Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)

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. Although there are likely many areas where the article could use improvement, rough consensus is that the concerns brought up do not make grounds for deletion. However, further discussion on the article's future (including the name choice, sythesis identification, rewriting, and/or merging) is strongly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards to all, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And under its previous name:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This hopeless article manages to be a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule; now that's pretty sad. I have read the previous nominations, and I agree with the second that an article could be written on this topic - but this is not it, and never will be it. The charges of SYNTH and misreading fill the talk page; but what provokes me to this is the worthless section full of unused terminology. This is - and always will be - an indiscriminate collection of information; and is not for Wikipedia. If someone wants to userify and trim the down to something useful, I have no objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources, proven notability. mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Communist party involvement in mass killings - because the definition of Communist for the purpose of this article is flawed and essentially makes it a POV fork. Communism is a economical/political ideology in opposition to Capitalism - we don't have Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. "Regime", while arguably NPOV, has a lot of POV connotations (not democratic - while to a Marxist-Leninist, communist governments are by definition democratic). The article does not consider Marxist-Leninist viewpoints on the killings and is essentially one sided. These are all surmountable issues, so deletion may not be viable. I'd suggest that almost all of the material needs to be reconsidered and rewritten, and if there's no consensus to delete, I'd strongly suggest the move because it would make the article more comprehensive (the so-called "red terror" in the Spanish Civil War - when Communist parties aren't in government), and give it clear inclusion criteria, as well as removing the POV inherent in the title. Claritas § 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Anti-communist_mass_killings which was kept at AfD - which I would think obviates your point. Collect (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google scholar returns nil hits for the subject.[1] Essentially the article is a group of events that may or may not be related but we do not have any reliable sources that connect them. Even the minority views that draw a connection are greatly divided in what the connection is and there are no reliable sources that connect the various interpretations. All the topics in the article are covered elsewhere. TFD (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

This is relevant: [2] it's all about how you search. For article topics that return zero hits, see for example "Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles", "World War II crimes in Poland", "Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany" etc. It's not unusual for sources to *not* use the exact phrase of the Wikipedia article in their articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We do not have an article called Mass killings in Nazi Germany, because it would be synthesis to combine the Holocaust, which has 299,000 hits on Google scholar,[3] with the Dresden bombing, which has 217 hits.[4] TFD (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be. You are correct. How is that relevant in this case? Does the current article take both the Holomodor and Hitlers invasion or something? No it doesn't. There is no synthesis in that article any longer, which the discussion on the talk page proves. It's just, like this AfD intentional disruption aimed at making it hard to improve the article. You should continue improving it instead, with for example explaining what you want to add from those two sources you claimed could be used to balance it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all examples of original synthesis of unrelated events, for which there is no academic literature in support. TFD (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"These"? If you mean anything related to the article we are discussing now, why haven't you brought this up the numerous times you and others have been asked to explain your support of the SYN-tag? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you countless times, but you are unable or unwilling to accept this. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it hasn't. And that talk page is still there, and still waiting for your arguments. Your reasoning here is no reason for deletion, just for improvments. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about shifting goalposts. TFD (back when his sig was The Four Deuces) had a problem with the name Communist genocide, and now that it's changed there's a problem with this name now too? You can't just keep saying it's SYNTH when there are at least two other books written on exactly this subject. Here are some google searches for you [5] [6] (third hit contains the quote "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")... how can you say with a straight face that there's no sources about this? Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will remember that I opposed the move to mass killings, which I saw as having the same problems as genocide but even more so, since the term was even more poorly defined. Could you please point to one peer-reviewed article that could provide a basis for this article. TFD (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep several wp:rs presented in talk Darkstar1st (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete w/ merge (or, more preferably, Strong Move w/ major rewrite), as a WP:POVFORK blowing minority assertions beyond all reasonable proportion after conspicuously failing to meet the burden of proof dictated for such contentious theories. The article's other problems currently include WP:NPOV violations, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE which are detailed separately on the talk page here and here and here and here and here and here. Per nom, the article serves as a POV coatrack, beginning at the very top of the article. The title itself is POV -- conceivably though this can be fixed by moving the page and assigning an NPOV title, or by just deleting the WP:COATRACK after merging its contents to other historical articles. There has been NO evidence that academic consensus acknowledges any relationship between "mass killings" and "Communist regimes", yet the title strongly implies a link. If we start creating titles that make implications found only in minority views, then NASA and all of its moon landing hoaxes becomes legitimate. Allowing pages like this encourages the creation of all manner of conspiratorial and ideological attack page WP:COATRACKs. Per TFD above, the topic itself is questionable at best, and really the content of the article (sans its current name) only deserves to be kept if editors are willing to recognize that the viewpoint must be expressed as a minority perspective, given what we know at this point. If the contents are kept, the article still needs a significant rewrite in order to avoid its tendency to suggest as fact what are really only minority viewpoints; however, very little progress has been made in this regard for months, and the repeated and strenuous support of fairly blatant POV wording may be insurmountable. If the article is beyond enough consensus for repair, then deletion may be the only recourse, per the remedies listed for viewpoints outside of the academic consensus. If this article's title truly reflected its WP:RSs and gave proper attribution to minority viewpoints, then it would be more-accurately called "The link by a small number of scholars such as RJ Rummel proposed to exist between Communism and inconsistent measures of mass killings", so at a minimum, the article needs a page-move to an NPOV title where we can write a far more neutral article (but the COATRACK problems certainly wouldn't end at that). BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment Since the main AfD reason was not the lack of sources, but SYNTH, POV fork and OR, the references to notability or wealth of sources are fully irrelevant.
The article can be kept, provided, but only provided, that all SYNTH and OR are removed from there. However, based on previous AfD discussion I conclude that most opponents of the article's deletion simultaneously oppose to removal of synthesis and OR from there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like the page be unprotected so I can try some drastic editing to sort out Synth/OR issues. Claritas § 20:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One alternative is to just copy the article contents into a sandbox branch off of the article's talk page, like Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes/Claritas. Then you can show us what you've got. I'm not very optimistic that the POV can be eliminated without huge objections, but who knows ... maybe you've got the magic to foster a consensus that gets the protection lifted early. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and do this some time later this week - I'm too busy at the moment, but it should be possible soon. Claritas § 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That state repression and mass killings occurred in several (I'd argue most) countries dominated by Communist regimes (Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Hoxhaist, etc.) is not some fringe theory like holocaust denial or skepticism of the moon landing. Multiple reputable scholars in the field of genocide studies and the fields of Soviet and Communist studies have written about this very subject (i.e. Goldhagen, Valentino, Rosefielde, Rummel, Courtois, etc.), and their views are presented in the article. Some have written or contributed to whole books on the subject (Red Holocaust (2009 book), The Black Book of Communism - published by Routledge and Harvard University Press respectively). This article contains scores and scores of citations from legitimate sources. Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.) and some sources are published reports from mainstream news outlets (i.e. BBC) on recent developments most likely not found in academic material as of yet (i.e. Communist ruler Mengistu's genocide conviction and death sentence for his Red Terror mass killings - something that clearly deserves to be included in the body of this article). If a name change or trimming of the article (perhaps the "Controversies" section?) would solve the problem, then fine. I wouldn't object to the move proposed by Claritas.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust are not suitable texts to be the basis of this article, because their accuracy and neutrality has been questioned by scholarly community. The article is essentially based on Anglophone scholarship, which while normal for en-Wiki, is extremely problematic here, because it means that all significant points of view on the roles of mass killings and the connections between mass-killings and the communist parties are not considered. We need some Marxist/Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyite views on the subject, ~~as well as post-Soviet eastern European scholarship etc~~ - there's some of that. for this article really to be balanced. Of course, the Black Book and Red Holocaust can be used to cite uncontroversial statements, but their viewpoints cannot be accepted as definite or even the major academic view. I'm particularly concerned about the use of Red Holocaust to support potentially controversial claims in the article. The article also needs the opinions of the academics who do not believe that mass-killings took place to the extent commonly believed - unlike Holocaust revisionism this is not a fringe theory, but rather a minority view which can be understood in the context of certain evidence. Claritas § 20:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is common knowledge that the BBoC is controversial in certain circles. And I am unaware of any criticism "by the scholarly community" of Rosefielde's book as being "inaccurate"? Are you just making this up?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaaah, I didn't quite mean to say that. Rosefielde's estimation, as it says in the Wiki article that the victims of Communist mass-killings is higher than the total combat deaths of WWII has been contested - much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream, but I'm struggling to find a citation through the net. Anyway, the section "Comparisons with other mass-killings" is a major issue, in that it offers a one-sided view. Most Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale than colonial or Nazi genocides. Claritas § 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You talk of "much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream" in one breath and then tell me "Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale" in the next. I see exactly what "scholarly mainstream" you are referring to...lol. Frankly, I don't care what Marxists would argue, as I would expect them to downplay the mass killings by Communists - much like neo-Nazis would have us believe that the Holocaust either never happened or has been exaggerated. And Rosefielde's book is well sourced, citing some of the most recent and reliable materials available, and I find it credible (and so did Routledge, apparently). But if you want to add a scholarly source to challenge what Rosefielde said in order to make it more "NPOV" then be my guest.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - shouldn't people who have participated in previous 3 AfD's be notified of this, 4th, nomination? Or at least those who participated in the last, 3rd, one? Actually I believe the title of this page needs correction, it should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (4th nomination)"radek (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it shouldn't. I created this page, not two hours ago. There were previous proposals to delete before this article was moved; but they have their own pages (linked from the first AFD). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright (though it should be noted somewhere that this is the 4th attempt (at least) at deleting this article). How about my first question?radek (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which inspire multiple independent proposals to delete are usually wastes of time saved by canvassing, or - as in the last discussion here - pleas that of course it can all be improved. It hasn't been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least with several previous attempts at deletion (I don't know about this one as I haven't been watching this article recently) after the article was kept, there was A LOT of purposeful obstruction aimed at preventing ANY kind of improvement made to the article with the explicit purpose so that it could be nominated for deletion again. If the article hasn't been improved in the past (again, I don't know about the past few months) it was largely due to some people preventing any improvements so that they could say at the next deletion nomination (which they immediately began planning as soon as the previous one failed) "the article has not been improved".radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it would be canvassing to inform the participants in the previous AfD's. One point of having a new AfD is to secure a new and random sample of passers=by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it is done openly and universally (i.e. both the keeps and deletes). Also, if there was any hope of getting a "random" sample of editors at these AfD there just MAY be some justification to what you say. But very obviously as your own presence, and those of others testifies, this is anything but random. A related problem is that any "random" passerbys who come upon these AfDs then usually proceed to try to work on the article and by the time next AfD rolls around they cease being "random". I'm not even going to go into the inherent stupidity of the Wikipedia policy on Canvassing here (which was written simply because somebody lost an argument and had an axe to grind). If you really want a big sample here, then the AfD should be advertised as widely (but fairly) as possible.radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a particularly bad suggestion, given the canvassing issues that previously impacted this article. I'm surprised to hear this particular call for anything that might end up being construed as canvassing. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider [7] and tell me that it is NOT CANVASSing. As well as [8] and [9]. Two of which are clearly and absolutely violative of WP:CANVASS and the third, as being only to a person hwho has previously nominated the article for deletion could be construed as not being to any neutrally chosen group of editors. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue can be partially resolved by moving a part of the article's content into the Mass killing article, which is supposed to be a mass killings' main article, but now is just a disambiguation page.
In addition, references to several scholars or mainstream news are hardly relevant, because some of these sources are not sufficiently reliable, some of them deal with some particular cases, and, more importantly, the sources that do treat the events in different Communist states separately, independent of each other, are used in the article to support the idea about commonality between these events, which is obvious synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.)" That is exactly what I mean. Ellman, as well as Wheathcroft, Getty, and others speak about Stalin's repressions, not about Communist mass killings. Helen Fein draws a parallelism between Khmer Rouge and fascists, not Communists. Plenty sources, combined to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in each of them, is an additional argument for the article's deletion, although the issue can be fixed if the article's defenders will agree to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Ellman is cited in the proper section, pertaining to mass killings by the USSR, a Communist regime, is he not? And just because one scholar describes the KR as "fascist" doesn't make it so (how many right-wingers want to paint Hitler a "socialist" after all). Goldhagen noted that the Khmer Rouge were so racist because they beleved only the "Khmer" were capable of achieving "true Communism". Like it or not, the KR was Communist party, just very radical one (like the Shining Path, which thankfully never came to power).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Khmer Rouge had such strong nationalist tendencies that they were at odds with the rest of the Communist world at the time, and while they were certainly influenced by Marx, it's unclear whether they should be treated as a Communist or Fascist party - they are often included in works about Fascism in general - [10]. Claritas § 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you wanted to link to something else; the link you include doesn't make sense here. Regardless - what CJ Griffin said; Khmer Rouge are indeed described as communists in the vast majority of sources.radek (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::The KR were communists "Under the Marxist leader Pol Pot The Khmer Rouge had its origins in the 1960s, as the armed wing of the Communist Party of Kampuchea - the name the Communists used for Cambodia" [11] mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's argued that the fact they identified as Communists and were Marxists is essentially deceptive, but there is a lot of cross-over with ultra-nationalist communism and ultra-nationalist corporatism (fascism) and ultra-nationalist socialism (nazism). Claritas § 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The neoconservatives had their origins in Communist ideology as well, but that does not mean we should include the American invasion of Iraq in the article. TFD (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely false analogy. Neo-conservatism in US was born out of the rejection of Marxism by some of its members who were Marxist in their youth. Khmer Rouge never repudiated Marxism or Communist ideology. They just had their own version of it, like Mao, Tito, etc.radek (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In their youth"?! They were well into middle age when they switched and brought with them much of their Communist past including unfortunately a tendency to re-write history. TFD (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now I see you're into red herrings as well (or "red red herrings"). You might want to stop with the logical fallacies right there.radek (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false analogy indeed. The issue is really that there's not a clear-cut definition of "Communism", and if we're talking strict Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky or Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin/Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao, the Khmer Rouge, along with a few other "communist regimes" such as Tito's don't really fit in. Though there are similarities between KR doctrine and Stalin's Socialism in One Country, it's ideologically more complex due to its nationalist and agrarian background. Claritas § 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is a clear POV fork and a well of synthesis. The troubled history of the article is inevitable given the unencylopaedic nature of its title, which is not capable, IMO, of giving rise to content conforming to NPOV. The fact that it has proved resilient in the face of past AfD nominations is a poor reflection on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is interesting to note that some those who want the article deleted apparently believe that Democratic Kampuchea was not even a Communist regime (even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such) and/or that Marxist views need to be fairly represented in the article. Why does this not surprise me?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "(even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such)?" Thank you for pointing my attention. It doesn't any more:[12].

