This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

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

I haven't read these sources (and don't have time to now), so in all likelihood I may be missing something important, but could I ask you to clarify: From what you write above, it seems (very simply put) that Valentino is stating that communist regimes are regimes which tend to attempt radical social transformations, which in turn can lead them to conduct mass killings. Whereas Wayman and Tago are saying that communist regimes are a particular kind of autocratic regimes, which due to their ideology and organization sometimes engage in mass killings. Sounds to me like two different attempts at explaining why communist regimes engage in mass killings. Why is the sub-category vs main category distinction crucial? Isn't there an argument to be made that if many other categories of mass killings are analyzed, then those could also be valid topics for their own wikipedia articles? The idea that one could create an article such as "mass killings under military regimes" doesn't seem to imply that "mass killings under communist regimes" is an unacceptable topic for an article. --Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question, Anderssl. Set A containing (C, D, E, F) causes mass killings because of B. This means the article is "Mass-killings in A. Lede: Mass killings in A happened because B." This article is currently "Mass-killings in C. Mass killings in C happened because of B." This is deceptive and misleading conduct: C is a case-study or example of the set of A. Escalating this article to "Comparative theories of Mass killing, Genocide, and Democide" and actually covering comparative horrorific social behaviour en mass studies would be the optimal outcome. This would be effectively a rewrite from scratch though. Neither Wayman and Tago nor Valentino address "Communist states / governments / etc" as an object of theoretical analysis, they address them as a case study within a set that is the object of theoretical analysis. This is the reasoning for why the article should be deleted: the object of this article is not an object of academic study. As should any other "Mass killings in [research object]". I'm aware of a few generalised claims for the causes of mass killing in capitalism, but these are a) primitive (alienation, commodification of the human being, extraction of labour power while enclosing common land) and b) not currently cited at the other pathetic article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but what makes me wonder about this argument is that it seems to isolate every source. If you view it from a different perspective, we have: "A number of communist regimes have conducted mass killings. Source A claims this is because communist regimes belong to category X, which lead them to do mass killings. Source B claims it is because they belong to category Y, etc." So multiple sources offer different explanations of the phenomenon. I am not sure if this holds, but I am also not sure that it doesn't - there is the difference between being convinced that this is a sound theory, and being convinced that it deserves being mentioned in Wikipedia (as you probably can tell, I am an inclusionist). --Anderssl (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even for an inclusionist this is problematic way forward. A(b,c,d,e) caused by X ; F(b,g,h,i) caused by Y=> Article Mass-killings in b as part of A due to X; in b as part of F due to Y is synthesis, as b is never an object of study. The object of the article is simply not an object of study. The correct articles would be A and X; or F and Y. There is a place for scholarly thematic pieces; but, the place is defined by the literature available. The best way to present the possible thematic piece is by moving the substantive literature survey achieved here to a general comparative genocide/mass killing/population destruction piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that is a very good point. You may just have convinced me. --Anderssl (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Is anybody denying that they occurred? If so, put them on the same bench as Holocaust deniers. If not, what's the hubba hubba on this article? PS. For the record, I am all for creating parent article on Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its a 'list of blue things.' None of the genocide studies people theorise communism as a category in the cause of killing. Cross cultural genocide studies deals with societies on the basis of broad organisational structures, or comparative two society case studies. Lacking a basis in academic literature this article is SYNTHESIS and OR. That's the only problem. The individual social instances are theorised and well documented and belong in their own articles as they currently do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr, you are missing the point. Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers. No one is in denial about that. However that does not mean that there is a category called "Mass killings by Eastern Europeans". We need a theory that connects being Eastern European with being a mass murderer. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about The black book of communism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we discussed many times, the book was written outside the academic mainstream, and its ideas are not accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to an academic mainstream review with this opinion? You may be right, but I tend to be wary of such unbacked claims (recalling the global warming debate, and how while 99% of scholars agreed that it is real, 50% of mainstream press kept saying otherwise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the theory advanced in the Black Book was never published in academic literature there is no academic literature that rebuts it. I do not understand your reference to climate science. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went out and read the Black Book for this purpose. There are three chapters containing sections claiming to be multiple society cases: the preface, introduction, and conclusion. The conclusion says, straight out, "This deals with the USSR only" and gives three paragraphs to China, Vietnam and Kampuchea. The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. The conclusion is adequate academic work for a study on the Soviet Union (its narrative is ridiculous, its lack of theory laughable, but hey, it at least deals with the topic), but inadequate as a study in causes of multiple culture genocide. The Preface is laughable, it is short, inappropriate, and fails to meet academic standards—this is expected, its a Preface, its job isn't to theorise. The Introduction deals only with Russia and explicitly advances two claims: the rot set in in 1917; "Communism is inherently criminal (possibly because it isn't Catholicism)". That the rot set in in 1917 is debatable, and a theory with long standing: it is not multiple society. That Communism is inherently "criminal", and, accusations of the failure of a social concept because it doesn't meet the world view of French Catholicism is not acceptable practice in the humanities and social sciences, and hasn't been since 1789. As the editor of the book wrote the introduction and the introduction failed to receive adequate review (collected works are reviewed by their editor); as the theory is laughable; and, most importantly, as the theory is advanced over approximately three paragraphs without evidence to support it, or elucidation of what criminality comprises: we should not esteem this theory. It is FRINGE. The other chapters in the Black Book are adequate single country case studies, the one I previewed (Russia, by Conquest) written by an appropriate specialist (who I don't like, but he's certainly got the requirements). They necessarily can't be used to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing / genocide / democide / etc. I have stated this before, at length, in comments contained in the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked into this as well, the work is published by Harvard University Press - "a highly respected in academic publishing", "it was authored by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois" - a French historian, currently employed as research director (i.e. senior research scientist) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique", and all this is fringe, and laughable according to Fifelfoo? I guess we need to take it to WP:FTN than.--Termer (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think he is saying that. He is saying that the book is does not give a basis for the subject "Mass killings under Communist regimes" being WP article because it only contains three, apparently controversial, paragraphs which attempt to advance the thesis that it is a genuine historical phenomenon. In the whole body of historical literature, that does not look very significant. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I read above "Fringe, the theory is laughable, narrative is ridiculous" etc. And what is this "to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing" all about? For example: The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. So fine, we can use the source for "describing a number of cases" and in case there is "no theory or cause of communist mass killing" i that source, so what. Is there "a theory or cause" to any other mass killings in history? And in this case it should be self explanatory that mass killings under communist regimes occurred because the communist parties wanted to get rid of all its possible and real political opponents. So what's the big deal, I'm not getting it.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COATRACK, SYNTHESIS, OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That an random descriptive accumulation is not sufficient grounds to indicate a theory; ie: what this article is about; has been well established. To use the placing side by side in a collection of untheorised case studies as the basis of this article is COATRACKING, and is thus SYNTHESIS of external materials without a theory, and is thus ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This has been repeatedly gone over, in a variety of ways, with a variety of metaphors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces "Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"As far s I'm aware of it an "Eastern European" is not a political ideology that needs to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies by the use of something that has been referred to as Communist mass killings, also known as Communist genocide or -politicide, or -democide.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Another question is how come this Theodore Kaczynski was according to The Four Deuces "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"? It says the guys is an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois. Is that a slight mistake in geography perhaps. In case I'm not mistaken Eastern Europe and Illinois are about 9000 miles apart and on different continents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, The Four Deuces.--Termer (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like 4500 miles, at least according to this; but I guess it depends which city in Eastern Europe. Why is this relevant? csloat (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question, how is it relevant to this article that someone called Theodore Kaczynski- an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois is "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" according to The Four Deuces?--Termer (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that was an example to make a different point here; if you re-read his comment perhaps you will see the point itself. csloat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't see a point in an American murderer been called "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" on the talk page of this article. --Termer (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, this is a bit of a tangent. The Unabomber was a Polish citizen as well as a US citizen. But you are concentrating on the validity of the example used instead of the validity of the argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|}

I would like to suggest that we reorganize the article to start with historical examples and then causes. We should have two large headers: history and causes, or better yet, a discussion about the individual examples with causes in between. I'm going to try it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is becoming excessively long, now standing at 61 KB. Any suggestions on what to do about this? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the historical details since it's supposed to be about theories as to causes? I could cut all that out right now and I don't think there would be an ounce of difference to the article. Examples should be coming from the scholarly work, not "here's a bunch of horrible things Communists did and here's what some scholars think" with no connection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, stop with the excessive quoting and actually start to think about the root causes the scholars are discussing. It's intellectually lazy just to put a bunch of quotes out and not even attempt to show similarities or differences in their views. That's difficult, I know, (especially with the god awful way citations are incompletely linked and separated all over the place) but that takes actual work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Cull the litany. Comparative discussions of views must be founded in and grounded in... Reliable Sources. There is no meta literature survey of attempts to classify the behaviour of the soviet-style states in mass abhorrence. Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Watson1998 is appropriately summarised and characterised, but overlength ("Watson was batshit insane and working outside of his field of academic competence" is an adequate summary). The Black book is adequately summarised and characterised. [was accidentally unsigned] Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, create a new section for each source and let's discuss whether or not it's reliable. Otherwise, yeah, doing some comparative work is synthesis but it's also WP:UNDUE. It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis here. Are you telling me the last featured article had an actual source that compared the interpretations like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis" -- please see WP:SYN. If you have identified synthesis in another article, remove it, rather than using that as a reason to add it here. csloat (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I culled the litany under COATRACK. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

