Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Moot. It's been userfied and then U1'd in userspace, so we're done here. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:WP:Yes Marxism-Leninism

 * – (View MfD)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:POINTy counter to WP:NONAZIS inspired by this ANI report. Pro-ML editors are POV pushers; so are any editors who are editing "pro-" some ideology, no matter which. Also, the compatibility of Marxism–Leninism with Wikipedia is highly dubious. The Soviet Union wasn't too into the free flow of information. Given the violent and totalitarian nature of the ideology, "pro-ML editors" are hardly something we should encourage. Crossroads -talk- 08:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Struck some stuff which is too easily misunderstood and not relevant to my central argument. Clarified below. Crossroads -talk- 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to my user space to work on which makes this deletion request moot. Vikram Vincent 08:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It should still be deleted as (1) inflammatory and divisive and (2) because it is hopelessly and irredeemably wrong, as outlined above. Crossroads -talk- 08:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin request: can you please move the article back from my user space to original URL as I made a page move without reading the note clearly. Sorry and thanks! Vikram Vincent 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Crossroads thinks all ML discussions are motivated from the erstwhile Soviet Union and has nominated the draft for deletion, I would point out that contextualising all ML discussions as "Soviet" is not valid in terms of 'historical thinking', specifically Contextualisation Vikram Vincent 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The draft is not disruptive to make any WP:POINT but to create an essay that allows for WP:DUE weightage to sources arising from non-capitalist, non-soviet, non-failed state examples. A counter example to argument of totalitarianism are the states of Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura in India, which had Communist led governments within the framework of the democratic Indian Constitution. Vikram Vincent 09:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

* I won't oppose to the article deletion as I think another more abstract essay may be needed. Vikram Vincent 10:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the constructive feedback. The essay is becoming more abstract, which can be ascertained from the nutshell, and the current form is far from what it started as. I will be changing the title to make it more appropriate. Having said that, it is in my user space and does not violate any guideline and hence the discussion to delete is moot. Vikram Vincent 17:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

