Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes

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 - there's not a snowball in hell's chance this is going to have a consensus to Keep or to Merge, it can never be neutral and at the moment, it's a personal essay from an upset and confused editor. Nick 11:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Army crimes

Red Army crimes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A pretty clear case of POV-pushing. This article is completely unsourced, yet makes claims of unspecified "crimes" and "inhuman activities" of the Red Army. I have no doubt that such things did occur, but this isn't the right way to go about writing about it. See author's other Red Army articles nominated for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Estonia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red army crimes in Lithuania, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Army crimes in Ukraine. eaolson 00:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enough to stay in the limits of neutral POWTtturbo 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Those articles where nominated for deleting by the same Belorus wiki user Mikalaj working under finish nick name Miikka, who was supported by ther other slavians. Mikalaj didn't made any posting at war crime discussion but started immediately deleting process of knowledge. According to wiki rules this seems to be some specific kind of vandalism becouse of knowledge deleting! Red Army SMERSH murdered my grandmother in March 1945 and millions of the other citizens.Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete efectively unsourced, PoV, gives no specifcs anyway. DES ^(talk) 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is {{stub}}, so everyone has possibility to add something usefull. The war crimes must be described, the murders must be persecuted!Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that some nasty shit went down at the hands of the Red Army, but unless there was some sort of conviction in a court of law (esp. a war crimes tribunal), the article is opinion. - Richfife 02:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask - isn't every military crime described by historicians not military crime till there is no some tribunal decision? If the country is occupated or having dictator regime (like Lukashenko's Belorus) is there possible such tribunal and we must wait calmly ?Ttturbo 06:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, yes. That's exactly correct. On your own website, do anything you want. This website has rules that need to be followed no matter how strongly you feel about the subject matter. In fact, the stronger you feel about what you're writing about, the more strongly the rules must be followed. - Richfife 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that justice is the great authority, but sometimes well known historicians, politicians, religion leaders are too! Was there court process on Katyn massacre? I don't know exactly, but Putin appologised for this, like for Budapest and Prague anyway. Were there courts on those criminal invasions?Ttturbo 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Poorly-worded, poorly-sourced article with vague references to war crimes. Nowhere close to passing WP:NPOV. Caknuck 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Make better your own!! i agree that it is poor enough now, but in future...Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete POV-pushing, already seen on the subsidiary pages already in AfD. We can see where this editor's heading now, at least, and can look forward to seeing the redlinks soon. No question terrible things happened, but such issues belong in a well-sourced, well-written NPOV article. This one isn't it. I'm not sure that the Defense of the Motherland in WWII would get approval from this author. Acroterion _(talk) 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the defence of his homeland (yard) by lots of russians and people of the other nations, but it was the defence of their criminal politics by Kremlin leaders! How to make this article well-written and using which statesments I showed some NPOW?Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe my point was just illustrated above. "Kremlin leaders" in WWII mean Stalin, and we know who and what he was. The editor also focuses on the Red Army. Many of the crimes the editor discusses were instigated by the Cheka and their successsors, whose targets for liquidation included elements of the Red Army. The GRU and its counterintelligence arm SMERSH were nominally part of the General Staff, but effectively acted autonomously, and were feared by everybody of lesser stature than Stalin. To ignore the very complex politics of terror in the Soviet Union is simplistic and dilutes the credibility of the article. This is akin to writing an article on Wehrmacht crimes without mentioning the SS, SD or Gestapo, and blaming the whole spectrum of Nazi crimes on the army. Acroterion _(talk) 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about sharing of responsibility. But first I stressed, that The total of comunism victims was aproximately evaluated to be 100 million and a large part of this is the result of aggressive confrontating politics of communist party realised by Red Army, which supported the other repressive structures of Soviet union And secondly, if I write about Soviet union responsibility for military crimes I must describe criminal activities of party and gobernment. then of it's repressive structures - police, secret police and intelligence, and Red army. I think this is to many for the article and enough for category. This is why I study single Army, but including it's inteligence too ( who made not only crimes but rescoed thousands of poor jewish, for example).Ttturbo 20:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I sympathize strongly with the author. If my grandmother had been killed by SMERSH (which was not part of the Red Army, by the way), I'd be angry too. I also wouldn't have any business writing the article on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the point made about other editors by the article's author, but it that doesn't mean the deletion nomination is improper. I would not have the same objection to a well-written, well-researched, NPOV article on this subject. Acroterion _(talk) 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete for POV that borderlines on attack pages. I agree with Acroterion, something should be written about Red Army Crimes, but respecting neutrality and well researched sources Rackabello 05:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How to make this article well-written and using which statements I showed some NPOW?Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not delete, but add more information and sources. Wikipedia is some process of creation, but not the court! Please, discuss this article first and only after this make abstract vote debates. Supporting of any war crime or military crime hiders is colaboration with criminal murders - so it is the crime too, like situation about holocost denying!