I was going to revert what you did to the Democratic Kampuchea article, but someone beat me to it. HAH!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I edited this revert further, that eventually led to the article's improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is another example of original research: the article's proponents seem to completely ignore the fact that there were two Communist regimes in Cambodia. One, communo-fascist regime was supported by China (and later by the US) and committed what many scholars believe to be the purest example of genocide. Another Communist regime was installed by Communist Vietnam, was supported by the USSR. This regime made consistent efforts to restore a normal civil life in the country, to stop and condemn crimes of its predecessor, to partially restore Buddhism, to re-establish high education, etc. It is very revealing that part of the editors try to fully ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with anything? When did I ignore or deny that the KR were overthrown by another Communist movement which established its own regime and condemned the crimes of its predecessor? Please point that out to me. And how is any of this an example of "original research"? The subsection of the article specifically dealt with the mass killings of Democratic Kampuchea, not whatever political repression occurred under the Communist regime which supplanted it (and it did occur, on a much, much smaller scale, however). The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith, various leaders felt that their path to Communism was the true path, such as Mao referring to the USSR after Stalin as "revisionist," or Pol Pot believing the Khmer was the only race capable of implementing true communism. It's also known that Kim Il Sung and Enver Hoxha despised one another, yet they were both Stalinists, no?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith" That is exactly what I mean. I see no problem to write that some Communist regimes (or regimes that described themselves as Communist, or regimes described as Communist by other), during some periods of their history committed mass killings. However, any attempt to draw any general conclusion, to theorise about connection between mass killings and Communism etc. may create a wrong impression that Communist world was a giant monolith, which was united around one idea: to kill peoples.

If we want to present theories and to make generalisations, then neutrality and objectivity require us to add to the article:

- That also the idea about genocidal nature of Marxism was advocated by some scholars, it has not been supported by others;

- That, whereas some communist states committed mass killings, other communist states (or the same states during different periods of their history) condemned mass killings and made significant efforts to stop them or to remedy their consequences.

- That, in some cases, Communist ideology (internationalism) was a factor that prevented the leaders of Communist states from unleashing a full scale genocide.

IMO, by doing that we would address part of criticism that lead to this AfD nomination.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are all important topics which should indeed be addressed in the article for NPOV's sake (though I have some reservation to what extent that can be done for #2 or #3, particularly #3). But that's just the standard process of making sure an article complies with NPOV. The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion.radek (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion." Of course, if there is a good will to fix possible POV. However, if permanent resistance exist against any attempt to fix POV problems, the asnwer seem not so obvious. Frankly, have I and you, Radek, represented two extremes in the opinions' spectrum, the issue would be totally resolved in few weeks, if not days.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "to kill peoples." As the content of the article demonstrates, the vast majority of Communist regimes engaged in political repression, which involved arrests, imprisonment and executions of either "class enemies" or "counterrevolutionaries" or both. Some were deadlier than others. For example, Castro's Cuba executed hundreds of counterrevolutionaries, maybe thousands, in the years following the revolution (if the article survives, and I believe it will, I'm wondering if details of these executions should be added); others, such as Mao's China, executed millions of alleged landlords, wealthy peasants and "counterrevolutionaries."

Re: "That, whereas some communist states committed mass killings, other communist states (or the same states during different periods of their history) condemned mass killings and made significant efforts to stop them or to remedy their consequences." But those that did, such as Khrushchev in the USSR after Stalin's death and Deng Xiaoping after Chairman Mao died, engaged in political repression and killings on a smaller scale in spite of condemning the excesses committed by their predecessors (i.e. The bloody crackdowns in the eastern Bloc, Novocherkassk massacre and the bloody crackdowns in Tibet, Tienanmen Square massacre respectively)

Re: "That, in some cases, Communist ideology (internationalism) was a factor that prevented the leaders of Communist states from unleashing a full scale genocide." So "internationalism" prevented, for example, the Bolsheviks from completely annihilating all Cossacks during decossackization but permitted the summary executions of only tens of thousands of them? In fact, Communist ideology gave them a reason to persecute and destroy "class enemies" (such as "kulaks") and anyone else ("socially dangerous elements") who stood in the way of a Marxist utopia. Goldhagen made this point quite eloquently I thought, which is why I added it to the article.

Re: "require us to add to the article:by doing that we would address part of criticism that lead to this AfD nomination" Then why don't you contribute some of these ideas with citations yourself if you feel they should be added? I see no problem with pointing out such things as Khrushchev's secret speech condemning Stalin's brutalities and the like.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the vast majority of Communist regimes engaged in political repression" Political repressions, yes. Mass killings - only few (Valentino) and only during certain parts of their history.

Re: Novocherkassk. By no means it fits a Valentino's "mass killing" criteria.

Re: Cossacks. They were a party in a civil war. In addition, I mean not dekulakisation, but ethnic cleansings (I provided the sources somwhere else), as well as official banning of anti-semitism during the Civil War. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"only few (Valentino) and only during certain parts of their history." Only a few??? He states that in addition to China, the USSR and Cambodia, mass killings on a smaller scale have taken place in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa.

RE: "Novocherkassk. By no means it fits a Valentino's "mass killing" criteria." So? Who says this entire article is going strictly by his criteria on mass killings? By his definition, only 50,000 killings or more every five years qualify as mass killings. That would mean a lot of homicidal regimes of all ideologies wouldn't qualify as "mass killers," such as Pinochet's in Chile. He himself states on pg. 12 that it is "arbitrary, but selecting these relatively high thresholds helps establish with a greater degree of confidence that massive violence did, in fact occur"

Re:"I mean not dekulakisation, but ethnic cleansings" Oh really? It seems that the USSR engaged in plenty of ethnic cleansing to me: Population transfer in the Soviet Union (Scroll down to "ethnic operations"). You also might want to check out that book by historian J. Otto Pohl on "Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Valentino. Read the page 91 in full.

Re: "Who says this entire article is going strictly by his criteria on mass killings?" It is up to the majority of the editors. You can either follow Valentino's definition (and include famine and similar victims into a total death toll), or use a commonsensual definition (so these victims will be left beyond the article's scope). For me, both variants are acceptable. I oppose to only one thing: mixing these two, which is synthesis.

Re Otto Pohl. Thanks. I already have a lot of sources on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Valentino. Read the page 91 in full." Oh, you mean the part where he says: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing." (funny thing, he includes Cambodia under Pol Pot. Imagine that?) Wow, that sounds pretty important! Perhaps there should be a wiki entry on this. Oh wait.....--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thy to read the rest. Of course, it may take some time, because the page contains 7.5 sentences totally, however, I can wait.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't know; why do you think that not representing Marxist views is compatible with WP:WEIGHT? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the view that the DK was not communist is even a Marxist one - aside of course from the usual bickering among various factions and strains of communists who tend to accuse each other of fascism or right-wing deviation in general. Gimme an example of a communist group and I can always find another communist ("Marxist") group that calls them fascist.radek (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, unsurprisingly, does not answer the question asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you asked the wrong question?radek (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, concerns such as this one are something to be addressed within the article itself, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion.radek (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It is just pointing out that there can be disputes about which regimes were Communist. For example, Hong Kong is governed by a Communist regime, but may not be considered Communist. 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether the current People's Republic of China is Communist by any ideological standard is debatable. Claritas § 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that applies even more to Hong Kong. TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates SYNTH, NPOV, and is arguably a partisan attack. Şłџğģő 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article subject is notable, the article has reliable sources, there's no legitimate reason to delete the article. Editors involved in the article need to keep working at it to resolve their differences and ensure NPOV. I don't see that much SYNTH in an article - the overall topic is certainly not SYNTH. I see no OR in it. Most (but not all) of the objections seem ideologically motivated in nature, rather than based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies.radek (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have neither Communist, nor anti-Communist leanings, and I've listed numerous policies violated by this article, to include WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. The article contains some good content that can be merged elsewhere, but when the problems start at the title itself, and the POV violations are defended so unbendingly, then the article is beyond redemption. The EXACT same problems persist since the last AfD, and even then people were saying "enough is enough." The only hope I see is for all of the article's participants here to enter into formal mediation. Without that, I don't see any possibility of an overwhelming consensus forming to solve these long, long running problems. BigK HeX (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(Most (but not all)". And the consensus of the last AfD was a very strong KEEP, as I understand.radek (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This pointless refiling of an AfD can only serve one purpose: to disrupt the ongoing consensus building on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes and restart the factions and heat up the debate, as well as spread it to yet another place. (It already spread to both WQA and AN3. It's only disruption and should be closed immediately, really. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a disruptive AFD. Consensus can change, and there are plenty of arguments in favour of deleting this here. Claritas § 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PMAnderson was involved in a debate about RJ Rummel as a reliable source on WP:RSN. He failed to gather any support there for getting rid of the RJ Rummel quote. He then deleted the whole section containing the quote. This got reverted and is still being discussed, but it doesn't look like he is going to get any consensus for that either. If that section is so horrible, he could wait for the outcome of the still ongoing debate on that section. But he doesn't. Instead he uses it as an excuse to file an AfD. So when he can't get rid of a quote, he deletes a whole section. And when he can't delete that whole section, he tries to get the whole article deleted. I don't know what you would call it, but I'd call that disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think most informed editors at the RSN agreed that Rummel's book was fringe. Again you continue to make the mistake of confusing books written by people and the writers themselves. Books published outside the academic mainstream and written in a highly partican way are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD you are most certainly misrepresenting the outcome of the RSN discussion. In fact almost no one agreed that the book was fringe, even editors from "your side of the aisle". I guess by "informed editors" you are referring to only yourself and PMAnderson. But that is exactly a case of ignoring consensus per IDIDN'THEARTHAT.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. If you want to continue the RSN debate, please to that there, and not here. Stop dragging every conflict you have into all the other debates. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "He failed to gather any support there..." Rather odd interpretation of the RSN results. In actuality, the consensus was that sometimes Rummel's writings may be used, although in most cases they should be supplemented with necessary reservations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like support for TFD's contention that everybody thought the book was "fringe" at all either.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it definitely doesn't sound like the Rummel quote should be deleted. The outcome of the first RSN was unclear, so I started on on a specific quote, and the outcome was clear there. No support for claiming Rummel *coined* the word, but clear support for that he *uses* it. So Rummel would continue to be used as a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, it would be nice if just this one time you stayed on topic. Lets focus people on the AFD not the RSN mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, it would be nice it you stopped harassing Paul for once. (Igny (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oh look at this! Here is the conversation at RSN, most of which was then hidden by mark nutley,[13] and now appears to have been deleted. Is there any reason why this edit was made? TFD (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been smoking crack? It`s not been deleted, it`s archived. And i did it as the RSN request was moved, wy have two threads about the same thing? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you deleted it but that you hid it, for whatever reason. But it now appears to have been deleted. TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not hide it either, try to click on the word show. And also read the summary in the header moved to This section which is wikilinked, whaddya think that`s for? mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it now, it is under a different section. It is a little confusing though why arguments that Rummel's book are fringe were removed from the discussion thread and archived under a different discussion. TFD (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were not. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as nom. This conversation should make clearer even than the talk page (on which there is no trace of consensus, even one of exhaustion) that this article is chiefly a battleground of two economic faiths. This is not what Wikipedia exists for; there are enough blog comment pages out there even for the ungrammatical Libertarians and the unrepentant Marxists of the world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- toolserver thinks you !voted twice - it already counts the nom as a delete !vote <g>. Collect (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is a battleground is a problem, but it is not a reason to delete an article. "Gdansk/Danzig" was a battleground for a long time, for completely different reasons. Obviously, that doesn't mean we should delete that article. It also doesn't help to (inaccurately) stereotype editors into these categories, pulled straight out of thin air.radek (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did say chiefly. There are some evident exceptions, and I would welcome more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not you who's being categorized... BigK HeX (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, more importantly, I don't see this battleground going anywhere -- not even from exhaustion -- without formal mediation. BigK HeX (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation may not be a bad idea. If it does take place though, the AfD should be suspended/closed/postponed.radek (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that; the article can always be userified - presumably in the mediator's namespace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the article can always be kept and subject to another AfD later. Beginning of mediation is no reason to delete. In fact, the default in cases of no consensus is keep - same thing makes sense if mediation on the subject is opened; close as no consensus and await the results of mediation.radek (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation doesn't seem to have much bearing on whatever consensus develops from this page. BigK HeX (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on which there is no trace of consensus, even one of exhaustion - Not true. In fact, during the days before this AfD, a consensus on the way forward was emerging, and discussion went from generalities to specifics. A consensus is emerging. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mass killings under authoritarian regimes, trim, reformat, and expand accordingly. (Igny (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

But both articles can exist. In fact, if "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" were to be created and sufficiently expanded, at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles, and this article would be one such split off article. The fact that "mass killings...communist" was created before "mass killings ... authoritarian" is not an argument for delete/move. In fact, it is an argument for keeping the present one. It is also an argument for creation of the "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" article.radek (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really sound like an argument for a "keep." Rather, it may very well be a reference to the POV COATRACK problems, and Igny's suggestion for a remedy. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles - Yeah, and that point is now. :-) The article on mass killings under communist regimes is quote long, sticking that into an article on authoritarian regimes in general would at the beginning create the impression that this is *only* communist regimes. That would be POV. Once other sections are created the article would by horribly long. Clearly a main article should be created, but this article should *not* be merged, as that would only result in a split very quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Once the current content is moved to "...authoritarian...", there would be nothing new to say in "...communist..." except for

Mass killings occurred under totalitarian communist regimes, see mass killings under authoritarian regimes.

