Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:58, 3 January 2010

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass killings under communist regimes received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Valentino's typology in Final Solutions

Fifelfoo, I have read your explanations above that Valentino does not discuss Communist mass killings as a type, but I don't see how you have arrived at that conclusion. My preview of the book through Google Books does not include some of the pages you cite, but I don't see any indication from what is available that Valentino treats Communist mass killings as a minor sub-category of his main types. Just the opposite, in fact. Do you have a quote you can offer showing that Communism is not actually a focus for Valentino? AmateurEditor (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

He focuses on it, it isn't part of a theorised typology.

From the §A Typology of Mass Killing within Valentino2005Final

69, "I aruge, however, that perpetrators are likely to perceive mass killing as an attractive means to achieve these and other ends onlly in very specific circumstances and under very specific conditions. I have identified six specific motives—corresponding to six "typos" of mass killing—that, under certain specific conditions, appear to generate strong incentives for leaders to initiate mass killing.

¶, "These six motives can be grouped into two general categories. First, when leaders' plans result in the near-complete material disenfranchisement of large groups of people, leaders are likely to conclude that mass killing is necessary to overcome resistance by these groups or, more radically, that mass killing is the only practical way to physically remove these groups or their influence from society. I refer to this as "dispossessive" mass killings." …

This catagory, "mass killings to over come resistance to disenfranchisement" is a theoretical category, which unifies Valentino's approach. Within Table 1, , Dispossessive mass killings includes three descriptive groups, Communist, Ethnic and Territorial. Valentino is not asserting a unique theoretical cause for Communist mass killings, he is describing them as a case study of his actual theoretical category, Dispossessive mass killings. In clear example, the mass killing by communists in Afghanistan in 1979-88 is classified by Valentino in Table 1 as a case of the "Coercive mass killing" theoretical type, under the Counterguerrilla descriptor. To map these as sets: A(c(c1)) B(d(c2)). Given that c1, the Soviet Famine of the early 1930s, and c2, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan are separately theorised as, respectively under the descriptive heads, "Communist" and "Counterguerrilla" it is somewhat nonsensical to claim that Valentino sees a theorised cause within communism, or amongst communist regimes for mass killing. Valentino's schema is quite clear "Dispossessive" and "Coercive", neither of which are specific to communism, nor exhaust themselves within communism, both of which contain instances of mass killing by communists. To clarify this, by quotation,

71, §Dispossessive Mass Killings, "Dispossessive mass killings are the result of policies that, by design or by consequence, suddenly strip large groups of people of their possessions, their homes, or their way of life. These kinds of policies do not aim at mass killing as such, but in practice their implementation often leads to it.

¶, "My research identifies three major types of dispossessive mass killing in the twentieth century. First, regimes seeking to achieve the radical communization of their socities have forced vast numbers of people to surrender their property and abandon their traditional ways of life. Second, racist or nationalist regimes have forces large groups of people to relinquish their homes and possessions during the "ethnic cleansing" of certain territories. Third, the territorial ambitions of colonial or expansionist powers have often stripped preexisting populations of their land and means of subsistence."

As you can clearly read, there is no distinguishment between communist causes, and non communist causes of disposessive killing.

…

72, , "From a strategic perspective, however, what the ideologies that lead to mass killing share is not their specific content but the magnitude, scope, and speed of changes they force upon large groups of people. The desire to implement such radical changges may stem from ideological doctrines calling for a revolutionary transformation of the economic or demographic composition of society, but it may also stem from more "pragmatic" concerns, such as the effort to eliminate specific kinds of political or military threats, or the attempt to colonize and repopulate territories already inhabited by large numbers of people. Whatever its fundamental motivation, the effort to impose extremely radical changes on the lives of large numbers of people often results in the near-total material or political disenfranchisement of existing social groups

¶, "Radical ends, however, require radical means. Leaders attempting to implement such sweeping agendas soon discover, or simply anticipate, that members of disenfranchised groups will not cooperate with the implementation of a new social order in which they stand to loose their livelihood, their homes, or their very way of life. Massive violence may be required to force such radical changes upon large numbers of people. Under these circumstances, leaders may simply decide that the victim group must be totally annihiliated…

Again, the theorised category is dispossession, of which communist dispossesive mass killing is simply a descriptive example. See above in my discussion with Anderssl as to why a descriptive subcomponent of an explanatory or theoretical category cannot stand in the place of the category itself (that argument is along the lines of water is blue, thus all blue things are water). The presence of a descriptive case study does not mean that the case study is Valentino's category. His category is clearly "Dispossessive mass killing." Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And to go on for just a little bit longer. This is why cherry-picking is simply untenable in producing this article. Valentino's interest in genocide is strategic causes, the choice theory behind leaderships engaging in instances of mass killing. Its bloody obvious from his introduction that he's going to treat categories strategically, ie, on the basis of the causes and factors behind choices, rather than dealing with it ideologically. The failure of editors to have read his chapters on theorisation and typology indicates why a great kerfuffle has been caused by trotting out the fact that he has a chapter on a descriptive case study, time and time again, when the case study's purpose is to demonstrate an actual theorised category of dispossession being the cause of mass killings within his typology. Valentino is even kind enough to his readers to have given them massive clues about where the typology and theory would reside within his book. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, we are to rely on what you find between the lines of the book and not the printed words? Collect (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I've quoted you his words directly and at length. The fact that these were taken from his theoretical chapter, where you expect him to discuss the formation of his theoretical categories is significant. 69, "These six motives can be grouped into two general categories." is rather clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Collect on that one and I regret repeating this: there is no need to add any commentaries to anything on Misplaced Pages, unless the commentary is published by a WP:RS. The readers can decide what Valentino or any other author is talking about. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Having been asked specifically to demonstrate how I drew a conclusion when evaluating a source, "I don't see how you have arrived at that conclusion," I believed that interpreting of the text with appropriate quotation was specifically requested. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Termer, I regret repeating this: reliability is not sufficient for a material to be included into the article. The material must be relevant, and no secondary sources exist that instruct Wikipedians which RS should be included in certain article and which shouldn't. Only we Wikipedians can and have to make such a decision, and ongoing discussion is a way to do that. Your refusal to get this point ("there is no need to add any commentaries to anything on Misplaced Pages, unless the commentary is published by a WP:RS") may be considered as a kind of disruptive behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Paul on that one: "The material must be relevant" and in that respect the chapter 'Communist mass killings' by Valentino is a good example of one of the most relevant WP:RS regarding the subject. I'm not sure I correctly understood you when you said: "which RS should be included in certain article and which shouldn't...Only we Wikipedians can and have to make such a decision", since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia anybody can edit and what exactly should be included in an article or not is more than clearly spelled out by numerous wiki policies like WP:RS, WP:Verify. WP:NPOV&WP:YESPOV. And on the "disruptive behaviour" you're talking about, sorry but I have no comments to this since I've chosen to ignore all remarks that have been made on contributors instead of the content by you like by anybody else.--Termer (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes, Fifelfoo, and for taking the time to answer me. There are several points I'd like to make. First, I think we may be tripping ourselves up on vocabulary. "Type" of mass killing versus "theorized typology". Valentino discusses the topic of Communist mass killings as a type of mass killing within his categories, or theorized typology, of dispossessive and coercive. He discusses the dispossessive and coercive aspects of Communist mass killings in his later chapter on specifically Communist mass killings. Yes, Valentino does not propose a theorized cause of Communist mass killings which exists entirely within Communism. But this article is not about Valentino's general theory on mass killing, despite using the same term that he does (which was chosen here for the same reason Valentino uses it: it is the most neutral term for these events. "Genocide" has major issues.). That Valentino does not assert a unique theoretical cause of Communist mass killings does not make his discussion of the three largest Communist state perpetrators of mass killings irrelevant to this article. In this article, as in Valentino's book, Communist mass killings is a literal category, there's nothing theoretical about it.

Your Afghanistan example is less compelling when you consider that many of his examples fall under multiple motives/types. On table 5 he assigns it the additional motive of "Communist".

I do not understand your analogy to "water is blue, thus all blue things are water." I assume this was an alternate way to state your earlier point that, in Valentino's book, categories can be nested such that Communist mass killing is entirely within Dispossession, and it is thus not a topic of discussion for him, but merely an example of dispossession. This would make sense if Communist mass killings were mentioned in a chapter on Dispossession, but the opposite is the case. Dispossession and coercion are both mentioned in a chapter on Communist mass killings.

Valentino's chapter on Communist mass killings is not a "case study" on Dispossession. It is a discussion of a one of several types of mass killing that Valentino has identified. A type not entirely located within Dispossession, as you acknowledged. Dispossession is simply Valentino's primary explanation for the mass killings by radical Communist regimes. Dispossession and Coercion are very general categories for him. And specific examples within the several types or motives that Valentino identifies for mass killings (one of which is "Communist") can be attributed to both.

Using Valentino's chapter on Communist mass killings is not cherry picking from his book. It is simply the most relevant portion of his book. Just as his chapter on ethnic mass killings could contribute to Misplaced Pages's article on ethnic cleansing, or his chapter on counterguerilla mass killings could contribute to the article on counter-insurgency, or his chapter on the Strategic Logic of Mass Killing could contribute to the mass murder article. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response AmateurEditor, its raised issues I cannot resolve without reference to a better copy of the text than googlebook's preview. I've located a physical copy in my proximity. Within the time constraints I enjoy I'll be responding. Given the current point in the year, it looks like I'll be responding after 4 January 2010, so I'll nudge this section so it doesn't archive. The discussion on cherry-picking was more relating to pushing search strings into books and then quoting the immediate paragraph, and avoiding dealing with his typology as the context for that paragraph. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep alive nudge to keep this active until post 4 Jan 2010. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just change the name of this article to Valentino's theories at this point. csloat (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, change the title to "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" and make the article about that chapter of Valentino's book. That would eliminate the recurring problems of synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already pointed this out Valentino says that he focuses on the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia" but he also refers to mass killings by communist regimes elsewhere -North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa.--Termer (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. As your earlier comment points out he discussed other regimes as well in that chapter. So obviously an article about that chapter could mention that as well. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're all agreed this article is just about a chapter in some guy's book, let's at least have the article title reflect that. The lede should do so as well. Otherwise we are using an encyclopedia to promote an otherwise obscure theory. csloat (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate article's name

The article's name doesn't reflect its content. Major article's space is devoted to what most scholars call "excess mortality", "population losses" or something like that, whereas only a minor part of the text discusses real mass killings. The article should be either (i) re-named to "Population losses under Communist regimes", or (ii) questionable cases should be largely removed and only briefly discussed in the article's end.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the latest consensus on the article title at Requested_move_II before proceeding with Requested_move_III. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we have to follow the option (ii).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I won't go back to the original discussion around the original title, "Communist genocide", which ignored the simple solution of sticking to reputable sources which discuss that, and then simply summarizing the scope of article based on sources--as opposed to the arguments over definition of genocide, etc.

   It's a longer title, but "Mass killings and population losses under Communist regimes" would appear to address the concern. It's certainly no longer the scope of the article as first envisioned, however, it's certainly a more informative scope. Having both in the title also serves to clarify the article contents and how it should be organized.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say, "Mass killings and other population losses under Communist regimes". However, taking into account that mass killings form a population losses' subset, the name is not more correct than, e.g. "Mechanics and other Physics", "Monkeys and other Mammals", "Arithmetics and other Mathematics". The only argument supporting the name you proposed is that it will please the ear of those who personally dislike Communism. However, in my opinion, those persons who show some personal attitude towards some subject cannot be neutral, and therefore, have no moral right to edit Misplaced Pages.
If we want to combine all cases of excess mortality in one article, the article's name should be as general as possibe. If we want to focus on "mass killing" per se, then the article should be focused on what all scholars consider mass killings and only briefly mention controversial cases.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with two points above:

"If we want to combine all cases of excess mortality in one article, the article's name should be as general as possibe."

If we want to include cases, cases should be referred to in the context of a scholarly theory making claims about a category of unnecessary deaths specific to Communism. Anything else is synthesis. The application of General theories to communism is synthesis, ie, "According to Lemkin's general theory of genocide, Communism..." doesn't support an article about Communism genocide (this is my assertion regarding Valentino's theory, that his categories are general theories of mass-killing, but this issue is under discussion and evidence collection.) Single society theories do not cut it either, unless another scholar specifically applies them across other societies: "Foo's theory of the Soviet famines is generalised in Bar's discussion of Chinese famines through the lens of Foo's theory (Bar 1989)" as an example. Avoiding synthesis by collation is essential, and the article's name should reflect the best, or most general, or most widely known theorisation discovered.

"then the article should be focused on what all scholars consider mass killings and only briefly mention controversial cases."

In my opinion the article could get away without mentioning cases at all, except in a See Also: tree, or extremely brief summary style, forcing the incidents into three paragraphs at most. We should have excellent articles on preventable famines in the Soviet Union, the deliberate displacement of ethnic minorities and language & culture destruction in China, and on the debate over the scope of Government killings outside of war or the proper action of courts and tribunals in Vietnam by the Viet Minh (04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)), DRVN, NFL and PRG. This article is not the appropriate place for more than summary style discussions, hopefully, specifically oriented to the role the incidents play in the literature of comparisons of monstrous actions within Soviet-style societies. (Expanded:) Additionally, the article should mention all non-FRINGE theories found in reliable sources, in respect to their WEIGHT in the academic community: for theories in comparative genocide; for case studies in the case study specific literature. In areas where there is no consensus (I can't find a bloody review article on comparative genocide) WEIGHT should probably fall based on depth of contribution: a monograph is a more significant contribution than a journal article, a journal article than an invited book chapter, an invited book chapter than a conference paper. (Expanded at: 02:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)).

Both of these concerns go very strongly to the issue of locating the specifically communist origins of multiple-society incidents of monstrosity within Soviet-style societies in the academic literature. All incarnations of this article have focused on this as its topic, if the monstrousness is Lemkin genocide, modern Genocide, democide, Valentino's mass killings, or general concepts of large scale preventable deaths. All incarnations of this article have focused on cross-cultural implications, either by collation and placing one next to the other, or by attempts to adequately describe common features found in literature. All versions of this article have advanced the idea that there is a specifically Communist cause for these: the article has never been "Causes of 20th Century Genocide" with an uncharacteristically heavy focus on Soviet-style societies. Given what the article has been: lets locate the literature to support these three characteristics of the article's object of investigation. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If we want to include cases, cases should be referred to in the context of a scholarly theory making claims about a category of unnecessary deaths specific to Communism." Since several theories exist on that account, the article's name should give no preference to neither of them. Therefore, it must be general.

Re: "In my opinion the article could get away without mentioning cases at all, except in a See Also: tree, or extremely brief summary style, forcing the incidents into three paragraphs at most." You should realize that it is possible only in theory, because these materials will be being constantly added by some category of editors. It is unavoidable, so let's define what concrete historical examples are relevant and what are not.

Re: "All versions of this article have advanced the idea that there is a specifically Communist cause for these." Definitely, some of these events share common features (otherwise it would be quite possible to find all needed arguments to support deletion of this article), although their number in actuality is smaller than many peoples used to think. So let's outline these nation unspecific cases, and that will help us to separate out all nation specific killings and other population losses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the title is that it refers to something that isn't backed up by most of the reliable sources cited. The only real source for the theory expressed in this title is Valentino; thus as I suggested before, a better title would be something like Valentino's theory of mass killing or some such. Other sources are connected if we make the title Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, that way we don't have to have the sources all agree that it is communism or totalitarianism or democide or whatever that is at the root of all this. It's true enough that these three examples are cited by different authors together. But some of the editors here seem wedded to making this article express a political theory about "communism" that just isn't backed up by the sources. csloat (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The title Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia is also unacceptable because most events described here (concretely, famines in China and the USSR, as well as deportations) are not mass killings according to many scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Those can be removed from the article, or there could be a section heading "famines" or some sort with a clear discussion of the dispute over whether those are considered "mass killings." csloat (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no question that there is a body of published opinion that claim the famines were considered a form of mass killing, there is also smaller body of opinion that claims the famines were natural, Paul would agree with this. It is not our job to decide which opinion is the "truth", our job is to reflect all opinions with due weight. That the famines are included in the "Controversies" section is sufficient to reflect that split opinion IMO. --Martin (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "There is absolutely no question that there is a body of published opinion that claim the famines were considered a form of mass killing". No. The very term "mass killings" is not being frequently used by scholars whiting about population losses. The fact that famines may be considered mass killings can be deduced from some scholar's works. However, it is not our job to deduce something.
Some famines (deliberately organised famines) may be considered a form of mass killings. Some famines are the result of the authorities' policy (that casued famine death as a collateral result of some social transformations or economic activity). Some famines are the result of natural catastrophes. There is no common opinion about what category Soviet famine or Great Leap can be assigned to. Therefore, they belong to a "Controversial cases" category.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The famines are mentioned in the section Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Controversies, so it seems we agree on this Paul. --Martin (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem too is finding sources that report that the famines are a form of "communist" mass killing, or, again, that there is something inherent and unique about communism that leads to the use of famine as a tool for mass murder. Otherwise this is just another piece of the SYN violation. It may be that some reliable sources do make this argument but it's not clear from anything presented here that that's the case. csloat (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that, but whether policies which can reasonably be expected to cause deaths of a significant number of people can be equated with an intent to kill those people. The Irish Potato Blight (famine) has multiple issues, as an example. There was the physical blight, which no one avers was an intentional act, and there was the issue of exportation of such few potatoes as were edible to other locations rather than using them to feed the populace. Was there an "intent" of any sort in those decisions? The same issues exist with regard to the Soviet "famines" to be sure. As some sources considered RS by WP standards make such a connection to "intent" it is up to us to fairly present them. It is not up to us to "know" anything else according to WP policies. Clearly sources which state that no such intent existed should also be presented, as stated by the NPOV standards. Ignoring or removing any reliable sources, moreover, would violate WP standards. Collect (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is even not in that. The article can be written according to one of twh schemes. First one (let's dub it "Valentino's scheme") presents the materials as if majority of about 100 million excess mortality were the mass killings' victims. Then, according to this scheme, and in accordance with WP neutrality principle, it is necessary to add that some scholars do not consider famines and deportations as mass killings. Second scheme ("Wheathcroft's scheme") focuses at intentional mass killings (i.e. Great Purge and other cases about which all scholars are unanimous), and then describes the cases that are considered as mass killings not by all scholars. Both of these schemes formally satisfy WP rules, however, I believe that the second one is logically more consistent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I trust you noted the weight I gave to "intent" above. That noted, where a RS states that intent existed, we ought to include that material. If another reliable source states intent was absent, or that no deaths occurred, then that also should be included. Collect (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand the role of the word "intent". However, the problem is that some scholars see intent where others do not. Anyway, you seem not to get my point. We can either say that "Great Purge, Cultural Revolutions, Soviet famine, Great Leap, were mass killings, although some scholars disagree that intent was present in the case of the last two, and, therefore, do not consider them mass killings sensu stricto". Or, alternatively we can say "Scholars are unanimous that Great Pugre and Cultural Revolution were intentional mass killings, although some other scholars believe that Great Leap or Soviet Famine also had some signs of mass killings". (Sorry for oversimplification)--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) For each example, we can, and should, give the RS statements regarding each example. We do not need, on our own, to categorize which ones are "mass killings." We only need sources making those statements. Thus - under "Great Purge" we enumerate positions. And so on. It is, according to WP policy, not up to us to make conclusions -- only to report the conclusions made by others who meet reliable source standards. I also note "intent" includes the concept of a "reasonable expectation that something might happen" which is not excatly the same as a desire for it to happen. Shooting a rifle in a bowling alley may not be done with a desire to kill someone, but the law recognizes the expectation that someone might get killed as part of intent. Collect (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either "scheme" discussed above as long as it is (1) sourced to reliable sources and (2) renamed to reflect content. If this article was titled something like Valentino's scheme it would not have so many OR problems. Comments like Collect's are interesting but really are completely beside the point -- it doesn't matter what we conclude; what matters is that we accurately report what reliable sources conclude, without synthesizing those sources unfairly as we are currently. csloat (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "We do not need, on our own, to categorize which ones are "mass killings."" Taking into account that the article's name is "mass killings ...", the very fact of inclusion of certain material there is a kind of implicit categorisation of it as "mass killings". Had the article's name been "Population losses ....", I would see no problem to list all opinions, from very inflammatory to quite academical. However, taking into account the present article's name we do need some explicit categorisation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

