Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Capitalist regimes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 22 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (5x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 delete. While this is quite obviously WP:POINT, the main AfD based reason for deleting, as articulated by many of the editors commenting here, is that it is WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Capitalist regimes

[edit]
Mass killings under Capitalist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created to make a wp:point no sources to support title, all ref`s currently are about communism. mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, such renaming makes this article even more problematic, with an inherently POV title: the new title suggests that mass killings were caused by the market economy, something not supported by any academic sources. The older title suggested the same, but only more implicitly.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped there would be sources out there (Marxist or socialist) which would have something along these lines, ca nyou think of a name which would be non problematic? mark nutley (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here simply do not want to check what "capitalism" means. Some of the content could be recycled as political repressions related to colonialism, imperialism, militarism or anti-communism, but that would be very different subjects.Biophys (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basicly no hope then, pity really given the effort going into it mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, can't find the guidance, but think it is acceptable for you to close this as a keep if you want, particularly given the name-change which arguably makes the nomination moot.
For what it's worth, I think the new title is less encyclopaedic. For the title to attribute a cause in that way makes it even harder for the article to avoid bias. --FormerIP (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and improve. There may be some merit in the WP:POINT claim, but the creation of the article does not appear to me to be at all disruptive, so this is not in itself a reason for deletion. The article is in a poor state, but it is possible that it can be made viable (let's see). It may be that refs cannot be provided to show that the phenomenon it is set up to describe exists or is notable, in which case eventual deletion would be the right thing. --FormerIP (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there are no such government type as Capitalist is there. But if sources can be provided then hell ya, keep it mark nutley (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be for the article talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POINT unless serious improvements, including sourcing, are made soon. The article as is is more than half about mass killings under communist regimes and we already have an article on that. The other examples that are given are essentially those of Mass killings under colonial regimes. So possibly move some of the content to Mass killings under colonial regimes. But there's not going to be sources which link capitalism (not a type of "regime" anyway, but an economic system) to the examples given except in most superficial ways.radek (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to note that there is in fact (a very badly written, problematic, POV) article on Anti-communist mass killings (though it doesn't seem to pay attention to the "mass" part). It's strange how editors who are so up vehement in their desire to delete "Mass killings ... communist regimes" and create "Mass killings ... capitalist regimes" haven't even bothered to fix that one first.radek (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it says here that there are hundreds of thousands of articles in need of various kinds of fixing. I'm sure you'll want to deal with those before engaging with any more creative tasks. .... On a less sarky note, the Anti-communist mass killings article is a bit of a mess, and might possibly be at least partially mergeable with this one. Thankfully, since I have a billion hours in a day and nothing else to do but WP, I'll get right on that! Rd232 talk 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You created it to make a point: [1]. Here you argued that Mass killings under Communist regimes should be deleted, because it would be no more valid than Mass killings under Capitalist regimes or Mass killings under Jewish regimes. You therefore, even before you created the article, stated that it was your opinion that it should not exist. You probably created it in the hope of getting an AfD, so it gets deleted, so you can claim that Mass killings under Communist regimes should get deleted as well. It's disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I didn't vote Delete on the Communist article, your attempt to Assume Bad Faith falls flat on its face. I argued for a radical rewrite with a different approach - and an equivalent approach will be equally valid here. (Did you actually read what I wrote or did you deduce what I must have written from your assumption that the article is POINTy Bad Faith?) Rd232 talk 13:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Remember that Communism is not an economic system, but a political and ideological doctrine.Biophys (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The pointy article first says "capitalist governments" then changes to "capitalist economic systems." It lacks a distinct and defined subject. Come back when you figure out what the topic of the article is supposed to be. I would be happy with articles about mass killings by "Western democracies" or by the United States. Edison (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting point. Can a capitalist economic system be divorced from a political system which endorses, supports and maintains it? I don't think so. There is much literature showing how capitalist economic systems depend crucially on the role of the (supportive) state - for example in enabling primitive accumulation, even at the cost of many lives systematically lost. This is perhaps the key theoretical point in the article, and it merits in depth examination using the relevant literature. That's time I don't have, but I hope the article survives and someone does it. Rd232 talk 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The rationale for a procedural keep assumes that the Communism article has the same issues this one does. It doesn't. They're unlinked in that sense. This is also a gross violation of WP:POINT, and the fact that people vote Keep here (a pointy creation with certainly more SYNTH concerns than the sister article) but Delete on the other is a blatant declaration that the votes are based on political ideology, not any actual wikipedia policy. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Intentional disruption to prove a point. It is most likely unsourcable, and the creator has refused to present sources even though he claims it should be easy and loads of sources exist. The only purpose of this article is to waste peoples time and lose focus from the discussion about Mass killings under Communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Echoing what I said on my talk page: I said I thought it was as valid as the Communist one. Since plenty of people argue that the Communist one is valid, in can hardly be POINTy to act in agreement with them. Furthermore, doing so opened up the genuine possibility of a worthwhile article developing from it, which would disprove my initial feeling that neither article was really valid. This is not POINTy, it is the opposite - explorative and constructive in the best sense. Rd232 talk 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources are even in the article which actually relate to the subject matter of Capitalist regimes and mass killings. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Shock Doctrine is mentioned in it" - lol. You also didn't even bother to properly format your references so that there's a whole number of "Cite error: Invalid *ref* tag" messages in the references section, which I think illustrates pretty clearly that this is just a WP:POINT exercise.radek (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't have time to clean up the bizarrely complex reference system that came from the Communist Regime article it was adapted from (adapted from because a lot of the points are similar, or at least indicative of what might be developed). Rd232 talk 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is WP:SYN. "Capitalist system" means merely market economy. I am not familiar with any academic sources claiming market economy being responsible for the systematic extermination of people. That was always something else, such as Nazi ideology, for example.Biophys (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If capitalism is merely "market economy", what is market socialism? And there's plenty of literature on the relation between capitalism (particularly in relation to colonialism/imperialism, but not just) and mass death (eg through war or famine). Rd232 talk 10:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating that there is plenty of literature relating capitalism and mass killings, but yet no-one, most notably you, can come up with even one example. And you created this article even though I pointed out to you before that I didn't believe that there is any reliable source on that. Don't you think you should have checked up if at least *one* source existed before you created the article? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was sufficiently sure that much literature exists on this not to check beforehand, due to time constraints and to this being Wikipedia, which is to say, a collaborative endeavour in which articles are rarely born fully formed. If I hadn't been so sure, I would have checked. Again, Assumption of Bad Faith seems to be the order of the day. Rd232 talk 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have bad faith, I'm sure you are genuinely convinced that literature exists. However, as I told you, I don't think it does, and the only example you could come up with was one about colonialism, and not capitalism. That *should* have been enough for you to check before creation, but you didn't. At this point you of course have no interest to check for it, and blame it on "collaboration". Well, nobody else will be able to come up with the literature either, because like you, I'm convinced. But unlike you, I at least tried to find it, and I can't find any literature that connects capitalist regimes in general and mass killings at all. While we, as you know, have plenty of literature that connects communist regimes and mass killings. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've just added a little bit. I've previously quoted the colonialism article saying "Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change." I've now added a quote from Marx expanding a bit on that. We can hardly argue about colonialism being responsible for mass deaths; a lot of that probably exists on WP ripe for importing (or should). You (and others) have deleted some of the sourced material I've added, which obviously makes it easier to claim that there aren't any sources that exist. Rd232 talk 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see, doy. As of the time of my edit, the article has existed for 15 hours and 27 minutes. It is a little too early to tell anything much, but not being in possession of the facts never stopped anyone from proposing an article for deletion, that I know of. Mass killings under Communist regimes was first created one year, 12 days, and 15 hours ago. Equality is not a WP rule, which is just one molecule of water in an endless sea of why I mostly loathe despise disdain and for the most part eschew WP and most who purport to contribute to it, but it is nonetheless something to value. True, dat. Ok, you want process? Fine.