61K is nowhere near a "long page" -- Number 1000 is over 120K in length. 61K is, in fact, under the median when stubs are excluded (stubs now being somewhere around 40% of all articles). Collect (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Article size: "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". It is a rule of thumb but the article continues to expand. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it many times -- and note some editors have a propensity to cut articles they dislike by up to 75% -- from (say) 11K to 8K, or from 16K to 4K, or from 44K to 16K in one fell swoop. This article is not excessively long by any measure. Consider one article we have in common -- Sarah Palin currently at 144K. Or Fascism at 127K currently. This article is short considering its scope. Collect (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the consensus direction of the article from the archives? The bottom of the barrel has been scraped on theorised comparative studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "consensus direction" in the archives, and certainly not here just reading everyone's replies following the mass deletion. Please refrain from the mass deletion of sourced material on Wikipedia without consensus.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link is below. Go back and read. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE Ricky81682:Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Completely agree with this. I mean, I'm not sure if it is necessary SYNTHESIS and OR but the section reminds me of WP:NOT PAPER for sure. I have brought it up before [10] but it made no difference.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your position was explicitly rejected at the link you indicate. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Fifelfoo, that's why I left the diff here to show that the section considered SYNTHESIS and OR by Ricky81682, that similar position by me has been "explicitly rejected" by you and 2 other editors.--Termer (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reasonable way to make that interpretation from edits by User:Ricky81682, your poor conduct is continuing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Termer is referring to this unsigned edit by Fifelfoo. However, Termer's point - that we should cut out all the academic analysis and just leave in the sections on individual historic cases - doesn't seem to have much in common with Fifelfoo's, and seems to contradict his own statements. --Anderssl (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to apologise for the unsigned post, I've just signed it. I find it even more difficult to interepret my post as meaning the current academic approaches section is currently SYN/OR. Especially given the immediate context of User:Ricky81682 criticising the current "A says, B says" and arguing for a comparative approach. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>60 applies to "readable prose" - WP:LENGTH This article is well bellow that according to [11]. Removal of "External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting" and it is closer to 30kb (sandbox). Article length is fine. Summary style might be a concern but that is different.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive deletes of sourced material without consensus is not the Wikipedia way. After three failed attempts at deleting the whole article, deleting massive parts of article could be perceived as an attempt to go against consensus. Please discuss first. Bobanni (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed above, if you would have cared to read the discussion. Single society instances are not "in Communist regimes" do you note the plural there? Have you observed that none of the single society exemplars theorise connections or fundamental causes? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly no "agreed direction." Please do not engage in mass deletions of sourced material. Thanks.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you Read the archives Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read this very recent section of talk Bobanni? No? Thanks, but you haven't advanced anything, and you obviously haven't read the archives regarding what the current consensus on this article is. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bobanni on that one. It would be nice if Fifelfoo could take a look at WP:PRESERVE, and in case anything is considered "COATRACK" [12] the article should give wikilinks to relevant articles where the matters are discussed in more depth. Simply removing sourced matreial from wikipedia can't be considered acceptable.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, when people read these articles they want to know what mainstream thought is about these issues. They are not interested in reading POV articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you do consider the material that has been removed a "POV"? So why does it get removed then? Please see WP:YESPOV: "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"". And again, in case you are aware of any conflictive perspectives to the things you consider "POV". alternative viewpoints should be added to the article instead of blanking out large junks of the article content.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well glory be that you are now admitting that it is POV. Note the keyword "solely". You are supposed to explain mainstream views before explaining minority views, which you did not do. And you are supposed to leave out crackpot ideas entirely. Please see WP:Weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know according to whom exactly you can make a difference between "mainstream views" and "crackpot ideas" respectively in the context? Is there published apaper anywhere perhaps that looks into those questions? I'd need to see it, otherwise there is no way for me to tell on what bases you consider anything a "mainstream view" vs "crackpot ideas".--Termer (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream views are those published in peer-reviewed academic journals, particulary when they are generally accepted. Crackpot ideas lack the intellectual vigor and consistency to be published in academic media and include conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You can read more about how Wikipedia recommends the reporting of crackpot theories in Fringe. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this text was perfectly sourced. These are mainstream books published by best experts in the field. Were these sources ever discounted as unreliable at WP:RS? No.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article, as discussed and achieved consensus on, as noted above in labelled links, is multiple society theorised accounts of mass killing in Communist regimes. Not mass killing in a communist regime. Or a miscellaneous collection of horrors. The object of research is comparative mass killings. A list of occurances does not relate to the topic of this article. This is not "random list of horrors," but theorised accounts of multiple society horrors. The presentation of a miscellanary is COATRACKing. Conquest, for example, does not theorise about societies other than the Soviet Union. This means that Conquest's scholarship is off topic for this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous academic books written by the best historians, specifically on the crimes against humanity under the Communist regimes, for example Black book of Communism and others cited here, but there are others as well. Thus, the subject was not invented by anyone here. This is well established academic subject.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have repeatedly discussed the black book. Have you bothered to read the archives or the black book? If you had you would know that the book comprises a collation of single society case studies with no cross social analysis or theorisation. That the Introduction and Conclusion provide six paragraphs in total on cross social analysis, none up to the standards of comparative genocide studies (such as Valentino). If you'd bothered to read the archives or the article, you'd be aware of the fact that Valentino does not present a catagory of analysis "Communist mass killing" he presents a superior catagory and discusses communism as a descriptive, or narrative, instance of his catagory: this is insufficient to sustain the case. More over, see the unwrapped discussion above on explaining set theory to editors and why the object of analysis of a theorist needs to be communism in general, or a specific grouping of communist societies, as an explicit explanatory catagory, not a subset. We have gone over the academic literature. What was discovered is already in the article. And a COATRACK of single society case studies is not appropriate as it is not the object of this article. Blue for example, will not contain a list of blue objects. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I read "Black Book" and a lot of other books on the subject, including books by Conquest (the best Western specialist on Russian history), books by Pipes, by Figes, and so on and so on. I am also well familiar with writings by Lenin, Marx. I passed serious Marxism-Leninism exams (do you want me to cite them right away - I remember some quotes). I also lived in the Soviet society as a practical matter. So, what's precisely your background then? Do you have a history PhD degree?Biophys (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that your field isn't the humanities though, is it? And that your familiarity with disciplinary practice in the humanities is minimal, your M-L course was a state requirement for enrolment in a soviet-style society. The generalist studies you've outlined are single society studies and do not theorise general causes: they are excellent sources for Rights abuses in the Soviet Union, or Mass killing in the Soviet Union, or Accusations of Genocide within the Soviet Union. I suggest that you do go and read the introduction to the Black Book and show me the theorisation of a common cause of barbarous actions across all soviet style societies, rather than just the Soviet Union as is Conquest's object. Perhaps the introduction to the French edition is superior in someway, if it is, please do quote from that with appropriate translation. My field is social history, and if you bothered to look at the article history I have made significant contributions outlining the theory relevant to this field. I would rather not out myself to the name level. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The object of research is comparative mass killings",according to Fifelfoo? Is it me again who is missing something but how would be "comparative mass killings" related to this article? In case you'd like Fifelfoo, you're more than welcome to start up an article about the subject you mentioned. This however is an article called Mass killings under Communist regimes, please limit your comments on this talk page to the current subject only. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The Four Deuces, in case we're dealing with such a fringe theory in general, surely there should be some sources out there that mention it. I'm more than aware of your opinions that you have clearly spelled out. Please also provide any sources that look into this what you are talking about. In case it appears indeed that we're dealing with Fringe here, no problem, there is also Flat Earth article on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources normally do not analyze fringe theories, which is what makes them fringe, they are outside normal intellectual discussion. Since fringe theories are by nature irrational and have an irrational following it is pointless to analyze them. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, if you can't come up with academic sources showing that we're dealing with Fring here, there surely should be something out there saying so. You know, we'd need to get your claims veryfied, and then once its established that this is the case indeed, the article can exist happily next to other articles on wikipedia that are written on fringe theories. And all this still is not going to justify removing massive junks of material from this article.--Termer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, would it be a viable compromise to create a list article called List of mass killings under communist regimes or something equivalent, with a brief description of each atrocity and links to main articles where they exist? And then the present article can be cut down to appropriate size or even deleted. --Anderssl (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind personally if this is going to bring an end to massive blanking and this discussion that isn't going anywhere and just keeps going in circles. I think it could be a solution.--Termer (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I don't think deleting it would be necessary, there is no good reason to get rid of the articles history, therefore a redirect would do just fine.--Termer (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists suggests not as, "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." [at ¶1]. The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious. A category hierarchy, "Abuse of rights in Soviet-style societies" followed by sub-cats "Abuse of rights in the Soviet Union"…etc. would be a viable category grouping. Categories do not appear to be covered by article obligations, unlike lists. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious." Wouldn't this be possible to fix with some appropriate qualifications in the article? Seems that some reasonable modifications would do. --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like hedging to me. The fundamental aim of a list like that is to associate a series of societies and to claim by association a common structure behind their behaviour. The theorisation simply isn't present for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Tables of vampire traits for how problematic these list articles are, and for how association by proximity in a list produces a Synthesis. There are three good sentences in that article, and six screens of worthless cruft which has not been explicitly compared anywhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't find this argument particularly convincing. Obviously a list would need some sort of definition of "communist regime", but that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist". Such a list wouldn't have to omit the fact of large differences between such societies. It would be a list of facts, and that's it; theoretical discussion and interpretations could be dealt with elsewhere. --Anderssl (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist"" Some of these regimes called themselves "Democratic" or "Socialist" - is it a sufficient ground for creation list articles "Mass killing under democratic/socialist" regimes? (The question is rhetoric)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I think the regimes calling themselves "socialist" could be included, depending on some consensus. I am not an expert on the subject matter. But I think it should be possible to make some reasonable clarifications of the terms, and then just make a list of the historical events that fit those terms. Btw it should probably be "Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes", not under - to limit the range a little. (And I definitely think a list of mass killings by democratic regimes would have substantial content - think of what the US did to its natives, or the Belgians, the British and the French to their colonies, etc.)

The point would be to get us out of the current impasse, in which one side is complaining (justifiably so) about the lack of theoretization, whereas the other seems to just want to create a list of events. I really don't see the problem with providing this kind of list - it is a useful way of collecting links to further information. This seems to be perfectly in line with the purpose of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. --Anderssl (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little bit odd that you see no problem in such a name ("Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes"). Socialist regimes (e.g. Sweden or France) are very vegetarian forms of social organisation and very mentioning of them in a context of mass killing is not more justified than mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death of, e.g., American Indians. I believe the very idea to collect various bloody dictatorships into the single list and to connect them to some single word ("Communism" or "Socialism") is deeply ideologically motivated, and, therefore, unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Fredrik Reinfeldt would be quite surprised to find his country described as a "socialist regime". Sweden is a constitutional monarchy and has never described itself as socialist (surely you are aware that social democracy is a quite different ideology). As for my motivations, shouldn't you try to be open to the possibility that I just want to allow for the broadest possible presentation of knowledge, as an inclusionist Wikipedian? Have I said something earlier to disturb your assumption of good faith? It is a generally accepted fact that many communist regimes have committed these atrocities, why would it be POV to make a list of them? And why is the "mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death" so problematic? I will acknowledge one problem: It is hard to distinguish clearly between different types of regimes, so the precise classification needs to be discussed and qualified (i.e. communist vs socialist, socialist vs democratic etc). But that doesn't speak to the heart of the matter, which is whether such a list, with appropriate qualifications and definitions, would be appropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was coming here to ask the same thing - how about listyfing the article? I am afraid that at the current stage we - Wikipedia editors - are simply not ready to develop a reliable, high quality and stable article on this subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. Any list, with a reasonable working definition fitting Cold War OPFOR, will fail to mention "negative" cases, such as the failure of the HSWP to implement large scale starvation in Hungary. In effect, the production of a list is the production of an argument. In discursive fields, like history, political science, sociology of genocide, genocide studies, there are no "clear" facts separable from opinion, and most importantly, these fields demand the articulation of opinion by skilled academics. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(These restrictions *largely* flow from the fact that Lists are part of article space). As far as Categories go I couldn't find anything that says that Categories actually have to be legitimate etc. Perhaps someone can ask the Cat people. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, I have to disagree on this point. I think you are stretching the concept of "original research" too far. By this rationale, one couldn't have list articles within the humanities or social sicences at all. (And I'm not really sure what would constitue a non-discursive field, strictly speaking.) I would suggest to anyone who is hell-bent on collecting these historical "miscellany", to make a list article - and then we can discuss that article when it shows up. (I may make it myself, whenever I have time and the weather is bad - i.e. January. ;) Happy holidays, everyone - I'm off! --Anderssl (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo: The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. according to whom this is so?
There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. disagree, its pretty straight forward: Please see Communist mass killings by Benjamin A. Valentino, Published by Cornell University Press, 2005 FFI. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After an AFD, and, as a result of a long discussion a consensus was developed on the way forward for this article being theorised accounts of mass killing across more than one society. Given that this article is about theorisation of multiple society incidents eg ("All communists do X due to Y") should a series of individual case studies be included. Relevant recent arguments include this example. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The wording of this Rfc does not match the scope of the article. Though there is nothing indicating it was not made in good faith, the text appears like a rather blunt attempt to receive the desired answer. For example, there is no "cross cultural theorisation" necessary in the article. It appears to be a rather straight up historical article discussing the oft-written about topic of large numbers of killings in communist regimes over the past century. If there is some confusion, maybe a simple renaming to "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes" would be in order, in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.

In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article. Not once, but four times in seven hours: here, here, here and here. After being reported for 3RR here, you then reverted and did not phrase the question as "should we delete the two thirds of the article discussing the history of mass killings in Communist regimes" but instead phrased the RfC as (not particularly relevant to this article) "Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies?" Mosedschurte (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF much? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the archives which were explicitly pointed out to you describing what the article is yet? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the link you posted earlier to your own "summary_of_the_consensus_editorial_direction", though doing so is certainly not worth wading into now. Suffice to say that the scope of the rather plainly worded article is what editors, including those in response to this or more appropriately worded RfC's, determine it to be. As mentioned, if there is some confusion, some attempt to delete the two thirds of the article discussing the actual history of such killings could be headed off by a simple renaming it to something like "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes", in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.