the "mass killings" was borrowed from Valentio as a compromise title to the subject, maybe its not the best title to the article but currently it's the best that we have. And in that respect killing is killing, even if anybody starved to death, he/or she was killed by starvation. And since those famines happened 'under communist regimes', I don't see any problems really. Killed by starvation or by deportation etc. its still a killing not a natural death. And in that respect I do not understand what is this concern all about that famines are not considered killings? After all that was the reason for this compromize title to say "under", not "by communist regimes". Therefore the title dosn't imply like the deaths were caoused "by the regimes" but that those occurred "under regimes". The responsibility for those killings is a subject to a dispute that should be described in the article. And there is nothing more to it really. --Termer (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't use categories. I said we should not make them up ourselves. We should not draw conclusions that are not drawn in the reliable sources that we quote. And if the category is made up just by one or two sources then this article is actually about those sources rather than about "mass killings" per se. That is why I suggest we rename it and refocus it on the specific theories covered here rather than synthesizing those theories ourselves to draw external conclusions. This page is truly helpful in explaining this issue. csloat (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And since those famines happened 'under communist regimes', I don't see any problems really. Killed by starvation or by ::deportation etc. its still a killing not a natural death.

- Really not for us to say. Just by looking at the Black Book of Communism article, I can see that

J. Arch Getty, Mark Tauger, and Dallin all noted that famines should not be counted as if they were equivalent to intentional :::murders and executions. Our opinion is irrelevant. These are three academic sources.

DHooke1973 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Astor story

I do not think the Nancy Astor anecdote is appropriate for the article. It was never properly documented, may not have occured and there are different versions.

• “How long will you keep killing people?” asked Lady Astor to which Stalin replied “the process would continue as long as necessary” to establish a communist society. (Rummel)

• "Yes," she said, "how much longer are you going to keep shooting people and sending people to Siberia?" According to Lord Astor, Stalin merely smiled and said,"As long as it's in the interests of the state."

• On the way out, Lady Astor asked, “Mr Stalin, when you gonna stop killin’ people?”

“Oh, Lady Astor,’ replied Stalin, looking directly at her. “The undesirable classes do not kill themselves.”‘ (Vidal)

• "When are you going to stop killing people?" asked the impertinent Lady Astor. "When it is no longer necessary," answered Comrade Stalin. (Time)

None of quoted versions even mention communism. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a very realistic conversation. Oh, I missed that it was a series of separate versions... But, yes, it looks like it may be apocryphal, and I'm not sure what it establishes in relation to the article. Is Stalin making a statement of policy? A joke? A half-joke? Sarcasm? Trying to impress? Rejecting the premise? --FormerIP (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not apocryphal. Time Magazine (Stalin was "Man of the Year in its Jan 1 1939 issue) is RS, and fairly contemporaneous to the event. The "undesirable classes" anecdote comes via novelist Gore Vidal, and is quite likely inaccurate. The version from Lady Astor otherwise conforms to the Time version. As does Modern times: the world from the twenties to the nineties By Paul Johnson. As does Russia's iron age By William Henry Chamberlin. Three reliable sources for the story. And apparently G. B. Shaw said that Astor was the only person in the world who could be bossy with Stalin, making the story quite believable. GBS' view is quite horrifying indeed. "In Russia, on the other hand, extermination was carried out on a scientific and humane basis." Well worth having that in the article as well. Collect (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, Collect. What we have is a nice anecdote told in a number of sources by people who were not there, who differ as to the essential details. One of the sources calls it "a nice story, where everyone is in character". It's comparable to "Let them eat cake" or "Play it again, Sam". This is far too serious a topic to include this type of trivia. --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The story as told by Nancy Astor is definitive. The one by Vidal is not. And the comment in reference to Shaw's apologia for Stalin's excesses is definitely germane. And the "essential details" in all the versions cited to Astor are the same (albeit one says the translator refused to translate the question). The vist on Shaw's 75th birthday is precisely documented as well. Collect (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the story as told by Astor? --FormerIP (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Time etc. Consistent. Three reliable sources. The one really odd one is by a novelist, who might well have used poetic license, but all the others agree. Well publicized during her lifetime. Ascribed in 1936 (Shaw's birthday was in 1931). in 1943. Ideologies and illusions: revolutionary thought from Herzen to Solzhenitsyn By Adam Bruno Ulam. Excel HSC modern history By Ronald E. Ringer. Death by government By R. Rummel. Dictionary of politics: selected American and foreign political and legal terms By Walter John Raymond. All meeting WP:RS, and I can add a few dozen more. Stalin was a bit despicable. Collect (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So a magazine which in disciplinary practice is considered a primary source, with a fact checking capacity well below entry level historians, written by (I am assuming, given time) a non-Russian speaker; another primary, as "Farm Journal"?, an armed services edition from 1943, referenced in an Australian high school text crib sheet, a tertiary source, and a historian who has been attacked for failing to meet disciplinary standards in specific relation to citations. Please supply better sources than these. The Ulam text is a decent model for appropriate citations. You do realise that if you continue to argue from such low grade sources you open the way to the use of low grade Soviet sources? All low grade sources are unacceptable here. More like Ulam. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are over forty sources with the same story. That you can cavalierly dismiss them does not mean they are not RS - indeed they are the essence of being relaible sources, being contemporaneous with the persons involved. And we are not using the quote to indicate numbers - only the attitudes of Stalin, which I would have thought would now be widely accepted as true. The Farm Journal was the earliest I found - that hardly means your demeaning of it is important. Collect (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) The Farm Journal appears to mention Stalin in relation to the manufacture of sawdust, while the "Astor" mentioned is Mary Astor (no relation). Since the sources differ in what was actually said, we need to know which source is actually reliable. What was actually said and how do we know it? It seems to be an urban myth and I think it is worthy to submit to Snopes to see if they can get to the bottom of it. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Farm Journal called Mary Astor "Nancy Astor"? What a boo-boo!! And had Mary Astor be with Stalin? Astounding bit of research there. The sources all agree that Stalin said that the killing would continue as long as necessary. Which seems fairly conclusive, indeed. Collect (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing "conclusive" here is that none of the various third party versions of the disputed story mentions "communism" at all. This could be a great anecdote to use in the article Mass killings in Russia, I suppose. csloat (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear me -- I rather thought Stalin was a well-known Communist leader. We need RS for that as well. Collect (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, what does the 1936 Farm Journal say about the 1931 Stalin-Astor meeting? All I can find is a bad review of The Murder of Dr. Harrigan, starring Mary Astor. Here is a link to the movie's article on IMDB. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying everything ever said by any communist is relevant to this article? Don't be silly Collect; as we've been pointing out for months now, what we need are RSs actively tying various "mass killings" together as the product of "Communism." We've seen precious little of that; the fact that you must reach for an old wives' tale about Stalin -- one that doesn't even mention communism at that -- to try to make this connection just shows how desperate and feeble the case being made is. Unfortunately this article is still little more than synthesis. csloat (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Snopes in the expectation that ther impartial answer would be of weight. Do you agree that if they say the story is substantially correct that it can be here? I do not actually think it is SYN to aver that Stalin was a Communist. Collect (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really not that cute when you take my words out of context in this manner. It is also profoundly unhelpful to moving the discussion forward. csloat (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Snopes is not an authority but if they confirm the story then they will provide the original source which no doubt will conform with requirements for reliablity. But I would like to know what the discussion was. Here is another version from Time in 1953:

• His guests were George Bernard Shaw and Lady Astor. As always, Nancy Astor was forthright: "When are you going to stop killing people?" she asked Stalin.

"When it is no longer necessary," Stalin replied. "Soon, I hope."

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Snopes, it depends what you asked them, Collect. --FormerIP (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, I asked them whether the published version was substantially accurate or not. Collect (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a contemporaneous account of the 1931 visit in Time. No mention of the story. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't prove a negative.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  13:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

“...the process would continue as long as necessary”

Let's leave reliability issue beyond the scope and simply analyse the alleged Stalin's statement. Does it carry any information? I have no idea what point it is supposed to demonstrate. It is a vague answer on a vague question. It can be equally interpreted as Stalin's intention to continue mass murders as long as possible and as Stalin's unwillingness to abolish death penalty for some categories of criminals for some limited period.
In my opinion this anecdote belongs to the category of stories having significant emotional load and minimal informational value.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its me but it seems there are more important issues that need solving instead of arguing about a scene in Kremlin.--Termer (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean you support its removal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If accurate, it goes a long way to establish that the intent was there to kill people. Collect (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that so many, you know, books have been written about Stalin, I don't think we need gossip in order to provide evidence in this regard. Paul hits the nail on the head just above, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(od) from Revelations from the Russian Archives: A report from the Library of Congress‎ Abby Smith, Library of Congress, Kommunisticheskai︠a︡ partii︠a︡ Sovetskogo Soi︠u︡za, Soviet Union. Komitet gosudarstvennoĭ bezopasnosti:

Lady Astor, who was a Member of Parliament at the time—this was in the early 30s vefore the Great Terror—shouted "When will you stop killing people?" To which Stalin, as probably many of you know, replied, "When it is no longer necessary."

It is a general answer to a general question, not a vague answer to a vague question. It is not the informational detail we are looking for, we are looking for the general approach to problem-solving (eliminate people).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

General questions are not concrete, and, as a consequence, are vague. In addition, Stalin's answer is more concrete then lady Astor's question. You omitted the only informative part of his answer, namely, the second one. The full answer was

""When it is no longer necessary," Stalin replied. "Soon, I hope."

Again, if we remove the words that carry no information, the dialogue will be.

Lady Astor: "When are you going to stop killing people?"

Stalin: "Soon, I hope."

In addition, as we and I know, Stalin lied: he didn't stop killing people soon, because the mass show trials and executions intensified culminating in the Great Purge that started 6 years later. I do not understand why do we need to have in the article a non-informative and selectively cited dialogue that, had it been quoted fully, would create more positive picture of Stalin than he deserves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, the Revelations from the Russian Archives (1993) account appears to be just another version of the story, drawn on earlier accounts. It does not appear based on revelations from the Russian archives. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Astor Story" is clearly relevant and well documented by reliable sources, and thus may be included, if only to show that people were accusing Communists of mass killings as early as 1931. The 1939 man of the year article in TIME, incidentally includes the accusation of 3,000,000 Ukrainian deaths in a "Stalin-made" famine. With accusations like this going on for 60 years during Communist rule, and still being made and documented, it's clear that the article should exist and all major documented POVs on the subject should be included (as part of the standard rule of NPOV). If people are saying that Stalin's actions had nothing to do with Communism - I'll just ask them to go away and if they'd like write at fairy-tale-opedia instead. Ditto, if they don't consider TIME to be a reliable source of what was said about the Communists. But do come up with the Communist POV if you'd like - did they even bother to deny the stories and evidence of mass killings? Or did they come up with some other justification? Or has anybody else denied it for them. This is the counter-evidence that folks need to come up with - not "Time is not a reliable source" or "Stalin was not a Communist leader." Smallbones (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, we do not know if conversation took place or what was said. Earliest mention we have found is in magazine years after it was supposed to have occured and Time has at least 2 versions. It has makings of tall tale. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, seriously. Can you please point to where anyone said "Stalin was not a Communist leader"? Do you really not understand these points at all? csloat (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, again please do not press the claim that there are only two views of history: the revisionist one in the Black Book and a Stalinist view. Neither view is acceptable because neither follows a rigid methodology. I sometimes think that the exaggeration in books like the Black Book make Communists look good because their opponents appear stupid and dishonest. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually both views need to be included under NPOV. There is the question of what Communists have actually said about the mass killings - can we document this? But even in the absence of Communist reactions, what you call the "revisionist" view MUST be included. Other documented views should be included - but I'm not sure what "middle of the road" views you want to include. Did somebody actually say "Well those pseudo-communists under Stalin killed a few million people, but they weren't real Communists, and it was only a few million, ...."? Also, why do you call the Black Book revisionist? Something like this was the standard view in the Free World during the Cold War (but frankly I didn't believe it - how could a group of people actually be so evil?), after visiting the former Soviet Union and reading some new evidence including the Black Book, what was said during the Cold War amazingly seems to be more or less correct. We need to just dispassionately put up the evidence for all points of view. Systematically removing documented evidence and points of view, as has been done to this article is abhorrent. Smallbones (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about (Mass killings under Communist regimes). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about (Mass killings under Communist regimes) at the Reference desk. (please focus on article content)

Bobanni (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bobanni, can you please explain your template insertion? What are you referring to anyway? Where is the "general discussion of (Mass killings under Communist regimes)"? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Estimates on the number of deaths brought about by Soviet rule vary widely"

I. This paragraph demonstrates that the article about "mass killings" tends to convert into the article about excess mortality, because Conquest and similar authors speak about "victims of Communism". That category includes not only those who was killed, but also those who died prematurely (for some reason directly or indirectly connected to some actions of Communist leadership). We must either present only the data and numbers directly related to "mass killings" or to rename the article.

II. In addition, since the reliable sources provided by me demonstrate that Rummel's methodology is flawed and highly disputable, one cannot present his point of view without making necessary reservations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything related to mass killings under Communist regimes may be presented in this article, just add your reservations (documented of course) afterwards. The constant removal of reliable sources that has occurred in this article is totally unacceptable, as are the constant demands to rename the article or to delete it. Please make positive contributions to the article, or get out of the way. Obstructionism is unacceptable. Smallbones (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The constant removal of reliable sources that has occurred in this article is totally unacceptable, as are the constant demands to rename the article or to delete it." The fact that the article about "mass killing" tells about "excess mortality" in general is also totally unacceptable. I have no objection to include all data and facts about victims of Communism, provided that, but only provided that the article's name correctly reflects its content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I would appreciate if you explained what did you mean under "obstructionism" (and apologized).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been listed at AfD at least three times in a couple of months. It has had its name changed at least once. The folks who are doing this remove many well documented sources that they claim don't meet their theoretical standards. When asked to show how their objections are consistent with WP:RS they simply bluster, when they are asked to take their complaints to WP:RSN they can't find anybody saying that the source is not reliable. There's nonsense such as putting catty footnotes about how the location of Harvard University Press is not known. External links are challenged as not being reliable - Has this ever happened on any other article? That's simple obstructionism - and I have no apology for pointing it out. Now you seem to be claiming that "excess deaths" are not related to "mass killings" - have I got that right? Anything related to "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is fair game for this article.

You do I, hope, admit that there were mass killings under Communist regimes? If not please let us know directly.

You do understand that many people in and out of academia, past and present, have studied this issue, and given evidence on it, don't you?

You do understand that many people believe that these mass killings are related, e.g. because of Communist doctrine, don't you?

If you don't answer all three of these questions yes, you should check the sources leaving behind any idealogical baggage, lenses, or rose colored glasses that you may have.

If you do answer the questions yes, then you must admit that the article has a proper subject for a Misplaced Pages article, and that folks should either contribute to it, or leave it alone. Anything else is obstructionist. Smallbones (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Smallbones. The most ridiculous arguments used to remove sourced materials from this article has been labeling it "anti-communist". who cares, in case any sourced material reads like "anti-communist" in this article to anybody, only thing needed is adding the "pro-communist" viewpoint according to any WP:RS next to it. NPOV doesn't mean "NO Point of view" but "Neutral point of view", meaning the article should describe the disputes surrounding the subject. But instead what we have here, a dispute about the subject on the talk page. Other than that, the easiest way to explain why sourced material keeps disappearing from the article, since the 3 AfD-s have failed, the article just gets deleted bit by bit in pieces.--Termer (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: "The article has been listed at AfD at least three times in a couple of months" (i) I didn't initiate any of these processes. (ii) consensus has not been achieved, although a significant part of editors supported deletion. (iii) the deletion procedure was initiated, among other reasons, because of inappropriate article's name.

Re: "You do I, hope, admit that there were mass killings under Communist regimes?" Please, familiarize yourself with my posts on this talk page.

Re: "You do understand that many people in and out of academia, past and present, have studied this issue, and given evidence on it, don't you?" Sure.

Re: "You do understand that many people believe that these mass killings are related, e.g. because of Communist doctrine, don't you?" There is a significant disagreement on that account.

Re: "you should check the sources leaving behind any idealogical baggage, lenses, or rose colored glasses that you may have" I believe, it is what I am doing.

