Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:36, 7 August 2009 editTriplestop (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,697 edits →Yet one more random split: re← Previous edit Revision as of 14:37, 7 August 2009 edit undoTriplestop (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,697 edits →Yet one more random split: reNext edit →
Line 233: Line 233:
:::::::::No, as the one attempting to associate the system of Communism with mass killings, the onus is on you to prove that Communism == Mass killing. As defined in the Misplaced Pages page, ''Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general''. Does it say anything about mass killings? Because this is the POV the page is putting across ] ]</font> 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :::::::::No, as the one attempting to associate the system of Communism with mass killings, the onus is on you to prove that Communism == Mass killing. As defined in the Misplaced Pages page, ''Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general''. Does it say anything about mass killings? Because this is the POV the page is putting across ] ]</font> 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Easy, see the book , chapter 4. --] (]) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::Easy, see the book , chapter 4. --] (]) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::So you found one crazy person who wrote their fringe theory in a book. And? ] ]</font> 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
:(od) "attempting to associate"? Excuse me, no one is saying "communism = mass killing", what is being said is that communism (multiple countries and regimes) used mass killing as an organized instrument of repression, as described in numerous upon numerous scholarly sources. What communism '''<u>says</u>''' it stands for is completely immaterial in this regard. I'm sorry, Triplestop, but it's you that has the POV that we can only talk about what communism says it is (prosperity et al.) and not what communist regimes have done (mass murder). ] ]</font> 04:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) :(od) "attempting to associate"? Excuse me, no one is saying "communism = mass killing", what is being said is that communism (multiple countries and regimes) used mass killing as an organized instrument of repression, as described in numerous upon numerous scholarly sources. What communism '''<u>says</u>''' it stands for is completely immaterial in this regard. I'm sorry, Triplestop, but it's you that has the POV that we can only talk about what communism says it is (prosperity et al.) and not what communist regimes have done (mass murder). ] ]</font> 04:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
::That the phrase "communist genocide" is sometimes used does not make "communist genocide" a concept. None of the sources demonstrate a conceptual discussion of the ''term''. They use it as a ''label'' for some very bad events alleged to be genocide (not that clearcut in most cases) which people claiming to be communists were largely responsible for. "Communist genocide" ''qua'' concept implies a causal connection between genocide and Communism as ideology or system of government, which has not been shown. You might as well start the article ] because the perpetrators of most genocides have been men. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ::That the phrase "communist genocide" is sometimes used does not make "communist genocide" a concept. None of the sources demonstrate a conceptual discussion of the ''term''. They use it as a ''label'' for some very bad events alleged to be genocide (not that clearcut in most cases) which people claiming to be communists were largely responsible for. "Communist genocide" ''qua'' concept implies a causal connection between genocide and Communism as ideology or system of government, which has not been shown. You might as well start the article ] because the perpetrators of most genocides have been men. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:37, 7 August 2009


Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is blatant, ridiculous POV propaganda and an unneeded fork/original research. Its just different instances of violence caused by Communism and put it under the umbrella of "genocide"; furthermore it is extreme POV to associate actions of individual regimes with communism as a whole. The page was created as soapboxing by a user whose sole edits so far are POV pushing on Communism. Every system of government is responsible for many deaths throughout history, I don't see why Communism must be singled out. Furthermore, the deaths that occurred under communism was not genocide. Triplestop x3 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To summarize

  1. Notability There are not enough RS to establish that deaths under communist regimes constitute genocide, nor that "Communist genocide" is a notable term. Furthermore, the two words used together doesn't make "Communist genocide" as a term notable, it just means "genocide by communists".
  2. POV It is incorrect to associate Communism in general with mass killings of individual regimes. "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" != genocide, besides most killed by Communist regimes were not rich. As defined in the Misplaced Pages page, Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Does it say anything about mass killings?
  3. Trolling This is the work of a banned crosswiki vandal in a blatant attempt to incite conflict in a controversial subject
  1. Synthesis This is a bunch of sources, unrelated in the definition of "communist genocide", attempting to advocate the aforementioned unnotable concept.
"Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide" Wow, thats about as POV as it gets. Triplestop x3 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Then fix the article. The fact that an article might have some POV in it is not a sufficient reason to delete it.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article, by it's very nature, pushes a POV that can't be removed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No it's not. And how can an article be POV "by it's very nature" - was it decided at the beginning of time by the Grand Creator (or Grand Someone) that this particular article was going to be POV by "it's very nature"? What are you talking about? There's nothing POV about the "nature" of this article, and if there is POV in the article itself it can be removed. Not a reason to delete.radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It's POV in the same way "List of all Republican Serial Killers" would be inherently POV. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin Given the nature of the subject, there is going to be clear bias in the votes. I ask that this be taken into account. Triplestop x3 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - why should the nominator be allowed to put a very POV, biased, pronouncement at the top of the page (which makes sure that everyone will read it, as opposed to sifting through the individual comments and votes) asserting that somehow the voting is "biased" (which obviously, according to Triplestop, means that it hasn't gone according to her/his wishes). This is an attempt at manipulating the outcome with a grievous disregard of the actual votes. It borders on disruptive editing.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a vote at all. What he has requested is that the Admin remember this, and disregard comments if the user posting them seemed very biased and did not have good reasoning. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What you mean it's not a vote "at all"? It's a bunch of people voting, isn't it? How does that make it not a vote? Obviously, if you take one side, you're going to think that the people who vote on the other side are wrong. But to jump from that to the conclusion that the other votes should not be counted - i.e. only the "right" votes should be counted - is ridiculous (and also appropriately fitting, given the subject matter).radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note The creator of this page is a banned user, a serial crosswiki vandal. As this page was clearly an attempt to troll, perhaps G5 could apply here. Triplestop x3 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary note - the nature of the creator should mean, I think, that the default should be delete, not keep, if the judgement is "no consensus". Rd232 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I read the sock puppet investigation as well as the user page of the creator. He wasn't banned, he was blocked indefinitely. There's a subtle distinction (at least some have said as much before) between the two, and a ban is quite different. If you read the blocking admin's explanation too, it undermines the notion that everything this user touches is cursed, which is not how G5 works. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The nature of the creator (whoever s/he is - I have no idea) has no barring on a delete/keep vote what so ever! What are you making up here? There's been plenty of editing at the article since it was created. The default, per Wiki policy, is keep if no consensus is reached.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The page is a clear attempt to incite conflict in an issue of this controversial nature. If we can't agree to keep it, then don't feed the troll and trash it. Nothing of value would be lost Triplestop x3 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it goes without saying that we're way beyond speedy territory. There's obviously a lot of debate about a simple delete, there's certainly not consensus for a speedy at this point. Not to mention, G5 requires "having no substantial edits by others." Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that concern, and I don't think it's wrong for you to have nominated it, but you're pretty bent on getting rid of this article. I'm just suggesting we don't lose sight of the big picture (encyclopedia). Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep Communism killed 100 million people which is more than Nazism. Communist genocide is a fact. Please keep this article. The article is nominated for deletion minutes after its creation. I am still working on it. --Joklolk (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Joklolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment struck - banned user.

  • — Note to closing admin: Joklolk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. You can work on it, but there is nothing of encyclopedic value here--just a big ole soapbox. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, the material is appropriate, but it's being assembled in an inappropriate way; Communist genocide falls under WP:NEO. Mintrick (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This is WP:SYNTH, and the article seems to be used for some kind of advocacy. I have found absolutely no evidence that the term "communist genocide" (as referring to an universal concept) even exists in credible sources. Taking a quick look at some of the references used in the article, there is no indication that it is even a real term. For example, the article says Former Vietnamese judge Nguyen Cao Quyen who was a victim of communist political repression after communist victory in Vietnam War describes communist genocide as "genocide of entire classes" (clearly implying that the source is talking about a universal concept "communist genocide", but the source actually says: Since 1945, the Vietnamese Communists exterminated religious leaders, assassinated opposition leaders, killed intellectuals, businessmen, and even peasants who disagreed with their ideology. These terrorist acts were crimes against humanity and the genocide of entire classes. Thus, it does not use the term "communist genocide" at all. It seems that this article is being used as a vehicle to invent a new concept and give credibility to it. I'm sure all of this material is present in the articles about the different genocides, so there is absolutely no need for this advocating, original synthesis article. Offliner (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable concept - used in 300+ books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Those refer to specific incidents where communist regimes have committed genocide, not an overarching concept of "communist genocide". This article is about the latter. Mintrick (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't found any indication that the latter even exists. Can someone please point out a source which really discusses the universal concept "communis genocide"? Offliner (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a lot more here than the BB, which is just one of the sources--the question is whether there is a type of genocide characteristic of Communist regimes; personally, I have my doubts about it as a specific common factors but it's a well-known concept. DGG (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The main problem with the article is that it's original synthesis. For example, is there a source which explicitly states that "during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks" is part of an universal "communist genocide"? All of the incidents listed here are covered in their own articles, so why do we need this article? Here we are replicating content that is already present elsewhere, and putting it all together in a very questionable way. Offliner (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Still doesn't indicate the overall concept is notable though. Triplestop x3 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing in that article that would confirm that "communist genocide" is a specific term or a concept. The article mentions it only once, in the title. The term itself is not discussed in the article at all. Offliner (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That chapter was found with a search of Communist genocide in Google Books. Apparently there is only one hit in the entire book. On page 238, the words Communist and genocide both appear but not together. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but we already have separate articles about those genocides. This article is about the universal concept of "communist genocide" - of which I haven't seen any indication that such concept (or even the term) exists. Offliner (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

  • Delete per Mintrick's comment. Communism as an ideology is no more responsible for genocide than capitalism or any number of religions, none of which have their own genocide articles. The relevant information in the article should be fragmented and moved to its appropriate article. Honestly, the cold war is over, we all know communism sucks. Can we keep the propaganda and ancient ideology wars out of wikipeida please? LokiiT (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as a highly subjective, uneducated POV fork. Aside from fully agreeing with Abductive's arguments, I also don't see any factual evidence that "Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world." All books seem to use the phrase trivially and none of them seem to refer to "Communist genocide" as a universal concept. As for Google Books, it also shows a whole bunch of results for "capitalist atrocities", "socialist monstrosity", "capitalist genocide", "socialist genocide", "economic slaughter" and "drunken Batman". Let's concentrate on specific evidence, not on WP:GHITS. — Rankiri (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Not abductive synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray actually discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. --Martintg (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Abductive. If the concept is notable, please show me one single academic publication that deals with "communist genocide" as a topic, not mentions it in passing in relation to specific events which may or may not be a part of a bigger picture. Communist regimes committed many atrocities, yes, but it is not our job as Wikipedians to collect them all in one place and present as a concept. That's a textbook example of what synthesis is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, August 5, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH. Ironholds (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the concept is not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray publisged the concept of "Communist genocide" here. --Martintg (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete – original research used to push an anti-communist POV. If there is to be an article about "communist genocide", there needs to be material covering that concept itself and not list various genocides—regardless of how obvious it may seem—and then draw the arrow yourself. MuZemike 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per Offliner and per Mintrick's comments furthermore. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and only because the article points out, correctly, that there are laws that use the term "communist genocide" specifically (the Czech law referred to in the article provides that "The person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify Nazi or Communist genocide or other crimes of Nazis or Communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years", from . Strictly speaking, genocide is the eradication of a particular race or culture, not the slaughter of people who oppose a regime. Mandsford (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That is not what the article is talking about, its all a POV fork against communism. Triplestop x3 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
But that is not what the article is about, its a highly POV against communism. Read the first sentence. Triplestop x3 18:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Defined as what exactly? And by whom? You? As one can see from your edit, there is a multitude of original research going on in this article, and I would stress that others keep an eye on it. --Russavia 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Poeticbent, I know that WP says "comment about the contributions, not the editor". But this particular vote of yours is so dumb that it raises questions about your intelligence. Read WP article on genocide and you will see it was not defined by Marx or Engels, in fact it was not in any use before 1944. What you probably meant was that Marx and Engels condoned terrorist acts in some cases as a revolutionary tool of the proletariat, and Lenin suggested that dictatorship of the proletariat was a necessary evil. (Igny (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
Igny, what you are saying is that you are fully aware of and understand the Misplaced Pages policy on civility and no personal attacks but then you proceed to break that very policy in a most insulting manner. Your comment is way out of line and I ask that you strike it.radek (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly there are actions of communist regimes which qualify as genocide. "Democide" (to the mention of that alternative) is a term used only on WP to lobby that killing millions is something other than genocide. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There is plenty of academic use of "communist genocide" to refer to communist acts in Cambodia and elsewhere. Not to be flippant, but I genuinely fail to see what Offliner means by not a "universal" term. Certainly it is well used on this planet, which is all that counts. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Only used on WP? Of course a simple Google search does lead one to call shenanigans on your laughable claim. --Russavia 00:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you please attempt to keep your comments civil. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
To Russavia, feel free to insult me when "democide" appears as a word in a main-line dictionary, for example, at www.merriman-webster.com. Articles should not be written for the general public, the bulk of our readers, using words they can't find in their dictionary. Whereas "genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" is clearly defined and—based on communist eradication of classes of individuals—clearly applies. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice userbox on your userpage also. Triplestop x3 00:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. To your point that it's an anti-communist fork, yes, certainly "genocide from the start" can be toned down if not directly cited to a scholarly source. However, the slaughter of millions is notable enough to merit its own article as a sub-topic under the repressive actions of (most) communist regimes. "Communists" is not "genocidal maniacs" by definition—if the Italian communists ever came to power, I rather doubt they would emulate the Khmer Rouge. But deleting this article denies the use of mass murder as an instrument of repression. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The term is readily found in book titles and used in scholarly journals. "Communist genocide" is not a juxtaposition created just to smear communism on Misplaced Pages. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
