Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:49, 22 February 2011 editCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →New editing restrictions: see WP:VOTE in any case← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,405 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High), Politics (Rater) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{afd-merged-from|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (2nd nomination)|28 August 2024}}
{{ombox
| type = speedy
| text = In application and enforcement of the ]'s decision at ], the following '''discretionary sanctions''' apply to the article {{La|1=Mass killings under Communist regimes}}:
#No editor may make more than '''one revert per week''' on this article (see ] for the meaning of "revert").
#All editors with Eastern Europe-related sanctions are '''banned from editing this article''' and its talk page. For the purposes of this ban, these editors are all who have at any time been the subject of remedies, blocks or other sanctions logged on the case pages ], ] or ], irrespective of whether or not these sanctions are still in force or whether they were imposed by the Arbitration Committee or by administrators.

Violations of these restrictions may be reported to the ] and may result in blocks or additional sanctions without further warning. This sanction can be appealed as described at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
}}
{{skip to talk}} {{skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|ee|1RR=yes}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}}
{{round in circles|search=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject History
{{tmbox
|small=
|image=none
|class=start
|style=background-color:#CCFFCC;text-align:center;
|importance=low
|text=''Due to the editing restrictions on this article, ] to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.''
|Attention=yes
|A-Class=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=no
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=no
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=no
<!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. -->
|B-Class-6=no
<!-- Task forces -->
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=C |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Cambodia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Socialism |class=C |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject China|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=mid|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
}} }}
<!--Clearly of relevance as a long-standing talking point-->
{{Old AfD multi
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
|date=3 August 2009|result='''No consensus'''|page=Communist genocide
{{American English}}
|date2=24 September 2009|result2='''No consensus'''|page2=Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
{{Old XfD multi
|date3=8 November 2009|result3='''No consensus'''|page3=Mass killings under Communist regimes
<!-- 1st -->
|date4=13 April 2010|result4='''Keep'''|page4=Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
|date5=13 July 2010|result5='''Keep'''|page5=Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|result = '''no consensus'''
|collapse=yes
|page = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide
|link =
|caption =
<!-- 2nd -->
|date2 = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|result2 = '''no consensus'''
|page2 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
|link2 =
|caption2 =
<!-- 3rd -->
|date3 = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|result3 = '''no consensus'''
|page3 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
|link3 =
|caption3 =
<!-- 4th -->
|date4 = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|result4 = '''keep'''
|page4 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|link4 =
|caption4 =
<!-- 5th -->
|date5 = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|result5 = '''keep'''
|page5 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|link5 =
|caption5 =
<!-- 6th -->
|date6 = 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
|result6 = '''no consensus'''
|page6 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)
|link6 =
|caption6 =
}} }}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD | action1 = PR
| action1date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | action1date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1
| action1result = no consensus | action1result = reviewed
| action1oldid = 307184164 | action1oldid = 311235290

| action2 = PR | action2 = PR
| action2date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | action2date = 10:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1 | action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mass killings under Communist regimes/archive1
| action2result = reviewed | action2result = reviewed
| action2oldid = 311235290 | action2oldid =
| action3 = PR

| action3 = AFD | action3date = 11:41, 1 June 2018
| action3link = Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_38#Peer_review
| action3date = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
| action3result = reviewed
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
| action3oldid =
| action3result = no consensus
| action3oldid = 317412005

| action4 = AFD
| action4date = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
| action4result = no consensus
| action4oldid = 325967284

| action5 = AFD
| action5date = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
| action5result = keep
| action5oldid = 357657757

| action6 = AFD
| action6date = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
| action6result = keep
| action6oldid =

| currentstatus =
}} }}
{{Press
{{controversial (history)}}
|collapsed = yes
{{pbneutral}}
|author = Lott, Maxim
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=15 |units=days }}
|title = Inside Misplaced Pages's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried
|date = February 18, 2021
|org = ]
|url = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed
|author2 = Abbott, Joel
|title2 = The Misplaced Pages page titled "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes" is being considered for deletion 😬
|date2 = November 24, 2021
|org2 = ]
|url2 = https://notthebee.com/article/wikipedia-is-considering-the-deletion-of-the-page-titled-mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-/
|author3 = Kangadis, Nick
|title3 = 'Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes' Misplaced Pages Page 'Being Considered for Deletion'
|date3 = November 24, 2021
|org3 = MRC TV
|url3 = https://www.mrctv.org/blog/mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-wikipedia-page-being-considered-deletion
|author4 = Johnson, Autumn
|title4 = Misplaced Pages Contemplates Deleting Article On Communist Mass Killings
|date4 = November 25, 2021
|org4 = MRC News Buster
|url4 = https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/autumn-johnson/2021/11/25/wikipedia-contemplates-deleting-article-communist-mass
|author5 = Simpson, Craig
|title5 = Misplaced Pages may delete entry on ‘mass killings’ under Communism due to claims of bias
|date5 = November 27, 2021
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/
|author6 = Nolan, Lucas
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Community Considers Deleting Entry on Mass Killings Under Communism over Claims of ‘Bias’
|date6 = November 29, 2021
|org6 = ]
|url6 =
|author7 = ((]))
|title7 = Deletion Report: What we lost, what we gained
|date7 = November 29, 2021
|org7 = ]
|url7 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-11-29/Deletion_report
|author8 = Chasmar, Jessica
|title8 = Misplaced Pages page on 'Mass killings under communist regimes' considered for deletion, prompting bias accusations
|date8 = November 29, 2021
|org8 = ]
|url8 = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias
|author9 = Blair, Douglas
|title9 = Misplaced Pages Threatens to Purge ‘Communist Mass Killings’ Page, Cites Anti-Communist Bias
|date9 = December 12, 2021
|org9 = ]
|url9 = https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/12/12/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page-cites-anti-communist-bias
|author10 = Blair, Douglas
|title10 = Misplaced Pages threatens to purge ‘communist mass killings’ page, cites anti-communist bias
|date10 = December 14, 2021
|org10 = ]
|url10 = https://www.christianpost.com/voices/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page.html
|author11 = Edwards, Lee and Hafera, Brenda
|title11 = Why We Should Never Forget the Crimes of Communism
|date11 = December 14, 2021
|org11 = ]
|url11 = https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/why-we-should-never-forget-the-crimes-communism
}}
{{old moves
|date1=13 September 2009 |from1=Communist genocide |destination1=Communist politicide |link1=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 2#Requested move |result1=no consensus
|date2=16 September 2009 |from2=Communist genocide |destination2=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link2=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 3#Requested move II |result2=moved
|date3=16 April 2010 |destionation3=Classicide |link3=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 14#Requested move |result3=not moved
|date4=13 August 2018 |destination4=Communist states and mass killing |result4=no consensus to move |link4=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 40#Requested move 13 August 2018
|date5=31 July 2019 |destination5= |link5=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 31 July 2019 |result5=not moved
|date6=14 August 2019 |destination6=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link6=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 14 August 2019 |result6=not moved
|date7=31 January 2022 |destination7=Mass killings by communist regimes |result7=procedural close |link7=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 59#Requested move 31 January 2022
}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 25 |counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(15d)
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{TOC left}}
{{Clear}}


== Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer ==
== Neutrality ==

This article infers a connection between Communist regimes and mass killings, which is not explained. There is no discussion of who has made the connection, what connection they have made, or the level of acceptance of their views. /Accordingly it reads like cold war propaganda and is an embarrassment and a disservice to readers. Also, most of the sources do not directly address the subject but are written about events in individual countries. Much of the literature is taken from books that are either published outside the mainstream academic press or comparatively recent. Accordingly we cannot discern what level of acceptance they have in mainstream writing - in fact they probably have none. ] (]) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
: As I recall you argued there were no sources for "communist genocide", that it was a synthesis, etc. when there are hundreds of books on the topic{{mdash}}the preponderance being genocide by (self-declared) "communists" but also genocide committed against the same. ]<small> ►]</small> 05:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
:: The name of that article was changed precisely because of synthesis problems. By the way, if you wish to explain the horrors of Communism to people, they have been well-documented in reliable sources. You should allow this article to be written in a neutral tone and allow the readers to form their own opinions. Intelligent readers are able to discern bias and distortions and may question why the article is written in a biased manner, and may even come away with a more positive view of Communism, if only because they develop a negative view of anti-Communists. ] (]) 05:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
:::@TFD rsp to mine, what you call "synthesis problems" were arguing over the lead, quoting the U.N. genocide resolution and a whole pile of additional ] arguing over what the article was about, forcing the discussion toward the need to agree on the article lead. No one (well, at least one camp of editors, by appearances) was interested in representing what scholarly sources refer to when discussing "communist genocide" (for example, whether genocide by or of communists or both) as that meant having the words "Communist genocide" appearing as a Misplaced Pages article title. ]<small> ►]</small> 17:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

::::We don't have articles such as breeds of chicken raised under Communist regimes or mass killings in Protestant nations. Why? Because no one can see any connection between them. You obviously draw a connection in your mind, but you need to be explicit about what the connection is in the article. The is for example a website called , which basically lists republican sex offenders. However, if you want to create such an article here, then you need reliable sources that draw a connection between republicans and sex crimes. ] (]) 17:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
:1. You are going to have to explain what you mean by "infer a connection between Communist regimes and mass killings", because it make little sense to me as a criticism. I understood your prior point that the article should not take a side on a connection between communist ideology and mass killings, but the connection between the regimes and the killings is both uncontroversial and explicitly made: many of these regimes engaged in mass killing. Does the ] article infer a connection between ancient Greece and slavery? How can an article "infer a connection" on what are essentially facts? There is disagreement in sources on numerical estimates for events and on intentionality for a few events, but no disagreement on the validity of the topic itself, which even the sources you have presented to criticize the topic have acknowledged. The scholars are in fact named in the article. Their "levels of acceptance" are not because it would be original research for us add that on our own. Therefore, the only "level of acceptance" that is relevant here is whether or not a source meets Misplaced Pages's standard for reliable sources. All the sources used here do.
:2. That many or even most sources used in the article focus on a single event is irrelevant to the POV tag. They are only used to describe the event they document. That is a neutral use for them. The sources which discuss multiple regime discuss these events, so it is appropriate that this article also does.
:3. "...it reads like cold war propaganda..." Please be specific. According to the ], you must address "''specific issues that are actionable''" because "''Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag''." ] (]) 01:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

::1. The article "] says "Slavery was common practice and an integral component of ancient Greece.... Most ancient writers considered slavery not only natural but necessary.... The study of slavery in ancient Greece poses a number of significant methodological problems. Documentation is disjointed and very fragmented, focusing on the city of Athens." This article does not say for example: "Mass killings were common practice and an integral component of Communist states.... Most Communists considered mass killings not only natural but necessary.... The study of mass killings under Communist regimes poses a number of significant methodological problems. Documentation is disjointed and very fragmented, focusing on the the Soviet Union."

::2. No idea what you are talking about.

::3. If you have to misrepresent the facts in order to present your views, then readers will distrust you. Ironically your approach will create sympathy for Communism. Having watched the ], I believe that some extreme anti-communists may be secret Communists, trying to discredit democracy by appearing to be extreme.