1.Most Communist specific quotes can be removed, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information neither is it a propaganda tool. 2. In the current form no commonality between mass killings and communism, as an ideology, was demonstrated. 3. Once the moving/merge occurs, no split would succeed per WP:POVFORK. (Igny (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"No", and then you ignore everything I said. Pretend I repeated the arguments here. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you advise, if a move cannot be achieved? BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If move can not be achieved, then deletion can not be achieved either. It is not the first time when a biased article stays indefinitely on WP due to no consensus on AfDs. I do not think Wikipedia's policies are adequate enough to deal with propaganda. (Igny (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per the last Afd. This article goes into considerably more detail than Criticisms of communist party rule and it is not obvious to someone not schooled in Marxist dialectic how their POV differs; many of the same sources are used. This seems a perfectly valid subsidiary article. Claims of WP:SYNTHESIS are unconvincing, given the authorities used - it is hardly surprising that WP editors do not need to excercise their imaginations to come up with this, but can easily find academic support. To keep the article it is not necessary to demonstrate that only Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... can't reliable authorities be used to create a WP:SYN? Doesn't seem like the presence of authorities in the article addresses the SYN objection... BigK HeX (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they can doesn't mean they are, if they make the connections. Are you going to heckle every comment here? The Keep ones I mean. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see me "heckling" anybody? These aren't VOTES --- these are policy discussions. If you care not to elaborate on a point which could devalue your opinion here, then that's your business and it's fine by me. BigK HeX (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, can you please provide a source that explains "mass killings under Communist regimes". My inquiry from Google scholar returns nil hits.[14] Can you name any other article created that has nil hits? TFD (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV returns plenty of Google scholar hits [15].radek (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist genocide" -Cambodia gives just 44 hits[16]. Cambodia is a pure example of genocide, which was recognised by both Soviet authorities and (later) by Western intellectuals. More problems poses the need to establish a linkage between Khmer Rouge and Communism, because internationalism is a core of Marxist doctrine, whereas KR were nationalists, and, by definition of Fein, "fascists". With regards to the rest hits, please, analyse them carefully, because some of them are irrelevant, e.g. in one article "communist genocide" is found in the following context:

" organizations referred, in their only four penal complains, to the “communist genocide”, but this accusation wasn't accepted by the justice, as political groups are not protected by the 1950 Genocide Convention." Please, remember, that "genocide", by contrast to other numerous "-cides", is a legal category, so scholars are not free to apply it to everything they want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any other article created that has nil hits? - Yes many, see my answer to your vote above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, re your comment: ""Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV". I opposed the name change. TFD (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - No additional argument have come up since last AfD, while the article has improved since. There is in fact a consensus developing on the talk page, despite what the nom. says. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete POV fork and coatrack, with major synth and OR problems. One big problem for the article is the implied POV of the name and the lack of RS that support this naming. A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "~~appeasers~~" "apologists" which leads me to conclude that until they are removed or somehow dealt with this article could never be written in an NPOV manner. It should be replaced with a new title and a list which simply links to articles on notable communist "mass killing", and has a see also to American, British, European, Democratic, Historic mass killings etc. Verbal chat 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another false strawmen. Show me a single instance where anyone says anything about ""commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers"". You put those words in quotes which implies that you were quoting somebody or that somebody had used these terms. Can you point out who? No? Then what was the point of putting that in there? The ideological crusade seems to be on the part of some (not all) editors who wish to see this article deleted.radek (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There hasn't been one single reference to pinkos or appeasers in that talk page, and most of the other things you say aren't true either. The word "commies" has been used, but as an abbreviation of "communists" or "communism", which is obviously relevant to the article. It hasn't been used in a derogatory way. The issues you take up has been discussed and most of them already resolved, and the rest are on the way of being resolved. The only ones on an ideological crusade here are the ones who are against any form of criticism against anti-democratic regimes and ideologies. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Commies" appears liberally (ha!) on the article talk page, and editors involved in trying to address the issues have been termed apologists and the page an apologia discussing this topic. See for example MNs edits. It is not a straw man but a real problem, and you ignore the actual problems with the page - the blatant POV of editors is what is stonewalling any improvement and attempts to address these issues. The phrase 'pinkwash' has also been used on the talk page. Verbal chat 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty massive difference between calling somebody a "pinko" and using the word "pinkwash" to describe efforts to done down the mass murders done by communist regimes. The first is a derogatory term used as a personal attack, the second is neither derogatory nor personal. The arguments for deleting this article is getting seriously strained if this is the best you can come up with. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote again - I haven't said what you attributed to me. That language is unacceptable, and not conducive to addressing the real and demonstrated POV concerns. My reasons for deleting the article are NPOV/SYNTH/OR/NOTE. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. (talk about straw men) Verbal chat 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Que? I haven't attributed anything to you. Are you denying that you said A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers". This discussion is getting very strange. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. - I totally agree. Now drop the battle attitude, and join the discussion that was, at least before this AfD, going forward in a constructive manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I have no "battle" to win - 'm just trying to defend the project and improve the encyclopaedia. no I don't deny what I said - I deny your inaccurate paraphrasing. I have not been uncivil or treated the page as a battleground, whereas you and MN have just dismissed policy based concerns with a condescending attitude of "we'll explain to you what you've misunderstood" etc while not addressing the concerns. My policy based reasons for deletion have not been addressed, and as they are unlikely to be in the current climate I must argue for delete. Also, I'll note that Collect below fails to give a valid keep rationale. Verbal chat 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All reasons for deletion has been addressed. On the 2nd of July it was asked that all arguments for the tags on the article should be stated under a group of headings. The headings are POV, SYN, Essay and cleanup. You have not added one reason there. It was then on the 11th asked to state in a specific template form, any remaining issues under this heading. Two issues was raised, none by you. The two issues have been answered. No other issues remain. How can you claim to have raised issues, when everytome you get asked to raise issues, you are silent? You have stated no issues with the article, and therefore your "stated issues" can not be unanswered. You are just battling for some sort of ideological standpoint, while refusing to engage in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No issues here at all which have not been raised in the innumerable past attempts to delete. The article is in better shape than in the past, and the overwhelming past results ought to be examined by any closing admin. WP:IDONTLIKEIT fails as a reason for deletion entirely. Notable - undeniably. Sourced - fully, Hence, clear Keep. Collect (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CANVASS shows that non-neutral posts were made to editors who has !voted delete, while posts were not made to other editors who had !voted to Keep ... for that reason such edits as [17] and [18] as well as a fairly neutral request to TFD who had proposed deletion before should be regarded as improper CANVASSing ab initio. Noting ArbCom statements from the opast, I suggest that !votes from anyone CANVASSED be wholly disregarded. No one who had !voted Keep was contacted by the nominator. Collect (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Canvassing is against policy and the users responsible should be dealt with, but an editor's well-reasoned !vote should not be "wholly disregarded" because someone improperly informed them of the discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, the "overwhelming past results" were "no consensus" (3 times) and "keep" (once). TFD (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I notice that you are now canvassing other editors about the AfD. Whenever I have done this I have explained on the page that I am canvassing and explain the criteria used. TFD (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (nothing more to be said) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have sent absolutely neutral notifications to those who !voted on the first deletion ("genocide") - and I would suggest that my wording was as neutral as possible for them. As to your assertions as to results: The first on "genocide" was "no consensus" indeed on 10 August 2009. The second on "genocide" was also "no consensus" The first on the current title as listed was on 2 October 2009. The third (first listed as "mass killing") was closed 15 November as "no consensus". More importantly, the immediate prior one was closed on 22 April 2010 with this statement: This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia. POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. As that referred to pretty much the current article, I suggest that the finding by Mike Cline be given substantial weight in any closing here. Collect (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To TFD - I would daresay that since I posted the fact that I sent neutral notes to everyone I could from the first AfD (I think I excluded folks already opining here) and that [19] demonstrates the absolute neutrality, and that your post was the ec for mine where I mentioned all this, that your request was met already. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 July 201

(UTC)

Keep. Nothing has changed since last AfD. Wikid ^as© 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, the article has change a great deal since the last AfD, which also closed as a no consensus. What is the rationale for your keep !vote, or is it just a vote? Verbal chat 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- the last one was closed as a clear and convincing Keep - see Mike Cline's closing statement. This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia. POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. Does not sound like a "no consensus" close, to be sure, does it? Collect (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have changed but the arguments for & against deletion don't appear to have done. Nothing in the nom about deterioration in quality etc, or anywhere above that I have seen. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Collect and Johnbod. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is controversial and the article needs improvement. But that is not grounds for deletion. The communist mass murders tended to target different groups than otherwise similar fascist or nationalist atrocities and genocides so I consider a separate article is worthwhile having. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article has room for improvement, but the topic is certainly considered valid for enough mainstream reasearchers and thus it has place on Wikipedia as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objection is not that the information is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that it would appropriate elsewhere as not to end up as a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of forking should be resolved by using linking section in [[Criticisms of communist party rule article, to WP:SS. Which was done. Deletion is not a solution to forking, and you can not merge the article back into the main, since it is too large. Wikid ^as© 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The difficulty is that on the one hand, the article is clearly an invalid encyclopedia entry, being essentially an attempt to list the Crimes of Communism. This is no more valid than an equivalent attempt to list the Crimes of Capitalism (aka Mass killings under Capitalist regimes) - but in the latter case it is easier for the average reader to realise the absurdity of the endeavour. On the other hand, what is a valid entry is the historiography of "mass killings under communist regimes", that is, the attempt to write history which collates disparate context-specific historical events as if they were an attribute of something called "communism". A pre-requisite for this historiography is (a) the essentialization of "communism", so that the differences between the regimes tagged "communist" are ignored; (b) treating "communism" as something that falls from the sky and acts in a vacuum without external influence - each regime merely an independent petri-dish scientific experiment in the effects of some standardised dose of whatever mysterious thing is inside the "communism" bottle. A valid encyclopedia article would critically discuss these issues with the historiography, and not accept at face value the incorrect claim that the topic is valid in itself as history - which it is not. I could go on, but basically, this article as it stands (and as it will remain, since clearly too many either don't get its invalidity or don't care) is no more valid than Mass killings under Jewish regimes. (Discuss.) Rd232 ^talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound very neurtal. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly original research and clearly pushing a particular position. It starts by saying that various types of government kill people (well, all of them actually) but then dives straight in to communist government without a proper critical and historical perspective. It's worth checking out the edit history of the original author (now indef banned as a vandal) andy (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of it is that the stuff about how various types of government kill people was put in there for the sake of NPOV to avoid giving the impression that only communist regimes kill people or that communism and mass killings are necessarily linked. So your objection seems misplaced. The article has survived 4 AfDs already, with last one a strong keep. Who cares who started in the article in the first place? That's completely immaterial.radek (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Communism and mass killings are not linked, then the article is synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if. But they *are* linked, and this link is sourced and there are even several views of that link taken up. This is an utter straw man, put in an "if"-form. And you have done this repeatedly on the talk page, and repeatedly gotten the same answer, which you ignore. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved editor is weighing in and basically telling us that the article still makes strong implications (even despite my attempts to bring it closer to NPOV). This is precisely the issue that has been repeatedly pointed out as a problem. The article still implies a certain conclusion very strongly, despite the fact that it represents only isolated minority viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Swedish Institute "Forum för levande historia" has recently studied communist regimes crimes against humanity (Brott mot mänskligheten under kommunistiska regimer) which is very similar to this.[20] Maybe that name could be better for this article also: Crimes against the humanity under communist regimes. Närking (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the forum is not a center for academic research, but a learning resource, it does not provide a useful source here. TFD (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a summary in English for those who don't know Swedish. [21]. Närking (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe merge but really rewrite per all keeps. —I-20 the highway 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and it is only a few weeks since the previous AFD which was a Keep. The nomination therefore seems to be disruption per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThis topic is very notable, it's been only a short period since the last AFD (so short that the nom is clearly being disruptive), and the article is bolstered by many reliable sources and is a topic (as it should be!) of scholarly study. If we're going to have an article on the Nazi Holocaust in which 6 million were killed, the crimes of totalitarian socialism, who claimed far greater numbers of victims and grotesqueness, also deserve an article. The Characteristics of mass killings under socialist regimes are also unique enough to distinguish it from other forms of mass murder, e.g., genocide, and is a topic of scholarly study; i don't think any scholar has made a study of "mass murder under capitalist regimes" (which would be meaningless anyways; a fully capitalist classical liberal/libertarian state would share little characteristics with the regimes of Franco or Marcos.)

Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a perfectly valid subject, as is shown by the tens of thousand of references on the subject in all languages. A very broad one also, an this would be a good starting point for more detailed articles. The title is not perfectly neutral, but is about as neutral as possible & reasonably descriptive. I think there might possible be a point of widening this to "Mass killings during communist regimes", which would include also the killings from the other side when this occurred, but it might yield a very confused article and should best be kept separate. I note this is separate from the question of whether any of the events, such as those during the first years after 1917 in Russia might possibly have been justified: I certainly know people who thought they were, and I have even known people who would say the same about some of the later events. The question of whether the events of at least most of them took place , however, is so well established that the denial of them must be treated as a fringe position. I do note for the last editor's benefits that certainly people have studied the question of whether capitalism leads inherently to imperialist wars and genocidal massacres--that's the classic Marxist position, and a great deal has been written in its defense. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork, WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, redirecting to Genocide and distributing content between there and Communism. — Jeff G. ツ 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO? That's a new one. Do you actually know what a neologism is or are you just randomly throwing various Wikipedia policy pages in there in the hope that something might be relevant?radek (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this is getting ridiculous - We've had this discussion 5 times now and the discussions are all the same. It's a well sourced topic with lots of references. There was an entire book written about it for goodness sakes! It wasn't much of a fork when it started and it certainly isn't now, months later.
The reasons for deletion are always versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's already been enough compromise on the title alone and yet no matter what changes are made people still keep nominating it. Shadowjams (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have pointed out, it's clearly a POV fork and the article is written almost entirely in WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the sole purpose of this article is to push a political agenda. I've never seen a more clear example on wikipedia and I'm very surprised that this article has survived for so long. LokiiT (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this synth? There are dozens of articles and books that talk about the concept as a whole. Calling this synth is just willfully ignoring the dozens of specific books and scholarship (over 150 cites in the article itself). Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of them refer to the "concept as a whole". TFD (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What!?! Just read this first paragraph: Black Book of Communism! How much more do we need to convince you? A book entitled "The notable topic of Mass killings under Communist regimes"? How about a chapter entitled "Communist Mass Killings" (ISBN 0801472733)) by a Dartmouth professor? That do anything for you? Shadowjams (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Rummel and Valentino also refers to the concept as a whole. And I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones who have been widely discussed on the talk page, and which therefore TFD is sure to be aware of. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this topic extensively on the talk page. Please stop repeating the same arguments. TFD (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my bad. Just because you take up arguments that has been conclusively shown as being false is no reason for me to repeat the same discussion here. I apologize. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article takes well-known fact that the significant percentage of civilians in the peacetime years of the 20th century were killed in just a few countries, and in a classic WP:SYNTH fashion labels these killings with an arbitrary common attribute of these countries (state ideology). The same countries can be grouped also by their state religion (atheism), or the major changes in government these countries were going through. It is very easy to find sources that would group the same killings (plus few extra ones) based on the two latter attributes. These sources, naturally, will be marginal, but so are the sources in the current article. Therefore, if this article deserves a place in Wikipedia, its name might just as well be changed to "Mass killings by the atheist governments". After all, why group on one common attribute and not another? Dimawik (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, that's not true at all. There is no SYNTH that arbitrarily groups them by ideology, there are reliable sources that very non-arbitrarily groups them by ideology and also offers explanations why this particular ideology is so bloody. All this is in the article, well sourced and explained. If you want to group them by atheism, find a reliable source that does that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the sources that you allege to discuss a grouping have not been shown to be anything more than minority viewpoints (even when directly challenged), thus writing an entire article from a minority point of view leads us straight into the very definition of a POV COATRACK, and ultimately making a mockery of the WP:NPOV policy (and incidentally, pushes us all towards deletion as a POV fork). BigK HeX (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wold think that if it was a minority standpoint, you would be able to come up with at least *one* source to oppose and balance that standpoint. But apparently not. Why do you require a tertiary source to show what is mainstream, when you can't even show that there exist any other opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did point to articles that discuss the claims as part of holocaust trivialization. But otherwise as a fringe theory, this topic receives little attention. TFD (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often the New York Times Book Review gives fringe theories good reviews [22], and there are quite a few professors from Ivy leagues writing on this "fringe" theory. First the claim is SYNTH, but when enough books that address the issue on point come out the argument becomes that they're fringe. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of that book that could support your theory are contained in the introduction which was roundly debunked by several of the contributors to the book. All of this has been explained to you. TFD (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "debunking" concerns only the numbers, which are too high, and not what is discussed now. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Many editors have provided detailed objections [here and here] regarding a misuse of sources (WP:SYN), but one of the primary concerns for this AfD is an exaggeration of a viewpoint outside of academic consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Openfuture, I do not understand your arguments. Certainly, there are plenty of books of the same quality as the ones you are using in your arguments that made a connection between state atheism and mass murder by the state. This connection is, naturally, quite stronger that the one currently argued in the article, as it permits to include the crimes by the almost-atheist and very anti-religious Jacobins in France and Nazi in Germany. I can point you to many books that back up this claim. Here is an eloquent one: [USSR, Campuchea, PRC] show a striking correlation between state-sponsored atheism and mass-murder by the state. Similarly, you can find scholarly works on relations between popular uprisings and mass killings. I am no fan of Marxism, BTW, but singling it out for the murders in the USSR, while ignoring the role of atheism and revolutionary spirit is ridiculous; good historians do not make this mistake. You point to some fringe (albeit scholarly) books that blame Marxism exclusively; I can point to similar quality books that blame atheism in a similar fashion. This just shows that the single-minded grouping currently used in the article is not mainstream. Dimawik (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "that made a connection between state atheism and mass murder" Connection or correlation? Note, sometimes connection (whith implies a casual linkage) is being mixed with correlation (which does not).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connection can imply merely correlation. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My prediction ... we'll get a Two wrongs fallacy with someone recommending that we start up the Mass murders under atheists article in 5 ... 4... 3... 2....

BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he calls "state-sponsored atheism" is in reality the persecution of religion. That's not atheism at all. He shows that there is a correlation between states that persecute people on their opinion, and states that persecute people. Not exactly shocking. But yeah, WP:SOFIXIT then. If you really believe there is a general scholarly consensus that atheist governments kill people, go ahead and collect those sources, and put it somewhere relevant. I'm convinced you will fail. The book you linked to has 28 citations (compare with Rummels over 400) and none seem to actually quote his claim that atheism and mass murder is connected. I think you'll find that this is a good example of exactly the kind of fringe view that this article is falsely accused to be. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:SYNTH claims above are transparently baseless, since there is extensive scholarship on the matter. The concept of Communist (more specifically Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc.) nations perpetrating mass killings is hardly a new synthesis. As the article clearly shows, this concept is well established in several parts of the political, cultural, and scholarly mainstream: there are international resolutions about it; there are an abundance of well-known books on the subject, it is widely taught in schools, and so on. Václav Havel is not a kook or a member of the fringe, after all. The fact that genocides and democides emerged from the Communist movement, a movement which was ostensibly on the Left and ostensibly aimed at a classless internationalist society, is one of the big political stories of the early 20th century; it is central to the histories of those nations, of the Cold War, and especially the history of the Left. Wikipedia cannot exactly let it go unreported. --FOo (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has shown that there is isolated scholarship on the matter. Perhaps surprisingly, at this point the article's talk page actually has shown that editors CANNOT provide RS to attest that the concept is well-established. BigK HeX (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no arguing that during the 20th century in few countries governments were involved essentially in mass murders. Some of these governments (but not all) were based on Marxist ideology, and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. One can find books that near-exclusively blame Marxism for the killings, and books that blame atheism. The problem with the current article is that it represents synthesis based on a marginal POV. Just think of this: with the current name and content, where could I insert the (trivial and well-sourced) observation that near all mass killings by the states in the 20th century were perpetuated by the atheist governments? This is why the current article should be deleted, and a paragraph mentioning the relationship between Marxism and mass killings shall be inserted into Mass_murder#Mass_murder_by_a_state instead, along with the similar connection made to atheism. Dimawik (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. - That is a blatantly false statement that you definitely can't source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I do not plan to insert my statement into article (I want it deleted, after all). So all I need is to show that other mass crimes perpetrators of 20th century were against the organized religion. Well, the article already lists crimes by the Communist governments. These governments were undeniably atheist. The only crimes in 20th century that match (or surpass, in my opinion) the repressions in the USSR are the Nazi ones. Nazis are generally considered uncompromisingly antireligious. I rest my argument here; would you mind retracting your "blatantly false" accusation that clearly violates WP:AGF? Dimawik (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued above that the article as it stands is invalid. In an effort to illustrate this, I've created Mass killings under Capitalist regimes by adapting the article, adding some hints of the direction that article could go in. Does this help anyone consider the issues? What arguments can be brought against the Capitalist article that can't be brought against the Communist one? (Apart from sourcing - I haven't added any specific ones, but it's obvious they exist.) Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on a tangetially-related article
I would claim that the sources do not exist. I have never heard of any reliable scholarly source connecting capitalism and mass killings in any form. I know of sources contesting it, but I don't know if they are reliable scholarly sourced. I suggest you find your alleged sources pretty quickly, or you just violated WP:POINT. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well lets see the sources, if they exist then the article should stay mark nutley (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] A collection of Bad Stuff under capitalist regimes can be made just as well, and undoubtedly sources exist plentifully both for documenting the Bad Stuff and for making the connection between the Bad Stuff and the regime type. See for example Colonialism#Marxist_view_of_colonialism. I'm not going to make an effort to find sources because I don't think the article is any more valid than the one this AFD is for - but the point is to indicate concretely that the same exercise can be done for Capitalist Regimes. Rd232 ^talk 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have to say I agree that this new article should be furnished with sourcing, or else it does indeed fall under WP:POINT. If it can be sourced, on the other hand, presumably it is as keepable as the Communism article. --FormerIP (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] undoubtedly sources exist plentifully - I doubt it, so evidently it's not undoubtedly at all. but the point is to indicate concretely that the same exercise can be done for Capitalist Regimes. - Apparently it can't, as you can't provide sources. You should add your new article for speedy deletion, it's obviously disruptive editing according to WP:POINT. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The vast majority of Wikipedia articles ever created were created initially without sources. You declare that I "can't provide sources" whereas I explicitly stated above that I hadn't many any effort to look for them. I don't have the time, and I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavour. I have no doubt though that they exist - as for example the wikilink I gave would suggest - Marxist (and plenty non-Marxist) literature on colonialism is the obvious place to start, alongside literature on the US military-industrial complex which Dwight Eisenhower spoke of (maybe you've heard of him?). Somebody else can look for sources to expand and develop the article - this is Wikipedia. If you genuinely don't want to give the article time to exist a while for someone to come along and do that, then AFD it. Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but the vast majority are created without sources because people don't know better. You created this to prove a point with the claim that "undoubtedly sources exist" but you can't mention even one of them. Marxist (and plenty non-Marxist) literature on colonialism is the obvious place to start, - No, because colonialism and capitalism is not the same thing. That would be the obvious place to start if you want to create a "Mass killings under colonialism" to prove a point. But you didn't. I take your request above that other find sources as a way of saying that you don't have any. Then you shuold go for a Speedy Delete. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Apparently you couldn't be bothered to follow the wikilink Colonialism#Marxist_view_of_colonialism I gave above, so I quote from the destination: "Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change.". Of course non-Marxist views supporting the existence of the article I created can also be found, for example (off the top of my head) The Shock Doctrine or literature relating to the Atlantic slave trade (1-2m dead in transport alone). PS "You created this to prove a point" - not entirely. I basically think that if the Communist Regimes article is acceptable then logically the Capitalist equivalent must be as well. That I can't source it immediately is irrelevant. Give it time. PPS Do you keep asking for a speedy (G7 I guess) because you don't think it would get deleted at AFD? Rd232 ^talk 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, I keep asking for a speedy delete so I don't have to warn you for violating WP:POINT. And that some Marxists view colonialism as a form of capitalism (in full violation of what Marx said) is not really relevant. It's still criticism of colonialism, not capitalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] So "colonialism is a form of capitalism" means that critiques of colonialism have no relevance for capitalism? Interesting. Also a red herring, as colonialism can be left out of the picture, there's still plenty to talk about purely in relation to capitalism. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It means the article becomes a WP:COATRACK which claims to discuss one ting and then discusses another. And that would violate Wikipedia rules. Also a red herring, as colonialism can be left out of the picture - Apparently not, as there are still no sources to be found that supports your claim. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh no, still no sources - and the article has existed for years, with millions of paid manhours invested in looking for sources!! Er, well, anyway, I've quickly added a couple (would have been more, but academic database is playing up). Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No you haven't, those sources does not support that article at all, as you well know, and as I started a thread on the talk page about, which you ignored and reverted. Please discuss things in their proper place, this is not a place to discuss your newly created disruptive article. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see shall we, i just prodded it for deletion mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mass Killings under Capitalist regimes" is a misnomer, as capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but a similar criticism applies to the Communist Regimes article! From communism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society." So it is not in fact a form of government either. Rd232 ^talk 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR's form of government = Federal socialist republic, single-party communist state, dominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. : / --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too formal. Based on the same logic, one may conclude North Korea is a democratic state, as the ruling party there is a coalition between Worker's and Social-Democratic party, and the ideology is strongly nationalistic Juche [23].--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely reasonable to apply the term "capitalist" to states, though. (Probably not something we need to get into here). --FormerIP (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted delete at the previous AfD, and while I still have concerns about this topic, two things are clear: consensus does not agree with me, and the article has improved since the previous AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the article drifts towards neutrality mostly due to the efforts of the proponents of the article's deletion. How do you explain that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, and I could explain that by way of making a few inferences, but I don't want to go there :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that statement. It possibly gets more neutral *despite* those who want to delete it. You for example are very fond of claiming the article is POV, and very reluctant to explain how or give examples on how it can be improved. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unmaintainable. Delete. The notability of the article, its title and content, requires many assumptions and blind spots. Foremost among the assumptions is that the cart drives the horse, that a type of political organization is responsible for decisions made by governors or the governed, which is like saying that Nazism made Hitler order Jews into concentration camps, or that being part of a constitutional monarchy makes English football fans vandals. An example of a blind spot is, that the article is still notable if this is not so. Another blind spot is the categorization of 'Mass killings' without noting that each and every one of the Communist states is also one in which a Revolution took place. Wars of Independence, such as the First Indochina War, are contests over land that one side lives in and the other side leeches off of, usually soon over, until recently usually ending with the loser sailing, however unhappily, comfortably back to a home country, with all in agreement, if they spoke truthfully, that the place and its people are thenceforth a great deal better off. Revolutions are bloody contests over territory neither side can leave, whose future is entirely in the world view of the combatants. Examination of the failed Revolution, the American Civil War, began the concept of war crimes because its conduct contained examples of war crimes on both sides; the level of violence is related to the height of the stakes that each have in the outcome. The article began without even attempting to prove the assumption, and has continued to fail to do so, and as one might expect, has never even begun to attempt to recognize the blind spots.