Comment. Every argument to ditch that article is an article to ditch this one, except the one I already wrote (go have a look for yourself): Capitalist governments were only in a very small number of cases formed by revolution. Revolutions are by their nature bloody (as explained there); capitalist massacres are also to exert control, but for less reason. Every argument to ditch this article is an argument to ditch Mass killings under Communist regimes, except the parroting of: POINT. Point is a stupid rule among stupid rules, meaning even less than usual and requiring a leap of faith to use; it is quite obvious all who use it here want to believe, but what exactly it is they believe is less clear. It is a stupid rule because any behaviour that is unequivocally POINT is unequivocally something else (3RR), whereas it allows free rein to hordes of amateur psychics who can just tell that someone editing 'center' to 'centre' is trying to disrupt WP to prove that British spelling is better. Point is well named, tho', if you look at it ironically, because it is usually invoked when one person does not like the Point that the other person's facts make. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the practice is a short cut to saying what really matters, and so should properly be frowned upon, but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the rule is a shortcut for people who have never have anything that matters to say, and so they fail to recognize what is missing; a short cut to the lecturn via the trashcan. Well, whaddaya want, deletors are used to doing things with one Undo button, they have to have things easier, right? Thanks to OpenFuture for the best reason why it should not be deleted immediately, as that would add wind to the sails of those who wish the other article deleted, and again, rotsa ruck proving it was disruption that was the objective of someone who saw that another article with the same deficits was allowed on WP and perhaps ended up believing that those deficits were not something WP cared about. Little did he realize that the in WP's battle of the unemployed vs the independently wealthy, all care deeply about anything on WP that does not reflect their viewpoint, let alone things that might shed a bad light on it. I have my doubts about how much the Deletors here care about those deficits, after all, two of them (so far) voted to Keep the other article: OpenFuture, Shadowjams.
Full list of Keeps (so far, and hopefully it will keep the rest honest) on the other article:Collect, OpenFuture, C.J. Griffin, Marknutley, Darkstar1st, Johnbod, Wikidas, Jclemens, WereSpielChequers, MyMoloboaccount, Närking, I-20, Colonel Warden, Teeninvestor, DGG, Shadowjams, BigK HeX, Ginsengbomb
Finally, I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys. One or the other is in critical shortage, if he cannot see/pretends not to see that Communism is an economic system. Is there a way to restrict someone's use of WP for being that stupid? Or lying that much? There should be. And I would like to know which it is, too, I never get to find that out. I concede that there are problems with declaring Capitalism a form of government, but then, it did not stop people calling governments Communist (because it was inconvenient to classify them as having elections with a unified party doctrine, like a more streamlined Electoral College process?), and they have been doing it for 93 years. I would be quite happy with abandoning the designation of 'Communist' governments, but as I doubt it is going to happen any time soon, the precedent stands.
Anarchangel (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chill the fuck out with the personal attacks like "I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys" - I'm really not into reporting people but this is just first order shittiness and statements like that are just sheer scumbaggery ("smear your opponents"), particularly given the propensity of communist regimes to label dissidents as "mentally insane". Archangel is just following the practice of the Stalinist regimes that he is defending here. Also. Funny how whenever you scratch one of these so called "anarchists", a Stalinist-apologists always comes out. Where are the real anarchists? Oh, I forgot, they were all "mass killed" by Communist regimes or their proxies (like in Spain). Cut the personal attacks out plz.radek (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchist forces were not, by some estimates, not fully supported by the Communist forces they allied with in the Spanish Civil War, 1937, a CNT post was taken over by Communists, and four CNT prisoners were found dead in circumstances linkable to the Communists. 'Mass killings' is entirely in your imagination, and 'betrayal' is sour grapes by Orwell and wishful thinking by those eager to gloat at a conveniently ironic fabrication. Your 'points' are hypocrisy and/or rhetoric and are unanswerable. Anarchangel (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be wanting an answer to your points at some point. Which would suck for you, as I do not feel obliged to give any now, as you declined to address your error in declaring Communism not an economic system. Your offense in not conceding or rebutting and the only practical (unilateral) solution I have ever found to deal with it are both reversible. Anarchangel (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD discussion is not about Communism. Neither it is about me. OK? Biophys (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...Remember that Communism is not an economic system...Biophys 16 July 2010" You, first on this page, attempted to make the discussion about Communism. I do not have a problem with that, nor, as they are so transparent, do I object to additional lies. And it has never been about you. It is about bad behaviour; it is never "OK" to disregard valid points against one's arguments. I imagine that AGF and Ad Hominem have been very effective indeed for you against those who do not appreciate the finer points of them, but your abuse of them will not work against me.