Re: "WP:AGF much?" I assumed nothing, though I just stumbled across this rather revealing rant you just posted about those who disagree with you titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes": "The differential in administrator willingness to let wild, grossly incivil, anti-encyclopedic editing run wild even when they have discretionary editing to hand; the habit of non-humanities twonks with a personal vendetta about their precious special "I experienced this" BITING humanities specialists; and, the inane repetition of cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education; all this has irritated me sufficiently to the point where I am not going to attend unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page." (Fifelfoo) I suggest cutting down on the bile a bit.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the article doesn't and shouldn't discuss "the theoretical structures common across multiple societies", Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.etc.--Termer (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but if you believed that, you would be pushing for AfD on this article. csloat (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not posed in a neutral manner. As such, this RfC may be quite useless. I suggest this one be clasoed forthwith, and a proper NPOV question be posed. Collect (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think it should be phrased? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This RFC seems to have been split up in many parts, including my input to it, which sort of came in the section above. So just for the record, my proposed solution is this: Make a list article which lists events described as "mass killings" in mainstream reliable sources, and which occurred under (or were perpetrated by) communist regimes (defined as regimes described as 'communist' in mainstream reliable sources). The discussion leading up to this can be seen above, under "List article". --Anderssl (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events." It is possible to do only if such a concept would really exist, in other words, if various examples of mass killing can fit into a single scheme and explained by a single reason, directly connected to the word "Communist". I doubt if it is really possible. For instance, mass killing perpetrated by African Communist and non-Communist regimes share many common features and differ from mass killing in other places.
A serious reason is needed to combine absolutely different events, and the word "Communist" is not sufficient for that.

Re: "In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article." The article combined the examples of excess mortality and mass murder under the name "mass killing", that is hardly justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral question: Is it proper to remove historical examples from an article which directly deals with material in those examples?

The material in those examples comprises approximately two-thirds of an article.

That is hardly neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't neutral, and I don't think it is worthy of an RfC, nor would it help to resolve any disagreement here. --FormerIP (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This question shows a lack of engagement with the article, its editorial history, and the consensuses developed here. It also demonstrates an almost perfect example of argument by tautology. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note your position that the entire article should be deleted. (stated below as a direct quote). Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you note the origin of the sections discussing academics dealing with multiple societies published in credible presses, and how myself, and a number of other editors on different sides of the AFD vote, systematically grappled with potential literature in order to improve the article quality. Or do you cherry pick? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November by The Four Deuces who wrote "This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. "

!votes included "Delete: COATRACK, SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object. I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these. The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing). On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite. (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing"). Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause. George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson." There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality. The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in [State x]". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "

There is a possibility that these positions relate to the removal of two thirds of this article. Neutrality of any edotor is an exercise left to the reader. Collect (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They relate to the topic of this section, as stated. Is any of the material false? Any fabrication of a quote or the like? I would gladly correct any misquote, to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collect. You are incapable of editing in a discursive field because of your stated opinion regarding the validity of opinions and the universality of facts. Also, at the time of your edits to fascism which won you a barnstar, the article was, at the time of the award, for the purposes of literature survey (ie: weight) sourced through a single literature review from Transaction publishers, who have a number of questionable features. The article also omitted mention of the major publishers on Fascism Trotsky, Gramsci, Benjamin. Do you have a secret capacity to engage in discursive fields which you haven't revealed, or are you limited to launching argumentum ad hominems and failing to read article archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:NPA and WP:AGF to start. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to state what the personal attack above amounted to? My good faith towards you evaporated when you engaged in attacking the person. Are you capable of reconciling AGF with this statement "Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, please be more specific. I asked "What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC?" You replied: "They relate to the topic of this section, as stated." How does it relate to the topic of the section? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article" is the title of this section. Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are simply limited to argumentum ad hominem, and failing to read archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, it is only the title of this section because you named it that. Whether or not Fifelfoo voted to delete this article is irrelevant and you should assume good faith. Although the outcome of the discussion was "no consensus", it is still possible to present the arguments for the theories concerning mass killings. It is unneccessary to add countless examples which have already swelled the article well above the suggested size and certainly examples that cannot be connected to the concept of mass killings should not be included. Incidentally all the examples mentioned are discussed in detail in other articles. It would be helpful if before commenting further you read the discussion threads so that you could provide informed comment on this issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I would surely gladly remove any inaccurate quotes from anyone. As I started this section, the title is what I named the title. BTW, I read all the AfD discussions, and most of the article talk archives. Thank you most kindly, but your point may be taken amiss. Collect (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone placed a notice that "article is in need of attention from an expert", and here I am. Perhaps some of that belongs to article Communism. But one needs good secondary sources to do it well. Great place to start would be the book "Communism" by Richard Pipes.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, the Cold War is over and you should really read books by respected historians, not neoconservative polemicists. The findings of Team B were absolutely inaccurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, are you an expert in Communism, the History of Communism, or the institutional "Marxist Leninism" and history of Marxist Leninism of a limited geographic area in a certain time period. This is fairly important. The best expert for this article would be someone from genocide studies. The reason being that I could, with about forty minutes, COATRACK Krondstat, GULAG, the execution of the Vietnamese Trotskyites, and Hungary 1956 into a claim that "Communist regimes engage in a kind of mass killing to eliminate opponents from their own sector of the ideological spectrum, and to thereby ensure their hegemony over left wing discourses and their justification for rule as the agents of social liberation in history." Actually going out and finding these generalised accusations in credible (probably) Trotskyist academic writing would take a fair bit longer. Even worse, shoe horning this in is extremely problematic, as it only explains one kind of mass killing, its a non-viable theoretical contribution because it fails to explain population dislocations of ethnic groups and death by starvation (for example). This kind of generalised theory of all causes of mass killing, across a number of "communist" societies is what's asked for here. Not the history of a particular "communist" state or its ideological motivations. If you've got recent ready access to this kind of work, please bring it forward. I'm stalled in a number of generalised survey texts on Genocide, looking for survey reviews of the change in the field since the Democide-type people began publishing. So far we've exhausted Valentino's existing work, and the work around Lemkin's initial work has demonstrated Lemkin's a dead end (he stopped acting credibly as an academic, in attempts to garner support for his general convention). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the lede section is an example of unjustified generalisation. The first sentence:

"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. "

seems odd. Khmer Rouge regime had collapsed as a result of the actions of Communist Vietnam, so it was not a typical example of Communists' rule. Maoist China can hardly be considered a pure example of a Communist state, especially taking into account that the periods of the Great Leap forward and cultural revolution was the time of the most severe opposition (especially ideological one) between the USSR and PRC. In the USSR during a Stalin's rule most Communist ideas were quietly dropped (and their carriers were eliminated). Therefore, we can speak only about some Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. Otherwise I see no reason for not writing the article named Mass killings under Capitalist regimes that would include genocide of native Americans, famines in India, Ireland, extermination of Australian aborigines etc (of course, it is just a reductio ad absurdum).

The last sentence:

"One common factor posited in Communist mass killings is the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation of society resulting in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people."

is hardly correct, because the main reason for Stalin to start his Great purge was just to seize a power in the USSR, to eliminate his major political opponents and to establish a regime where no opposition to existing authorities was able to develop. I believe, the same is true for most Communist genocides.
This odd statement can be partially explained by the fact that the article artificially mix real example of mass killing (e.g. Great Purge, Khmer atrocities) with examples of excessive mortality due to poor management (e.g. Soviet famine in 1932-33). Although the latter can be explained by "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes", it can be better explained as a result of inadequate management and criminal neglect. Famines, as well as all similar events must be removed from the article, because they simply do not fit the definition of mass killing ("the act of murdering a large number of people").--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our task to "know" anything - rather it is WP policy that material found in any reliable source may be, and should be, used in articles. See WP:RS and WP:V. Collect (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...provided that it is (i) relevant, and (ii) reflects majority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly show me anywhere that WP policies or guidelines make that sort of statement. The aim is NPOV, not to make articles conform to any specific POV <g>. Relevance is, indeed, part of ongoing consensus. As this is not a BLP, it is difficult to see what in this article, precisely, is "irrelevant" to the topic. Collect (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP policy encourages editors to use common sense. That means that only relevant information should be used in articles. Obviously, population losses cannot be combined with mass murders in the article named "Mass killing".
Second, WP:NPOV requires "that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly". I don't think the idea of "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation" is a majority POV, however, such an interpretation is presented as the sole and well known driving force behind Communist mass murders.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to assert specialist knowledge here. The mass removals and famines appear to be removable, but I daresay reliable sources disagree with what you "know." If a reliable source makes a claim, it can be in an article. Clearly if you have RS cites that the population losses were not caused by any deliberate acts, those cites should also be in the article. That is how NPOV is reached. Not by requiring that "majority POV" be the determining factor. Collect (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. " (Weathcroft The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353)
From the article's title I conclude that the article's subject is just purposive killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was titled Mass murder under Communist regimes, then I would agree that it should only be about purposive killings. But "killings" is a broader term which also includes those perpetrated via criminal neglect, which Weathcroft argues caused the excess deaths. Hence I think your removal of the text is not justified. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, you interpret it as a broader term. Mass killing is "the act of murdering a large number of people". "Murder" is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought). What relation does it have to "criminal neglect"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Mass killing is merely a re-direct to Mass murder. Intent or malice aforethought are synonyms for "purposeful". People are killed every day, accidently and through neglect, they are not necessarily murdered, i.e purposely killed. Criminal neglect is the failure to use reasonable care to avoid the consequences of their actions. However this failure to use reasonable care could be purposeful, which many authors like James Mace, Michael Ellman and Robert Davies argue in the case of the famines. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this issue previously. The term "killing" does not imply human agency or intention. If we want to use the term killing in its widest sense then all nature events must be included, such as earthquakes, not to mention wars, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is an example of single society case studies, and wikipedians generating arguments from their personal analysis thereof. We use "Mass Killings" because, at the time of the name change, the only theorist with credibility discussing the points of commonality across multiple societies then discovered was Valentino, who described them as "Mass Killings." This is why the article cannot move forward as a result of wikipedian's synthesis of single society case studies: when we are editing wikipedia we lose any offline capacity we have as experts to generate new and original analyses from interpretations of evidence—and, it goes around in the same tired circle. Our task is to honestly and faithfully record relevant theorisations of general causes (ie: causes pertinent to more than one society) of mass killings or other similar "mass" actions as reported by Reliable Sources, and as balanced by WEIGHT. If you discover excellent single society theorisations, why then take Robert Conquest and go to Human Rights abuses in the Soviet Union and describe that there. Or take it to the Great Purge. Given that this article discusses general causes "under Communist regimes" society specific theorisations are off topic. And of course as this is an academic object of study, the RS which ought to be used are high quality reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to sign this statement [13] by Collect with my 2 hands.--Termer (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Paul Siebert when he says that :"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. " seems odd. Its because its not what Valentino in his Communist mass killings says. He says that he focuses on "histories most murderous communist states, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia" but he also refers to mass killings by communist regimes elsewhere -North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa. So the article lede currently clearly misleads the reader.--Termer (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, could you please define mass killing. If it does not have any special meaning then we should start to include information about killings from natural disasters, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not what Termer defines as mass killing, it is what Valentino defines it as. --Martin (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how does Valentino do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our job here is not to define anything, but edit articles according to WP:RS. and how exactly for example Benjamin Valentino Ph.D. in Political Science defines Communist mass killings in his book published by Cornell University Press can be read by anybody who has access to internet or to a local library. The question that we need to deal with here is how to ensure that article is written according to this source and any other WP:RS that has been written on the subject. And that seems to be the problematic part. the lede is misleading and large junks of material just keeps disappearing [14],[15], [16], [17], [18], [19] from the article.--Termer (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, unlike according to your opinion [20] Paul Siebert, Benjamin Valentino in his book considers famine as one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. p. 93--Termer (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted, you were present while we were discussing while they were deleted, they were deleted because they're not relevant to the argument contained in RS that theorise multiple society causes as they're uncontextualised individual case studies replicating full articles elsewhere, effectively, they're little itty bitty POVforks. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, Google's reset my preview rights on Valentino, Final Solutions Cornell 2005. From 66-67 he outlines his theory of cause of mass killings:

"I contend that mass killing occurs when powerful groups come to believe it is the best available means to accomplish certain radical goals, counter specific types of threats, or solve difficult military problems. From this perspective, mass killing should be viewed as an instrumental policy calculated to achieve important political and military objectives with respect to other groups—a "final solution" to its perpetrators' most urgent problems." [Valentino 2005 66-7]

This leaves his typology [68-73ff, my preview ended at 73, includes Table 1] indicating Communist Mass Killings are specifically a subset, and a descriptive subset at that of Dispossessive mass killings (esp at 72-73). Valentino's 2005 work does not support this article's existence. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Re: "Our job here is not to define anything..." Incorrect. Before writing some article (obviously, based on RS) we must define what this article is about. Therefore, we have to agree what do we mean under "mass killing", and which RS definition is more appropriate. We ourselves, and noone else can and have to do this job.