I at one point believed that it was possible for the article to become a collection of incidents that occurred with the happenstance of Communist governance (but then, what would be the point of that in any case), but over the entire life of the article it has not once even begun to become so. Instead it has continued to be a mishmash of fringe POV, such as (#), with its assertion that the Enlightenment was a big mistake, and that everything started to go wrong after misguided people gave up on the Holy Roman Empire. Ameliorating circumstances of the purest obviousness, such as the role of Great Chinese Famine, are deleted over and over again. (+) Shows the China section as I left it, and (=) shows it in its entirety, such as that is.
Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(#)

Secular values

Some proponents of traditional ethical standards and religious faith argue that the killings were at least partly the result of a weakening of faith and the unleashing of the radical values of the European Enlightenment upon the modern world. Observing this kind of trend in critical scholarship, the University of Oklahoma political scientist Allen D. Hertzke zooms in on the ideas of British Catholic writer and historian Paul Johnson and writes that
“ [A] shift in intellectual mood has come from the critique of the perceived failures and blinders of the secular project. To be sure, this critique is not universally shared, but a vast scholarship, along with a proliferating array of opinion journals and think tank symposia, catalog the fallout from the abandonment of transcendent societal anchors. Epitomizing this thought is Paul Johnson's magisterial book Modern Times, which attacks the common Enlightenment assumption that less religious faith necessarily equals more human freedom or democracy. The collapse of the religious impulse among the educated classes in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, he argues, left a vacuum that was filled by politicians wielding power under the banner of totalitarian ideologies – whether 'blood and soil' Fascism or atheistic Communism. Thus the attempt to live without God made idols of politics and produced the century's 'gangster statesmen' – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot – whose 'unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind' unleashed unimaginable horrors. Or as T.S. Eliot puts it, 'If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.' [34]

(+)

China
In China, it is alleged that Mao Tse-tung's policies and political purges, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and Zhen Fan, Shu Fan movement, brought about the deaths of some 40 to 70 million people.^[1]^[2]
In 1960, drought and other bad weather affected 55 percent of the cultivated land in China, while in the north an estimated 60% of agricultural land received no rain at all.^[3] The Encyclopædia Britannica yearbooks from 1958 to 1962 also reported abnormal weather, followed by droughts and floods. Close planting, the idea of Ukrainian pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko.^[4] had been implemented. The density of seedlings was at first tripled and then doubled again, according to the theory, plants of the same species would not compete with each other. In practice they did, which stunted growth and resulted in lower yields. Lysenko's colleague's theory encouraged peasants across China to plow deeply into the soil (up to 1 or 2 meters). They believed the most fertile soil was deep in the earth, allowing extra strong root growth. However, useless rocks, soil, and sand were driven up instead, burying the topsoil. Mao Tse-tung's Great Leap Forward, had reorganized the workforce; millions of agricultural worker had joined the iron and steel production workforce.
As a result of these factors, year over year grain production in China dropped by 15% in 1959. By 1960, it was at 70% of its 1958 level. There was no recovery until 1962, after the Great Leap Forward ended.^[5]
According to government statistics, there were 15 million excess deaths in this period. Unofficial estimates vary, but are often considerably higher. Yang Jisheng, a former Xinhua News Agency reporter who spent over ten years gathering information available to no other scholars, estimates a toll of 36 million.^[6]
Professors and scholars of the famine, who do not use the word 'genocide' to describe it, but rather more neutral terms, such as "abnormal deaths", have estimated that they number between 17 million to 50 million. Some western analysts such as Patricia Buckley Ebrey estimate that about 20-40 million people had died of starvation caused by bad government policy and natural disasters. J. Banister estimates this number is about 23 million. Li Chengrui, a former minister of the National Bureau of Statistics of China, estimated 22 million (1998). His estimation was based on Ansley J. Coale and Jiang Zhenghua's estimation of 17 million. Cao Shuji estimated 32.5 million.

(=)

People's Republic of China
Main article: History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976)
The Chinese Communist Party came to power in China in 1949, when Chinese communist revolution ended a long and bloody civil war between communists and nationalists. There is a general consensus among historians that after Mao Zedong seized power, his policies and political purges caused directly or indirectly the deaths of tens of millions of people.[1][2] Based on the Soviets' experience, Mao considered violence necessary to achieve an ideal society derived from Marxism and planned and executed violence on a grand scale.[7][8]

Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - There are plenty of reliable sources on this, and it is not a result of a fringe POV. The fringe POV seems to be that Communist regimes killed 100 million people, but that there was no relation between the killings by the various Communist regimes. Since this is the 5th time deletion has come up on this article in about a year, can we come up with a ruling that this article should not be nominated for deletion for at least the next 12 months? Smallbones (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Totally justified article, no need for deletion. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tons of sources, and while you might not find the exact phrase that is the title of this article, there is a vast amount of scholarly work on the subject. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:STICK. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Culturally significant article. Despite the unfair denegration of fascism, Communism is a far more destructive force and has been behind most of history's worst genocides. Communist dictator Mao Zedong was the most prolific mass murderer in human history, discounting the innumerable unborn fetuses he slaughtered. Even to this day historians are uncertain as to the exact figure of Stalin's body count. There are Communist leaders alive today who make Hitler look like Father Christmas, such as Korean despot Kim Jong Ill. The mass killings under Communism are an important part of human history and are a more than relevant topic for a Wikipedia article. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Wikipedia needs to stop creating new subjects, and editors should remember they are here to summarise existent scholarship in a consistent and neutral way, and not to create new scholarship. This article is doing exactly this, creating new scholarship, by writing an argumentative essay about why communist regimes are bad. That is not to say that, individually, each piece of information in that article is not notable or sourced (and that's why they should be moved each to its "mother article"), but their amalgamation in the article is nothing more than a WP op-ed, gross violation of our policy against original synthesis. Better use those tons of sources (and the whole sources, not just some snippets as its now done in the article) as their authors meant it, i.e. in the articles about the rule of Mao, Stalin and other mass murderers etc.Anonimu (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - arguing to delete this is like arguing to delete the article about the Holocaust. In fact, much of the material in that article should be merged into a new article called Mass killings under German National Socialist regime since Nazism was a racist and bigoted ideology and regime which made Hitler order the deaths of religious, ethnic, sexual, and political minorities and dissidents. Mass murders under other types of authoritarian regimes would also be a good article. Also, communist groups that are fighting for political power and commit mass murder should be included. I first found the article a couple years ago when was curious if there was such an article and was glad to see it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (vote by User:nuujinn see below in collapsed textblock)

Keep. The nominator gave two reasons for deleting the article: "POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule" and "indiscriminate collection of information" (which essentially means "non-notable"), without justifying either one. In fact, both rationales were raised and discounted in the last AfD, which ended in a clear "Keep" and which I would recommend that the closing admin also read (some of the deletes here which also participated in the last AfD are good examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

The article is not a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule because it is a distinct topic found in academic sources which focuses on explaining the events, not on criticizing communist party rule. And while the article does describe the views of sources, the article does not itself take a point of view. The topic is not a matter of opinion to begin with. That there were mass killings under communist regimes is not disputed. Why there were, the most appropriate terms to use, the numbers involved, and the nature of the events are disputed and the article must reflect this, but neutrally describing POVs from reliable sources within an article does not make the article itself POV. Any issues editors have with undue weight or inclusion of other viewpoints is a matter of talk page discussion or normal editing (or, as seems to be in preparation for this article, formal mediation), not an AfD.

The indiscriminate collection of information charge simply ignores the numerous sources for the article which discuss the topic of this category of mass killing. I gave large quotes from four of the sources at the last AfD to prove the notability of the topic. Since several editors seem to be new to the issues here and I don't know if the closing admin will read the previous "Keep" AfD, here they are again:

"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. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa." ..."Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." ..."I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."

- Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press.

"All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." ..."Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven, believing that in order to create a new socialist society, they must lead in socialist zeal. Killings were often popular, tha rank-and-file as keen to exceed killing quotas as production quotas. The pervasive role of the party inside the state also meant that authority structures were not fully institutionalized but factionalized, even chaotic, as revisionists studying the Soviet Union have argued. Both centralized control and mass party factionalism were involved in the killings." ..."This also made for Plans nurtured by these regimes that differed from those envisioned in my sixth thesis. Much of the Communist organization of killing was more orderly than that of the ethnonationalists. Communists were more statist. But only the Plans that killed the fewest people were fully intended and occurred at early stages of the process. There is no equivalent of the final solution, and the last desperate attempt to achieve goals by mass murder after all other Plans have failed. The greatest Communist death rates were not intended but resulted from gigantic policy mistakes worsened by factionalism, and also somewhat by callous or revengeful views of the victims. But - with the Khmer Rouge as a borderline case - no Communist regime contemplated genocide. This is the biggest difference between Communist and ethnic killers: Communists caused mass deaths mainly through disastrous policy mistakes; ethnonationalists killed more deliberately."

- Michael Mann, UCLA sociologist, in a chapter called "Communist Cleansing: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot" from his book "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" published by Cambridge University Press.

"Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." ..."'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.

"The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The revolutionary thinkers who formed and led communist regimes were not just ordinary intellectuals. They had to be fanatics in the true sense of that word. They were so certain of their ideas that no evidence to the contrary could change their minds. Those who came to doubt the rightness of their ways were eliminated, or never achieved power. The element of religious certitude found in prophetic movements was as important as their Marxist science in sustaining the notion that their vision of socialism could be made to work. This justified the ruthless dehumanization of their enemies, who could be suppressed because they were 'objectively' and 'historically' wrong. Furthermore, if events did not work out as they were supposed to, then that was because class enemies, foreign spies and saboteurs, or worst of all, internal traitors were wrecking the plan. Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction. The logic of the situation in times of crisis then demanded that these 'bad elements' (as they were called in Maoist China) be killed, deported, or relegated to a permanently inferior status. That is very close to saying that the community of God, or the racially pure volksgemeinschaft could only be guaranteed if the corrupting elements within it were eliminated (Courtois et al. 1999)."

- Daniel Chirot, Professor of International Studies and Sociology at the University of Washington, and Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College and Director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, in the chapter "Why Genocides? Are they different now than in the past?: The four main motives leading to mass political murder" in their book "Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder", published by Princeton University Press.

AmateurEditor (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources published for a popular audience certainly does little to argue against the notion that this is a minority viewpoint with no evidence of significant acceptance of the concept in the broad academic community. No one is objecting to the exact same information being presented, but there is a HUGE difference between covering a minority viewpoint, and basing entire articles on a viewpoint to suggest it as fact and preclude coverage of competing views. Neutrality has to be respected and articles certainly can't be written to cater to sources in a way to give coverage far beyond the level of broad acceptance of a viewpoint. Writing an article from a minority viewpoint in such a way that it essentially begs the question on whether linking the two concepts is justified leads directly to the charge that this can only serve as a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the above academics were published by respected university presses (Cornell, Cambridge, Columbia, and Princeton). Simply asserting that these four sources represent a minority viewpoint does not make it so (you must demonstrate that assertion with a source of your own, which you have not done). But even if they were minority POV, that is not a reason for deleting the article. You are also making a mistake that the article itself is based on a viewpoint. It isn't. It exists to document the variety of viewpoints and issues about the topic of mass killings under communist regimes (a topic which refers to fact, not opinion. No one disputes that there were mass killings under communist regimes; after reading the above, no one should dispute that reliable sources sufficiently discuss the topic for a Wikipedia article, either). Your position seems to be that the topic itself is evidence of bias. This is no more true than saying that the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals article demonstrates by its existence a bias against that president or republicans in general. If reliable sources exist which discuss a topic at length enough for an article to be written on Wikipedia, then that article can be written. Period. We do not have to wait for a parent article to be written. We do not have to wait until all sources are known before beginning to write it. All the talk about editing issues are irrelevant to this AfD, which is only about reasons for deletion. The above four sources alone are enough to justify the article and topic. Of course, they are nowhere near all the reliable sources already gathered (as the article, and other posts, presently show). No one is objecting to the creation of a parent general mass killing article. But as one of the above sources says: "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes." So I expect that there will be a link in that article to this one. Wikipedia policy on academic consensus states that "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." This is exactly what has been done. If editors believe that the sources presently included in the article so far make the article lopsided, the solution is to add more sources, not to delete the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Simply asserting that these four sources represent a minority viewpoint does not make it so (you must demonstrate that assertion with a source of your own, which you have not done)."