Re: "you must admit that the article has a proper subject for a Misplaced Pages article" Again, had you read this talk page, such a question wouldn't appear.

I have no problem to have an article about Communist mass killings in Misplaced Pages, provided that it discusses mass killings perpetrated by Communist regimes (not all cases of excess mortality), and provided that it discusses mass killings specific for all Communist regimes (not national specific events). And I believe, that is a proper subject for a Misplaced Pages article. By contrast, the article tends to become a collection of all cases of excess mortality in all Communist countries. Well, I see no major reasons for not doing that. However, in that case, let's (i) rename the article accordingly (to avoid WP:COATRACK); (ii) create a "genocide" section; (iii) create "mass killings" section; (you may also create a "dispossessive mass killings" section to present and discuss Valentino's POV (iv) create "famines" section; (v) create "deportation victims" section; (vi) create a section that will discuss scholars' views on nation specific and Communism specific cases; (vii) create other sections you want (e.g. controversial cases section).
This would be an approach that I am ready to constructively discuss. And that would be what is to "leave behind any ideological baggage, lenses, or colored glasses that one may have."--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about your response to ' "You do understand that many people believe that these mass killings are related, e.g. because of Communist doctrine, don't you?" There is a significant disagreement on that account.' While there may be disagreement on the causes, there can't be any disagreement that "many people believe" that one of the causes is Communist ideology, can there? If indeed you agree that many people believe that there is connection between the mass killings and Communism - then the article has it's place in Misplaced Pages - pro and con POVs should be presented. As far as the distinction between mass killings and excess mortality, you are splitting hairs here. The dead don't care whether they were shot or intentionally starved to death - and either can be called mass killing in the normal everyday use of the English language. I'm afraid - based on previous arguments on this page by others - that what you suggest would lead to a mass killings page that could only include cases where we have film footage of a Communist, wearing a red star, declaring his intention to fulfill Communist ideology and shooting multiple people at the same time - the standards of "proof" here are just much too high. My standard - which I believe is the same standard as WP:NPOV, is that if many people claim in reliable sources that there were mass killings of any sort under Communist regimes, then their claims (not necessarily the actual killings) should be documented here. As far as renaming the article "Excess mortality under Communist regimes," I'm afraid that you are just watering down the subject. From that title people are likely to think that Stalin didn't believe in the use of antibiotics. No, this article is about Communist regimes killing people en mass in whatever form, and excess mortality is evidence of these mass killings. Smallbones (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"many people believe" that one of the causes is Communist ideology... Misplaced Pages already has an article about these people. So existence of these people was not questioned. Their views, on the other hand, is a different matter. (Igny (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Again there is no reason why we must choose between an anti-communist or pro-communist view of history. This is a false dilemma. People are not removing material because they are Communists but because non-academic theories do not belong. We should read history books that explain what happened under Stalinist rule rather than books like the Black Book and not promote non-standard views. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A) Non academic views, e.g. those of Lady Astor and George Orwell, are certainly allowed under WP:RS. B) the Black Book of Communism is a fairly standard view, and published by Harvard University Press, it is certainly considered a reliable source under WP:RS. Just out of interest, what source would you consider to reflect the "standard view"? If it is a reliable source, then we should certainly include it in the article. Perhaps we could organize it something like "BB says, your source says" and of course include what "middle of the road" sources say. My point? - Just that we cannot eliminate a source from Harvard University Press simply because you consider it non-standard. Smallbones (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not going to read any long opinionated posts on this talk page that do not directly represent any alternative viewpoints according to WP:RS -secondary published sources. No sources, no debate.--Termer (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

I suggest that Four Deuces apologize immediately, or leave the page entirely. Calling 2 people (myself included) fascist, Ustaše, and crackpot in 4 lines of text is just totally out of line. See WP:NPA Smallbones (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have rephrased the posting so that no individuals are mentioned. My point is that we must rely on the available literature. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From my part, I personally do not mind ridiculous personal attacks and outright harassment. It just tells me that whoever has chosen to take such a path has no reasonable arguments left to support his/her opinions.--Termer (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

It took 6 edits because the page wouldn't save in one go and cluebot tried to "help", but I just made a simple one line POV edit to the lede, as below:

Several historians have made comparative analysis of mass killings occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

DHooke1973 (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Several? Who? Historians? Who? One political scientist is the current list on comparatives. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Change it to that then. Political scientist. It's in the right tone-neutral direction, was the thrust of my contribution.

If there isn't any academic notability, I suggest there isn't any notability at all, and the article should be AfD'd.

Either there are more sources and the lede can be tweaked accordingly (several/many historians/political scientists/popular journalists w/e) or the article has no justification. 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHooke1973 (talk • contribs)

The previous revision of lede was based on Valentino, the one made by DHooke1973 is based on nothing. it needs to be reverted.--Termer (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is the NPOV. If there is no field that the topic is pertinent to, then the lede is indeed based on nothing, because the article would then be based on nothing except original synthesis by wikipedia editors.

Please tell me who the several or many are (or which field).

DHooke1973 (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As a start Rummer, Valentno, Totten et al, and so forth. Hence SYN is not the problem. Collect (talk) 15

28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Several scholars then? DHooke1973 (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case of course that "One political scientist is the current list on comparatives" according to Fifelfoo. Just that different authors use different terms for the subject. for comparatives there is "Nationalist versus Communist Democide" by Rudolph J. Rummel.

Genocide: a sociological perspective By Helen Fein has a chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide. etc. Some authors call it Communist politicide like Manus I. Midlarsky in The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century . And last but not least the whole subject has been referred to simply as communist crimes against humanity. Currently however the article title has been chosen after Valentino --Termer (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Genocide scholar" seems to be an umbrella term. "Political scientists and genocide scholars?" Can that be well sourced (There are at least 3 sources to begin with)? If there are an appreciable number, then it seems to me a start would have been made on sorting out POV disputes. If there are also, for example, an appreciable number of historians who say "this type of analysis is flawed" or whatever, that can go in too. DHooke1973 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, I really wish that I could take your links to Google books as a good indicator of the state of play in research; but, I can't, and nor can I think other article commentators can. You have a habit of noting an article via a deep text search, or title search, and then failing to read and adequately quote, or characterise. Characterisations you have made have missed the core theoretical statements or claims made by the article, and have demonstrated cherry picking. Could you read these sources in full, and summarise and characterise their findings fairly. There are a number of academic habits that help you. Academics normally make their large claims in the first five paragraphs or so, or in the last three paragraphs or so. Academics normally make a claim as an entire paragraph, rather than as a single sentence. I'm glad that you're in favour of high quality secondary sources, but you need to do more than note their existence as if they self-evidently demonstrate something. They demonstrate when used to cite a claim, and you need to move beyond single sentence quoting, and learn how to paraphrase paragraphs and academic claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been talking about, instead of editors exchanging opinions on this talk page, in order to maintain WP:NPOV we need sources that have conflicting perspectives on the subject. And another problem is that existing sources keep disappearing from the article. Also, please consider catching up with previous discussions. A good place to start would be the 3 AfD-s , , .--Termer (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEDE recommends that the lede "needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Accordingly, since the topic is highly controversial, the lede should start with the statement that the term "Communist mass killings" is not used widely by scholars and there is no common opinion on what should be considered mass killings and what should not. I understand that it would be hard to find a source that can be used as a support for that statement, however, I believe that is a result article's name choice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"we need sources that have conflicting perspectives on the subject." - Such as there are. Can you provide/point me to some?

"And another problem is that existing sources keep disappearing from the article." - If you know roughly when, those sources can be recovered.

I'll have a look at the AfDs and a more thorough look through the article page and this talk. I'll edit the lede again later according to what sources there are on that page and this.

DHooke1973 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"the lede should start with the statement that the term "Communist mass killings" is not used widely by scholars"

I'm hearing you. This can all be sorted - by making the bold edit I have explicitly made it as it should be -about sources not assertion. A lack of sources will be evident too.

...I'll read those AfD's now...DHooke1973 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with sources is that some of them use the term (i) "Communist mass killings", some of them use (ii) "Communist genocide" and some of them use (iii) "Victims of Stalinist repression", or even (iv) "Excess mortality", and these sets do not intersect. In connection to that, you may take only category (ii) sources and write the article that would look well sourced, however, this article would be quite far from neutrality (because other sources and definitions are either left beyond the scope or presented just as alternative, if not revisionist, POV of some scholars).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(avoiding "mass killings")

Whatever the name, if you have sources for academic discussion of the overarching concept of mass killing by Communist regimes, then they will not be excluded on the basis of employing euphemisms. Your point is specious. It is not up to an editor to complain that the sources are hiding their content! 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHooke1973 (talk • contribs)

Several historians have made comparative analyses of political killings of large numbers of people occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Collect (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, by saying this we limit the article's scope with the events like Great Purge or Cultural Revolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As there us already a large amount of material dealing with other cases than those two, it is likely that such a limitation would artificially restrict the develoment of the article. IMHO, such an artificial restriction would not be helpful. Collect (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps its just me but I don't see how dropping "mass killings" borrowed from Valentino is going to help really. It was a compromise to avoid words like genocide, politicide or democide in the article title, which I personally think are much more clear. Communist crimes against humanity (see google books) would be an alternative title to the article but considering previous discussions, I can't really see how this could get enough support behind it either. So the "Mass killings under..." is not perfect but its' the best currently available that refers to a WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look around and I found out the following things:

It seems to at best be a fringe topic area in academia - this should definitely be mentioned in the lede.

Only 9 papers for communist mass killings on Google Scholar.

63 for communist genocide. Almost all specific to certain regimes.

Communist democide 8 papers.

Totten mentioned in this section of talk as a major source, but his academic credentials on this topic - has an education degree, :works in an education college, is a prof of Instruction & curriculum.

The burden of proof (the burden of providing sources) has to be on those who argue it IS academically mainstream.

When it is brought up, it's use as a concept is controversial - This should be in the lede too

Heavy criticism for Black Book of Communism, criticism of Valentino for using it. John Gray is controversial.

Suggested lede something along these lines:

The term "Communist mass killings" is not widely used in academia, but a few historians and political scientists have made comparative analyses of killings of large numbers of people occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Such analyses are controversial.

DHooke1973 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything would be good as long as such things are clear: "Such analyses are controversial" according to who and "not widely used in academia" where exactly and according to who?--Termer (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not widely used according to the paucity of academic sources. You will not necessarily find a source to say that a little used term is little used - but the burden is on those who say otherwise. If the sources exist, they should be brought forth.

Such analyses are controversial - according to sources I mentioned (I'll put them down below in another post explicitly. Controversial/has been heavily criticized... something like that).

One problem is that the article was lucky to survive the first AfD. There is an argument to keep based on hits in Google Books, which is dismantled in comments. Then, apart from specious and irrelevant assertions, such as "Strong Keep. The occurrence of these mass killings is a fact." ,"Certainly there are actions of communist regimes which qualify as genocide", and numerous references to Marx,

there is only this:

Weak keep and only because the article points out, correctly, that there are laws that use the term "communist genocide" specifically (the Czech law referred to in the article

and

Communist genocide is an accepted fact by most post-communist Eastern European governments. And there are instances of charges of communist genocide as in the case of Arnold Meri. Estonian charged with Communist genocide. Several countries have laws which explicitly make it illegal to deny communist genocide. It proves communist genocide is an accepted fact by many governments.

Since the article's name change that reason to Keep is no longer pertinent.

For all the discussion, not many academic sources have been forthcoming, and there are only 9 papers for the specific term on Google Scholar, so it cannot be stated as other than the the term is not widely used.

I'm not insisting the article should be deleted, but the sources do not show that in academic terms it is anything other than a fringe concept.

- DHooke1973 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the deaths caused by the communist regimes is a fringe concept? A little like flat earth? That's not a problem in case its so indeed. The only thing needed is a source that says so.--Termer (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Key point - It is not a question of whether deaths under communist regimes happened, but whether examination of a casual link is mainstream academic analysis and uncontroversial analysis. The fact of it is that there is a lot more academic treatment and support for the hypothesis that there is a link between totalitarian regimes and crimes against humanity.

It is a matter of academic debate whether, say, "all communist regimes are totalitarian". We certainly can't claim this is itself uncontroversial and we cannot do our own synthesis. Sources, sources, sources.

Now, here is evidence that the topic is controversial-

From Black Book of Communism page:

Amir Weiner of Stanford University characterizes the "Black Book" as seriously flawed, inconsistent, and

prone to mere provocation.

The methodology of the authors has been criticized. Alexander Dallin writes that moral, legal, or political

judgement hardly depends on the number of victims.

It is also argued that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an

examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, the Black Book's

attribution of 1 million deaths in Vietnam to Communism while ignoring the U.S. role has been criticized as

a methodological flaw.

From article on Democide

Accusations of mass killings by a government are relatively common. Less

common are well-documented cases with enough evidence to support the accusation. Almost all accusations are

disputed to some degree, although the evidence in some cases is stronger than in others.

(Rummmel is the ref for the article)

From this article:

Benjamin Valentino states that "No generally accepted terminology exists to describe the intentional killing

of large numbers of noncombatants."

According to Anton Weiss-Wendt, academic debate regarding the common features of mass killing and other

legal measures in communist countries originates in the political advocacy of Raphael Lemkin in advocating '

the genocide convention.(p557) According to Weiss-Wendt, Lemkin's hobby-horse was the international

ratification of a Genocide Convention, and he consistently bent his advocacy towards which ever venue would

advance his objective.(p555-6)

...Lemkin's broad application of his term in political lobbying degraded its usefulness, "Like King Midas, whatever Lemkin :::touched turned into “genocide.” But when everything is genocide nothing is genocide!" states Weiss-Wendt.

The Black Book of Communism's correctness has been disputed based on claims of serious methodological,

interpretive, narrative and (to some commentators) ideological flaws.

Also -Grant, Robert (Nov., 1999). "Review: The Lost Literature of Socialism". The Review of English

Studies (New Series) 50 (200): 557–559.

Refs and further reading largely do not appear to be relevant to the overarching hypothesis.

So, all that can be sourced, and also that the topic is controversial summarises content in this article.

Mention of this controversy/these criticisms must be included in the lede. Any objection?

DHooke1973 (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Your point is specious." I am not sure you correctly understand my point. I do not "complain that the sources are hiding their content". My point is that by taking as a base a terminology used by limited amount of scholars it is hard to write a neutral article or even a lede. In my opinion, a good lede should start with obvious and non-controversial statements that (i) Excess mortality was common for most Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. (ii) These excess mortality cases were a result of mass murders, mass executions, famines and deportations, etc. (iii) A "mass killings" term is being used by some scholars to describe some of these cases, although this terminology is not commonly accepted. I believe you have no objections against i-iii.
However, we cannot follow this scheme in this concrete article for two reasons. Firstly, to do that we need to rename the article into something more general (e.g. "Victim of Communist regimes"). Secondly, we even cannot write that "controversy exists among scholars on which of these cases can be considered mass killings and which cannot" because the "mass killings" concept is not too notable to be a subject of serious debates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Let me reiterate my point. Since even one of the inventors and advocates of the "mass killing" term concedes that no generally accepted terminology exists on that account, the article's name cannot contain the words "mass killings". It can be either narrower ("mass murder") or wider ("victims of Communist regimes". The advantage of following a second way is that the article would discuss both classical cases (mass murders and executions) cases and more controversial ones (famines, etc.), and it would be quite possible to discuss different terminologies and to present different concepts of various scholars, including "mass killings", "genocide", "politicide", "dispossessive mass killings", "population losses" etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

oic. I agree to write "controversy exists" about the phrase would be misleading. Rather it has to be along the lines of ::::"The phrase is not widely used, but such as it is used the term has met criticism".

It seems the case that the article is simply poorly conceived. However, let's say we make do with it for now (seeing as it has ::::survived 3 AfDs), then the best that can be done in the lede, I suggest, is something like:

"However, several historians and political scientists have attempted to investigate a purported casual connection between Communism and genocide, democide, policide (etc). These being concepts related by the notion of intentionally caused fatalities significantly above ?the norm?"

Help me out here: that's too wordy. Hopefully you see where I'm going.

DHooke1973 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "seeing as it has ::::survived 3 AfDs" It survived because the fact that mass murders and mass executions were perpetrated by Communist authorities is indisputable. However, the fact that mass killings took place doesn't mean that one can write the article based on the "mass killings" concept sensu lato. In my opinion, these attempts eventually lead to (justified) AfD nomination. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So, do you think a rename is the necessary first step? -- 06:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHooke1973 (talk • contribs)

The article has, indeed, been renamed in the past. Would you support "Intentional killings under Communist regimes" ? Collect (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what do we plan to include into the article. Since there is no consensus on whether all famines and deportations were organized to kill people, this name would not be good. In that case "victims of ..." would be a solution, because no one doubts the famine and deportation victims were the victims of Stalinism, Maoism etc. However, if we do not plan to include them, both "Intentional killings under Communist regimes" and the present name are adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support anything that a neutral lede can be written for that is supported by the literature and does not

require editor synthesis. So I think "Intentional Killings" is not great. I mean, that would come out in the lede as something like "...genocide, democide, policide and - more controversially - deaths arising from 'state neglect'..."

That is, it is synthesis to put those together I think. There isn't much academic support for putting them together

(famines etc) that I can see.

So, I think "Mass murder" would be much less ambiguous and lead to something that it would be tenditious to call synthesis. ::::::: Lede would be "...genocide, democide, policide..." I think.

There just doesn't seem to be much academic support for "mass killings" or "intentional killings" - they seem too nebulous.

I would change my mind if I saw sources supporting that categorization of course.

I am inclined to think we should try to put together a joint lede/rename proposal that might conceivably find some

consensus.

