Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimes against humanity under communist regimes


 * 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   no consensus. Discussion of possible merger should take place at the relevant talk pages. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is based on a single source, and there is no evidence that there is a field of studies for this. Certainly there is literature about human rights abuses in specific Communist countries but little about Communist countries in general. Notably the main article Crime against humanity makes no mention of the topic. Normally the correct approach would be to have an article specifically about the source, but it appears to have attracted little attention, and therefore lacks notability. TFD (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article title is now Communist crimes against humanity Collect (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep If there is but a single source then why are there currently three? And there are a great many more to come, I have after all only just begun the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge There's already an article on Mass killings under Communist regimes. Perhaps the two would be best merged with one another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy23Lee (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 May 2011
 * This article is an overview article being broader in scope than Mass killings under Communist regimes as it includes deportation, terrorism, repression and other crimes. Mass killings under Communist regimes is more narrow, being concerned only with mass killing, and in any case is already over 100k in size so a merge would not be practical. --Martin (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is not considered a crime against humanity, which refers to crimes carried out by governments, not non-state actors. Also, terrorist attacks against Communist governments were normally carried out by anti-Communists, not by Communists.  Communists did not try to overthrow their own governments.  But more importantly, there is no literature that supports your view.  TFD (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh?  TERRORISM AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY Acts of terrorism may amount to crimes against humanity when they meet the special requirements of these crimes, that is, when: (i) they are part or a widespread or systematic attack on civilians; ...,    Terrorism as a crime against humanity Terrorist acts are not listed as crimes against humanity in the Statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals or the ICC. It is, however, clear that if the acts fall within the list of constituent crimes and if ...     TerroriSm aS a Crime Against Humanity When proposing that certain treaty crimes might be included in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the International Law Commission pointed out that a systematic campaign of terror ...     Is Terrorism a Crime Against Humanity? William A. Schabas' In the weeks that followed 11 September 2001, many recognised authorities in the field of international law described the attacks as a "crime against humanity". ...   Seems to show a number of sources do, indeed, call "terrorism" a "crime against humanity."  Cavil demolished. Collect (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your sources clearly point out that terrorism is not generally considered to be a crime against humanity. TFD (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your understanding appears substantially different from what RS sources state in English. Cheers - but straw arguments do not work at AfD all that well. Collect (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice widespread use of such terms as "may", "it would seem that", "in my opinion", "if this view were to be accepted", "one could also consider that" and "could amount to" - and that is just in the one page section in your first reference. TFD (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You made an absolute statement which was wrong. Argumentation after being shown sources which clearly disagree with your absolute statement is not going to affect this AfD one whit.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, do you understand the difference between saying "terrorism is a crime against humanity" and saying that som e people believe it should be considered as such? Because if we recongnize the distinction, it could lead to elimination of many disputes about neutrality.  TFD (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know when sources are presented which directly contradict an absolute claim made by an advocate of deletion that further discussion on the topic is totally useless. And note also that you now have an RfC on the same article running at the same time.   Cheers.   I decline to make this a thousand word debate when the outcome of this AfD is now clear.  Collect (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The terrorism article does not say anything about crimes against humanity and the crimes against humanity article says nothing about terrorism. Funny how both these articles miss something that you believe is truth.  TFD (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What the Hades are you trying to say? I have said nothing whatever about whatever it is you claim I "believe is truth" and this argy-bargyitis is getting wearisome. Have a gallon of tea, please.  Cheers.   Collect (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, there appears to be plenty of reliable sources on the topic, but suggest a move to Communist crimes against humanity as the current title appears to be a bit of a mouthful. --Martin (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the renaming. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree, the scope of this topic is very broad and complex, however, it shouldn't prevent us from trying to create an informative article. The investigation of communist crimes is a subject of public debate in many post-communist countries, see Category:Commemoration of communist crimes. Even the determination of the term "communist crime against humanity" is complicated and offers important material for examination, see . In any case, the European Parliament resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism (April, 2009) condemned "strongly and unequivocally all crimes against humanity and the massive human rights violations committed by all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes". In February, 2010, several European politicians signed the Declaration on Crimes of Communism, calling for establishing an international institution (or an international court within the EU) that would investigate communist crimes against humanity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe . It was an attempt to unite the efforts of former communist countries. I think the topic has potential for expansion, although compiling a balanced article is a really complicated task. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Other than not liking it, no actual WP grounds for deletion has been given. AfD is not the place for content disputes, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, the nominator appears to be WP:CANVASSing for a particular outcome here. --Martin (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't canvassing, it is a neutral notice on a neutral field. I invite any opinion on this, it is always better to get another pair of eyes in an AfD discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I thought the second sentence "It may be that it should be merged with this article" wasn't really neutral and the audience on that talk page were somewhat partisan, but thanks for the clarification. --Martin (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —TFD (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Other than the Prague Declaration, I see no indication that "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" is treated by reliable sources as a discrete topic, as opposed to crimes against humanity under specific countries, or crimes against humanity under authoritarian regimes in general. The topic is not notable and the article can only be expanded beyond a stub by improper synthesis. Quigley (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete:Smacks of creating articles for a political purpose. There needs to be evidence that this is a distinct field of study -- Snowded  TALK  09:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly it is a distinct feild of study, for example an international conference attended by academics was held recently. --Martin (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is an unproductive attempt by a member of a known communist cabal to push the pro-Marxist agenda by removing an article that highlights the negative side of communism. And yes the nominator has shown extreme irresponsibility by making this comment, I'm wondering what is his motive? If it is a candidate for merger, then AfD is the wrong venue, so that comment constitutes CANVASSing. As argued above, more references can be easily found. It is unfortunate Wikipedia is being taken over by certain individuals with disruptive political agenda. --Reference Desker (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And yes, rename it Communist crime against humanity. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. The article's topic largely duplicates the existing Mass killings under Communist regimes article. There is presently discussion on a rename of that article to Mass crimes of communist regimes, which would make the overlap clearer. However, since editing of Mass killings under Communist regimes is currently under severe restriction, a merger may not be possible at this time, in which case this article should be userfied. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this topic largely duplicates Mass killings under Communist regimes, because the latter article does not cover deportations, forced labour and other political repressions considered crimes against humanity that fall short of killing. "Crimes against humanity" is defined as "particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice". As you can see Mass killings under Communist regimes is a just one sub-topic of a wider phenonemon which also includes torture, rape, political/racial/religious persecution and other inhumane acts. In any case that article is already over 100k in size, so merging is impractical. --Martin (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mass killings under Communist regimes does have a section on deportations. It is currently in a controversies section because, while many of the sources for the article discuss deportations, including them as "mass killing" is awkward. That's one of the reasons I support the name change to "Mass crimes of communist regimes" currently being considered for the article: it is more accurate to how the topic is described in the variety of sources. "Mass killing" was one of several terms used by reliable sources and it was the one chosen for the title of the article, but the others are included in a terminology section and "crime against humanity" is among them. I think it is a better solution to have a single wikipedia article on a topic than to artificially divide a single topic between the various terms different sources use to describe it (particularly when some of those sources directly acknowledge that the variety of terms are descriptions of the very same subject). The topic should determine the title, not the other way around. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because someone erroneously added a small section on deportation to an article about mass killings, it does not follow that that article should then be expanded in scope to include all non-lethal crimes within it, that is just WP:Article creep. Yes, mass killing is a crime against humanity, but a crime against humaninity does not need to be a mass killing. Mass killings under Communist regimes is already 100k in size, so rolling all the other crimes into it will only make that article even bigger, resulting in the need to spin off sub-articles. Where is the sense in that? To my mind the obvious solution it to expand the article Communist crimes against humanity with a summary section on mass killings, while retaining Mass killings under Communist regimes as a more detailed sub article. --Martin (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you then also support separate articles for each of the other terms used, such as "politicide under communist regimes"? I don't see the sense in that. Wikipedia determines articles by topic, not by term. Even though the article is now named "Mass killings under Communist regimes", it has retained the topic it began with, originally titled "Communist genocide". The sources don't make such fine distinctions between the various terms, so neither should we. I think the best demonstration in a source of why all the terms should be included in one article is the following quote showing that they reflect the same single topic:
 * ''"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.
 * Other sources also mention that other terms are preferred by other scholars on the same topic. The Black Book of Communism, for example, discusses the merits of "crimes against humanity" by communist regimes, and mentions that "politicide" and "communist crimes" are used by others. The main source for this article, "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" by Karlsson and Schoenhals also discuss the merits of "genocide", "terror" and use other terms in specific contexts. There is no clear division of the topic by term. The best approach is to have one article for the one topic. I agree with you that "Mass killing" is too narrow. The proposed "Mass crimes of communist regimes" is much better, but it is better for the article which has already been extensively written, not this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Politicide, classicide, fracticide, democide, genocide are all instances of mass killing, the only thing that differs is the targeted group. That is why "mass killing" is a wholly appropriate encyclopedic term that encompases all the -cides and why Mass killings under Communist regimes is a wholly appropriate topic that emcompasses all the permutations of the terms related to killing. I do however make the distinction between mass killing and deportation, mass killing and rape, and mass killing and political/racial/religious persecution, and thus mass killing, deportation, rape and political/racial/religious persecution are all valid topics worthy of separate articles while the topic "crimes against humanity" is itself a separate but related topic just like Crime is a separate topic but related to Murder, Rape and Kidnapping. In regard to your extensive quote of Jacques Semelin, he is discussing the definition under criminal law, where "Crime against humanity" is a lesser charge than "genocide" as applied to the instance of a particular mass killing as a crime. --Martin (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.