Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) |
OpenFuture (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
::#That Communist world was not a monolith, and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
::#That Communist world was not a monolith, and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
::''and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings'' you said this on the article talk page and i believe i proved you wrong. However please name one which did not engage in mass killings at some stage of it`s time in power [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
::''and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings'' you said this on the article talk page and i believe i proved you wrong. However please name one which did not engage in mass killings at some stage of it`s time in power [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
** The [[German Democratic Republic]]. [[User:Claritas|Claritas]] [[User talk:Claritas|§]] 21:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Claritas: Firstly. Wouldn't it have been better if you brought these issue of on the talk page, when asked? Why do you have to restart this discussion over and over and over? Why must this discussion spread to every non-article page on the whole of Wikipedia? If you have issues with the article, please take them up on the talk page, and they will be discussed, and if valid, fixed. |
|||
:::Re: "''i believe i proved you wrong''" Firstly, the only thing you proved on the talk page was that you don't know how to work with google search results; secondly, this statement is not mine. I took it from Valentino (p.91). --[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 21:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Secondly, none of your points are valid. 1. Nobody has brought up one single reliable source with an opposing marxist viewpoint. We can't include viewpoints that doesn't exist. 2. The connection is well sourced and discussed, it even has it's own section with various views on the subject. 3. This is just 2. again with a different wording. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Paul: Reliable sources, please. If opposing viewpoints can be reliably sourced, they can be added to the article. It is *not* a reason for deletion. --[[User:OpenFuture|OpenFuture]] ([[User talk:OpenFuture|talk]]) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:44, 15 July 2010
Mass killings under Communist regimes
- Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
And under its previous name:
- Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) (moved at start of process of second AfD to "Mass Killings")
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This hopeless article manages to be a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule; now that's pretty sad. I have read the previous nominations, and I agree with the second that an article could be written on this topic - but this is not it, and never will be it. The charges of SYNTH and misreading fill the talk page; but what provokes me to this is the worthless section full of unused terminology. This is - and always will be - an indiscriminate collection of information; and is not for Wikipedia. If someone wants to userify and trim the down to something useful, I have no objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of reliable sources, proven notability. mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or Move to Communist party involvement in mass killings - because the definition of Communist for the purpose of this article is flawed and essentially makes it a POV fork. Communism is a economical/political ideology in opposition to Capitalism - we don't have Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. "Regime", while arguably NPOV, has a lot of POV connotations (not democratic - while to a Marxist-Leninist, communist governments are by definition democratic). The article does not consider Marxist-Leninist viewpoints on the killings and is essentially one sided. These are all surmountable issues, so deletion may not be viable. I'd suggest that almost all of the material needs to be reconsidered and rewritten, and if there's no consensus to delete, I'd strongly suggest the move because it would make the article more comprehensive (the so-called "red terror" in the Spanish Civil War - when Communist parties aren't in government), and give it clear inclusion criteria, as well as removing the POV inherent in the title. Claritas § 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- See also Anti-communist_mass_killings which was kept at AfD - which I would think obviates your point. Collect (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Google scholar returns nil hits for the subject.[1] Essentially the article is a group of events that may or may not be related but we do not have any reliable sources that connect them. Even the minority views that draw a connection are greatly divided in what the connection is and there are no reliable sources that connect the various interpretations. All the topics in the article are covered elsewhere. TFD (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)\
- This is relevant: [2] it's all about how you search. For article topics that return zero hits, see for example "Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles", "World War II crimes in Poland", "Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany" etc. It's not unusual for sources to *not* use the exact phrase of the Wikipedia article in their articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. We do not have an article called Mass killings in Nazi Germany, because it would be synthesis to combine the Holocaust, which has 299,000 hits on Google scholar,[3] with the Dresden bombing, which has 217 hits.[4] TFD (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be. You are correct. How is that relevant in this case? Does the current article take both the Holomodor and Hitlers invasion or something? No it doesn't. There is no synthesis in that article any longer, which the discussion on the talk page proves. It's just, like this AfD intentional disruption aimed at making it hard to improve the article. You should continue improving it instead, with for example explaining what you want to add from those two sources you claimed could be used to balance it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- These are all examples of original synthesis of unrelated events, for which there is no academic literature in support. TFD (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "These"? If you mean anything related to the article we are discussing now, why haven't you brought this up the numerous times you and others have been asked to explain your support of the SYN-tag? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It has been explained to you countless times, but you are unable or unwilling to accept this. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. And that talk page is still there, and still waiting for your arguments. Your reasoning here is no reason for deletion, just for improvments. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Talk about shifting goalposts. TFD (back when his sig was The Four Deuces) had a problem with the name Communist genocide, and now that it's changed there's a problem with this name now too? You can't just keep saying it's SYNTH when there are at least two other books written on exactly this subject. Here are some google searches for you [5] [6] (third hit contains the quote "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as")... how can you say with a straight face that there's no sources about this? Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. And that talk page is still there, and still waiting for your arguments. Your reasoning here is no reason for deletion, just for improvments. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It has been explained to you countless times, but you are unable or unwilling to accept this. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "These"? If you mean anything related to the article we are discussing now, why haven't you brought this up the numerous times you and others have been asked to explain your support of the SYN-tag? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. We do not have an article called Mass killings in Nazi Germany, because it would be synthesis to combine the Holocaust, which has 299,000 hits on Google scholar,[3] with the Dresden bombing, which has 217 hits.[4] TFD (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is relevant: [2] it's all about how you search. For article topics that return zero hits, see for example "Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles", "World War II crimes in Poland", "Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany" etc. It's not unusual for sources to *not* use the exact phrase of the Wikipedia article in their articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- keep several wp:rs presented in talk Darkstar1st (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Weak Delete w/ merge (or, more preferably, Strong Move w/ major rewrite), as WP:POVFORK. The article's other problems currently include WP:NPOV violations, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE many of which I discuss in this comment and the SYN problems elaborated upon here and here. Per nom, the article serves as a POV coatrack, beginning at the very top of the article. The title itself is POV -- conceivably though this can be fixed by moving the page and assigning an NPOV title, or by just deleting the WP:COATRACK after merging its contents to other historical articles. There has been NO evidence that academic consensus acknowledges any relationship between "mass killings" and "Communist regimes", yet the title strongly implies a link. If we start creating titles that make implications found only in minority views, then NASA and all of its moon landing hoaxes becomes legitimate. Allowing pages like this encourages the creation of all manner of conspiratorial and ideological attack page WP:COATRACKs. Per TFD above, the topic itself is questionable at best, and really the content of the article (sans its current name) only deserves to be kept if editors are willing to recognize that the viewpoint must be expressed as a minority perspective, given what we know at this point. If the contents are kept, the article still needs a significant rewrite in order to avoid its tendency to suggest as fact what are really only minority viewpoints; however, very little progress has been made in this regard for months, and the repeated and strenuous support of fairly blatant POV wording may be insurmountable. If the article is beyond enough consensus for repair, then deletion may be the only recourse, per the remedies listed for viewpoints outside of the academic consensus. At a minimum though, the article needs a page-move to an NPOV title (but the COATRACK problems certainly don't end there). BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- A comment Since the main AfD reason was not the lack of sources, but SYNTH, POV fork and OR, the references to notability or wealth of sources are fully irrelevant.