My main thrust is to get whatever article comes out saying "Some historians/ w/e do or say X" rather than "X is the case"

:-) - DHooke1973 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I think "Mass murder" would be much less ambiguous" Yes, it would be less ambiguous, but it would narrow the article's scope, because neither most famines nor deportations fit this definition. I see no problem with that, although I anticipate it will create problems, because some people will continue to add more and more controversial examples of alleged mass murders into the article, that will lead to WP:COATRACK. In connection to that, let me propose the following solution. (i) Write a lede, as well as the article itself, primarily about mass murders (Great Purge, Cultiral Revolution and similar events); (ii) Discuss scholars' opinions on whether these mass killings were nation-specific or Communism-specific; (iii) Make a reservation that numerous attempts are being made by some scholars to qualify these events as "genocide", although this POV is not generally accepted; (iv) Make a reservation that majority of excess mortality cases under Communist rule were a result of not mass murders, but famines, wars and deportations, and that some scholars believe that these cases also have signs of intentional mass killings (discuss famines etc. here). Since the main focus will be made on absolutely non-controversial subject, and since all controversial subjects will be moved to a separate section, the problems with the article's name and lede's structure will be resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems eminently practical. Certainly as an interim solution, at least.

How is this for a draft:

lede draft (dec 21)

(Contd from above) DHooke1973 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Several historians and political scientists have written comparative analyses of mass murders occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Scholarly opinion on how to analyse these events varies. Whilst many scholars treat these events as regime-specific, others analyse them as pertinent to Communism. Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as 'genocide', this broad use of the category is not generally accepted. Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide.

A minority of scholars take the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines also indicate intentional killing, but this opinion is controversial.

DHooke1973 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence is problematical, it is too general and reads as if this view is fringe. "Controversial" is the wrong word, "debate" is better. The debate is about one particular famine and whether the excess deaths were intentional. In fact the minority view holds that the excess deaths were entirely natural, while the majority view is that they were a consequence of policy. --Martin (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be incorrect that it is a subject of debates. I didn't find any evidences that scholars like Wheathcroft participate in debates with Valentino, Rummel etc. They simply seem to ignore each other. I believe, last words ("but this opinion is controversial") can be omitted. With regards to the rest, I have some problems with the first sentence. Did anybody do real serious comparative analysis of such different events like Great purge and Khmer massacres?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, chap 4 of Valentino, at the least. Perhaps better to say comparative analysis of the regimes? DHooke1973 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "Deaths as a consequence of Communist policy". The relevant point is whether the deaths are considered to be intentional. IOW, need more sources to be able to say this is not the minority view.- DHooke1973 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You need a positive source to assert "minority." WP editors are not the ones to make that determination. We need an RS saying it. Collect (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We need an RS according to what policy?

What word would you use that doesn't allocate weight?

DHooke1973 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If we do not have a source stating "minority", we should not try making that statement ourselves. We can not simply assert "this is a minority view" on our own without having a sound basis for use of the word. If one does not even have a source with a contrary opinion, it is absurd to claim the opinion is a "minority opinion." Therefore, if you can provide sources which contradict the statement that mass killings have been intentionally caused under Communist regimes, then provide them. Claiming "minority" otherwise makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"If we do not have a source stating "minority", we should not try making that statement ourselves."

We make determinations on weight all the time. "Some" is to allocate weight.

The sound basis is the lack of proponents (via sources). viz Flat Earth for example.

WP:Weight seems unambiguous on this to me. If it isn't a minority view you should be able to provide sources.

Again, we need an RS to say "minority" according to what policy? What word would you use that doesn't allocate weight?

DHooke1973 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Any disputable statement must be supported by a RS. Collect disputed the statement about "minority views". Therefore, although I personally agree that that is a minority POV, the source is really needed. In my opinion, this issue can be resolved by replacement of "A minority of" with "Some": by doing that we show that that POV is not generally accepted, although it is supported by some scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Except it is disputed, not genuinely disputable. That is, the way to dispute it is with sources.

There would not likely be a source to affirm it is the minority view because it is a minority view.

To say "some" gives undue weight. We are talking about a handful of scholars. Or at least that is what the current sources suggest. I'm not sure why it is disputed - if the sources exist then they should be presented.

As I said, WP:Weight is unambiguous:

*If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts *If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public.

DHooke1973 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) To assert "minority" of a viewpoint requires a sourced assertion of a contrary "majority" viewpoint. So far, no such references have been given at all. I am perfectly happy to have all sorts of RS views in the article. Asserting that a totally unrepresented view is "majority" is, however, not credible. Collect (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, familiarize yourself with previous talk page posts (e.g. ) For instance, one of sources mentioned there states (with regards to 1932-33 Soviet famine):

"However, whether these two items of evidence can be interpreted as meeting the specific intent criterion is doubtful. An analogy may make the legal problem clear. Was the policy followed in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first by the British Empire and then the USA, towards the Native Americans, an example of genocide? Many of them were killed by settlers, their land was expropriated, their population declined, and their way of life ended. A specialist in human rights law has argued (Bassiouni 1979), however, that this was not an example of genocide because of the absence of proof of specific intent. If the deaths were largely just a by-product of the spread of disease and agriculture, the deaths would remain a fact but would not constitute genocide."--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I already have used the word "intent" a few times. Where a source states that a reason was used by a government for elimination of any group, then "intent" is rather easy to prove. In the case of official US policies regarding Indians, the "intent" is generally absent, to be sure. The case where "intent" can be found is wrt the Spanish actions, not the British actions. The issue of "intent" is rather harder to quantify in the case of the Irish Potato Blight - where things get a bit muddier due to Acts of Parliament which could be seen as being official "intent" for their results (removal of food supplies from areas where people were likely to starve). The Soviet Famine is quite parallel to the Irish case with regard to acts concerning the food supply. Acts by settlers, however objectionable, do not appear to fall into the category of government intent. This article, moreover, is limited to intent by official government purpose, not random acts by individuals. Do you see the point about official government intent being involved? Collect (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question is unclear for me. The dispute started over the statement:

"A minority of scholars take the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines also indicate intentional killing, but this opinion is controversial."

You requested to provide a source supporting this statement. I provided a quote from the mainstream scholar who clearly states that there is not enough ground to speak about intent. I believe all other considerations over Irish famine or "the point about official government intent being involved" are irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the minority of scholars, is several scholars an acceptable compromise? (Igny (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Re majority:

There are several sources of non-ascription of intention re famine, as well as non-inclusion of famine,

within the article (eg Weiss-Wendt, Wayman&Tago)

but I will also repeat my comment from the inappropriate article name section of this Talk:

Just by looking at the Black Book of Communism article, I can see that J. Arch Getty, Mark Tauger, and

Dallin all noted that famines should not be counted as if they were equivalent to intentional murders and

executions.

I will add

Ervin Staub, "Genocide and Mass Killing: Origins, Prevention, Healing and Reconciliation" in

Political Psychology Vol 21,No.2, 2000

P Huth, D Balch-Lindsay, "Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare International 2004 Cambridge Univ Press

(Incidentally, the last two might be of some use to the main article)

I think it's okay if we put it in terms of "the majority don't ..." and compare to "some", or "several"

but I do think the relative weights should be properly represented.

DHooke1973 (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT famines - that is unimportant to the use of "minority" in the lede in reference to all examples -- I would suggest that the question of minority depends heavily on the famine being discussed. A lot of scholars blame deliberate decisions by the Soviets with regard to food distribution for a number of deaths -- just as the British decisions impacted Ireland. Collect (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The relevant point is how many scholars say this constitutes intentional killing. In effect, the difference between murder and manslaughter.

DHooke1973 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Where intent is implied in any way, it is murder. Law generally includes any acts which one could reasonably think might cause a death as intentional. Did you look up the Irish situation? Particularly Boyle's opinions? Collect (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Where the sources say there is intentional killing, we shall say the sources say there is intentional killing.

If you have more sources that treat of famine under a Communist regime as intentional killing, then please present them.

- DHooke1973 (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your question with a specific example. This talk page is not set up for asking folks for cites where they have addressed the questions raised several times now. Rather, do you regard the Irish Famine as "intentional" as an example of a famine death possibly being regarded as caused by a government? The claim is that the deaths were not a direct act, but an indirect result of government acts which could have been foreseen. Is that sufficient for you as it is for Boyle? Collect (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Collect, could you please explain me why do we need to discuss Irish famine here when the source provided by me clearly and explicitly states that proof of intent is doubtful in the case of Soviet famine? What other sources do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

From Reliable sources policy

"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. " Bobanni (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be more helpful if you cut this down to whatever you think is relevant to the issue, as well as telling us which issue and how it is relevant. DHooke1973 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

DPRK

Dictionary of genocide, Volume 1 By Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs, staes that Kim Il-Sung killed vast numbers of people for political reasons. Collect (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Something that might interest those who have been after theoretical questions concerning the subject: Accounting for genocide after 1945: Theories and some findings by Helen Fein, Institute for the Study of Genocide, New York, U.S.A: -"...as expected, unfree, authoritarian and one party communist states are most likely to use genocide...One-party communist states are 4.5 times more likely to have used genocide than are authoritarian states."--Termer (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, you've previously demonstrated cherry picking. Please supply an appropriate academic citation when quoting sources, and make attempts to quote the thesis of an article. The absence of author, title, journal name in your quote above makes it entirely uncontextualised and irrelevant to discussion except to cause drama. Additionally, you're quoting a throw away line within a piece, not a statement of thesis, for all we know this could be an agronomy piece by an opinionated agronomist. More and better context please. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your citation should be something along the lines of Helen Fein, "Accounting for Genocide after 1945: Theories and Some Findings," International Journal of Group Rights 1, 1994: 79ff. And you're quoting from the Abstract. Go read the article before you bring it up here, and identify the key theoretical claims, they're usually in, or immediately following the introduction. The core claim will be at a minimum of about a paragraph in length. We'd also want evidence that this article was reviewed. In the place where authors in sociology and law usually thank the journal's peer reviewers, they don't, its a first issue and Ulrich's only claims the title is refereed under its new title. TOC might help there, or bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you object to the Totten ref above? BTW, it is best to avoid making any personal comments as a rule. Collect (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Totten et al ref. I'm highly suspicious of "Dictionaries of". The fact that you haven't included the publisher, or the specific dictionary entry (article, article's author), is not a good sign. Misplaced Pages has rules on the use of Tertiary sources. They need to be aimed at an expert public (dictionary of genocide sounds possible), the articles need to be written by and signed by an expert (no indication in your citation so far). Having checked the link, no Totten et al is not acceptable. The dictionary entry, KIm Il-sung is not signed by an author; its a source very clearly on the same level as Britannica or Misplaced Pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardcover: 288 pages Publisher: Greenwood (November 30, 2007) Language: English ISBN-10: 0313346429 ISBN-13: 978-0313346422 . Samuel Totten Paul Bartrop Yeah - significant authors. It is not a Wiki, so that cavil is invalid entirely. Secondary source is reliable source as it is ascribable to specific authors. Collect (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

... This is frustratingly disappointing, Collect. I'd suggest you bone up on the difference between secondary and tertiary sources. WP:RS/N has been requested to deal with it Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly work, signed by notable figures. Secondary source. Not a dictionary like Random House. Collect (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you retract your accusation that taking a disagreement about the reliability of a source to a reliable source notice board is forum shopping. I strongly suggest you do so now. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is a secondary scholarly work by people noted in the field, and hence is properly citable here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

] Misplaced Pages:TERTIARY. Apologise please. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I've quoted and going to quote only anything that's relevant to the article. For the rest, the link is there for purpose and anybody can read what it says.--Termer (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read in full the article from which you quoted a section of the abstract? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages has rules on the use of Tertiary sources. They need to be aimed at an expert public (dictionary of genocide sounds possible), the articles need to be written by and signed by an expert (no indication in your citation so far)." Your rules appear to be made up. where does this "They need to be aimed at an expert public" rule come from? Where does this "signed by an expert" rule come from? Chapter and verse please - since it appears that you're just pulling these rules out of thin air. Smallbones (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#History deals with this. Its a rule that's been applied on WP:RS/N and in relation to Featured Articles to test if the Tertiary Source is the equivalent of the highest quality reliable sources. A number of Tertiary sources include what are effectively journal article quality literature reviews or review articles. Sadly, the Dictionary of Genocide is not written in that vein. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not cite essays as if they were policy or guidelines. ANYBODY CAN WRITE AN ESSAY! Your actions are equivalent to making up the rules as you go along. Your "rules" have no meaning here and I will call you on it every time that I see you trying to pull this garbage. Smallbones (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What is really nice is that the essay specifically states "Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards." In short, the essay specifically states that sources from this publisher are reliable. Amazing. Collect (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source examples quoted above contains following caution:

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Bobanni (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and its been taken to WP:RS/N for specific inquiry. Hopefully from non-involved editors (though so far that doesn't look so good). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo. So what do you want to know exactly. What's the bottom line of the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Helen Fein's work that's relevant to the article? You can read it by her own words from here: most genocide scholars have acknowledged the greater likelihood of communist states than other authoritarian states to commit genocide since 1945 (this was one finding of my article "Accounting for Genocide after 1945...--Termer (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm asking you to do Termer. You've located a potentially wonderful source, and instead of reading it and discussing it, you've quoted one sentence from the abstract. You're also making the claim that this one sentence is representative of the research findings of the work as a whole, without having read the work. We don't cite abstracts, we cite the article itself, and you haven't read the article itself. You should improve your research behaviour, selective quotation has previously resulted in you mischaracterising the research findings of works. You can do better. Try your local library for interlibrary loans services. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

- The IAGS are an open membership organization. I could join. Membership is no indication of academic stringency or reliability.

It is far more relevant that Fein is a Phd historical sociologist at Harvard.

I have a problem with Totten as a source, in that his field and qualifications are in Education.

DHooke1973 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bio from Greenwood Publishing Group "SAMUEL TOTTEN is a genocide scholar based at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. He is also a Member of the Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem, Israel).In 2005, Totten was named one of the inaugural chief co-editors of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, which is the official journal of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). Among the books Totten's edited/co-edited on genocide are: First-Person Accounts of Genocidal Acts Committed in the Twentieth Century (Greenwood, 1991). In July and August of 2004, Totten served as one of 24 investigators on the U.S. State Department's Darfur Atrocities Documentation Project. Most recently, Totten has conducted research in Rwanda on various aspects of the Rwandan genocide." Bobanni (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with Totten as a source, in that his field and qualifications are in Education.

None of what you put makes him a credible historian or political scientist, or anything of the sort.

At Arkansas, he is a professor of Instruction and Curriculum.

DHooke1973 (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong. 1) Academic appointments are primarily on the basis of a responsibility to teach into an area. Research requirements are usually "free", in the sense that anyone may research anything if conducted credibly (but you're going to face trouble getting a physics lab in an English department). 2) Being an editor, a journal editor, a government specialist, or a member of an institute doesn't mean squat about their research credibility. Authored works in the field matter, and their review. The fact that Totten has a background in education is a dangerous sign, but not an excluding sign. Monographs and journal articles which have been favourably reviewed by appropriate experts in appropriate journals is the key here to establishing an "authority." Examine what his research programme has been by his publications in appropriate RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Samuel Totten is a genocide scholar, Professor of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, a Member of the Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem. In 2005 he became one of the chief co-editors of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, the official journal of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). rather seems to indicate specific credentials on the topic. So much for trying the physics analogy. It is more like saying a physicist who works as an educator ceases being a physicist, even if he were head of the American Ohysical Society <g>. He has proper credentials for the work in question. And I do suggest being a co-editor on a scholarly journal counts a bit. Collect (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think being a co-editor on a scholarly journal counts here, the journal is particularly young. My main and fundamental attack on the "Kim Il-Sung" entry in the dictionary is that its an unsigned tertiary source. The discussion of Totten's authority is interesting, but secondary to that. What I would point out, regarding any scholar, is that their standing is a field is established by peer review. Which means monographs from academic presses, chapters in edited collections (edited by someone other than themselves) published from an academic press, and peer reviewed journal articles. Being a co-editor is not part of this. Being a professional for a US instrumentality is not part of this (and in this case, given the US government's known habit of engaging in outright lies in relation to Communism, not an establishing point, but neither is it detrimental). Show me Totten's publication history to establish his authority, but as I noted, his authority isn't the issue with the source; the lack of an appropriate author signing the individual entry, and the entry not meeting the standards of articles in scholarly tertiaries is (consider Oxford National Dictionary of Biography as a comparator). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note further Greenwood Publishing Group. Which rather precludes the "vanity press" argument, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, how can I be wrong for raising a concern which you agree is legitimate? Then you explicate my point (your point 2).

Collect - IAGS may have the word "scholar" in the title, but it's open membership. Anyone can join.

As for specific credentials - he may have studied and written about genocides, but the issue is his authority as a ::::::::::: political history authority on this topic (which is not genocide or even simply mass murder).

A better analogy is in fact a guy with an education degree working as a physicist.

Now, an amateur by training and position can yet be an expert - but on the face of it he is not an

impressive source. I'll have a look at who has published him and how many citations his work has got, certainly, but

the concern is certainly worth raising. - DHooke1973 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that the publisher is used for RS on over 6,000 cases on WP would carry weight for you? That it had been owned by Houghton, Mifflin? Sorry -- the source is RS. No one at RS/N has said it is not RS from the outside of this article. Collect (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Totten. "Totten has been active in investigating the genocide in Darfur. In the summer of 2004, he was among 24 investigators asked to interview black African refugees along the Chad/Sudan border for the U.S. State Department's Atrocities Documentation Project." Clearly regarded as expert by the DoS. Collect (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps the fact that the publisher is used for RS on over 6,000 cases on WP would carry weight for you?"

Perhaps it does.

On a another point, can you tell me where I can find such stats please? It would be useful to know where to look that sort of thing up. Thank you.

Totten as an overall source - well the article isn't about genocide, it is specifically about a link

between communism and mass killings .I am simply saying Totten doesn't seem like the best source in the world to support that hypothesis. I am wary of undue weight, also.