Re: "... but edit articles according to WP:RS" WP:RS recommend to "try to cite scholarly consensus when available." The source presented by me demonstrates that Valentino does not express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "And yes, unlike according to your opinion..." There is no my or your opinion, only Valentino vs Wheatcroft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me remind you Fifelfoo that this talk page is not for a discussion about articles existence, Such matters are only relevant to Afd-s. And please let the reader decide what Valentino says in his book, there is no need to add any commentary like you do to his statements. Not at this talk page nor in the article. And please kindly restore the relevant sections from the article that you have removed. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Paul Siebert do not hesitate and try to cite scholarly consensus on the subject. Nobody has ever claimed that Valentino does express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. on Valentino vs Wheatcroft, so why don't you Paul add Wheatcroft's opinion instead of removing Valentinos?--Termer (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Termer Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

From the §A Typology of Mass Killing within Valentino2005Final

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

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

This catagory, "mass killings to over come resistance to disenfranchisement" is a theoretical category, which unifies Valentino's approach. Within Table 1, [70], Dispossessive mass killings includes three descriptive groups, Communist, Ethnic and Territorial. Valentino is not asserting a unique theoretical cause for Communist mass killings, he is describing them as a case study of his actual theoretical category, Dispossessive mass killings. In clear example, the mass killing by communists in Afghanistan in 1979-88 is classified by Valentino in Table 1 as a case of the "Coercive mass killing" theoretical type, under the Counterguerrilla descriptor. To map these as sets: A(c(c1)) B(d(c2)). Given that c1, the Soviet Famine of the early 1930s, and c2, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan are separately theorised as, respectively under the descriptive heads, "Communist" and "Counterguerrilla" it is somewhat nonsensical to claim that Valentino sees a theorised cause within communism, or amongst communist regimes for mass killing. Valentino's schema is quite clear "Dispossessive" and "Coercive", neither of which are specific to communism, nor exhaust themselves within communism, both of which contain instances of mass killing by communists. To clarify this, by quotation,

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've already pointed this out [21] Valentino says that he focuses on the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia" but he also refers to mass killings by communist regimes elsewhere -North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa.--Termer (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Benjamin Valentino either has a serious problems with logic or he never wrote this. Such a statement is in a direct contradiction with his own words:

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

In other words, according to him "dispossessive mass killings" were just excessive mortality as a collateral result of a policy of economic dispossession. By contrast, the article in its present form implies that the major Communists' goal was extermination of some categories of population and economic dispossession was chosen as a tool to achieve that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that might be the case, however, what Valentino also gives for the reasons of such mass killings in communist countries is by quoting Isaiah Berlin on pp 92-93: "if a final solution to the worlds problems were possible, surely no cost would be too high to obtain it: to make mankind just and happy and creative and harmonious forever - what could be too high a pprice to pay for that? To make such an omlet, there is surely no limit to the numbers of eggs that should be broken - that was the faith of Lenin, of Trotsky, of Mao...of Pol Pot.".

Just that wht the article says sounds a bit different:"philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, if one could find a 'final solution' to the world's problems, surely no cost would be too high to obtain it." and that's it. I think there is a clear difference in the full quote vs. what the article says. The full quote describes "the faith of Lenin, of Trotsky, of Mao...of Pol Pot" but the article implies like it's Isaiah Berlin who thinks so that "no cost would be too high..."--Termer (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "for the reasons of such mass killings" We can speak about reason only when we discuss someone's intentions. Since "dispossessive mass killings" were in actuality just a collateral effect of large scale social transformations, we can speak about their causes, not reasons. In addition, if the main goal of some of "dispossessive mass killings" was to kill people, these examples should be placed into separate category.

Re: Berlin. The attempt to combine Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot into the same category hardly reflects scholarly community's consensus. I know no examples of peacetime mass killing perpetrated by Lenin's - early Stalin's government (war time Red Terror was complemented with its twin White Terror and it is impossible to say which one was a response to which). New Economic Policy was a time of considerable liberalisation of the Soviet society (e.g. death penalty was limited to a very narrow category of crimes, the percentage of population sentenced to death didn't exceed that in contemporary USA, camp population didn't exceed few tens thousand and penal labour was prohibited).

In summary, the article's attempt to combine absolutely different phenomenae is misleading and ideologically motivated. The sources this article relies upon do not reflect a scholarly consensus. Presenting other sources can hardly fix a situation, because the very idea of such a generalization is highly questionable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a lot of work, but Valentino is not referring to excess mortality due to dispossession. His "mass killing" is restricted to the "intentional killing of noncombatants".(page 6) AmateurEditor (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against using this definition, although I doubt this is Valentino refers to. Otherwise it is not clear where did he take so astronomical numbers of Communism's victims: if we subtract famines and deportation deaths the number of victims drops dramatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you seem to be confusing mass killing with genocide, genocide is the deliberative killing with the aim of eliminating a group, where as mass killing also includes those killed collaterally as a consequence of policy. You seem to be arguing that mass killings must necessarily be deliberative, that consequential or collateral deaths don't count. But Valentino makes no distinction: "Dispossessive mass killings are the result of policies... by design or by consequence". You wonder why Valentino numbers are so high, it is because he does consider famines and deportation deaths fitting the criteria of "mass killing". You criticism of Valentino's work and subtraction of these numbers, in the absence of supporting sources that criticise Valentino's work, is WP:OR. --Martin (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very term "Dispossessive mass killings" is something not being commonly used. I would not be surprised to learn that it was a Valentino's own invention. However, the primary reason of starting this concrete section is unjustified mixing of cause and consequences: whereas Valentino wrote that "dispossessive mass killings" was a (collateral) result of a certain policy (aimed to achieve some other goal), the article states that Communists achieved their goals via mass killings (in other words, these collateral deaths were planned by them from the beginning).

Re: "You wonder why Valentino numbers are so high" I do not wonder why the numbers are so high. I wonder why he adds famines and mass execution into the same category "intentional killing of noncombatants", whereas other scholars prefer to use the term "population losses".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Martintg, Valentino's "mass killing" includes "most commonly accepted cases of genocide, but also encompasses a broader range of events distinguished by the large scale, intentional killing of non-combatants."(p.6) Of famine, Valentino says "Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state."(p. 93) I don't think Valentino includes accidental or collateral deaths - that it, excess mortality - in his estimates. In the sentence quoted by Paul Siebert above, the "by design or by consequence" refers to dispossession, not to mass killing. Valentino is saying that the regimes' goal was dispossession, and they resorted to mass killing as a tactic to achieve it. But this does not contradict the inclusion of at least some deaths from famine in Valentino's totals, if the regimes used famine to destroy their enemies (which could include entire populations). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "if the regimes used famine to destroy their enemies (which could include entire populations)" I cannot imagine how a regime whose enemies include entire population can be viable.

There is no consensus among scholars about the extent at which famines were used by Communists as a tool to achieve certain political goals, so Valentino's opinion is only one POV out of a broad spectrum of POVs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The solution then is to include these POVs from the other scholars per WP:YESPOV, we should be informing the reader of all sides of the debate, with due weight, if there is no consensus among scholars on particular issues. --Martin (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the recent AfD discussion and I found that we seem to almost literally reproduce arguments from there. Obviously, it is impossible to delete this article because a considerable amount of editors personally hate Communism. They will vote against deletion and they have a number of sources (right wing political writers and philosophers) to substantiate their opinion. In addition, I personally don't think the article deserve deletion because some examples of mass murders perpetrated by Communist authorities in different countries (e.g. Stalin's Great Purge and Mao's Cultural Revolution) do share some common features and it is not just a pure coincidence. However, only some of them really share common features, and my major concern is that the article tends to become a collection of all facts of excessive mortality in Communist countries and these fact are presented in such a way that they are implicitly (and sometimes even explicitly) attributed to intrinsically malicious intentions of Communists.
In my opinion, the only way to convert the article in something reasonable and neutral is not to add as many POVs as possible but to remove all historical facts that are nation-specific and whose interpretation is questionable.
Alternatively, if we decide to keep (and extend) all facts of excess mortality under Communist rule, let's change the article's name, lede and style accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"because a considerable amount of editors personally hate Communism" what was that all about Paul Siebert? Perhaps you'd like to withdraw this statement because its not the first time I've seen you commenting on contributors. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSThe sources this article relies upon do not reflect a scholarly consensus pr Paul. I've already asked for this once: [23] Please Paul, refer to any sources that would clearly spell out the scholarly consensus on the subject. And please keep it straight to the point. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that by saying this I offended anybody of those who hate Communism. The fact is that the amount of people (in general, and Wikipedians in particular) who hate Communism is high, so my words is the observation, not accusation. With regards to sources, you yourself wrote that "nobody has ever claimed that Valentino does express the whole scholarly community's opinion". (I would add, because no consensus exist on that account, and you should perfectly know that). In connection to that, you request ("Please Paul, refer to any sources that would clearly spell out the scholarly consensus on the subject.") sounds odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Paul Siebert, if no consensus exists like you say, why to complain about "...do not reflect a scholarly consensus"? Regarding if anybody may have got offended because of your comments on contributors, then you must have misunderstood this completely, in fact I see it quite the contrary. I'm most positive that nobody has any reasons to get offended to such a thing if someone in a debate has run out of reasonable arguments and therefore as a last resource in an attempt to make his/her case chooses to comment on contributors instead of the content.--Termer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "if no consensus exists like you say, why to complain about "...do not reflect a scholarly consensus"?" That is simple. Valentino introduced the term "dispossessive mass killings" that in not used by other scholars (google scholar gives only five results, excluding self-citations [24], one of these works is just a master thesis, other two discuss Valentino's writings). That means that by including all cases of excess mortality under Communist regimes into a category of "dispossessive mass killings", and by discussing these cases in the article named "Mass killings under Communist regimes" we follow a single scholar's concept. Therefore the very article's concept is deeply and intrinsically biased.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, these points have been addressed already, please see [25].--Termer (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, "Professor R.J. Rummel, however, now considers the famine to be democide. ((ref)) R.J. Rummel. Stalin Exceeded Hitler in Monstrous Evil; Mao Beat Out Stalin. Hawaii Reporter, 2005 ((/ref))," is unacceptable for three reasons:

1. Academics are not referred to by occupational titles when discussing their contributions to their field of research. This is a courtesy due to international differences in titles, and the fact that their contributions are weighed in a world of ideas. "Rummel" considers...
2. "however, now considers" implies that the previous and subsequent academics opinions are incorrect. I suggest to you very strongly that Rummel's opinion, and the democide school in general, are outliers within the academic consensus, are not the basic position, and are attacked by some members of the academic community. Correct would be to say, "Rummel considers the famine to be democide".
3. Your citation is appalling. You are citing his opinion as an academic. Academic opinions are subject to peer review. Quoting Rummel in the hawaiireporter is unacceptable. Particularly as Rummel has published his opinion extensively in academic presses. Academics who publish in non-academic modes (and I am not accusing Rummel of this), often use the non-academic mode to publish material that would be refused by their peers. The citation is bad because: non-academic mode used to support academic claim; poor citation given Rummel has extensively published in appropriate modes; and, unnecessary slur due to custom and practice against Rummel that he promulgates this opinion outside of peer discourse.

