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. The notability of the subject in regard to the Cold War period is obvious; the question here is about content, focus and referencing in the article. However, that can be addressed via the editing process. AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, and I would recommend all interested parties in this discussion to please revisit the article and work towards its improvement. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States[edit]

Soviet-run peace movements in Western Europe and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article purports to be about peace movements in the west that were run by the Soviet Union or other communist countries, but it does not name a single such movement and discussion has failed to yield any. Such useful information as it does contain, on covert Soviet operations and the Polish-Soviet war (itself completely irrelevant to the topic), is already on other pages. Soviet influence (as opposed to control) can be dealt with in Covert operation, Communist front or Astroturfing. This article is redundant and is merely anti-communist and anti-peace-movement POV pushing. Marshall46 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ^{I took it upon myself to fix the header with subst:afd2. I hope you don't mind. — Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge with Communist front of which this is basically a POV fork, even if it was created independently. As the nominator notes, the cited sources do not support the assertions made in the article. Dlabtot (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. The article has references enough already, and the subject is notable. That said, I found an excellent source for further expansion: Richard Felix Staar, Foreign policies of the Soviet Union, Hoover Press, 1991, ISBN 0817991026 ([1]). Soviet Foreign Propaganda chapter starts at p.75, in particular, look at Front Organizations chapter at p.79, there is a large list of such organizations, from World Peace Committee to Esperantist Movement for Peace or International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War... On p.84., there is a subchapter for Front Conferences, and on p.86, a subchapter on "Specialized Peace Movements". Communist front is a related but distinct article, since it refers to a USA phenomena, while this article is broader. That said, I support renaming it to Soviet-influenced peace movements, as has been discussed on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well sourced article. The article is neither anti-communist nor anti-peace-movement. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not good enough. Ostap 16:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:POVFORK, WP:SYN, WP:FRINGE? Here are some of my impressions:

The article's title is already seriously challenged by its own the introductory section, which describes the Soviet "peace" operations as fake and subversive.

The main section, which takes up more than 50 percent of the page, is dedicated to Russo-Polish relations that are already fully discussed on Causes of the Polish–Soviet War, Polish–Soviet War, Aftermath of the Polish–Soviet War and other similar pages. Unless one can classify the repulsion of the Soviet invasion at the Battle of Warsaw as a Soviet-run peace movement, this section appears to be completely out of place and unrelated to topic of the article.

The rest of it is no better. The following two sections rely solely on derogatory rumors and hearsay evidence—some accusations by a British trade unionist and a couple of ambiguous quotes by former Russian intelligence officers of questionable credibility or motivation. As for the last section, any Soviet support for nuclear disarmament can just as easily be seen as a matter of national security, particularly considering the partial natures of the KGB and the Soviet Peace Committee. The section also appears to be completely irrelevant, as it fails to provide any type of connection between the Soviet propagandist efforts and the article's subject matter.

In addition, as mentioned above, the article doesn't really name any Soviet-run peace movements. Most of the cited sources support the facts but not the conclusions and insinuations that accompany them. The article is also ridden with a number of unchallenged one-sided WP:REDFLAG statements like:

According to Oleg Kalugin, a former KGB general, "the Soviet intelligence was really unparalleled..."

Russian former intelligence officer and SVR defector Sergei Tretyakov claimed that the KGB "created the myth of nuclear winter".

According to Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev, the Soviet Union spent more money on funding of U.S. anti-war movements during the Vietnam War than on funding and arming the VietCong forces. — Rankiri (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Funding peace movements now lists some organization names but the entire paragraph takes its information from "National Communist Front Organizations" and "Organizations Closely Connected with Fronts" ([2], pp.79-83))) and is duplicated on Communist_front#Alleged_CPUSA_front_organizations.2C_circa_1980. — Rankiri (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but possibly rename. This is obviously a notable subject, but the article is still a stub. Having a few POV statements is not a reason for deletion. I do not see any "red flags" here. Oleg Kalugin, Tretiakov, and Stanislav Lunev are the best available specialists in the field of KGB and GRU operations. Why? Because they conducted such operations themselves. The sources are published books. They express mainstream views.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that Theodore Kaczynski is the best available specialist in the field of the Unabomber's operations? Dlabtot (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Any book written by a good author about Kaczynski, based on interviews with him and other sources (like Comrade J by Pete Earley cited here) would certainly qualify. All these people also work as official consultants for US government. Nothing even close to crazy Unabomber.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that you avoided answering my question. Dlabtot (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's try to stay objective. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of wild nationalistic theories. The keystone policies clearly state that articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking, and that each article must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias. — Rankiri (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to address most of the issues. Two of the article's sections (roughly 80%) seem to be completely unconnected with the subject. Without them, everything that's left is two trivial quotes and an obscure libel case from 1940. As for "mainstream" views, please recall WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. I believe that at least some of these claims are both incorrect and highly controversial. — Rankiri (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please improve.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If I saw any potential for improvement, I wouldn't recommend to delete it in the first place. — Rankiri (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. The article is still young. It's a bit early to be closing it. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know we had grace periods for bad articles. Also, rename to what? Considering that the article doesn't really mention any actual peace movements, "Soviet-influenced peace movements" seems just as inappropriate as the present name. — Rankiri (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The introduction and "Cold war" sections might make a legitimate article, but I do not see the relevance of the earlier ones. I suspect that the rest might usefully be merged to Communist front. I very much doubt that many were actually "run" by USSR, even if it financed them, unless they were only in Moscow, not in the west at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is actually a good deal of literature on this, do it needn't be a matter of opinion. DGG (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you list some relevant literature in the further reading section of the article or on talk? I am having trouble finding more sources :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and work on improving it. Someone said there was no grace period for bad articles. Actually, there is, and it lasts as long as we need it to there is no deadline -- WP:DEADLINE though technically an essay, is actually a well accepted guideline. The basis for it is that we are building an encyclopedia incrementally--a consequence of the very basis policy NOT PAPER.DGG (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DEADLINE may refer to poorly written, underdeveloped articles but certainly not to content forks that consist of original research, irrelevant information and various unverifiable claims. That's when WP:DP—an actual policy—comes into effect. — Rankiri (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest delete yet There are more citations of Richard F. Starr's book (eighteen) than there are other sources that match the article text, combined (fifteen). Starr's citations in his book include citations of books by Richard F. Starr. I am not joking. He really does cite himself, numerous times.