::] (]) 04:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:::1. I did not bring up the ] article as a cookie-cutter imitation of this one. Every topic is unique and must be treated on its own terms. I brought it up to debunk your argument about an inferred connection being made by the existence of this article between mass killing and Communist regimes. Just as slavery was not unique to ancient Greece and an article on that topic does not infer that there was a special connection between the two beyond the fact that it occurred, so mass killing was not unique to Communist regimes and this article does not infer a connection beyond the facts of what occurred. There were, however, in both cases, unique circumstances and characteristics that have been examined in reliable sources and so articles in Misplaced Pages are justified.

:::2. If you explain why you don't understand, then I can try to clarify things.

:::3. Having reread the previous posts, I see now that you were referring to propaganda due to the three specific omissions from the article you mentioned in your second sentence: who has made the connection, what connection they have made, and the level of acceptance of their views. I tend to think of propaganda as the presence of deliberate untruth or inaccuracy, rather than the absence of anything, so that word confused me. As I mentioned previously, the scholars are in fact named in the article, along with their views, in the "Proposed causes" section of the article. The "levels of acceptance" are not because it would be OR without sourcing. ] (]) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

::::There was in fact a connection between slavery and ancient Greece, it was part of the economic and social system, incorporated into law and defended by political leaders of the time. Furthermore, Greece is a country. However, we do not have an article called "slavery in ancient Greece, Peru and the Confederate States, because someone believes we should group these countries together. ] (]) 15:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::: This is (appears to be typical here), dispute "A" by raising "we don't have 'B'". Let's stick to the topic. This article is not about genocide by democracies, slavery in ancient Greece, or anything else that is being raised here that has no bearing on the topic. All appearing to be the exact indulgence in ] and ] that editors and then turn around and accuse the article of. ]<small> ►]</small> 16:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Vecrumba, the analogy is far from perfect but it can be useful. TFD, yes, there was a "connection" between ancient Greece and slavery. No, ancient Greece was not a state, it was a collection of city states which often differed (and went to war with each other). These city states are grouped together in the article because that is how reliable sources characterize the topic. Similarly in this article, there is a connection between Communist regimes and mass killing found in reliable sources and "communist regimes" is the characterization found those sources. ] (]) 16:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::AmateurEditor, please do not put words in my mouth. I never said ancient Greece was a state. However the individual states were connected by contiguousness, ethnicity, language, religion and customs. They self-identified as a people, identifying non-Greeks as "barbarians" and cooperated among themselves in various areas including the Olympics and the Trojan and the Greco-Persian wars. Please give me credit that I advanced far enough in my education to study classical history. ] (]) 16:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Since we weren't talking about modern Greece, I assumed a typo. But all that matters here is how reliable sources characterize a topic, TFD. In this case, they use "communist regimes". It is not a violation of NPOV policy. ] (]) 16:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Notice there is no ] article, even though mass killings occured in Sparta and perhaps other Greek states. In order to write such an article you would have to explain why mass killings was an aspect of Greek, rather than specifically Spartan, culture. ] (]) 17:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::That article probably doesn't exist because there are no reliable sources for it, unlike this one. ] (]) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::There certainly are. There just are not many editors hostile toward ancient Greece. ] (]) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, that source does not mention "Greek regimes" or speak of mass killings in ancient greece more generally, so while it could be used to add facts to a ] article, it cannot be used to justify the existence of such an article or the title of an article. The sources I excerpted here for this article, however, do justify this one. ] (]) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::{{ec}}], TFD didn't write Greece was a single state, he wrote it was a ''country'', and that is true. It was a single nation united by common national economy, religion, language, culture and the Olympic games. The Greeks saw themselves as the single entity, by contrast to the barbarians from the West and the North and to the ancient peoples from the East. Therefore, it is correct to speak about them as about the single country divided onto many city-states.
:::::::The TFD's point seems to be correct, because we cannot group different categories arbitrarily, or based on the viewpoint shared by only a part of scholars. For instance, although we can list "slavery in ancient Greece, Peru and the Confederate States", because ''nominally'' the economy of those country was based on slave labour, however, it would be incorrect to group these countries separately from, e.g. Rome, Hellinistic states of Asia Minor, etc. Moreover, if we need to group any slave countries, we have to discuss slavery of Antique times together, because that phenomenon was different from the slavery during, e.g. Ancient Egypt, Central and Southern American civilisations and American slavery.
:::::::Similarly, many authors prefer to group mass killings committed by ''authoritarian'' regimes, others focus on ''totalitarian'' regimes only; some authors discuss mass killings in Asia, others discuss counter-guerilla mass killings; other authors discuss authoritarian or genocidal traditions in some particular Asiatic or European country; only small part of authors discuss mass killing in connection to Communism.--] (]) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Paul, I was addressing the point TFD seemed to be making, rather than what he literally said, because it seemed to be the more generous thing to do. It doesn't help us achieve consensus to nitpick, and I wasn't interested in going off on a tangent. This article does not "group different categories arbitrarily". The example of "slavery in ancient Greece, Peru and the Confederate States" is not something we can justify as a Misplaced Pages article because it is not a distinct topic found in reliable sources. It is also in no way comparable to this one, which groups things based on how reliable sources have grouped them. If other reliable sources have grouped things differently, then they can be used to justify other articles (or even changes to this article, depending on the circumstances). ] (]) 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Exactly, whereas ''some'' scholars group these events in such a way, and call them "mass killings", others group them differently, and sometimes use different terminology. Therefore, the article cannot present the current content as the mainstream views.--] (]) 18:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Grouping the Communist regimes together is not at all controversial. The topic of mass killings as a topic is not controversial. The subtopic of mass killings under Communist regimes should also not be controversial. I know of no evidence that the topic of this article is at all controversial as a topic of study. I think you and I agree on this, although TFD does not (please correct me if I am wrong, either of you). There is definitely controversy between scholars within this subject, but it seems to be limited to three things: the best terminology to use for the topic as a whole, the regime intent behind a few events, and numerical estimates for events. I am not aware of any other controversies. Currently, each source's views are being presented as the views of that source alone. If you think a view presented in the article is being presented as the mainstream view while actually being outside the mainstream, then please make your case. ] (]) 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have been unable to find a single book about mass killings under Communist regimes. If some writers do group them together, then we owe to readers to say who they are, why they group them together, and provide commentary from reliable sources on their scholarship. Otherwise, this article is synthesis. ] (]) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Here's a single book: ]. The article does say who the writers are. You can add the rest if you want and can source it. TFD, you started this talk page section to talk about "Neutrality". I answered your concerns and you ignore me ("''...we owe to readers to say who they are...''"). Why should I not ignore you in return? ] (]) 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That is a start. We can look for sources that discuss the views presented in the book, and see how widely held they are, and develop a proper neutral lead. ] (]) 21:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::That book is mentioned in the very article we are discussing. An article you have apparently not familiarized yourself with, despite your prominence criticizing it on this talk page. And you still haven't acknowledged that the article does in fact mention the writers as you just demanded it do. Please stop what you are doing right now and take the time to read (or re-read) the Misplaced Pages article before continuing with your criticism of it. ] (]) 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) My apologies, we did discuss this book before but I forgot about it because it is obscure. This book is a reliable source for facts, including what other academics say. He says, "Western public culture is profoundly uncomfortable with the Red Holocaust. It is inclined toward denial because a communist state policy of mass civilian slaughter impugns the west's faith in reason, progress, harmony and justice.... For the same reason, it is prone to excuse the mote, and when all else fails, to sermonize. Many however, resist believing that this dismal outcome was fated, or that communists employed massive violence to build and spread their systems. This treatise challenges the notion that communist economy was ever sound...."

In other words, Rosefielde acknowledges that he is presenting a minority view. His book ''False Science: Underestimating the Soviet Arms Buildup. An Appraisal of the CIA's Direct Costing Effort, 1960-1985'', for example, was standard neo-conservative fare, arguing about the imminent danger of the Soviet Union months before its collapse.

We cannot present minority views as consensus views. We cannot use the existence of minority views as a hook for a coatrack, which is what this article does.

What we should do is explain Rosefielde's views and the degree of acceptance they have received.

] (]) 02:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

is a link to Rosefielde's 1988 book ''False Science'', published by ] where he outlines the "]" conspiracy theory about how the Soviet Union has surpassed the U.S. in military ability and the CIA is hiding the fact from the American people. Months later the Soviet Union collapsed. ] (]) 03:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
:Apparently the Soviet Union collapsed because its economy could not sustain the massive arms build up. --] (]) 06:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
::There were several reasons for collapse of the USSR, and the massive arms build up was just one of them.--] (]) 12:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
:::Another major factor was the inability of a Soviet "planned economy" to actually find increases in productivity - the Chinese current system, by substituting the ability for rapid decision making for the inflexible "5 year plans" of the Soviets, and by allowing strong rewards for innovation and productivity, appears to be avoiding some of the worst problems of the Soviets and of the Mao-period China. No matter what the economic system, people work harder and smarter when they see rewards for doing so. (preceding is personal opinion based upon course work in economics, etc., and is ''not'' presented as an "Article edit") ] (]) 12:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree with ]'s analysis - "socialism" in the Soviet Union, China, and other countries was a method for rapid industrialization. It was not a step from feudalism toward communism but toward capitalism and has been successful, especially in China. ] (]) 14:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

: As a reader and only minor editor, I probably should have no input, but I feel strongly after reading this article that it is terribly biased. I actually only clicked on the link to read this article because the title was so surprising. I wanted to know what scholarly connections had been drawn between mass killings and communism. I was quite disappointed as the article is merely a jumbled bag of occurrences with no explicit thread linking them. The implicit message was clear enough, though, "communism causes genocide". I think that this article may be salvaged if it was reframed as a description of a minority view point of socio-political history and a discussion of the notable scholars who hold that view.

:The current article is basically a list of atrocities suffered under communist regimes, which is a valuable exercise that someone should undertake, but not wikipedia. ] (]) 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== External link to the Global Museum on Communism ==

The external link to the ] should be removed from this article because it fails ]. See ]:
:'''Except for ]''', one should generally avoid:
::* 2.{{anchors|EL2|misleading}}Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
::*13.{{anchors|EL13|general}}Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be ].
::*19.{{anchors|EL19|organizations}}Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that ] or ].<ref name=NotRef /><ref>Links to websites ''are'' permitted when the website has been used as a ], but ''not'' to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.<br />'''No''': " issued a press release that said..." <br />'''Yes''': "The ] issued a press release that said..." </ref>

The most obvious reason not to include is (19) - the site has its own article and the link should be there. (2) applies because the site is not scholarly or neutral. (13) applies because the site is not directly about mass killings under Communist regimes.

The issue was brought to the EL noticeboard before. The editor who restored the deletion of this link stated that it "seems a proper external link - does not fail WP:EL for sure". He appears to have forgotten the previous discussion.