DHooke1973 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Use the "search" function. Also note that Greenwood is specifically singled out as reliable in the essay cited by one editor <g>. As for undue weight -- on what basis do you specifically feel the source carries undue weight per se? Do you have sources which contradict it? Then add them. Collect (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the source necessarily carries undue weight. I do think that robust sources will help the article out of it's neutrality issues. Do I have sources which contradict the dictionary quote, you mean? To be clear, that is not my issue. My issue is robust sources throughout and the weight of academic discussion of the article's implicit hypothesis. That is what doesn't seem so heavy to me. See the lede section directly above ('what I found out') if you want my (initial) appraisal of sources. - DHooke1973 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I could give you a number of sources about how Stalin and Kim were universally loved by the people and how they brought happiness and prosperity to everyone. After all if anti-communist propaganda is allowed here, why not communist propaganda? (Igny (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

"Communism" is rather ambiguous term. Although, strictly speaking, Communism is just a political ideology in which property is commonly controlled, this term is colloquially used to describe some Asiatic and semi-Asiatic dictatorships that used Communist phraseology to establish a bureaucratic control over property, private life and state. In that sense, Communism defined in such a way has not much difference with Nazism. Consequently, what you call "Communist propaganda" in actuality advocates Stalinism, Maoism and similar dictatorships, and it cannot be equated with anti-Communism propaganda (I mean those anti-Communists who are, in actuality, anti-Stalinists, anti-Maoists, etc). Therefore, the answer on your rhetorical question is: because mass murderers' advocacy has no place on WP pages. Of course, if under Communists we mean some leftists (in European meaning of this word) and under anti-Communists we mean rightists (like Conquest, e.g.) both Communist and anti-Communist POVs should be presented equally. However, I believe, this has no direct relation to this concrete case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• once it has been established that DHooke1973 has been a sock puppet of Jacob Peters and the account has been blocked indefinitely, I suggest archiving the threads as a disruption and starting fresh. Or perhaps anything posted by DHooke1973 should be simply deleted from this talk page in case anybody is willing to take on such a tedious job and sees that there is a possibility to sort the discussions out? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Fifelfoo on that one :. I'd appreciate if you could stop commenting on contributors and limit your comments on content only. Other than that. Unfortunately pasting the entire work here for your convenience would be a violation of WP:Copyvio. Please feel free to acquire the work from you nearest library and quote whatever you please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to propose your own version of lede, I will gladly participate in the discussion of it. However, to avoid reiteration of my and Collect's arguments, please, familiarize yourself with our comments and, please, try to take it into account when it possible. I believe neither Collect nor I are someone's sockpuppet, so our opinion should be taken into account in any event.
If you, for some reason are unwilling or unable to propose your own version of lede, I believe you will not mind us to take a DHooke1973's version as a starting point. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Its impossible to navigate in those discussions spammed by DHooke1973, and one thing is clear, anything said by this user should be simply ignored. On the lede, I never had mayor problems with it as it was other than sectins from it were constantly removed with no reasons. If anything, since there seems to be a controversy going on, the lede should spell it out. What we need is a source that looks into this controversy and that should do it.--Termer (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has an issue or query regarding my editing this page, I suggest you bring it up on my talk page. If a significant number of editors think I have been "spamming" then I will listen. Other than that, I suggest my contributions be taken on their merits and we move on. I certainly don't wish to take up any more of this talk page talking about me.

DHooke1973 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies DHooke1973, your way of commenting was very similar to a user who has been misusing wikipedia user accounts and therefore coupler of wikipedia editors including myself misunderstood your intentions. Please do not spread your comments all over the talk page, and please keep it straight to the point, otherwise it makes it very difficult to follow what exactly are you after. Also in the future please consider discussing changes on the talk page, bring the discussion to a consensus before making any major changes in the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

I do not think my comments appear in any more different sections than anyone else. I put them where they belong.

I'll reserve the right to make the occasional bold edit where I think it will help move a discussion on.

I think we are moving the discussion on. So let's get back to discussing that here, and my talk page for any concerns about my approach. Thanks.

DHooke1973 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus building

I've listed the article at WP:Requests for page protection due to the long lasted edit warring. Please note that I intend to do it also in the future in case the differences are not getting worked out on the talk page. So meanwhile its a good time to find some common ground here. Anybody who has constructive suggestions on how to improve the article, please do not hesitate to bring your findings forward by referring to secondary published sources only. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

lede draft (dec 22)

"Several historians and political scientists have written comparative analyses of various Communist regimes associated with mass murder, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Scholarly opinion on how to analyse these events varies. Whilst many scholars treat these events as regime-specific, others analyse them as pertinent to Communism. Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as 'genocide', this broad use of the category is not generally accepted. Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide.

Some treatments of the subject have put forward the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines also indicate intentional killing, but this interpretation of intent is not held by the majority."

Thoughts? For sources and previous discussion see subsection above.

(Any queries not about the article, I refer you to the bottom of the DPRK section/my Talk page)

Glad to see that sockpuppet investigation initiated by Termer demonstrated that you were not a sockpuppet. With regards to the lede, do you think the beginning of the first sentence is good? Many (if not majority) scholars study mass murders under Stalin, Mao etc. separately (for instance, Wheathcroft discusses victims of Stalinism separately from other victims, however, he does it meticulously) , and only few scholars tried to do a comparative analysis. Interestingly some of these broadly thinking scholars, e.g. Rummel have been criticised for crucial flaws in their analysis and conclusions. However, by starting the article with the mention of comparative analysis we thereby put extra emphasis on the second type scholars' works. I don't think it is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right: The following sentences deal with the different types of analysis anyhow.

Perhaps the first sentence should be amended simply to "...have written about mass murders committed under Communist regimes"?

DHooke1973 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all this article is not about comparative analysis of anything, and such analysis would remain outside of Wikipedias scope in the first place. All this doesn't mean that the article shouldn't have a section on analysis, in case that is what is wanted here.

The only purpose of this article is to give the reader explanation(s) on what does the term Communist Democide, or Communist Gnocide or Communist politicide or like Valentino has put it simply "Communist mass killings", what does it mean exactly? And in case it can be verified that all this is simply a fringe or a "crack-pot" theory like often claimed above. No problem, there are many articles on fringe theories on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion about lead is the first necessary step to remove the ugly SYNTH tag. Is it not? (Igny (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Re:"The only purpose of this article is to give the reader explanation(s) on what does the term" The only reasonable explanation may be that these terms are vague and no consensus exists on that account among scholars and lawyers. In my understanding, the article's purpose is to tell about premature deaths under Communist rules, about well established cases of mass murders, mass executions, more controversial cases, like famines, labour camp mortality and deportation deaths, about other population losses. It is absolutely irrelevant how several scholars and political writers call it, especially taling into account that really serious scholars do not play in these games.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There rarely is a general consensus on anything really. And why this case should be any different. In case these terms are vague, no problem again, our job here is to write articles so that all possible viewpoints are covered. In case serious scholars do not "play in these games", why does the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Helen Fein claim that "most genocide scholars have acknowledged the greater likelihood of communist states than other authoritarian states to commit genocide since 1945" ?--Termer (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think genocide scholars are the only scholars who work in this area? With regards to Fein, please, familiarize yourself with this tabe . Starting from 1955, more genocides and politicides were committed by non-Communist regimes than by Communist ones. Interestingly, genocides against Communists (Indonesia, Vientam) amounted up to 1.5 million.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line to this lede draft would be &. In case all this comes from a secondary published source, and it specifies who exactly are the "several", "many", "some" etc. no problem. But what we can't do here, have a comparative analysis written by wikipedia editors. that's what WP:No original research is all about. The lede should be based on what exactly any of the sources written on the subject say, and there is nothing more to it really.--Termer (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:LEDE doesn't require citations to be in the lede. Anyway, what concretely is OR in the lede proposed by DHooke1973?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede reflects the article, in that there is a "Controversies" section for cases such as famine etc.

"The bottom line to this lede draft would be &"

I'm just going on the article itself and the sources I am aware of.

I don't mind laying out all those external sources and relevant sentences from the article, if you require. We've discussed quite a few of them already, but I can lay them out as footnotes to the lede. Would you like me to do that, termer?

- DHooke1973 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede like the article itself should state facts only according to the published sources. Phrases like "Several historians", "many scholars", "not generally accepted" etc. are not facts according to the sources but an original analysis of the sources written by wikipedia editors. In case anything is "generally accepted" or "not generally accepted" etc it needs to list the source/the author that has claimed so and clearly spell it out in the article who says so. And words like "Several" and "many" and "some" shouldn't be used in the first place. please see WP:WEASEL FFI -the most important: "either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". Hope that it was more clear what I was talking about.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The style guide WP:WEASEL most certainly does not say words like "Several", "many", and "some" shouldn't be used. However, I agree we should be as precise as is reasonable.

Paul, having read the Ellman article, I think the quote you provided before - while it does highlight problems with ascribing intent - probably doesn't represent Ellman's conclusions, so I suggest it not be used.

termer, I am going to drop "majority" for the last line, then, but certainly there several plenty of sources that dispute 'famines as intentional killing'.

With all that in mind...

lede draft (dec 23)

"Several historians and political scientists have written about mass murders committed under Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Scholarly opinion on how to analyse these events varies. Whilst these events are often treated as regime-specific, they have sometimes been analysed as pertinent to Communism. Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as genocide, this broad use of the category is not generally accepted. Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide.

Some treatments of the subject have put forward the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines have indicated intentional killing. This interpretation is disputed."

1. "Rummel (2001) finds totalitarianism and communism in particular, two variables often passed over by other scholars, to be important explanatory variables." - Wayman & Tago

2. "Most scholarly definitions assume that legal definition is a good start, but are aware that this treaty-based definition left out the killing of economic and political groups." - Wayman & Tago

See also Genocide_definitions

3. Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#cite_note-Weiss-Wendt2005Hostage-110

Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#cite_note-Courtois1999Introduction-111 P29

Historian J. Arch Getty "believes that these famines were caused by the "stupidity or incompetence of the regime," and that the deaths resulting from the famines, as well as other deaths that "resulted directly or indirectly from government policy," should not be counted as if they were equivalent to intentional murders and executions." - J Arch Getty, The Atlantic Monthly, Boston: Mar 2000. Vol.285, Iss. 3; pg. 113, 4 pgs

Professor Alexander Dallin said the authors of The Black Book of Communism make no attempt to differentiate between intended crimes such as the Moscow show trials and policy choices that had unintended consequences such as the Chinese famine.

- Alexander Dallin, Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4

DHooke1973 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would change "have written about mass murders committed under Communist regimes" to "have written about mass killings committed under Communist regimes" as being more neutral. --Martin (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "mass killings" is problematic. See previous discussion eg 'dec 21'. Mass murders is unambiguous and then we mention the disputed cases such as famine, which Valentino includes in "mass killings" but others (e.g Wayman & Tago) don't.

DHooke1973 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The lede like the article itself should state facts only according to the published sources." No. WP:LEDE recommends that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Since the article combines several, sometimes mutually exclusive points of view, the good lede should state about that directly, but concisely. For instance, if the article tells that a scholar X tells "A", whereas the scholar Y tells "not A" then we have to write in the lede that no common opinion exists on the question A (even if no sources state that explicitly). --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "...probably doesn't represent Ellman's conclusions..." What Ellman's conclusions are in your opinion? He seems to state his position rather clearly:

"If the present author were a member of the jury trying this case he would support a verdict of not guilty (or possibly the Scottish verdict of not proven). The reasons for this are as follows. First, the three physical elements in the alleged crime can all be given non-genocidal interpretations. Secondly, the two mental elements are not unambiguous evidence of genocide. Suspicion of an ethnic group may lead to genocide, but by itself is not evidence of genocide. Hence it would seem that the necessary proof of specific intent is lacking"

"Hence, with this more relaxed definition, the deaths of more than three million Ukrainians in 1932 – 33 would qualify as genocide (as would the excess deaths in 1930 – 34 of Russians and Kazakhs) ... However, such a broad definition would mean that genocide was no longer a rare and uniquely horrible offence. A large number of historical events would become genocides (Jones 2006), ranging from the expansion of the Zulu kingdom in early nineteenth century South Africa, to the Atlantic slave trade, the European colonisation of the Caribbean islands and American continent, the atom bomb on Nagasaki (and possibly also the one on Hiroshima), and the economic sanctions of the 1990s against Iraq. This also means that countries such as Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, UK and USA, which participated in or were responsible for one or more of the events in the above list, would become guilty of genocide."--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not guilty of genocide. However, Ellman then goes on to say that although proof of "specific intent" re famine is lacking, Stalin has no viable defence against murder, due to his "constructive intent".

He sums that up here:

"From a criminal-law point of view, the only way of defending Stalin from the charge

of (mass) murder is to argue that he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions.

Stalin was undoubtedly ignorant about many things, but was he really that ignorant?

From the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, a crime (or series of

crimes) for which Team-Stalin was clearly guilty in 1930 – 34, is that of crime(s) against

humanity.

Whether or not Team-Stalin was guilty of genocide in 1932 – 33 depends on how

‘genocide’ is defined. If a strict legal definition is adopted, based on the UN Genocide

Convention, genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932 – 33 is a charge for which there

is some evidence, but it seems to the present author that it does not meet the standard

of specific intent required to prove genocide."

DHooke1973 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "mass killing" is problematical. Murder is homicide, but the article also discusses genocide, democide and politicide, so killing encompasses all these terms, and fits with the second paragraph: "Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as genocide, this broad use of the category is not generally accepted. Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide." I've seem plenty of sources the use the term "mass killing", you provided two yourself above, but are there any sources that use the term "mass murder"? --Martin (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not trying to encompass everything in one term. The pertinent point is that not all scholars agree that famine is killing, whereas no-one would dispute that murder is killing. - DHooke1973 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever reply to the question about the Irish Famine and the British Government. by the way? Collect (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hence my argument why killing is a better term than murder. Not all scholars agree that famine is murder, no one disputes that a massive excess of people was killed by famine, the debate being about the degree of human agency involved in causing that excess, whether it was intentional, a consequence of ideology and its policies, incompetence or plain indifference. --Martin (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I cannot say that I fully disagree. My only concern is that "mass killing" and "mass murder" sometimes are considered as synonims. For instance mass killing redirects to mass murder. Moreover, although I am not a native English speaker (or, maybe, because of that), the statement "people were killed by famine" is not completely correct. People died as a result of famine. One way or the another, I never saw that "killing" was used as an antithesis for "murder" when intent is discussed. For instance, Ellman writes:

"From the standpoint of national criminal law, the debate is about whether Stalin was guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter or whether he was guilty of (mass) murder. From a criminal-law point of view, the only way of defending Stalin from the charge of (mass) murder is to argue that he was ignorant of the consequences of his actions. Stalin was undoubtedly ignorant about many things, but was he really that ignorant? From the standpoint of contemporary international criminal law, a crime (or series of crimes) for which Team-Stalin was clearly guilty in 1930 – 34, is that of crime(s) against humanity." (Note, not "murder vs killing", but "murder vs manslaughter").

Let me reiterate my point. Although "killings" were chosen as an umbrella term intended to describe all cases of premature deaths, it is not fully neutral in actuality. It seems to be more close to "murder" than to "excess mortality" and even "manslaughter". Note, the term "mass killing" was introduced and is being used by scholars who are prone to see intentions behind broader range of excess deaths under Communist rule than other scholars do. In connection to that, I propose to discriminate between well acknowledged murders and more controversial cases. By calling Great Purge or Katyn massacre "murders" we just follow mainstream point of view. No artificial neutrality is needed here. However, by doing so we have an opportunity to separate these clear case of mass murders from more controversial manslaughters, and to discuss different POVs in details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss specific instances, but with all due respect, I think you may be misconstruing the word "mass killing". Whether it was the Irish famine or the Great Chinese Famine, it is precisely this "murder vs manslaughter" debate that scholars have introduced this term "mass killing" as a neutral way to describe the phenomenon where there was some human agency involved (as opposed to a pure natural disaster like a tsunami). All that the term "killing" implies it that there was some human contribution to cause excess deaths, whether the killing was murder or manslaughter, that is the question scholars are wrestling with. --Martin (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect - I'm not interested in debating British and Irish history. - DHooke1973 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You might not -- as the analogy seems quite sufficiently clear, indeed. Collect (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you really think I'm uncomfortable about your analogy (rather than it constituting OR) then bring it up on my Talk page.

You might have me confused with an expert on European history, rather than an editor trying to help steer this page so that it is a balanced reflection of the academic sources that have been presented here.

On my Talk page, I don't mind discussing my opinion, making synthesis etc etc... all those things.

DHooke1973 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Boyle did OR? As I cited his views, it would appear you think I am Boyle? The issue is whether acts which, in the face of a famine or blight, undertaken by a government, and which could reasonably be construed likely to cause deaths, constitute "killing." That is the gist of Boyle's arguments -- did you read the cite given? I suggest it is precisely on point with the issue of Soviet acts during a "famine." Collect (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You made reference to an analogy with the Irish Famine. You asked me previously if I had looked up the Irish situation. You might have me confused with an expert on European history, or at least someone who has pretensions to be an expert on European history. I am not. I have not looked up Boyle's views on the Irish situation.

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you have provided a citation to the relevant treatment from Boyle. Perhaps that is where we are getting crossed wires here. I am not going to go searching through the writings of Boyle on the Irish Famine. If you have provided a citation that is relevant then my apologies. I need sources.

DHooke1973 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See

404 Not found. I can't find it on the Genocide page either. Could you edit the link?

DHooke1973 (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another page on that site gives the bad link now as well, one of the perils of the Internet. Try then especially concerning the Corn Laws. Collect (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at it, but you're going to have to tell me which bit you think is relevant. DHooke1973 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin,

AFAICT, the sources we have tell us not many scholars have used "mass killing" in this way (as a neutral term). So as not to exclude all the others , that's why it is best to talk of mass murders, then give the expanded definition.

Furthermore, we have sources that dispute the more encompassing treatments.

Wayman & Tago aren't talking about famine at all, for example.

Also, this is what Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Terminology is highlighting, isn't it?

DHooke1973 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass murder is an narrower term than mass killing, so I do not follow your reasoning that it is better to talk of mass murder in order to not exclude all forms of killing. Just because Wayman & Tago do not discuss famine does not mean we can infer that some sources dispute the treatment of famines. The view held by many scholars is that excess deaths, i.e. mass killings, can be attributed to the policies derived from communist ideology. Now whether specific instances could be considered outright murder, genocide or incidental and collateral, this is were the controversy comes in, not the fact that excess deaths are the result of some government policy implementation. --Martin (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not follow your reasoning that it is better to talk of mass murder in order to not exclude all forms of killing

We very much do want to exclude some forms of killing. Earthquakes, for example, are not causes of death that are relevant here. What we don't want to exclude are the scholarly papers and books which treat famine as not intentional and/or not murder.

excess deaths, i.e. mass killings

Here's where you are going wrong.

The view held by many scholars is that excess deaths, i.e. mass killings, can be attributed to the policies derived from communist ideology

No it isn't. Rummel holds that view: "Rummel (2001) finds totalitarianism and communism in particular, two variables often passed over by other scholars, to be important explanatory variables."