Use a library. The most apt Rummel text for your claims found in twenty seconds of scholar search would be China's bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900, 1991. I would note that Rummel published this through Transaction, a group whose ideological coherence appears to be a central part of their mission. Checking Transaction texts against reviews in scholarly journals is generally appropriate to make sure they're still up to disciplinary standards (I would recommend the same, for example, of any book put out by Telos in the 1970s). Rummel may have published in other appropriate forums post 1991, hawaiireporter.com isn't one of them. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The article provides a critical analysis of the quantitative method used by Rudolph J. Rummel in order to estimate the democide rate for various political systems in the 20th century. The first part shows that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito's Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. The second part shows how the data have influenced the mid-estimates Rummel uses for further statistical analysis. A comparison with demographic research in former Yugoslavia shows that Rummel's mid-estimates for Tito's mass killings are much too high and contravene his data for the population deficit in Yugoslavia. The author also criticizes a key assumption in Rummel's method of 'reasonable approximation', namely, that overestimations tend to be taken out by underestimations. It is shown why such a proposition is problematic, particularly in this case where there is a wide discrepancy between high and low estimates. Although the article concentrates on communist terror in former Yugoslavia, the results may have wider implications for Rummel's research if he uses similar sources in other case studies. If so, Rummel would need to revise the method and exclude unreliable estimations in order to obtain useful data." (Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 85-102)

"R. J. Rummel has been one of the more controversial figures in the academic field of international relations in the last two decades. He has also been lavishly supported by funding agencies, and is a prolific researcher and writer. In this five volume work, Rummel builds on his own research and writing, as well as that of others in the fields of psychology, sociology, and political science in order to develop a comprehensive explanation of conflict, violence, and war. He does so in a manner not calculated to endanger his controversial status. In this essay, I will first describe and criticize briefly the contents of each volume. Then I will step back from the five volumes, figuratively speaking, and offer some concluding comments about the work as a whole."

"It would also be unfortunate if the field as a whole ignores Understanding Conflict and War. This is partly because such a significant portion of the resources available for research in international politics in recent years has been invested in R. J. Rummel. He is intelligent and thorough, and both those qualities are evident in his work. Even if his conclusions are debatable, or just plain wrong, they are also thought provoking. If the fundamental contribution of Understanding Conflict and War consists entirely of provocative mistakes, that in itself would make it a contribution to science. Whether or not Rummel's work constitutes a great contribution is a question that can only be addressed equitably by a community of scholars that has read it." (Review: Understanding Rummel. Author(s): James Lee Ray Reviewed work(s): Understanding Conflict and War by R. J. Rummel Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 161-187)

" Rummel is at his least contentious when dealing with collectivization and purges. Although he is unaware of Wheatcroft's work, and not everyone would accept Conquest on the Ukrainian famine, Rummel's summary gives the familiar litany of horror. On other periods of Soviet history his account is incredible. Passing over the 6,872,000 victims of democide between 1954-87, a figure computed largely from his estimate of camp deaths, let us consider his approach to the 'bread war' between 1918 and 1922. We are told that this 'bread war' was 'fiercely fought over the full length and breadth of the Soviet Union from I9I8-22'. (In reality there were repeated requisitioning campaigns in the same few areas.) From this false picture of widespread war he makes fantastic deductions: he assumes that in each peasant rebellion against requisitioning 625 people were killed, and since there were 344 recorded rebellions in the first eighteen months of Soviet rule, that is 625 x 344 = 215,000, plus a few more because the civil war lasted longer than eighteen months and you get 250,000 killed in the 'bread war'. In reality a 'rebellion' could mean anything from two peasants refusing to deliver grain to an insurrection on the Tambov scale: an average of 625 multiplied by 344 is a nonsense."(Author(s): Geoffrey Swain Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)

"Despite his rich and detailed information and data, Rummel's at- tempt at explanation seems oversimplified. He introduces but does not review the theoretical literature, and apologizes for his failure to offer attributions. His essential theoretical argument is what I would call a categorical imperative, namely, "that power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely" (I9). This proposition is a variant of the familiar and time-bound argument that democracies rarely fight each other, or-in the genocide literature-that the duration and strength of democratic experience minimizes state reliance on coercive control. From this standpoint, authoritarian regimes are more likely to use repression than their democratic counterparts. However, "power" is, at best, necessary but not sufficient to explain the multifaceted phenomena of genocide, not to mention other forms of state terror" (Author(s): Barbara Harff Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)

I believe the article cannot pay much attention to such a controversial scholar's wrinings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, sorry WP:TLDR. The question if an article where a scholar expresses his views on the questions could be used as a source of reference here in the place that speaks abouh his views on the question, than...even though a secondary source would be preferred in such a case, there is nothing wrong with using it as a source that verifies what the guy has to say about the question. in other words: Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims. And thats exactly the way the source has been used here. In any case nothing that has been said here above justifies the removal of any material from wikipedia. If anything it should be tagged with "clarification needed" or "additional references needed" etc.--Termer (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TLDR. Are you joking? You repeatedly asked me to provide sources, and after I did that you complain I provided too many. You should be consistent. Try to read at least the text in bold. With regards to your other comments, a content of a web site, that has not been wetted by scientific community, is not a reliable source. In addition, I didn't write that Rummel must be removed completely, my point was that we must reflect the fact that this writer is highly controversial and his conclusions are questionable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, I've always thought its a problem if article talk pages are used to publish original analyses on subjects. And I also have asked you to keep it straight to the point please. So please, if you know of the source that has relevance to the subject, just please add the material to the article. We not here to comment on the subject or have a general discussion about it but simply edit articles according to sources.--Termer (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Termer, you are once again completely off track. The distinction between primary and secondary sources have nothing to do with this, as none of the sources in question are primary sources.--Anderssl (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Anderssl for sharing your opinions about myself. I have to disagree however, in the context where Rummels views are referenced with an article that's been written by him, it is a primary source about his views, and nothing on Wikipedia prevents using such refs for making descriptive claims, like the current one: "Rummel considers the famine to be a democide".--Termer (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "it is a primary source about his views" So all reviews on someone's work are primary sources? I believe by saying that you clearly demonstrate your WP:IDHT.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is clear, Rummels viewpoint keeps dissaparing from the article [26]. [27] [28] with latest comment by you Paul "Questionable source removed". How is an article written by Rummel himself [29] where he discusses his views on the subject "questionable", remains unexplained.--Termer (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have an article on "democide" (a word I editorially contend is a manufacture and does not yet appear in any mainstream dictionary and therefore is not encyclopedia-appropriate where WP is concerned) which is based on Rummel and then dismiss him as useless in another article. The best writing about history considers all sources and positions them appropriately in narrative.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii reporter is not the appropriate forum for academic publication. Rummel already has access to a somewhat academic press, Transaction, where he is able to publish in an academic mode. Rummel also, I'm assuming here because his thoughts are interesting and argued, has access to other academic presses. Find it in his published works. I'm agnostic regarding the value of Rummel; but, in relation to the place in the narrative, there is a place you don't mention Vercrumba, which is the absence of place. Discussion on the social structure of Portuguese fishing in the 15th century are interesting, they don't belong here. For example, Watson, given the savaging, out of speciality context, inappropriate press (Lutterworth), and lack of contribution to theory (his theory of commonality is an inherent criminality due to not being classical liberals supplemented by a corrupted cradle of Marx); Watson is probably given 3/4 of a paragraph too much. Watson's appropriate place in this article is to not be in this article. Rummel, while contentious, has not received a savaging in nearly the same terms as Watson's chapbook did. I also suspect that Rummel may advance a specific (limited set of societies) or general (all communist societies) theory for mass killing that has an origin specifically in Communism. ie: Its probably worth reading Rummel for his elucidation of theory. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a column written by an academic about that academic's views as a source on that academic's views. If there is a better source it can be swapped out when it is found, but there is no cause for deleting this one as an inappropriate forum. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the materials about excess mortality under Communist rule (Holodomor, deportations etc) are being added again into the article. I also noticed that a tendency exists to present opinions of separate writers as a scholars' consensus. By combining all cases of excess mortality under the name "mass killings" the article follow the concept developed by few writers that is not widely accepted yet (For instance, the term dispossessive mass killings was introduced by B. Valentino and it is not used by other scholars [30]). In connection to that, I propose either to remove all excess mortality cases that do not fit a "mass killings" category sensu stricto, or to change the article's name to something more appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed before: it is not only brought to light by Valentino that the communist regimes used artificial famines as a tool of mass killing against "the perceived and real enemies of the rapid social transformation" conducted by the communist regimes. In case you Paul Siebert are aware of any scholars who dismiss such studies, please just add relevant material to the article instead of removing the existing section.--Termer (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "In case you Paul Siebert are aware of any scholars who dismiss such studies" I am unaware of any example of wide acceptance of these studies, therefore, if you want Valentino's concept to be in the article, pleace, make a separate section ("Valentino's theory of dispossessive mass killings") and put everything related to excess mortality there, leaving the major part of the article to mass killings sensu stricto.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well unfortunately Paul Siebert wikipedia is not based on unawareness of its editors, but on WP:RS. And its not like Valentino is the only author who has written on those questions. There is a long list of sources available at the refs section of this article that look into it. Only thing missing perhaps would be any alternative viewpoints, but since nobody here including yourself seems is not not aware of any such sources that would dismiss the artificial famines as a tool of mass killings by the communist regimes, there is nothing that can be done about it this very moment. Please let me remind you also that it was Raphael Lemkin himself first who considered the famine in the Soviet Union for example to be not just a 'mass killing' but a genocide.--Termer (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. By saying that "I am unaware of any example of wide acceptance of these studies" I meant that google scholar demonstrated that Valentino's concept is not widely accepted, and the term "dispossessive mass killings" is not used by scholars (you may try to refute my statement by providing appropriate quotes). Other scholars cited in the article tell about excess death, and, importantly, most sources consider these events separately, so combining these sources together is synthesis, and using the Valentino's concept as the article's framework is WP:UNDUE.
Re: "not aware of any such sources that would dismiss the artificial famines as a tool of mass killings by the communist regimes" See, e.g. Wheathcroft's works. (I do not provide quotes to avoid accusations in too-long-didn't-read) --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fine, use Wheathcroft who doesn't agree with Valentino, Rummel, Conquest, and even Lemkin etc. It doesn't mean that one of them is undue and should be removed from the article. If anything, there should be somebody who supports Wheathcroft's ideas in order to get his opinion notable enough in the context.--Termer (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Termer, you are continuing to distort the sources, which is disruptive behavior. You appear to be approaching this article with a biased point of view which is unacceptable. Could you please read policies and conform to neutrality. All of us have read Cold War propaganda, but the Cold War is over and articles about that period should be based on reliable sources rather than repeating garbage from propaganda sources. Ironically, by insisting on distorting what Communism was about, you are discrediting Western rational thinking and are actually promoting Communism. It reminds me of the Manchurian Candidate where an American politician, based on Joe McCarthy was actually a secret Communist. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry The Four Deuces, I can't really comment this since I'm not here to engage in a political debate but to describe such debates in the article. Please also consider such an approach. thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, I think you have the wrong idea to focus on "dispossessive mass killing" as the key phrase for Valentino. His key term is simply "mass killings", which he defines quite exactly. "Dispossessive mass killings" is not a term he uses very often: it appears rarely in his own book, and he does not use that three word phrase at all in his Communist mass killings chapter). Regardless, the phrase "mass killing" was chosen for this article as a compromise neutral description (the previous title was "Communist genocide", which was criticized as inflammatory and inaccurate) and it does not necessarily follow Valentino's definition of the intentional killing of at least 50,000 noncombatants within 5 years. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right that focusing on "dispossessive mass killing" is abslutely wrong idea. However, it is not clear for me why do you blame me in that. As I already wrote, I have nothing against using the term "mass killing" sensu stricto (and changing the article accordingly). That would require to remove famines and deportations and to focus on the mass killing per se: on the Red Terror, Great Purge, Cultural Revolution, etc. By contrast, majority article's space is devoted to what Valentino calls "dispossessive mass killings" (and other scholars use various terms starting from "terror-famine" to "population losses"). In other words, by contrast to your opinion that "Dispossessive mass killings" is not a term Valentino uses very often, the artile's space is devoted mostly to this category of excess mortality. We have to fix that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any new arguments forwarded by Paul Siebert regarding the famines issue. And no matter what Valentino calls it, we can go with the ideas of Raphael Lemkin who called the famine Soviet genocide in case you'd prefer that Paul.--Termer (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I meant it as reference to your Google scholar search. As far as the article goes, Valentino is not the only source to attribute homicidal intent to these events, so I don't think they should be segregated under a section for him. Perhaps the best way would be to mention in each controversial section how different sources account for the regime's intent? AmateurEditor (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I meant it as reference to your Google scholar search." Cannot agree. Valentino developed a concept of "dispossessive mass killing" to describe a separate class of events that were not considered mass killings before. After that, he combined mass killings sensu stricto with "dispossessive mass killing" together, and, as a result, attributed most population losses in the USSR and China to mass killings (without separation of "dispossessive" and "classical" mass killings). However, since majority victims (out of the astronomical number he quotes) was a result of "dispossessive mass killing", then his work appears to be devoted to this type mass killings, not to what people used to call "mass killings".