We're all experienced editors here, and we're all well-aware that the burden of proof for material included in any wiki article falls to the editor(s) wishing to support its usage. I have no burden of proof to show that the material that you support within the article is not mainstream; and, of course, this is quite sensible, since forcing me to prove that this theory is being ignored by the broader academic commuinty would amount to proving a negative. More importantly though, I've cited policy numerous times already and the Wikipedia policy spells out (in explicit detail) that the burden of proof is on editors supporting the text to show that it is not WP:FRINGE; policy even suggests how editors meet that burden of proof. If you are able to meet the burden, then feel free to weigh in on the talk page where other supporting editors have failed -- it would be a *huge* step forward for this article.

There's a big difference between notability of a topic and the academic acceptance of that same topic --- no one here disagrees with the former [notability], but this AfD is about the abuse of the latter [minority viewpoint]. We cover notable viewpoints, but merely being notable is not a license for us to be reckless in that coverage, of course. We still have the WP:NPOV policy pillar to uphold.

As for deletion ... constructing an article such that it is written from a minority perspective disregarding mainstream thought is a textbook form of POV fork and a gross violation of the NPOV pillar. It is explicitly spelled out in WP policy that an accepted remedy for an unredeemable POV fork is deletion; the deletion policy lists this as a justification. BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Courtois, it is hardly mainstream (see [24] and the criticism on the BB's talk page), although the Werth's chapter on Stalinism is good. The problem is that he wrote a separate chapter where he expressed his separate opinion which does not coincide with Courtois' generalisations. No one argues that each of the events described in the article is notable. The problem is that the generalisations made by writers like Courtois are not mainstream.

Re other sources, I am not sure they can be used as an agrument against synthesis because the authors' thoughts have been taken into account in the article only partially: for instance, the idea of the lack of intentionality, except in Kampuchea (Mann), the idea of the lack of commonality (most regimes did not commit mass killings, according to Valentino), fundamental difference between communist and racist mass killings (Mann), a non-typical, borderline case of Kampuchea (Mann and Semelin). All these sources have been used in the article, however, they are used selectively, because any attempts to create both balanced and neutral article will lead to fragmentary and poorly connected text that will easily fall apart. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. (vote by Paul Siebert ... see below in collapsed textblock)

Keep, same as before. Arguments for deletion are nothing more but WP:IDONTLIKEIT, another disruptive nomination same as all previous ones. The subject is thoroughly discussed in scientific literature, the article is neutral (especially considering it is discusses the deeds of the most inhuman regimes that have ever existed) and WP:SYNTH accusation needs to be backed up with something, it really isn't a blanket statement.

Also, could we get a rule about repeated deletion nominations? This article is nominated for deletion every two months - and is invariably kept. Perhaps the time of Wikipedians could be used for something useful for Wikipedia instead of dealing with disruptive deletion nominations? And could the proponents for deletion please stop attacking everybody who don't agree with their viewpoint?

--Sander Säde 08:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This a clearly notable topic discussed in a a large number of reliable sources. Deletion rationales are clearly flawed. An article being problematic is not a reason for deletion. And article still needing "fixing" is not a reason for deletion - Wikipedia is not on a deadline. This is no more a fork of "killings in the 20th century" than Armenian Genocide. The article does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, as the sources show. WP:NPOV is a reason for improvement, not deletion and covering subjects like this is no more a violation of NPOV than Trail of Tears or Witch trials in Early Modern Europe or Mai Lai Massacre. Edward321 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The article does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, as the sources show."

Please note that zero WP:RS have been presented (in the manner prescribed by WP:FRINGE) to show that the article's chosen combination of topics is supported by any theories that have gained much academic acceptance. (see talk page for lack of RS) BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh... I'm in two minds about this. For one, I think we're falling into the classic post hoc ergo proctor hoc trap, as people have done so many times in real life by pointing out that most communist regimes were atheistic. As Richard Dawkins countered to the "atheists are genocidal" canard, Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches too. But there is a strong correalation nevertheless, and we have a similar article for mass killings under capitalist regimes... I'm going to stick as neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion stemming from the votes[edit]

Attempts to summarise the votes[edit]

A comment on multiple "keeps" under a pretext of a subject's notability and wealth of sources" Since the reason for the present nomination is not the lack of sources or insufficient notability of the subject, but synthesis and neutrality issues, the latter two have to be addressed in every keep posts, otherwise these posts have zero weight. The article that violates neutrality and NOR criteria cannot be kept just because it meets the verifiability criterion.
Similarly, numerous keeps with references to the results of previous AfD's can hardly be an argument: WP is not a democracy, and the results of previous consensus cannot be automatically applied to the present-days situation. For instance, it is quite possible that the article have deteriorated since those times, or that subsequent course of the event demonstrated that the issues, which seemed to be easily resolvable appeared to be impossible to resolve.
In connection to that, I expect all editors who want to keep the article to explain why neutrality and NOR are not violated in their opinion. If they are not able to prove that, butthey believe that these two issues can be resolved, I expect them to propose possible ways to do that. As I explained many times, I personally believe that both POV and SYNTH can be removed from this article, so the article can be kept, provided, but only provided, that:

A consensus will be achieved to convert the mass killing article from just a redirect page into the full article that will be the main article for genocide, other ***cides, the Holocaust, mass murder and various mass killings *** article, and, accordingly, to make the present article a "mass killings" daughter article.
A consensus will be achieved to move most general theorising (about genocide, "mass killings", etc) from the Mass killings under Communist regimes to there.
A consensus will be achieved to discuss differences between various Communist regimes, to diminish a stress on the Marxist ideology as a primary reason for mass killings, and to provide alternative explanations for the events described in the article.

IMO, these measures can protect the article from future AfD's (that, I am sure, will follow even if this AfD will be unsuccessful). I am waining for constructive comments from the article proponents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a constructive way forward, and it fits well with the creation of Mass killings under Capitalist regimes as another daughter article of mass killing. Ultimately I'm still not sure how useful any of this is (we already have Genocides in history), but this approach would be the best way to focus on what is actually encyclopedic, organise it appropriately, and ultimately bridge the delete/keep divide. Rd232 ^talk 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering making pretty much all of the same points that Paul Siebert has collated. Objections have been detailed here and here and here and here and here and here, but ultimately this AfD is about concerns about the article serving as a WP:POVFORK which has largely been left unaddressed here despite POVFORKs being a gross violation of the NPOV core policy (specifically, WP:UNDUE and UNDUE points us to WP:FRINGE for further advisement). As directed by policy, an examination of WP:FRINGE gives us the following directive: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." If the core concept that this article has been written about must be treated as outside of academic consensus, then the article is written decidely from this minority viewpoint, in direct violation of NPOV, with the result being a POV fork. It would be nice if the discussion addressed these explicitly-listed issues with arguments based in policy, and bolstered by RS. BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That`s a bit shouty, but in response to If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing Did`nt i post six thus far on the article talk page? With this one being the most recent This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BigK Hex: You're now declaring it's fringe, but there are ample mainstream sources, numerous books, Harvard and Dartmouth professors, the National Review, Weekly Standard, a book from France, etc., etc. And not one cite you've provided to demonstrate that this theory (that you clearly take some issue with) is fringe, like pseudo science or UFOs. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it non-notable. Repeating the assertion over and over is not convincing. Provide some evidence. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@marknutley. The authors you cited do not pretend to express the opinion of scholarly community. They simply analysed two data sets, Harff's and Rummel's, leaving, btw, the question of validity of these numbers beyond the scope.

@Marknutley&Shadowjams. Could you please comment on the major point, namely, that all keep posts are supposed to address the POV and FORK issues (either to prove that no such issues exist, or to propose the solution of the problem), not verifiability or notability (which, afaik, have not been contested).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to comment on POV ar FORK issues as there are none, other than the perceived one`s in some editors minds that is. For instance Verbal has said the title is not NPOV yet does not actually say how it is not even when asked multipile times mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal assurance is not enough. Please, provide an evidence, otherwise your voice has no weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking him to prove a negative. That is, as you are aware, impossible. It's up to *you* to show that there are POV or FORK issues. Please do so on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no request to "prove a negative." More relevant, there IS a request to meet the burden of proof as explicitly described by WP policies. mark does not understand how to meet that proof (as evidenced by his numerous attempts to do so which clearly do not qualify), and up to this point, you've only tried to shift the burden of proof despite it being clearly spelled out.

As Paul Siebert recommends, we may do well to keep this discussion focused on the POV fork objections raised in this AfD. BigK HeX (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert - Sure I'll address your concern. I assume you're saying it's a WP:POVFORK, although it's a little unclear from which article you think it's forked. It's clearly not a content fork because this material isn't covered directly elsewhere (except on our articles on the individual books that discuss it). The article's huge too, easily being a breakoff fork from other articles. And if the original fork was from Genocide, that created enough of hassle by some of the same people here now, that it was renamed to what it is now. Are they now arguing that the name is the issue? That's what I mean by shifting goalposts. And really, even if it was initially a POV fork, it's been through 5 of these discussions now.

The relevant language in the POV guideline is this: "apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view" (emphasis added). It is about notability, ultimately. Shadowjams (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It is about notability, ultimately." You meant neutrality I think. Yes, that is the major issue. Why, in your opinion, the article meets this criterion? And what about SYNTH?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is scroll up. Shadowjams (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all your posts, however, there refs you provided did not impress me. They are either the refs to dubious web sites or to the books we already discussed on other talk pages and found them controversial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious which website I cited, not particularly convinced you actually looked through my sources very thoroughly. Actually, I think all of my "dubious websites" were links to wiki articles, or perhaps a Harvard University Press page. You're not convincing many people. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found it. The dubious website is the Congressional approved (Established by Authorization of Congressional Resolution H.R. 3000 & Presidential Approval, Public Law 103-199) Victims of Communism Memorial page. That and the Harvard University Press. Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reason for the present nomination is not the lack of sources or insufficient notability of the subject, but synthesis and neutrality issues - You have yet to show that these issues exist, and those issues are fixable, and not a reason for deletion. We can fix the issues, if you tell us what they are, which you refuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I demonstrated that many times, so now you have to show that these issues do not exists. However, since I didn't vote to delete the article, for me it would be sufficient if you just proposed a way to fix these issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you demonstrate that? You brought up no concerns with the article when asked. See Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Specific_concerns_with_the_article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because Paul Siebert brought up that huge specific list prior to the section that you've linked. To repeatedly suggest that people haven't explained their objections in-depth in the face of huge posts like this and this and this and this and this and this is pretty astonishing willfulness. BigK HeX (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These have all been discussed and answered or fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting to note how every delete proponent declare the others arguments as invalid and says the basis for the AfD is something completely different. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD's basis is FORK (neutrality) and SYNTH. Please explain, where and when I changed my arguments? Of course, since I am not a proponent of full deletion, just of major revision, you probably imply this is not addressed to me... --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone say you changed your arguments? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Article objections summarized[edit]

I'm not neutral in this debate, but let's use this as a section break to clarify the ongoing issues. I've tried to be as neutral as possible phrasing the following. Please correct below if I'm wrong and please specify if you're correcting me (rather than just addressing these points).

Current arguments for deletion center around these points:

Article is a Synthesis because while mass killings occured under communist regimes, there's nothing unique about those events to connect them. Connecting them is a synthesis combining those events into an unsupported theme and article.
To the extent there are sources to support this, they are fringe and not mainstream expressions of scholarship. Ultimately these are questions of balance per Undue guidelines.
Article does not have a Neutral point of view, in part because it does not address Marxist viewpoints.
The article is a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule and thus outside of policy. Issues are covered elsewhere, such as in The Killing Fields.
Article is an indiscriminate collection of information (nominator statement).
The name is inaccurate and the article should be moved to a more appropriate name.

Again, if I've excluded a valid point that's different from these, or these unfairly slight a point, please correct it. I believe the article's worthy of inclusion, but in the interest of clarity, particularly for new editors [who will ultimately determine this mess], I hope we can all agree at least on what our points of contention are. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are the arguments, yes. Are they issues, no. But there is no point to take that debate again, the correct place for that is the articles talk page, which unfortunately the people that are for deletion refuse to do. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Article does not have a Neutral point of view because it does not address Marxist viewpoints". Shadowjams, I cannot believe you actually wrote that. Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a Communist? Do you think that because someone does not believe everything they hear on Fox News or read in the NY Post is a Communist? Yesterday the NY post published an article that says the Taliban is providing machine gun training for monkeys in their fight against Americans. I do not believe that. Does that make me a Communist? One of your publications said that Obama was born in Kenya. Do only Communists doubt that? By the way, where did you get this idea from? There is nothing in the discussion to support it. TFD (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His statement directly reflects one of the editors above. His list looks mostly fair. BigK HeX (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, cool down, take four steps back and WP:AGF. That exact viewpoint has been expressed. Stop making big fight about pointless details, and stop being so accusatory. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: Look, I suspect you and I have some opinions we don't necessarily agree on. But before you brand me your opposite, I may disagree with you on some things, but you'd also note we're in agreement on a current WP:ANI issue, and this is not the first time we've interacted amicably. I have political opinions, most of which aren't the least bit public or relevant here, but I worry that you've assumed entirely too much about my political opinion. Here, I'm concerned with the notability criteria as I see it. This isn't about personal politics. Let's discuss the merits, not each other. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of "[my] publications said Obama was born in Kenya?". I wouldn't make such an absurd statement. As I already discussed above, I cited wiki pages, google searches, a single external link to a congressionally approved program's webpage. What are you talking about?! Check your sources before you reply. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note though that the bit about Marxist viewpoints is only ONE of the objections citing an NPOV problem. One other includes "writing from a minority viewpoint" in violation of policy described in WP:UNDUE. Also, with the title, there are NPOV objections to that; Wikipedia:UNDUE#Article_naming instructs us that "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality". Good list, though! BigK HeX (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... there's also a question of the balance given to some of the article's sources and then the academic rebuttals to those sources [Rummel, in particular], leading to a different WP:UNDUE problem. BigK HeX (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to screw you over here BigK! We've worked together before, and I'm grateful for that. I added "in part" to point 2. I figured point 1a (the indent) would address the undue issues (but I added that; see below), and point 5 the titles. I'm not being an advocate in the above part. I'm trying to boil down the issues as fairly as possible, so if we're going to argue it gets us somewhere. I also added the undue piece. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I didn't see any intent to "screw over"! Quite the opposite. I think it's great that you boiled the issues down pretty accurately. I was just mentioning a few of the extra items that people might want on there, in case you found my interpretation helpful for your mini-project here. BigK HeX (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list pretty much covers every major policy objection. Hopefully, it's the start of something amazing. Good work! BigK HeX (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - concerning move, would anyone like to comment on Communist party involvement in mass killings as a possible neutral name ? I think it works because it doesn't link the ideology Communism directly to mass killings, and removes the word "regime" which has negative connotations. There's a simple definition of a Communist party - it's a party which calls itself "Communist", or openly states that it abides by the principles of Marxist-Leninism, which is much easier to classify. Claritas § 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place to discuss a move, keep it for the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this is a perfectly sensible place to discuss a move, as the scope of the article and NPOV issues are the principle arguments for deletion. Claritas § 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the umpteenth time, per [Wikipedia deletion policy, "NPOV" and "article scope" are NOT valid reason for deletion, even if these were actually valid concerns, which they're not. The only valid reason cited - but not substantiated - above for deletion is that the article may be a CONTENTFORK. But it seems people can't even make up their mind what it is a content fork of.

