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. First, thanks for a reasoned and civil debate. 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. If this article has content that conveys a POV without offering well sourced alternative positions, that content needs to be dealt with by editors and article improvement. WP:NPOV seeks to have content that is balanced when there are multiple views on a subject. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. It is not intended with eliminate a particular POV just because it exists. The same logic applies to claims of WP:NOR. If there are conclusions drawn in the content that is unsupportable by sources, then editors need to deal with it in the process of article improvement. If the title needs to change, suggest a rename. Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
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:

AfDs for this article:
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 article has been problematic for over five years. It violates WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV persistently because it is a WP:COATRACK. The solution is to delete this fork, or create an article centering around killings in 20th century. We should not be scraping up bits and pieces of different things to create unbalanced, unacademic, unencyclopedic articles as has been done here. Its been given enough time. Repeated nominations have resulted in the same old refrain that it can be fixed. We shouldn't accept that argument any longer. The article hasn't been fixed after so much time because it can't be fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created on August 3, 2009[1]. It has only existed for eight months. Please explain how the article violates these policies, rather than just linking to them. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: the nominator's position changed to "Keep" below. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the fourth nomination since 3 August 2009, making it an average of one nomination for deletion every two months. (three times while the article has had the present name)Collect (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: The last "no consensus" !vote was roughly 2 to 1 for "Keep" -- and some of the "deletes" were from editors who contributed to Anti-communist mass killings which was kept at AfD (where they voted, naturally, for "Keep.") Read it. Collect (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was moved on 24 September 2009, less than an hour after the second deletion, and pursuant to discussion on its talk page AFAICT. First AfD was started on 3 Aug, closed 10 Aug. Second was 24 Sep to 2 Oct (noting the name change occured before any !votes). Third one (second under current name) was opened 8 Nov closed 15 Nov (this one was roughly 2 to 1 for "Keep.") This is third nomination where the article at the time of any !votes has had the current name. Collect (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted excerpts of academic sources discussing the topic below. The attempt to identify specific alleged examples of synthesis or bias (rather than vague accusations) only just began and your first proposed example is nothing of the kind. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." I have repeatly asked you describe the topic according to these criteria and you have been unwilling or unable to do so. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unwilling to work on the lead with you at this time because you seem to want the lead to define the article, rather than be defined by it as Wikipedia policy states. You agreed to go through your examples of problems with synthesis or bias in the body of the article with me so that we could improve the lead together and we have only just begun that process on the talk page. But keep in mind, we have already established a consensus description of the topic: the title of the article is a descriptive title. And despite attempts to read nefarious and hidden implications into it, it is a very clear, straight-forward description of the topic which uses the most neutral terms available. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is as unusual as you imply. For example, the various definitions of "genocide", or the various definitions of "fascism". Unfortunately, these issues become politicized and consensus can be very difficult. But an article like this one should not be deleted because it is difficult: there are reliable academic sources for the topic and notability is clear. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the people who want the article kept attribute motives to the people who want the article deleted: "a single edit, in order to provide grounds for deletion", "some of the deletes were from editors who contributed to it", "really desperate to get rid of this article". The article should be defended or condemned on its merits. Personal attacks (on either side) are inappropriate.

A few more points. The idea that this should be decided by a "vote" with less than a dozen people voting is absurd. The decision should be based on an objective evaluation of the merits of the case by Wikipedia Gods.

Turning to the merits of the case, one vote to keep states: "sources out there written on the subject: most notable probably Helen Fein's chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide in Genocide: a sociological perspective". As best I can tell, there are two texts titled "Genocide: a Sociological Perspective", one an out of print book, the other a journal article, neither a chapter in a book. I have not been able to find a copy, but based on the comments by reviewers, it seems clear that the author does not attribute genocide to communism, but discusses the subject in a wider context. Another source cited is "Communist mass killings] by Benjamin A. Valentino, R. J. Rummel". The link is to a chapter in a book, "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century" by Valentino. The chapter does not assert that genocide is caused by any particular idiology but rather says that it occurs when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people. A quote shows that the author's views are the opposite of the views given in this article, "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing."