Now whether specific instances could be considered outright murder, genocide or incidental and collateral, this is were the controversy comes in, not the fact that excess deaths are the result of some government policy implementation.

I absolutely agree with you. However, 'the result of government policy ' <> 'the policies derived from communist ideology'. Hence the section in the article on the scholarly debate about causes - Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Causes.

Just because Wayman & Tago do not discuss famine does not mean we can infer that some sources dispute the treatment of famines

Wayman & Tago is not one of the several sources that explicitly dispute the treatment of famines. See above for those. It does mean that Wayman & Tago's use of "mass killing" does not include deaths from famines. One reason why it is problematic to use "mass killings" as an umbrella term. DHooke1973 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

May I congratulate article editors in this discussion for their excellent work in maintaining productive discussion. Please continue! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Paul: the good lede should state about that directly, but concisely. Exactly my point. Instead of using "some", "Several", "generally" and any other evasive phrases, it only needs to point out the facts:

• fact one: the killings occurred...
  
• fact two: there is no scholarly consensus on the motivations of the killings and either the killings should be termed as a genocide, politicide or democide etc.--Termer (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since a lede is a brief summary of the article, it has to contain not facts, but statements that are supposed to describe the main article's facts. I would summarise the lede somewhat differently.

• statement one: mass murders occurred (and no significant controversy exists on that account). The first lede's para should tell about that.
• statement two: majority premature deaths under Communist rule were caused by other reasons (famines, deportations, increased labour camp mortality, etc), and there is no scholarly consensus on whether these deaths should be termed as a genocide, politicide, democide, authorities' criminal neglect, incompetence, etc. This point should be presented in the second paragraph.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't make a difference if you want to call it a fact or a statement. A statement still needs to be based on facts. Other than that it seems we're getting somewhere with this. Just that perhaps I missed it, who exactly has called the killings "mass murders"? And even if this is the case, mass murders would already include non civilians , Katyn massacre etc. do we really want to start expanding the scope of the article like that?--Termer (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets keep it simple: the point is: the "mass killings" is borrowed from Valentino , who exactly has used "mass murders" in the context?--Termer (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ellman, for a start. Quote from him above. However, the relevant point is that "mass murder" entails intention. Mass murders have incontrovertibly occured. There is no debate on this point, I don't think.

What is debated (not by me, by the sources) is whether all the "abnormal deaths" were mass murder.

Hence the reason for saying "1. Mass murders occurred. 2. Events like famine also occurred. There are scholars who regard these events also as intentional killing (murder)"

Now, to avoid getting in a twist in the lede about which events from 2 are a subset of 1, and also to try to avoid performing the OR of wikipedia asserting that Communism is responsible for the deaths we leave it up to the scholars. Hence we say ("Historians and political scientists have written about..." and "X says regime-specific, Y says".

To avoid synthesis I think we have to mitigate the sentence "Mass murders occurred under Communist regimes" just as we would have to mitigate "Murder rates are higher in warmer climes". Both are problematic sentences to begin an article with.

DHooke1973 (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting on this "mass murders"? The title says "mass killings" so lets stick to it also in the article. Other than that I'm good with what we achieved with Paul in here.--Termer (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Kulaks

“What do you do will all the Kulaks?” doesn't make sense. What did Churchill actually say?

Also, I don't think statements count as mass killing.

This new section doesn't belong as is.

- DHooke1973 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"'What did you do with all the kulaks ?' asked Churchill. 'We killed them', replied Stalin." World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West By Laurence Rees. The rise and fall of the Soviet Union, 1917-1991 By Richard Sakwa' Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him By Donald Rayfield. How many cites for the killings doe we need here? Collect (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Same as always. One good one, I guess. Two is better. Three great.

I think the Kulaks are mentioned in the deportations section of controversies, so you might want to merge some material.

If they are documented clearly as mass murder (intentional killing) then put the sourced material in the main part of this article.

DHooke1973 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember Summary style though, and ensure you put the cited material into the main article for the country specific section. The country specific sections ought to be summaries of their mains, tailored for the importance to this article 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps much more relevant to this case would be the notorious quote by a party official who had commented on the question: "It took a famine to show who is the master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay. We've won the war." --Termer (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If its relevant, its most relevant at Soviet Collectivisation. It'd also be nice if you attributed your quotes. The fact that you can search Google Books is uninteresting. Are you quoting it from within Conquest? If so, who was Conquest quoting. It makes it extremely difficult to edit with you when you fail to attribute, and rely on a google search as an authority. Conquest, Conquest's page number, who Conquest was quoting, and the footnote Conquest used so we can locate the originating use of the quote would be best, but again, better placed at Soviet collectivisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF and NPA please. Collect (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I did, and I didn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Fifelfoo, there are 73 books that have it on black and white, therefore I don't think it would be necessary to list one specific source only. Since the discussion seems to be about either getting rid of the "kulaks" by a famine was a killing or not, it seems like relevant to me. On your other complaints, sorry, I don't think attributing would be really needed here, anybody can click on the links by themselves and read what exactly do the sources say.--Termer (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is, as I have been discussing with you, insufficient. Once again you spring a deep search on a phrase without any context, and on this occasion you don't supply a source, but a search. If the discussion is about intentionality in relation to the Kulaks, then all I can suggest is that intentionality in relation to yet another single case study, yet again the Soviet Union, is not the way forward. Discussions of intentionality should proceed, as the majority of this article should, from works which specifically deal with multiple case studies. Surely Rummel ascribes intentionality across multiple case studies in an academically published work? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear you that you have problems with me, however I intend to keep ignoring your comments on contributors. Other than that, the sources should do the talking, not me.--Termer (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

sources do not speak free and clear with an unbound tongue. Conquest may well have made that quote only to demolish it. He may have described it as fictional but an adequate characterisation. Please read specific sources, attribute them correctly and contextualise them appropriately. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All those 73 sources listed for your convenience speak freely about "It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay", and narrowing down to Conquest in the context would be irrelevant. A former Soviet official and latter defector Victor Kravchenko is the one who has originally published this dialogue between himself and Mikhail Khatayevich, who was the secretary of the party's Dnepropetrovsk committee in Ukraine. And who BTW got himself also arrested by the regime later on.--Termer (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Killing of kulaks" may be an euphemism for elimination of the kulaks as a class. Beside actually murdering the kulaks the same effect may be reached by simply expropriating the property and exiles. (Igny (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

The Evils of Communism and the Virtues of Capitalism

Every college student in the state of Louisiana must take a required course titled "The Evils of Communism and the Virtues of Capitalism", or at least they did when I was in college there. I don't know if that law is still on the books, but the content of that course resembles this article -- or would have done if the teachers of the course hadn't treated it as a big joke.

Shall Misplaced Pages also have articles titled "Mass killings under Christian regimes", "Mass killings under capitalist regimes", "Mass killings under Moslem regimes", "Mass killings under monarchs and emperors"?

Or, we could nominate this article for deletion. That would be another way to go. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been tried. But the deletion never reached consensus, possibly due to strong presence of former Louisiana college students here protecting this article. ;) (Igny (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Not sure what to say about such a course, but, as I've mentioned before, there is an article similar to this one entitled Anti-communist mass killings, which existed before this article was created I believe. Hmmm... perhaps this article should simply be renamed Communist mass killings, eh?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Anti-communist mass killings was created in response to troll creating this article, and subsequent no-consensus AfD with 27 delete, 11 keep and 9 keep votes by the EEML group. What can I say, congratulations to the troll who created this article, for it survived 2 more AfDs although after renaming. (Igny (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Is it anti-Russian propaganda?

From this article by Boris Kagarlitsky:

Действительная практика тоталитаризма, сопровождавшаяся миллионами жертв, породила задним числом целую литературную традицию антитоталитарных разоблачений, авторы которых, опираясь на эти чудовищные факты, дополняли их массой домыслов и прямой лжи. Чем ужаснее были подлинные истории, тем легче было врать и дополнять их новыми страшными рассказами. Так несколько миллионов жертв ГУЛАГА превратились в немыслимые десятки миллионов, история репрессий обросла фантастическими подробностями. Ложь оказалась поставлена на поток новой пропагандой, успешно заимствовавшей приемы тоталитарной идеологической машины. Парадоксальным, но закономерным побочным эффектом этой лжи оказались всё более массовые выступления в защиту Сталина, его режима и его времени.

Google translation (with my minor corrections):

Actual practice of totalitarianism, accompanied by millions of victims, has created retroactively whole literary tradition of antitotalitarian revelations, where the authors, based on these horrific facts, supplemented the facts with mass speculation and outright lies. The more terrible the true stories were, the easier it was to lie and to complement it with new terrifying tales. So several million victims of GULAG became unthinkable tens of millions, the history of repression gained fantastic details. The lie was streamed by a new propaganda, which successfully borrowed techniques of the totalitarian ideological machine. Paradoxically, but a natural side effect of these lies were more mass demonstrations in defense of Stalin and his regime and his time.

Any thoughts? (Igny (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Another interesting article (in Russian) on comparing Communism in USSR to Nazism. (Igny (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)_

The article then shows that exaggeration of the horrors of Communism serves as a justification of fascism. What I find interesting is why irrational anti-Communism should become popular now, long after the Soviet Union was dissolved. (Apparently the Black Book is accepted uncritically in much of Eastern Europe.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another article addressing holodomor specifically. (Igny (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

By providing these sources I just tried to demonstrate the confirmation bias by all sides contributing to this article. For some reason, Termer and Collect focus on sources which confirm their views. Here are the sources which confirm my views. (Igny (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

I am a tad curious -- what source did I focus on? And in what way did the source I focussed on confirm my views? Collect (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My and your views are irrelevant on wikipeida Igny. However in case a Russian Marxist theoretician and sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky' views are relevant here, why don't you just add it to the article. After all, I always have pointed out that according to WP:NPOV instead of removing existing sourced materials from this article, any possible alternative viewpoints should be added to it. And since it seems Kagarlitsky has an alternative viewpoint, it should go in in case its notable.--Termer (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Of course everything has an alternative viewpoint and on that one for example "...natural side effect of these lies were more mass demonstrations in defense of Stalin and his regime and his time" they say: The rehabilitation of Stalin—an ideological cornerstone of the new Kremlin politics, See also Rehabilitating Joseph Stalin etc.--Termer (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You all somehow mix the Kremlin official line with opinions of Russian public. People at power are just doing what they are supposed to be doing to remain at power. And that is to play the nationalistic card with the Russian masses thus gaining their support at the next election. And the attempts to diminish or unduly criticize the role of Russians as the nation in the past and in particular during and after the Russian revolution as well as the WW2 through lies and propaganda only helps Putin et. al. to play that card. If you really want to change the Russian official view, you'd have to change opinions of the Russian public first. (Igny (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

IOW, you have no sources which you claim I focussed on -- but now you seem to assert that WP in some way should be concerned with the attitudes of the Russian popu;ace. It should not - the aim here is to make a neutral encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That was a noble goal, yes. Ideally. Sometime ago. Before nationalistic editors show up and push their agenda here. From all sides. (Igny (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

(out) The article should present mainstream views according to their acceptance. I do not know what acceptance Soviet dissident Boris Kagarlitsky's viewsw have received, but he is certainly not a Stalin apologist. We should look to see how accepted he is. Collect, you focused on among others a snippet view of the Farm Journal and the GMOC. The Four Deuces (talk)

On opinions of the Russian public about Stalin according to Igny, well, that shouldn't be news to anybody that Stalin and Stalinism always have had its place in Russian nationalism. To interpret all this as "anti-Russian propaganda" according to Igny is like saying all Russians are nationalists. And even in that respect, the the "greatest Russian" according to Russian polls is not Stalin but Alexander Nevsky. .--Termer (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. other than that, the Armenian genocide is considered Anti-Turkish propaganda by the Turkish government and the nationalists, so there is nothing new in all of this really.--Termer (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify that you are fighting not the official Russian view or Kremlin or Putin. But general public opinion of most of the Russians. (Igny (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

(edit conflict) If I understand Igny's point correctly, two opposite statements - that Stalin killed almost nobody and that he killed 100 million - would have the same result. In both cases trustworthiness of the article as whole will be undermined, and it is easy to predict who will gain from that.
Marxist and other leftist scholars must be included, especially taking into account that majority of them do not question the fact of mass killing during Stalin's time. The article will become less shocking, however, for those who are interested in presenting truth, not to tell as many terrible stories about Communists as possible (no matter how exaggerated they are), it will hardly pose a serious problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do not understand joy of contributors here when they find higher and higher death toll estimates. "Look I found 50 million!"; "This is even better, 100 million!"; "Wait, 10 million ukrainian victims in holodomor alone!". They do not seem to understand that with higher figures the credibility of the articles drops not increases. (Igny (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

It is wrong to group together actual genocides like the Armenian genocide with communist genocide. Here is a bibliography about the first, and as you see it has been studied by historians whose books have been published by university and academic press and whose articles are included in academic journals. In the second, you have a group of writers pushing an ill-defined concept without submitting their views to academic scrutiny. Any academic notice they have received has been negative. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That brings us back to a question, why such a fact like "Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million" published by Cornell University Press Final solutions, p.91, keeps disappearing from the article?--Termer (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the wide range of the estimates and difficulties with getting a credible figure are not a topic of this article. (Igny (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Agree with Igny. Valentino's statement has a footnote which is not in the Google Books version but probably refers to R. J. Rummel who based his estimates on Robert Conquest's work. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "why such a fact like ..." Because Valentino's figures are not a result of his independent studies of mortality under Communist rule. These studies have been done by Conquest, Wheathcroft, Rosenfeldelde, Maksudov, Getti, Ellman and several other scholars. They did archival research, they worked with memoirs, they did comparative study of different sources to separate reliable data from hearsays and exaggerations, they (mainly before 1990) tried to do estimations. They did large, hard and meticulous work trying to establish numbers of Stalin's victims. Valentino just took some of these numbers and gave a different name to them. Rummel did several very rough and very inaccurate estimations (it is not my conclusion). If we want to add all questionable materials, let's add Soviet/Russian propaganda too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

is a link to an abstract of an article by Ronald Grigor Suny, "Russian Terror/ism and Revisionist Historiography", where he analyzes the Black Book and similar theories. The article is available at Questia. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All this posted by Paul Siebert and any discussion about a credible figure would be relevant to this discussion and the article in case sources would be provided to back up such an analysis. At the same time none of this explained why such sourced facts keep disappearing from the article?--Termer (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And now we are back to where we started. See beginning of this section. (Igny (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

See WP:V: Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can read the wikilaw by myself, no need to paste it here. so what about the sources that have "a credible figure" like claimed above?--Termer (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 110 million is not credible - it is merely the highest estimate offered. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem, that's more or less what the source says -it is the highest estimate. And again, please consider referring to any sources that cite "a credible figure" more accurately than the highest estimate given by Valentino. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide us with explanation on what sources did Valentino used as a support his estimate? I am asking because he definitely didn't do his own studies and he relied on other scholars' data. Since many scholars re-considered their numbers after 1990, a probability exists that Valentino used some obsolete data. You seem to be a Valention's proponent, therefore, I believe you have read his book carefully, so I don't think it would pose any problem for you to give us the source Valentino used. Thank you in advance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you provide the contents of the footnote to the statement in Valentino's book? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you go: p.275. Also, I'm not anybodies proponent here, and I can ask this for the third time if needed, please anybody -consider referring to any sources that cite "a credible figure" more accurately. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't analyze it in detail, however, taking into account that Valentino relies mostly on Rummel's data (Rummel's approach has been seriously criticised, you can find the relevant quotes on this talk page), I am not sure we need to present his numbers here. In addition, the key Valentiono's table (table 2) contains the numbers that cannot be verified because the author neither reveals his sources (he literally states: "figures in this and subsequent tables are the author's estimate made based on numerous sources"), nor he describes the procedure he used to obtain his estimates. If you read serious articles on that account you have to agree that these estimates (at least the way they have been presented) have nothing in common with a serious work.
Although Valentino's concept got some positive reviews that doesn't mean that his numbers deserve mentioning. He is not a specialist in this field, so we do not need to present his rough estimations when we have much more reliable numbers obtained by specialists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, I cannot find the footnote. To whom does Valentino attribute the source? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, whose numbers deserve mentioning in case the ones published by Valentino don't? Sorry guys but all this smells too much like WP:CENSORing, the activity that has been common to all totalitarian societies including the communist regimes. Please keep it away from wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. The link is there for anybody to read and it's clear that Valentino doesn't refer to Rummel's data alone. Rummel even isn't the one with the highest estimate. So what are you talking about Paul? --Termer (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Again, whose numbers deserve mentioning in case the ones published by Valentino don't?" Try to read Wheathcoft's, Ellman's or even Conquest's works. They give a huge number of tables, many references to primary sources: archival data, memoirs, demographic and statistic data. They do complex analysis trying to find inconsistencies between different data sets, and finally, after reading their works you see how did they obtain these numbers. The procedures they use are transparent and verifiable, and that is a sign of real science. If you call the attempts to separate good quality works from a potboiler a WP:CENSORship, I support such a censorship.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer. I get a blank page (275) that says "You either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". Also, please see WP:Weasel: " It is better to put a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is unverifiable." The Four Deuces (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Paul, Valentino refers to both Wheathcoft and Conquest in his book, not to Ellman though. So in case you prefer those names, for the 4th time why don't you use any of those authors you keep talking about and come up with "a much more reliable number"? Other than that, sorry, I'm not here to find out what is considered real science in your opinion. Nor is it relevant to anything if you'd choose to support censoring wikipedia.
RE:The Four Deuces switching browsers always works in case you "have reached your viewing limit for this book". Double checked it, the page comes through with both Firefox and IE.--Termer (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Valentino refers to both Wheathcoft and Conquest in his book". Yes, he does, but he seems not to use Wheathcroft data (at least, they seem not to affect his estimations). With regards to censorship, WP:V states: "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Therefore, just paying the same attention to Wheathcroft's data and Valentino's estimations is against WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

what about the sources that has "a credible figure"?--Termer (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, you do not seem to understand the difference between political philosopy and actions. Consider that Estonian politicians are corrupt, but corruption is not part of the ideology of Estonian political parties. We do not say that the Union of Pro Patria and Res Publica supports free markets and corruption while the Social Democratic Party (Estonia) supports social democracy and corruption. Instead we see corruption as part of Eastern European politics and separate it from the parties' ideologies. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I loaded Firefox and can now read the footnote. The evidence for the 110 million figure is Rummel. It also mentions The Black Book (85 to 100 M), Brzezinski (60 M), Mathew White (81 M), Todd Culbertson in Human Events ("perhaps 100 million"). "These estimates should be considered at the highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributable to communist regimes." Why should this be in the lede? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should this be in the lede? Because that's what the article is about - the people killed by the Communist regimes. And again, I don't see any other reliable numbers by any other sources here, so it seems the number goes in than.--Termer (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

From the start this article has been controversial because the sources that support the concept of Communist mass killings are controversial while mainstream sources barely discuss the issue. I suggest the best way forward is to accept that the theories are controversial and explain how they developed, what the central tenets are and what acceptance they have. The subject is really a branch of anti-Communism rather than genocide. The sources found by Paul Siebert and the recent article by Ronald Grigor Suny provide a good basis for the structure and content of the article. The theory clearly developed out of earlier right-wing theories and forms part of modern right-wing ideology, particularly in Eastern Europe. The guidlines for fringe theories provide a helpful reference for writing the article. Sources like the Black Book and Lost literature are then treated as primary sources for the theories rather than secondary sources for mass killings. Problems concerning RS and SYN then disappear. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

well. please provide citations from secondary published sources to your claims and we can look into this. So far I have no idea what are you talking about. Especially about "right-wing theories and forms part of modern right-wing ideology, particularly in Eastern Europe" since the political movements like Solidarity etc. that brought the totalitarian communist regimes to the end in EE were definitely left wing political movements compared to the communist regimes. Therefore your opinions here about "modern right-wing ideology" sorry but it doesn't simply make any sense.--Termer (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I provided a source, but here are exerts from Suny's article:

From the 1930s to the present an irresistible comparison has been made between fascism, particularly Nazism, and Stalinism. From one political pole, historians have worked hard to preserve the distinguishing differences between , while others, like Francois Furet in his The Passing of an Illusion and Stephane Courtois, the editor of The Black Book of Communism, equate them. This comparison has never been free of politics and ideology....

in the mammoth essay that makes up The Passing of an Illusion... settles accounts with the idea of communism....

