This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anderssl (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 23 February 2010 (→Fixing the name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:07, 23 February 2010 by Anderssl (talk | contribs) (→Fixing the name)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-communist mass killings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Anti-communist mass killings. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Anti-communist mass killings at the Reference desk. |
Original research
While this article lists acts of mass killings against communists, it lacks a properly sourced lead that is referenced to reliable sources defining a concept for anti-communist mass killings. Are there any reliable sources that describe this concept? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Open Veins of Latin America is a good start. However there are tonnes of other RSes. Give me a while (couple of weeks) and I'll find some for you.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- PS: I was reading Galeano before Hugo Chavez made it cool. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree that this article should have a better lead with references, and probably needs to qualify its claim to say something like "mass murder or allegations thereof", since not all of these allegations have been settled in court trials, or have otherwise been established as uncontroversial facts. The Pinochet trial, for instance, is noted as ongoing. --Anderssl (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to whom? AFAIK he was pronounced guilty and has since died. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to the current version of this article... --Anderssl (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Headdesk. My bad. That being said, considering what happened prior to his death, it is very likely he would have been convicted had he lived long enough. And the absence of a conviction for Pinochet doesn't change the fact that Salvador Allende was killed during the coup due to his leftist policies; or that Victor Jara was tortured and killed by the regime for leftist positions. Or that the disappeared were... well... disappeared for their political opposition to the regime.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- Salvador Allende was killed during the coup due to his leftist policies Last time I checked, Salvador Allende killed himself. Colchicum (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Headdesk. My bad. That being said, considering what happened prior to his death, it is very likely he would have been convicted had he lived long enough. And the absence of a conviction for Pinochet doesn't change the fact that Salvador Allende was killed during the coup due to his leftist policies; or that Victor Jara was tortured and killed by the regime for leftist positions. Or that the disappeared were... well... disappeared for their political opposition to the regime.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to the current version of this article... --Anderssl (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Julian Pefanis' book Heterology and the postmodern: Bataille, Baudrillard, and Lyotard (Duke U Press, 1991) notes that Pierre Clastres identified "capitalism as a global ethnocidal venture" (p. 24) ... I have the Clastres book that he refers to somewhere so perhaps we can refer directly to that work as well. csloat (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding sources can I suggest Klaus Theweleit's Male Fantasies on the universal psychological causes of white terror (heterosexual fear of women). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why wait, I added it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- And I removed it, at least from the lead. I see no remotely valid reason why a brief tidbit about an analysis that explains "white terror" in terms of male psychosexual pathology relating to communism and female sexuality belongs in the lead of this article. Without more context I'm not even sure it belongs anywhere in the article at all, though I simply don't know. Some discussion before re-adding is probably advisable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. This article is a SYNTHESIS and COATRACK, just like its relatives. Theweleit's book is the only reference to a theorisation of the object of this article, "Anti-communist mass killings". What follows is a coatrack of individual events with no context or theorisation. The article could probably do with being cut down to only Theweleit, with a simple See also section. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both this article and its cousin should probably go, and maybe a combined AfD in a few months could have that effect, but they are here for now. The sentence I removed and which you re-added does not seem to refer to a source that is "a theorisation of the object of this article." "White terror" is not synonymous with "Anti-communist mass killings," obviously (for example the terror of the first KKK during the period of Reconstruction had nothing to do with communism, but sexual fears no doubt played a major role; likewise anti-communist mass murder is not always perpetrated by "whites", as the article points out). Perhaps the problem is that the sentence does not adequately summarize Theweleit's book, but as written the reader of this article will be taken aback by that sentence as it simply does not seem to relate to the topic at hand. You may think it does (and you may be right, or possibly not), but that needs to be clear from the article text. For starters can you clarify here how Theweleit's analysis theorizes "anti-communist mass killings"? I'm not scared of theory so fire away! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding the concept White terror, taking it to mean killings perpetrated by people with white skin. The "white" refers to white (reactionary) vs. red (revolutionary), see the WP link for more. --Anderssl (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, well that makes sense, and while I was thinking in racial terms (and the term "white terror" is also used in that respect, albeit less frequently), I am familiar with white terror in the political sense but just was not thinking in those terms, which was rather dumb on my part. There's still possibly an issue though, as white terror does not refer exclusively to reaction against communist or socialist forces (e.g. the Thermidorian Reaction). I'm still not clear that Theweleit's book actually theorizes "anti-communist mass killings" per say, and I think that needs to be demonstrated more conclusively here on the talk page before using it. And this leaves aside the question of whether the theory is respected or not, which is also relevant. