Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people described as Stalinists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 23:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Sloppy, unsourced list. POV magnet. Duplicates Category:Stalinists, which was deleted by a WP:CFD vote. Firebug 06:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As anyone can clearly see, Category:Stalinists, does not exist, so how exactly can there be any duplication? TDC 20:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree. Gets my delete vote. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- POV magnet indeed. The POV article enemies of the People's Wikipedia must be purged! --Calton | Talk 07:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable. George Bernard Shaw was a Stalinist? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. If sourcing is the only issue, it could be easily added. I should also note that we have a List of Fascists (not sourced on the page and including a category of “Possible Successors”) and List of people described as neoconservatives (a list that handily survived its VFD) and absolutely no one self identifies as a necon, but many of the individuals in the list did indeed describe themselves as Stalinists at one point in their lives. TDC 19:19, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- List of Fascists specifically states: "This is a list of persons who self-identify as Fascists or a variant". List of people described as Stalinists is different because it includes people who never called themselves Stalinists, but to whom the term was applied as a slur. I don't feel that this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Firebug 19:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Many of the people on the list, like Pablo Neruda, Michael Redgrave, and Kim Jong Il are/were self described Stalinists. Just because there are no polemics in The Nation, the UTNE Reader, or Adbusters decrying this (like the neocons) does not make it any less verifiable. TDC 20:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- And List of people described as neoconservatives? Sam Spade 19:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- If that list were nominated, I would vote to delete it too, unless sourcing was provided for the entries. I also think that the "Possible successors" section should be removed from List of Fascists, and that the entries on that list should be sourced to indicate where the individuals described themselves as Fascists. I would not have an objection to a List of Stalinists if it only included people who actually self-identified as such and sourcing was provided for this. Firebug 19:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have included a comment on Talk:List of Fascists indicating that the Possible Successors section should be removed for the reasons stated above. If no one wants to defend that section's inclusion, then I will remove the section as unsourced POV.
- If that list were nominated, I would vote to delete it too, unless sourcing was provided for the entries. I also think that the "Possible successors" section should be removed from List of Fascists, and that the entries on that list should be sourced to indicate where the individuals described themselves as Fascists. I would not have an objection to a List of Stalinists if it only included people who actually self-identified as such and sourcing was provided for this. Firebug 19:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- List of Fascists specifically states: "This is a list of persons who self-identify as Fascists or a variant". List of people described as Stalinists is different because it includes people who never called themselves Stalinists, but to whom the term was applied as a slur. I don't feel that this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Firebug 19:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, not an issue for VfD, take it up on Talk:List of people described as Stalinists (unused, btw). Sam Spade 19:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Editors!!! Oppose rootless cosmopolitans who engage in Bourgeois deletionism!! Onward to the victory of Inclusionism! Klonimus 21:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated by Firebug. These individuals may have supported the USSR in the 1930s, 1940s -- not so unusual at the time -- but that does not mean they are "stalinists" and I strongly doubt they would have self-identified as such. -- Viajero 21:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV. Gamaliel 22:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable, POV magnet. --Carnildo 23:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV. No definition of a "Stalinist" and original research. Wikipedia contains excellent resources, and information, and this is not one of them.--Lenev 23:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. These lists, inexact as they are, can be useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced, apparently original research. No definition of what a "stalinist" is, or how a playwright known as a Fabian Socialist could be counted as a Stalinist. If kept, it should include after each listing a link to exactly who called the person a Stalinist. -Willmcw 00:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unreferenced, POV, unverifiable. Slac speak up! 00:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I don't believe Stalin ever considered himself a leader of a distinct intellectual or political movement, so the list ends up being people who, at some time in their lives, spoke of Stalin in a somewhat approving way. Approval is not allegiance. Gazpacho 00:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. This has, I think, the makings of two or more good pages, but mixed together like this it ends up being a polemic. There are avowed Stalinists: H. Bruce Franklin, under whom I studied, Kim Jong-Il, and (missing from the list) Bob Avakian. There are politically-oriented entertainers who happen to have supported the Soviet Union in one respect or another during the Stalin era, many of them identified with Popular Front politics that were not narrowly Stalinist: Paul Robeson, Charles