In regards to your move proposal, right now I'm neutral. Basically I don't really see a need for it. The title's fine as it is. I am open to persuasion however.radek (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the current title is the word "regime", which is normally defined as "the government of a particular country, especially one that is considered to be oppressive". There's an implication that authoritarianism goes hand-in-hand with Communism, which is simply not true (see Anarcho-Communism for instance). Claritas § 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of possible tweaks to the names, some which may make it more acceptable for everyone. But that's not a reason for deletion. Start a renaming discussion on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see many ways to fix the issue of the article title making undue implications. Currently, of course, the title strongly suggests that the obvious defining attribute of "Communist regimes" (the obvious attribute being "communism," of course) is an attribute worthy of being singled out. The only way I see around this is to use some sort of Wikipedia Title disambiguation structure. Something like [[Mass killings under XXXXX (Communist parties)]] would immediately suggest that this is an attempt to create a valid subtopic content fork of a larger topic and that the subject matter of "Mass killings" could extend beyond characteristics intrinsic to Communist parties. This title encourages a proper context for minority theories (such as those regarding a specific link between "Mass killings" and the broad defining characteristics of "communist parties"), thus nothing would be lost for those who (rightly) would like the notable scholars to be covered. Technically speaking, a title which is neutral (and does not make implications that reach more broadly than available RS) would be something like [[Mass killings under related groups (Communist parties)]], but something like [[Mass killings related to government bodies (Communist parties)]] is probably acceptable enough, though it still has issues. BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying here. Can you reformulate this with a simpler sentence structure and less run-on sentences? Are you suggesting that "Mass killings under related groups (communist parties)" would be a good title? What does that title even *mean*? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That title's meaning is pretty simple. It is the "top-level" (non-existent) parent of the current POV article. "Mass killings that have been attributed to groups that share a relationship of some sort" is the long version of the concept. In any case, I may elaborate on the talk page -- I don't really see this as the best place, even though it has the widest attention at the moment. BigK HeX (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is like the Nth compromise on this topic but if it will help to resolve the issue and put an end to these multiple AfDs, I can support Communist party involvement in mass killings. I would also like to see "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes" moved to Mass killings under Colonial regimes since that is what that article's mostly about anyway.radek (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late Victorian Holocausts has a lot about 19th century China, which was not under colonial rule. Not presently covered in the article, but I'm drawing a line for input given the enthusiasm for deleting material and sources, and nobody helping me find material. PS Indonesian killings of 1965–66 is a notable example of colonialism mass killings, is it? Rd232 ^talk 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]] ==> [[Communist party involvement in mass killings]], it barely mitigates the problem, if at all, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the problem in the first place? Can you explain that in clear terms? There is no doubt that communist regimes have engaged in mass killings, and also no doubt that they have been some of the worst in history, and there is also no doubt that many scholars do blame communism in itself, while you who say the topic is a problem have big problems finding scholars saying the opposite. So can you explain what is the problem, really? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See previous posts. BigK HeX (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it solves quite a bit of the problem, in at least focussing the topic on an unambiguous self-identifier, and not on a highly contentious "ism". It also focusses on the responsibility which is the article focus (after all, under the present title, is it really appropriate to exclude non-Communist-responsibility mass killings in a Communist country?) Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current title uses "Communist" ... your proposal uses "Communist". I don't really see how your proposal of changing "regime" to "party" ends up with less focus on the "ism". BigK HeX (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Rd232: IMO, something like [[Involvement of specific Communist parties in mass killings]] might take a noticeable step in the direction that you seem to be suggesting (though a merger into the proper "Genocide" article is probably still ideal). BigK HeX (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content[edit]

Extended content

Some issues[edit]

- Insufficient consideration of Marxist viewpoints, use of biased sources (BBoC), stressing of minority views.
- Connections between each individual mass killing are tenuous. There needs to be some sort of indication as to how mass killings are related to Communism.
- All the individual mass killings have received tons of reliable coverage, but there seems to be very little reliable or neutral coverage of how mass killings relate to communism, which is the synth issue. Claritas § 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. For instance, following opinions exists:

That whereas the USSR, along with many no-Communist states, belonged to a category of states that committed genocide, it was, by contrast to Nazi Germany or Campuchea, not genocidal by its nature;
That most Communist regimes in Asia and Africa (which committed most mass killings) have evolved from the societies with deep authoritarian traditions, so there is no strong connection between onset of mass killings and Marxism;
That Communist world was not a monolith, and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings you said this on the article talk page and i believe i proved you wrong. However please name one which did not engage in mass killings at some stage of it`s time in power mark nutley (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - The German Democratic Republic. Claritas § 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope Investigators digging at the site of a Soviet-run prison camp in the former East Germany have uncovered mass graves containing the bodies of 12,500 people mark nutley (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, the camp was only running for one year under the GDR (1949-50), and it seems that most of the killings/mass deaths took place earlier. Secondly, it was Soviet run, so the fault's the USSR's. The GDR didn't get any degree of autonomy until the mid 50s. Claritas § 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas: Firstly. Wouldn't it have been better if you brought these issue of on the talk page, when asked? Why do you have to restart this discussion over and over and over? Why must this discussion spread to every non-article page on the whole of Wikipedia? If you have issues with the article, please take them up on the talk page, and they will be discussed, and if valid, fixed.

Secondly, none of your points are valid. 1. Nobody has brought up one single reliable source with an opposing marxist viewpoint. We can't include viewpoints that doesn't exist. 2. The connection is well sourced and discussed, it even has it's own section with various views on the subject. 3. This is just 2. again with a different wording. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul: Reliable sources, please. If opposing viewpoints can be reliably sourced, they can be added to the article. It is *not* a reason for deletion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is a theoretical Marxist source: [25]. This work covers the issue in places, but from a more neutral perspective - [26]. Claritas § 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@OpenFuture. Please, do not delete the other's comments[27]. Re sources. I provided these sources many times on the talk page. Since this page is not the article's talk page, I have no untentions to reprodice them here again.

@Marknutley. Re: "i believe i proved you wrong" Firstly, the only thing you proved on the talk page was that you don't know how to work with google search results; secondly, this statement is not mine. I took it from Valentino (p.91). --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has a talk page, please present them there, go on just name one communist regime which did not engage in mass killings mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul: Sorry, I have no idea how that happened. I certainly did not remove anything anywhere.

No, but you *could* reproduce them on the talk page. There has been multiple people and time where this has been requested. You have not. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas: That first source of yours was interesting. Not much was available online, but on page 88 they squarely blame everything on Leninism. Which, as you know, is a form of communism. It does in no way deny that the communist regimes engaged in mass killings. Neither does the second source. So how did these sources support your claims? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're hardly going to get sources arguing that Communists killing people didn't involve Communists killing people. The point of the source is that Lenin's interpretation of Marx is at fault, not Marx's original thesis. As you know, Marxist-Leninism is but one form of Communism (There are at least thirty or forty others, excluding sub-types). The article currently seems to suggest that there's something linking Communism in general with mass killings, and thus with Marx's ideology and killing people. This is mistaken. I'm no great fan of Marxist-Leninism (I'm more of a Marxist-Libertarian or Anarcho-Socialist or whatever), but the article needs to consider why Marxists think it happened or didn't happen. Claritas § 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff demonstrated you did. Apology accepted, however.

A source for #1 is Eric D. Weitz Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29

A source for #2 is Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823

A source for #3 is Valentino's "Final solution" (first page of his chapter on Communist mass killings). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that #1 and #2 are legitimate, and sources-supported, viewpoints which need to be included in the article. On #3, it's also true that Valentino does say this. Unfortunately I don't have a hard copy of the book, and the part where he actually lists the communist regimes which did not engage in mass killings is not available online (neither google books nor amazon search inside) - I would be interested to see what he says. But a source is a source so, yes, this should also be put in somewhere. Anyways - all of this is fodder for talk page discussion, and none of it is a reason to delete the article.radek (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is the examples of article's non-neutrality, which must be fixed. The article must be (i) revised, or, if it will face serious opposition - (ii) deleted. My first choice if (i), however, under some circumstances I will be forced to support (ii). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with neutrality are not a reason for deleting the article though. And I have this sneaky feeling that the article WILL ALWAYS face opposition, no matter what kind of improvements are made or what kind of compromises are agreed upon beforehand. Anyway, you have my support for introducing your #1 and #2 into the article (on #3 I want to see the full text from Valentino first).radek (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what do you propose to do when the same persons simultaneously do the following two things: (i) oppose to the article deletion under pretext that neutrality issues can be fixed, and (ii) oppose to fixing of the neutrality issues? I probably made myself clear enough: the article may be kept if the neutrality and synth issues are resolved. I made some proposals which may allow us to resolve these issues. These proposals are generally ignored by the article's defenders. Is it a sign of good faith?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To OpenFuture. I've just been notified that my comment might disappear as a result of some WP glitch. Sorry for accusing you in that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "You are asking him to prove a negative" No. Both I and others several times explained what concrete neutrality and synthesis problems this article has. By asking many times the same question and by ignoring the answers we hardly can find a way from an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "On #3, it's also true that Valentino does say this. Unfortunately I don't have a hard copy of the book, and the part where he actually lists the communist regimes which did not engage in mass killings is not available online" I own it. When Valentino states that "most (Communist) regimes . . . have not engaged in mass killing," he is saying that these regimes did not kill 50,000 people in five years - his criteria for mass killing. He is not saying that they didn't commit any political killings period. On page 142 he discusses these "Less Violent Communist regimes": "Communist states such as Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Laos, and Nicaragua, among many others, never launched campaigns of mass killing against their citizens. Few of these states could be called pacific, but none experienced bloodshed to compare with the mass killings in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia." But we know that these states did engage in political killing at some point in their history. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a Communist state that never in its history executed people for political reasons. Cuba carried out political executions, as did Czechoslovakia. It should be noted that the aforementioned less violent regimes are discussed in the appropriate sections of The Black Book of Communism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that was what my suspicion was - that by the statement that most communist states did not commit mass killings he just meant that they committed "less than quite mass" killings. I think this would tend to make Paul's #3 a lot weaker and probably not something to be included into the article, at least not without being explicit about the fact that these states just didn't quite live up to the Stalin/Mao/etc. legacy. I still think #1 and #2 are legit though.radek (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By no means it makes my point weaker. I never claimed that "did not commit mass killings" == "they were angels". That meant that the degree of evil did not significantly exceed the average level (comparable with that in those days Greece, Spain, Algeria, French Indochina, and other non-Communist territories), and, importantly that that put these countries beyond the article's scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not mix "mass killings" with "killings for political reasons". Killings for political reasons took place in many European countries (including semi-fascist regimes like Poland, Hungary, Latvia etc), especially in the countries where civil war occurred (Nicaragua, Cuba, etc). With regard to DDR, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Cuba, Romania, Poland and others, Valentino clearly writes that there is simply no documentary evidences that allow us to make a judgement about the scale and motives of mass killings (although the possibility that some mass killings occured cannot be ruled out). Taking into account that Valentino relied partially on Rummel's figures (although he does not accepts them fully) a possibility exists that his conclusion about these states was affected by Rummel. Re Yugoslavia, Rummel's astronomic figures have been contested by Dulic. In addition, most killings took place during or immediately after WWII, they were a consequence of Croatian-Nazi collaboration, so they may be considered just as a part of Allied war crimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of Valentino's arguments, and you're right about what he says here. Regarding Rummel, it's probably true that his estimates on "Tito's slaughterhouse" are too high. But nevertheless, hundreds of thousands were executed by his regime, mostly after the war. This is confirmed by mass graves discovered in Slovenia recently. In "Worse Than War," Goldhagen claims that some 100,000 to 200,000 people were killed during the Tito's consolidation of power (p. 51). Granted most were Ustase and other collaborators, but not all. It has been alleged that Tito saw an opportunity to knock off some dissidents and anti-Communists as well. I don't have a source for this at the moment unfortunately, as I can't remember where I read it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas: Well, we're hardly going to get sources arguing that Communists killing people didn't involve Communists killing people. - No, but what you need is sources saying that communists didn't kill people. Otherwise your argument has no basis. And you have no such sources. QED. Now stop discussing the article here, and do it on the articles talk page. There are a section there to add the issues you have with the article. Do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Comment: If we're throwing out suggestions, why not allow common sense to intrude? Merge both the Capitalist and Communist articles into Mass killing and Genocides in history. Discuss the actual object of interest (mass killing), without forcing it into a pre-determined coatracky political frame, leaving the details of specific genocides for elsewhere. (The alternative I specified before, of focussing on historiography instead of history is also valid, but I don't see that happening; and also a merge as suggested might encourage more of that sort of thing.) Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this suggestion doesn't change the current debate because it's the functional equivalent of a delete of this topic. I wouldn't support a merge because I think this topic is sufficiently notable. I would be ok either of those additional articles, but they already exist. Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into a Genocide article is the cleanest solution, but the "Communist regimes" article would have to be trimmed considerably before a merge would be appropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As been noted multiple times, such a merging would create a huge article, which would soon see a "under communist regimes" article split out again. So pretty pointless merge. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it wouldn't necessarily create a huge article. Apparently you've overlooked that I suggested merging into TWO existing articles (and between the lines - "leaving the details of specific genocides for elsewhere" - possibly for the case-specific articles which clearly exist already). The result would leave a slimmed down focus on analytical argument about the entire topic of "mass killing" whatever the cause. That this is so unpalatable to those who want a Communist article seems at root ideological (whether they realise it or not), in forcing everything into a "Communist cause" frame (and by the by, wanting to delete equivalent articles about other causes). Rd232 ^talk 09:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this. If it gets too long, we can split it in a neutral way: i.e. - Mass killings in the 19th century, Mass killings in the 20th century etc. Claritas § 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Claritas' compromise merger proposal. Verbal chat 10:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I would suggest that the best way to split a slimmed-down analytical mass killings article (if/when necessary) is not necessarily predictable now, because it would involve such substantial rewriting (and splitting off details elsewhere). Chronological split is one possibility, but others would undoubtedly emerge and there's no benefit to deciding how now (though identifying more possibilities might possibly be helpful in this discussion). Rd232 ^talk 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on here. One constant argument against "Mku Communist R" (I'm getting tired of writing it out, sorry) is that there is not shown that the ideology of the regime is a cause, and that the grouping therefore is wrong. But you want to group it per century! How exactly is the century a cause? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes a chronology, and the historical context is important to understand any cause. Verbal chat 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this suggestion, a blatant attempt to bury communist mass killings. There is nothing wrong with the current article other than several pov pushers who seem to think that an article about mass killings under communist regimes is not a neutral name for an article about mass killings under communist regimes. And i have yet to see an actual valid reason as to why this is so, other then "just because it is" mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: The POV pushing is probably from people who are trying to create an article written from a minority viewpoint in order to promote an idea found only in a handful of sources (so far, 6 by your own count), as if it were some kind of well-known "fact". BigK HeX (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the historical context is important to understand any cause. - Yes, but it's way less important than the nature of communist regimes. I'd oppose such a move. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claritas's suggestion is the best one yet for respecting WP:NPOV. And since the common phrase seen in the sources is that "the 20th century is the bloodiest ever" it makes for a useful grouping in that respect. I fully support the notion. BigK HeX (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be accurate, Claritas said "I would support this. If it gets too long, we can split it in a neutral way" (emphasis added). The proposal is the merger to mass killing and/or Genocides in history (to focus on the broad factors for mass killing, without arbitrarily excluding everything not attributable by somebody or other to Communism). Rd232 ^talk 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think mass killings did not happen under communist regimes would i believe put you in a minority viewpoint, in fact to say such a thing is wp:fringe I believe the AFD is looking like a keep again, just like the last one was so this talk of a merge or move is just a way around the consensus to keep the article mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD actually looks a delete given the number of "keeps" that fail to address the concern here.