Re: "Perhaps the best way would be to mention in each controversial section" That is what I proposed several times: to devote the article to non-controversial cases and to move all controversial event into a separate section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Valentino describe as "dispossessive mass killing" events that were not considered mass killings before? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the term "mass killings" is not frequently being applied to Stalin's victims (scholars call them just "repressions victims"), and, because the article itself concede that the term is vague, it is not easy to find a source that directly refutes Valentino's definition. However, if we assume that "mass killings victims" is a subset of "repression victims" (that is a reasonable assumption, because some victims of Stalin's repressions did survive, and it is hard to imagine a situation when a "mass killing victim" is not a "repression victim"), than we can compare Valentino's writings with other scholar's opinions. In connection to that, let me reproduce a quote from Michael Ellman (ref 31 in the present article)

"During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly in 1918-23, 1931-34 and 1941-45) were not repression but war, famine and disease"

I believe you agree that, according to Ellman, "war, famine and disease" are "not" repressions (and, therefore, not "mass killing" of their own population), and I see no other way to interpret his words.
I already quoted Wheathcroft who also doesn't consider famine and disease victims as repressions' victims. I can provide other sources upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I anticipate possible accusations in WP:OR (interpreting scholar's words) or WP:SOAP (presenting my own conclusions). In connection to that, let me point out, that no generally accepted terminology exists to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants (Valentino's words), and the article use only one sets of definitions (out of several sets), thereby paying undue attention to one school. As a result, other scholar's opinions simply cannot be counterposed to Valentino's words (because different terms and definition are used), so interpretation is inavoidable if we want to compare the opinions of different scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More quotes:

"In the case of the Soviet Union, Werth states that the famous Great Terror of 1936-38 resulted in the execution of nearly 700,000 people and that these numbers represent 'more than 85 percent of all the death sentences handed down during the entire Stalin period' The 20 million referred to above include not only those executed but also those who died in the Gulags as well as the victims of the famous 1932-33 famine and other casualties of political, social and economic upheaval. It may also include those unborn who would have been born under normal circumstances. The famine, for example, took more than six million lives (as Werth notes 159). The brutal agricultural policy and the callousness of the Stalin regime were responsible at least in part for this calamity. Indeed the government, in cold-blooded indifference to life, let the peasants die in order to save the cities. Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recal- citrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine." (Review: Review Article: Communism and Terror. Author(s): Hiroaki Kuromiya. Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression by Stephane Courtois. Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)

One more interesting source (How Many Victims in the 1930s?. I Author(s): Alec Nove. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 1990), pp. 369-373) uses no word "killing" at all. Much more moderate termilonogy is used instead "Numerous estimates of the demographic consequences of collectivisation and of the Terror have been made in the West, and in the most recent years also in the Soviet Union." I believe, the more serious a scholar is the more neutral terminology he uses. Inflammatory terms is used mainly by political writers and Cold War era propagandists. I do not think Wikipedia should follow that way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Ellman's quote implies that famine deaths do not qualify as repression or mass killing. I disagree that famine cannot be a deliberate and intentional repression or mass killing. It can be if the famine is caused by government policy and/or focused on a group that the government wants to repress. I know different sources disagree whether particular events would qualify, but it is possible for famine deaths or deportation deaths to qualify. I agree that inflammatory language can be a sign of partisan intent, but I do not agree that "mass killing" is in any way inflammatory. It is very neutral, which is why it was agreed upon by so many editors here. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I disagree that famine cannot be a deliberate and intentional repression or mass killing." You (or my) opinion is not relevant in that case. In addition, we do not discuss the issue in general. By contrast, the scholars I quoted discuss a very narrow category of famines and deportations, namely, Stalin time's deportations and famines, and all of them do not use the terms "mass killing", "mass murder", "genocide" or something like that.

Re: "I do not agree that "mass killing" is in any way inflammatory" I do not understand what your conclusion is based upon. "Mass killing" is much more inflammatory than, e.g., "the brutal agricultural policy and the callousness". In addition, the most important consequence of the use of this inflammatory terminology is that the whole article's structure appeared to be based on it.
Again, the fact that mass killings did occur during some periods of Communist rule is indisputable, and that was the major (correct) argument of those who opposed to the article's deletion. However, the attempt to add to this category those events that are not considered mass killings by majority scholars is unacceptable.
Re: "It is very neutral, which is why it was agreed upon by so many editors here." ... and is questioned by many other editors. Just re-read the archives, and you will see that the number of those who oppose this idea is at least equal to the number of its supporters.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure it can be said that "not considered mass killings by majority scholars". James Mace contends:

"It is now generally accepted that in 1932-1933 several million peasants - most of them Ukrainians and the traditionally Cossack territories of the North Caucasus - starved to death because the government of the Soviet Union seized with unprecedented force and thoroughness the 1932 crop and foodstuffs from the agricultural population."

this is first from the opening paragraph in the chapter Soviet Man-Made Famine in Ukraine from the book Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts, why would that be published in this particular book if it was not generally accepted that the famine was an instance of genocide? I think "mass killing" is more neutral than genocide. --Martin (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quotes provided by me also confirm that there was a direct connection between Stalin government's actions and 1932-33 famine. However, the quote provided by you adds nothing to that. With regards to genocide, some writers tend to add this famine to books about genocides. However, the quotes provided by me demonstrate that those scholars who do meticulous archival studies to establish the scale and causes of those time events use quite different terminology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Taking into account that James Mace was a head of the United States Government's Ukrainian Famine Commission in 1980s (a time of ideological confrontation between the US and the USSR), he is not more neutral source than, e.g. CIA. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the famine is included in general books about genocide, while there are some scholars that use different terminology in their studies published in less widely read journals indicates to me that the former represents the majority viewpoint while the latter represents the minority viewpoint. --Martin (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"less widely read journals" represents opinion of historians whereas "most widely read" books reflect opinions of political writers and journalists. If I have been asked to chose between "The Times" and "American historical reviews" I would definitely prefer the later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, Ellman does appear to believe that many of the deaths from the famine in question were caused deliberately after all. From Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited, in which he responds to criticism from Wheatcroft and Davies:

"Davies and Wheatcroft also draw attention to Stalin's agreement to relief measures. However, this is not relevant to my argument. I do not argue that Stalin wanted to annihilate the peasants (he needed them for the army, as industrial workers, and as agricultural labourers). My argument is only that he wanted to kill some of them (the 'counter-revolutionaries' and the idlers')." (page 676)

"It is generally accepted that in 1932-33 Stalin caused deaths by acts of omission: he omitted to import grain and he also omitted to appeal for or accept international help—unlike in 1891 – 92, 1921 – 22, 1941 – 45 and 1946 – 47—although this was proposed by the Ukrainian President Petrovsky in February 1932. This is fully accepted by Davies and Wheatcroft, who write that Stalin ‘committed a crime of omission’, and that ‘Stalin made no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad’ (Davies & Wheatcroft 2006, p. 628). In terms of national criminal law, in most jurisdictions, this crime of omission would be classified as culpable homicide in the Canadian sense or its local equivalent.

"In addition, Stalin caused deaths by acts of commission. He was the person who initiated the adoption of the notorious decree of 7 August 1932. He was the person who initiated actual and planned mass deportations (see above). In 1932 – 33 Stalin exported grain (though, as Davies and Wheatcroft correctly point out, much less than the originally planned amount). In addition, numerous deportees and camp and prison inmates—victims of a major Stalinist policy—died in 1932 – 33. Moreover Stalin prevented peasants fleeing from famine-stricken Ukraine and North Caucasus to less badly affected areas. Many will have died as a result.

"Expressed in terms of national criminal law, the debate is between those who consider Stalin guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter, and those who consider him guilty of (mass) murder. The difference turns on the issue of intent and Davies and Wheatcroft have a very narrow understanding of intent. According to them, only taking an action whose sole objective is to cause deaths among the peasantry counts as intent. Taking an action with some other goal (e.g. exporting grain to import machinery) but which the actor certainly knows will also cause peasants to starve does not count as intentionally starving the peasants. However, this is an interpretation of ‘intent’ which flies in the face of the general legal interpretation." (page 680)

Was Team-Stalin also guilty of genocide? That depends on how ‘genocide’ is defined. (page 681)

Apparently we were both wrong about what your quote from Ellman implied. And Ellman's reading of the famine is entirely consistant with Valentino's, who says in Final Solutions:

"Indeed, famine was one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Famines took the lives of perhaps seven million people in the Soviet Union, thirty million in China, and at least seven hundred thousand in Cambodia. Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state." (page 93)

Wheatcroft, too, is apparently part of a consensus which holds that the regime was culpable for deaths by acts of omission (see underlined portion above) and so the debate is one of degree, not of kind.

In your extended quote from Hiroaki Kuromiya's book review of The Black Book of Communism, I think you emphasize the wrong point. Here is what I would underline:

"The famine, for example, took more than six million lives (as Werth notes 159). The brutal agricultural policy and the callousness of the Stalin regime were responsible at least in part for this calamity. Indeed the government, in cold-blooded indifference to life, let the peasants die in order to save the cities. Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recalcitrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine."

I seems clear that the consensus on the famine is not as you have presented it. As for your point about inflammatory language, excessively mild and euphemistic language can also be a sign of bias. But I don't think there is any reliable way for us to fairly filter sources for this article based upon our interpretation of bias in their language. Their inclusion or exclusion must be made on the basis of Wikipedia policy to the extent that is compatible with common sense. Valentino and Rummel both qualify. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I think you emphasize the wrong point" If the question is only in placement of emphases, I am not sure how can we resolve a dispute.