Chaplin, and (missing from the list) Pete Seeger. There are some very odd inclusions: Frida Kahlo was a close associate, and almost certainly a lover, of Leon Trotsky. Yes, she followed Trotsky's doctrine of giving qualified support to the "deformed Workers' State" that was the Soviet Union, but are we saying that Trotsky was a Stalinist? There are some whose inclusion in the list borders on slander: Henry Wallace accepted the political support of the Communist Party USA, but he never endorsed them in return. Et cetera. As a hodgepodge of these things, the list is useless and borders on slanderous, given the degree to which Stalinism these days is an epithet. This would be like a list of Fascists that included George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and Henry Ford. In short, I don't think an encyclopedic list can be constructed under this particular title, but this could be the seed for several useful pages. I'd suggest moving this to List of Stalinists, editing out those who are not self-described as such, and starting several separate lists: List of Popular Front cultural figures, for example. In each case, though, given the controversy attending this, I'd like to see clear criteria for inclusion. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, POV, original research. Megan1967 02:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. POV, original research. Jayjg (talk) 04:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Rename and edit for accuracy. "People described as" is passive voice and too subjective. Who's doing the describing??? The list is prone to major inaccuracies, for example, it currently inclues Frida Kahlo, who dated Stalin's arch nemisis Trotsky. Maybe a list of people who are actually documented to have expressed a strong fondness for Stalin and his beliefs? --Blackcats 06:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A pretty obvious keep. If some listings are original research, they should be removed, leaving the persons verifiably described as being Stalinist (shouldn't be too hard to do). Further, I'm not sure how 'being a POV magnet' means the page can be deleted under the terms of the Deletion policy, or are we all ignoring that now? Perhaps it's time we actually started enforcing that agreed, accepted policy to prevent spurious page listings such as this one. Dan100 20:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. These "list of" articles are only marginally helpful to readers. Ones which are likely to attract vandalism and controversy are not worth the trouble. This one has all the markings of a vandal-magnet. Rossami (talk) 01:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No agreed definition of Stalinist means no way to verify and guarranteed constant disputes. No sources given. Not a helpful list for researchers. It would be better to create Category:Stalinists if desired. Quale 03:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete axe-grinding. — Helpful Dave 13:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. "Stalinist", like "Fascist", has become meaningless over time. This article will simply fuel bickering on the left, with Trotskyists claiming that every socialist besides them is a Stalinist, the social democrats calling everyone to their left Stalinist, and the Stalinists deleting everyone but Albanianists, etc., etc. —Seselwa 22:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly there are verifiable sources of (notable) persons who have been referred to thusly. -- BD2412 think 09:53, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
- Delete. Described? Who describes?--Prem 14:57, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete As Firebug puts it. --Mecanismo 20:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The criterion is clear and the list is perfectly manageable. No reason to delete. Grue 15:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but use less iffy language, especially in definitive cases like Neruda. J. Parker Stone 05:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A response to the most commonly cited issues with the article
[edit]- 1. No agreed definition of a Stalinist, absurd, we have an article Stalinist, that is pretty clear about the definition of what a Stalinist is.
- 2. original research, once again, absolutely not. Although the potential for OR is certainly here, it is here in all articles. Many people throughout the 20th century have either called themselves, or have been called by others with cause, Stalinists.
- 3. POV magnet, does that mean we deleted every article involving the Israeli Palestinian conflicts?
- 4. All issues as far as sourcing can be dealt with in the article or on its talk page.
- I would also like to stress my original point that every single reason for a delete could be applied to any number of articles in Wikipedia, and most appropriately List of people described as neoconservatives, but that article was kept during a recent VFD. TDC 19:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- All that considered, I would say that if someone's Stalinist position can't be demonstrated plainly enough for List of Stalinists then they shouldn't be on such a list at all. List of people described as neoconservatives exists because, regardless of NC's status as a political movement, labelling people as NCs is a widespread journalism phenomenon. I don't believe the same could have been said for the "Stalinist" label. Gazpacho 22:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Re. 1. Stalinist is a redirect to Stalinism. Stalinism is somewhat well defined, but Stalinist isn't. This is something of a paradox, but it is reality since Stalinist is a loaded, generally POV term almost always intended as a powerful slur in the U.S. This has been true in the U.S. for about 80 years, so it isn't a recent development. Quale 22:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I would also like to stress my original point that every single reason for a delete could be applied to any number of articles in Wikipedia, and most appropriately List of people described as neoconservatives, but that article was kept during a recent VFD. TDC 19:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.