Nazism had adopted much of its own program of terror from Lenin and Stalin and that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a preventive war....

Furet was originally slated to write the introduction to The Black Book.... The principal arguments of the book are retreads that had thrived during the Cold War, been marginalized during the heyday of social history, and revived with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a neototalitarian approach to Soviet history. "The first is that Communist regimes... were criminal enterprises in their very essence: on principle... they all ruled lawlessly, by violence and without regard for human life."... he violence was a deliberative, not a reactive, policy of the revolutionary regimes and was based in Marxist "science"....

It is a work that employs academic historians, independent researchers, and journalists to write a polemic that poses as history. Indeed it raises the most serious questions about the practice of practicing historians, of their obligations to neutrality and balance, and their role as moral arbitrators of the past....

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm missing how all this is related to the current article, perhaps you'd need to take it to Totalitarianism, over there the comparisons and similarities between Nazism and Stalinism have been made.--Termer (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting that you brought this up. At some point a suggestion was made by me and others to rename the article into "mass killings under totalitarian regimes". However, I do not remember now what were the main objections. (Igny (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

How it relates to the article is that this article is about an hypothesis called "mass killings under Communist regimes", which posits that mass killing is an essential element of communist rule. The passage explains the theory along with its origins, validity and degree of acceptance. BTW why stop at totalitarian mass killings? Why not include all killings by government in one article? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Igny didn't get it exactly, are you suggesting also that there is no difference between lets say the Communist regimes that this article is about and Nazis and Fascists etc? Therefore all those mass killings by those totalitarian regimes in history would need to go into one article? Why don't we add Caravan of Death&Operation Condor as well? I would also consider adding Inquisition as Christianity in general (+ all the other monotheistic religions) are clearly just other totalitarian ideologies like communism or nazism. I'd suggest calling such an article Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.--Termer (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The history of the human race is one long history of mass killings. Until the invention of birth control, mass murder was the only way to prevent mass starvation. Humans are like gerbils. When our cage gets too crowded, we kill our young. When, for propaganda purposes, side A wants to score points against side B, they bring up all the mass killings by side B, and ignore the mass killings by their own side. In 250 BC, the Romans talked about the mass killings by the Carthaginians and the Carthaginians talked about the mass killings by the Romans. It has nothing to do with the relative merits of the two sides. This article is anti-communist propaganda and nothing more. But the anti-communists are one generation behind the times. My students don't know what the word "communism" means, and couldn't name one communist if their life depended on it. Anti-communism these days is as quaint as antidisestablishmentarianism. In another generation, the last communist and the last anti-communist will both be dead, and we'll have to argue endlessly and pointlessly about something else. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, and Inquisition is anti-christian propaganda?--Termer (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about Inquisition, NKVD, or Gestapo. Existence and activities of these entities is not under question here. What is under question is the validity of comparison of Nazism to Communism by pointing at their common traits, the traits which are in actuality common in any human society from beginning of time. In essence, it is an attempt to invalidate a theory by sophistry, attempt to attribute the evils of human nature to a particular ideology in a smear campaign. (Igny (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Termer: if the article Inquisition were titled "Mass killings by Christians", that would be an inappropriate title. Igny: if Misplaced Pages needs an article about "Similarities and differences between Nazism and Communism", then it should have such an article, but this isn't it. The article exists for only one reason, to single out bad things about commies, and not to mention any good things about commies or bad things about non-commies. That makes it propaganda, pure and simple. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shoudl try out your logic on articles relating to the Final Solution. Because by your logic, since no articles on the Final Solution are favourable to its instigators, the articles must be propaganda, pure and simple. Except they are not; and nor is this.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles about actual events with specific causes are acceptable, including the Final Solution, the Killing Fields, etc. What is unacceptable is to group together a series of unrelated events and create a new concept. For example, we could group the Final Solution with the My Lai Massacre and call it right-wing genocide, group the My Lai Massacre with the Black Hole of Calcutta and call it Aryan genocide, group the Black Hole with the Killing Fields and call it Asian genocide, etc. Propaganda is arranging real and false information in order to establish a defend a political position, in this case that Communism (and by extention any ideology that deviates from libertarianism) is inherently evil. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Perhaps you should try out your logic on articles relating to the Final Solution". This argument doesn't work because Nazims spanned much shorter period than Communism did, and it was geographically limited with the Third Reich. Therefore, when we write about Nazi mass killings, it is quite clear that we mean a Hitler's regime, because we had (fortunately) no other Nazi regimes. Therefore, the titles and articles like the Final Solution are absolutely justified. By contrast, as Valentino correctly writes, not all Communist regimes perpetrated mass killings. Moreover, even those Communist states that committed mass killings did that only during limited periods of their history. For instance, mass killings in the USSR took place only during the Civil war (when there were no USSR but RSFSR, and when both sides killed each other in about the same extent), and during Stalin's rule (when, according to some scholars, that was a result of Stalin's desire to seize and maintain a dictator's power in the country). Therefore, although it is possible to discuss crimes of some Communist regimes during some periods of their history, it is incorrect to combine them into the article like this in the manner it is doing in its present form.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Rick Norwoodon "Mass killings by Christians". So? This article is not called "Mass killings by Communists" not even "Mass killings by Communist regimes" but Mass killings under Communist regimes. In case you really think this article is not based on facts but is propaganda, please go ahead and take it to the 4th AfD.--Termer (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I still say that this will not be a viable topic unless Misplaced Pages also has an article of "mass killings under capitalist regimes" which allows massive WP:SYNTH to try to prove an ideological connection between capitalism and mass murder. Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

People's Republic of Poland

Since the article does not have space to describe every incident in detail some explanation should be given for inclusion of this particular incident. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under some Communist regimes?

On page 91 of his book Valentino writes:

"Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as Communist or been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"

In other words, Valentino considers Communist mass killings regime specific, not Communism specific. In connection to that, his statement on the same page (that the Mass killings have occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and also appeared to have been carried out by the communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa) seems completely obscure. Since the only Communist regimes (besides Cuba) were in the USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Indo-China and, possibly, Africa, and all of them did commit mass killings, what most regimes that have described themselves as Communist or been described as such by others did not commit mass killing? In my opinion, by selectively quoting the page 91 one can write two quite different texts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Mass killings under some regimes that described themselves as Communist?(Igny (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I don't speak about changing the article's name now. My point is different. The Valentino's main idea is not clear for me: from the page 91 we can conclude that mass killings were both Communism specific and regime specific. The text on the page 91 looks ambiguously, so selective quoting is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Some" versus "most". Quite possibly Valentino differentiated between USSR regimes under Stalin and under Khruschev, for example. (Igny (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Valentino's concept of mass killing was that governments committed mass killings in order to achieve personal or ideological objectives and did not create a separate category of communist mass killings. He used the examples of Communist regimes because their mass killings were most clearly ideologically driven. He also described mass killings that were genocide (Armenia, Nazi Germany and Rwanda) and counter-insurgency (Afghanistan, Guatemala). This is a complete rejection of the revisionist views found in The Black Book and other right-wing pseudohistories. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That is true. So let's summarize briefly which sources can be used as a support for the statement that mass killings under Communists were Communism specific (in addition to Black Book)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

François Furet seems to have developed the theory before The Black Book and was supposed to be its editor, so he should be mentioned. It seems he adopted his theories on Communism from his earlier interpretation of the French Revolution, which itself is based on the ultra-royalist interpretation. But I think rather than relying on primary sources for the theory we should use secondary sources that describe the theory from a neutral point of view. There is a critical difference between this article and e.g. an article about mass killings under Pol Pot. In the second case there is a clear connection between an event and a regime, while in this article there is no such connection. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems the chapter titled Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China , and Cambodia in the book called Final solutions by Valentino speaks for itself. About the communists who haven't killed anybody in the effort bringing the paradise on to Earth, I hear that in India there are some communists elected into local parliaments in some provinces. I'm not sure if that can be called a "communist regime" though. Other than that, all this sounds familiar, a little like "guns (read ideologies) don't kill people, people do". --Termer (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is something that might interest you, and could educate the reader who is ignorant of Communism: According to John Weiss from Lehman College, CUNY: "Lenin and Stalin replaced Marxism with a tyrannical, totalitarian and terrorist doctrine, in accordance with their belief that, by the use of force, they could skip the "bourgeois-capitalist" phase of history that Marx insisted must come before socialism? Bolshevism had nothing to do with the original ideas of Marx and Engels, let alone with the peaceful and democratic socialism of the West." In case similar opinions can be found about the communist regimes in China and Cambodia, theat should do it what you're after here.--Termer (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, you should let Valentino speak for himself. He does not posit a theory of "communist mass killings" but uses that title for case studies. He did not think that mass killing was an objective of Communism (or of any other government for that matter) but was used to achieve personal and ideological objectives of its leaders, which varied according to the resistance encountered and individual choices by leaders. The revisionist theory is that Communism is inherently evil, that mass killing is a central tenet of Communism and that secret instructions can be found in The lost literature of communism. We must not confuse legitimate academic sources with fringe theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, the problem with your source (which presents a mainstream although minority view) is that it contradicts the concept of "communist mass killings". According to your source the terror of Lenin and Stalin had nothing to do with communism (they had replaced Marx). Furthermore it does not explain any connection between mass killings in the Soviet Union and mass killings in communist countries that were not ruled by Lenin and Stalin. It is not enough to find independent analyses of events in China and Cambodia. There must be a connection between all three countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "It seems the chapter titled Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China , and Cambodia in the book called Final solutions by Valentino speaks for itself." The quote on the section's top has been taken from this very chapter. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you please take this conversation seriously. The names given to articles do not indicate the arguments given. If you believe that Valentino advanced a theory, could you please indicate what he said about it. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Valentino, Final Solutions, 93 is reasonably clear, "Why did the communist utopias of the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia become history's greatest slaughterhouses? I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social changes they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and complete material and political dispossession of millions of people." Yet again, its a subset of his dispossessive mass killing theoretical category, and there is no uniquely communist element to this, in fact, "It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments." (93). A particularly sloppy theoretical category, especially given the rapid and radical transformation of society which occurred, for example, in the DRVN, without mass killing in his schema. But important for noting that Valentino's case study on communists explicitly rules out communist examples: it is an example, not a type or category. I am, however, reserving judgement until I read the work above in full after the fourth. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He also discusses this in the introduction where he states that personal and ideological objectives of leaders drive mass killings (rather than ideology), but I can no longer access these pages on Google Books. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The theoretical question "Why" also looked into by Valentino is completely secondary in the context and can be answered by common sense or by reading Animal farm. The fact is such killings occurred under regimes that were ruled by Communist parties and there is nothing more to it. Since Valentino also speaks about "radical communist regimes" in the context, we could rename this article into Mass killings under radical communist regimes perhaps.--Termer (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another lead variant

A significant number of people (estimates vary) died as a result of repressions, famines, and mass murders or executions in USSR under the regime of Stalin, in China under Mao, and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge. Because these regimes had some form of the Communist ideology in common, the deaths occurred there are often placed into one category by certain scholars studying mass killings of 20th century. Even though reasons which had led to the deaths seem to be regime specific some scholars analyze them as pertinent to Communism.

I am unhappy with the current version, and hope it could be improved. This is just a raw variant as well, but I like it more than the current. (Igny (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC))

It violates synthesis. It implies that there is a connection between the various theories of mass killings and that they developed in response to the killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we try again to just delete the article?

I understand one attempt to delete the article failed, I suspect because not enough people knew about it. It isn't, after all, a title people are apt to do a search for. But now it has attacted the attention of some rational people. Maybe we should try again. Clearly, Misplaced Pages is not the place for articles whose very title indicates obvious bias. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The typical argument of deletion's opponents was that Communist mass killings is a well recognized and widely accepted concept. They provide a number of rightist sources as a support, and formally they are right. The problem is that those scholars who do not study Communist mass killings as something pertinent to Communism as an ideology, but do studies on separate Communist countries rarely write explicitly that the Communist mass killing is a flawed concept. As a result, we have two groups of scholars, one of them openly supports the Communist mass killings (murders, genocide, etc) idea, whereas another one does not support it. Since the second group's scholars do not proclaim their view explicitly preferring to focus on more concrete tasks, we hear the voice of only one side. This is a pretext anti-Communist editors are using to prevent this article's deletion.
What we really can do is to convert the article from the list of all known cases of excess mortality under Communist rule (united under the name "Communist mass killing") into the comparison of different scholars' opinions on which of these events were mass killings and how are they pertinent to Communism as an ideology (a thing I proposed many times).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I were to start an article titled "Bad things done by Republican presidents". I'm sure I could find a number of left-wing authors who wrote books on that subject. It still wouldn't be an appropriate title for a Misplaced Pages article. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You could re-nominate it for deletion, merge it with another article, break it up into individual topics or treat it as a fringe theory. As the article is now written however it suffers from both bias and synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Suppose I were to start an article titled..." That is correct, however, I believe after reading this , this and this you will agree that much more serious arguments are needed to achieve a consensus on the article's deletion. I personally do not believe it will be possible because some anti-Communist editors will use every formal reason to avoid a consensus. In my opinion, to modify the article to conform it with its name (this is possible, because some mass killings did take place under Communist rule) would be much more realistic goal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A number of the editors who defended the article in the past have now been blocked. See EEML. Also, some of the editors who originally supported the article have changed their minds after finding that there are no academic sources for the topic. On the other hand, various editors continue to vigorously defend the article and many Misplaced Pages editors will defend the existence of any article. Incidentally there are several related articles: Communist terrorism and Putinism are examples. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "A number of the editors who defended the article in the past have now been blocked." Although majority of them were my opponents, I think it is not honest to use their topic ban to push new article deletion. Although I personally support the deletion, I am not sure we have a moral right to do that if EEML editors oppose it (I am intended to ask their opinion if new AfD procedure will be initiated). Only in the case if majority editors really changed their mind will I support the article's deletion. We can ask informally for opinion of most editors who worked on this article during last months. If they don't mind to delete the article, AfD nomination makes sense. Otherwise, it would be more realistic to refocus the article to the mass killings concept and to made a major stress on Valentono's works (because he seems to coin this term), plus discuss various controversies over this term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

While I am one of those who have changed their mind about the article and would now vote to delete, I strongly support Paul Siebert's point here - another AfD is highly unlikely to result in a consensus, and would most likely be very counter-productive. --Anderssl (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this article has had three AFDs, and last one was in November, it seems inappropriate to go through it all yet again.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd still vote to Delete. This article is the same pile of anti-communist POV crap it's always been. Simonm223 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would still vote delete as well, but there is a valid point made above that we might be better off first seeing what a non-OR version of this page would look like. My sense is that ultimately such a page will become a showcase for Valentino's work, and then the content could be merged to a page about Valentino, as would be most appropriate. By the way, Four Deuces is correct that the communist terrorism page is a similar one to this; in fact, I think it is far more problematic (at least here we have Valentino -- on that page there is no reliable source whatsoever for a concept of "communist terrorism"!). It may be time to re-list that page for deletion. In fact it survived AfD in the past thanks primarily to cooperation among EEML members (though long before anyone knew of the existence of the list). It has been well over a year since the previous AfD; it would be interesting to see where an AfD discussion would go on that page today. csloat (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article was only nominated for deletion once. It was nominated for deletion twice when it was Communist Genocide, but EEML decided after the first nomination that they would change the name during the next nomination in order to get around WP:SYN and WP:POV objections. The name was changed during the second nomination and therefore there has been only one AfD under the current title. Since EEML, which had over ten members, is now blocked from this article, the outcome might be different. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think you are attributing too much to the EEML (who btw are banned from EE topics, not general communism topics). The EEML had minimal input into this article as seen here. The move had broad concensus, only one EEML member voted, see the original move discussion. Note that the AfD was actually opened after the move request, as this discussion indicates here. --Martin (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific mention that this article is excluded? If not, I will file a Request for Clarification from Arbcom. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do ask for clarification; it seemed very clear to me from the discussion on the proposed remedies that articles such as this one were very definitely included in the ban. csloat (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I will give Martintg time to respond, because I will have to notify all involved parties of the request. In the meantime, I suggest that we do not nominate the article for deletion or merger, or conduct any major re-writes until that issue has been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be deleted. There appears to be no clarity as to what the title actually means, and it is inherently impossible for it to sit above an article that conforms to NPOV. EEML I know knothing of, but if there is a suspicion that past attempts at deletion have been unfairly subverted, then that makes any new attempt virgin territory. --FormerIP (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits may serve as an argument in support of the article's deletion: the article with such a name seems to have a strong tendency to evolve into the catalogue of Communist crimes, an another version of the Black Book of Communism. That mean that, probably, my proposal (to convert the article into something neutral and non-OR instead of deleting) will not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