] (]) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Try citing the EL standards: ''Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functional and likely to remain functional? '' To which the answers are all "yes." The site is not commercial, not a "fan site", and in fact represents an organization chartered by Act of Congress, presenting factual material to readers. Further, this has been discussed many times now, and the result has been the same '''every single time.''' The site is not only government sanctioned, it has information relevant to the article. Which, oddly enough, is the primary criterion for an external site! Unless, of course, you assert that an organization charted by the Congress is offering intentionally misleading material? But that was already dismissed in the past - so there is no leg to stand on there. ''The Global Museum on Communism is a project of the non-profit, non-partisan Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, established by an Act of Congress on December 17, 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.'' seems fairly reputable, I would say. ] (]) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

::This very obviously fails ] because it is "only indirectly related to the article's subject". Since the article has no other external links, it is also fails ]. <s>Typical of</s> Collect <s>to get</s> ''appears to have'' amnesia about a recently established consensus. --] (]) 03:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Aha -- so references to "millions of victims" clearly have ''no'' relationship to Communist excess deaths? Interesting take, that! BTW, your personal asides do not belong on any talk page on Misplaced Pages. I ask you redact such. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
::::My pleasure. --] (]) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Apparently this material:
:''The breakdown of the number of deaths is as follows:
:''65 million in the People's Republic of China
:''20 million in the Soviet Union
:''2 million in Cambodia
:''2 million in North Korea
:''1.7 million in Africa
:''1.5 million in Afghanistan
:''1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
:''1 million in Vietnam
:''150,000 in Latin America
:''10,000 deaths resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power.
Has nothing to do with this article.
Nor does this:
:''The VOCMF has a three-phase mission:
:''The 1st phase of the mission, to memorialize the victims of communism, was realized with the dedication of the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, DC on June 12, 2007.
:''The 2nd phase of the mission, to educate the public, has been initiated with the launch of the Global Museum on Communism on June 16th 2009.
:''The 3rd phase of the mission, to document the evidence, is to be realized with the eventual construction of a permanent self-standing 'bricks and mortar' museum in Washington DC.
Nor does this:
:''Welcome to The Global Museum on Communism, an international portal created to honor the more than 100 million victims of communist tyranny and educate future generations about past and present communist atrocities. ''
None of this has ''any relevance'' to this article. Eh? ] (]) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
: (ec, a few now) I really fail to see how it fails. As an obvious parallel, the U.S. Holocaust Museum was also established by an act of Congress, no one has a problem citing it as a source on victims of Nazism. ]<small> ►]</small> 03:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
: And I don't remember any consensus about non-inclusion, only editors advocating there was a consensus who wished to (my perception) suppress it as a source. ]<small> ►]</small> 03:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
:::There's a consensus in that multiple editors were against it and one editor was in favour. Of course, consensus can change, but ignoring the discussion and reverting anyway is not good form. --] (]) 03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
::"Any relevance" is not the criterion. The content of the site is "only indirectly related" to the alleged academic discourse that is the subject of this article (i.e. it is not a site about "mass killings"). In any event, it also fails ], as stated above. --] (]) 03:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The link is entirely relevant to this article and as such I have restored it. ] (]) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

== RfC: External link to the Global Museum on Communism ==

{{rfctag|pol|hist}}
Should the article ] contain an external link to the ] website? ] (]) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''No'''. Inclusion of the link is a violation of ]. The specific problems are (1) we should not have links to sites where there is already an article about the organization, (2) the external site is not about "mass killings under communist regimes". but about the horrors of Communism in general, and (3) the site presents a specific non-mainstream point of view, ''viz.'', it presents as fact that Communism killed over 100 million people, while this article presents that number as an extreme upward estimate dismissed by mainstream writers, and the organization is run by ], the self-desribed historian of the American Right (who does not write for an academic audience) and has been involved in a number of extreme anti-Communist organizations. The relevant section of ] says:
:]:
:'''Except for ]''', one should generally avoid:
::* 2.{{anchors|EL2|misleading}}Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
::*13.{{anchors|EL13|general}}Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be ].
::*19.{{anchors|EL19|organizations}}Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that ] or ].<ref name=NotRef /><ref>Links to websites ''are'' permitted when the website has been used as a ], but ''not'' to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.<br />'''No''': " issued a press release that said..." <br />'''Yes''': "The ] issued a press release that said..." </ref>
:] (]) 23:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Non-commercial site with official Congressional charter with material relating to deaths under Communist regimes. I would also support a link to a non-commerical site saying ''no'' deaths occurred, as long as readers were helped. The purpose of any EL is to help readers, period. As for making judgements on who the director is (clearly anyone with an opinion on one side is OK, but people with the "wrong" opinion become grounds for rejection of a site? I did not find that in the policies or guidelines, so that issue is not even valid to raise here. And I would ask that you not issue judgements about anyone at all being a member of an "extreme anti-Communist organization" without strong WP:BLP level sourcing. ] (]) 23:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
:The main "extreme anti-Communist organization" was the ], "founded in 1966... under the initiative of ]. ... was placed under watch by the Anti-Defamation League, which said that the organization had increasingly become "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites"." ] (]) 00:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::Eh? The ADL did not say "everyone in that organization is a racist, extremist, anti-semite" at all. Yet you think that is sufficient for labelling a person as "involved with extreme anti-communist organizations"? Sorry - it fails the smell test for ] ] (]) 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::Note further that the ADL has ''cleared'' that organization. One ought not elide that fact. ] (]) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The link would clearly violate WP:EL, as already noted. To give any prominence to a site pushing such a fringe outlook would also violate WP:NPOV. ] (]) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''fringe?''' President George W. Bush addresses his remarks Tuesday, June 12, 2007, at the dedication ceremony for the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, D.C ] (]) 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::Whether it is fringe or not as a source is not the point. --] (]) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''No'''. As discussed above, it isn't in line with ] and particularly ]. --] (]) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
***Just provide a link with another POV - where only one link is provided, it is pretty clear that this is not a veto power because the other side chooses to keep all links out. ] (]) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Who's choosing to keep all links out? If you can find a balanced selection of links for inclusion, that might change the whole situation. --] (]) 01:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I have ''repeatedly'' asked for other links. If only one link is provided by anyone, then using it is not violating any policies. Just add one with a distinctly different POV if you feel this particular link has an evil POV. But attacking the people running the site is silly. ] (]) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think the guideline really cares who finds balancing links just so long as they are found. I'm pretty sure it doesn't cease to apply just because you have asked other editors to deal with the problem for you, though.
:::::::In any event, as you can see from the above, ELPOV isn't the only issue, even though it might be the most significant one. --] (]) 02:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Yep - the fact that a person is somehow an "extreme racist fascist" seems key here :). I did ''not'' provide this link, but I dang sure feel deleting it because those who dislike it ''will not'' provide another link is quite against WP principles. ] (]) 02:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I think the key WP principle here is ]. It isn't up to other editors to parry your assault. What matters is the resulting content conforms to policy. A single EL with a clear POV doesn't do that, so find some others that could go with it. --] (]) 02:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' This seems like a pretty trivial issue for an RfC....? In reviewing ], it does seem to bear on this question. ] (]) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. As much as I dislike adding yet more ''non-outside editor'' opinion to a RfC which is supposed to solicit input from uninvolved editors, there are a few points I think need to be made. Some objections to the use of this site an an external link in this article are not actual violations of ]:
::1) "''we should not have links to sites where there is already an article about the organization''". This reason is not even one of the items on the ] list and seems to refer instead to the irrelevant issue of whether to use an external link or a wikilink for a term in the body of an article.
::2) "''the site presents a specific non-mainstream point of view''". Even if this characterization were accurate, which it is not, it would qualify the link as one ] and therefore does not justify removal.
:The possible actual violations of ] so far raised are the following:
::1) ''Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.'' This has not been shown to apply. The onus is on the accuser to show that this is the case. The site has contributions from many reliable academics and scholars:.
::2) ''Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject.'' The link is directly related to the article's subject but the information is organized by country. The site as a whole, however, is about those killed under Communism as a whole, which is why linking to the main page, rather than to the individual country pages, is most appropriate.
::3) ''On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.'' A single link is not a case of "too great a number of links". This justification, then, argues not for removing the link but for altering its presentation. ] (]) 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''No''' It seems like the discussion is tending toward including the link in the context of other external links, which I would support. ] (]) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' The link to the Global Museum on Communism is entirely within the article scope. ] (]) 12:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Obviously related. Please remember "Misplaced Pages is not censored." Just because people dislike what a mainstream source says doesn't mean that it is "fringe" or can be removed. ] (]) 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. It seems like a reasonable link. I am aware of ], but we can be a little bit flexible when it comes to external links. All we are saying to the reader is "Here is a link. It has something to say about the general subject. We don't certify that anything there is correct. All we are certifying is that its something that reasonable people might find interesting". ] (]) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''No'''. In addition to the ] points raised by TFD, I would also like to add ]. ] (]) 22:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

== Was the Hungarian Revolution a "communist mass killing"? ==

I am unaware of any scholars calling the ] a communist mass killing. But .

Were the Hungarian killed in the Soviet response to Hungary's violent revolution victims of a mass killing?