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the book description (and customer reviews, just to get a sense of the content) the study seems to be very limited in terms of geographic and temporal scope (Weimar Germany, apparently with some reference to the Baltic states per the footnote in the text of our article). Unless there are specific passages in the book which theorize anti-communist mass killings in general (rather than explaining root causes of fascism in psychological terms, which seems rather different on the face) then it seems unlikely to me that the source is appropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Willing to accept this judgement. It seems to me that article editors here are satisfied that this article shouldn't exist. The Other Article needs a bit more time before it should be put to AFD. When the (next) AFD list goes, the nomination ought to be a collective nomination with a very simply explained justification for the inevitable coattail riding that will occur. (sigh) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Combined AfD is definitely the way to go, and as you say it will have to wait awhile since the last one was so recent. I'm going to go ahead and remove the Theweleit bit for now then. If there are passages of the book that actually relate more directly to the topic of this article I'm quite open to including that, and indeed would think an actual quotation is probably best. But like you I'd rather this and the other article were simply deleted. I might actual consider doing the nomination sometime next year if I think of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Willing to accept this judgement. It seems to me that article editors here are satisfied that this article shouldn't exist. The Other Article needs a bit more time before it should be put to AFD. When the (next) AFD list goes, the nomination ought to be a collective nomination with a very simply explained justification for the inevitable coattail riding that will occur. (sigh) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the book description (and customer reviews, just to get a sense of the content) the study seems to be very limited in terms of geographic and temporal scope (Weimar Germany, apparently with some reference to the Baltic states per the footnote in the text of our article). Unless there are specific passages in the book which theorize anti-communist mass killings in general (rather than explaining root causes of fascism in psychological terms, which seems rather different on the face) then it seems unlikely to me that the source is appropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, well that makes sense, and while I was thinking in racial terms (and the term "white terror" is also used in that respect, albeit less frequently), I am familiar with white terror in the political sense but just was not thinking in those terms, which was rather dumb on my part. There's still possibly an issue though, as white terror does not refer exclusively to reaction against communist or socialist forces (e.g. the Thermidorian Reaction). I'm still not clear that Theweleit's book actually theorizes "anti-communist mass killings" per say, and I think that needs to be demonstrated more conclusively here on the talk page before using it. And this leaves aside the question of whether the theory is respected or not, which is also relevant. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding the concept White terror, taking it to mean killings perpetrated by people with white skin. The "white" refers to white (reactionary) vs. red (revolutionary), see the WP link for more. --Anderssl (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Both this article and its cousin should probably go, and maybe a combined AfD in a few months could have that effect, but they are here for now. The sentence I removed and which you re-added does not seem to refer to a source that is "a theorisation of the object of this article." "White terror" is not synonymous with "Anti-communist mass killings," obviously (for example the terror of the first KKK during the period of Reconstruction had nothing to do with communism, but sexual fears no doubt played a major role; likewise anti-communist mass murder is not always perpetrated by "whites", as the article points out). Perhaps the problem is that the sentence does not adequately summarize Theweleit's book, but as written the reader of this article will be taken aback by that sentence as it simply does not seem to relate to the topic at hand. You may think it does (and you may be right, or possibly not), but that needs to be clear from the article text. For starters can you clarify here how Theweleit's analysis theorizes "anti-communist mass killings"? I'm not scared of theory so fire away! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not really. This article is a SYNTHESIS and COATRACK, just like its relatives. Theweleit's book is the only reference to a theorisation of the object of this article, "Anti-communist mass killings". What follows is a coatrack of individual events with no context or theorisation. The article could probably do with being cut down to only Theweleit, with a simple See also section. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- And I removed it, at least from the lead. I see no remotely valid reason why a brief tidbit about an analysis that explains "white terror" in terms of male psychosexual pathology relating to communism and female sexuality belongs in the lead of this article. Without more context I'm not even sure it belongs anywhere in the article at all, though I simply don't know. Some discussion before re-adding is probably advisable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Name
The current name "Anti-communist mass killing" is confusing. Till I read the lead, I wasn't sure if the article is about killings of or by anti-communists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Spanish Civil War
