Unable to load image
Reported by:
  • flownbyanotherplane : top post is just โ€œomg Wikipedia bad liberalsโ€. Drama is nonexistent. Smh.

:marseyobey: The article "Mass killings under communist regimes" is being considered for deletion on Wikipedia :marseyrussiadolls:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes_(4th_nomination)

I'm not familiar with wikipedia drama but it seems like the 4th attempt already?

https://i.rdrama.net/images/16841356659277675.webp

https://rdrama.net/e/marseylongpost.webp

Delete as synthesis, and a violation of WP:NPOV policy. There is no doubt that 'communist regimes' as defined in the article have perpetrated many atrocities, but that isn't the issue. The question that needs to be asked is whether 'Mass killings under communist regimes' is a legitimate subject for an encyclopaedic article. And I would have to suggest that the article in question does little to justify that claim. A few writers have certainly seen it as a legitimate subject for discussion, but by and large, credible mainstream histography tends to neither lump all 'communist regimes' together as a subject for scrutiny when discussing 'mass killing' or to treat them as some sort of special case requiring unique analysis. Proper historiography discusses events in context, and without simplistic presuppositions that events are driven by any specific ideology. As the endless disputes on the article talk page make entirely clear, the article, and what exactly it is that it is supposed to be discussing, has long been a subject of contention amongst Wikipedia contributors. Raththan citing credible histographic sources on such subjects, the debate has instead revolved around exactly what constitutes a 'mass killing', or a 'communist regime'. Debate almost invariably focussed on contributors own arguments and opinions, since sources discussing this are sparse, and generally on the fringes of histography. It is absolutely imperative that Wikipedia covers mass killings, regardless of who perpetuates them and what their motivations were, or are, but this article, with its loaded title and its endless wars over what exactly Wikipedia contributors can or cannot include as a 'killing' is exactly the wrong way to go about it. What Wikipedia should be doing is covering, in relevant articles about specific subjects, such atrocities, sourced to mainstream academia, and written in a manner that does not spoon-feed readers over-generalising and ideologically-driven conclusions that the sources concerned do not themselves support. Let the facts about individual events speak for themselves, and let readers decide for themselves whether they wish to blame 'communist regimes' for such crimes, or to instead blame them on the broader fallibilities of a humanity that was perpetuating such atrocities long before 'communists' arrived, and may well, if a more enlightened discourse isn't available, be perpetuating similar atrocities long after such 'regimes' have gone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum to the above: a few hours ago, I wrote that "Rather than citing credible histographic sources on such subjects, the debate has instead revolved around exactly what constitutes a 'mass killing', or a 'communist regime'. Debate almost invariably focussed on contributors own arguments and opinions". For further evidence of how such endless going around in circles to arrive at a synthesised compromise can't work, one only need to look at this AfD discussion, and at how it is once again going over exactly the same ground, with the same mind-numbing consequences. I might dare to suggest that even if it were theoretically possible from Wikipedia to create a policy-compliant article on the subject matter (I still contend it isn't), per common sense, and possibly WP:IAR, we should give up trying, since in practice it is never going to happen. Or at lest, not until the last 'communist' and 'anti-communist' has been long dead, buried, and forgotten. There are plenty of other topics to write about, or even to waste time arguing over, and leaving this one for future generations might be best for all concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

someone shared it on /r/destiny but there's no traction: https://old.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/r1767g/wikipedia_is_considering_removing_the_article_on/?sort=controversial

Article being considered for deletion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes (https://archive.ph/Q94AY)

Deletion discussion page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes_(4th_nomination) (https://archive.md/dxBwv)

strange to see such a detailed article tabled for deletion :marseyhmm:

:marseytinfoil2::marseyobey:

189
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The question that needs to be asked is whether 'Mass killings under communist regimes' is a legitimate subject for an encyclopaedic article.

But pornography in Overwatch is?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

lmao I checked it up and it's real

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwatch_and_pornography

When Blizzard made an open beta of Overwatch available on May 5, 2016, Pornhub registered a spike of 817% in searches for pornographic material related to the game.

:coomer:

Nathan Grayson of Kotaku stated that Overwatch makes for "good porn" because of its colorful cast of characters with distinct visual styles.

:marseycoomer:

In January 2017, Pornhub announced that "Overwatch" was the 11th-most search term on their website in the previous year, beating out searches for words such as "anal" and "threesome".

:soyjakfront:

various takedown notices have been issued to creators of such content.

:soyjakyell:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When Blizzard made an open beta of Overwatch available on May 5, 2016, Pornhub registered a spike of 817% in searches for pornographic material related to the game.

OF COURSE there were more searches after the game was released than before it even existed...? :marseybrainlet:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Itโ€™s current year plus 6, who needs threesome when we have dozens partaking in an orgy

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Futanari imagery was also popular among Pornhub users.[5][6][7]

I am pleased to see fine art is gaining due recognition :marseytea:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I love the conspiracy theory that the high-quality models were seeded by Blizzard in order to drive engagement with the game. God knows its gameplay won't.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From what I can find, it's all very repetitive. After about the fiftieth sexmoan, you start to notice the lack of variety in gameplay.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.