How to concede a point: "I concede that there are problems with declaring...Anarchangel 16 July 2010" Anarchangel (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in a textbook, and it tells that "communism" can mean three different things: (1) ideals/ideology, (2) a program, and (3) a political regime. But certainly not an economic system.Biophys (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neeah.... Capitalism in it's minimal definition is private ownership of means of production. It's at least theoretically possible to have in a non-free economy. So just saying its' the same thing as a market economy is doubtful. The Marxist view of it is of course more complex, as it there is not only a mode of ownership but also a historical stage. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isn't even Marxism. It's like a 16 year old's caricature of what they think Marxism is.radek (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This?" --OpenFuture (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ideas that the article appears to be based on.radek (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not argue about the precise definition with OpenFuture, but I fail to see in reliable sources that the "private ownership of means of production" was a reason for mass killings.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try Late Victorian Holocausts as a start, if the concept passes you by so completely. You could do worse than actually reading the article, of course, noting Marx's quote as a sense of the broader issues beyond famine. Rd232 talk 18:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a book by "a self-defined international socialist and "Marxist-Environmentalist"", who apparently is completely ignorant of the fact that Mill actually supported *moderate* socialism to a certain extent. It's in the same category as Klein's work - an ideological unreliable propaganda tract. How about some real sources?radek (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, sorry, I don't think you're going to find capitalist or "free market" scholars queueing up to write about this topic! And you cannot simply dismiss these sources so trivially - Mike Davis (scholar) and Naomi Klein are not nobodies, and they are far from the only people writing on these and related issues. It may be that the entire article ends up using sources as leftwing as the Communist ones uses sources which are rightwing because they're the only ones available - sorry, is that not allowed?? Rd232 talk 19:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help remarking that this is a classic instance in which aggressively early AFD nomination (hours after creation) is disruptive. The article has evolved a bit, and has the beginnings of sourcing - now 2 books and a peer reviewed article, plus a quote from Marx which indicates a clear direction for developing the article. Which makes the early Delete - no sources !votes now irrelevant. It becomes increasingly clear even at this early stage that there is such a thesis worth documenting appropriately, in which case any issues should be resolved by editing, not deletion. Rd232 talk 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an early AfD because it was so obviously in violation of WP:POINT.radek (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
given that WP:POINT refers to intentional disruption, at what point do protestations of lack of intention and demonstration of effort to develop the beginnings of something constructive leave merely an Assumption of Bad Faith in constant repetitions of WP:POINT? Rd232 talk 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, at what point do the constant repetitions of accusations of WP:POINTyness becomes themselves (intentionally?) disruptive acts? Rd232 talk 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of why this article was created, it has two fundamental flaws:
    • No regime is explicitly "capitalist". Sure, capitalism happens in many regimes, usually through non-state actors and often encouraged by the government, but nowhere is "capitalism" an official goal. For example, the French Republic exists to promote "the common ideal of liberty, equality and fraternity", while the United States exists "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". By contrast, the Soviet Union explicitly ordained an "economic foundation" based on "the socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man". So there is no such thing as a "capitalist regime", only a "regime where capitalism is practiced". However, there certainly were and are "communist regimes", or at least regimes that did all they could to establish communism as envisioned by Marx and Lenin.