Re: "But I don't think there is any reliable way for us to fairly filter sources for this article" The way is quite simple: to take undisputable cases of mass killings (Great Pugre, Cultural Revolution, Cambodia, and some others) and discuss them first. I believe, everyone will agree that these events were designed and implemented as mass killings (or even mass murders). Then present views of Valentino, Rummel, Conquest and some other writers pointing out that there is no consensus among scholars whether famines' and deportations' mortality was a desired, expectable or just acceptable outcome of the authorities' actions.

PS. You probably misunderstood me. I do not propose to completely remove Valentino's works from the article. My major point is that the article's structure cannot be based on the works of a couple of scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like we don't disagree on much at all, then. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to list all mayor authors and their views who don't think that the famines had anything to do with intentionally killing millions of people by the communist regimes in the Soviet Union and China. On the other hand, ignoring that this is the case, the famines have been considered intentional killing tool by those regimes by many authors, such a fact can't be simply ignored in the article about the current subject.--Termer (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since man-made famines (like Ireland famine) and deportations are not considered mass killings as a rule, and since famines under Communist regimes also are not considered as mass killing by many authors, it would be better to list all major authors who do think that the famines had anything to do with intentional mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the sources implies that those that believe the famines were intentionally made worse outnumber those that believe the famines where natural. The main argument seems to be the degree of the intent. --Martin (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree very strongly with two points above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have just blocked one user for long term edit warring over this article. I notice that several users, whether or not they have broken 3RR, have also been engaging in such disruptive behavior. I shall be watchlisting this article, and issuing blocks to any user who insists on repeatedly inserting contentious changes without talk page consensus. Let's try to resolve the issues here calmly if we can. NW (Talk) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not sanction anyone for contentiously removing sourced material? --Martin (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one else had been edit warring like that user had. I was most concerned about the fact that the material had been removed by several other editors and the the user readding the material had not attempted to engage in talk page discussion. NW (Talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed who exactly has been the leading editwarrior here, there have been simply too many to keep track of. The removals/readdings of sourced materials from this article however has been actively discussed above, without a clear answer so far why exactly this or that needs to be deleted from the article. It is my opinion that as the result of those massive blankings and constant edit warring the article keeps making less and less sense and has become unreadable like mentioned below.--Termer (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, this article is completely unreadable. It jumps around incoherently from place to place with no attempt to show the reader where it is going other than the section headings. I would jump in and edit, but I really don't want to get involved in an article where there's so much in the way of warring going on. All I can suggest is that someone take a good close look at the structure, provided this is a subject that can exist as a decent stand-alone article - which I have to say I doubt. Brilliantine (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of edit by committee (designing the horse - resulting in a camel). It is, alas, a failing of almost every controversial topic on WP. There is, in fact, lots of data available on this topic, but the way WP operates, it is quite difficult to place it in a readable format. By the way, even non-controversial articles can get this way. Collect (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem are the abundant attempts to synthesize original research. csloat (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the style problems are from SYN. Nor is there any significant OR in the current article -- just problematic writing. Collect (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second csloat. This article is a perfect example of synthesis by collation of unrelated subjects without reference to appropriate RS for such a collation. Appropriate academic sources for non-tautological commonalities in incidents of democide-genocide-mass killing are currently insufficient, debated, and under exploration by editors. The article's quality has been improving since the AFD which caused a return to appropriate secondary RS that discuss commonalities. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of focusing on the problems, let's try to elaborate a reasonable article's structure. Does anybody have any idea on that account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Brilliantine could offer some ideas for structure here, providing a fresh set of eyes. --Martin (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit too tired to suggest anything very useful right now, but I will bring my eyes back here sometime in the next couple of days to see if there's anthing at least vaguely helpful that I can think of. Brilliantine (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one suggestion -- try listing the nature of each listed event as to cause and predictibility of result (intent). Then see if the causes are connected to governmental decisions in any way. And thus progress through a flow chart to see similarities and dissimilarities as viewed by the sources given. Collect (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with "unreadable". I've actually gave up editing the article about coupler of moths ago when after attempting to sort things out every time returning to it the article had turned more or less into a nonsense. As it is now, the article is not in a better shape much. But I'm glad that there are some new names around here who hopefully can take their time and help to sort it out.--Termer (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link to the site Global Museum on Communism with the notation "Remove link to pseudo-history site". However User:Smallbones re-inserted it with the notation: "Undid revision 331870463 by The Four Deuces (talk) Please watch what you are doing - pretty close to vandalism". Mr. Smallbones, could you please assume good faith. Pseudohistory is defined as:

That the work has a political, religious or other ideological agenda. That a work is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed. That the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is: speculative; or controversial; or not correctly or adequately sourced; or interpreted in an unjustifiable way; or given undue weight; or taken out of context; or distorted, either innocently, accidentally, or fraudulently. That competing (and simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer reviewed and have been adequately sourced, have not been addressed. That the work relies on one or more conspiracy theories or hidden-hand explanations, when the principle of Occam's razor would recommend a simpler, more prosaic and more plausible explanation of the same fact pattern.

That is not vandalism, merely taking out garbage. You may find it helpful in understanding the world to rely on intelligent sources, rather than biased conspiracy theory websites.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your diff [31]. Maybe you don't notice anything different from your normal editing style - but a lot of editors would look at this and say "vandalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making judgements based, apparently, on personal opinion. External links are neither endorsements nor condemnations of the links - they exist to help readers get more information. As such, the presumption is that they belong. As for asserting that any editor has put in "garbage", I would suggest a large dose of AGF. Collect (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is, by the way, the first instance I have seen an external link section listed as having the contents of the list be tagged as "neutrality disputed." Why not add links you feel would balance it -- that is the usual course. Though how one rates neutrality of a list of links is mind-boggling, indeed. Collect (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The better reason to remove the "Global Museum on Communism" is that it purports to be a museum but isn't. I've been down the road with this website a number of times. They lack a curator, a curatorial policy. Their named exhibits don't meet the standards of curatorial excellence expected even of local or limited collection museums (and I have seen web museums that do meet standards). Additionally, the quality of scholarship separate to the unreliability issue is not up to scratch. Maybe if the foundation supporting it bothers to hire an appropriate information professional, like a curator, the museum can be worthwhile. As it stands, this is like linking to a forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the AfD on it. Opinions expressed there do not influence utility of an EL for this article. Collect (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit-war, I have tagged the section for lack of neutrality. But the inclusion of this link is an insult to my intelligence and to that of the readers. The link goes to a site supported by the National Review and the Moonies. I am reminded of what Kierkegaard said: "How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech." The Four Deuces (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided 1, 2, 4, possibly 12. 1 is the greatest reason not to link. 2 is an independent reason not to link, and opinions expressed at the AFD which go to the "use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" (reason 2) by the link are relevant here. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a big fan of 'external links' sections on Wikipeida in general so removal of this doesn't bother me much. And I only can see the relevance of this site to this article if it was used as a source of reference for in-text citations.--Termer (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the controversial nature of this article, and the presence of an appropriate academic discourse in genocide studies which ought to cover the topic of this article, citations should be from academic equivalent sources. Citations from an appropriately curated museum would meet this definition. Global Museum on Communism fails this standard for two reasons: 1) It isn't curated; 2) Its published by an organisation with a political purpose; and, the appropriate academic community would not countenance the quality of the organisation's publication. This is why Transaction press may be in or out depending on a particular work's reviews and/or reviews of the press in general. Its also why we look twice at journals associated very strongly with any kind of political movement, for example, New Left Review is probably safe, International Socialism: a quarterly journal of socialist theory may have okay articles but I would want to check the articles as closely as I'd check a Transaction press object, but the internal journal of the Democratic Socialist Perspective in Australia is way out for exactly the same reasons as GMOC. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The normal rules of WP:V and reliable sources apply here as with any article - please do not make up special rules as you go along. If you can't contribute anything positive to the article, please just stay away. Smallbones (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:V "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Based on that, I conclude that Fifelfoo's statement is in full accordance with WP:V. Let me also add my two cents. Taking into account the vast amount of sources on the subject we can afford a luxury to limit ourselves with only really reliable sources here. If someone really wants to contribute into this article he will be quite able to go to local library to find good sources supporting his edits. And, finally, I believe, the best way to resolve the dispute is to go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May wish to check out WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which governs the use of sources both in Military History and the general History project, as sage advice on standards of reliability of sources in relation to verifiability of sources in the field of History. Termer's point below is more interesting. (forgot sig, going blind. This was by the way a reply to Paul done after Termer had already written the below, so Termer was replying to my first comment above, rather than this comment) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Fifelfoo The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. regarding your opinion about the website than I'm missing something here. I clicked through the articles available there and so far the list of names seems quite impressive Venelin I. Ganev PhD., Ray Walser, Ph.D. Richard Pipes, Andres Kasekamp, PhD ; Mark Kramer director of Cold war studies in the Harvard University, Paul Hollander professor emeritus of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts, an associate of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, Warren W. Smith PhD etc. So what exactly is the political agenda those people have in your opinion and what would be "the appropriate academic community" who "would not countenance the quality of those publications" exactly?--Termer (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still lacks a curator. We've discussed the quality of PIpes above in relation to Soviet History and the expected standards of historiography today. Could you expand and indicate if these individuals were article authors, or merely members of a board of directors, or people who sent well wishes. The correct argument from authority here isn't substantive academic appointment, or possession of a PhD by the way, but relevant publications in the field. The political agenda of the foundation supporting the GMOC is rather transparent. The correct field of review for the GMOC would be Soviet and Post Soviet Studies from the social sciences, Chinese Studies, Soviet History, and Chinese History, along with a variety of other subspecialisations like Vietnamese studies and history. I strongly doubt that the methodology of the GMOC (as an uncurated museum, to press a particular interpretation at odds with contemporary research, acting as a voice of the funding foundation who's views are unrepresentative of the disciplinary conduct) would not be approved of by the Wilson cold war studies group, or the IRH56, or represent anything approaching the analytical or narrative perspective from south east asian studies. They are, like Courtois, engaged in a 19th century Whig history project. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found absolutely no discussion on WP about "lacking a curator" as being relevant to anything at all. You appear here to be acting on what you "know" and not on using WP policies and guidelines normally applied. Collect (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, then in a strict sense of MILMOS#SOURCES, no, it has no entry into what should be in a history article if academic sources are available, which they are. Also under External Links, as any content available through the museum should be in the article if it were to be a featured article, then under external links, then in a strict sense of policy, no it shouldn't be there. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:EL "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to reliable sources supporting article content." This link qualifies in that category. If you wish to assert that the site is "false" in some way, please file a report at WP:EL/N. Where you will be told to add an external link you like, subject to the same report mechanism. There is, in short, a place for you to assert things, and that place is there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted to the noticeboard. But I do not see how the link is consistent with WP policy. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands websites about communism and thousands memoirs. Wikipedia is not web directory. The article needs links to pages where people may eadily find information on a subject. Links to home pages of organizations are not helpful. In this case it is an undue promotion of a fresh new nonnnotable organization. If it were notable, it would have had a wikiedia articel, linked in "See also" section. Timurite (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, in case this makes it notable in your opinion Timurite, FYI the organization has an article on wikipedia and the web site is linked in "See also" section.--Termer (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

he museum does not in fact have its own Wikipedia article. However, even if it did, it still lacks notability. But the main reason not to include it is its bias. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the following new entry to the article: "Mass killing or mass murder is defined as the indiscriminate murder of any person or people by a government." Since the article is about communist mass killings sources should be about them and not mass killings in general. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, a validity of Rummel's scientific approach has been questioned (see the quotes above). Moreover, some real mass killings do not fit this definition. For instance, Great Purge was largely discriminate (was directed against some concretepersons). As Wheathcroft pointed out, there was a deep difference between Hitler's mass murders (that were indiscriminate and not documented) and Stalin's purges (that had a visibility of legality and were carefully documented).
Note, I do not question the fact that Great Purge was a mass killing. My point is that the Rummel's definition is not appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case anything has been questioned as evident by a WP:RS, this fact should be added to the article instead of removing any alternative or conflicting viewpoints. The communist regimes that the article looks at were very much also about censoring free thought, please do not bring similar approach to solve content disputes to Wikipedia. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't propose to remove Rummel completely. However, to take his definition as a base would be also incorrect. BTW, one more weakness of the proposed definition is that it implies that mass killings can be attributed to governments only. I believe, you agree that it is nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we use Rummel in the article we should limit ourselves to his peer-reviewed articles or at least books published by the academic press. A lot of academics like Rummel write polemical books that go well beyond what academic rigor would allow. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:''...that mass killings can be attributed to governments only. I believe, you agree that it is nonsense". My believes are irrelevant, my job here like yours is only to provide the reader of Wikipedia with all possible viewpoints as evident by secondary sources published on the subject. --Termer (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• "Yes," she said, "how much longer are you going to keep shooting people and sending people to Siberia?" According to Lord Astor, Stalin merely smiled and said,"As long as it's in the interests of the state."[32]