A POV fork of what? --Martintg (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The concept of "Communist genocide", linking the genocides committed by various communist governments and attributing the phenomenon as a feature of Communist policy is published here. --Martintg (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The above book only mentions the phrase "Communist genocide" in the following sentence: "The action taken against the Ukranian language was, as one author has said, "systematic linguacide," one of the methods of Communist genocide in the field of culture. This in turn illustrates an important point about how the term is actually used by most of these sources. — Rankiri (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you missed it, please double check the title of the book Genocide in the USSR: studies in group destruction. In case you're saying that this doesn't entitle an article about general Communist genocide, it should be on the Soviet genocide - Genocide in the USSR only?--Termer (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: First of all, this article is not a POV-fork of anything. Some users are suggesting communist genocide is a neologism, but it is not. The term is in use from as early as 1951. There are two entire books written on communist genocide: The Communist Genocide in Romania, by Gheorghe Boldur-Latescu and Murder of A Gentle Land, The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia, by Barron, John & Paul, Anthony. The term is used by respected academics like Nathaniel Weyl . This is an universal concept like Nazi genocide. Both the Nazis and communists orchestrated genocide from their different beliefs, but the result were same. Whether it was USSR, China or Cambodia, the reason behind the genocide was communist beliefs. Joklolk (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Finally, Communist genocide is an accepted fact by most post-communist Eastern European governments. And there are instances of charges of communist genocide as in the case of Arnold Meri. Estonian charged with Communist genocide. Several countries have laws which explicitly make it illegal to deny communist genocide. It proves communist genocide is an accepted fact by many governments. Joklolk (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, Nazis deliberately and systematically killed people of a certain race. Purging the Jews was a core belief of Hitler. The Communists did no such thing. And so the two words were used together coincidentally a couple times. Doesn't make it notable. It's still original research by you. You just put together different instances of violence caused by Communism and put it under the umbrella of "genocide". Triplestop x3 03:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, communists deliberately and systematically killed people of a certain class with certain political affiliations. Purging the riches was a core belief of communism (Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin's atrocities against Kulaks and so on and so forth). Both the Nazis and communists did not tolerate any political opposition. And it is certainly not OR given the multiple references, don't you see what is written in the references? Your unsubstantiated claim of OR is going to be repeatitive and unproductive in this discussion. Joklolk (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That is not genocide. You're use of the word atrocities suggests that this page is an attempt by you to make Communism look bad by pushing your POV by creating a purely negative page on Communism. Triplestop x3 03:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is just your personal opinion "that is not genocide". The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as "...acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."
Communists certainly intended to destroy national groups, hence they committed genocide, as the literature shows . --Martintg (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
And is what they did widely regarded as genocide? No. Triplestop x3 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on canvassing User:Triplestop is involved in vote canvassing and this was done by User:Offliner also . --Joklolk (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Comment struck; banned user

No, I am trying to invite further discussion on whether or not this page violates Misplaced Pages's policies. Did is say "PLEASE VOTE DELETE ON THIS?" No. Triplestop x3 03:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Posting to the NPOV noticeboard is not canvassing because it is merely publicizing the discussion and is not aimed at a group that has any specific point of view. And canvassing is defined as "sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion", so Offliner's single posting to a user talk page is not canvassing. (See WP:Canvass). So let;s get back to the topic.
The examples show that scholars have written about genocide in various Communist-ruled countries but there is no specific concept of Communist genocide. Notice the books refer to genocide in specific countries. There is no RS book about Communist genocide that links genocide in various countries to Communist ideology, unlike Nazi ideology.
The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This is simply not true. Many books do make a link between communist ideology and genocide, see Eric D. Weitz's book A century of genocide for example. --Martintg (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting: the phrase "communist genocide" picks up no results with a thorough search of the book in the link provided. The first sentence reads "Ideology alone is never a sufficient explanation for such massive developments as genocide." It then goes on to explain the particular circumstances that explained the (Vietnam-overthrown) Cambodia example... PasswordUsername (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed if you read further the paragraph states it was a combination of reactions similar to what moved the Nazi system from discrimination to genocide, so the author seems to be implying that Nazi ideology alone is an insufficient explanation too. Either way, ideology is a factor, the question is to what degree. Communist ideology promotes the destruction of national groups, no question about that, and destruction of national groups is genocide according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. --Martintg (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ridiculous. There is no such implication on my reading of the source–and it discusses Cambodia in particular! Which national groups did Karl Marx advocate destroying? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It is well known that Karl Marx was a racist. --Martintg (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not well known:

"The notion of race plays no clear part in his social thought, though he makes free use of the term, if often in contexts not involving the modern division of humanity into biologically defined groups..."

"Surely a decisive consideration is the fact, as we will see below, that Marx explicitly rjeects racial division or hierarchy."

Which national groups did he advocate destroying?