Another example of unencyclopedic use of sources in this article is this quote "Notably, the United States Congress has once referred to the mass killings as an unprecedented imperial Communist Holocaust." The anti-communist views of some United States congressmen is not objective evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep or delete articles based upon whether other encyclopedia have them. The article does not promote the idea that "belief in the doctrines of communism leads to mass killing". The article reflects what reliable sources say without taking sides. Here is academic support for separating out mass killing under communist dictatorships from mass killing under Right-wing dictatorships (from Valentino, page 93): "The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is a dictatorship unlike any other. It is difficult to overstate the extent and the dispossessive impact of the social and economic transformation that leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot imposed upon their countries. The social transformation sought by radical communist regimes has been far more extensive than the mere monopoly of political power and curtailment of individual liberties characteristic of authoritarian regimes." The article also does not presume that ideology caused the deaths or misrepresent Valentino's or Fein's views. The Helen Fein citation gives a google books link to the publication demonstrating the fact of the sentence she is cited for: that she used the terms.[2] The statement "of some United States congressmen" is also not presented as "objective evidence" in the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To wit: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and talk page diffs comprising most of [9] including comments such as the article being too long at 61K in length, multiple RfCs over a period of time, and an editor stating that I am incapable of editing in a discursive field. and the like.
This series of deletion requests did not take place in vacuo to be sure. And no editors have been attacked, nor have I intended to attack any. Collect (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Note: The material above my comments was edited well after my comments were made. Regarding the appended material above (not timestamped):[reply]
  1. There were 18 !votes the last time. This is, in fact, vastly more than 95% of all AfDs generate.
  2. I find no policy stating than anything other than guidleines and policy apply in AfD -- and no reference to praying that a "Wikipedia God" will override consensus otherwise.
  3. If one looks at reasonings given in each AfD - the majority of those seeking deletion do so as "I don't like it" else the one on "Anti-communist mass killings" would be long gone, instead of having some edit it.
  4. There are currently a large number of references in the article. If one wishes to dispute what was found at RS/N to be a "reliable source" then seek consensus on the article talk page. AfD is not the place for content disputes. Iwould, indeed, ask anyone closing this to look at the number who basically are using "I don't like it" as a basis for a !vote <g>. Collect (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Collect above, all of the comments favoring delete so far seem to cite Wikipedia guidelines. Characterizing them as mere "I don't like it," seems less than fair. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Examine, please, the earlier AfDs. One delete was "what certain totalitarian regimes that called themselves communist did was democide." Another was "original research used to push an anti-communist POV" "all aimed at advancing a particular anti-communist POV" " this article is pretty much propaganda" and so on. (I can cite the full 1/3 of "delete" opinions, if one wishes). Actually more than a third of all "deletes" were ones based on the article being "anti-communist" or "right wing." Consider therefore the one on "Anti-communist mass killings" which was promoted by POV arguments <g>. And several based on the originator of the article being "banned" and seeking to speedily delete everything.
The solution then is to resolve the debates, not delete the article. Calling for the article to be deleted because it is "unencyclopedic" is begging the question. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article most certainly does make the distinction between mass murder and famine. No example of common famine is included. Famines which are included are only those for which at least one reliable source attributes at least some famine deaths to the regime's fatally callous disregard for conditions or deliberate regime action which should reasonably have been expected to worsen conditions, such as preventing migration out of famine areas while exporting grain to foreign countries. Where the regime's culpability is universally acknowledged, the description would be included in that country's section. Where it is disputed, it is listed under a "Controversies" section. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not conflict with WP:SYNTH becuase the sources cited draw the same conclusion as the article. In order for SYNTH to apply, the article would have to merge two disjointed facts to draw a original conclusion. -PlainSight (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to point out that there is not a single delete vote here that argues for deletion on the basis of the topic being "controversial" or "causes headache." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, Conquest did not write about mass killings under Communist regimes, he wrote about the Red terror, the Holodomor and the Great purge in the Soviet Union. He treated these as separate subjects and did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes. We should not put together a group of events and create an article when no one else has. Notice that Google scholar returns zero hits for the topic.[10] The Four Deuces (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is only because the article name was forced into awkward middle-of-the road solution, largely by yourself. Maybe it is time to move the article back to its original name, which gets plenty of matches from all Books, Scholar and web searches? --Sander Säde 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that easy, don't you think we've already tried that? --TIAYN (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sander Säde, I voted against the move and here is how I expressed it at the time:
Since there is no generally agreed concept of "Mass killings under Communist regimes" re-naming the article will open it to synthesized concepts and it will never gain good article status. The term "killing", unlike terms like genocide, does not even imply human agency. People can be killed in earthquakes for example. Besides there is not one incident in this article that is not or should be covered elsewhere. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[11]
The Four Deuces (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've been told this before, but "mass killings under Communist regimes" is not a theory or concept; it's a descriptive title of historical events discussed together and separately in academic sources. Your fears of synthesis did not come to pass. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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 high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa." ..."Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." ..."I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."
- Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press.
  • "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." ..."Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven, believing that in order to create a new socialist society, they must lead in socialist zeal. Killings were often popular, tha rank-and-file as keen to exceed killing quotas as production quotas. The pervasive role of the party inside the state also meant that authority structures were not fully institutionalized but factionalized, even chaotic, as revisionists studying the Soviet Union have argued. Both centralized control and mass party factionalism were involved in the killings." ..."This also made for Plans nurtured by these regimes that differed from those envisioned in my sixth thesis. Much of the Communist organization of killing was more orderly than that of the ethnonationalists. Communists were more statist. But only the Plans that killed the fewest people were fully intended and occurred at early stages of the process. There is no equivalent of the final solution, and the last desperate attempt to achieve goals by mass murder after all other Plans have failed. The greatest Communist death rates were not intended but resulted from gigantic policy mistakes worsened by factionalism, and also somewhat by callous or revengeful views of the victims. But - with the Khmer Rouge as a borderline case - no Communist regime contemplated genocide. This is the biggest difference between Communist and ethnic killers: Communists caused mass deaths mainly through disastrous policy mistakes; ethnonationalists killed more deliberately."
- Michael Mann, UCLA sociologist, in a chapter called "Communist Cleansing: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot" from his book "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" published by Cambridge University Press.
  • "Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." ..."'Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of 'politicide', which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
- Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press.
  • "The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The revolutionary thinkers who formed and led communist regimes were not just ordinary intellectuals. They had to be fanatics in the true sense of that word. They were so certain of their ideas that no evidence to the contrary could change their minds. Those who came to doubt the rightness of their ways were eliminated, or never achieved power. The element of religious certitude found in prophetic movements was as important as their Marxist science in sustaining the notion that their vision of socialism could be made to work. This justified the ruthless dehumanization of their enemies, who could be suppressed because they were 'objectively' and 'historically' wrong. Furthermore, if events did not work out as they were supposed to, then that was because class enemies, foreign spies and saboteurs, or worst of all, internal traitors were wrecking the plan. Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction. The logic of the situation in times of crisis then demanded that these 'bad elements' (as they were called in Maoist China) be killed, deported, or relegated to a permanently inferior status. That is very close to saying that the community of God, or the racially pure volksgemeinschaft could only be guaranteed if the corrupting elements within it were eliminated (Courtois et al. 1999)."
- Daniel Chirot, Professor of International Studies and Sociology at the University of Washington, and Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College and Director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, in the chapter "Why Genocides? Are they different now than in the past?: The four main motives leading to mass political murder" in their book "Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder", published by Princeton University Press.
