Talk:List of Marxists

Removal of names

I cut a few people from this list as I restructured it, mainly because I didn't know how they were. In the case of Davis I just couldn't work out where to put her. Perhpas we could have a section on 'activists' but that might get a little uncontrollable.

Feel free to put these back in if you know where they fit. Mattley 14:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i deleted ward churchill. his essay "marxism and american indians" makes it clear he is anti-marxist.

also the artists list is short and could obviously use most of the major figures of the world communist movement of the 30's and 40's

I've removed a number of names from the lists, for reasons as follows:

Notible only as politicians and party builders, thus not within the remit of this page.

Absence of Wikipedia entries, personal or work: Google search reveals nothing to indicate notibility.

As above, plus suspicions of vandalism

If anyone disagrees and can provide referenced evidence of notibility, please feel free to reinclude them.FrFintonStack 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FrFintonStack, the leaders of the various communist regimes and related activists might best be included in List of Stalinists (though not Soviets of Stalin's era) or List of socialists rather than here in line with your action over Wilhelm and Karl Liebknecht . A List of Trotskyists has recently been deleted incidentally, which will be a relief for some browsers of Wikipedia. Philip Cross 12:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philip. The introductory line to the page (not created or added by me) states "This article lists notable public figures who identified themselves as Marxists but were also notable other than as political leaders or theoreticians", so I can't see the Liebknechts meeting that criteria. Morever, the article later states "For Communist politicians and party-builders see "List of Communists]]". The distinction seems an appropriate one: a list of those influenced by Marxism and active in fields other than party politics seems like an important resource. Thoughts?FrFintonStack 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion/redirection

Based on the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (3rd nomination) (and the one before) articles such as this are not acceptable. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't see how the rationale for deleting the huge grab-bag List of Christians establishes any precedent that would apply to this much more focused list. Second, AFD precedent is not policy, and does not justify pre-emptively deleting an article without discussion or the usual deletion process. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comments have cited WP:BLP without explanation. In what way does the WP:BLP policy justify deleting this list? -- Rbellin|Talk 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that different. Why is it an important thing to note, for example, Vanessa Redgrave here? Her contribution to furthering Marxism is hardly significant. The article fails WP:V as it does not have a single source, and as it refers to living people it also fails WP:BLP (these people might not like being classed as Marxists). Under such circumstances the content can and should be removed. By all means a sourced list of notable Marxists can be created, but for now it would probably be better at Marxism. violet/riga (t) 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm firmly with Rbellin. You may not see the matter as being that different, but me and numerous other people regard this as an important resource. What any individual listed contributed ot Marxism is irrelevant (incidently, Vanessa and Colin Redgrave's support pretty-much kept the Workers Revolutionary Party afloat during the late 1980's); that particular public individuals in diverse fields publically identified themselves as Marxists is an important piece of information. I cannot see that the List of Christians issues should establish any precident here, and to repeatedly move (to all intents and purpose remove) this list without discussion seems a fairly major breach of protocol, as well as general courtesy. I find it extraordinary that you took at upon yourself to do this without even raising the matter for discussion, let alone attempting to reach any consensus. If the article fails WP:V, then I'm happy to make a concerted attempt over the next few days, and we can remove those for whom source are not available. While yes, that may provide grounds for material, it does not provide grounds for setting the article to redirect into another. From where I'm standing, the only grounds appear to be that, unlike deletion, it didn't require discussion.

Please also note that an earlier version of this page survised a proposed deletion a number of years agoFrFintonStack 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could very easily have deleted the article rather than turning it into a redirect, but chose not to so that the history is available to everyone. As stated above this list can easily be recreated should the sources be available, but I think it is better covered by the prose of other articles and the use of appropriate categories. WP:V and WP:BLP have become more important in recent times (especially compared to the previous deletion debate you mention) and we must do everything we can to avoid violations of those policies - that includes removing this list as it stood. violet/riga (t) 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's clear there is substantial reasonable disagreement about whether this list should be deleted or not, I'm restoring it. Please start an AfD if you want to delete it, rather than reverting; the deletion process is there for a reason. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand WP:BLP - this content is not acceptable:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals if the information is derogatory. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

Please don't add it again until there are sources. violet/riga (t) 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not a blanket justification for immediate deletion without discussion of every unsourced article that mentions a living person. I'm not going to revert again, but this is completely out of process. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about a living person that is not sourced and not obvious can be deleted citing that policy. violet/riga (t) 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not sure what's "contentious" about the bulk of the material in this list, and second, the list you deleted was not composed exclusively of living people. At most this would only justify removing the living people who were not commonly known to be Marxists, not peremptorily deleting the whole thing. -- Rbellin|Talk 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone on the list is living, correct, and if you wish to restore the list in a form where it does not include the living that wouldn't be too bad (though sources are always preferred). violet/riga (t) 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same case was with List of anarchists. And that list had some references. -- Vision Thing -- 11:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a good example, thanks. violet/riga (t) 12:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP says "If, either as an editor or a subject, you have concerns about biographical material about a living person in Wikipedia, please report your concerns on the BLP noticeboard" not "Delete the article". Similarly, WP:V says "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, the section with {{Unreferencedsection}} or if the entire article is unsourced by adding {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}". As editors clearly objected to the removal of material I have added the unreferenced tag in. I note that other lists of living persons have AFD discussions (eg. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anarchist musicians‎. The outcome of this discussion and the those cited above is not even actually relevant, only that the process is/was followed. That is all we want here. Allow a discussion to be held and people to have the chance to make improvements to the article. This content can't be covered in the Marxism page as that is already way to long describing this that cosntitute Marxists. Having a List of Marxists is important to those people interested in Marxism. JenLouise 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are looking at the wrong part of WP:BLP. Please look at the bit I have quoted above (italicised) - it is that bit that is relevant. Articles do not have to be taken to the BLP noticeboard as it is important that inappropriate content is removed, and WP:BLP trumps WP:V. violet/riga (t) 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