At ], I'm only finding a bunch of links to ], ], and ]. How are mass killings defined? Was the Hungarian Revolution a mass killing? (If so, was the counter-revolutionary ] yet another episode of mass killing?) ] (]) 03:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:Do we have a source that calls it a Communist mass killing? It seems to be more an act of war or counter-insurgency, and the scale was too small. ] (]) 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::"Scale was too small"? and Hungary is not a huge nation. And calling the legal government of Hungary "insurgent" is absurd. Nagy invaded no one. Overthrew no one. But one can call it a "counter insurgency"? Only if one calls the Soviet troops the lawful government :) ] (]) 09:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::here is a photo of the pre-teen "insurgents" http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Budapest-Boys-from-Twelve-to-Late-Teens-Carrying-Rifles-Fighting-During-Hungarian-Revolution-Posters_i4921483_.htm?aid=95620932&DestType=7&Referrer=http://hungarian-revolution.purzuit.com/ ] (]) 09:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::To suggest that the Soviet military intervention in Hungary was 'counter-insurgency' is absurd. That anyone should advance such arguments seems to me to demonstrate just how ridiculous this debate has become. Rather than discussing the supposed article topic, people are now looking for ways to add or subtract 'killings' to support their POV. This is propaganda, plain and simple - as indeed is the entire article topic. The idea that whole swathes of history (and the lives of millions) can be reduced to a 'scorecard', and then used to 'demonstrate' the evils of a supposed political program (never explicitly discussed in the article, which almost implies that the objective of 'communism' ''was'' mass murder), is not only absurd, but offensive. Likewise, to try to portray the overthrow by Soviet military force of the legitimate government of Hungary as some sort of police action is also ridiculous. This whole 'good' vs 'evil' comic-book analysis of history should have no place in a legitimate encyclopaedia. ] (]) 11:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::I agree with Andy. While all of the information belongs in the individual country or system articles, the rationale for this article would also support "scorecard" articles for "Capitalism and mass killings" (we could even work the U.S. Civil War into this one), "Catholicism and mass killings" (remember St. Bartholemew!) and "Insert ethnic group, religion or political system of your choice here and mass killings".] (]) 12:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Valentino, who is the only writer to use the term "Communist mass killings" distinguishes between them and "Counterguerilla mass killings" ("The effort to defeat guerilla insurgencies"). He puts the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan into the latter group. It seems to me that the Soviet invasion of Hungary had greater similarity to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan than it does to actions of Soviet governments against its own people. The invasion of foreign states is not unique to Communism. In fact some non-Communist states have also invaded foreign countries. ] (]) 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Piled higher and deeper? So you would assert that the Soviet Union was the ''rightful government of Hungary'', and Nagy was an "insurgent"? (noting you have not withdrawn the assertion that Hungarian deaths were due to "counter-insurgency"). ] (]) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Trying to step back from the increasingly heated discussion. The fact this comes up at all indicates how woolly and poorly thought out this article is. "Mass killing" is such a large, ill-defined category, it can arguably include killings of soldiers during wartime (which do or do not violate Geneva conventions), killing of civilians in your own country, and of civilians in other people's countries (in peace or in wartime). The most narrow useful definition for this article would probably be "killing of civilians in your own country" and would cover the allegations about the USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. Hungary (forgetting the not very useful "insurgency" concept) is an example of "killing civilians in someone else's country during a military invasion". If we keep the field this broad, then "Democracy and mass killing" would also include discussions of the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden, use of pilotless drones, cluster bombs and huge munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan today and all that good stuff. In cases like this, the broader the article, the less useful it is. Such topics are probably better discussed in narrower articles. ] has problems of its own, but at least is not titled "Mass killings by governments".] (]) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Collect, I think you have got ahold of the wrong end of the stick. Deaths that resulted from the Soviet invasion of Hungary should be considered deaths that resulted from the Soviet invasion of Hungary because Hungary was not part of the Soviet Union. ] (]) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have tried to deal with your precise words. First the revolution deaths were "counter insurgency" deaths. That did not fly. Now you seem to say the people executed by the Soviet-installed government after the Soviets seized power are ''not'' "mass deaths under a communist government" because the Soviets were not the government of Hungary? I rather think that an executed person sorta blames the people in charge and does ''not'' think "Oh well - this is just a military death from an invasion." YMMV. ] (]) 23:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Collect, do you think that the killings were motivated by Communist ideology or were they part of extraterritorial aggression? ] (]) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::Collect, it's really, ''really'' beside the point to give in to speculations like whether the "executed person sorta blames the people in charge and does ''not'' think 'Oh well - this is just a military death from an invasion.'"
::::::::::::My original question was what does and does not count as a "mass killing". Is it several thousand, several hundred, or several dozen people? Do we include wartime deaths, deaths from insurrections and from rebellions? The previous consensus (if we can even call it that) has been that scholarly sources specifically referring to certain events as "mass killings" will suffice as ] those events as instances of mass killing, but attempts at paranormal communication with the dead (accordingly) will not. Benjamin Valentino characterizes a mass killing as the intentional killing of 50,000 or more innocent people during five years. Which seems to particularly rule out the Hungarian Revolution.
::::::::::::Of course, that's Valentino's view, and it's rather interesting that we have an article on ], but no proper article on ] (just a short disambiguation page). At any rate, we should at least stick to relying on actual scholars, and not try to ask the dead or engage in other forms of ]. Please stick to ]. ] (]) 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Since the current article is based mostly on the Valentino's views (according to him, "dispossessive mass killings", e.g. famine deaths, etc are considered as mass killings), we must stick with his definition of mass killings, so 50,000 is definitely a threshold. In addition, all combatants should be excluded.
:::::::::::::Regarding your notion about "mass killing" (in general), the ambiguation page creates an impression that the interpretation of this term in Misplaced Pages is much stricter ''unless it is not applied to Communism''. That is a serious big neutrality issue, which should be addressed in close future. In particular, I cannot understand why all general consideration about terminology should be here, not in the "Mass killing" article.--] (]) 04:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The reason we only have this mass killings article is that the article was original created by ] who has been permanently banned as a troll, and called "Communist genocide". When the article was nominated for deletion because it was original research, editors decided to change the title. While we have an issue about what constitutes ''mass'' killings, we also have an issue as to what constitutes ''communist'' mass killings. Communists mass killings are not just mass killings by Communists, otherwise this article would be pure ], but mass killings that are somehow different from mass killings by people with other ideologies. ] (]) 04:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::::This is not true, and I have pointed this out to you before. The move discussion started ten days before the AfD, being in two parts and The move discussion closed and the article was moved on 24 (or 25 depending upon time zone) September 2009, on the same day as the AfD was opened . What I find amazing is that you fully participated in the move discussion so I don't know how you can claim it came after the AfD. --] (]) 09:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

== "Nexus article" requires re-work and sourcing ==

This is effectively a "nexus" article about the connection between Communism and murder, yet (as Andy points out in the previous section) skips any discussion of the actual connection, assuming we all understand it. A "nexus" article should illustrate that ''the connection itself is notable''. That is why we don't have "Mass killings on Tuesdays". (See also the very funny deletion discussion.) As it happens, the Communism/Mass killing nexus is notable, but the article never bothers to establish notability. It would become encyclopedic if recast as an article on the work of notable historians, sociologists etc. who have examined the Communism/mass killing nexus. Specific country examples would then come in through their work. There is no lack of such sources on many of the examples mentioned. FWIW, articles on "capitalism and mass killing", "democracy and mass killing" and so forth could be similarly sourced. History is "indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies,
and misfortunes of mankind. " Gibbon. ] (]) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:Note ] and its edit history, especially those adding material to that article. ] (]) 13:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::I'll take a look. BTW, I note your interest in ] articles from your talk page. I think this one fits the bill, because of its failure to focus on the work of notable historians and sociologists. in other words, instead of properly ''reporting on'' advocacy, it skips that step and becomes the advocacy itself.] (]) 13:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
(Collect--I segregated this as a new section and made some hopefully nonsubstantive changes to my first comment to clarify that. Since you had already replied, I'm mentioning it because such edits are disfavored if they undermine the sense of the replies. I think I avoided that here.) Also wanted to mention that the article lede, "Study has been made of states that have declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine, and have killed significant numbers of people or facilitated their deaths" is a perfect example of ]. ] (]) 13:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::The prior lede was not weaselly - this one was produced by , , (sock edit), and such edits as , , and especially such edits as . There have been eight AfDs on the article (under two names) so that part is pretty much settled as a non-starter (last one was a very strong "keep" result). ] (]) 14:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Yeah, not really arguing it should be AFD'd, just intelligently fixed. Anyway, this has all inspired me to try writing an essay on "notability in nexus articles" where a preposition connects two concepts. ] (]) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::@ Collect: If the only lede that is acceptable to contributors is one that suggests that an article is promoting a minority viewpoint based on a dubious synthesis, shouldn't we take this as a sign that it actually ''is'' one?
::::@ Jonathanwallace. That sounds like a very useful essay: let me know if you want my input. ] (]) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Andy--yes, I will let you know as soon as I have a draft in userspace.] (]) 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Before you devote your time in improving this article, you should read through the discussions which have been archived. ] (]) 06:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't think either Jonathanwallace or I are suggesting an essay on this specific topic: the problem is much more endemic in Misplaced Pages. Frankly, I've more or less given this mess up as a lost cause, and see the solution in actually changing the criteria (or at least the attitude) for what makes an article acceptable to be more worthwhile than in engaging in the sort of pointless Wikilawyering and endless going over the same grounds that we see here. It looks more like a role-playing game than a debate about encyclopaedia content, and while it is using the deaths of millions as fodder for debate, I'd rather not play along. ] (]) 06:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

== This is not paraphrasing ==

I strongly object to this revert by Tentontunic .

Valentino does not state "some Eastern European and African countries". He writes that mass killings by communists occured "Eastern Europe and Africa." It's common knowledge that there were mass killings in the USSR (which can be taken to include various of Eastern European countries) and in Ethiopia, but nobody has been able to point out where else they occured. The article does not discuss any mass killings in Africa outside of Ethiopia; it's likely that Mengistu's Red Terror is the only example of mass killing under a communist regime in Africa.

But the word "some" is synonymous with "a few" and therefore strongly implies something to the effect that mutliple African regimes carried out mass killings. That isn't claimed by Valentino, and Tentontunic's (and AmteurEditor's) edits cannot perforce be regarded as a valid paraphrase. ] (]) 21:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:, which is really what you ought to have done. ] (]) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::Thank you for being a gentleman and fixing that ever-so-politely. You, know it is rather hard to fix things yourself when people revert you while the article is on 1RR. Meanwhile, please list the Eastern European countries where scholars say communist mass killings occured. Otherwise, we should revert back to my version. As I originally pointed out, saying "Eastern European countries" and "Africa" is helplessly vague, since "Eastern European countries" may well mean the USSR. And since the only African state where there was an African Red Terror was Ethiopia, we can refer to ]'s Ethiopia in place of "Africa". ] (]) 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:However ''Mengistu's Red Terror is the only example of mass killing'' Then this means there are two? Thus the original statement would have been correct, we ought to in fact add ''Mengistu's Red Terror'' to the article? Is this what you are in fact stating? ] (]) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::I don't understand what you're talking about. What do you refer to by "two"? You do realize that Ethiopia is in Africa, right? ] (]) 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Terribly sorry, I made an error in my geography. An normal edit would not have been an issue I am sure, I made mention of this on your talk page I believe? ] (]) 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have restored ], for I am quite sure that the USSR contained quite a large chunk of it. ] (]) 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:Why? We already mention the USSR in the lede - so it's pretty redundant, isn't it? It reads: '''The highest death tolls that have been calculated are in the People's Republic of China under Mao, ''the Soviet Union under Stalin'', and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge''''. ] (]) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::Because we ought to point out were the killings occurred, and a great many happened within Eastern Europe. ] (]) 21:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::But they happened in Eastern Europe in the USSR (under Stalin). Do you not see the redundancy? ] (]) 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

== Tens of millions, not millions butchered ==

Anyone with the vaguest grasp of twentieth century history knows that this is the case. So why is Misplaced Pages pretending otherwise? Has it become so grotesquely propagandised by the totalitarian left? ] (]) 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:Change it to the smallest and largest estimates, that ought to be satisfactory to all and it is of course ] ] (]) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::Can anyone explain why a Wiki "grotesquely propagandised by the totalitarian left" would ''have'' an article entitled "Mass killings under Communist regimes"? ] (]) 18:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Because totalitarian leftists will not allow this article to be titled '''Red Final Solution''' or '''The Red Holocaust'''. Also, I'm not sure that being a famine victim under, say, Mao's crappy agricultural policy really counts as "being butchered" but whatever, I'm patriotic and don't want to sound like a liberal-leftist-hippy. ] (]) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Since the google.scholar gives just 5 results for "Red Final Solution" , and all of them are ''chemical'' articles, and just 65 for "Red Holocaust" , these two terms are definitely fringe. A possible explanation is that Western scholars are predominantly totalitarian leftists...
::::Interestingly, one of those sources (Norman Rich. ''Central European History'' Vol. 37, No. 2, 2004 ) states that "''However horrendous the crimes of communism were, there never was a Red Holocaust ''". I think, that statement should be added to the article. --] (]) 04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

== Tens of millions lost their lives in various episodes of mass killings by these regimes... ==

I encourage newcomers to read the talk page where this issue has already been discussed. Whereas the fact that tens of millions lost their lives prematurely under Communist regimes (mostly as a result of civil wars, famines or diseases) is indisputable, only small part of scholars characterise all these events as mass killings. As a rule, only such events as Kampuchean genocide, Great Purge, or Ciltural revolution are characterised as mass killings. However, they caused ''million'', not tens of millions deaths. I already explained that on this talk page before. I suggest to self-revert the recent changes in the sentence quited above, and to discuss the lede on the talk page first. If the change will not be self reverted, I'll revert it, and any other attempt to restore the current wording without a consensus will be considered as edit warring.--] (]) 04:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that almost ten million died in the enforced famine in the Ukraine alone (I presume that we can all agree that this qualifies as a mass killing) I would suggest that it is nonsensical and deeply misrepresentative to be discussing mass deaths under communism in terms of millions and not tens of millions. This is indisputable; therefore "Tens of millions lost their lives etc." should remain as being perfectly reasonable, accurate and non-problematic. From the introduction to ]'s ''Harvest of Sorrow'':

''Fifty years ago as I write these words, the Ukraine and the Ukrainian, Cossack and other areas to its east -- a great stretch of territory with some forty million inhabitants -- was like one vast Belsen. A quarter of the rural population, men, women and children, lay dead or dying, the rest in various stages of debilitation with no strength to bury their families or neighbours. At the same time, (as at Belsen), well-fed squads of police or party officials supervised the victims.''