    • The article itself is a grab-bag of highly disparate incidents, ranging from mass natural death by starvation in a pre-modern society (the Irish Famine) to death by targeted killing in a fairly developed country in order to prevent far greater killing at the hands of communists (the Chilean coup). Now, if anyone, at least any non-polemicist, has actually studied all these events together under the rubric of "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes", that's one thing. That would probably show notability for the topic. But if, as I suspect, these have merely been thrown together by Wikipedia editor Rd232 in order to create the appearance of coherence, well, that's not good enough. We do need coverage of the topic as such, and that has yet to be demonstrated. - Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you haven't read as far as the Late Victorian Holocausts paragraph. That certainly covers "mass killings under Capitalist regimes" in the late 19th century, for a variety of cases including India and China. Quotes from Marx and Rosa Luxemburg indicate the broader Marxist argument about primitive accumulation, which there is certainly enormous potential to expand on. Rd232 talk 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to your second point about countries being "explicitly" capitalist... I hardly no where to start. Perhaps Democratic Republic of Kampuchea is an adequate reply? (Think about it.) Rd232 talk 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that almost every country self-identifies as "democratic". That is not the case when it comes to capitalism, whereas it has been the case for socialist regimes moving (or claiming to move) toward communism. - Biruitorul Talk 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from Marx and Luxemburg are problematic: see WP:PSTS. As for Davis' book, why should we trust the agitprop of a "socialist activist" Creative Writing professor to tell us anything about capitalism, other than that he despises it while benefiting from it? He really is a pretty laughable man, judging from some of the titles of his works: Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the U.S. Big City; No One Is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the U.S.-Mexico Border; Evil Paradises: Dreamworlds of Neo-Liberalism. What worthless dreck! What a pitiful distillation of the gender/race/class agenda! What fine fuel for the furnaces of arch-capitalists! And to think that the ever-shrinking taxpayer base of California, the productive bit of society, is financing this man: when that state finally slides into its well-earned bankruptcy, I shall cackle with glee as Mr Davis is thrown headlong into the warm embraces of the capitalist system he so reviles. - Biruitorul Talk 06:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that is not in any worth responding to. However, on Marx/Luxemburg, my point was "Quotes from Marx and Rosa Luxemburg indicate the broader Marxist argument about primitive accumulation...", which is to say, they indicate how much must have been written about this by Marxists at least. Another scholar notes explicitly that Davis is broadly following in Luxemburg's footsteps. Rd232 talk 09:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that logic. Because both Marx and Luxemburg blamed all the troubles of the world on capitalism, therefore much must have been written on the topic of Mass killings and Capitalist regimes? I don't get that. Marx and Luxembourg doesn't write about Mass killings and Capitalist regimes either. They do mention that loads of atrocities happened under colonialist rule, and they blame this (as they blame everything) on capitalism. That's not a reliable source on mass killings and capitalist regimes (much of the atrocities wasn't under any "regime" at all per se) and it certainly does not indicate that there must exist loads of other writings on it. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule of thumb, anything that Marx said has a large secondary literature interpreting, analysing, revising and extending it. And Davis (and others in that vein) are quite explicit about capitalism and "free market" ideology causing mass death - the theoretical Marxist link is around primitive accumulation, which in the Marxist view is essential for the creation (and - accumulation by dispossession - possibly the maintenance) of capitalism. Please stop claiming definitively that sources don't exist - the article is very new, and the subject complex, and opponents like yourself are eagerly deleting sources (rather than leave them as a starting point, even if they're disputed). Rd232 talk 10:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've said from the start that I don't think sources exist.I don't think they exist, and I'm pretty sure they don't exist, because I've been having this debate with various communists for at least 15 years now. And nobody has ever shown me one single source that supports your claim. So I think I can say, as definitely as you can say anything about non-existence, that they don't exist. And it's up to you to prove otherwise, which you evidently can not.
Your complete trust in that communist ideologists will support your claims are impressive, but just because you think sources *must* exist, doesn't mean they actually do. Now stop wasting your and my time on claiming that sources exist. Either you find the sources, or you stop claiming they exist. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Davis and Firad sources undoubtedly exist (as does naomi Klein, though you deleted her), and I've just added a bit on Ireland. I'm not asking you to prove a negative, but it would nice to have a reasonable amount of time for not just me but others to to develop something. You say you've been discussing this for 15 years - that's relevant how? The article is a day old and it already has enough to make the neutral observer think "yeah, it deserves a chance to be developed". AFD it in maybe 3 months (if necessary then) would be my suggestion, if the merger discussed in the Communist article AFD isn't going to happen. Rd232 talk 11:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer and to AFD nominator: The article was originally created as this, an initial adaptation from Mass killings under Communist regimes, created partly because there was then no space on Wikipedia where non-Communist mass killings were discussed as a class (mass killing is a disambiguation page). It was nominated for deletion 4 hours after creation, and shortly after that the removal of various content reduced it to this. At the time the vast majority of !votes above were cast, it looked like this (or worse). At the time of writing, it looks like this, and includes as sources (among others) a peer reviewed academic article, an academic book (Late Victorian Holocausts), and the views of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, as well indications of other sources and cases where further research is likely to turn up relevant sources. My question is this: WP:CSD#G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Because of the excessively early AFD nomination, the article has undergone dramatic changes since most of the current !votes. Were this not to be taken into account, the existence of G4 would create a situation where paradoxically, an article up for deletion should not be improved whilst the AFD is under way, and improvements kept for after the article is deleted, to allow G4 not to apply. This would clearly be perverse. The problem is all the more dramatic in this case where the nomination was made mere hours after creation, precluding sufficient time for Wikipedia's strength (collaborative endeavour) to achieve much. In sum, the early votes (particularly those based on erroneous accusations of WP:POINTyness) should be discounted; a "no consensus, default to keep" would permit a new AFD nomination at any time to consider the revised article. Alternatively, the nominator could withdraw the AFD, and renominate immediately or at a future time. Rd232 talk 11:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A prime example for WP:POINT to go with its brother article Anti-communist mass killings. Note date of conception, and the participants in the infinite AfD loop on the article which these editors really dislike. This article is a clear WP:POVFORK even using much if the boilerplate from the article it is a fork of! Right now it even includes famines in India under the raj -- when there the precise same problems occurred for aeons before, and certainly since, that period. As such it is also WP:SYNTH in itself (which is not grounds for deletion, to be sure). Collect (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but you deleting well-sourced, highly relevant content and then coming here to complain about WP:POINT ("intentional disruption") is the height of bald-faced cheek. You should be ashamed of yourself. PS Yes, the article used some content from the Communist mass killings article initially because in creating an article about non-Communist mass killings it seemed a helpful starting point. PPS Is it simply the case that anti-Communist ideologues are entirely unwilling to have any Wikipedia discussion at all about non-Communist mass killings, or even countenance the possibility that there is a substantial body of literature explicitly linking various mass killing incidents with capitalism? Because there is, and it justifies being treated as a body of argument, either in an article on it, or within the merged structure analysing all mass killings together which I've advocated in the Communist article AFD. Rd232 talk 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Between the 4-hour-after-creation AFD nomination, the repeated attempts to delete various relevant sources, and the ridiculously repetitive accusations of POINTyness despite the ever-clearer fact there is a body of literature which justifies this as a topic either as a standalone article or merged somewhere, it seems that there are too many editors here with little interest in generating encyclopedic content on this topic. It is a difficult topic, and I know I didn't give it a good start (due to time constraints), but genuine Wikipedians ought to be more willing to allow this topic to be collaboratively researched and developed over time. I call on everyone involved here to change their Deletes to "Keep for now and renominate later on if necessary". Rd232 talk 13:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • Comment What you mean like using Communist sources to blame the Holocost on capitalism? Or to say that Nazi`s were capitalists? I was willing to give this a chance, but this sort of thing is just plain wrong. Equating nazi`s to people who want to turn a profit is sick mark nutley (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be your opinion that it is "sick", but Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. What matters is that it is a significant thesis which deserves to be documented (much as every Pokemon is, if it helps to put it in perspective). PS In the Nazi case I personally disagree with the thesis, though I can see some merit in the argument. Again, though, my personal opinion is irrelevant. Rd232 talk 15:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nominator has re-named the article Mass Killings caused by Capitalism, the nomination is moot. The nominator has stated that under this new name "there will be less chance of wp:or and wp:synth". I asked him to move the article back until the AfD was completed, but he has chosen not to do this. Also, the reason given for nominating the article was WP:POINT, which is not a reason for deletion. While the nominator correctly pointed out on the article's talk page that the article should have been better developed before it was created, it would have been more helpful to see whether these issues could be addressed before nominating for deletion. There is currently conversation on the article talk page about sources, and I think it would be more helpful to close the AfD and see if the discussion is productive. TFD (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment TFD is incorrect, i did move it back to the original name, it had since been moved again the rd232. It does not matter what the article is called now, the content still has the same issues, and as was pointed out above the new title suggests that mass killings were caused by the market economy, something not supported by any academic sources. Strong Delete. mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; synthesis, original research and a highly pointy coatrack article. Mass killings caused by capitalism is a moronic title; nations with capitalist economies, fine. Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is it? (Unfounded, unexplained, and untrue) accusations of synthesis requiring deletion, or just a name change required? Incidentally, I'm not wedded to the existence of this article; the content can be addressed within a proper mass killings article. But deleting this and keeping the Communist one is inconsistent, and from those !voting that way, easily construable as hypocritical. Rd232 talk 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usefy Move to user subpage and add Noindex. In its present form, leaving this article would help make WP a laughingstock. The original title smacked of coatrack, the revised one is worse. "Caused" is a strong term, and isn't satisfied by noting the concurrence of mass killing and a capitalist economic system. The article starts on a poor foot, conflating economic systems with forms of government. While there is some level of overlap, the conflation is inexcusable. I can't imagine that this ever be an acceptable article, but perhaps my imagination is too limited—let the editor go off and clean it up, then ask for feedback. It is can be cleaned up, it can be moved back into mainspace. It is not currently suitable for mainspace, not even with templates noting its many shortcomings.--SPhilbrickT 17:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "isn't satisfied by noting the concurrence of mass killing and a capitalist economic system." - well indeed it isn't. However there is a substantive argument made by various people, in the article, that there is a causal relation. That would appear to justify the article, don't you think?? I know the article is a mess at present, but that's what happens when you AFD an article on a tricky subject after 4 hours. PS "In its present form"? WP:IMPERFECT. Rd232 talk 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, in the event of deletion, I don't want it userfied to my userspace; someone else can have it if they want but I'm not about to make a personal project of it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, I tried to get the ball rolling sufficiently to show it's worth having, and that's all I have time (and, really, interest) in. It could be incubated I suppose, or even have the relevant text dropped into a proper mass killing article to make a start on representing those views there (as they undoubtedly should be in a full and complete FA-class mass killing). Rd232 talk 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have not the patience to read much of the above debate, but I did read the article. First of all, the current name "Mass Killings caused by Capitalism" is completely off the wall and would have to moved back the previous name if the article is kept. Which it shouldn't be. It it original synthesis and pushes an obvious point of view. It's not scholarly. If we want an article on this subject, which I don't think we do, better to start over with a clean slate when everyone has calmed down. Herostratus (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. This is plainly synthesis and is based on the dubious concept that there's such a thing as a 'capitalist government'. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this glaring original research. Consider nominating Anti-communist mass killings just as well, though the latter is probably not as irreparable in principle. Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it is impossible to avoid the POV. -- Wisconsus TALK|things 15:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There's no such thing as a "capitalist regime"; there are more differences than similarities between 19th century laissez faire America and Corporatist Fascist Italy. Nothing suggests that any connection between mass killings and a "capitalist" ideology; indeed the main ideology in support of capitalism, classical liberalism, has never supported any kind of mass murder. Merge to anti-communist mass killings is possible, which has some relevance.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: claims of WP:SYNTHESIS which do not explicitly address the fact that sources like Late Victorian Holocausts make precisely the thesis the article documents should be discounted, since clearly these !voters haven't bothered to read the article properly and are dismissing the thesis on the basis of their own gut instinct. Also, it should be irrelevant whether the thesis is true or not, since it is a significant one worth documenting - though concluding it isn't true would encourage renaming the article to avoid implying Wikipedia thinks it is, which seems to be the underlying complaint with virtually all opposition. Rd232 talk 14:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it make that claim, exactly? According to Google books, the word "capitalism" appears 20 times in the book, and in none of them does he claim capitalism cause one single mass killing. Sounds like your interpretation. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated list of AFD 'keep' votes on Mass killings under Communist regimes, now closed: Collect, OpenFuture, C.J. Griffin, Marknutley, Darkstar1st, Johnbod, Wikidas, Jclemens, WereSpielChequers, MyMoloboaccount, Närking, I-20, Colonel Warden, Teeninvestor, DGG, Shadowjams, BigK HeX, Ginsengbomb, Fubar Obfusco, BritishWatcher, Smallbones, Torchiest, 86.132.227.35, CarolMooreDC, AmateurEditor, Sander Säde, Edward321 Delete votes on this article matching the 'keep' list: Openfuture, Shadowjams, Teeninvestor. 24.5.21.150 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is utterly irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest had not voted when '24.5' updated the list, and should be added to the list of people who, it must (unfortunately IMO) be assumed believe the articles to be so fundamentally different that they vote the exact opposite way on them, and yet do not favor us with this distinction as a point of argument. Anarchangel (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep (with expectations of improvement). See below comment for application of procedure to this AfD.
