Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings 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. Both sides made valid points, and it would be hard to call this anything else. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
AfDs for this article (as Communist genocide): 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not going to vote on this AfD this time around (though I feel I have every right to do so) but I do regard Four Deuces characterization of my self as "far right anti-Russian" as complete bullshit meant to influence the outcome of this AfD, and a direct personal attack (particularly since I consider "far right" to be a despicable political position). radek (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also stay out of this one - no point in voting, since the result is given from the start (no consensus). I just want to note that if the nominator truly wants to build consensus around some kind of constructive improvement, s/he is going about it in a really bad way - nominating the article for deletion every other month is not likely to get people out of their entrenched positions. --Anderssl (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "every other month". Last nomination was a month and a half ago (Sept 24). This is just tendentious and disruptive forum shopping, and should be rejected on those grounds alone.radek (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete I have been following this in the background since it was called Communist Genocide (see box above). Every AfD ended in no consensus with an attached promise to improve the article. As the comments by this AfD's nominator show, that hasn't happened apparently. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pr. Articles for deletion/Communist genocide and Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination). + considering the sources provided in the article the claim of original research has no basis to it. Regarding the arguments given about "far right" and "Eastern European mailing list", I suggest to The Four Deuces remove such inappropriate speculations from this discussion page. As someone who has contributed to the article in good faith and by considering myself a liberal, and have never been part of any mailing lists, I find such suggestions that the contributors to this article are part of some kind "far right Eastern European mailing list" conspiracy not offensive but flat out ridiculous. --Termer (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of good sources for this article - and there seems to be some sort of campaign to delete the sources in the article: some folks are trying to politicize the article. I too, consider myself a liberal, and am not on any mailing list.  The claims of synthesis are ridiculous, even 1 source could be good enough for notability here - see the Black Book of Communism, published by Harvard University Press.  And yes, there will be claims that this source, and many similar sources are not good enough, but frankly I don't buy that nonsense.  Finally, there must be some limit to nominations such as this one, and subsidiary deletion nominations such as Articles for deletion/Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, before it looks like simple denialism combined with harassment.  Smallbones (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: COATRACK,  SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object.  I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these.  The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true).  This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology.  (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing).   On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite.  (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing").  Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause.  George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson."  There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality.  The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in [State x]". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From above "The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology." Does this really have anything to do with WP:RS? Or are you just saying you don't like what the sources say, and even if they are published by the Harvard University Press and deal explicitly with Mass killings under Communist regimes that they are irrelevant - just because you don't like them? Smallbones (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While the Black Book presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of "Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism." The foreword contains one statement on generalised causes, Criminality, xvii-xviii, which is "they were criminal enterprises in their very essence." While I only quote a clause, this argument of cross cultural genocide studies is one sentence long.  The introduction contains three paragraphs advocating a general cause, which comes down the violating a rights principle concept of social good as advocated by the Catholic Church.  No mention of societies are made in this paragraph.  The Afterword is worse, its a reprisal of the history of the soviet union with three paragraphs on China, with no analysis.  Hard as it is to swallow, The Black Book on Communism is a miscellany, not an analysis.  "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...a Pope listed a series of human rights." is not an answer.  "The Soviet and Chinese killings were similar because...here are unrelated and uncontextualised single country studies let down by a really poor introduction." is not an answer. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable subject and already reasonably referenced. The article still needs a lot of work including NPOVing but it is already useful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That a banned editor was involved is not a valid reason for deletion. There is a lot if "IDONTLIKEIT" above, but that also is not a valid reason for deltion. Lastly there is a "I don't like a source used" which is a valid reason for editing a topic, perhaps, but not a valid reason for deletion. Unless a WP valid reason for deletion is given, the article should be kept.  Collect (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-source, notable article. Looks like it was nominated strictly for political reasons. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, anti-Russian? Russia is not the USSR. Peltimikko (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Do I need to join a mailing list to see the problem? The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press) together with the more specialised sources on specific killings seems to establish notability. Fifelfoo's synthesis complaint makes sense, but the article also cites a chapter "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" from a Cornell University Press book. Hans Adler 08:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Valentino? His argument is that there is no specifically communist feature except that this particular group in his actual category are communist.  In his schema they're part of a category of politically motivated killings of outgroups by elites. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another good point, thanks. In this case perhaps the article should reflect this. I am changing to weak keep because it's less clear to me now that we need this article. But I do think that it makes sense, not least per WP:SUMMARY, as it covers a common subtopic of Mass murder, Communism and Stalinism. Hans Adler 09:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another good point? Contrary to Fifelfoo's opinions the source actually says exact opposite (p.91) "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. etc.". So from where exactly those Fifelfoo's interpretations come from, I have no idea. And do I need to mention that the facts from the source keep disappearing from the article.--Termer (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to quote his theoretical category describing the commonality? You haven't quoted a causal claim or category, you've quoted a list. His category isn't "communist mass killing," those three cases are communist examples of his real category.  You won't find it in that subheading of the chapter, you'll find it in the broader chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * category describing the commonality? No problem: (p.97) : "The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies."--Termer (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So is your suggestion to rename the article Mass killings and social transformation? csloat (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually csloat, I've let this sit for a couple of days while involved elsewhere, and will reply to Termer shortly, but your response is question begging and not really appropriate behaviour towards another editor. You should do what I shall do: quote from the Valentino sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as it's a very informative, and well-sourced article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This now sets a rate of one nomonation to delete every six weeks for this one article. I anticipate finding it for its 9th nomination with a year of the first - as this time it looks like a clear "keep', I suggest it be be precluded for relisting for six months at a minimum. Collect (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the subject is definitelty found in scholarly sources. However the article must be carefilly cleaned of original research and unnecessary massive duplication of the material. Each particular mass killing must be detailed in the corresponding wikipiedia article, and this general article must contain only brief summaries sufficient to serve as an example for the discourse. - Altenmann >t 17:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete simply because we already have articles where all of this information really belongs. Mass killings under Communist regimes are not any sort of single phenomenon, any more so than Mass killings under capitalist regimes / Mass killings under conservative regimes / Mass killings under Third World dictatorships are, although that various instances of mass killing of individuals under various left-wing governments have occured is established as a documented fact. Thus, delete per WP:POV Fork. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with William S. Saturn that this article has been selected for deletion (several times) purely on political grounds. It's interesting to note that the far inferior Anti-communist mass killings article, which includes a controversial claim that the Nazi Holocaust qualifies as such, has not been nominated, and a wikilink to it is still included in the "see also" section of this article while other significant wikilinks pertaining to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are removed. Very interesting indeed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, I just read the lead of that article Anti-communist mass killings and spit coke all over my keyboard. Hi-llarious.radek (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do nominate Anti-communist mass killings as an additional article within the scope of this AfD. I'm intensely familiar with the main theoretical source there, having added it in an attempt to encourage other authors to improve article quality (just as I've done in the last six weeks at Mass killings under Communist regimes).  The source at anti-communist mass killings its cross cultural to the extent that it deals with German and Baltic white terror in the 1917-1919 revolutions and assigns a specific theoretical / sociological cause which it debates at length as the subject of the work (more impressively than Black Book's approximately four paragraphs of cross cultural theory).  But Male fantasies is not sufficiently impressive to me, it isn't a general theory of white terror, its a specific theory of a historical cross cultural terror and the analysis is deeply fascinated with the Germanness of this white terror.  Anti-communist mass killings should be deleted for the same reasons I mentioned above in relation to this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely irrelated instances placed together to create narrative. POV fork of Red terror. Also from what times hunger is counted as "mass killing"?--Dojarca (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. People have tried to improve it but it's still a synthesis of original research.  If you're gonna keep then it has to be renamed Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, since those are the only three mass killings clearly linked in the cited literature, and the connection to "communism" is tenuous at best using the sources linked in the article.  This article tells an interesting story, but it is an original essay, not an encyclopedia entry. csloat (talk) 07:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, there seem to be serious problems with POV and synthesis that probably can't be resolved in the context of the subject as it is framed here. Everyking (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this as the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK for anti-communist propaganda that it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think this is a coatrack to include Holodomor(mass famine in Ukraine and South Russia in 1930s) as an example of "mass killings".--Dojarca (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, judging from the polemical language used in the nomination, it seems to be a politically motivated nomination. IMO this falls within WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory because its not Soviet historiography. The article is reliably referenced and blatantly notable. What next? The equivelent would be if deniers start nominating The Holocaust for deletion. Ridiculous. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether the nomination is political or not (I guess we have no way of judging whether it's the former without assuming bad faith) is irrelevant. The point is the arguments. Although one can find content supporting certain claims for keeping a POV fork, when other claims presenting opposite or incompatible views of the phenomenon exist – like when most scholars do not consider any separate instances of killing by communists to be part of just one big or connected thing, you end up with a POV fork by choosing to focus on just one perspective. I won't elaborate much further: please consider the arguments and responses by Fifelfoo (who's explained quite a bit) and the rationale provided by myself. Please note that to fight off this AFD by merely attacking the nominator in loaded and polemical language is to commit a fallacy – ad hominem / well-poisoning. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about poisoning wells. I think the communists killing the Polish soldiers in the Katyn forest or the Khmer Rouge slaughtering Cambodians in The Killing Fields is probably more relevent here. This is absolutely a notable and verifiable article, with reels of references. I am shocked and sickened to my stomach that some are trying to hide it away, using as rationale pantomine newspeak like claiming it is "anti-Russian" (the vast majority of Russians are not even communists). It would absolutely be like nominating The Holocaust saying the article is "anti-German". Or the article religious wars saying it is a "far-left mailing-list anti-theist" plot. Wikipedia is not censored. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "anti-Russian" remark by the nominator is actually a reference to the WP:EEML, in which a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors ganged up to keep this article after it was created by a banned troll and also perform similar coordinated POV operations on various articles across the Eastern European topic space. You still have not said anything about my point, and Fifelfoo's: the fact that different communists engaged in killing people on various different occasions doesn't meant that there needs to be one article containing everything, since this amounts to a POV fork (in other words, scholarship generally sees various acts of murder by communist and non-communist governments as acts particular to different circumstances—prompted by distinct events). To accrue every isntance of killing by communists (and some instances of simply people under communist-run governments being allowed to die as a result of atrocious economic policies during some stages of collectivization), as this article does, represents something frowned upon by Wikipedia per WP:POVFORK, as we already have articles dealing with each of those separate topics. Another Wikipedia principle, of course, is WP:SYNTH, and it would be utterly POV as well to have an article called Mass killings under capitalist regimes or Mass killings under reactionary regimes.