- The article can be kept, provided, but only provided, that all SYNTH and OR are removed from there. However, based on previous AfD discussion I conclude that most opponents of the article's deletion simultaneously oppose to removal of synthesis and OR from there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like the page be unprotected so I can try some drastic editing to sort out Synth/OR issues. Claritas § 20:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- One alternative is to just copy the article contents into a sandbox branch off of the article's talk page, like Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes/Claritas. Then you can show us what you've got. I'm not very optimistic that the POV can be eliminated without huge objections, but who knows ... maybe you've got the magic to foster a consensus that gets the protection lifted early. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. That state repression and mass killings occurred in several (I'd argue most) countries dominated by Communist regimes (Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Hoxhaist, etc.) is not some fringe theory like holocaust denial or skepticism of the moon landing. Multiple reputable scholars in the field of genocide studies and the fields of Soviet and Communist studies have written about this very subject (i.e. Goldhagen, Valentino, Rosefielde, Rummel, Courtois, etc.), and their views are presented in the article. Some have written or contributed to whole books on the subject (Red Holocaust (2009 book), The Black Book of Communism - published by Routledge and Harvard University Press respectively). This article contains scores and scores of citations from legitimate sources. Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.) and some sources are published reports from mainstream news outlets (i.e. BBC) on recent developments most likely not found in academic material as of yet (i.e. Communist ruler Mengistu's genocide conviction and death sentence for his Red Terror mass killings - something that clearly deserves to be included in the body of this article). If a name change or trimming of the article (perhaps the "Controversies" section?) would solve the problem, then fine. I wouldn't object to the move proposed by Claritas.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust are not suitable texts to be the basis of this article, because their accuracy and neutrality has been questioned by scholarly community. The article is essentially based on Anglophone scholarship, which while normal for en-Wiki, is extremely problematic here, because it means that all significant points of view on the roles of mass killings and the connections between mass-killings and the communist parties are not considered. We need some Marxist/Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyite views on the subject,
as well as post-Soviet eastern European scholarship etc- there's some of that. for this article really to be balanced. Of course, the Black Book and Red Holocaust can be used to cite uncontroversial statements, but their viewpoints cannot be accepted as definite or even the major academic view. I'm particularly concerned about the use of Red Holocaust to support potentially controversial claims in the article. The article also needs the opinions of the academics who do not believe that mass-killings took place to the extent commonly believed - unlike Holocaust revisionism this is not a fringe theory, but rather a minority view which can be understood in the context of certain evidence. Claritas § 20:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)- It is common knowledge that the BBoC is controversial in certain circles. And I am unaware of any criticism "by the scholarly community" of Rosefielde's book as being "inaccurate"? Are you just making this up?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gaaah, I didn't quite mean to say that. Rosefielde's estimation, as it says in the Wiki article that the victims of Communist mass-killings is higher than the total combat deaths of WWII has been contested - much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream, but I'm struggling to find a citation through the net. Anyway, the section "Comparisons with other mass-killings" is a major issue, in that it offers a one-sided view. Most Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale than colonial or Nazi genocides. Claritas § 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- You talk of "much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream" in one breath and then tell me "Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale" in the next. I see exactly what "scholarly mainstream" you are referring to...lol. Frankly, I don't care what Marxists would argue, as I would expect them to downplay the mass killings by Communists - much like neo-Nazis would have us believe that the Holocaust either never happened or has been exaggerated. And Rosefielde's book is well sourced, citing some of the most recent and reliable materials available, and I find it credible (and so did Routledge, apparently). But if you want to add a scholarly source to challenge what Rosefielde said in order to make it more "NPOV" then be my guest.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gaaah, I didn't quite mean to say that. Rosefielde's estimation, as it says in the Wiki article that the victims of Communist mass-killings is higher than the total combat deaths of WWII has been contested - much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream, but I'm struggling to find a citation through the net. Anyway, the section "Comparisons with other mass-killings" is a major issue, in that it offers a one-sided view. Most Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale than colonial or Nazi genocides. Claritas § 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is common knowledge that the BBoC is controversial in certain circles. And I am unaware of any criticism "by the scholarly community" of Rosefielde's book as being "inaccurate"? Are you just making this up?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think that The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust are not suitable texts to be the basis of this article, because their accuracy and neutrality has been questioned by scholarly community. The article is essentially based on Anglophone scholarship, which while normal for en-Wiki, is extremely problematic here, because it means that all significant points of view on the roles of mass killings and the connections between mass-killings and the communist parties are not considered. We need some Marxist/Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyite views on the subject,
- Comment - shouldn't people who have participated in previous 3 AfD's be notified of this, 4th, nomination? Or at least those who participated in the last, 3rd, one? Actually I believe the title of this page needs correction, it should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (4th nomination)"radek (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, it shouldn't. I created this page, not two hours ago. There were previous proposals to delete before this article was moved; but they have their own pages (linked from the first AFD). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alright (though it should be noted somewhere that this is the 4th attempt (at least) at deleting this article). How about my first question?radek (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Articles which inspire multiple independent proposals to delete are usually wastes of time saved by canvassing, or - as in the last discussion here - pleas that of course it can all be improved. It hasn't been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- At least with several previous attempts at deletion (I don't know about this one as I haven't been watching this article recently) after the article was kept, there was A LOT of purposeful obstruction aimed at preventing ANY kind of improvement made to the article with the explicit purpose so that it could be nominated for deletion again. If the article hasn't been improved in the past (again, I don't know about the past few months) it was largely due to some people preventing any improvements so that they could say at the next deletion nomination (which they immediately began planning as soon as the previous one failed) "the article has not been improved".radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alright (though it should be noted somewhere that this is the 4th attempt (at least) at deleting this article). How about my first question?radek (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- And it would be canvassing to inform the participants in the previous AfD's. One point of having a new AfD is to secure a new and random sample of passers=by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not if it is done openly and universally (i.e. both the keeps and deletes). Also, if there was any hope of getting a "random" sample of editors at these AfD there just MAY be some justification to what you say. But very obviously as your own presence, and those of others testifies, this is anything but random. A related problem is that any "random" passerbys who come upon these AfDs then usually proceed to try to work on the article and by the time next AfD rolls around they cease being "random". I'm not even going to go into the inherent stupidity of the Wikipedia policy on Canvassing here (which was written simply because somebody lost an argument and had an axe to grind). If you really want a big sample here, then the AfD should be advertised as widely (but fairly) as possible.radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a particularly bad suggestion, given the canvassing issues that previously impacted this article. I'm surprised to hear this particular call for anything that might end up being construed as canvassing. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Consider [7] and tell me that it is NOT CANVASSing. As well as [8] and [9]. Two of which are clearly and absolutely violative of WP:CANVASS and the third, as being only to a person hwho has previously nominated the article for deletion could be construed as not being to any neutrally chosen group of editors. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a particularly bad suggestion, given the canvassing issues that previously impacted this article. I'm surprised to hear this particular call for anything that might end up being construed as canvassing. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not if it is done openly and universally (i.e. both the keeps and deletes). Also, if there was any hope of getting a "random" sample of editors at these AfD there just MAY be some justification to what you say. But very obviously as your own presence, and those of others testifies, this is anything but random. A related problem is that any "random" passerbys who come upon these AfDs then usually proceed to try to work on the article and by the time next AfD rolls around they cease being "random". I'm not even going to go into the inherent stupidity of the Wikipedia policy on Canvassing here (which was written simply because somebody lost an argument and had an axe to grind). If you really want a big sample here, then the AfD should be advertised as widely (but fairly) as possible.radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The issue can be partially resolved by moving a part of the article's content into the Mass killing article, which is supposed to be a mass killings' main article, but now is just a disambiguation page.
- In addition, references to several scholars or mainstream news are hardly relevant, because some of these sources are not sufficiently reliable, some of them deal with some particular cases, and, more importantly, the sources that do treat the events in different Communist states separately, independent of each other, are used in the article to support the idea about commonality between these events, which is obvious synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.)" That is exactly what I mean. Ellman, as well as Wheathcroft, Getty, and others speak about Stalin's repressions, not about Communist mass killings. Helen Fein draws a parallelism between Khmer Rouge and fascists, not Communists. Plenty sources, combined to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in each of them, is an additional argument for the article's deletion, although the issue can be fixed if the article's defenders will agree to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Ellman is cited in the proper section, pertaining to mass killings by the USSR, a Communist regime, is he not? And just because one scholar describes the KR as "fascist" doesn't make it so (how many right-wingers want to paint Hitler a "socialist" after all). Goldhagen noted that the Khmer Rouge were so racist because they beleved only the "Khmer" were capable of achieving "true Communism". Like it or not, the KR was Communist party, just very radical one (like the Shining Path, which thankfully never came to power).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Khmer Rouge had such strong nationalist tendencies that they were at odds with the rest of the Communist world at the time, and while they were certainly influenced by Marx, it's unclear whether they should be treated as a Communist or Fascist party - they are often included in works about Fascism in general - [10]. Claritas § 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Ellman is cited in the proper section, pertaining to mass killings by the USSR, a Communist regime, is he not? And just because one scholar describes the KR as "fascist" doesn't make it so (how many right-wingers want to paint Hitler a "socialist" after all). Goldhagen noted that the Khmer Rouge were so racist because they beleved only the "Khmer" were capable of achieving "true Communism". Like it or not, the KR was Communist party, just very radical one (like the Shining Path, which thankfully never came to power).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.)" That is exactly what I mean. Ellman, as well as Wheathcroft, Getty, and others speak about Stalin's repressions, not about Communist mass killings. Helen Fein draws a parallelism between Khmer Rouge and fascists, not Communists. Plenty sources, combined to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in each of them, is an additional argument for the article's deletion, although the issue can be fixed if the article's defenders will agree to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::::The KR were communists "Under the Marxist leader Pol Pot The Khmer Rouge had its origins in the 1960s, as the armed wing of the Communist Party of Kampuchea - the name the Communists used for Cambodia" [11] mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's argued that the fact they identified as Communists and were Marxists is essentially deceptive, but there is a lot of cross-over with ultra-nationalist communism and ultra-nationalist corporatism (fascism) and ultra-nationalist socialism (nazism). Claritas § 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The neoconservatives had their origins in Communist ideology as well, but that does not mean we should include the American invasion of Iraq in the article. TFD (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Completely false analogy. Neo-conservatism in US was born out of the rejection of Marxism by some of its members who were Marxist in their youth. Khmer Rouge never repudiated Marxism or Communist ideology. They just had their own version of it, like Mao, Tito, etc.radek (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- "In their youth"?! They were well into middle age when they switched and brought with them much of their Communist past including unfortunately a tendency to re-write history. TFD (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- And now I see you're into red herrings as well (or "red red herrings"). You might want to stop with the logical fallacies right there.radek (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is a false analogy indeed. The issue is really that there's not a clear-cut definition of "Communism", and if we're talking strict Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky or Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin/Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao, the Khmer Rouge, along with a few other "communist regimes" such as Tito's don't really fit in. Though there are similarities between KR doctrine and Stalin's Socialism in One Country, it's ideologically more complex due to its nationalist and agrarian background. Claritas § 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The article is a clear POV fork and a well of synthesis. The troubled history of the article is inevitable given the unencylopaedic nature of its title, which is not capable, IMO, of giving rise to content conforming to NPOV. The fact that it has proved resilient in the face of past AfD nominations is a poor reflection on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is interesting to note that some those who want the article deleted apparently believe that Democratic Kampuchea was not even a Communist regime (even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such) and/or that Marxist views need to be fairly represented in the article. Why does this not surprise me?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "(even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such)?" Thank you for pointing my attention. It doesn't any more:[12].
- I was going to revert what you did to the Democratic Kampuchea article, but someone beat me to it. HAH!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, I edited this revert further, that eventually led to the article's improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to revert what you did to the Democratic Kampuchea article, but someone beat me to it. HAH!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "(even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such)?" Thank you for pointing my attention. It doesn't any more:[12].