During the Spanish Civil War, freemasons along with communists were put up against the wall and executed as each town was taken by nationalists. I'm not sure which group was more numerical in the revenge killings, but the figure on this page it seems to include the vanquished freemasons and separatists (non-communists) as included in the figure for communist deaths in general. Thus the figure is not reliable for the scope of the article it would seem. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- And this is the problem with every other paragraph here just as well. But the article is so virgin a piece of red propaganda, it would be pity if we lose it. ith the intent of crushing any vestige of Hungary’s brief Communist revolution - wow, I am getting ready to shed a tear. Colchicum (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Quid Pro Quo
This article should only be deleted if the "Communist mass killings" article goes as well. The latter is academically unsound and lacks any kind of balance. I propose that both these articles be deleted and replaced with a broader "Mass killings in totalitarian states" article. DublinDilettante (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps a proposal for a merger is the way to go? --Anderssl (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixing the name
Currently the name here is rather confusing. Can it be changed to "Massacres of communists"? That actually has textual support, as shown by CarolmooreDC in the deletion discussion. Are the historical perversions going to be fixed, as well? Right now a stack of information could rightly be deleted from this page, it would seem (including the lead sentence!) for lack of substantiation. Anyway, can the name be changed? Also, does anyone at all feel personally responsible for making sure the contents of this article are respectable and make sense? It would be good if someone could do that. In particular, it needs some sources for the lead sentence maybe.--Asdfg12345 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm gonna be bold and change the name then. --Asdfg12345 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Done. If there's a problem with this, please write here. I have watchlisted this page. I don't want to spend any time fixing it though. I hope the people who made it take responsibility for that. --Asdfg12345 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert, because I am not sure how to do it correctly without salting the current page. But I think this was a bad move (would have said so before if I had noticed the comment). The AfD discussion showed that many people's reason for wanting to keep this article were tied up with Mass killings under Communist regimes. If so, a common terminology should be used for these two articles. It has been argued that Mass killing is a concept with a fairly clear definition. If so, this article could be called Mass killings of communists or something equivalent. The fact that there is a bunch of hits on google for the current title proves zip. What matters is if someone actually has a definition or a theory which uses this term as a proper concept or category. --Anderssl (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, actually it's all about how many sources can be found, not about whether this one is supposed to balance another. The notability guideline WP:N defines what can have an article and what can't. Here's the AfD discussion. The only reason I supported it was because it had the textual support from sources. See the notes from CarolMooreDC for example. As usual though, it's easier to do a whole lot of talking about the issues without ever actually improving the article! --Asdfg12345 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "it's all about how many sources can be found" - actually, WP:N would indicate otherwise: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't think the simple google searches that have been cited are enough to document that the term is addressed directly as a subject in the sources. That is the issue, not the number of hits in the google searches.
- Re: "As usual though, it's easier to do a whole lot of talking about the issues without ever actually improving the article!" Well, yes, actually it is! Improving the article takes some thinking, and a lot of discussion, and ideally someone who has more detailed knowledge of the subject than me... I'm a generalist, but I try to contribute where I can. --Anderssl (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and for the record, you give the impression of being a reasonable-minded editor who is working in good faith to improve the article. We just happen to disagree about the title. I appreciate your contribution, trying to move the discussion forward. --Anderssl (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- Really there have never been "mass killings of Communists" just mass killings of people with the excuse that they were "Communists". So the last title was better, if imperfect. It is like calling Salem "mass killing of witches". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight. The title should be changed back? I thought that user's comments were good (I mean, make sense):
Keep: Title "Massacres of Communists" seems more popular in Books google search than confusing "Anti-Communist Mass killings." And looks like a lead could be generated from one or more of those sources. Or maybe "Mass killings of Communists" to mirror Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Though didn't find that exact phrase in google.books.) Text and refs show such massacres has been a real phenomena and do deserve and article detailing them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Week Keep I am changing my vote per the argument provided by Carolmooredc. It meets the notability threshold, but the article needs editing to fix certain POV issues. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- These remarks argue for the current title. Then some other remarks complain about the confusing nature of "Anti-communist mass killings":
The current name "Anti-communist mass killing" is confusing. Till I read the lead, I wasn't sure if the article is about killings of or by anti-communists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really though, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Should I change the title back? --Asdfg12345 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, sorry to be unclear about this. The current title is pretty much as good as the previous, so there is no point in changing it back. What I mean is that it isn't good enough, in my mind. It should be changed to Mass killings of communists, or something similar. --Anderssl (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)