PasswordUsername (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It is about implementation of communism also. If Ukrainian genocide, Cambodian genocide are not genocide, then what is genocide? And the motives behind these were communist beliefs. Joklolk (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Communist beliefs =/= genocide. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It is boring. Communist beliefs caused implementation of communism which caused genocide. Simple. Joklolk (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Accordingly, capitalist beliefs resulted in the implementation of the Native American genocide. Wait, that one doesn't even get its own article on Misplaced Pages. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually that's a good catch Password. But that means that someone should create the article Genocide of Native Americans rather than a reason for deleting this one.radek (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In "On the Jewish Question" Marx spoke of the Jews as a nationality in highly abusive and venomous language, heaping abuse on their religion, calling the Jews a "chimerical nationality" which he saw destined to disappear as a spiritual and cultural entity.--Martintg (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Name a Jewish genocide scholars credit communism with. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Marx was against the Czechs and Southern Slaves too, stating:"Because the Czechs and the Southern Slavs were then 'reactionary nations', 'Russian outposts' in Europe, outposts of absolutism … to give support to the national movements of the Czechs and Southern Slavs at that time would have been to give indirect support to Tsarism, a most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe." --Martintg (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Holy Jesus. Marx regarded the Slavic nations looking to imperial Russia as outposts of tyrannical political systems in the 19th century, and thought it a good thing to give Slavs support, but not at the time when they identified with the czarist Russian Empire. Why are you piling on with this instead of answering my question? Incidentally, he took a pretty optimistic position on Russia in his ultimate years. And? PasswordUsername (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This anonymous editor has very few edits and has made a questionable edit recently: . Offliner (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked. Offliner (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Random heading to split the page for easier editing

  • Keep and expand. I have a feeling that those supporting deletion have not even bothered to do a simple Google Scholar search. The term "Communist genocide" has been in use for more than fifty years, so how can it be neologism? There are several monographs and dozens of scientific articles dealing with the communist genocide, quite a few dedicated to the topic. It is a term used even within last ten days by newspapers . Several countries have laws dealing with communist genocide. So claiming that it didn't happen, isn't notable or the term doesn't exist is quite frankly, ridiculous and laughable. If the article is POV in your opinion, add opposing viewpoints - but that does not make article suitable for deletion, Misplaced Pages isn't censored. All other given reasons for deletion come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sander Säde 06:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
In that article he's referring to a genocide by communists - that's certainly not the same as "communist genocide", and only a fool or someone looking for something to support their point of view would use it to mean such a thing. I assume the latter. It's depressing to see how many people there are on the "keep" side of this AfD with such blatant, blatant POVs that I would've thought they'd have enough sense to stay away. I hope that the closing admin takes a gander through peoples' userpages and uses things like, uhh, massive anti-communist screeds as evidence of some form of heavy bias here. Note that I'm not directing that at you, Sander. Ironholds (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I very strongly suggest you stop personal attacks and repeating "closing admin must look at userpages, not arguments". That is simply not done in Misplaced Pages. Closing admin will weight arguments on both delete and keep and make a decision based on arguments.
Please note that I did not say the news article is dedicated to discussing communist genocide, I said the term is used in there.
We've established the term isn't neologism. We've established it has wide coverage in the scientific literature. We've established that there are laws dealing with denial of communist genocide. We've established there has been a recent use in both newspapers and scientific literature. We've established that Misplaced Pages has no article dealing with this topic, so not a content fork. There is no doubt that we need an umbrella article dealing with phenomenon that occurred all over the communist countries. So.. what is the remaining reason for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON? Stop the personal attacks and go re-read the article instead, it has improved quite a bit in last few days. --Sander Säde 07:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks are unfounded comments based on the editor rather than the edits. I'm saying that based on the edits of some users, they're obviously biased. The article covers the idea of "communist genocide" as a uniform doctrine - the coverage looks at individual genocides committed by communists. If that's what we're going to write the article on, fine, but it turns it into an unneeded content fork summarising multiple crimes linked only by the political doctrine of the organisation running it. Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. --Martintg (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Once again, those refer to the individual genocides, not an overarching concept of "communist genocide." The overarching concept simply does not exist, and putting all the different genocides in one article under the name "communist genocide" is against WP:SYNTH. Did you read the other comments here before posting yours? Offliner (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
These individual genocides are labeled as "communist genocide", so obviously the overarching concept exists. Also, one of the sources say: The notion of genocide has originally been confined to the physical annihilation, or intention to do so, of members of whole nations. If it were to have remained confined within those boundaries, the Communist genocide would, perhaps, be arguably applicable to massive deportations and annihilation of a large number of Ukrainians, Balts and other Soviet nationals, but if would leave out the massive extermination of own-nationals. The Cambodian Khmer Rouge, among others, could never be indicted for 'genocide,' which is absurd. To me this use seems pretty overarching. -- Vision Thing -- 09:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
