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

The result was keep. —Kurykh 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democide[edit]

Democide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Democide is a neologism

According to Webster's dictionary [1], the American Heritage dictionary [2], and dictionary.com [3] , democide is not an established word in the english language. Using Neologisms certainly violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. This article should be a candidate for speedy deletion. I have included the relevant sections of the guideline:

Neologism as defined from Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities.

Why Wikipedia prohibits using neologisms

Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. [4]

From the Guideline: Why this article qualifies

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate:

• The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Abe Froman 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I am the editor who brought this action. This article should be deleted because it is devoted to one academic's neologism. This violates Wikipedia's Avoid Neologisms guideline. Abe Froman 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Looks like a bad faith nomination. The term has been cited by 400 academic works[5] and has 200,000 Google hits.[6]. As noted in Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms "the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal" which has been done. The term has been cited, used, and debated by many scholars. If Wikipedia should only include terms found in the above dictionaries, then terms such as state terrorism, anarcho-capitalism, Public choice theory, and Juche should be deleted as well. The contents of an encyclopedia are not limited to that of dictionaries.Ultramarine 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this civil. Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [7] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Throwing spaghetti links onto the internet does not a new word make. Abe Froman 21:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dictionaries, see above. Anyone can see by going beyond the first page of the Google Scholar search that the 400 academic works have been written by many more scholars.Ultramarine 21:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these alleged studies? Like a link to a dictionary that defines 'democide', supporting citations are lacking. Abe Froman 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding dictionaries, see above. Anyone can examine the authors of the 400 academic works[8] and see that there are more authors than your claimed five. The sidebar is not a complete list, on the next page there are authors not on the list, ED Richter being one example.Ultramarine 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key to WP:CITE is "saying where you got it." This article does not even meet WP:CITE, as it uses intermediate link farms generated from Google as its authoritative citation. Abe Froman 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on thelist of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google hits is not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 22:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available and 400 with many different authors have used and discussed the term.Ultramarine 22:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Abe Froman 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are claims Google is not google? Abe Froman 22:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the is the epitome of a bad faith nomination. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Google News Archive and Google Books also find plenty of prior third-party use (which further fit the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms criterion of being "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term". Gordonofcartoon 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a term is used does not make it a general term, or even a word. The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [9] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google Scholar hits is not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, passes WP:RS, verifiable term. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears to me that Ultramarine and TDC's suggestions of bad faith are due to their own misunderstanding of what Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms means. The sausage king of Chicago Abe Froman is, of course, right that "democide" is a neologism whose use should be avoided on Wikipedia, especially as a pagename. The Google hits provided above show only that the term is used, not, as Gordon suggests, that there are secondary sources about the term.

  From looking through the Google scholar hits, I gather that "democide" loosely means the killing of people by their own government as used here for example, though it's more precisely defined by Rummel himself. The multitude of Google hits are, again, not about the term itself. But they are about the general concept of the killing by a government of its own people. The Wikipedia article should focus on that concept, not on Rummel's coinage of the term. The article should be renamed to Killing by a government of its people, or something less unwieldy, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. The article should also be refactored to include other scholarly work on such killing, not just Rummel's, per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Pan Dan 19:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is bad faith, as the only reason it wqas nominated was to support as set of tenidtious edits on another article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Many of the Google scholar works discuss the term itself, such as Rummel's own academic works published in academic press, and also other studies discussing the concepts and definitions of genocide and democide. The article has material from other authors than Rummel. The first table is based on a study by Barbara Harff.Ultramarine 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link given to claim "many" scholars use this neologism turns up four unique scholars, other than the author himself. [10] This is hardly evidence of widespread acceptance. Using Google Hits as an argument against deletion is on the list of "Arguments to Avoid" in deletion cases. Google Scholar hits are not a valid yardstick to use for judging neologisms like this one. Abe Froman 21:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can examine the authors of the 400 academic works[11] and see that there are more authors than your claimed five. The sidebar is not a complete list, on the next page there are authors not on the list, ED Richter being one example.Google Scholar is not ordinary Google. Scholarly sources are the most reliable sources available and 400 with many different authors have used and discussed the term.Ultramarine 22:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments and cites using Google Scholar, a search engine, fits the definition of Wikipedia:Search engine test. Wikipedia:Search engine test even includes a caution on using Google Scholar. We are on very uncertain ground. Abe Froman 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A search enginge for scholarly sources, the most reliable available, is different from one going through all the web. The only caution against Google Scholar is that "Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability" since it may miss material not available in online journals. That is not the issue here, Google Scholar has found many 400 academic works, so if it have missed some academic works that are not available online, these would only makes the notability stronger.Ultramarine 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says clearly at the top of the article you keep referencing "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects some opinions of its author(s)." It isn't a policy or guidline therefore you cannot cite this for deletion. You're fighting a one man battle.