Starr paints the WPC black by assertion and then assumes that the rest of the WPC list of affiliated organizations are guilty by association. Any action of any organization on the list is then considered to be an action directed from Moscow. The only real citation of anything whatever of consequence in the entire nine pages of Starr's assertions and lists is one man's testimony before the US Congressional Committee for Intelligence. The text is not given.

Five citations, including the one of Starr's in the lede, do not verify what is said in the article.

Of the 15 non-Starr verifying cites, eight are in the first half of the article. This section, is about the pre-WWII Soviet maneuvering to get themselves a piece of Poland. Sad. But with no facts that bear upon the title of the article. The article is a stub without it, but then, I don't think it should be an article at all.

Of the remaining seven non-Starr, verifying, relevant citations in the article, one is from an ex-KGB accused of being a double agent. Two are from a defector. As well as spinning some ripping yarns about Russia funding anti-war movements during Viet Nam to get them to protest against the war (Talk about money well spent, eh? That must have been hard) the defector promised that there were caches of nuclear weapons hidden throughout Europe, guarded by bomb traps. At one of the locations, searchers accidentally set off an explosive device. Seeing as I haven't heard anything about a giant cloud of uranium particles floating across any of the states bordering Switzerland, or a cache of nuclear material, I am just going to have to assume that there wasn't any weapons-grade uranium at that location. Why does that sound familiar? He can always make up the locations of some more, if he is getting a bit short on lecture invitations.

Another defector given the remaining four cites (it was five, but it didn't match the text and there was another cite that didn't match the text anyway, why confuse things with one tag for two non-matching cites) doesn't need to go on lecture tours. He was given 2 million dollars by the CIA when he defected. He has a heck of a story about a couple of red-linked (WP, not commie conspiracy) russian science labs that cooked up this story about, get this, giant clouds of radioactive dust obscuring the sun for years, and called it, hah! nuclear winter. Can you believe it? Boy were those Nobel-prize-winning scientists dumb to fall for that one. Still not sure it was worth $2 million though. He wrote a book, too, for when the two million dollars runs out.

I added two citations to the article, which cite that useful idiots was wrongly attributed to Lenin. It is my opinion that this is the only solid piece of evidence in the entire article. It's kind of like hanging a gold star on top of a dead christmas tree. You end up wishing you didn't enjoy making things look nicer, so much. Or had an industrial-strength gold star to use, that would make it all better. It's awkward to clarify that there is no proof of it being Lenin's statement, etc etc, so wrongly will just have to do unless the whole phrase is removed or someone can think of a better way to phrase it.

If I am counting right, the entire article rests on the testimony of five individuals. There is no indication that anyone else in the historical community concurs with Starr, the two defectors, the double agent, or even the Congressional witness.

Anarchangel (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I completely disagree with the nominator that information in this article should be added to other articles. The madness must stop here. Unless there is, somewhere, better evidence for the existence of Soviet influence on western activist organizations, then any information on this subject should be restricted to articles about urban legends. Extraordinary claims such as these require extraordinary evidence. At this point I would probably settle for two cites per fabulously widesweeping and generalized insinuation, but I have probably had all my common sense worn down by the offhand and wholesale confabulation of this article. Anarchangel (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per Anarchangel. Whoever said the article is well sourced is surely mistaken. The meat of the article relies almost entirely on one very dubious, non-academic source. The article itself is a collection of agenda driven conspiracy theories while casually trying to pass itself off as uncontested history. LokiiT (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the existence and notability of the topic have been demonstrated through reliable sources. The article isn't perfect, but can be improved through the editing process. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article and title may need some improvements but keep it.--Jacurek (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible delete - a collection of suspicious testimony and unreliable sources. None of which testify to the existence of any Soviet-run peace movements. As noted by nominator. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Article is imperiously bad. The first section is a SYNTH that since the Soviet Union fought wars, any pro-peace statements by them must be hypocritical and false. The last section is the SYNTH that since the WPC was Soviet-influenced, peace movements in general must be subjected to scrutiny for Soviet hypocrisy. The only reliable, peer-reviewed sources in the article (from Staar) pertain to the World Peace Council which, guess what, has its own article! I vote for deletion in the firm belief not that a future article on Soviet influence in Western peace movements could not be written, but that not a single passage of the current article should survive in it. If neither an article's name nor its content are worth preserving, the only solution is to delete it. Basta. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strange, aimless essaying to support a led that merely says It has been claimed. Completely non-encyclopedic goo. 2005 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I will NOT allow Wikipedia to be censored by obviously biased liberal editors. If this is deleted I will appeal and take further action myself 72.70.155.131 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit for this IP, probably encapsulates well what the controversy in this article is all about. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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