These individual genocides are labeled as "communist genocide", so obviously the overarching concept exists. - this sentence looks like a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Are you sure you have understood the guideline? And no, the quote you mentioned is not enough for having a whole article about the alleged concept in WP. Once again, the whole book mentions the term "communist genocide" only once. You need to point out a source which contains an extensive discussion of the general concept of "communist genocide," not just one passing mention in a whole book. Offliner (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there a particular reason why every keep gets immediately replied/commented - the type of said comment often being a borderline personal attack? Why do I get a feeling that an agenda is being pushed with this deletion? --Sander Säde 09:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So, in effect you are saying that incivility is OK in Misplaced Pages discussions, as longer as one feels that opponent's arguments are "at best -- misguided"? --Sander Säde 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Is what Communists did widely considered genocide? Just because a few crazy people do doesn't mean this article is legitimate. Triplestop x3 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Marting, thank you for being the first person to provide any evidence that anyone ever discussed "communist genocide" as a theory. By the way, the quote given is not from Ellen Frankel Paul, she was merely the editor. The quote is from an article by John N. Gray called "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" that originally appeared as a chapter in his book Post liberalism: Studies in Political Thought (1993). The problem with using this source is that it did not enter mainstream academic discussion and was largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles. Even then most of the discussion focused on his views of liberalism. If you believe that this book has been ignored by Misplaced Pages, may I suggest that you create an article for it that explains all the various theories that it advances. However a fringe theory from a non-notable book is not sufficient to create its own article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually the problem with this source (apparent from talking about "socialist genocide" not communist) is that it amounts to half a page and doesn't have any conceptual discussion. It just chucks in the phrase "socialist genocide" for famines under communism. Rd232 21:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing in John N. Gray's bio that suggests that this British political philosopher and former Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics is a fringe theorist. He appears to have published extensively and in fact there is a book written about him: The Political Theory of John Gray, which states "He is much cited and discussed within political and social theory, but he also has a much wider audience, being one of those quite rare creatures in British academic life, a public intellectual, writing regularly for the quality press and appearing on both radio and TV". So I don't see where you get the idea his views are "largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles". What ever your personal view is of John Gray, it cannot now be said that the concept of "Communist genocide" is WP:SYNTH --Martintg (talk) 19:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The link you give says "John Gray is one of today’s most...controversial political thinkers." (my emphasis) Controversial means that his ideas are not mainstream and the fact that his theory on communism has received no academic mention makes it fringe. However, I accept that you may wish to write an article about his views. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This your personal view point, I accept that. But the evidence doesn't sustain your claim, his work is extensively cited --Martintg (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. I'm not sure whether to call it synthesis or just regurgitation of standard American right-wing rhetoric: just because American conservatives like to string the words together when they talk -- and that Google will turn those examples up -- doesn't that there's any such objective concept. Give Conservapedia a ring, I'm sure they'll take it. --Calton | Talk 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's ridiculous. The article I saw doesn't read like propoganda. It's a sourced article on a topic on which entire books have been written. I've got no problem with the tags, but there's nothing so broken about the article that requires deletion. I'm frankly dismayed at how many comments appear to be of this variety, and willfully ignoring the fact that the article is the subject of multiple books, many of which are cited here. And, at least one of those books itself is notable enough to have its own page The Black Book of Communism. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely Keep - concept is notable, concept is used by scholarly sources, article is sourced.radek (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Assertion without evidence - WP:NOTVOTE. The sources in the article and in this discussion don't hold water in terms of discussing a concept. Two words strung together do not automatically constitute a concept. Rd232 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The occurrence of these mass killings is a fact. Make whatever edits are necessary to maintain NPOV, but the article itself should be kept. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The issue is not verification of mass killings, nor of WP:NPOV. It is WP:OR on the alleged concept of "communist genocide" for which there is not any sourcing worthy of the name. Also WP:NOTVOTE - pay attention to the issues. Rd232 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
      • NPOV was an issue from the beginning, but if that part of the discussion is resolved, great. As I see it, the only major item of contention remaining is the distinction between keeping the term "Communist genocide" and renaming the article to something like "Genocide by Communists" or "Mass killings by Communists". I'm sympathetic to the argument that using "Communist genocide" is inappropriate because of the implication that it is a common phrase used to define a certain type of genocide particular to communists. But to argue that the phrase is wrong is to argue that it should be replaced, not that the article itself should be deleted. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • And it's still wrong to associate it with communism as a whole. Even if it were fact. Triplestop x3 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note The creator of this article is a banned crosswiki vandal who is now blocked indef. Triplestop x3 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per NickD - extreme WP:SYNTH violation, disguised by lots of sources relevant to a different article (eg List of genocides committed by communist governments). Genocide may have been committed by Communists (certainly there are sources that argue that, though the meaning of "communism" is endlessly debatable) but there is no source for the concept of "Communist genocide". Also created by banned user. Rd232 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
How can you say it is synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray duscusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here, linking the genocides committed by communist governments and attributing the phenomenon to Communist policy. --Martintg (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, its just two words used together, as in genocide done by socialists, not socialist genocide as a specific term. And one person said those 2 words, doesn't make it notable. Triplestop x3 21:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Words strung together do not constitute a "concept". And his discussion amounts to a couple of untheorised references on a single page, as far as I can see. Rd232 21:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
