim no genocide). There may be anti-communist POV pushing in the article, but this doesn't justify pro-Communist (or anti-anti-Communist) POV-pushing which seems to be motivating at least some of those seeking to delete the article.13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Faustian (talk)[reply]
Umm, pro-Communist POV pushing in an article on Communist Genocide? You don't see the flaw there? Once, again, I'll repeat: People seem to forget that the Khmer Rouge Regime was destroyed by Communist Vietnam, the same country that Capitalists tried to destroy. Russia and China did not intend to commit Genocide. Any rapid Industrialization, including the British Industrialization, the French, the German, etc, leads to human catastrophes. When you have a mass movement of people into the cities, which have no laws, you get a crisis. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current article title is sufficient to answer most of the objections raised. Personally, I tend to the view that Communism is not more productive of mass killings than other forms of oppressive rule, and I personally think many of the instance here are best explained as nationalism in combination with dictatorship, but that is my personal opinion, and does not invalidate the article DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per csloat, The Four Deuces, dab, and many others. This is clearly a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. The article goes out of its way to put together all occurences of what can be qualified as "mass killing under Communist regime". But each and every one of those occurences is already well covered by its respective separate Wikipedia article, and there was no academic source presented yet, that reviews all (or, at least, majority) of these occurences simultaneously, and specifically argues about labeling them with "mass killings under Communist regime" or any other term, which would indicate academic recognition of the matter. In my opinion, excuses of "not having found such source yet" shouldn't be seriously considered, since creators and supporters of the article not only had more than enough time for that, but also they should have had such source in order to have a reason to create and extend the article, in the first place. There is no point in keeping the article in order to "let" or "give authors some time" to find such a source. They can perfectly well continue their search even in absence of the article, and in case they will find it, they will be perfectly entitled to create a new article named with an academic term that was actually used in the source to label the matter, not just with a term they invented themselves out of nowhere (twice). As for now, the article is still unencyclopedic, contains no material unbeknown to Wikipedia, and violates WP:SYNTH. And since its composure stongly suggests an attempt to portray mass killings as inherent property of Communist regimes, it clearly constitutes soapboxing with traces of WP:FRINGE. While Wikipedia can have articles about authors of "inherently-evil communism" theories, it can't have an article, which tries to portray these theories as representing encyclopedic truth or as having wide (or, at least, some) academic acceptance and notability, when in fact they're not. --ETST (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All these instances should be covered in genocide, without POV-forking, and in their own articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my original vote at the first AfD, supported by 23,900 Google searches, 440 Google books, 67 newswire searches, and 10 Scholar articles. --Poeticbent talk 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except, your Scholar search is clearly flawed, as it goes to specific genocides, rather than a general concept of Communist genocide / mass-killing / etc. The synthesis would be wikipedia's, and that would be a SYNful OR:
  • Cambodia only: not generalisable [CITATION] Murder of a gentle land: the untold story of a Communist genocide in Cambodia
  • Repeat cite [CITATION] Murder of a Gentle Land: The Untold Story of a Communist Genocide
  • Cambodia only: not generalisable [CITATION] Peace with horror: the untold story of communist genocide in Cambodia
  • Fringe, non-peer reviewed, rejected by article editors [PDF] ►Aristocide as a Force in History - N Weyl - Intercollegiate Review, 1967 - mmisi.org
  • Romania specific, fringe use of the term genocide The Final Report on the Holocaust and the Final Report on the Communist Dictatorship in … R Cesereanu - East European Politics and Societies, 2008 -
  • Cambodia specific, not an appropriate journal venue, Kampuchea and the Reader's Digest T Retboll - Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 1979 - questia.com
  • Possibly relevant, probably advocacy / opinion: United Nations Genocide Convention and Political Groups: Should the United States … LJ LeBlanc - Yale J. Int'l L., 1988 - HeinOnline
  • Possibly relevant, but seems USSR specific from the first page: [CITATION] Hostage of politics: Raphael Lemkin on “Soviet genocide” - ►inogs.com [PDF] A Weiss-Wendt - Journal of Genocide Research, 2005 - Routledge
  • Romania specific: [BOOK] The communist genocide in Romania
  • Cambodia specific: Peace with Horror: The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia.
thanks though. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Communist_genocide_(2nd_nomination)