- By the way, it is another example of original research: the article's proponents seem to completely ignore the fact that there were two Communist regimes in Cambodia. One, communo-fascist regime was supported by China (and later by the US) and committed what many scholars believe to be the purest example of genocide. Another Communist regime was installed by Communist Vietnam, was supported by the USSR. This regime made consistent efforts to restore a normal civil life in the country, to stop and condemn crimes of its predecessor, to partially restore Buddhism, to re-establish high education, etc. It is very revealing that part of the editors try to fully ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with anything? When did I ignore or deny that the KR were overthrown by another Communist movement which established its own regime and condemned the crimes of its predecessor? Please point that out to me. And how is any of this an example of "original research"? The subsection of the article specifically dealt with the mass killings of Democratic Kampuchea, not whatever political repression occurred under the Communist regime which supplanted it (and it did occur, on a much, much smaller scale, however). The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith, various leaders felt that their path to Communism was the true path, such as Mao referring to the USSR after Stalin as "revisionist," or Pol Pot believing the Khmer was the only race capable of implementing true communism. It's also known that Kim Il Sung and Enver Hoxha despised one another, yet they were both Stalinists, no?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith" That is exactly what I mean. I see no problem to write that some Communist regimes (or regimes that described themselves as Communist, or regimes described as Communist by other), during some periods of their history committed mass killings. However, any attempt to draw any general conclusion, to theorise about connection between mass killings and Communism etc. may create a wrong impression that Communist world was a giant monolith, which was united around one idea: to kill peoples.
- If we want to present theories and to make generalisations, then neutrality and objectivity require us to add to the article:
- - That also the idea about genocidal nature of Marxism was advocated by some scholars, it has not been supported by others;
- - That, whereas some communist states committed mass killings, other communist states (or the same states during different periods of their history) condemned mass killings and made significant efforts to stop them or to remedy their consequences.
- - That, in some cases, Communist ideology (internationalism) was a factor that prevented the leaders of Communist states from unleashing a full scale genocide.
- IMO, by doing that we would address part of criticism that lead to this AfD nomination.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think these are all important topics which should indeed be addressed in the article for NPOV's sake (though I have some reservation to what extent that can be done for #2 or #3, particularly #3). But that's just the standard process of making sure an article complies with NPOV. The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion.radek (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion." Of course, if there is a good will to fix possible POV. However, if permanent resistance exist against any attempt to fix POV problems, the asnwer seem not so obvious. Frankly, have I and you, Radek, represented two extremes in the opinions' spectrum, the issue would be totally resolved in few weeks, if not days.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think these are all important topics which should indeed be addressed in the article for NPOV's sake (though I have some reservation to what extent that can be done for #2 or #3, particularly #3). But that's just the standard process of making sure an article complies with NPOV. The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion.radek (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with anything? When did I ignore or deny that the KR were overthrown by another Communist movement which established its own regime and condemned the crimes of its predecessor? Please point that out to me. And how is any of this an example of "original research"? The subsection of the article specifically dealt with the mass killings of Democratic Kampuchea, not whatever political repression occurred under the Communist regime which supplanted it (and it did occur, on a much, much smaller scale, however). The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith, various leaders felt that their path to Communism was the true path, such as Mao referring to the USSR after Stalin as "revisionist," or Pol Pot believing the Khmer was the only race capable of implementing true communism. It's also known that Kim Il Sung and Enver Hoxha despised one another, yet they were both Stalinists, no?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, it is another example of original research: the article's proponents seem to completely ignore the fact that there were two Communist regimes in Cambodia. One, communo-fascist regime was supported by China (and later by the US) and committed what many scholars believe to be the purest example of genocide. Another Communist regime was installed by Communist Vietnam, was supported by the USSR. This regime made consistent efforts to restore a normal civil life in the country, to stop and condemn crimes of its predecessor, to partially restore Buddhism, to re-establish high education, etc. It is very revealing that part of the editors try to fully ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "to kill peoples." As the content of the article demonstrates, the vast majority of Communist regimes engaged in political repression, which involved arrests, imprisonment and executions of either "class enemies" or "counterrevolutionaries" or both. Some were deadlier than others. For example, Castro's Cuba executed hundreds of counterrevolutionaries, maybe thousands, in the years following the revolution (if the article survives, and I believe it will, I'm wondering if details of these executions should be added); others, such as Mao's China, executed millions of alleged landlords, wealthy peasants and "counterrevolutionaries."
- Re: "That, whereas some communist states committed mass killings, other communist states (or the same states during different periods of their history) condemned mass killings and made significant efforts to stop them or to remedy their consequences." But those that did, such as Khrushchev in the USSR after Stalin's death and Deng Xiaoping after Chairman Mao died, engaged in political repression and killings on a smaller scale in spite of condemning the excesses committed by their predecessors (i.e. The bloody crackdowns in the eastern Bloc, Novocherkassk massacre and the bloody crackdowns in Tibet, Tienanmen Square massacre respectively)
- Re: "That, in some cases, Communist ideology (internationalism) was a factor that prevented the leaders of Communist states from unleashing a full scale genocide." So "internationalism" prevented, for example, the Bolsheviks from completely annihilating all Cossacks during decossackization but permitted the summary executions of only tens of thousands of them? In fact, Communist ideology gave them a reason to persecute and destroy "class enemies" (such as "kulaks") and anyone else ("socially dangerous elements") who stood in the way of a Marxist utopia. Goldhagen made this point quite eloquently I thought, which is why I added it to the article.
- Re: "require us to add to the article:by doing that we would address part of criticism that lead to this AfD nomination" Then why don't you contribute some of these ideas with citations yourself if you feel they should be added? I see no problem with pointing out such things as Khrushchev's secret speech condemning Stalin's brutalities and the like.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "the vast majority of Communist regimes engaged in political repression" Political repressions, yes. Mass killings - only few (Valentino) and only during certain parts of their history.
- Re: Novocherkassk. By no means it fits a Valentino's "mass killing" criteria.
- Re: Cossacks. They were a party in a civil war. In addition, I mean not dekulakisation, but ethnic cleansings (I provided the sources somwhere else), as well as official banning of anti-semitism during the Civil War. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re:"only few (Valentino) and only during certain parts of their history." Only a few??? He states that in addition to China, the USSR and Cambodia, mass killings on a smaller scale have taken place in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa.
- RE: "Novocherkassk. By no means it fits a Valentino's "mass killing" criteria." So? Who says this entire article is going strictly by his criteria on mass killings? By his definition, only 50,000 killings or more every five years qualify as mass killings. That would mean a lot of homicidal regimes of all ideologies wouldn't qualify as "mass killers," such as Pinochet's in Chile. He himself states on pg. 12 that it is "arbitrary, but selecting these relatively high thresholds helps establish with a greater degree of confidence that massive violence did, in fact occur"
- Re:"I mean not dekulakisation, but ethnic cleansings" Oh really? It seems that the USSR engaged in plenty of ethnic cleansing to me: Population transfer in the Soviet Union (Scroll down to "ethnic operations"). You also might want to check out that book by historian J. Otto Pohl on "Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: Valentino. Read the page 91 in full.
- Re: "Who says this entire article is going strictly by his criteria on mass killings?" It is up to the majority of the editors. You can either follow Valentino's definition (and include famine and similar victims into a total death toll), or use a commonsensual definition (so these victims will be left beyond the article's scope). For me, both variants are acceptable. I oppose to only one thing: mixing these two, which is synthesis.