I can't believe that we actually need to be arguing this. ] (]) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:Paul Siebert, to say only millions died prematurely under communist regimes is obviously false. Given Stalin alone is held to account for some twenty million we are already into "tens of millions" after all. It would be far easier and NPOV to cite both the high and low figures bandied about. ] (]) 08:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, we cannot. What we have is: during Kampuchean genocide (the only officially recognised genocide committed by the regime that identified itself as Communist) ca 2 millions were killed. During the Great Purge 0.7 million were executed; a total amount of killed was ca 1.2 millions. By contrast, the amount of people who died prematurely under during the Stalin regime (famine and deportation deaths, camp mortality, diseases, etc) is 15-20 million, and we can speak about tens of millions. However, most scholars do ''not'' describe those deaths as mass killings. Accordingly, we can speak about tens of millions victims, but only small part of them belongs to the lede, because the article describes famines in a ''controversy'' section. The lede must reflect what the article says, and all these arguments have already been presented on this talk page.
::I again propose you to self-revert and remind you that the article is under 1RR. --] (]) 13:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I have no need to self revert, please look at the articles history. How do "Most scholars" describe Stalins actions then? I have certainly seen his actions described as genocide. For instance ''Stalin's Genocides'' Norman M. Naimark. Princeton University Press (19 July 2010 ISBN 978-0691147840 ] (]) 08:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Was the famine in the Ukraine (let me remind you again, '''one single incident''' from 1932-33, which possibly claimed upwards of 10 million lives) under communism a mass killing or not? ] (]) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:Likely a "counter-insurgency"? ] (]) 15:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
::Even the Black Book of Communism (not the most leftist sources) estimates the number of the victims in the USSR to be around 15 million (of course, I mean not the notorious Courtois' introduction, but the chapter written by Nicolas Werth, the least controversial part of the book; btw, Werth did not support main Courtois' claims). This ''included'' Holodomor and other events. Regarding the famine of 1932-33, the number of 10 million is disputable. Estimates range between ca 3 and ca 10 million (the article currently says 6-8 million). In addition, it is not correct to claim that all of those victims were just starved to death, a considerable part of victims died from typhoid fever, from other diseases exacerbated by malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions. And, most importantly, although the fact that these deaths did occur in indisputable, these events are ''not'' described as mass killings by most scholars.<br>Again, the edits <s>you</s> ] made contradict to what the reliable sources (and the article) say. They ''must'' be reverted immediately, and after that we can continue our discussion.--] (]) 15:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the holocaust qualifies as a mass killing? ] (]) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:Yes. Are you going to self-revert? Re Naimark's "genocide", other scholars, e.g., Ellman, clearly state that there is no sufficient ground to speak about ''strictly defined'' genocide. With regard ''loosely defined'' genocide, this term is applicable to so wide range of events that its usage simply become senseless. I request you to self-revert.--] (]) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the deaths in the Soviet Death Camps (let's leave out China and North Korea for the moment) also qualify as a mass killing? ] (]) 06:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:According to Steven Wheatcroft (the source is cited in the article), there were no ''death'' camps in the Soviet Union.--] (]) 06:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
They were in effect death camps, as you surely must realise. Just as the famine in the Ukraine was in effect a gigantic Belsen, supervised and facilitated by the State under direct orders from Stalin (he even admitted it to Churchill at Yalta). So the deaths in the Gulag, a system set up and supervised by the Soviet State, can also qualify as a mass killing. Or is it a case of "all deaths are equal, but some deaths are more equal than others" (i.e., if you die in a Nazi death camp you're part of a mass killing, but if you die in a Soviet death camp, you're not). Another question for you – do you think that holocaust victims who died from diseases brought on by malnutrition and poor sanitary conditions should not count among the 6 million who died? ] (]) 06:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:Re "''They were in effect death camps''" That is what ''you'' say. Reliable sources available for me contradict to this your conclusion.
:Re "''if you die in a Nazi death camp you're part of a mass killing, but if you die in a Soviet death camp, you're not''" Please, read the article: Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930–45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319–1353. He analysed this issue in details, and concluded that the difference was very significant.--] (]) 08:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:For your convenience, I provide the extended quote from this source:
::"''The nature of Soviet repression and mass killing was clearly far more complex than normally assumed. Mass purposive killings in terms of executions were probably in the order of one million and probably as large as the total number of recorded deaths in the Gulag. In this narrowest category of purposefully caused deaths, the situation is exactly the opposite to that generally accepted. Hitler caused the murder of at least 5 million innocent people largely, it would appear, because he did not like Jews and communists. Stalin by contrast can be charged with causing the purposive death of something in the order of a million people. Furthermore the purposive deaths caused by Hitler fit more closely into the category of 'murder', while those caused by Stalin fit more closely the category of 'execution'. Stalin undoubtedly caused many innocent people to be executed, but it seems likely that he thought many of them guilty of crimes against the state and felt that the execution of others would act as a deterent to the guilty. He signed the papers and insisted on documentation. Hitler, by contrast, wanted to be rid of the Jews and communists simply because they were Jews and communists. He was not concerned about making any pretence at legality. He was careful not to sign anything on this matter and was equally insistent on no documentation''"
::"''The Gulag was neither as large nor as deadly as it is often presented, it was not a death camp, although in cases of general food shortage (1932-33 and 1942-43) it would suffer significantly more than the population at large. There were not 12 million deaths in the camps as suggested by Maier; and it seems highly unlikely that there were as many as 7 million deaths between 1935 and 1941 as claimed by Conquest citing Mikoyan's son. With a maximum number of inmates of 1.5 million in 1941 the Gulag was nevertheless of demographic significance and more than twenty times as large as the prewar Nazi concentration camp system at its peak following Kristallnacht. But all the same, twenty times as large as pre-war Nazi concentration camps does not make anything like Auschwitz.''"
:Please, note, that the quote has been taken from the ''reliable secondary source'', which was written by a reputable scholar and published in the high level peer-reviewed scholarly journal. You cannot reject these conclusions just based on what you read in obsolete books or popular web sites.--] (]) 08:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::Paul Siebert, to say there were no Soviet death cams is also incorrect. Sakwa, Richard ''The rise and fall of the Soviet Union, 1917-1991.'' Routledge; 1et edition 17 Jun 1999 ISBN 978-0415122900 p232. Kun, Miklós ''Stalin: an unknown portrait.'' Central European University Press 1 March 2003 ISBN 978-9639241190 pX. Vizinczey, Stephen ''Truth and Lies in Literature: Essays and Reviews'' University of Chicago Press New edition 1 Feb 1988 ISBN 978-0226858845 p307, this took all of two minutes to find. I still await a response to my reply to your question above. ] (]) 08:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:::You should address these your arguments not to me, but to Wheatcroft. Please, take into account that many books written before 1990 (and some of those written later) do not take into account the data from declassified Soviet archives and similar documents, and, therefore, are based on obsolete and inaccurate earlier estimates, which contain dramatically inflated figures.--] (]) 08:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Paul Siebert, you are the one stating there were no Soviet death camps. I believe you have just been proved wrong. I will also point out to you that two of the books presented above were printed after 1990. Please do not assign undue weight to one scholars opinion. ] (]) 09:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::There were no death camps, Tentontunic. The writers who employ the locution "death camps" to describe the Soviet Gulag camps are using ]{{mdash}}ie, they are not to be taken literally. More careful scholars do take the pains to point out the distinction and explicitly mention that there were no extermination or death camps (). E.g., Professor Daniel Chirot, who writes about both Nazi and Soviet brutalities in ''Modern Tyrants: The Power and Influence of Evil in Our Age'' (Princeton University Press, 1996) <blockquote>The stories that subsequently came out of the prisons and camps show how much sadism and wanton cruelty there was on the part of the police interrogators, and within the camps, by the guards. As in Nazi Germany, the trips to the camps were themselves nightmares of overcrowding, famine, and thirst, with many perishing on the way. <u>Nevertheless, these were not death camps as were the German ones, because there was no plan to systematically exterminate all the prisoners.</u></blockquote> ] (]) 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
''Gulag A History'' by Anne Applebaum (2003) is also an excellent and important overview of the Gulag system. To take one statistic from the book, it is estimated that between 1941-42 one quarter of the entire Gulag population starved to death. Millions were tortured, starved, and worked to death, the life expectancy was three months in some of the Siberian camps. They were to all intents and purposes death camps. The term Gulag has rightly come to mean a symbol of oppression and totalitarian power; how disturbing that some on this talk page seem so keen to ignore so many facts and accounts from the historical records. ] (]) 13:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Note threading when you say "you." ] (]) 16:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Sorry. Fixed.--] (]) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

===Applepaum etc.===


To avoid future arguments similar to those from the last posts of ], ], and other newcomers, let me reproduce some old arguments and sources I already presented on other talk pages. <br>Opening of formerly classified Soviet archives compelled most western scholars to re-consider their views on the Soviet history (Doing Soviet History: The Impact of the Archival Revolution
Author(s): Donald J. Raleigh Source: Russian Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 16-24) Currently, most scholars and political writers who write about Stalinist repressions use for their works a seminal article published in the American Historical Reviews by J. Arch Getty, Gábor T. Rittersporn, Viktor N. Zemskov. (Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years: A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence Author(s): J. Arch Getty, Gábor T. Rittersporn, Viktor N. Zemskov Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 1017-1049). To avoid accusation in OR, let me quote such a rightist and anti-Communist scholar as ], who wrote:
:"''We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'.''" (Robert Conquest in "Victims of Stalinism: A Comment." Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319 )

Interestingly, these data, obtained based on the exhaustive analysis of declassified Soviet archives, have been carefully checked by other western scholars, including cross-check (comparison of the figures taken from local and central archives, analysis of the number of NKVD troops who guarded the camps, etc), who came to a conclusion that it would be highly unlikely that these figures were forged.
:"''Cheating on a large scale could surely have been detected. So when the records show that there were 2.6 million zaklyuchennye in 1950, plus 2.3 million in spetsposeleniya (i.e. in exile, but not behind wire), and that this was the highest such total in Soviet history, this does seem likely to be close to the truth, and estimates made in and out of Russia which name much higher figures have to be revised downwards.''" (Terror Victims. Is the Evidence Complete? Author(s): Alec Nove Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3 (1994), pp. 535-537)