*Comment: As the creator states above, "I won't oppose to the article deletion". It should be speedy deleted as CSD:U1.  // Timothy :: talk  14:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep userspace musings, delete projectspace redirect this frittered across my watchlist. I have not delved into that absolute shitshow of an AN/I thread in any detail, but given that this now exists in userspace I do not see much harm to the project. Gonna break a rule here and comment on contributors as well as contributions: this is obviously something you care about: I think that WP:YESML as a parallel to WP:NONAZIS is a bit hot-headed, but I do not see the harm in a good, self-critical userspace essay on the subject (and a response to suggestions of violent totalitarianism). I would enjoy reading it. There is plenty of content that has significantly more potential to be harmful that continues to exist in userspace (with consensus that it should be kept), and I think we should give VV a chance to stretch their legs here a little. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 13:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Alfie above. This essay looks interesting, and I'd like to see it completed. OP obviously didn't read the essay when they completely associated ML with the USSR. pandakekok9 (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: When I nominated this it was written differently and in draftspace with the implication it would go to project space. It has also had some rewording done since then, seemingly in response to my comments: current version. It is not my position that an editor cannot identify as Marxist-Leninist (ML) and edit Wikipedia. It is my position that an editor who is promoting ML via their editing cannot be encouraged or even permitted to continue, per WP:TE. Snappy project-space shortcuts like YESML, as seems to be planned, are not permissible for implying the latter is okay or that we are trying to recruit editors from a certain ideology. Additionally, the advice about sourcing and DUE that is shaping up looks very dubious. Crossroads -talk- 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The approach taken above appears as WP:POVFIGHTER. I have not violated any point from WP:TE and I shall endeavor not to either. Thanks Vikram Vincent 05:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This "draft" is so strange. Extremely totalitarian ideologies are incompatible with Wikipedia, if you deny the Katyn Massacre as western propaganda, believe the deportation of Crimean Tatars was justified or never happened, believe the Holodomor is just "western propaganda", deny the Great Purge happened, or think Stalin was "democratic elected", or think China is a democratic in the slightest. These fringe delusions such as Stalin being "democratically elected" will directly make it impossible for you to write neutrally and will also lead to you pushing disinformation. In fact you will inherently push your POV if you hold these beliefs if you believe in them. These editors (who think any of the false things stated above) are not allowed, and fall under fringe category of Wikipedia. However non-Totalitarian Marxist-Leninists such as those who support Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Castro, or Lenin while recognizing and not denying history, I suppose they could be neutral editors. This should deleted it's completely useless and made only as a defense mechanism to avoid scrutiny on their actions and within that sense this looks like absolute waffle to me. Des Vallee (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your position is strange, as your concern has already been addressed by the essay, particularly the first two sections. So I'm no sure why you're insisting that this essay should be deleted. pandakekok9 (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The examples provided above from USSR-China-Cuba are ideal to highlight biased generalisation I.e.,"Generalizing from an unrepresentative sample to increase the strength of your argument," which is a systemic problem that I haven't seen a solution and attempting to address with the essay. Vikram Vincent 06:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Context I think this is relevant info. I had opposed serious action against an editor in an ANI thread as I saw it as a content issue. At the end of the ANI, the editor was given a warning. was the proposer of that ANI and  was a major participant pushing for action. I created this essay because I felt that if the concept of contextualisation was made more obvious in that debate it would have been easier to understand the issue as content rather than behaviour thus requiring dispute resolution. Vikram Vincent  04:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Content is advocacy for a pro Marxist-Leninist POV. Even the title, Yes Marxism-Leninism shows this is advocacy for a POV. If a similar essay existed for a right wing ideology it would be speedily (and appropriately) deleted and this should be no different.
 * WP:UP, Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia and WP:UP, Writings, information, discussions, and activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals;
 * WP:U5, WP:UP, Promotional and advocacy content about a personal viewpoint and WP is not a webhost.
 * The creator may have been motivatived by wanting to continue a dispute about behavior at ANI (this is a problem in its own right), regardless the content is still a polemical statement promoting a POV, and is unrelated to Wikipedia's goals. The only thing this content will do is generate more ANI work.  // Timothy :: talk  15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I don't see any advocacy, only useful information and links editors should keep in mind to comply with WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, as well as brief explanations on what Marxism-Leninism is as a category to avoid mistakes. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 18:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The title could certainly be improved to not sound like an advocacy. But I agree with BunnyyHop here, there's no advocacy whatsoever in the content of that draft. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will change the title, as I noted above, once the MFD is done. Vikram Vincent 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as blatant polemic POV-pushing, that title isn't trying to hide anything. We wouldn't tolerate something like this if it was about fascism, same goes for this. —  csc -1 21:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The title will be changed to contextualisation as shown by the shortcut. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't solve the problem. Then you have the same material but with an extremely vague title that surprises the reader with stuff about ML instead of 'contextualization' as such. Crossroads -talk- 05:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, nothing wrong with giving examples where the issue of biased generalisation can be seen. There is an example of law. Feel free to add more examples if you can think of any. Would love it if you can point out specific sentences that can be improved to convey the point of 'contextualisation of claims'. Best! Vikram Vincent 06:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you suggest a few titles as I have already placed possible alternate titles on the disputed page. I prefer the first one, Always keep context in mind when arguing claims. Vikram Vincent 06:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that the essay is/was labelled "Yes Marxism-Leninism" doesn't change because the title got changed after being called out. —  csc -1 06:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point noted and changes made/proposed with the feedback. Do you still prefer to delete even after the feedback was accounted for and changes made? Vikram Vincent 06:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My assumption here is that the feedback is to improve the essay :-) Vikram Vincent 06:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're against the current page due to its previous form? -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 06:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's still a defense of Marxism-Leninism, and the previous title is acting as a signal of intent. —  csc -1 14:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * «It's still a defense of Marxism-Leninism», how so? -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 15:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In that it attempts to diverge the "ideology" of Marxism-Leninism from the "implementation" of said ideology, i.e. the USSR/PRC/whatever, in order to discredit the atrocities caused by said regimes (i.e. in the name of marxism-leninism), which is equivalent to trying to diverge fascism from it's many atrocities by saying "Nazism was only Hitler's interpretation of the ideology of fascism". —  csc -1 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on a false equivalence as well as a misintepretation of the article. The article is based on the contextualising of historical events avoiding biased generalisations, to which Marxism-Leninism is the main example. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 18:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be ongoing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's even worse to have an essay promoting Marxism-Leninism or ideas about it with a dishonest title like "Contextualization" than one that is at least open about what it is. This is obvious WP:GAMING to salvage the essay when it was looking likely to be deleted. It is obvious what this is and it should be deleted all the same. Crossroads -talk- 17:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you point out exactly where Marxism-Leninism is being "promoted"? -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 18:27, 12 February 2021 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.