- Re Otto Pohl. Thanks. I already have a lot of sources on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "Valentino. Read the page 91 in full." Oh, you mean the part where he says: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing." (funny thing, he includes Cambodia under Pol Pot. Imagine that?) Wow, that sounds pretty important! Perhaps there should be a wiki entry on this. Oh wait.....--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good. Thy to read the rest. Of course, it may take some time, because the page contains 7.5 sentences totally, however, I can wait.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "Valentino. Read the page 91 in full." Oh, you mean the part where he says: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing." (funny thing, he includes Cambodia under Pol Pot. Imagine that?) Wow, that sounds pretty important! Perhaps there should be a wiki entry on this. Oh wait.....--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know; why do you think that not representing Marxist views is compatible with WP:WEIGHT? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the view that the DK was not communist is even a Marxist one - aside of course from the usual bickering among various factions and strains of communists who tend to accuse each other of fascism or right-wing deviation in general. Gimme an example of a communist group and I can always find another communist ("Marxist") group that calls them fascist.radek (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- That, unsurprisingly, does not answer the question asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, concerns such as this one are something to be addressed within the article itself, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion.radek (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think the view that the DK was not communist is even a Marxist one - aside of course from the usual bickering among various factions and strains of communists who tend to accuse each other of fascism or right-wing deviation in general. Gimme an example of a communist group and I can always find another communist ("Marxist") group that calls them fascist.radek (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is just pointing out that there can be disputes about which regimes were Communist. For example, Hong Kong is governed by a Communist regime, but may not be considered Communist. 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Whether the current People's Republic of China is Communist by any ideological standard is debatable. Claritas § 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Violates SYNTH, NPOV, and is arguably a partisan attack. Şłџğģő 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep article subject is notable, the article has reliable sources, there's no legitimate reason to delete the article. Editors involved in the article need to keep working at it to resolve their differences and ensure NPOV. I don't see that much SYNTH in an article - the overall topic is certainly not SYNTH. I see no OR in it. Most (but not all) of the objections seem ideologically motivated in nature, rather than based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies.radek (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly have neither Communist, nor anti-Communist leanings, and I've listed numerous policies violated by this article, to include WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. The article contains some good content that can be merged elsewhere, but when the problems start at the title itself, and the POV violations are defended so unbendingly, then the article is beyond redemption. The EXACT same problems persist since the last AfD, and even then people were saying "enough is enough." The only hope I see is for all of the article's participants here to enter into formal mediation. Without that, I don't see any possibility of an overwhelming consensus forming to solve these long, long running problems. BigK HeX (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This pointless refiling of an AfD can only serve one purpose: to disrupt the ongoing consensus building on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes and restart the factions and heat up the debate, as well as spread it to yet another place. (It already spread to both WQA and AN3. It's only disruption and should be closed immediately, really. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a disruptive AFD. Consensus can change, and there are plenty of arguments in favour of deleting this here. Claritas § 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- PMAnderson was involved in a debate about RJ Rummel as a reliable source on WP:RSN. He failed to gather any support there for getting rid of the RJ Rummel quote. He then deleted the whole section containing the quote. This got reverted and is still being discussed, but it doesn't look like he is going to get any consensus for that either. If that section is so horrible, he could wait for the outcome of the still ongoing debate on that section. But he doesn't. Instead he uses it as an excuse to file an AfD. So when he can't get rid of a quote, he deletes a whole section. And when he can't delete that whole section, he tries to get the whole article deleted. I don't know what you would call it, but I'd call that disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think most informed editors at the RSN agreed that Rummel's book was fringe. Again you continue to make the mistake of confusing books written by people and the writers themselves. Books published outside the academic mainstream and written in a highly partican way are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- TFD you are most certainly misrepresenting the outcome of the RSN discussion. In fact almost no one agreed that the book was fringe, even editors from "your side of the aisle". I guess by "informed editors" you are referring to only yourself and PMAnderson. But that is exactly a case of ignoring consensus per IDIDN'THEARTHAT.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. If you want to continue the RSN debate, please to that there, and not here. Stop dragging every conflict you have into all the other debates. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "He failed to gather any support there..." Rather odd interpretation of the RSN results. In actuality, the consensus was that sometimes Rummel's writings may be used, although in most cases they should be supplemented with necessary reservations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like support for TFD's contention that everybody thought the book was "fringe" at all either.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- And it definitely doesn't sound like the Rummel quote should be deleted. The outcome of the first RSN was unclear, so I started on on a specific quote, and the outcome was clear there. No support for claiming Rummel *coined* the word, but clear support for that he *uses* it. So Rummel would continue to be used as a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Paul, it would be nice if just this one time you stayed on topic. Lets focus people on the AFD not the RSN mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't sound like support for TFD's contention that everybody thought the book was "fringe" at all either.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh look at this! Here is the conversation at RSN, most of which was then hidden by mark nutley,[13] and now appears to have been deleted. Is there any reason why this edit was made? TFD (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Have you been smoking crack? It`s not been deleted, it`s archived. And i did it as the RSN request was moved, wy have two threads about the same thing? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did not say you deleted it but that you hid it, for whatever reason. But it now appears to have been deleted. TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did not hide it either, try to click on the word show. And also read the summary in the header moved to This section which is wikilinked, whaddya think that`s for? mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it now, it is under a different section. It is a little confusing though why arguments that Rummel's book are fringe were removed from the discussion thread and archived under a different discussion. TFD (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- They were not. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it now, it is under a different section. It is a little confusing though why arguments that Rummel's book are fringe were removed from the discussion thread and archived under a different discussion. TFD (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did not hide it either, try to click on the word show. And also read the summary in the header moved to This section which is wikilinked, whaddya think that`s for? mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did not say you deleted it but that you hid it, for whatever reason. But it now appears to have been deleted. TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Have you been smoking crack? It`s not been deleted, it`s archived. And i did it as the RSN request was moved, wy have two threads about the same thing? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "He failed to gather any support there..." Rather odd interpretation of the RSN results. In actuality, the consensus was that sometimes Rummel's writings may be used, although in most cases they should be supplemented with necessary reservations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think most informed editors at the RSN agreed that Rummel's book was fringe. Again you continue to make the mistake of confusing books written by people and the writers themselves. Books published outside the academic mainstream and written in a highly partican way are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- PMAnderson was involved in a debate about RJ Rummel as a reliable source on WP:RSN. He failed to gather any support there for getting rid of the RJ Rummel quote. He then deleted the whole section containing the quote. This got reverted and is still being discussed, but it doesn't look like he is going to get any consensus for that either. If that section is so horrible, he could wait for the outcome of the still ongoing debate on that section. But he doesn't. Instead he uses it as an excuse to file an AfD. So when he can't get rid of a quote, he deletes a whole section. And when he can't delete that whole section, he tries to get the whole article deleted. I don't know what you would call it, but I'd call that disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is not a disruptive AFD. Consensus can change, and there are plenty of arguments in favour of deleting this here. Claritas § 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete as nom. This conversation should make clearer even than the talk page (on which there is no trace of consensus, even one of exhaustion) that this article is chiefly a battleground of two economic faiths. This is not what Wikipedia exists for; there are enough blog comment pages out there even for the ungrammatical Libertarians and the unrepentant Marxists of the world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that it is a battleground is a problem, but it is not a reason to delete an article. "Gdansk/Danzig" was a battleground for a long time, for completely different reasons. Obviously, that doesn't mean we should delete that article. It also doesn't help to (inaccurately) stereotype editors into these categories, pulled straight out of thin air.radek (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did say chiefly. There are some evident exceptions, and I would welcome more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not you who's being categorized... BigK HeX (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- But, more importantly, I don't see this battleground going anywhere -- not even from exhaustion -- without formal mediation. BigK HeX (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Formal mediation may not be a bad idea. If it does take place though, the AfD should be suspended/closed/postponed.radek (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No need for that; the article can always be userified - presumably in the mediator's namespace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- And the article can always be kept and subject to another AfD later. Beginning of mediation is no reason to delete. In fact, the default in cases of no consensus is keep - same thing makes sense if mediation on the subject is opened; close as no consensus and await the results of mediation.radek (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No need for that; the article can always be userified - presumably in the mediator's namespace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Formal mediation may not be a bad idea. If it does take place though, the AfD should be suspended/closed/postponed.radek (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- on which there is no trace of consensus, even one of exhaustion - Not true. In fact, during the days before this AfD, a consensus on the way forward was emerging, and discussion went from generalities to specifics. A consensus is emerging. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Move to mass killings under authoritarian regimes, trim, reformat, and expand accordingly. (Igny (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
- But both articles can exist. In fact, if "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" were to be created and sufficiently expanded, at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles, and this article would be one such split off article. The fact that "mass killings...communist" was created before "mass killings ... authoritarian" is not an argument for delete/move. In fact, it is an argument for keeping the present one. It is also an argument for creation of the "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" article.radek (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't really sound like an argument for a "keep." Rather, it may very well be a reference to the POV COATRACK problems, and Igny's suggestion for a remedy. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles - Yeah, and that point is now. :-) The article on mass killings under communist regimes is quote long, sticking that into an article on authoritarian regimes in general would at the beginning create the impression that this is *only* communist regimes. That would be POV. Once other sections are created the article would by horribly long. Clearly a main article should be created, but this article should *not* be merged, as that would only result in a split very quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. Once the current content is moved to "...authoritarian...", there would be nothing new to say in "...communist..." except for
- Mass killings occurred under totalitarian communist regimes, see mass killings under authoritarian regimes.
- 1.Most Communist specific quotes can be removed, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information neither is it a propaganda tool. 2. In the current form no commonality between mass killings and communism, as an ideology, was demonstrated. 3. Once the moving/merge occurs, no split would succeed per WP:POVFORK. (Igny (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC))
- "No", and then you ignore everything I said. Pretend I repeated the arguments here. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. Once the current content is moved to "...authoritarian...", there would be nothing new to say in "...communist..." except for