Based on these figures, Michael Ellman concluded that:
:''The best estimate that can currently be made of the number of repression deaths in 1937-38 is the range 950,000-1.2 million, i.e. about a million. This is the estimate which should be used by historians, teachers and journalists concerned with twentieth century Russian-and world-history. Naturally it may, or may not, have to be revised in the future as more evidence becomes available. Most of these repression deaths were deliberate NKVD killings ('executions') but <u>a significant number were deaths in detention (some of which were also deliberate)</u>. An unknown number of them were people who died shortly after their release from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it.''" (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)

Now, in light of all said above, let me discuss the Applebaum's book and the ''interpretation'' of her conclusions made by ].
Firstly, by contrast to the authors quoted by me, ] is a political ''journalist''. She never did her own archival studies and relied on the works published by others. In actuality, majority of figures she uses in her book were taken from the GRZ article (either directly, or indirectly, from the works of other scholars who used GRZ's data). For instance, she claimed that, according to official statistics, on January 1950, the Gulag contained 2,561,351 prisoners in a camps and colonies of the system . Let's compare this figure with the data from the Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov's article. According to them, there were 1,727,970 inmates in the Gulag ''camps'' and 740,554 inmates in colonies.
:'''1,727,970 (Gulag, Zemskov) + 740,554 (colonies, Zemskov) = 2,468,524 (Gulag, Appelbaum)'''

Taking into account that the GRZ article is an ''original'' work (Applebaum and ''all scholars'' cite this article) it is obvious that Appelbaum took GRZ's data, not ''vise versa''. In other words, it is simply ridiculous to contrapose the ''data'' of Appelbaum (taken in actuality from the works of serious scholars) and the works of these scholars themselves.

Jprw writes (referring to Applebaum):
:"''To take one statistic from the book, it is estimated that between 1941-42 one quarter of the entire Gulag population starved to death. Millions were tortured, starved, and worked to death, the life expectancy was three months in some of the Siberian camps. They were to all intents and purposes death camps.''"

Getty writes:
:"''More than half of all GULAG deaths in the entire 1934-1953 period occurred in 1941-1943, mostly from malnutrition. The space allotment per inmate in 1942 was only one square meter per person, and work norms were increased. Although rations were augmented in 1944 and inmates given reduced sentences for overfilling their work quotas, the calorie content of their daily provision was still 30 percent less than in the pre-war period. Obviously, the greatest privation, hunger, and number of deaths among GULAG inmates, as for the general Soviet population, occurred during the war.''" (Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov, Op.cit.)

In other words, we have the same facts, that have been represented quite differently: whereas Jprw makes a stress on the WWII time mortality (probably implying that the same events occurred during the whole period of Gulag history), GRZ write that that was an ''extraordinary'' period of the Gulag history, and that it was connected with desperate food shortage in the USSR as whole during that time. Obviously, the arguments that "''Millions were tortured, starved, and worked to death...''" is either Jprw's or Applebaum's inventions, because the only source of reliable information (the articles of serious scholars quoted above, as well as the works of Wheatcroft and similar scholars) contain no such figures.
:"''After a brief discussion of Zemskov's figures and those of Nekrasov, I pointed out that these figures gave a maximum number of 2.53 million prisoners in the camps, colonies and jails, 2.75 million special exiles (spetsposelentsy) and 65 332 in exile or banishment, which gave a total for 1953 of 5.35 million. 'These figures are, of course considerably smaller than those cited by Conquest and Rosefielde for the Gulag population alone'. The camp mortality figures that could be calculated from the Zemskov data indicated an average level of 70 per thousand for the 1934-47 period. When applied to the smaller level of one to two million in gulag for 15 years, they would account for about 1.6 million deaths...''" (Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival Data. Not the Last Word. Author(s): Stephen G. Wheatcroft. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Mar., 1999), pp. 315-345)

Enough for today. I'll add more sources/quotes/references if needed.--] (]) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and please do not forget to add Conquest's reply to Wheatcroft which can be found here . I'll leave you with one quote from it:

Throughout his piece, Wheatcroft is concerned to misrepresent and impugn my
motives -- the traditional recourse of the sectarian. It would be hard, apparently, to
explain to Wheatcroft that my early works on the Soviet Union were undertaken out
of a wish to discover the facts. Academics, in the sense Wheatcroft intends, had not
done so (and work by the leading Russianist, Sir Bernard Pares, and the leading social
scientists, the Webbs, and most others, were valueless). I have avoided the abusive
tone Wheatcroft has used against me, but I will not conclude without mention of an
acquaintance who had attended a talk of his at the time the mass graves were being
discovered, telling me that when she raised the subject, he dismissed it ("rather
testily"!) as rumours. Yes, after all, bodies are not documents.

] (]) 06:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks. The only thing that remains unclear for me is what relation does it have to the subject of our discussion. The key points of my post in this section are:
:# That archival materials that become available after the collapse of the USSR forced the western scholars to re-consider their viewpoint on some key aspects of Soviet history;
:# That the data are considered reliable by most scholars, including Robert Conquest;
:# That these data do not support earlier estimates of the number of the Gulag inmates and camp mortality;
:# That the maximal population of Gulag camps was ca 2.5 million (btw, close to the prison population in present days USA ), the total amount of those passed through Gulag was 14 million, and the amount of deaths in captivity was ca 1.5 - 2 millions, not "tens of millions".
:Regarding the disagreements between Wheatcroft, Rosenfielde and Conquest, their dispute is long, they sometimes disagree, sometimes they accept the validity of each other's arguments, however, I see no direct relation between that and the subject of this section. --] (]) 07:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:PS. Thank you for pointing my attention at the http://sovietinfo.tripod.com site. It contains interesting, although not complete collection of the works published by the western scholars about Soviet repressions. It gives a reader a more or less adequate impression about the whole spectrum of views, with Conquest and Rosenfielde on the right part of spectrum, Wheatcroft on the left and Ellman in the middle. Try to read all of that, it is really interesting. I hope that will help you to somewhat re-consider your views.--] (]) 07:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
::Yes I agree it is a valuable source. I hope it also helps you understand that Wheatcroft, who you like quoting so much, emerges from this source as a kind of extreme left-wing equivalent of David Irving, and that in terms of establishing accuracy and objectivity, it might be inadvisable to rely on him so much, if at all. ] (]) 11:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Firstly, I cited Raleigh, Conquest, Getty, Ellman and Nove, and I cited Wheatcroft only once in this section. Therefore, your statement that I like to quote him so much is not correct.
:::Secondly, as regards to "''left-wing equivalent of David Irving''", the non-exhaustive list of Wheatcroft's publications in ''peer-reviewed'' western scholarly journals is below:
:::::::# The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 Stephen Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353
:::::::# Towards a Thorough Analysis of Soviet Forced Labour Statistics S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1983), pp. 223-237
:::::::# A Note on Steven Rosefielde's Calculations of Excess Mortality in the USSR, 1929-1949 S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 277-281
:::::::#On Assessing the Size of Forced Concentration Camp Labour in the Soviet Union, 1929-56 S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 265-295
:::::::# More Light on the Scale of Repression and Excess Mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 355-367
:::::::# Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman R. W. Davies, Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633
:::::::# The Reliability of Russian Prewar Grain Output Statistics S. G. Wheatcroft Soviet Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 157-180
:::::::# The Scale and Nature of Stalinist Repression and Its Demographic Significance: On Comments by Keep and Conquest S. G. WheatcroftEurope-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Sep., 2000), pp. 1143-1159
:::::::# Toward an Objective Evaluation of the Complexities of Soviet Social Reality under Stalin Stephen G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 91-95
:::::::# Further Thoughts on the First Soviet Five-Year Plan R. W. Davies, S. G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Dec., 1975), pp. 790-802
:::::::# Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival Data. Not the Last Word Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Mar., 1999), pp. 315-345
:::::::# The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960 Stephen G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60
:::::::# New Demographic Evidence on Excess Collectivization Deaths: Yet Another Kliukva from Steven Rosefielde? Stephen G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 505-508
:::::::# Steven Rosefielde's Kliukva R. W. Davies, S. G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Dec., 1980), pp. 593-602
:::::::# Understanding Stalinism: A Reply Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 7 (Nov., 2006), pp. 1141-1147
:::::::# A Further Note of Clarification on the Famine, the Camps and Excess Mortality A Further Note of Clarification on the Famine, the Camps and Excess Mortality Stephen G. Wheatcroft Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 3 (May, 1997), pp. 503-505
:::::::# Soviet Industrialization Reconsidered: Some Preliminary Conclusions about Economic Development between 1926 and 1941 S. G. Wheatcroft, R. W. Davies, J. M. Cooper The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 264-294
:::::::# Stalin, Grain Stocks and the Famine of 1932-1933 R. W. Davies, M. B. Tauger, S. G. Wheatcroft Slavic Review, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 642-657
:::Note, that each of these articles, by contrast to the Irving's books, have been wetted by a western scientific community, and I doubt far leftist views to be so widely supported by Western scholars. However, if you believe you are able to support your claim about Wheatcroft with ''reliable'' sources, please, do that.--] (]) 16:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

== This is not OR ==

Re , see ]. ] (]) 18:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
:I reverted that. The other sentence he tagged about the 70 million number, however, does have problems. For one, that number refers only to the big three (China, USSR, and Cambodia). Second, it is an upper limit estimate in a range given by . Since several recent disputes by new contributors here relate to the passage in question, I'll quote it here: ''"In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. '''Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths.''' Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Documentation of these cases in secondary sources, however, remains inadequate to render a reliable judgment regarding the numbers and identity of the victims or the true intentions of their killers."'' ] (]) 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::You are right. I took that number from memory, and it actually referred to this three regimes only. The upper estimate Valentino cites for all ''nominally Communist'' (according to his own words) regimes is 110. However, I see one problem with citing this number (as well as with 70 millions, the number I added by myself): since Valentino did no his own research and relied upon other secondary sources, his estimate most likely came from the obsolete Rummel's works, who used old data, and whose figures, in most cases, are known to be skewed towards higher estimates. Sometimes the figures appear to be inflated dramatically. For example, argued that about 40 millions prisoners died in Gulag, whereas the generally accepted numbers range between 1-2 million. Therefore, I believe we have to modify this sentence as follows:
:::"'' According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts tens of millions.''"
::In my opinion, we cannot give more precise number in the lede, because that would be misleading.--] (]) 19:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I have no problem with using "tens of millions". I also have no problem with including a range of estimates, but I can see how others might object. ] (]) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Changed.--] (]) 00:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, much of the lead looks like a paraphrasing of the single source that you cite, which can't be satisfactory. ] (]) 06:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:That demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the literature.--] (]) 07:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
::What do you mean? I was referring to the fact that most of the lead is re-hashed. Do you not think we can do better than this, and use a variety of sources to create a richer and more balanced lead? ] (]) 11:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I mean that the lede more or less correctly reflects what the article says. The idea to combine all excess deaths (not only executions, but also famine victims, etc) in a category "mass killing" belongs to Valentino, therefore, it is natural to expect the article and theh lede to rely on his works.
:::--] (]) 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Valentino summarizes the estimates of other scholars. If you have another source that does this differently, then please provide one. ] (]) 17:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