{undent}I'm willing to wait for the Four Deuces to get the clarification requested prior to posting another AfD but, looking at this discussion topic, I think an AfD would be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a request to Arbcom for clarification whether the EEML topic bans applies to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Astounding -- the purpose of ArbCom is not to make it easy to disqualify everyone who disagrees from editing -- the case involved co-ordinated efforts at AfD, and has precious little to do with any disputes here. It is better to deal with disparate points of view than to simply try to get those with other points of view disqualified from the article. Collect (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please assume good faith. According to Arbcom, there was off-wiki canvassing on this article to bring people who had the same point of view. The proper course of action is to invite comment from the wider WP community. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The place to handle content disputes is here. Not with ArbCom. And Tznkai was right about using EEML as a modern shout of "witch!" (vide Monty Python). Collect (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to handle content disputes when extensive canvassing has taken place. You should re-read our previous discussion about canvassing. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting current canvassing? Collect (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote "According to Arbcom, there was off-wiki canvassing on this article...." As you can see I am not asserting anything but repeating their findings. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IOW, no canvassing at this point by a long shot. Collect (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

NO - This article is of high importance, given the amount of casualties. It should be continued and adapted following WP regulations. Facts, referenced, should be listed. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose we adapt this article to follow WP regulations? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

AGF and seek consensus on the talk page instead of using multiple noticeboard attempts to simply excise those with who you disagree. Collect (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that the reason for deleting this article is because anyone disputes the imporantce of the events described. These events are already the subject of separate articles. The problem with this article is original research in the form of unjustified synthesis -- bringing together a lot of bad things that happened under communist regimes, without offering any evidence that the bad things happened because the regimes were communist. Bad things happen under every form of government, and no form of government is all bad, so what (other than the obvious -- anti-communist propaganda) is the justification for this article? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The article suffers from the same problems as this one did. I suspect a number of editors can't see beyond the façade of a "well-researched article", created by the sheer number of sources used. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 18:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is advancing a new position, what new position is being advanced in this article that has not already been published by Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin, Rebecca Knuth, Peter A. Zuckerman and Benjamin Wiker? --Martin (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rick Norwood, concerns like "original research in the form of unjustified synthesis -- bringing together a lot of bad things that happened under communist regimes" should be taken for example to Cornell University Press & Benjamin Valentino Ph.D. who have published/written on Communist mass killings; To Helen Fein a founder and first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars who has written on Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide etc.--Termer (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is now included in Wapedia under the category of "historical revisionism (political). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In what way is that relevant here? Collect (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream considers what you are promoting to be a conspiracy theory. While Misplaced Pages should describe conspiracy theories, it is actually embarrassing that this article promotes one. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you alleging is the "conspiracy"? Seems to me that the article relies on what reliable sources say, which is how WP articles are supposed to be written. It is not up to any editor to "know" the truth, nor is it proper for editors to use what they "know" (see Josh Billings) as the basis for edits. Collect (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Although mass killings occurred under Communist regimes occurred, the theory of "mass killings under Communist regimes" is a conspiracy theory. It is basically an update of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is a manichaean view that divides the world between good and evil. The theory simply does not exist in reliable sources. If you want to promote this and other conspiracy theories, you should contribute to conspiracy theory websites and remember that Misplaced Pages articles should present mainstream views, not conspiracy theories. BTW I am not wearing a tin foil hat so maybe that skews my viewpoint. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole does not work. Making statements that it is like the Protocols serves not to advance any position you have. And kindly do not assert that I am promoting any "conspiracy theories" - my position here is solely that WP policies and guidelines must be followed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

All you are doing is taking an historic conspiracy theory and renaming it, although it does not exist in academic literature. It is similar to when Americans renamed their theory "separate but equal". If it is not a conspiracy theory, please provide evidence that any reliable sources have ever promoted it. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Agreed that it is incorrect to speak that the Communist mass killings concept is a pure OR. However, since the term was coined by Valentino, the article has to present views of Valentino and few scholars who share these ideas, and that should be stated explicitly. It is possible (and necessary) to include also the works of scholars who criticise or question this concept. Any other sources, that have not been cited by Valentino and similar authors and that do not address the term "mass killings" (e.g. the sources that use "mass murders", "victims of Stalinism", "population losses" etc.) should be removed from the article, because their introduction constitutes WP:SYNTH. The article with such a name can exist only in a form similar to the Black Book of Communism article, i.e. not as an article about the events, but as an article about the concept. If, for some reason, it is impossible, the article should be deleted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is correct to say that Valentino coined the concept "Communist mass killings". Rather he used the term "mass killings" and used Communist regimes as examples. The concept does not exist in serious academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IOW, you do not find Valentino to be an RS despite the fact that a great number of others do find it RS? BTW, I find it hard to claim that a murder is not a "killing" -- while not all killings are murder, all murders are killings. Collect (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. Valentino is a reliable source. Your comment "I find it hard to claim that a murder is not a "killing"" is a non sequitur. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I do not think it is correct to say that Valentino coined the concept "Communist mass killings"." You are right that Valentino didn't propose a "Communist mass killing" concept. However, it is incorrect to say that he just used the term "mass killing". Frank W. Wayman and Atsushi Tago in their article "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing, 1949–87" (Journal of Peace Research, September 23, 2009, p. 1-17.) write:

"Our term, ‘mass killing’, is used by Valentino (2004: 10), who aptly defines it as ‘the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants’."

I believe these words mean that it was Valentino who introduced a definition of "mass killing" (not "Communist mass killing"). Interestingly, the authors contrapose the Valentino concept of mass killings and Rummel's democide. According to these authors, Valentino didn't consider mass killings as something pertinent to Communism, whereas Rummel insisted that direct linkage exists between Communism and democide (not mass killings). Wayman and Tago statistically analyzed existing data sets (leaving the question of measurement biases beyond the scope) to establish statistically significant correlations between types of regime and probability of mass killings/democides. They concluded that:

"It would therefore appear (assuming for the moment that there are not any big measurement biases) that autocratic regimes, especially communist, are prone to mass killing generically, but not so strongly inclined (i.e. not statistically significantly inclined) toward geno-politicide."

My conclusions are
(i) To mix Rummel (geno-democide) and Valentino (mass killings) in the article named "Communist mass killings" is synthesis
(ii)"Communist mass killings" form a "mass killings" subset, and Valentino have never proposed "Communist mass killing" to be a separate concept.
(iii) To claim that democide is something pertinent to Communism is incorrect.
(iv) The article's name seems to be a result of selective use of Valentino's "mass killing" (not "Communist mass killing") term, and, probably, is inappropriate.
The more I read about amss killings the more I realize that we have only two options: either to clean the article from OR and Synth (and constantly wacthlist it to prevent these stuff from re-introduction) or to delete it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another way to resoleve this issue is to create a Mass Killings (not mass murder) article and to move there all considerations on different definitions of mass killings, democide, genocide, politicide etc, as well as their applicability to crimes of differnt type regime. A subsection named "Comminist mass killing" can be created in this new article (along with the corresponding daughter article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

An idea that the scholars do not speak about the same subject while referring to either Communist mass killings, or Communist genocide, Communist democide or politicide etc and therefore its SYNTH here can't be taken seriously. And Genocides in History can always expanded so that it would list all state sponsored mass killings/genocides/democides/politicides.--Termer (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, An idea that the scholars do speak about the same subject while referring to either Communist mass killings, or Communist genocide, Communist democide or politicide etc and therefore its SYNTH here can't be taken seriously. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) I do not think that Valentino created a Communist subset, he merely included case studies from Communist countries in one chapter. Note that his book also covered mass killings by the USSR in Afghanistan under a chapter about counter-insurgency, along with killings by right-wing regimes. This article could be expanded to a mass killing article and reflect mainstream academic views. On the other hand, it could concentrate on the fringe theory of Communist genocide, in which case Valentino's theory would only be relevant as a rebuttal to the fringe theory. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"on the fringe theory of Communist genocide": Calling for example Helen Fein a founder and the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars who has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as the "Soviet and Communist genocides and Democide" a fringe theorist is not a serious argument. But in case you insist, we can take it to WP:FTN.--Termer (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read the sources you are providing, rather than quoting Google Book snippets. Helen Fein did not promote the theory of Communist genocide any more than Valentino promoted a theory of Communist mass killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "An idea that the scholars do not speak about the same subject while referring to either Communist mass killings...". Please, read carefully texts you are going to question. Wayman and Tago write clearly that there is no statistically significant correlations between Communism and geno-politicides, whereas some correlation exists between authoritarian regimes (especially Communist) and mass killing. By writing that they explicitly contrapose mass killing and geno-politicide. In addition, they took Rummel's numbers "as is", leaving the question of their validity (questionable, or highly questionable, according to some scholars) beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Helen Fein did not promote the theory of Communist genocide any more than Valentino promoted a theory of Communist mass killings." Correct. Helen Fein is very highly cited (by standards of human sciences area), and therefore, is for sure a RS, however, her point of view differs from what Termer thinks about that. In her article devoted to a comparison between Communist genocide (Cambodia) and Anti-Communist Genocide (Indonesia), she concludes that although "in terms of social structure and problems, there were few similarities between Cambodia and Indonesia", there were some common features between these two genocides, and the differences are not attributable to Communist ideology. ("What Asian communism, fascism, Sukarno's Guided Democracy, Lon Nol's authoritarianism, and the succeeding New Order of the generals, have in common is their disdain for liberal democracy, the limits of constitutionalism and rules, and the personalization of enemies. Which form of authoritarianism wins out depends on many contingencies."). It also worth noting that Fein uses almost no references to Communist ideology in her analysis of Khmer Rouge's regime, drawing more parallelism between KR and Nazism ("But upon closer examination, the xenophobic ideology of the KR regime resembles more an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism, which Becker (1986) calls fascism. Such regimes themselves evoke the threats that demand purges, promoting paranoid myths of persecution or anticipated persecution as a means of inciting solidarity (Fein 1991).") Fein also sees many common features in behaviour of the US, who supported Indonesian massacre, and PRC, who supported Khmer Rouge ("The United States has supported Indonesia since then uncritically, supplying arms despite mass killing and genocide in West Irian and East Timor. China has continued to arm the KR, which, many informed observers believe, still has the capacity to come back in Cambodia, given the negotiated truce concluded with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council. Thus, both superpowers defend their clients consistently.").

Another interesting conclusion drawn by Fein is there were no significant connection between post 1945 genocides and ideology:

"However, while totalitarian states have been more likely to commit genocide than are other states, most cases of contemporary genocide since World War II were committed by authoritarian, not totalitarian states, and are not ascribable to ideology."

My conclusion is that Fein cannot be used as a support of the article's claim. I haven't done appropriate changes in the article because I see that the article's concept is intrinsically flawed (see WP:COAT and WP:CHERRY), so minor modifications cannot improve it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Another Fein's article is devoted to comparison between Warsaw Ghetto, Sudan and Cambodia ("Genocide by attrition is epitomized by the Warsaw Ghetto (1939-43), Democratic Kampuchea (1975-79), and Sudan (1983-93).") Again, almost no mention of Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can read the source rather well. What Helen Fein says in the chapter titled Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide is that "in the last decade advances have been made in scholarship on genocides and mass state killings -sometimes termed politicide- in the Soviet Union and Cambodia, and much remains to be learned about China and other communist states." well, that was back in 1993, until than the cap on China has been filled.--Termer (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then should also have read, "As Soviet archives are opened and independent scholars gain access to new sources, we can expect more critical scholarship in this area". Helen Fein does not promote the conspiracist view of Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if anybdoy is promoting "conspiracist view of Communist genocide". It just the way Helen Fein has called the state mass killings in countries that were run by communist parties. and she seems is right on with "independent scholars gain access to new sources..." that may explain why Valentino has much more on the subject.--Termer (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

People's Republic of Poland - again

A new section has been added for Poland with different content from the last insertion. Almost none of the new section relates to mass killings. Furthermore, I do not see why these killings should be included. One of the mass killings was a group of 100 to 200 soldiers which is only a fraction of the supposed 100,000,000+ total Communist mass killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The section that was inserted (and you immediately deleted) explains what happened after the Soviet back into Poland in 1944 in too much detail for this article. Broadly speaking Soviet Forces and collaborators arrested about two million people of whom about 20,000 were murdered. I think a summary has a place in this article, with a reference to an article that goes into more detail.

Imagine if the Soviet Forces had behaved like British troops in France, Belgium and Holland. In that case it would be perfectly reasonable to have a short section quoting that as an example of where mass killing did not occur. Unfortunately the Soviets were not like the British. --Toddy1 (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since 20,000 represents 1/50 of 1% out of 100M victims of Communism, you need to explain why it is significant. Also, since the 2M arrested were not killed they do not belong in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Unfortunately the Soviets were not like the British" Unfortunately the Eastern front was not like the Western front. The overall scale of hostilities, their duration, Nazi crimes' scale and degree of collaboration were much greater in the East than in the West. therefore, it is deeply incorrect to attribute to Communists those things that are explained just by overall brutality of the war. And, please, take into account that, 20,000 may include those who collaborated or were believed to collaborate with Nazi. Contrary to contemporary Poles' opinion, Poles did collaborate with Nazi during WWII (to some extent). Another category was the Home Army members, however, this was a counterguerillaactivity, not Communist crimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that its directly related to anything here really but once you brought it up Paul, the Eastern front was not like the Western front, and that was so because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol.--Termer (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. It is not related at all. (Igny (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Re: "...that was so because of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocol..." By saying that you step into the realm named "WhatIf". Was MRP a necessary condition for WWII, or it prevented an even worse scenario? Different opinions exist on that account and I am not sure truth is possible to establish. However, two things are obvious. First, if MRP made WWII's outbreak possible, its secret protocol added nothing to that, because the only thing Hitler needed was Soviet neutrality. Second, brutality of the Eastern front were a result of vehement ideological and racial opposition, that was absent in the West (and neither MRP nor its secret protocol had any relation to that). Your statement about MRP reflects a local POV and is irrelevant here.
Anyway, I wish you happy New year and hope that in next year we will find some point on which our opinions will coincide.
Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to exchange personal opinions with anybody Paul but only to provide wikipedia readers with facts and opinions according to secondary published sources. Therefore in case you can keep what you call "our opinions" out of the picture, we will coincide. Happy New Year!--Termer (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not here to exchange personal opinions with anybody" You statement about Molotov-Ribbentrop pact implies that you are. Anyway, although I also think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is absolutely irrelevant here, a relaxed Dec 31st's atmosphere is favouravle for some off-topic posts. I apologize for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is the way to proceed?

Apparently there is no need to AfD this article. Most of the content if not all is salvageable. Following Paul's arguments above, and keeping in mind arguments of Valentino's adherents, material from genocides in history, mass murders, and this article could be summarized in mass killings in history. However, one of the problems may be the length of the new article (see similar issues at genocides in history). Even though many incidents have their own articles, even summaries of so many articles may run up to a long article. Which could potentially lead to splitting parts of the article into subarticles, say by some common criteria, such as common ideology. And we are back to square one, dealing with communist mass killings, religious mass killings, democratic mass killings, or mass killing in 1940s, 1950s, etc... Any thoughts? (Igny (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Try copyediting to reduce verbiage. There is, as far as I can tell, agreement that the distinction between "murders" not being "killings" fails. There is also agreement that a great number of people died as a result of either deliberate actions, or acts which could have reasonably expected to cause deaths, by the regimes listed. There is, moreover, little need to expound at length on any single event for which another article on WP exists (including articles dealiing with broader historical material on a country) - in such cases a precis of the article is sufficient. I would also suggest that, perforce, the article deals primarily with mass killings post-WW I. I think adding in Caesar's killing of Gauls simply would not make sense <g>. Collect (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

How about mass killings in 20th century? (Igny (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

This article is about the terms like Communist genocide, democide used by scholars like Helen Fein, Rummel etc. I see no reasons to expand this article by adding Caravan of Death, Operation Condor etc. to it. That would be WP:SYNTH indeed.--Termer (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

...whereas the article as it is is merely a vanilla form of WP:SYNTH? "Terms used by scholars" looks like self delusion. "Communist genocide" is very clearly not a category commonly employed by scholars, which is what would be required to justify this article. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century (By Benjamin A. Valentino) your own argument against SYNTH tag in this article? Did you read the book at all? (Igny (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Either "Communist genocide" is a common term, I don't know. But in case it's not, thats why the article has a descriptive title borrowed from Valentino "Mass killings under Communist regimes".--Termer (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Valentino's book is on mass killings in 20th century, right? Or you skipped all the chapters but one? I wonder why. (Igny (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Well, nothing should prevent anybodoy writing articles according to Valentino. So why not have articles about Ethnic mass killings and Counterguerrilla Mass killings, and once those are there, why not have an umbrella article mass killings in 20th century. Just that what has all this to do with the current subject?--Termer (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The best way forward may be to treat it like any other fringe theory like "Ancient astronauts". Following the lead there the article could begin:

According to some revisionist historians, Communist ideology was the cause of mass killings in the Soviet Union, Maoist China and other Communist regimes. These theories have been popularized, particularly in the latter half of the 20th century, by writers Furet, Conquest, Gray etc. Such theories have not received support within the academic community, and have received little or no attention in peer-reviewed studies from historical journals.

We could then describe the evolution of the theories, various versions, and reasons for their popularity, then explain how mainstream historians view these events. Again, "Ancient Astronauts" could serve as a model for the layout of the article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The word "source", as used in Misplaced Pages, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
2. The word "source", as used in Misplaced Pages, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
3. Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823
4. Helen Fein. Genocide by Attrition 1939-1993: The Warsaw Ghetto, Cambodia, and Sudan: Links between Human Rights, Health, and Mass Death. Health and Human Rights, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1997), pp. 10-45

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Old requests for peer review