Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide

Communist genocide

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". 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)

"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)

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)

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.

• 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)

• Keep, "communist genocide" is a specific concept, for example Rebecca Knuth treats it as such in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial --Martintg (talk) 02:04, 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)

• Delete as per Offliner. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, very strong keep!! Communist regimes have been involved in so many genocides..Stalin, Katyn, Pol Pot, etc, etc, etc...I can go on and on..--Jacurek (talk) 11:44, 5 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)

• Delete. First, what certain totalitarian regimes that called themselves communist did was democide. Second, these events were unconnected. Picture, for example, as article called "Capitalist genocide" that lists the Holocaust and other crimes of the Nazis, the Rape of Nanking, everything in Category:Massacres of Native Americans, the Armenian Genocide and the Rwandan Genocide and claimed it was capitalist theory that united these events. Abductive (reasoning) 12:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, there is enough reference in academic literature to merit an article. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Where? — Rankiri (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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 [1]. 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)

• Keep. The communits genocide as method in the so called class strugle for domination can be traced back to The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, defined as necessary tool against a number of various wholesale groups of reactionaries. Please go back to it, and everything else will start to make sense right away. --Poeticbent talk 18:28, 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 ^Dialogue 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))

• 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 ^Dialogue 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)

• Strong delete Anyone can string two words together and come up with a neologism but no article should be written unless there is a clear definition of a subject and a body of literature specifically about that subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:29, 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 Wikipedia. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Pretty clear POV fork. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork, WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, redirecting to Genocide and distributing content between there and Communism.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep pr. DGG & Piotrus -> valid subject, also according to google scholar. + no serious explanations above on how the article is a POV fork, (or WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH etc.) of anything. The term Communist genocide has been used at least since 1958, see Genocide in the USSR: studies in group destruction By Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR, Scarecrow Press, 1958,Page 12 --Termer (talk) 02:32, 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.[2] 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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. [5] 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 [6]. --Martintg (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note on canvassing User:Triplestop is involved in vote canvassing [7] and this was done by User:Offliner also [8]. --Joklolk (talk) 03:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am trying to invite further discussion on whether or not this page violates Wikipedia'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." [9]

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 Wikipedia. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:56, 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)

• Strong Delete. This article inherently pushes a ridiculous POV. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete per the eloquent POV argument of Poeticbent. (Igny (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC))
• Keep with tag, important article, I believe any POV issues can eventually be resolved without resorting to deletion. -- œ^™ 05:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • By lumping in every example of genocide, real or purported, under on article? PasswordUsername (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Can't sanitize history just because some people are embarrassed by it. 144.26.92.12 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: This anonymous editor has very few edits and has made a questionable edit recently: [10]. 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 [11]. 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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)

• Delete Fails WP:SYNTH Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Search at Google Books [12] show that the term is notable and not a neologism. -- Vision Thing -- 08:55, 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)

• It's that or roll one's eyes at the -- at best -- misguided arguments being offered up. --Calton | Talk 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So, in effect you are saying that incivility is OK in Wikipedia discussions, as longer as one feels that opponent's arguments are "at best -- misguided"? --Sander Säde 14:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - But let me be clear. The title is problematic. Genocide has some specific definitions, depending on who you ask, and I think this article has aspirations that are outside of that title. That's not a trite concern. But, notwithstanding that concern, the general idea, that communist regimes perpetuate[d] unnecessary misery, is a very accepted scholarly topic. I might support a rename, but the article as I see it now is certainly a keep candidate. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • How about something like Misery perpetrated by communist governments? PasswordUsername (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Might be asking for trouble, little too forward. We don't hesitate to call Bosnian Genocide just that, but the more formal we can be, the more the facts speak for themselves. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Ellen Frankel Paul in the book Totalitarianism at the crossroads discusses the general concept of "communist genocide":"Again, it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life" --Martintg (talk) 12:13, 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 Wikipedia, 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)

• 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)