== Vietnam War ref ==

I have again reverted Tentontunic's recent edit -- this time because there is nothing about mass killings on p. 165 of ''''. ] (]) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:I have just self-reverted myself right now per , but this is still not a valid reference and has to go. I would therefore sugges that Tentontunic revert himself. ] (]) 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::(ec)I thanked you on your talk page, in retrospect I wish I had not. You need to ] and read ] you looked at the wrong page, I cited 185, not 165. The citations are for the ] and of course the ] ] (]) 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you for correcting me. Albeit in fact there is nothing about "mass killings" on page 185 either. The page discusses the Vietcong and "terrorism", but says nothing (not one word) at all about mass killing, mass murder, or anything synonymous. It does describe two massacres, but these do not fit the definiton for mass killing offered by Benjamin Valentino (see the related talk section '''Was the Hungarian Revolution a "communist mass killing"?'''), and I think that it should be removed from here. Incidentally, the United States soldiers committed a series of massacres, most famously at ], so if we don't remove it, we should reformulate this to the effect of something like "during the Vietnam War, both communist Vietcong and anti-communist American troops carried out massacres" (I could find many refs like that). ] (]) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::A massacre is a mass killing. Valentino is not the word of god. American massacres belong in an article on american`s. ] (]) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Neither of these massacres occurred "under Communist regimes", but occurred in South Vietnam, which was a U.S. ally. ] (]) 23:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::The actions were carried out by communist regimes. ] (]) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the massacres whilst we discuss the matter and have added another reference for Vietnam. Please explain why you feel a massacre is not a mass killing. ] (]) 11:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:It does not meet the criteria for the only source presented in the article that defines "mass killings under Communist regimes". ] (]) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::And which criteria would this be? A mass killing is a mass killing, why would a definition be required? ] (]) 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
::Still awaiting a response on this question ] (]) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

==POV==
Another editor explained above why this article is POV and I am copying his comments below. Could editors please resolve this issue before removing the POV tag. ] (]) 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:This is effectively a "nexus" article about the connection between Communism and murder, yet (as Andy points out in the previous section) skips any discussion of the actual connection, assuming we all understand it. A "nexus" article should illustrate that ''the connection itself is notable''. That is why we don't have "Mass killings on Tuesdays". (See also the very funny deletion discussion.) As it happens, the Communism/Mass killing nexus is notable, but the article never bothers to establish notability. It would become encyclopedic if recast as an article on the work of notable historians, sociologists etc. who have examined the Communism/mass killing nexus. Specific country examples would then come in through their work. There is no lack of such sources on many of the examples mentioned. FWIW, articles on "capitalism and mass killing", "democracy and mass killing" and so forth could be similarly sourced. History is "indeed, little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind. " Gibbon. ] (]) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
::And Jonathan is wrong, it really ought to surprise me that you would restore a BIAS tag on this article, yet on left wing terrorism you remove one within a few hours. You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? We have here an article, about mass killings which happened under communist regimes, it does not matter how many died under capitalism, or democracy, or the rule of the evil overlords of the mole people. What matters on this article is how many died under '''Communist Regimes.''' ] (]) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Care to explain why you think I am wrong? Do you think notability of a connection does not need to be established in an encyclopedia? ] (]) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::::The connection is made in one of the sources already in the article, page 73 of ''Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century'' "The most deadly mass killings in history have resulted from the effort to transform society according to communist doctrine" A look in the archives also shows other sources which have been presented. ] (]) 08:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Yeah, see that. The lede is still weaselly worded. An encyclopedia article should build from the central premise ("Communist regimes have a particular tendency to kill a lot of people") not justify it in passing after giving many examples. I'm also interested in the quality of the sources. I will spend some more time on it and will post suggestions here. ] (]) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:I look forward to seeing your proposals ] (]) 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::It would be helpful if you could provide sources for the article. ] (]) 13:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::I have, my last few edits to the lede introduced several sources. ] (]) 14:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

== Some edits ==

I just added the {{whom}} tag to the ] lede ("Study has been made..."). In looking over the article, I then noticed the really remarkable assertion that Darwinism causes mass murder, sourced to Ann Coulter. Our official ] requires, "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources." Ann Coulter is not ] for a historical link between belief in evolution science and mass murder. ] (]) 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:I just posted a query about this at ]. ] (]) 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::I would recommend moving Coulter's comments to the lead, because they draw a connection between Communism and mass killings which has been lacking. Mass killings under Communist regimes may be explained by their adherence to the Darwinian theory of evolution. Does anyone know if other scholars have the same opinion? ] (]) 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I understand your point, Jonathan, but I think Coulter's comments are representative of the level of scholarship on this topic and so I don't object to them being in the article. --] (]) 02:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::::How about renaming the article 'Mass killings by adherents to Newton's Theory of Gravity'? ] (]) 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::Coulter's book, ''Godless'', which is the source used, was published by a division of ] and Coulter is a reputable journalist writing for the ] and appearing of ]. She studied history at Cornell and has a doctorate (J.D.). ] (]) 03:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:::""I like to stir up the pot. I don't pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do..." http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April06/coulter.pre.dea.html Reputable journalist? ] (]) 03:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::::TFD: I am trying to figure out whether your comments about moving the Darwinism-mass murder connection to the lede were serious or tongue-in-cheek. I've looked at your user page and still can't tell. Would you mind clarifying that? ] (]) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::I would not use Coulter's writings. However all the polticial and social science articles suffer from the inclusion of popular, non-academic writing - this is just an egregious example. ] (]) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::*Or you could move Coulter, George Watson's literary criticism, and Courtois' Introduction where he claims non-catholocism is an over all cause, etc. to a section "Fringe History and Sociology"; and leave the body section clear for real historical and sociological multi society claims, such as Valentino's dispossessive mass killing claim. ] (]) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== to a high of 70 million ==

This is incorrect, the highest estimated number is 100 million, not 70. Also why on earth has this '''Billions of people have survived communist mass killings''' been inserted into the lede? It seems a little POV ] (]) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:Why? Hundreds of thousands ]. Billions more survived the worldwide communist mass killings called the ]. We should restore this point. ] (]) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Zloy, not killing somebody is not news, and not a topic generally put in encyclopedias. For example, I didn't kill anybody today and presumably you didn't kill anybody today, but neither of those topics is going to appear in any newspaper or encyclopedia. Putting it in simply distracts the reader, like the smoke and mirrors of some cheap magic trick, trying to make 100 million deaths disappear from the article. Oh, actually they have disappeared from the article. ] (]) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
::IPOF, such material would require ''specific reliable sources'' making the claim. Such do not exist as far as I can tell -- making all of this speculation exceedingly moot. ] (]) 12:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:::You actually want ''specific reliable sources'' that say billions of Chinese live in communist China, for exmaple? Otherwise, what speculation do you mean? ] (]) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}As I already explained several times on the talk page, the edits similar to those made by Smallbones are highly misleading, and are not supported by a consensus: according to most sources except Valentino. Rummel and few others, 20-71 million were not ''killed'', because the Valentino's definition of "mass killing" differs from the commonly accepted one. Accordingly, the words:
:"''The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million''" <br>Will be interpreted by an ordinary reader as if ''all'' these people were murdered, executes or exterminated, whereas the most common cause of these deaths was starvation and diseases.<br>
I am intended to revert the lede to the last neutral version immediately after the issue with sanctions will be clarified (the only reason why I haven't done that immediately was that I thought it would be incorrect to edit the article when the situation with sanctions is unclear and not all users can work on the article; however, as I see not all users share this point of view), and I invite everyone to work on new lede on the article's talk page.<br>--] (]) 15:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)<br>Re highest extimate of 100 million, it came from Rummel, who was demonstrated to give ''dramatically'' inflated estimates (for instance, he gives ca 40 million Gulag victims, whereas a current scholarly consensus is that the number of died in Gulag did not exceed 2 million). I repeated these arguments on the talk page many times, so all newbies are strongly encouraged to read the talk page to avoid repetitions of the same arguments again and again. See a message on the top of this talk page.--] (]) 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Only Rummel? attributes the same figure to Courtois rather than Rummel. No matter -- I just find the "billions did not die" comment from another to be on the order of "there were billions of people who did ''not'' see Babe Ruth hit a home run, therefore we can doubt that he ever hit one" type of reasoning. ] (]) 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:Please, do not mention Courtois any more. The introduction to the BB is a highly controversial writing, if you want to use the BB correctly, use the Nocolas Werth's section about Russia/the USSR: he provides the numbers that are close to generally accepted ones. BTW, he also provides (in his interview) that the major causes of the brutality of the Communist revolution was the poorly accomplished Tsarist land reform, brutality of the WWI, and other factors not directly connected to the Communism. I am intended to add this, as well other similar pieces of information to the article infuture.
:With regard to other sources giving high estimates, most of them are either obsolete, or they use the same flawed methodology as Rummel did. They belong to a Controvercy section, not to the lede.--] (]) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

== Proposal concerning new sanctions ==


Regarding removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from ], we also cite a paper published in the journal '''' by Ghodsee and '''' by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --] (]) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I have proposed new discretionary sanctions for this article at ], to allow their discussion by editors currently banned from editing this page to comment on them. (Nonetheless, editors who are banned from any general topic covering this article should also stay out of that discussion.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
:IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
::It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. ] (]) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed , or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and ] objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --] (]) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. ] (]) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. ] (]) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


Mere selection of which aspect to cover usually reflects a type of bias. This is a universal reality, and repeating a universal reality is not information. Trying to pretend that it is noteworthy information is itself bias. For example, if a researcher counts up the number of deaths from high-school sports, we don't put in a section that a critic says that merely counting those deaths reflects an anti-sports bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
== from a low of 21 million ==


:PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
Why is Valentino the sole source for this number? Does it seem sketchy to anyone else to use this number and give the impression that Valentino is representing the lowest notable academic estimates for the USSR+China+Cambodia? This is especially so, when (IIRC) Valentino counts many deaths that other scholars do not believe are valid. ] (]) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
:Who else gives a low number? Personally I believe to much weight is being given to Valentino in this article, there are more than one source for such as the USSR Cambodia and China. ] (]) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC) :The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. ] (]) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? ] (]) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::I again strongly suggest you to read the talk page archives: it is simply non-polite to request others to repeat the same arguments simply because you are to lasy to read archives. I am explaining again, two types of mistakes are possible here: (i) infalted figures for death toll, and (ii) different interpretations of what is mass killings and waht is not. The high estimates of death toll come mostly from earlier writers (as Solzhenitsyn) or scholars (Rummel), and from those who reproduce these figures non-critically. In addition, whereas some scholars attribute most excess deaths under Communist regimes to mass ''killings'', others prefer to discuss mass ''mortality'', premature deaths, or speak about ''victims'' of Communist regimes. You must agree that ''"victim"'' is much more flexible, and do not necessarily implies "killing".
::{{Ping|The Four Deuces}} All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::One more point. It is totally incorrect to combine almost fully non-contraversial categories (such as Kampuchean ''genocide'', which was a pure example of mass ''murder'') with much less clear cases, like Soviet famines.
I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of ) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - ] (]) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::Moreover, even the former case (KR genocide) is much more complex event than it is presented in the current article: the article implicitly assumes that these mass killings occurred predominantly due to the Communist ideology, whereas serious scholar outline at least two other causes, which are totally unrelated to Communism: desperate economic situation of Cambodian peasants (which lead to huge tensions between rural, Khmer, and urban, Chinese, Vietnamese, and other non-Khmer, population), and aincient Khmer traditions of revenge. In addition, the fact that the KR concept was seen as extremist even by Maoist Communists in China, and, therefore, was an example of ''ultra''-extremist Communist doctrine (i.e. was a ''deviation'' from classical Communism) is also not reflected neither in the lede nor in the article. This, as well as other examples (which I can provide upon a request) demonstrate that both the lede and the article give a ''primitve'' and ''oversimplified'' picture which must be fixed.--] (]) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