Ttturbo 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is no way this will ever be NPOV. The subject can easily be dealt with within a larger NPOV context. Your comparison with Holocaust denial is distasteful to say the least. To use the fact that the nominator of the other related articles is Belarusian against him is a clear personal attack that we do not tolerate. Anyone is free to edit and nomiate articles for deletion no matter where they come from without you running around and comparing them to Holocaust deniers. MartinDK 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Martin -I've got a great experience during these days. But I would like to stres -I agree that such article is NPOW kind if there is no category like Millitary history of Soviet Union below the text. This, history consists of victories against nazzi, heroes, terrible loosings, economical changes etc. But if we stay this theme alone without crime analysis commited, then we occure in NPOW position supporting red side. I suppose, my position becouse of context category to be balanced enuogh to stay in the limits of neutral POW!Ttturbo 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should intrepret what you are saying literally or just attribute it to your English skills but it is not our job to analyze what happened. No one is saying that these crimes that did indeed occur should not be mentioned/dealt with on Wikipedia. On the contrary. What we are saying is basically that it should be dealt with in a larger context without the original research that you call analysis. We already have a suitable article for this - one that the nominator did not nominate for deletion. Why don't you try to collaborate with the authors of that article instead if you believe that you have something to add to it. Being Danish I can tell you that I fully understand the horror of the situation on both the German side as well as the Soviet side during WW2 but these things need to be dealt with constructively and from a NPOV point of view. By that I mean we need to deal with them within the appropriate context and without any personal analysis of the situation. The deportations of civillians to Russify the Baltic states and the crimes comitted by both the German soldiers as well as the Soviet soldiers during the war on the Eastern front certainly should be dealt with and if you read the appropriate articles here you will see that this is already being done. MartinDK 05:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• weak keep I highly doubt the never NPOV statement. If we deleted things on that basis alone, we'd have to cut out a lot of articles related to Nazism. It's very hard to make an article like that and write it from a NPOV. Kwsn^(Ni!) 18:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Martintg. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I alluded to above, the articles on Nazism could provide a model for the construction of an article entitled "State oppression in the Soviet era" or something along those lines. A focus on the Red Army, or, worse, a confusion of the Army with other State Organs, as the Soviets liked to say, has the cart before the horse. I think this topic needs to be started over from the beginning. However, the author's comparison of objections to this article with Holocaust denial indicates that he can never provide the necessary detachment. Acroterion _(talk) 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've seen this problem of "cart" placing and made a small remark on it to Mikalaj. Few minutes ago I've placed the chapter RESPONSIBILITY adding this text - Responsibility for the commited military crimes of Soviet Union belongs to leading party and government together with executor - military forces and single officers, soldiers. Sometimes it is possible to accuse single officers if it was spontanic crime, not planned directly by politicians. For example, more than 20 thousand Polish people and officers massacre in spring 1940 in Katyn and other places of Belarus, Ukraine was planned by polit-bureo of comunist party in Kremlin, but there was single crimes against Polish people commited only under general line of comunist party. Do you agree with such position? I see, another problem is, if we accuse all the time only politicians the soldiers never will start to think independently. The very important example it was when Russian soldiers supported Boris Jelcin during Moscow coup in August 1991. Horrible situation we had in Kosovo. Ttturbo 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Soviet war crimes, 2 million German women didn't imagine they were raped [1] [2] [3] [4] Martintg 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original essay by an angry and confused author. `'Miikka 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is personal attack!!Have you ever read any esays at cultural weeklies? Some part of this article is theoretical abstract, becouse this is the general article. No emotions and evaluations, but only logic and facts.But the article is not perfect written and sourced enough still.Ttturbo 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Poor quality attack page lacking in every departement. Pavel Vozenilek 21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is incoherent, only "a list of" which does not call itself "a list of". Since the author cannot be expected to collaborate fruitfully with others on articles like this (he recently accused someone whom he himself canvassed on wiki:help of hacking his talk page to hide Red army war crimes [5]) this will never be of any use. --Pan Gerwazy 23:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to the Red Army article, POV-filled articleJForget 01:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Any sourced and neutral information deserves its place on Wikipedia, but poorly sourced POV-pushing agendas do not. IgorSF 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

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.