AmateurEditor (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above does little to address whether WP:UNDUE is respected. From what I gather on the talk page, there has been pretty much no dispute that those 3 authors broaden the concept of "homicide" significantly beyond the mainstream. Giving 3 non-mainstream (and possibly fringe POV) authors an entire article with such definitive wording would be dangerously unencyclopedic and certainly non-neutral. BigK HeX (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how WP:UNDUE is being violated. Which 3 authors? I just cited 4 works by 5 authors. Can you please refresh my memory on what they have to do with broadening the concept of "homicide"? Can you provide a source showing that the academic authors I cited are non-mainstream and fringe POV? AmateurEditor (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a couple of the authors you're citing are different from the ones that I'd seen discussed on the talk page. But, Valentino and others were discussed at length on the talk page as attributing an unusually large number of deaths as "killings." In particular, there was discussion of some concept of "deprivation mass murder"(?) which seemed specific to only Valentino. The creep of minority viewpoints seems to have a huge impact on the validity of the article, a validity already strained due to underlying implications in the article which raise alarms with WP:NPOV. BigK HeX (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valentino is very careful to establish intent before labeling something "mass killing", intent is actually part of his definition for the term. Unless I missed something, I think you are referring to "dispossessive mass killing" and I addressed that criticism at the time[12]. Every academic is a minority of one when it comes to their humanities research. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how WP:UNDUE is violated here. That guideline is to prevent one aspect with a minority POV from overwhelming an otherwise neutral article. However, if you can cite references showing that a majority of those killed by communist regimes were in favor of their own termination or starvation by the state, I would agree that it is in voilation of WP:UNDUE. Perhaps Stalin and Mao took a poll? -PlainSight (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable academic sources "lump these together". It doesn't imply that there is something inherently genocidal about communism, just that these events have commonalities and are of a type. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd be OK with keeping the multiple-regime stuff (like the "Causes" section) in a Communism and politicide article which included communist thought both in support of and in opposition to such killings. My main point is that most of this is salvageable, and a lack of effort to fix it is not a good reason for an admin to push the delete button. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excellent idea. My Delete vote above can be taken as being in line with Explodicle's thinking here -- as I wrote earlier, almost all of the content in this article is great stuff, perfectly valid for inclusion, etc. Making these events specific to regime removes even the slightest hint of a POV or SYNTH concern. Great idea.

    So, to reviewing Admin, please note that my Delete vote above is with similar intent to Explodicle's Keep vote here, if that makes any sense, hehe. :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A dissection of this type does seem like a great idea. BigK HeX (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just what kind of a "unified framework" are you looking for? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the implications starting at the title itself, an obvious first step would be to show a general academic acceptance that there is a link between "Communist regimes" and "Mass killings." BigK HeX (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not some exotic academic concept. Several communist regimes engaged in mass killing. Several academics have put forward their theories on why. That several communist regimes engaged in mass killing is stated by multiple academic sources as a fact so obvious that that they quickly move on to the argumentative part of their work, describing why those communist regimes did it, what the commonalities and differences are, etc. If there were a Wikipedia article like Mass killing in the twentieth century, it would have a section on communist mass killings, which would have a "Main article" link to this article, just as it would have a section on the Holocaust with a main article link there. Here are two short quotes I have on hand establishing the factual basis for the article:
"Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing." - Valentino (p.91)
"All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not." - Mann (p.318)
The controversy is about the different theories as to why. Some propose common links, others do not. Your objection seems to be against even approaching this topic on Wikipedia. As long as it is done neutrally, there is no reason it should not be. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed their has been an "European Public Hearing on Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes" in Brussels. The former European communist states were mentioned in great detail: European Parliament resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism and International Law Observer. Sir Floyd (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you recommending a name change to "Crimes Committed by Totalitarian Regimes"? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much has been written here that it is easy to lose focus. There is no need to give evidence that there have been mass killings under communist regimes. Nobody disputs that. The only question is, under what circumstances should Wikipedia have an article titled "(bad things) done by (people in category x)" Will one of the supporters of this article please suggest criteria for the inclusion of an article titled "(bad things) done by (people in category x)". Examples from any encyclopedia (including this one) of other articles with a title in that form would also be appreciated. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you forget Anti-communist mass killings by any chance? Which survived AfD. Collect (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rick, the criteria for articles titled "(bad things) done by (people in category x)" is the same as that for all other articles: whether there are reliable sources which justify them. I believe I have demonstrated that such sources exist for this article with the examples I quoted above (whether you agree that the topic is ok but the title needs to be changed is another issue entirely). Each case will be different and must be judged on its own merits, but Wikipedia does have examples of articles of varying quality with titles like "(bad things) done by (people in category x)":
AmateurEditor (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear to me that all of the articles listed above have unencyclopedic titles and should be deleted or renamed (most certainly including Anti-communist mass killings which I didn't know about but should have guessed). Do you know of any other encyclopedia with such articles? In each case the information, if it is accurate, should be in an article such as "war crimes" subsection "United States" and, if there is strong reason to justify it, in the article History of the United States in a subsection "war crimes", though I think it likely that any war crimes are better treaded in the article on the particular war in question. The only reason to title an article War crimes committed by the United States is a desire to make the United States look bad. Continuing this example, it is not enough that there are "reliable sources which justify" the fact that the United States has committed war crimes. There are equally reliable sources which document the fact that some people from Kansas have committed murder, but nobody would use that fact to justify an article titled "Murders from Kansas".