== New editing restrictions == == Recent removals ==


I am starting this thread to discuss recent content removals by DaltonCastle. I disagree with them, because the removed content was well sourced and in line with the rest of the article. Much of the article consists of reporting the views of different academics on issues such as the proper names to be used for the mass killings (terminology), the numbers of people killed and how those numbers should be estimated (estimates), causes of the killings, comparisons to other mass killings, and so on. In many cases, there is no overall consensus on these topics, there are only different sources with different perspectives. So the article reports the conclusions of author A, then those of author B, then those of author C, etc. In cases where two authors directly disagree with each other, this is also noted. I think this is a good format, and actually I cannot think of any other way to organize this information. DaltonCastle has removed certain sentences and paragraphs on the grounds that they represent the views of only one author, or only two authors, or that they are "hardly a consensus". That is true, but the same could be said about every other sentence and paragraph immediately before and after the removed ones. Of course each paragraph (or part of a paragraph, or sentence) focuses on a single author, because that is the structure being used. We describe the various sources one by one, when there is no way to combine them without doing original research (for example, when they disagree with each other). The names of the authors are given every time, and the content makes it clear that it is reporting their separate conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. - ] (]) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I propose that all editors who work on this talk page need to elaborate common rules, accordingto which we will edit the article in future. It would be better if we do that by themselves, because in that case the rules are more likely to be genuinely observed. I propose the following simple rules:
:The issue is not about the quality of sourcing, its that there is a ] issue to insert a point of view. When the "Estimates" section starts off with "a communist-leaning academic believes the following estimates are exaggerated" (I'm obviously simplifying), there is a concern. It is a question of 1. due weight, 2. Coatracking, 3. POV-insertion/whitewashing. The near-majority of the article should not be weighted towards the handful of academics who say the numbers are overestimated. At most it is a quick mention. ] (]) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:"''You can make any edit, however, if the text you added has not been approved during the talk page discussion (that means that there were no ''reasonable'', or substantiated opposition during a reasonable time, e.g. few days), it can be reverted by anyone, and anyone can report you if you try to do re-insert the text that again. Polls are not allowed. Your '''support''' or '''oppose''' has zero weight unless you presented a fresh argument, desirably supported by a reliable source. If you have been repeatedly reverted for ''systematic'' re-addition of non-supported text, you will be topic banned permanently.''"
::The "Estimates" section begins by quoting ], who is not remotely communist-leaning as far as I can tell. He has written a book specifically about the crimes of communist states. Also, he is not saying that the estimates are exaggerated, but that they are contentious and debated. This is true, and it is a good summary of the literature. Every author who has estimated the number of people killed by communist regimes has arrived at a different number, and the differences between the numbers are in the tens of millions. It's not a question of high numbers or low numbers, it's just that they are very different from each other. For example, the three highest estimates cited in the "Estimates" section are 94 million, 110 million and 148 million. The differences between these "high" numbers are just as big as the differences between "high" and "low" numbers. So, it is not as if most academics agree on a single number, and a handful of sources say that this number is overestimated. There is no agreement on any single number, high or low. I think it is therefore good and important to cover all the estimates and the various debates about them.
::I don't see any particular weight in the article towards some estimates or authors as opposed to others. Every author gets about the same space as every other author. On the contrary, it seems to me that removing some authors would privilege those that remain. We should not give the impression that there is academic agreement on an issue when there is no agreement, by citing a single author.
::Finally, regarding ], I don't see that here at all. In my understanding, coatracking is when an article groups together different topics that are unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the article's topic. So, coatracking here would be if the article cited sources that don't talk about communist mass killings. But all the cited sources do in fact talk about communist mass killings. They disagree with each other on things like estimates or causes, but describing sources that disagree with each other is not coatracking. That's just standard academic debate. - ] (]) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Any academic work is going to full of things that can be critiqued. Respectfully, your edit had a massive amount of such material, (plus a whataboutism argument made by someone.) I think that a high-quality paragraph (information, not talking points) covering variability and possible bias in estimates would be a good addition. But IMHO the edit that I just described was not that. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


== Bad sourcing and obvious bias. ==
This rule will allow all users, including previously banned ones, to work on this article, because it leaves no space for classical edit warring. Accordingly, 1RR or 1RR per week should be abolished, because anyone should be able to revert any amount of undiscussed and unsupported edits.<br>In my opinion, it is ''very'' important that we elaborate and accept these rule by ourselves. We already have an good example of efficient usage of these rules, the WWII article. <br>What do you think about that?--] (]) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


This whole page needs to be cleaned up. ] (]) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


:You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? ] (]) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Polls generally have little weight (see ]) -- so that is a tad irrelevant. And defining "reasonable opposition" may be a problem - I would suggest that ''any'' text which is objected to as a new addition (text not found as of 10 days ago, say) should be removable. Thus no edit war, as the material would not be reinserted. As for "zero weight" that is absurd - no argument which is properly founded in WP policy or guidelines should be ignored. Lastly I would suggest a 10 lines of talk page edits per day per person here. If an editor can not be cogent in 10 lines, it is unlikely 20 lines will improve the post. ] (]) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
*You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --] (]) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mass killings under communist regimes. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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: 7 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

General Concerns and Questions Q1: Why does this article exist? A1: This article exists because so far there has been no consensus to delete it. The latest AfD (2021) said that the Misplaced Pages editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. Six discussions to delete this article have been held, none of them resulting in a deletion:
  • No consensus, December 2021, see discussion
  • Keep, July 2010, see discussion.
  • Keep, April 2010, see discussion
  • No consensus, November 2009, see discussion
  • No consensus, September 2009, see discussion
  • No consensus, August 2009, see discussion
  • Declined by creator 17:04, 3 August 2009
  • PROD 17:02, 3 August 2009
  • Created 17:00 3 August 2009
  • Related Talk discussions:
Q2: Why isn't there also an article for "Mass killings under _________ regimes"? Isn't this title biased? A2: Each article must stand on its own merits, as justified by its sources. The existence (or not) of some other similar article does not determine the existence of this one, and vice versa. Having said that, there are other articles such as Anti-communist mass killings and Genocide of indigenous peoples which also exist. This article has a descriptive title arrived at by consensus in November 2009.
  • Related Talk discussions: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a subpage has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCambodia Mid‑importance
WikiProject icon Mass killings under communist regimes is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Misplaced Pages, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info.
WikiProject iconChina Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
          Other talk page banners
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • no consensus, 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC), see discussion.
  • keep, 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
  • keep, 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer

Regarding this removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from Aeon, we also cite a paper published in the journal History of the Present by Ghodsee and The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. TFD (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed here, or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and WP:DUE objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --Aquillion (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. TFD (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Mere selection of which aspect to cover usually reflects a type of bias. This is a universal reality, and repeating a universal reality is not information. Trying to pretend that it is noteworthy information is itself bias. For example, if a researcher counts up the number of deaths from high-school sports, we don't put in a section that a critic says that merely counting those deaths reflects an anti-sports bias. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. TFD (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? North8000 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of several such edits) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - Small colossal (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent removals

I am starting this thread to discuss recent content removals by DaltonCastle. I disagree with them, because the removed content was well sourced and in line with the rest of the article. Much of the article consists of reporting the views of different academics on issues such as the proper names to be used for the mass killings (terminology), the numbers of people killed and how those numbers should be estimated (estimates), causes of the killings, comparisons to other mass killings, and so on. In many cases, there is no overall consensus on these topics, there are only different sources with different perspectives. So the article reports the conclusions of author A, then those of author B, then those of author C, etc. In cases where two authors directly disagree with each other, this is also noted. I think this is a good format, and actually I cannot think of any other way to organize this information. DaltonCastle has removed certain sentences and paragraphs on the grounds that they represent the views of only one author, or only two authors, or that they are "hardly a consensus". That is true, but the same could be said about every other sentence and paragraph immediately before and after the removed ones. Of course each paragraph (or part of a paragraph, or sentence) focuses on a single author, because that is the structure being used. We describe the various sources one by one, when there is no way to combine them without doing original research (for example, when they disagree with each other). The names of the authors are given every time, and the content makes it clear that it is reporting their separate conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. - Small colossal (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not about the quality of sourcing, its that there is a WP:COATRACKING issue to insert a point of view. When the "Estimates" section starts off with "a communist-leaning academic believes the following estimates are exaggerated" (I'm obviously simplifying), there is a concern. It is a question of 1. due weight, 2. Coatracking, 3. POV-insertion/whitewashing. The near-majority of the article should not be weighted towards the handful of academics who say the numbers are overestimated. At most it is a quick mention. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The "Estimates" section begins by quoting Klas-Göran Karlsson, who is not remotely communist-leaning as far as I can tell. He has written a book specifically about the crimes of communist states. Also, he is not saying that the estimates are exaggerated, but that they are contentious and debated. This is true, and it is a good summary of the literature. Every author who has estimated the number of people killed by communist regimes has arrived at a different number, and the differences between the numbers are in the tens of millions. It's not a question of high numbers or low numbers, it's just that they are very different from each other. For example, the three highest estimates cited in the "Estimates" section are 94 million, 110 million and 148 million. The differences between these "high" numbers are just as big as the differences between "high" and "low" numbers. So, it is not as if most academics agree on a single number, and a handful of sources say that this number is overestimated. There is no agreement on any single number, high or low. I think it is therefore good and important to cover all the estimates and the various debates about them.
I don't see any particular weight in the article towards some estimates or authors as opposed to others. Every author gets about the same space as every other author. On the contrary, it seems to me that removing some authors would privilege those that remain. We should not give the impression that there is academic agreement on an issue when there is no agreement, by citing a single author.
Finally, regarding WP:COATRACKING, I don't see that here at all. In my understanding, coatracking is when an article groups together different topics that are unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the article's topic. So, coatracking here would be if the article cited sources that don't talk about communist mass killings. But all the cited sources do in fact talk about communist mass killings. They disagree with each other on things like estimates or causes, but describing sources that disagree with each other is not coatracking. That's just standard academic debate. - Small colossal (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Any academic work is going to full of things that can be critiqued. Respectfully, your edit had a massive amount of such material, (plus a whataboutism argument made by someone.) I think that a high-quality paragraph (information, not talking points) covering variability and possible bias in estimates would be a good addition. But IMHO the edit that I just described was not that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sourcing and obvious bias.

This whole page needs to be cleaned up. 2601:248:5181:5C70:F407:1C36:A131:1B6D (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? MWFwiki (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes: Difference between revisions Add topic