 * Don't be surprised if one day you stumble upon Space exploration under communist regimes or Increases in life expectancy under communist regimes if you enjoy seeing articles like this. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this nonsense about a number of biased right-wing editors attacking left-wing and Russian editors by user PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist is complete bullshit which he is using to smear people he disagrees with (and yes, he does have a history of using this despicable tactic). I'm not "right wing" (unless you happen to think Obama is "right-wing", which, I mean, some people due - but per WP:Fringe...). I didn't attack anybody. And quite a number of Russian editors were just as appalled as I was by PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist's Neo-Stalinist and ... nationalist ... POV pushing on scores of articles by him and his tag team buddies.radek (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Anti-Nationalist is making a whole lot of sense. But on the other hand, hasn't the article been improved significantly in the few weeks since the last AfD? Particularly considering that working on this article is extremely slow and tedious given that every little point needs to be discussed over and over. I agree that there is lots of work to be done, but as far as I can see the article seems to be moving in the right direction. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting and good point. The problem is that with the exception of Termer's quote above (which I'm yet to verify, I've got the other Valentino paper at home, but haven't managed to get the introduction of the book yet... won't until Monday) the sources quoted are either FRINGE or don't actually theorise any cause, or explicitly claim the cause is greater than, or less than, communism.  I feel the article was slowly moving towards a point where it would stall and be ready for deletion of the COATRACK with a move of a rather good theoretical piece to merge into genocide.  The nomination was early, and not informed by the state of debate on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am starting to lean towards your point of view - move the best material to genocide and delete this one. But yes I do think this AfD (as the previous one) was premature and kind of obnoxious, to be honest. --Anderssl (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone can follow the link to WP:EEML and see if Radeksz was a member of this very peculiar group. Enough said. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice try at weaseling there PasswordUsername. You know very well that what is at issue is not the membership of the list but your false characterization of it and your vicious smears of some people on it. But you do have a history with making offensive and false accusations, right?radek (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * McCarthyist attacks on me warrant no response on my behalf. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quit smearing people and lying shamelessly. I am not making "McCarthyist attacks". I am pointing out that in the past you have made completely unfounded accusations against some editors, found out that these accusations were completely false, and yet continued to refuse to back down and apologize. This kind of behavior here is just par for the course for you. I'm not going to sit around and let you spread lies and falsehoods about me.radek (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to ArbCom case of interest: WP:EEML. I do encourage independent reading of it. Have a nice day and prosperous life, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The charges of original research are baseless. Instances of synthesis between the large number of reliable sources should be brought up on the talk page. As of now, none have been. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least potentially a valid topic, since it has been studied as an entity. There may be bits of synthesis, but those can be edited out. - Biruitorul Talk 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The connecting concept that links these communist regimes with mass killing, as stated in the lede, is the revolutionary desire to engineer radical social transformation that inevitably leads to abrupt and almost total material and political dispossession of millions of people, leading to hardship and death on a scale unprecedented in history. Benjamin Valentino articulates this concept in his published works, as does John N. Gray, George Watson, Isaiah Berlin and others. Even the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, acknowledges this connection when he recently condemned communist mass killings on his video blog, stating "No development of a country, none of its successes or ambitions can be reached at the price of human losses and grief", so the notion expressed by some that this article is some how anti-Russian is nonsense. The article is well sourced, although it could do with a bit of editing to remove the wrinkles, it remains a valid and notable topic. --Martintg (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per many others here, this article is not synthesis, nor OR, but rather a valid topic the study of which seems to be growing in quantity. Sources are verifiable, and although there is room for improvement, this article should remain.Horlo (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Alex Bakharev, while article still needs work, its topic is enough notable and referenced. Also I would note that AfDs for this article feel quite rushed, in about every one and half month someone seems to start a new one.--Staberinde (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Questions if this is closed as Keep, can it be afd'd again for any reason, or for the same reasons? Is there a limit on the number of times, or the frequency of afding?  If there is no limit, is there a historical record, and are we approaching it? Note that this article has been subject not just to afd's, but also to name changes, and extensive removal of reliable sources.  In summary, is there a way to stop the nonsense regarding this article, here and elsewhere? Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2009 (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.