As for your speculation about what I supposedly "think," it's been made clear that you fail to grasp the difference between what one thinks and what WP:RSs say, and how to avoid creating a POV COATRACK that blatantly suggests far more than any RS can support. We do not take stereotypical propaganda, find a few sources for it, fight against criticisms of those few sources and then create blatantly biased articles like [[Terrible driving under women]]. It is fine is to create neutral articles that cover the same ideas, but COATRACKS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don`t shout. There is no coatrack here, or are you saying mass killings did not happen under communist regimes? There i no POV, as mass killings did happen under communist regimes. Are you saying every source in the article is stereotypical propaganda? Well it beats the usual rubbish of it being fringe i suppose mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Proving it's not outside academic acceptance is YOUR burden of proof -- one you've repeatedly failed to meet. Your personal opinion that it's not fringe is the rubbish. BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to mass killing and/or Genocides in history, seems like the most reasonable and maintainable solution. Nuujinn (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "As been noted multiple times, such a merging would create a huge article" IMO, this problem can easily be solved. Even a bigger topic can be covered by a single article, e.g. WWII. The full Mass killing article must be created, because the present situation is simply ridiculous. My conclusion is:
Merge. However, after that a completely modified article should be created which discusses all aspects of connection between Communism and Mass killings. Let me consider Democratic Kampuchea as an example. I found that, although reliable sources do draw a connection between KR's Communist beliefs and genocide there, at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them: a very strong Khmer nationalism and national tradition of revenge. Since both of these things have no roots in Marxism (and directly contradict to it), the really comprehensive analysis of the issue must include a discussion of mutual interaction and relative contribution of these factors. The sources allow us to do that. Similar analysis of the effect of historic context and national peculiarities on the onset of mass killings should be provided for other Communist regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment The article cannot be merged with any "Genocide" article, because "genocide" is a strict legal term. The number of XX century genocides is limited, and only few of them were committed by the regimes that claimed their adherence to one or another form of Communist doctrine. Most deaths under communist regimes (including many well known crimes) are not covered by a term "genocide". It is not possible to merge it with Democide, because this concept seems not to be widely accepted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ideal. If you think we can keep the size manageable, then there's certainly no reason not to pursue this the NPOV way. BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with WWII tells me that the size always can be kept manageable, provided that the summary style is observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to be intent on ignoring all the editors above who have said keep this article, I wonder why that is. Again, you cannot merge this article just because wp:idontlikeit If the consensus is for it to stay then no move or merger will happen. Trying to merge this much information into another article will swamp any article and then this lot will just get split off into it`s own article again. Why can`t you guys just get over the fact that communists butchered a lot of people, and there should be an article about it? mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or... you can get over the fact that you don't have the RS for such an unbalanced POV presentation of the information. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to those who have no arguments (aside from their personal opinions) -- guess which side YOU fall on, since you're intent on arguing your opinion against us who have cited specific violations. BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

For christs sakes, more than enough sources have been presented showing communist mass killings. You just refuse to see it. mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's all remain civil. FWIW, I think the incidents are clearly notable, the question is one of how to present them. If merging to Genocide, then perhaps merge to Mass Killings in History, or Mass Killings by Governments? As for size issues, most of the incidents can stand on their own as articles and likely should be, so I think moving to a summary style makes sense in the long run. Nuujinn (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger would certainly solve the minority POV issues. BigK HeX (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: "more than enough sources have been presented showing communist mass killings" ... and more than enough sources that discuss other aspects and other reasons have been left beyond the scope. As I already pointed out, this AfD has no relation to the issue of the lack of sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For anyone new to this put off by the WP:TLDR effect, here's the nub of it, beneath much smoke and mirrors:

as PaulSiebert said: " Let me consider Democratic Kampuchea as an example. I found that, although reliable sources do draw a connection between KR's Communist beliefs and genocide there, at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them: a very strong Khmer nationalism and national tradition of revenge. Since both of these things have no roots in Marxism (and directly contradict to it), the really comprehensive analysis of the issue must include a discussion of mutual interaction and relative contribution of these factors."

The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing. It should be merged, split, turned inside out or whatever - whatever it takes to allow an appropriate analytical approach which neither downplays (for those concerned with this above all) the views of some about the role of Communist ideology in these cases, nor the role of other attendant factors specific to each; nor precludes inclusion of cases of mass killings where Communist ideology is not a plausible factor. That is why a Merge to mass killing is the only encyclopedic outcome. However, should this increasingly messy AFD not end with that, I hope somebody goes and expands mass killing appropriately, turn that into a good article which puts this one to shame and ultimately makes even its current supporters see the wisdom of a merge. Rd232 ^talk 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the best idea. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute extensively to this article during next three weeks, but I am ready to provide all support I can after that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Rd232 and Paul. (Igny (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing."No, the present title actually encourages discussion of individual cases of mass killing because it is titled "Mass killings (plural) under Communist regimes". The current title so encourages discussion of individual cases that there is currently a list of individual cases in the article right now. I understand that balance in the article is an issue, but if all the deletion discussion effort by pro-deletion (or pro-merge) editors was instead devoted to adding more content to the article to improve balance, then the article would be much better off. All this talk about merging the article misses the entire point of the article: to document discussion of the mass killings under communist regimes specifically (which is a distinct and established topic in several reliable academic sources and other reliable sources) in a way which accommodates discussion of the proposed commonalities and differences, as found in reliable sources. Yes, there should be an article about mass killing in general, but that is not this article and it never has been. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good attempt at obfuscating the very clearly stated issue above (notably by dropping "effective" from my "effective discussion" remark, thereby obviating my entire point). It remains the case that the very framing of the issue in the form of this article precludes an unblinkered analysis of the cases of mass killing where Communist ideology may be a factor (cases where it isn't are ignored entirely, and not accommodated anywhere else on WP). You cannot simply declare that it is "a distinct and established topic" - that topic can be perfectly well accommodated as part of a wider discussion of mass killing and a fully encyclopedic and NPOV analysis thereof. Rd232 ^talk 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "effective" doesn't change your point. The framing of the article comes from the sources, themselves. Omissions from the current state of the article have more to do with the self-selection of Wikipedians who have actually worked on the article than with its "framing": the group of Wikipedians who would be most able or interested in locating and adding non-ideology-as-cause material have largely devoted themselves instead to the very frequent AfDs and proposals such as the one above which would be in effect the same: to make this article's topic go away as an article topic. I agree that there should be an article on mass killing generally, but that would not mean that this article would have to go away, even if there would be some overlap. Presumably, the relevant section of the general mass killings article would offer a main article link to this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<backdent> A list of the "Mass killing and Genocides in history" would be useful, assuming such a thing does not already exist. However, there's a reason there's a Victims of Communism Memorial, even if hypocrites like George W. Bush supported it. The POV would be deleting this important article and I have a feeling it would bring bad publicity to Wikipedia, and undermine whatever prestige it has, given there are still hundreds of millions of people whose 140,600,000 (see R. J. Rummel [28] friends and relatives died in such mass killings under Russian, Chinese and Cambodian communist regimes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why you post a "it would be bad if it were deleted" comment under a well-reasoned Merge proposal. Rd232 ^talk 16:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is because here a merge is effectively a delete. It changes the topic from the specific topic to a general one. The Genocide article is quite large, has plenty of forks. The Mass killings article is a disambig page. So "merge" would effectively be a delete, unless the proposal is for a section entitled "Mass killings under Communist regimes", which I suspect would be objected to. Shadowjams (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catchall for More Keep/Delete/Other !votes (try to use the top section)[edit]

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.

^ Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. Owl Books. p. 631. ISBN 0805066381.; Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. ISBN 0-224-07126-2 p. 3; Rummel, R. J. China’s Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 Transaction Publishers, 1991. ISBN 0-88738-417-X p. 205: In light of recent evidence, Rummel has increased Mao's democide toll to 77 million. See also: "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm". Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
^ Fenby, Jonathan. Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present. Ecco, 2008. ISBN 0-06-166116-3 p. 351"Mao’s responsibility for the extinction of anywhere from 40 to 70 million lives brands him as a mass killer greater than Hitler or Stalin, his indifference to the suffering and the loss of humans breathtaking."
^ Asia times online
^ The People's Republic of China 1949-76, second edition, Michael Lynch (London: Hodder Education, 2008), p. 57
^ "What caused the great Chinese famine?" (PDF). 2000-01-01. Retrieved 2009-05-14.
^ "A hunger for the truth: A new book, banned on the mainland, is becoming the definitive account of the Great Famine.", chinaelections.org, 7 July 2008

[deathtoll-1] Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. Owl Books. p. 631. ISBN 0805066381.; Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. ISBN 0-224-07126-2 p. 3; Rummel, R. J. China’s Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 Transaction Publishers, 1991. ISBN 0-88738-417-X p. 205: In light of recent evidence, Rummel has increased Mao's democide toll to 77 million. See also: "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm". Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century. Retrieved 2008-08-23.

[Fenby-2] Fenby, Jonathan. Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present. Ecco, 2008. ISBN 0-06-166116-3 p. 351"Mao’s responsibility for the extinction of anywhere from 40 to 70 million lives brands him as a mass killer greater than Hitler or Stalin, his indifference to the suffering and the loss of humans breathtaking."

[Atimes-3] Asia times online

[4] The People's Republic of China 1949-76, second edition, Michael Lynch (London: Hodder Education, 2008), p. 57

[5] "What caused the great Chinese famine?" (PDF). 2000-01-01. Retrieved 2009-05-14.

[hunger-6] "A hunger for the truth: A new book, banned on the mainland, is becoming the definitive account of the Great Famine.", chinaelections.org, 7 July 2008

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]