- at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles - Yeah, and that point is now. :-) The article on mass killings under communist regimes is quote long, sticking that into an article on authoritarian regimes in general would at the beginning create the impression that this is *only* communist regimes. That would be POV. Once other sections are created the article would by horribly long. Clearly a main article should be created, but this article should *not* be merged, as that would only result in a split very quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't really sound like an argument for a "keep." Rather, it may very well be a reference to the POV COATRACK problems, and Igny's suggestion for a remedy. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- But both articles can exist. In fact, if "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" were to be created and sufficiently expanded, at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles, and this article would be one such split off article. The fact that "mass killings...communist" was created before "mass killings ... authoritarian" is not an argument for delete/move. In fact, it is an argument for keeping the present one. It is also an argument for creation of the "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" article.radek (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- What would you advise, if a move cannot be achieved? BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per the last Afd. This article goes into considerably more detail than Criticisms of communist party rule and it is not obvious to someone not schooled in Marxist dialectic how their POV differs; many of the same sources are used. This seems a perfectly valid subsidiary article. Claims of WP:SYNTHESIS are unconvincing, given the authorities used - it is hardly surprising that WP editors do not need to excercise their imaginations to come up with this, but can easily find academic support. To keep the article it is not necessary to demonstrate that only Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm ... can't reliable authorities be used to create a WP:SYN? Doesn't seem like the presence of authorities in the article addresses the SYN objection... BigK HeX (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because they can doesn't mean they are, if they make the connections. Are you going to heckle every comment here? The Keep ones I mean. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm ... can't reliable authorities be used to create a WP:SYN? Doesn't seem like the presence of authorities in the article addresses the SYN objection... BigK HeX (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV returns plenty of Google scholar hits [15].radek (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Communist genocide" -Cambodia gives just 44 hits[16]. Cambodia is a pure example of genocide, which was recognised by both Soviet authorities and (later) by Western intellectuals. More problems poses the need to establish a linkage between Khmer Rouge and Communism, because internationalism is a core of Marxist doctrine, whereas KR were nationalists, and, by definition of Fein, "fascists". With regards to the rest hits, please, analyse them carefully, because some of them are irrelevant, e.g. in one article "communist genocide" is found in the following context:
- " organizations referred, in their only four penal complains, to the “communist genocide”, but this accusation wasn't accepted by the justice, as political groups are not protected by the 1950 Genocide Convention." Please, remember, that "genocide", by contrast to other numerous "-cides", is a legal category, so scholars are not free to apply it to everything they want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Communist genocide" -Cambodia gives just 44 hits[16]. Cambodia is a pure example of genocide, which was recognised by both Soviet authorities and (later) by Western intellectuals. More problems poses the need to establish a linkage between Khmer Rouge and Communism, because internationalism is a core of Marxist doctrine, whereas KR were nationalists, and, by definition of Fein, "fascists". With regards to the rest hits, please, analyse them carefully, because some of them are irrelevant, e.g. in one article "communist genocide" is found in the following context:
- Can you name any other article created that has nil hits? - Yes many, see my answer to your vote above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV returns plenty of Google scholar hits [15].radek (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Radek, re your comment: ""Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV". I opposed the name change. TFD (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep - No additional argument have come up since last AfD, while the article has improved since. There is in fact a consensus developing on the talk page, despite what the nom. says. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete POV fork and coatrack, with major synth and OR problems. One big problem for the article is the implied POV of the name and the lack of RS that support this naming. A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "
appeasers" "apologists" which leads me to conclude that until they are removed or somehow dealt with this article could never be written in an NPOV manner. It should be replaced with a new title and a list which simply links to articles on notable communist "mass killing", and has a see also to American, British, European, Democratic, Historic mass killings etc. Verbal chat 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another false strawmen. Show me a single instance where anyone says anything about ""commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers"". You put those words in quotes which implies that you were quoting somebody or that somebody had used these terms. Can you point out who? No? Then what was the point of putting that in there? The ideological crusade seems to be on the part of some (not all) editors who wish to see this article deleted.radek (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There hasn't been one single reference to pinkos or appeasers in that talk page, and most of the other things you say aren't true either. The word "commies" has been used, but as an abbreviation of "communists" or "communism", which is obviously relevant to the article. It hasn't been used in a derogatory way. The issues you take up has been discussed and most of them already resolved, and the rest are on the way of being resolved. The only ones on an ideological crusade here are the ones who are against any form of criticism against anti-democratic regimes and ideologies. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Commies" appears liberally (ha!) on the article talk page, and editors involved in trying to address the issues have been termed apologists and the page an apologia discussing this topic. See for example MNs edits. It is not a straw man but a real problem, and you ignore the actual problems with the page - the blatant POV of editors is what is stonewalling any improvement and attempts to address these issues. The phrase 'pinkwash' has also been used on the talk page. Verbal chat 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is a pretty massive difference between calling somebody a "pinko" and using the word "pinkwash" to describe efforts to done down the mass murders done by communist regimes. The first is a derogatory term used as a personal attack, the second is neither derogatory nor personal. The arguments for deleting this article is getting seriously strained if this is the best you can come up with. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote again - I haven't said what you attributed to me. That language is unacceptable, and not conducive to addressing the real and demonstrated POV concerns. My reasons for deleting the article are NPOV/SYNTH/OR/NOTE. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. (talk about straw men) Verbal chat 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Que? I haven't attributed anything to you. Are you denying that you said A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers". This discussion is getting very strange. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. - I totally agree. Now drop the battle attitude, and join the discussion that was, at least before this AfD, going forward in a constructive manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, I have no "battle" to win - 'm just trying to defend the project and improve the encyclopaedia. no I don't deny what I said - I deny your inaccurate paraphrasing. I have not been uncivil or treated the page as a battleground, whereas you and MN have just dismissed policy based concerns with a condescending attitude of "we'll explain to you what you've misunderstood" etc while not addressing the concerns. My policy based reasons for deletion have not been addressed, and as they are unlikely to be in the current climate I must argue for delete. Also, I'll note that Collect below fails to give a valid keep rationale. Verbal chat 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- All reasons for deletion has been addressed. On the 2nd of July it was asked that all arguments for the tags on the article should be stated under a group of headings. The headings are POV, SYN, Essay and cleanup. You have not added one reason there. It was then on the 11th asked to state in a specific template form, any remaining issues under this heading. Two issues was raised, none by you. The two issues have been answered. No other issues remain. How can you claim to have raised issues, when everytome you get asked to raise issues, you are silent? You have stated no issues with the article, and therefore your "stated issues" can not be unanswered. You are just battling for some sort of ideological standpoint, while refusing to engage in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, I have no "battle" to win - 'm just trying to defend the project and improve the encyclopaedia. no I don't deny what I said - I deny your inaccurate paraphrasing. I have not been uncivil or treated the page as a battleground, whereas you and MN have just dismissed policy based concerns with a condescending attitude of "we'll explain to you what you've misunderstood" etc while not addressing the concerns. My policy based reasons for deletion have not been addressed, and as they are unlikely to be in the current climate I must argue for delete. Also, I'll note that Collect below fails to give a valid keep rationale. Verbal chat 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Que? I haven't attributed anything to you. Are you denying that you said A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers". This discussion is getting very strange. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. - I totally agree. Now drop the battle attitude, and join the discussion that was, at least before this AfD, going forward in a constructive manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote again - I haven't said what you attributed to me. That language is unacceptable, and not conducive to addressing the real and demonstrated POV concerns. My reasons for deleting the article are NPOV/SYNTH/OR/NOTE. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. (talk about straw men) Verbal chat 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is a pretty massive difference between calling somebody a "pinko" and using the word "pinkwash" to describe efforts to done down the mass murders done by communist regimes. The first is a derogatory term used as a personal attack, the second is neither derogatory nor personal. The arguments for deleting this article is getting seriously strained if this is the best you can come up with. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Commies" appears liberally (ha!) on the article talk page, and editors involved in trying to address the issues have been termed apologists and the page an apologia discussing this topic. See for example MNs edits. It is not a straw man but a real problem, and you ignore the actual problems with the page - the blatant POV of editors is what is stonewalling any improvement and attempts to address these issues. The phrase 'pinkwash' has also been used on the talk page. Verbal chat 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No issues here at all which have not been raised in the innumerable past attempts to delete. The article is in better shape than in the past, and the overwhelming past results ought to be examined by any closing admin. WP:IDONTLIKEIT fails as a reason for deletion entirely. Notable - undeniably. Sourced - fully, Hence, clear Keep. Collect (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment WP:CANVASS shows that non-neutral posts were made to editors who has !voted delete, while posts were not made to other editors who had !voted to Keep ... for that reason such edits as [17] and [18] as well as a fairly neutral request to TFD who had proposed deletion before should be regarded as improper CANVASSing ab initio. Noting ArbCom statements from the opast, I suggest that !votes from anyone CANVASSED be wholly disregarded. No one who had !voted Keep was contacted by the nominator. Collect (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Canvassing is against policy and the users responsible should be dealt with, but an editor's well-reasoned !vote should not be "wholly disregarded" because someone improperly informed them of the discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment WP:CANVASS shows that non-neutral posts were made to editors who has !voted delete, while posts were not made to other editors who had !voted to Keep ... for that reason such edits as [17] and [18] as well as a fairly neutral request to TFD who had proposed deletion before should be regarded as improper CANVASSing ab initio. Noting ArbCom statements from the opast, I suggest that !votes from anyone CANVASSED be wholly disregarded. No one who had !voted Keep was contacted by the nominator. Collect (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, the "overwhelming past results" were "no consensus" (3 times) and "keep" (once). TFD (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Collect, I notice that you are now canvassing other editors about the AfD. Whenever I have done this I have explained on the page that I am canvassing and explain the criteria used. TFD (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (nothing more to be said) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I have sent absolutely neutral notifications to those who !voted on the first deletion ("genocide") - and I would suggest that my wording was as neutral as possible for them. As to your assertions as to results: The first on "genocide" was "no consensus" indeed on 10 August 2009. The second on "genocide" was also "no consensus" The first on the current title as listed was on 2 October 2009. The third (first listed as "mass killing") was closed 15 November as "no consensus". More importantly, the immediate prior one was closed on 22 April 2010 with this statement: This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia. POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. As that referred to pretty much the current article, I suggest that the finding by Mike Cline be given substantial weight in any closing here. Collect (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- To TFD - I would daresay that since I posted the fact that I sent neutral notes to everyone I could from the first AfD (I think I excluded folks already opining here) and that [19] demonstrates the absolute neutrality, and that your post was the ec for mine where I mentioned all this, that your request was met already. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 July 201
(UTC)
- Odd, the article has change a great deal since the last AfD, which also closed as a no consensus. What is the rationale for your keep !vote, or is it just a vote? Verbal chat 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um -- the last one was closed as a clear and convincing Keep - see Mike Cline's closing statement. This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia. POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. Does not sound like a "no consensus" close, to be sure, does it? Collect (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article may have changed but the arguments for & against deletion don't appear to have done. Nothing in the nom about deterioration in quality etc, or anywhere above that I have seen. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Odd, the article has change a great deal since the last AfD, which also closed as a no consensus. What is the rationale for your keep !vote, or is it just a vote? Verbal chat 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Collect and Johnbod. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the subject is controversial and the article needs improvement. But that is not grounds for deletion. The communist mass murders tended to target different groups than otherwise similar fascist or nationalist atrocities and genocides so I consider a separate article is worthwhile having. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- KeepThe article has room for improvement, but the topic is certainly considered valid for enough mainstream reasearchers and thus it has place on Wikipedia as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the objection is not that the information is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that it would appropriate elsewhere as not to end up as a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- The issue of forking should be resolved by using linking section in [[Criticisms of communist party rule article, to WP:SS. Which was done. Deletion is not a solution to forking, and you can not merge the article back into the main, since it is too large. Wikidas© 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the objection is not that the information is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that it would appropriate elsewhere as not to end up as a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral. The difficulty is that on the one hand, the article is clearly an invalid encyclopedia entry, being essentially an attempt to list the Crimes of Communism. This is no more valid than an equivalent attempt to list the Crimes of Capitalism (aka Mass killings under Capitalist regimes) - but in the latter case it is easier for the average reader to realise the absurdity of the endeavour. On the other hand, what is a valid entry is the historiography of "mass killings under communist regimes", that is, the attempt to write history which collates disparate context-specific historical events as if they were an attribute of something called "communism". A pre-requisite for this historiography is (a) the essentialization of "communism", so that the differences between the regimes tagged "communist" are ignored; (b) treating "communism" as something that falls from the sky and acts in a vacuum without external influence - each regime merely an independent petri-dish scientific experiment in the effects of some standardised dose of whatever mysterious thing is inside the "communism" bottle. A valid encyclopedia article would critically discuss these issues with the historiography, and not accept at face value the incorrect claim that the topic is valid in itself as history - which it is not. I could go on, but basically, this article as it stands (and as it will remain, since clearly too many either don't get its invalidity or don't care) is no more valid than Mass killings under Jewish regimes. (Discuss.) Rd232 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly original research and clearly pushing a particular position. It starts by saying that various types of government kill people (well, all of them actually) but then dives straight in to communist government without a proper critical and historical perspective. It's worth checking out the edit history of the original author (now indef banned as a vandal) andy (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding of it is that the stuff about how various types of government kill people was put in there for the sake of NPOV to avoid giving the impression that only communist regimes kill people or that communism and mass killings are necessarily linked. So your objection seems misplaced. The article has survived 4 AfDs already, with last one a strong keep. Who cares who started in the article in the first place? That's completely immaterial.radek (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- If Communism and mass killings are not linked, then the article is synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, if. But they *are* linked, and this link is sourced and there are even several views of that link taken up. This is an utter straw man, put in an "if"-form. And you have done this repeatedly on the talk page, and repeatedly gotten the same answer, which you ignore. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- An uninvolved editor is weighing in and basically telling us that the article still makes strong implications (even despite my attempts to bring it closer to NPOV). This is precisely the issue that has been repeatedly pointed out as a problem. The article still implies a certain conclusion very strongly, despite the fact that it represents only isolated minority viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- If Communism and mass killings are not linked, then the article is synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding of it is that the stuff about how various types of government kill people was put in there for the sake of NPOV to avoid giving the impression that only communist regimes kill people or that communism and mass killings are necessarily linked. So your objection seems misplaced. The article has survived 4 AfDs already, with last one a strong keep. Who cares who started in the article in the first place? That's completely immaterial.radek (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The Swedish Institute "Forum för levande historia" has recently studied communist regimes crimes against humanity (Brott mot mänskligheten under kommunistiska regimer) which is very similar to this.[20] Maybe that name could be better for this article also: Crimes against the humanity under communist regimes. Närking (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since the forum is not a center for academic research, but a learning resource, it does not provide a useful source here. TFD (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, maybe merge but really rewrite per all keeps. —I-20the highway 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The topic is notable and it is only a few weeks since the previous AFD which was a Keep. The nomination therefore seems to be disruption per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong KeepThis topic is very notable, it's been only a short period since the last AFD (so short that the nom is clearly being disruptive), and the article is bolstered by many reliable sources and is a topic (as it should be!) of scholarly study. If we're going to have an article on the Nazi Holocaust in which 6 million were killed, the crimes of totalitarian socialism, who claimed far greater numbers of victims and grotesqueness, also deserve an article. The Characteristics of mass killings under socialist regimes are also unique enough to distinguish it from other forms of mass murder, e.g., genocide, and is a topic of scholarly study; i don't think any scholar has made a study of "mass murder under capitalist regimes" (which would be meaningless anyways; a fully capitalist classical liberal/libertarian state would share little characteristics with the regimes of Franco or Marcos.)
Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep a perfectly valid subject, as is shown by the tens of thousand of references on the subject in all languages. A very broad one also, an this would be a good starting point for more detailed articles. The title is not perfectly neutral, but is about as neutral as possible & reasonably descriptive. I think there might possible be a point of widening this to "Mass killings during communist regimes", which would include also the killings from the other side when this occurred, but it might yield a very confused article and should best be kept separate. I note this is separate from the question of whether any of the events, such as those during the first years after 1917 in Russia might possibly have been justified: I certainly know people who thought they were, and I have even known people who would say the same about some of the later events. The question of whether the events of at least most of them took place , however, is so well established that the denial of them must be treated as a fringe position. I do note for the last editor's benefits that certainly people have studied the question of whether capitalism leads inherently to imperialist wars and genocidal massacres--that's the classic Marxist position, and a great deal has been written in its defense. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a POV fork, WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, redirecting to Genocide and distributing content between there and Communism. — Jeff G. ツ 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, this is getting ridiculous - We've had this discussion 5 times now and the discussions are all the same. It's a well sourced topic with lots of references. There was an entire book written about it for goodness sakes! It wasn't much of a fork when it started and it certainly isn't now, months later.
The reasons for deletion are always versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's already been enough compromise on the title alone and yet no matter what changes are made people still keep nominating it. Shadowjams (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC) - Delete As others have pointed out, it's clearly a POV fork and the article is written almost entirely in WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the sole purpose of this article is to push a political agenda. I've never seen a more clear example on wikipedia and I'm very surprised that this article has survived for so long. LokiiT (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- How is this synth? There are dozens of articles and books that talk about the concept as a whole. Calling this synth is just willfully ignoring the dozens of specific books and scholarship (over 150 cites in the article itself). Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually none of them refer to the "concept as a whole". TFD (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- What!?! Just read this first paragraph: Black Book of Communism! How much more do we need to convince you? A book entitled "The notable topic of Mass killings under Communist regimes"? How about a chapter entitled "Communist Mass Killings" (ISBN 0801472733)) by a Dartmouth professor? That do anything for you? Shadowjams (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Rummel and Valentino also refers to the concept as a whole. And I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones who have been widely discussed on the talk page, and which therefore TFD is sure to be aware of. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- We have discussed this topic extensively on the talk page. Please stop repeating the same arguments. TFD (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are right, my bad. Just because you take up arguments that has been conclusively shown as being false is no reason for me to repeat the same discussion here. I apologize. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- We have discussed this topic extensively on the talk page. Please stop repeating the same arguments. TFD (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- And Rummel and Valentino also refers to the concept as a whole. And I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones who have been widely discussed on the talk page, and which therefore TFD is sure to be aware of. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- What!?! Just read this first paragraph: Black Book of Communism! How much more do we need to convince you? A book entitled "The notable topic of Mass killings under Communist regimes"? How about a chapter entitled "Communist Mass Killings" (ISBN 0801472733)) by a Dartmouth professor? That do anything for you? Shadowjams (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually none of them refer to the "concept as a whole". TFD (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- How is this synth? There are dozens of articles and books that talk about the concept as a whole. Calling this synth is just willfully ignoring the dozens of specific books and scholarship (over 150 cites in the article itself). Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The article takes well-known fact that the significant percentage of civilians in the peacetime years of the 20th century were killed in just a few countries, and in a classic WP:SYNTH fashion labels these killings with an arbitrary common attribute of these countries (state ideology). The same countries can be grouped also by their state religion (atheism), or the major changes in government these countries were going through. It is very easy to find sources that would group the same killings (plus few extra ones) based on the two latter attributes. These sources, naturally, will be marginal, but so are the sources in the current article. Therefore, if this article deserves a place in Wikipedia, its name might just as well be changed to "Mass killings by the atheist governments". After all, why group on one common attribute and not another? Dimawik (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, sorry, that's not true at all. There is no SYNTH that arbitrarily groups them by ideology, there are reliable sources that very non-arbitrarily groups them by ideology and also offers explanations why this particular ideology is so bloody. All this is in the article, well sourced and explained. If you want to group them by atheism, find a reliable source that does that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even the sources that you allege to discuss a grouping have not been shown to be anything more than minority viewpoints (even when directly challenged), thus writing an entire article from a minority point of view leads us straight into the very definition of a POV COATRACK, and ultimately making a mockery of the WP:NPOV policy (and incidentally, pushes us all towards deletion as a POV fork). BigK HeX (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You wold think that if it was a minority standpoint, you would be able to come up with at least *one* source to oppose and balance that standpoint. But apparently not. Why do you require a tertiary source to show what is mainstream, when you can't even show that there exist any other opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did point to articles that discuss the claims as part of holocaust trivialization. But otherwise as a fringe theory, this topic receives little attention. TFD (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not often the New York Times Book Review gives fringe theories good reviews [22], and there are quite a few professors from Ivy leagues writing on this "fringe" theory. First the claim is SYNTH, but when enough books that address the issue on point come out the argument becomes that they're fringe. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only part of that book that could support your theory are contained in the introduction which was roundly debunked by several of the contributors to the book. All of this has been explained to you. TFD (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- That "debunking" concerns only the numbers, which are too high, and not what is discussed now. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Many editors have provided detailed objections [here and here] regarding a misuse of sources (WP:SYN), but one of the primary concerns for this AfD is an exaggeration of a viewpoint outside of academic consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The only part of that book that could support your theory are contained in the introduction which was roundly debunked by several of the contributors to the book. All of this has been explained to you. TFD (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not often the New York Times Book Review gives fringe theories good reviews [22], and there are quite a few professors from Ivy leagues writing on this "fringe" theory. First the claim is SYNTH, but when enough books that address the issue on point come out the argument becomes that they're fringe. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did point to articles that discuss the claims as part of holocaust trivialization. But otherwise as a fringe theory, this topic receives little attention. TFD (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You wold think that if it was a minority standpoint, you would be able to come up with at least *one* source to oppose and balance that standpoint. But apparently not. Why do you require a tertiary source to show what is mainstream, when you can't even show that there exist any other opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even the sources that you allege to discuss a grouping have not been shown to be anything more than minority viewpoints (even when directly challenged), thus writing an entire article from a minority point of view leads us straight into the very definition of a POV COATRACK, and ultimately making a mockery of the WP:NPOV policy (and incidentally, pushes us all towards deletion as a POV fork). BigK HeX (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, sorry, that's not true at all. There is no SYNTH that arbitrarily groups them by ideology, there are reliable sources that very non-arbitrarily groups them by ideology and also offers explanations why this particular ideology is so bloody. All this is in the article, well sourced and explained. If you want to group them by atheism, find a reliable source that does that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Openfuture, I do not understand your arguments. Certainly, there are plenty of books of the same quality as the ones you are using in your arguments that made a connection between state atheism and mass murder by the state. This connection is, naturally, quite stronger that the one currently argued in the article, as it permits to include the crimes by the almost-atheist and very anti-religious Jacobins in France and Nazi in Germany. I can point you to many books that back up this claim. Here is an eloquent one: [USSR, Campuchea, PRC] show a striking correlation between state-sponsored atheism and mass-murder by the state. Similarly, you can find scholarly works on relations between popular uprisings and mass killings. I am no fan of Marxism, BTW, but singling it out for the murders in the USSR, while ignoring the role of atheism and revolutionary spirit is ridiculous; good historians do not make this mistake. You point to some fringe (albeit scholarly) books that blame Marxism exclusively; I can point to similar quality books that blame atheism in a similar fashion. This just shows that the single-minded grouping currently used in the article is not mainstream. Dimawik (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "that made a connection between state atheism and mass murder" Connection or correlation? Note, sometimes connection (whith implies a casual linkage) is being mixed with correlation (which does not).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- My prediction ... we'll get a Two wrongs fallacy with someone recommending that we start up the Mass murders under atheists article in 5 ... 4... 3... 2....
- BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- What he calls "state-sponsored atheism" is in reality the persecution of religion. That's not atheism at all. He shows that there is a correlation between states that persecute people on their opinion, and states that persecute people. Not exactly shocking. But yeah, WP:SOFIXIT then. If you really believe there is a general scholarly consensus that atheist governments kill people, go ahead and collect those sources, and put it somewhere relevant. I'm convinced you will fail. The book you linked to has 28 citations (compare with Rummels over 400) and none seem to actually quote his claim that atheism and mass murder is connected. I think you'll find that this is a good example of exactly the kind of fringe view that this article is falsely accused to be. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The WP:SYNTH claims above are transparently baseless, since there is extensive scholarship on the matter. The concept of Communist (more specifically Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc.) nations perpetrating mass killings is hardly a new synthesis. As the article clearly shows, this concept is well established in several parts of the political, cultural, and scholarly mainstream: there are international resolutions about it; there are an abundance of well-known books on the subject, it is widely taught in schools, and so on. Václav Havel is not a kook or a member of the fringe, after all. The fact that genocides and democides emerged from the Communist movement, a movement which was ostensibly on the Left and ostensibly aimed at a classless internationalist society, is one of the big political stories of the early 20th century; it is central to the histories of those nations, of the Cold War, and especially the history of the Left. Wikipedia cannot exactly let it go unreported. --FOo (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The article has shown that there is isolated scholarship on the matter. Perhaps surprisingly, at this point the article's talk page actually has shown that editors CANNOT provide RS to attest that the concept is well-established. BigK HeX (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no arguing that during the 20th century in few countries governments were involved essentially in mass murders. Some of these governments (but not all) were based on Marxist ideology, and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. One can find books that near-exclusively blame Marxism for the killings, and books that blame atheism. The problem with the current article is that it represents synthesis based on a marginal POV. Just think of this: with the current name and content, where could I insert the (trivial and well-sourced) observation that near all mass killings by the states in the 20th century were perpetuated by the atheist governments? This is why the current article should be deleted, and a paragraph mentioning the relationship between Marxism and mass killings shall be inserted into Mass_murder#Mass_murder_by_a_state instead, along with the similar connection made to atheism. Dimawik (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. - That is a blatantly false statement that you definitely can't source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note that I do not plan to insert my statement into article (I want it deleted, after all). So all I need is to show that other mass crimes perpetrators of 20th century were against the organized religion. Well, the article already lists crimes by the Communist governments. These governments were undeniably atheist. The only crimes in 20th century that match (or surpass, in my opinion) the repressions in the USSR are the Nazi ones. Nazis are generally considered uncompromisingly antireligious. I rest my argument here; would you mind retracting your "blatantly false" accusation that clearly violates WP:AGF? Dimawik (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. - That is a blatantly false statement that you definitely can't source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've argued above that the article as it stands is invalid. In an effort to illustrate this, I've created Mass killings under Capitalist regimes by adapting the article, adding some hints of the direction that article could go in. Does this help anyone consider the issues? What arguments can be brought against the Capitalist article that can't be brought against the Communist one? (Apart from sourcing - I haven't added any specific ones, but it's obvious they exist.) Rd232 talk 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would claim that the sources do *not* exist. I have never heard of any reliable scholarly source connecting capitalism and mass killings in any form. I know of sources contesting it, but I don't know if they are reliable scholarly sourced. I suggest you find your alleged sources pretty quickly, or you just violated WP:POINT. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well lets see the sources, if they exist then the article should stay mark nutley (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- A collection of Bad Stuff under capitalist regimes can be made just as well, and undoubtedly sources exist plentifully both for documenting the Bad Stuff and for making the connection between the Bad Stuff and the regime type. See for example Colonialism#Marxist_view_of_colonialism. I'm not going to make an effort to find sources because I don't think the article is any more valid than the one this AFD is for - but the point is to indicate concretely that the same exercise can be done for Capitalist Regimes. Rd232 talk 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would claim that the sources do *not* exist. I have never heard of any reliable scholarly source connecting capitalism and mass killings in any form. I know of sources contesting it, but I don't know if they are reliable scholarly sourced. I suggest you find your alleged sources pretty quickly, or you just violated WP:POINT. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- undoubtedly sources exist plentifully - I doubt it, so evidently it's not undoubtedly at all.
- but the point is to indicate concretely that the same exercise can be done for Capitalist Regimes. - Apparently it can't, as you can't provide sources. You should add your new article for speedy deletion, it's obviously disruptive editing according to WP:POINT. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The vast majority of Wikipedia articles ever created were created initially without sources. You declare that I "can't provide sources" whereas I explicitly stated above that I hadn't many any effort to look for them. I don't have the time, and I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour. I have no doubt though that they exist - as for example the wikilink I gave would suggest - Marxist (and plenty non-Marxist) literature on colonialism is the obvious place to start, alongside literature on the US military-industrial complex which Dwight Eisenhower spoke of (maybe you've heard of him?). Somebody else can look for sources to expand and develop the article - this is Wikipedia. If you genuinely don't want to give the article time to exist a while for someone to come along and do that, then AFD it. Rd232 talk 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the vast majority are created without sources because people don't know better. You created this to prove a point with the claim that "undoubtedly sources exist" but you can't mention even one of them. Marxist (and plenty non-Marxist) literature on colonialism is the obvious place to start, - No, because colonialism and capitalism is not the same thing. That would be the obvious place to start if you want to create a "Mass killings under colonialism" to prove a point. But you didn't. I take your request above that *other* find sources as a way of saying that you don't have any. Then you shuold go for a Speedy Delete. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently you couldn't be bothered to follow the wikilink Colonialism#Marxist_view_of_colonialism I gave above, so I quote from the destination: "Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change.". Of course non-Marxist views supporting the existence of the article I created can also be found, for example (off the top of my head) The Shock Doctrine or literature relating to the Atlantic slave trade (1-2m dead in transport alone). PS "You created this to prove a point" - not entirely. I basically think that if the Communist Regimes article is acceptable then logically the Capitalist equivalent must be as well. That I can't source it immediately is irrelevant. Give it time. PPS Do you keep asking for a speedy (G7 I guess) because you don't think it would get deleted at AFD? Rd232 talk 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I keep asking for a speedy delete so I don't have to warn you for violating WP:POINT. And that some Marxists view colonialism as a form of capitalism (in full violation of what Marx said) is not really relevant. It's still criticism of colonialism, not capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- So "colonialism is a form of capitalism" means that critiques of colonialism have no relevance for capitalism? Interesting. Also a red herring, as colonialism can be left out of the picture, there's still plenty to talk about purely in relation to capitalism. Rd232 talk 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It means the article becomes a WP:COATRACK which claims to discuss one ting and then discusses another. And that would violate Wikipedia rules. Also a red herring, as colonialism can be left out of the picture - Apparently not, as there are still no sources to be found that supports your claim. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- So "colonialism is a form of capitalism" means that critiques of colonialism have no relevance for capitalism? Interesting. Also a red herring, as colonialism can be left out of the picture, there's still plenty to talk about purely in relation to capitalism. Rd232 talk 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, I keep asking for a speedy delete so I don't have to warn you for violating WP:POINT. And that some Marxists view colonialism as a form of capitalism (in full violation of what Marx said) is not really relevant. It's still criticism of colonialism, not capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently you couldn't be bothered to follow the wikilink Colonialism#Marxist_view_of_colonialism I gave above, so I quote from the destination: "Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change.". Of course non-Marxist views supporting the existence of the article I created can also be found, for example (off the top of my head) The Shock Doctrine or literature relating to the Atlantic slave trade (1-2m dead in transport alone). PS "You created this to prove a point" - not entirely. I basically think that if the Communist Regimes article is acceptable then logically the Capitalist equivalent must be as well. That I can't source it immediately is irrelevant. Give it time. PPS Do you keep asking for a speedy (G7 I guess) because you don't think it would get deleted at AFD? Rd232 talk 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the vast majority are created without sources because people don't know better. You created this to prove a point with the claim that "undoubtedly sources exist" but you can't mention even one of them. Marxist (and plenty non-Marxist) literature on colonialism is the obvious place to start, - No, because colonialism and capitalism is not the same thing. That would be the obvious place to start if you want to create a "Mass killings under colonialism" to prove a point. But you didn't. I take your request above that *other* find sources as a way of saying that you don't have any. Then you shuold go for a Speedy Delete. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The vast majority of Wikipedia articles ever created were created initially without sources. You declare that I "can't provide sources" whereas I explicitly stated above that I hadn't many any effort to look for them. I don't have the time, and I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour. I have no doubt though that they exist - as for example the wikilink I gave would suggest - Marxist (and plenty non-Marxist) literature on colonialism is the obvious place to start, alongside literature on the US military-industrial complex which Dwight Eisenhower spoke of (maybe you've heard of him?). Somebody else can look for sources to expand and develop the article - this is Wikipedia. If you genuinely don't want to give the article time to exist a while for someone to come along and do that, then AFD it. Rd232 talk 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Lets see shall we, i just prodded it for deletion mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Mass Killings under Capitalist regimes" is a misnomer, as capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, but a similar criticism applies to the Communist Regimes article! From communism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society." So it is not in fact a form of government either. Rd232 talk 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The USSR's form of government = Federal socialist republic, single-party communist state, dominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. : / --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Don't be too formal. Based on the same logic, one may conclude North Korea is a democratic state, as the ruling party there is a coalition between Worker's and Social-Democratic party, and the ideology is strongly nationalistic Juche [23].--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The USSR's form of government = Federal socialist republic, single-party communist state, dominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. : / --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is surely reasonable to apply the term "capitalist" to states, though. (Probably not something we need to get into here). --FormerIP (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Funny, but a similar criticism applies to the Communist Regimes article! From communism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society." So it is not in fact a form of government either. Rd232 talk 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I voted delete at the previous AfD, and while I still have concerns about this topic, two things are clear: consensus does not agree with me, and the article has improved since the previous AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Interestingly, the article drifts towards neutrality mostly due to the efforts of the proponents of the article's deletion. How do you explain that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is interesting, and I could explain that by way of making a few inferences, but I don't want to go there :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that statement. It possibly gets more neutral *despite* those who want to delete it. You for example are very fond of claiming the article is POV, and very reluctant to explain how or give examples on how it can be improved. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Attempts to summarise
- A comment on multiple "keeps" under a pretext of a subject's notability and wealth of sources" Since the reason for the present nomination is not the lack of sources or insufficient notability of the subject, but synthesis and neutrality issues, the latter two have to be addressed in every keep posts, otherwise these posts have zero weight. The article that violates neutrality and NOR criteria cannot be kept just because it meets the verifiability criterion.