  • Note to closer. It should be clear that no qualifying criteria from the Deletion Policy has been listed. Claims that the article is somehow "disruptive" are meritless. Potential problems with sourcing have been speculated, but it's pretty certain that due diligence is lacking, given that the article is less than a week old. An AfD based on sourcing should not be pursued unless it is actually established to a reasonable degree that efforts at sourcing have been a problem. BigK HeX (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear that no qualifying criteria from the Deletion Policy has been listed. - That is simply not true. The arguments include that it's a content fork, or has to become, of the anti-communist mass killings article. That it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources and includes original theories and conclusions. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You only reinforce my point about speculation. First, you speculate that the "article has to become" a content fork. And, you also speculate that the article cannot possibly be sourced ... and you know this after less than a week? Amazing!
In any case, a quick look through Google scholar seems to have a fair number of possible sources. To claim that "it can't possibly be sourced" is disingenuous speculation. BigK HeX (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation, and it's based on more than ten years of discussion in the topic together with a deep insight in capitalism and marxism. It can't be sourced for the simple reason that capitalism never ever caused a single mass killing. The previous topic, "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes" I suspected could not be sourced. I don't know of any reliable source that supports the claim, and nobody could point one out. We have what, ten people who have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to prove that communism is not worse than capitalism on MkuComR, and none of then have even one source that looked at MkuCapR. That's a pretty fat hint that there are no sources. But it was theoretically possible that it could be sourced, at least. But now the article was renamed, and with this name, it's impossible. There can not exist a source, because the title is in itself false. No speculation. Fact. Sorry if this breaks your world view or something, but that's not really my problem. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just here to observe some rather amusing hypocrisy, but I think you've shown off just enough pomposity to get me actively involved. Thanks for giving me a little bit to do in my spare time. BigK HeX (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to fight reality you are welcome, but don't blame me, and keep it civil, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it was theoretically possible that it could be sourced, at least. But now the article was renamed, and with this name, it's impossible. There can not exist a source, because the title is in itself false." - of course, the only solution to a problematic title is deletion; it says so right here in the Deletion Policy! Also a diligent closer might note that the allegedly impossible title was given by the AFD nominator, who moved it there after little discussion and declined to move it back when asked. I concurred with that title as better than the original, but if anything the title seems to have reinforced opposers' views. I can't say with hindsight that this renaming was WP:POINTy disruption, but I suggest that were the political tables turned, somebody would be. Rd232 talk 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to quote the part of the Deletion policy that says that, please? Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The reasons for deletion include WP:POINT and a claim that this is intrinsically an advocacy article based on a Marxist interpretation and has no actual RS sources otherwise. The reasons for keeping include an apparent desire to balance an article on mass killings which occurred under communist regimes with a sister article blaming Chinese and Indian 19th century famines on "Capitalism" which may well be a "fringe POV" at best. Collect (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:POINT is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Also, the article has not been given enough time to establish whether it is based on a Marxist premise. Even if it is, this would not be a reason to delete, but to ensure that the fact that it is about a Marxist thesis is made clear within the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect The Amazing Swami From The East once again does not fail to impress, with his extrasensory perception of what writers of articles wish, believe, think, and do in their spare time. Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, governments are as Capitalist and Communist as the number of their economic policies, but there are other views: "Most people here simply do not want to check what "capitalism" means"..."capitalism (not a type of "regime" anyway, but an economic system"..."But there are no such government type as Capitalist is there"..."The rationale for a procedural keep assumes that the Communism article has the same issues this one does. It doesn't. They're unlinked in that sense."...
Suchlike assertions are repeated here, varying little from one another. Capitalism is not a government, Communism is not an economic system, and the other article is different from this one. So there must be a difference between Capitalism and Communism that makes the other article more appropriate than this one. There is something about governments whose countries' economic system is Capitalism, that makes them not Capitalist, while goverments whose countries' economic system is Communism, most assuredly are Communist. But what exactly are those differences? And please, when asserting that Capitalism/t is a certain thing or not (a system of government, for example), or Communism/t is a certain thing or not, explain why the other system is or is not that thing also. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes&oldid=1146031635"