violet/riga, you have not only removed article content. You have also deleted the whole list, and replaced it by a redirect to another page. This step is in no way covered by the BLP-policy you cite.

Also, if you intend to apply the passage from BLP which you quote, the burden of proof is your's to explain case by case why the material is contentious. We should keep in mind that before, other editors had put in this material in good faith, and with good reasons from their points of view. --Schwalker 10:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong, and as I've stated previously this article can be recreated with sourced content. Obviously it's good to have had people working on this list, and their efforts are not wasted because we can look at the history and use them as help as to who to include. violet/riga (t) 10:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, where exactly am I wrong?

If people have created an article for wikipedia, we can't simply delete it, and then refer to the stored versions. A reader who is interested in the topic will neither know where this copies can be found, nor which version is the correct one. This would be an obstruction of the encyclopaedia.

--Schwalker 14:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article violates BLP the content needs to be removed. Removing such content is vital and needs to be done, and sometimes it is difficult to check through every single entry to ensure check who is alive and who is not. We should also strive to have only sourced content, and while you might claim that some content has been removed that shouldn't it is more important that we go through each entry, check for BLP violations, and find sources for all claims. violet/riga (t) 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that content which is both, contentious and unsourced, should be removed. Since this article has the form of a list of persons, there doesn't have to be a source given in this article for those persons who have their own articles. It is possible, and likely, that sources are given in the person's individual article. You can easily open the person's article and check if there is a source for them being called a marxist. I've restored this article, and removed the seemingly unsourced name of Shigeto Tsuru. If this article would be deleted again, I'd suggest to issue a request for comment to get help from outside to solve this problem. --Schwalker 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but again you are mistaken - all articles need sources and lists are no exception. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

A user is deleting List of Marxists, and replacing it by a redirect to Marxism. The user refers to the deletion of List of Christians (AfD) and List of anarchists (AfD) as precedents, and sees List of Marxists violating WP:BLP, since the inclusion of some person's names would be contentious and unsourced. Other users don't agree that the deletion of other list-like articles would be a precedent. They are against this deletion, prefer adding an "unsourced" template, and refer to the sources given in the individual biographical articles. 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The List should stay, sources are given in individual articles, to repeat them here would be redundant. Please anyone correct the RFC-reason (both, in the template, and on this page) if you feel it misrepresents your point of view.--Schwalker 15:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I accept your complaint of redundancy we simply have to have sourcing for all articles and this list is not an exception. It could be argued that WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection, but I feel that the overriding problem here is that it claims a specific viewpoint for living without giving any sources. violet/riga (t) 16:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on AfD, not RfC. If there is a serious call for deletion / removal, bring it to AfD. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - violations of WP:BLP are removed immediately and do not go to AfD. violet/riga (t) 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list should stay as a redirect as violetriga has appropriately done with boldness. The article "marxism" should be updated to include a "notable marxists" section (or at least a better one than now exists) and should be properly sourced, which is the most important issue here. Sources, sources, sources. Even articles that begin with "List of..." need sources and we cannot rely on wiki-users to click on the subsequent names to find them, that's an unrealistic assumption, especially for the living persons on the list. Currently, there is already a caterogy called Marxists with no less than 9 subcats. The list, in that case, is redundant and borderline listcruft, without reliable sourcing. Good editing, Keeper | 76 18:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existance of the list is not a WP:BLP violation, and BLP does not justify deleting the list in its entirety. What BLP does require is the removal of any unsourced information in the article. If there are flaws with the article itself (The list has nebulous inclusion criteria, or is unsourceable), then those concerns should be brought to an AfD debate. If the consensus there is to delete, then the article in its entirety can be deleted. Given that the changes have been reverted both ways several times, it seems clear that there is not consensus for or against deletion, so I would propose that the article be nominated for AfD to settle the issue in a structured fashion. I'm not going to revert or edit war over this - but, if violet/riga would consent to restore the article, I will promptly nominate it for deletion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found it. Per WP:BLP, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles..." meaning that the material is removed, not the article. If the removal renders the article unsalvageable, that's a secondary issue, and one which would be discussed at WP:AFD. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP justifies the removal of so much of this content that it becomes a joke of an article and would be left with only a handful of entries. Per the reasoning above (mainly the precedents of similar AfDs and WP:V) the article shouldn't really exist. The problem with an AfD would be that it generally requires the reinstatement of the article but that would clearly be against the BLP policy. Perhaps another venue would be WP:DRV but it's not exactly a deletion per se. Anyone is welcome to try and recreate the list with sources and that would be my recommendation - AfD can't trump BLP so I don't think that is the right way for this to progress. violet/riga (t) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]