• keep as per the preponderance (existence) of secondary sources that imply verifiability; the article itself needs more of these cited, however.Tsunade 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. Abe Froman 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Democide is well past the neologism stage. Greg Grahame 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so. Please point out the cite to a standard American dictionary that defines Democide. Abe Froman 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious argument, and a common misunderstanding of how linguistics works. Words are not defined by their presence/absence in a dictionary, because there's invariably a time lag before dictionaries document a word - maybe years after it is widespread in published text. Gordonofcartoon 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is necessary in this day and age to define what is happening in other countries. Read the article "avoid neologisms" - it doesn't say that an article with a neologism in it should be considered for "speedy deletion" as you call it. It says that neologisms should be avoided WHERE POSSIBLE. And of course, an AMERICAN dictionary would have nothing democide. The very idea of wikipedia is to be uncensored and provide the public with information. Just because this term isn't written on a manuscript, doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. A book written in 1987 is hardly new as well. Rich

It seems this is just one man against everyone else. one man thinks his voice is greater than everyone else's. It says avoid using neologisms as it may be confusing for the reader. There is nothing confusing in this article. It has set out a complete definition for the word and why this word needs to be defined. Therefore I say keep and stop this one man from having so much power!!!

• Keep. Used in many books.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that all of those books are written, in part or whole, by the original coiner of the neologism? Abe Froman 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, on the first page, the original coiner of the phrase would appear most frequently. But check the subsequent page. And the others. rich

Here is a good reference that both uses and describes it. Gordonofcartoon 23:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." The number of sources available about this term clearly qualifies the article. - Merzbow 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, excellent treatment of a term that is promoted by a small group of scholars and has been increasingly accepted for wider use. Notability is established, and the origins are discussed neutrally such that we are only describing an academic term. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV doesn't just mean that the tone of an article should be neutral. It also means (perhaps more fundamentally) that the article should represent all points of view from reliable sources on the topic. From Google scholar, it appears that the amount of source material that discusses the concept of killing by a government totally dwarfs the amount of source material (independent of Rummel) that discusses the term "democide." For this reason it would be much more reasonable to have a Wikipedia article on the concept than the term. The article already is mostly about the concept, not the term--but it gives undue weight to Rummel's work on the concept. Finally, the article's conclusion in the first paragraph that the term "has found currency among other scholars" is precisely the kind of original research that is permitted (and scrutinized) on Wiktionary but not on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting suggestion - I would be inclined to back this approach. Pexise 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that washes. John Maynard Keynes had an innovative take on economics. No-one says the Keynesian economics article shouldn't exist because plenty of other people write about economics. It's not undue weight to focus on a particular person's take on a topic. Gordonofcartoon 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A red herring. Keynesian [12] is a word. Democide is not. The new term should be moved to an article about Rummel, or to an article name about governments killing their own people. Wikipedia:Avoid Neologisms demands nothing less. Abe Froman 15:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keynesian is a word ... Democide is not.

From Merriam-Webster's FAQ, If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?"

Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time ... As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry".

Which bit of that do you not understand? Gordonofcartoon 16:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am concerned that this is a neologism, as it has no entry in standard dictionaries. Will be happy to keep if someone can provide a peer reviewed source, other than Rummel's own that dicusses the term (not merely mentions it) as required in the WP:NEO guideline. As yet no one has done this. Pexise 12:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - see the three refs at the end of the first para. More where they came from if need be. And read Merriam-Webster's comment on "If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn't a real word?". As pointed out right at the beginning of this discussion, many well-established terms in political philsophy don't get into general dictionaries. Gordonofcartoon 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are either phrases or words in other languages, such as Juche, which is North Korean. The suggestion was to change the title of the article. Pexise 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I will change my position, I no longer back deleting this article and agree that changing the name and adding some other sources is the best way to go with this one. It is a useful concept but at the moment it is too POV. Pexise 13:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we're not supposed to use neologisms in our articles because they may be esoteric jargon and difficult for readers outside the field. That in no way prevents us from having articles about neologisms, especially ones widely covered. Truthiness is a perfect example. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - truthiness is an amazing word, but it is also in the dictionary: [13] while democide isn't. Pexise 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word does exist! I belive that this article does have a place in the Wikipedia confines. It is accurate and has been suppoted up by some sources, but i hestiate that this must be acknowledged all sources to be considered as an academic work.--Pcu4bct 08:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a neologism, but it's a good one. Wikipedia is rife with helpful neologisms, such as womyn and Parahuman and having them available as well written articles makes wikipedia better. Paladinwannabe2 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep many scholarly terms are not in the dictionary....Travb (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Pexise 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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