Talk:Communist holocaust

Ambiguous?
I set out to tidy up the draft dab page, but all I could end up with was this. It doesn't seem to me like "communist holocaust" is ambiguous, it's a single concept (or at least a single term associated with several closely related proposals). Probably the best thing would be to either redirect to Soviet and Communist studies (the one place on Wikipedia that currently discusses the concept) or to delete it per WP:REDLINK. But we do have the baggage of the recent RfD;, what do you think? – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * this is disruptive, you can't subvert a recent RfD outcome by yourself to your favorite outcome. This one was discussed at length, you had the chance to make your proposals there but your only comment was this one. If you disagree with the outcome follow the proper venues. --Cavarrone 15:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you please take a look at Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages? Assuming good faith, you have no idea what a dab page should look like. Cavarrone 15:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation page was set up as more of a compromise rather than by consensus, so I don't see that outcome as being set in stone. Perhaps now that everyone has been pinged, a discussion here would be fruitful as to what the next step should look like. -- Tavix ( talk ) 12:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, I can't see communist holocaust as warranting a disambiguation page. It's a non-neutral term used in several related contexts, and all of that is covered in the section Soviet and Communist studies. How about retargeting there? A round of pings to the participants of the RfD: what do you think? – Uanfala (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems to make sense. X-Editor (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am okay with this. -- Tavix ( talk ) 13:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The crux of the matter is that the phrase isn't a proper encyclopedic title for anything, but there are several topics that readers could be looking for if they search on it. Since Soviet and Communist studies covers most of those, it's a reasonable second choice for me, but that also reinforces a certain POV. Still better to treat it as ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, what POV is that? If the term is ambiguous, then what are the other meanings not covered in that section? If what you have in mind here are the killings of communists during the Holocaust, then I'm not sure communist holocaust is used to refer to that (though I guess it's a possible search term, so a hatnote could be in order). – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The POV that deaths under communist regimes are equivalent to the Holocaust. Regarding communist victims of the Holocaust, I admit I thought of it as more of a see-also term, but there are equivalent redirects for non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust, such as Gay Holocaust and Romani Holocaust, which make me think that possibility needs to be taken more seriously too. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, but I thought it was the need to avoid presenting such a POV in Wikipedia's voice that recommends retargeting to that section. There, the context is laid out, and it's explained both who uses the term, and why such a use is seen to trivialise the actual Holocaust. Surely that's better than baldly listing everything in bullet points as though the concepts were equivalent? – Uanfala (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what requires context, yes, but why not give context for the other uses too? Bald listings were, I assume, just a start to the disambiguation page, since they're not recommended practice anyway. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I did try to provide that context here, but what I ended up with was effectively an abridged version of that article section. – Uanfala (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and turned the page into a redirect to Soviet and Communist studies. I can't claim there's consensus for this, but I certainly don't see any against (to the mixture of mild support and opposition seen above should be added, I guess, the two thanks I received for starting this thread). I still think an article section that covers, with proper context, the whole relevant conceptual ground is a better option than a set-index article that's formatted like a dab page. Still, editors should feel free to object, in which case it would be up to me to seek further discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Uanfala, thank you for the redirect; I don't object to it, but rather welcome the redirect. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixing ping --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)