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

“Oh, Lady Astor,’ replied Stalin, looking directly at her. “The undesirable classes do not kill themselves.”‘[33] (Vidal)

• "When are you going to stop killing people?" asked the impertinent Lady Astor. "When it is no longer necessary," answered Comrade Stalin.[34] (Time)

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

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

(ec) Not apocryphal. Time Magazine (Stalin was "Man of the Year in its Jan 1 1939 issue) [35] is RS, and fairly contemporaneous to the event. The "undesirable classes" anecdote comes via novelist Gore Vidal, and is quite likely inaccurate. The version from Lady Astor otherwise conforms to the Time version. As does [36] Modern times: the world from the twenties to the nineties By Paul Johnson. As does [37] Russia's iron age By William Henry Chamberlin. Three reliable sources for the story. And apparently G. B. Shaw said that Astor was the only person in the world who could be bossy with Stalin, making the story quite believable. GBS' view [38] is quite horrifying indeed. "In Russia, on the other hand, extermination was carried out on a scientific and humane basis." Well worth having that in the article as well. Collect (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Time etc. Consistent. Three reliable sources. The one really odd one is by a novelist, who might well have used poetic license, but all the others agree. Well publicized during her lifetime. Ascribed [39] in 1936 (Shaw's birthday was in 1931). [40] in 1943. [41] Ideologies and illusions: revolutionary thought from Herzen to Solzhenitsyn By Adam Bruno Ulam. [42] Excel HSC modern history By Ronald E. Ringer. [43] Death by government By R. Rummel. [44] Dictionary of politics: selected American and foreign political and legal terms By Walter John Raymond. All meeting WP:RS, and I can add a few dozen more. Stalin was a bit despicable. Collect (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collect, what does the 1936 Farm Journal say about the 1931 Stalin-Astor meeting? All I can find is a bad review of The Murder of Dr. Harrigan, starring Mary Astor.[45] Here is a link to the movie's article on IMDB. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

"When it is no longer necessary," Stalin replied. "Soon, I hope."[46]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalin: "Soon, I hope."

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

Vecrumba, the Revelations from the Russian Archives (1993) account appears to be just another version of the story, drawn on earlier accounts.[47] It does not appear based on revelations from the Russian archives. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These two sentences contradict each other. The first one states that

"The Bolshevik policy of decossackization was the first example of Soviet leaders deciding to "eliminate, exterminate, and deport the population of a whole territory."[16] "

whereas the second sentence quotes the order that requests " to "carry out mass terror against wealthy Cossacks, exterminating all of them; carry out merciless mass terror against any and all Cossacks taking part in any way, directly or indirectly, in the struggle against Soviet power." "

In other words, the first sentence can be true only if (i) all Cossacks were wealthy, or (ii) all Cossacks took part in anti-Soviet struggle. Taking into account that significant part of Cossacks served in the Red Army, and some Cossacks didn't support any side, the first sentence is false.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, again, we're not here to analyze anything or find out what is the truth vs. false. In case sources contradict each other, no problem. Any of those statements should simply need to say according to whom this is so and the reader can decide and analyze. Our job here is to spell it out clearly who says so and what has been said and in case there are any conflicting perspectives on what's been said, spell it out as well. And those are the only problems I can see with those sections cited above.--Termer (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We have to analyze the article's text to avoid logical inconsistencies. If two mutually contradicting POV exists and we must present both of them, the text should reflect this contradiction explicitly, but it cannot be self-contradictory per se. Otherwise, it is not a neutrality but idiocy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any contradictions in the current text really, the Cossack regions were considerably wealthier ("wealthy Cossacks") than the rest of the country and became the centers for the Anti-Bolshevik White movement during the Russian civil war. All this doesn't mean that all Cossacks were very rich or every single Cossack fought in the white army like you seem to understand the text. but in case what it says can be understood ambiguously, surely things should be clarified.--Termer (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem with using unreliable sources in articles. The first statement is from a section of the Black Book written by Nicolas Werth, a French revisionist historian, who ironically challenged the scholarship and conclusions of the Black Book. The second quote is from a book by Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev published by Yale University Press and therefore more likely to be accurate. Termer, the reference to "the population of a whole territory" means that every single person was either killed or deported, regardless of wealth, nationality or political views. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "and became the centers for the Anti-Bolshevik White movement during the Russian civil war" Agree. In connection to that, the fact that decossackisation is mentioned not in a context of Civil war (White Cossacks were one of Civil war's parties) is a serious omission.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we define mass killings as killings of non-combatants, this sentence has to be removed from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mass killing of combatants then proper? Seems to me that any organized killings - even of former combatants - would be covered. Suppose the US has massacred fifty thousand Confederate soldiers after the Civil War. I suggest that they would, indeed, be "mass killings." Collect (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is needed to specify that they weren't combatants (e.g. innocent civilians or former insurgents).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, yes. In some cases, though, I suspect the "victors" would count everyone illed as an "insurgent." This is one perpetual problem with any bodycount exercise. If sources do make a differentiation, then such differentiation ought to be presented in the article. Collect (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I suspect the "victors" would count everyone illed as an "insurgent."" Sure. My point is that whereas after a revolt there is no insurgent (just former insurgents), during a revolt insurgents are the conflict's party, so those insurgents who didn't surrender cannot be considered victims of mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. So if the US killed 10,000 Confederate soldiers who had not surrendered, but were wending their ways home, that would not be a "mass killing" by that definition? As I said, interesting. Collect (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Paul, you are going down an unwise and highly POV'ed personal synthesis of what nuances define or not "mass" killing. Certainly, if there is some sort of revolt and there is an act of punishment or retribution which involved killing numerous individuals—regardless of the role they played in a revolt, uniformed or not, whether they surrendered or were hunted down in the woods and slaughtered—then they are all victims of mass killing.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Insurgency does not require a specific revolt. If a revolt is staged and fails, nor does that mean insurgency ceases.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

punishment or retribution is applicable only to former insurgents (to those who surrendered during and after a revolt). In that sense, I completely agree. However, the statement does not discriminate this category from current active participants of revolts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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

That's not the case of course that "One political scientist is the current list on comparatives" according to Fifelfoo. Just that different authors use different terms for the subject. for comparatives there is "Nationalist versus Communist Democide" [48] by Rudolph J. Rummel.

Genocide: a sociological perspective By Helen Fein has a chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide. etc. Some authors call it Communist politicide like Manus I. Midlarsky in The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century [49]. And last but not least the whole subject has been referred to simply as communist crimes against humanity. Currently however the article title has been chosen after Valentino [50]--Termer (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

That's exactly what I've been talking about, instead of editors exchanging opinions on this talk page, in order to maintain WP:NPOV we need sources that have conflicting perspectives on the subject. And another problem is that existing sources keep disappearing from the article. Also, please consider catching up with previous discussions. A good place to start would be the 3 AfD-s [51], [52], [53].--Termer (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(avoiding "mass killings")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only 9 papers for communist mass killings on Google Scholar.

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

Communist democide 8 papers.

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

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

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

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

Suggested lede something along these lines:

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

DHooke1973 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

there is only this:

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

and

Communist genocide is an accepted fact by most post-communist Eastern European governments. And there are instances of charges of communist genocide as in the case of Arnold Meri. Estonian charged with Communist genocide. [5] Several countries have laws which explicitly make it illegal to deny communist genocide. It proves communist genocide is an accepted fact by many governments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, here is evidence that the topic is controversial-

From Black Book of Communism page:

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

prone to mere provocation.[18]

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

judgement hardly depends on the number of victims.[19]

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

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

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

a methodological flaw.[20]

From article on Democide

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

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

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

(Rummmel is the ref for the article)

From this article:

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

of large numbers of noncombatants."

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

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

the genocide convention.[111](p557) According to Weiss-Wendt, Lemkin's hobby-horse was the international

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

advance his objective.[111](p555-6)

...Lemkin's broad application of his term in political lobbying degraded its usefulness, "Like King Midas, whatever Lemkin :::touched turned into “genocide.” But when everything is genocide nothing is genocide!" states Weiss-Wendt.[111]

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

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

Also [110] -Grant, Robert (Nov., 1999). "Review: The Lost Literature of Socialism". The Review of English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(famines etc) that I can see.

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

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

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

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

consensus.

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

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

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

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

How is this for a draft:

lede draft (dec 21)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need an RS according to what policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said, WP:Weight is unambiguous:

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

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

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

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

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

Please, familiarize yourself with previous talk page posts (e.g. [54]) For instance, one of sources mentioned there states (with regards to 1932-33 Soviet famine):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re majority:

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

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

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

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

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

executions.

I will add

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

Political Psychology Vol 21,No.2, 2000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

From Reliable sources policy

"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.^[1] Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

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

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.^[2] Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

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

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

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

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

Something that might interest those who have been after theoretical questions concerning the subject: [56] Accounting for genocide after 1945: Theories and some findings by Helen Fein, Institute for the Study of Genocide, New York, U.S.A: -"...as expected, unfree, authoritarian and one party communist states are most likely to use genocide...One-party communist states are 4.5 times more likely to have used genocide than are authoritarian states."--Termer (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[57]] Wikipedia:TERTIARY. Apologise please. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable source examples quoted above contains following caution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eh? Samuel Totten is a genocide scholar, Professor of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville[1], a Member of the Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem. In 2005 he became one of the chief co-editors of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, the official journal of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS).[2] rather seems to indicate specific credentials on the topic. So much for trying the physics analogy. It is more like saying a physicist who works as an educator ceases being a physicist, even if he were head of the American Ohysical Society <g>. He has proper credentials for the work in question. And I do suggest being a co-editor on a scholarly journal counts a bit. Collect (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Totten. [58] "Totten has been active in investigating the genocide in Darfur. In the summer of 2004, he was among 24 investigators asked to interview black African refugees along the Chad/Sudan border for the U.S. State Department's Atrocities Documentation Project." Clearly regarded as expert by the DoS. Collect (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps it does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE Fifelfoo on that one :[59]. I'd appreciate if you could stop commenting on contributors and limit your comments on content only. Other than that. Unfortunately pasting the entire work here for your convenience would be a violation of WP:Copyvio. Please feel free to acquire the work from you nearest library and quote whatever you please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Apology accepted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts? For sources and previous discussion see subsection above.

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

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

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

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

DHooke1973 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

There rarely is a general consensus on anything really. And why this case should be any different. In case these terms are vague, no problem again, our job here is to write articles so that all possible viewpoints are covered. In case serious scholars do not "play in these games", why does the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Helen Fein claim that "most genocide scholars have acknowledged the greater likelihood of communist states than other authoritarian states to commit genocide since 1945" [60]?--Termer (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think genocide scholars are the only scholars who work in this area? With regards to Fein, please, familiarize yourself with this tabe [61]. Starting from 1955, more genocides and politicides were committed by non-Communist regimes than by Communist ones. Interestingly, genocides against Communists (Indonesia, Vientam) amounted up to 1.5 million.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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