I hope it is clear to you, AmateurEditor, that I do not want to delete this article to protect the reputation of communists, but rather to protect the reputation of Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several points I want to make here:
  • First, keeping Anti-communist mass killings does not automatically mean keeping this article and deleting it does not mean deleting this, not having a "Murders from Kansas" article does not mean not having this one, and not having another encyclopedia with an article like this one does not exclude Wikipedia from having one. Each article must stand on its own merits. Period.
  • Second, making the United States look bad is not the only reason to title an article War crimes committed by the United States. Another reason is to document in high detail the sources which discuss that narrow topic. How is it encyclopedic to have a section dedicated to the "United States" in a "War crimes" article, but not encyclopedic to have a "War crimes of the United States" article, when both situations would deliver exactly the same labeling information and type of content?
  • Third, unless there are omissions on their talk pages, none of the examples I provided have ever been nominated for deletion due to their titles, topics, or any other reason, despite being controversial among editors (as this one has proven to be), so it is not at all "clear" that they have titles inappropriate for Wikipedia (and strongly indicates that the consensus is exactly the opposite: that these kind of titles are in fact appropriate). Beyond that, other articles with titles similar to the form to which you object such as History of slavery in Indiana, Piracy in Somalia, and Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals have achieved Good Article status. Slavery in ancient Greece has achieved Featured Article status. I think this shows conclusively that titles of this kind do not in and of themselves violate Wikipedia policies.
  • Fourth, disliking the title is not a reason to propose deletion, it is a reason to propose renaming the article. We have improved the title before. Conceivably we can do it again.
  • Fifth, you say that no one disputes that there have been mass killings under communist regimes. If you also do not dispute that there are multiple academic sources which discuss these killings as a whole and individually, as has been shown on this page, and that other Wikipedia articles which have similar topics and titles have achieved Good Article status, then on what grounds can you possibly still be for deletion?
By the way, I greatly appreciate that you want to make the distinction between being against this article and defending what it describes, and I don't think you are acting in bad faith, but our intentions really have no bearing on the merits our our arguments. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disliking the name is not grounds for proposing deletion, it is grounds for proposing a move to a new name. And if you say the article could be OK with a name change, then why isn't your position "Keep, but move"? Although, ironically, changing the name as you recommend would be injecting your own POV, not removing POV. "Communist regimes" is much more neutral and inclusive, is used by multiple academic sources to describe these states in this context (please read the extended excerpts I posted above), and avoids any presumption of attributing the mass killings to an ideological cause. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." I have repeatly asked you describe the topic according to these criteria and you have been unwilling or unable to do so. TFD 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
He responded to that at 23:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC), see above. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AmateurEditor said "I have been unwilling to work on the lead...." That may be a response but hardly a rebuttal. TFD (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The status of the lead is not grounds for deletion. It is an issue for the talk page, where you and I had already come to an agreement on the way forward before you stopped participating. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. But if you cannot even provide a "concise overview of the article" this article has a zero per cent chance of being properly written. TFD (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the talk page. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did bring it up at the talk page but you are either unable or unwilling to answer. TFD (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the POV? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (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.
More