Wikipedia:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1

Communist genocide

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after a very controversial AfD debate was closed without consensus, there are still many unresolved conflicts. I would like input on whether or not this page has any problems regarding WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POV, and how this is best resolved.

Thanks, Triplestop x3 00:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a quick look. I must admit it seems rather unsatisfactory in the way it's put together, though I sympathize with the author(s). It's perfectly true to say that communists murdered far more people than Nazis, but they were so indiscriminate in their choice of victims that it usually doesn't count as genocide. Perhaps it should be changed to mass murder, with appropriate links. Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a platform for propaganda to me. It can't even document the meaning of the term it is about.

The references seem to be single-author theories which are then presented using weasel words to mask their origins. Nothng in the definition of "Laogai" supports equating it to genocide. The Cambodian attrocities were committed against Cambodians. And so on. There are massive problems of due weight.

What would people think of an article titled "Impressive Communist Achievements"? Or, "The Human Rights Atrocities of Capitalists"?

Almost all the sources are from the enemies of the countries described.

I'd vote to delete. Noloop (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is there anything that can be done to improve this article? Triplestop x3 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been immersed in articles that are similar in some respects: Anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. In all these cases, the term itself is a politicized, propagandized bit of POV that may also have some legitimate use buried beneath the surface. I think the proper way to treat these subjects is to document what reliable, respected sources have said about the term--the phenomena it describes and the propaganda involved. See the opening sections of Anti-Americanism for a good example of a fair & balanced treatment of an inherently POV-term term. Listing alleged examples is a lot more problematic, and there is massive systemic bias, because all your sources will be from the enemies of these countries and 99% of your editors will be from opposing countries and probably with an axe to grind. Good luck. Noloop (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it stands the article does not qualify for peer review, which specifies no major cleanup banners. In any event, the peer review process is intended for "high quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". Discussion as to how this article might be refigured or rewritten should take place on the article's talkpage, not here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambodian atrocities would legally count as genocide if it was a deliberate policy to reduce the population by mass killing, which has certainly been alleged. Peter jackson (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Historiography of Genocide, edited by Dan Stone (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), includes chapters on Stalin, Mao & Cambodia, discussing various scholarly views on whether genocide was involved. Looks like a useful starting point for anyone wanting to improve the article. Peter jackson (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]