Similarly, numerous keeps with references to the results of previous AfD's can hardly be an argument: WP is not a democracy, and the results of previous consensus cannot be automatically applied to the present-days situation. For instance, it is quite possible that the article have deteriorated since those times, or that subsequent course of the event demonstrated that the issues, which seemed to be easily resolvable appeared to be impossible to resolve.
In connection to that, I expect all editors who want to keep the article to explain why neutrality and NOR are not violated in their opinion. If they are not able to prove that, butthey believe that these two issues can be resolved, I expect them to propose possible ways to do that. As I explained many times, I personally believe that both POV and SYNTH can be removed from this article, so the article can be kept, provided, but only provided, that:
- A consensus will be achieved to convert the mass killing article from just a redirect page into the full article that will be the main article for genocide, other ***cides, the Holocaust, mass murder and various mass killings *** article, and, accordingly, to make the present article a "mass killings" daughter article.
- A consensus will be achieved to move most general theorising (about genocide, "mass killings", etc) from the Mass killings under Communist regimes to there.
- A consensus will be achieved to discuss differences between various Communist regimes, to diminish a stress on the Marxist ideology as a primary reason for mass killings, and to provide alternative explanations for the events described in the article.
- IMO, these measures can protect the article from future AfD's (that, I am sure, will follow even if this AfD will be unsuccessful). I am waining for constructive comments from the article proponents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like a constructive way forward, and it fits well with the creation of Mass killings under Capitalist regimes as another daughter article of mass killing. Ultimately I'm still not sure how useful any of this is (we already have Genocides in history), but this approach would be the best way to focus on what is actually encyclopedic, organise it appropriately, and ultimately bridge the delete/keep divide. Rd232 talk 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was considering making pretty much all of the same points that Paul Siebert has collated. This AfD is about concerns about the article serving as a WP:POVFORK which has largey been left unaddressed here despite POVFORKs being a gross violation of the NPOV core policy (specifically, WP:UNDUE and UNDUE points us to WP:FRINGE for further advisement). As directed by policy, an examination of WP:FRINGE gives us the following directive: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." If the core concept that this article has been written about must be treated as outside of academic consensus, then the article is written decidely from this minority viewpoint, in direct violation of NPOV, with the result being a POV fork. It would be nice if the discussion addressed these explicitly-listed issues with arguments based in policy, and bolstered by RS. BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- That`s a bit shouty, but in response to If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing Did`nt i post six thus far on the article talk page? With this one being the most recent This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- BigK Hex: You're now declaring it's fringe, but there are ample mainstream sources, numerous books, Harvard and Dartmouth professors, the National Review, Weekly Standard, a book from France, etc., etc. And not one cite you've provided to demonstrate that this theory (that you clearly take some issue with) is fringe, like pseudo science or UFOs. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it non-notable. Repeating the assertion over and over is not convincing. Provide some evidence. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- @marknutley. The authors you cited do not pretend to express the opinion of scholarly community. They simply analysed two data sets, Harff's and Rummel's, leaving, btw, the question of validity of these numbers beyond the scope.
- @Marknutley&Shadowjams. Could you please comment on the major point, namely, that all keep posts are supposed to address the POV and FORK issues (either to prove that no such issues exist, or to propose the solution of the problem), not verifiability or notability (which, afaik, have not been contested).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is not possible to comment on POV ar FORK issues as there are none, other than the perceived one`s in some editors minds that is. For instance Verbal has said the title is not NPOV yet does not actually say how it is not even when asked multipile times mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your personal assurance is not enough. Please, provide an evidence, otherwise your voice has no weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are asking him to prove a negative. That is, as you are aware, impossible. It's up to *you* to show that there are POV or FORK issues. Please do so on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your personal assurance is not enough. Please, provide an evidence, otherwise your voice has no weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- @Paul Siebert - Sure I'll address your concern. I assume you're saying it's a WP:POVFORK, although it's a little unclear from which article you think it's forked. It's clearly not a content fork because this material isn't covered directly elsewhere (except on our articles on the individual books that discuss it). The article's huge too, easily being a breakoff fork from other articles. And if the original fork was from Genocide, that created enough of hassle by some of the same people here now, that it was renamed to what it is now. Are they now arguing that the name is the issue? That's what I mean by shifting goalposts. And really, even if it was initially a POV fork, it's been through 5 of these discussions now.
- It is not possible to comment on POV ar FORK issues as there are none, other than the perceived one`s in some editors minds that is. For instance Verbal has said the title is not NPOV yet does not actually say how it is not even when asked multipile times mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- That`s a bit shouty, but in response to If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing Did`nt i post six thus far on the article talk page? With this one being the most recent This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The relevant language in the POV guideline is this: "apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view" (emphasis added). It is about notability, ultimately. Shadowjams (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "It is about notability, ultimately." You meant neutrality I think. Yes, that is the major issue. Why, in your opinion, the article meets this criterion? And what about SYNTH?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The relevant language in the POV guideline is this: "apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view" (emphasis added). It is about notability, ultimately. Shadowjams (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Since the reason for the present nomination is not the lack of sources or insufficient notability of the subject, but synthesis and neutrality issues - You have yet to show that these issues exist, and those issues are fixable, and not a reason for deletion. We can fix the issues, if you tell us what they are, which you refuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I demonstrated that many times, so now you have to show that these issues do not exists. However, since I didn't vote to delete the article, for me it would be sufficient if you just proposed a way to fix these issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Where did you demonstrate that? You brought up no concerns with the article when asked. See Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Specific_concerns_with_the_article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I demonstrated that many times, so now you have to show that these issues do not exists. However, since I didn't vote to delete the article, for me it would be sufficient if you just proposed a way to fix these issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note how every delete proponent declare the others arguments as invalid and says the basis for the AfD is something completely different. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- THE ISSUES
- Insufficient consideration of Marxist viewpoints, use of biased sources (BBoC), stressing of minority views.
- Connections between each individual mass killing are tenuous. There needs to be some sort of indication as to how mass killings are related to Communism.
- All the individual mass killings have received tons of reliable coverage, but there seems to be very little reliable or neutral coverage of how mass killings relate to communism, which is the synth issue. Claritas § 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. For instance, following opinions exists:
- That whereas the USSR, along with many no-Communist states, belonged to a category of states that committed genocide, it was, by contrast to Nazi Germany or Campuchea, not genocidal by its nature;
- That most Communist regimes in Asia and Africa (which committed most mass killings) have evolved from the societies with deep authoritarian traditions, so there is no strong connection between onset of mass killings and Marxism;
- That Communist world was not a monolith, and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings you said this on the article talk page and i believe i proved you wrong. However please name one which did not engage in mass killings at some stage of it`s time in power mark nutley (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Claritas: Firstly. Wouldn't it have been better if you brought these issue of on the talk page, when asked? Why do you have to restart this discussion over and over and over? Why must this discussion spread to every non-article page on the whole of Wikipedia? If you have issues with the article, please take them up on the talk page, and they will be discussed, and if valid, fixed.
- Secondly, none of your points are valid. 1. Nobody has brought up one single reliable source with an opposing marxist viewpoint. We can't include viewpoints that doesn't exist. 2. The connection is well sourced and discussed, it even has it's own section with various views on the subject. 3. This is just 2. again with a different wording. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Paul: Reliable sources, please. If opposing viewpoints can be reliably sourced, they can be added to the article. It is *not* a reason for deletion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)