However these "words strung together" have been published, hence WP:SYNTH no longer applies. --Martintg (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The words are strung together without sufficient discussion to justify calling it a concept in the published sources. So having an article on it is absolutely WP:SYNTH. Rd232 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Never the less, the notion of "Communist genocide" being a specific feature of Communist policy common across many Communist regimes has be published, you could maybe argue WP:UNDUE, but it is definitely not WP:SYNTH. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Blatant POV/attack article. What is so special about communist genocide as opposed to genocide? When it comes to genocide, it doesn't matter who is committing it, what their particular system of government, religion, or world view is. All that matters is that they've killed masses of people. Genocide is genocide. Specifying a system of government is just stupid, petty and POV pushing. Keeping this will only result in every group with a bone to pick will come here and write POV attack articles about "communist/fascist/Turkish/Islamic/Christian genocide". Then those groups will come and scream prejudice and they'll be right. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Genocides have particular characteristics, Nazi genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for Jewish people, while Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples. --Martintg (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:OR right there. Rd232 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
How so? The line "Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples" is from a published source, the comparison to Nazi genocide is not made in the article, but merely a response to User:Multixfer. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It still doesn't deserve its own article. Anyone who commits genocide is targeting someone. That's the general idea: a specific act of mass-murder targeted at a specific group. So should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed by one group against another for whatever their justification was at the time? Or do we just have one Genocide article that covers genocide? (the holocaust, which redirects from Nazi genocide linked above, is a common historical title that transcends anything associated with general genocide). <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are exactly arguing for here, when you state "should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed", this article does the opposite and aggregates a number of genocides into one article, an aggregation that is supported in the literature because of its particular features related to Communist ideology that makes it stand apart from regular genocide. --Martintg (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This has already been mentioned several times above. However the article has since been significantly expanded by several other editors of good standing. --Martintg (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you actually pointing out to another editor that they are stating something that is repetitive? Now that's irony for you. Good Ol’factory 00:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comparison: "Zionist genocide" gets even more Google hits than "Communist genocide": And to note the depth of scholarly coverage, GoogleBooks furnishes over 50 hits:
PasswordUsername (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Uhh, if you want to start an article on "Zionist Genocide" go ahead - and good luck with that, since I bet that a good chunk of those hits are going to be non-RS neo-Nazi sites and the like. But even if, the fact that one concept gets more hits than another concept which gets 1000+ hits is a reason for starting another article, not deleting this one. Same as with the Genocide of Native Americans (I'm serious about the need for that one - if you want to cooperate on it I'd be glad to help).radek (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not sure if I should start it. But there's definitely a ring to classifying all genocides by ideology, especially with the Books Google feature. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So what? "Communist mass killing" also gets tons of hits. This is a naming issue which is a content issue that should properly be discussed on the article talk page rather than here. --Martintg (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Only 10,600, Martin...? "Zionist mass murder" gets 91,200. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
"Zionist mass murder" only gives me 1,060 hits. --Martintg (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Try this: . It's showing up as 102,000 for me now. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
To PasswordUsername, doing books.google.com, far more reliable for scholarly sources, shows 41 for "Zionist genocide" and 371 for "Communist genocide". Let's not include every web site (of questionable scholarly basis) screaming genocide regarding a topic of this gravity. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  00:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
41? I get 50 right now: it was 51 an hour ago. Funny searching mechanism. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed Google searches throw up some strange results, and only covers stuff that is online in any case. I think we are straying off topic here, what we name a topic is a content issue, to be discussed else where, we don't go deleting an article because we don't like the name. --Martintg (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My point on searches was that "Communist genocide" (words together, as a single term) appears far more frequently in a search of books (including appearing in numerous titles) than "Zionist genocide." Frankly, I'm flabbergasted at the contentions here that "Communist genicode" is not a well-used 'scholarly term and concept for, well, communist-perpetrated genovide. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  01:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It's already been explained numerous times in the comments above that "communist genocide" occurs in passing reference to some communist regime's act of mass-scale destruction - most prominently as naming the Cambodian Genocide, which is in such instances referred to by some as "the Communist genocide in Cambodia." There is no basis for an overarching concept of "communist genocide" as such - and no scholarly work on it has been produced. (A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work.) The fact that GoogleBooks yields results for the juxtaposition advanced here–the very notion of "communist genocide"–is exactly what I am referring to in my comparison. Comparable locutions on GoogleBooks, such as "Zionist genocide" and "imperialist genocide", occur also–and they will soon exist too, if all it comes down to is empty arguments. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Claiming "A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work" mis-interprets of the previous discussion, please provide a published source that contends John Gray's chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" published in the book "Totalitarianism at the crossroads" is in any way "controversial". There is nothing in John N. Gray bio that suggests that he is a fringe theorist or controversial, yet we have Wikipedians here who have asserted that without providing any evidence what so ever. It is the quality of sources, not quantity, that determines reliability, and by all accounts John Gray is a scholar of the highest order. --Martintg (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not claiming anything. Evidently you missed the above discussion. His publisher advertises him as one of today's most controversial theorists in political thought. If you would like to write about Gray's chapter in a book–or even regarding his scholarly work on liberalism (Post-Liberalism), from which the chapter in question comes–in its own article, nothing could possibly stand in your way, so long as either one of these resources has such adequate notability that it belongs on Misplaced Pages–just as it can as easily be written about some instance of a statute against denying a particular "communist genocide" in a particular country. But that is not tantamount to creating POV fork based on clamping everything in one piece or promoting certain political views. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Now you are engaging in WP:SYNTH, taking the comments from a publisher about an unrelated book written by somebody else and applying it to John Gray's particular chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" in "Totalitarianism at the crossroads". You really need to find a published scholarly review on John Gray's specific views about "Communist genocide" before you can claim it is "controversial", without it no controversy exists. As for this claim of "POV fork", what is the name of the article that this is supposedly a fork of? --Martintg (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the publisher has clearly labeled the author "controversial." I have already explained the trouble with the article time and time again. I think I've had enough. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Martintg has it exactly right. All of the WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues are article issues. I'll admit that they can justify deletion if they overwhelm an article, but that's simply not the case here. If this is a question of naming then take it to the talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The answer is to improve the article citing sources which discsuss "communist genocide". What is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here are the allegations being made here why the topic is not worthy for an article and why the title is inappropriate for the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  01:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet one more random split

You have a very good point. We don't make pages about things that are inherently POV. However, you are starting to run afoul of WP:POINT. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% Triplestop x3 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is just a naming issue which should be addressed as a content issue on the talk page, some names are used more often than others in various contexts, but they all point to the same underlying topic, the mass killing of people by totalitarian communist regimes around the world. What is "inherently POV" about this topic? What is the alternate POV this article is suppose to fork, that communist regimes didn't kill anyone? Has anyone provided any sources that articulate the claim that no one was killed? "Communist genocide" is a specific term discussed in books, memorial days proclaimed for and courts prosecuting alleged perpetrators because of it. It is a notable and worthy topic no matter how you want to name it. --Martintg (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
You missed my point. This is not a naming issue. This is a trolling issue. (Igny (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
Probably more likely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITitis. We have people here asserting it is "inherently POV", but seem unable to articulate what the actual POV issue is. --Martintg (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The POV arises from the ignorance of capitalist-indoctrinated people thinking that communism is something totally evil, causing people to associate it with Holocaust, Apocalypse, Genocide, etc. On the other side are people brainwashed into thinking that communism is so great. We cannot honor these extreme points of views. See also: The Crucible Triplestop x3 03:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in the article that makes the judgment that Communism is "something totally evil", it is for the reader to judge. Is it a fact that these regimes engaged in mass killing, many eminent scholars contend in published sources that these mass killings were genocidal and a common feature of totalitarian communist policy in multiple regimes, and discuss it in terms of "communist genocide". Would you be comfortable if the article was renamed to Communist mass killings, or would you also contend that was POV too, disputing even that fact? --Martintg (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Again, it's not widely considered genocide. Sure, individual regimes have committed mass murders however it is incorrect to associate it with Communism. "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" is not genocide, and most of the deaths caused by communist regimes were not the rich. Triplestop x3 03:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but this comes across as personal opinion, you need to find published sources that make these claims and add it to the article per WP:YESPOV. Plenty of published sources associate mass killings with Communism have been provided, you need to find reliable sources that assert there is no connection between mass killing and totalitarian Communism. --Martintg (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
No, as the one attempting to associate the system of Communism with mass killings, the onus is on you to prove that Communism == Mass killing. As defined in the Misplaced Pages page, Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Does it say anything about mass killings? Because this is the POV the page is putting across Triplestop x3 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Easy, see the book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, chapter 4. --Martintg (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So you found one crazy person who wrote their fringe theory in a book. And? Triplestop x3 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) "attempting to associate"? Excuse me, no one is saying "communism = mass killing", what is being said is that communism (multiple countries and regimes) used mass killing as an organized instrument of repression, as described in numerous upon numerous scholarly sources. What communism says it stands for is completely immaterial in this regard. I'm sorry, Triplestop, but it's you that has the POV that we can only talk about what communism says it is (prosperity et al.) and not what communist regimes have done (mass murder). VЄСRUМВА  ☎  04:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That the phrase "communist genocide" is sometimes used does not make "communist genocide" a concept. None of the sources demonstrate a conceptual discussion of the term. They use it as a label for some very bad events alleged to be genocide (not that clearcut in most cases) which people claiming to be communists were largely responsible for. "Communist genocide" qua concept implies a causal connection between genocide and Communism as ideology or system of government, which has not been shown. You might as well start the article male genocide because the perpetrators of most genocides have been men. Rd232 07:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - For all the POV issues (which are usually a talk page issues, not a delete issues) there's zero bias pushing on communism. The nominator said there'd be "bias" very early in this discussion, but even now I don't see it.
It's not like Senator Mcarthy's been running loose on AfD. If this was something about a current political debate I'd expect that kind of premonition, but forgive me if I'm naive to say that I would have never thought this was a bias issue. Who exactly is displaying bias, and what exactly is this bias? Nothing in this debate (other than cries of "POV") has suggested otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - why are people posting their views - what are essentially "comments" like this one - on top of the page (presumably to make sure that it's the first thing everyone sees) instead of properly doing it by posting a comment like this one. Add to that there's completely no consensus in presenting these views as a summary ("to summarize") and the summary itself is just one user's POV and this is really screwing up the page. Please follow standard procedures and move your comments down to the bottom and label them as "comment". Thanks.radek (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide: Difference between revisions Add topic