Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''Oppose''' - to change it to totalitarian would then require the inclusion of a litany of other regimes which have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, or any other attempt towards communism. --] (]) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - to change it to totalitarian would then require the inclusion of a litany of other regimes which have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, or any other attempt towards communism. --] (]) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
== Main topic and primary sources ==
I took a break from this and I would have hoped that {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|BeŻet}}, {{u|Buidhe}}, {{u|C.J. Griffin}}, {{u|The Four Deuces}}, {{u|Paul Siebert}}, {{u|Rick Norwood}}, and others (I also call on other users like {{u|GreenC}}, {{u|Mathglot}}, and {{u|MjolnirPants}} for further input and a source analysis to avoid any original research and synthesis violations) would have kept discussing and finding a consensus on the main topic; this was not the case and the template was . The article's main topic is still unclear; is it about the events, which are variously described as ''mass killings''? Problem is scholars actually disagree on this and attempts to propose a common terminology (until recently, it was stated as fact that there was one) have repeatedly failed, and the current article's name is problematic because it presupposes there is consensus. Is it about an alleged link between communism and genocide/mass killing? Then the article should be changed to ] or ] (other, more precise titles may include use of ''Communist states'' over ''Communism''). This would be better but would still require a restructuring to make it more about scholarly analysis and less repeating the events themselves. Is it about Communist death toll? The title should be changed to ], ], or ]. It would, and it should, still require a restructuring.{{refn|{{tq|As an example, rather than writing "'''There were many mass killings under communist regimes of the 20th century. Death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them'''", which seem to imply the title should actually be Communist death tolls, we would be writing something like "'''Some authors posit that there is a link between communism, as exemplified by 20th-century Communist states, and genocide/mass killing. ... .'''"}}|group=nb}}
So '''what are primary sources in this case? They are certainly not the Communist state themselves but rather the authors who may propose the topic'''. Problem is that in this sense most sources are primary sources, and follows "he said, she said", in light of attributing minority views, especially about the Proposed causes section. But we should not be citing Conquest about what Conquest wrote, or Rummel about what Rummel wrote (in this sense, they are primary sources); we need to find and cite secondary sources, and not just any secondary source, but reliable secondary sources that clearly refer to the main topic. If one is quoting Conquest about Stalinism or the Stalinism era, it is not enough; it needs to be about excess deaths or mass killings in the broad context of Communist states. Problem is, very few, if any at all, do that. They do not discuss ''all'' Communist states as we do. If we cannot find such secondary sources to establish weight (e.g. Hicks and Watson, who are neither experts of genocide or historians of Communism), they are undue.
I understand that this can be a pain in the ass because one actually has to do research, read all the relevant books on the topic, distinguish between majority and minority, read reviews and secondary sources about them to establish what they actually say rather than our own POV and due weight. We are all guilty of boldly adding primary sources in that sense, but it is fine so that someone else who has more time and resources can do that for us and replace content with secondary sources. But our policies and guidelines are clear; we should report what secondary sources say about Conquest ''et al.'' when we are citing what they say and their views. This article even misrepresents scholars from the "orthodox" or "anti-communist" historiography POV, as Conquest does not support this alleged link and he mainly studied Stalin's Soviet Union. Even ''The Black Book of Communism'', if one actually reads the review rather than make their own analysis, find that it does not support this topic (at best, only the intro does, and it is controversial and "historically revisionist" in equating Communism and Nazism); ''The Black Book of Communism'' is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." (Andrzej Paczkowski) For the umpteenth time, Valentino does not support ] but ], which is a different thing, and clearly says that "Communism has a bloody record, '''but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing'''." (Valentino is an original research and synthesis violation, and contradicts the whole lead) Rummel is about ] governments in general and ], another topic.
If we follow this, you will see that, once the main topic is established, very few reliable, academic secondary sources are to be found that link all Communist states together as we do ("Mass killings under '''Communist regimes'''"). What we do have are actually secondary academic sources that supports the fact this article is original research and synthesis. Per Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, discussion of the number of victims of Communism, an more appropriate topic (except it is not a mainstream view among scholars and it is mainly associated with the European Union and Eastern European double genocide theory, and this would be clarified in the lead) has been "extremely extensive and '''ideologically biased'''." Per Anton Weiss-Wendt, "here is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles '''such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe'''." Yet we are acting like there is consensus on this and selctively, cherry pick those who seem to support it and misrepresent others. So why do we base a whole article on this? Where we use any source that use any of that terminology to mean the same thing, as if they support this article? See criticism of "the idea to connect the deaths with some 'generic Communism' concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals", "hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss", and the "alleged connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" (to paraphrase).
Those are not my opinions but of genocide scholars and historians of Communism, which are the only ones we should be using for this article. Problem is '''there is no consensus not only among them outside but even among them themselves in their respective fields'''. Those who disagree should actually engage us rather than dismiss and perpetuate their echo-chamber.{{refn|This may well be caused by our own biases, including geographical ones and political (such as the ] and the ]), as reflected by memory studies and experts (, , , ''et al.''), and this should be taken seriously and not dismissed.|group=nb}} '''TLDR''', after reaching consensus on the main topic (if there is not a clear consensus on it, what are we even talking about and have this article for?), can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? Are there any academic ''Communist Genocide'' or ''Communist Mass Killings'' books, rather than just chapter about selective events under Communist regimes (which are then originally researched and synthesized to lump them all together as we still do)?
{{reflist|group=nb}}
P.S. If ] and Mass killings under communist regimes are two separated main topics supported by reliable academic secondary sources and do not violate any of our policies and guidelines, they should be first mentioned or discussed at either ], ], and ]. They are not, because they are likely content forks and do not warrant two separate main articles, and books about them do not discuss them all together as we do, implying a sort of link or common denominator, but only and (this is also why we do not have, and should not have, articles about genocide and mass killings under capitalist, Christians, fascist, Muslim, etc. regimes. All those can and must be discussed in the relevant articles (Genocide, ], and the like), not create more than one POV fork article to imply a sort of link which is not supported by reliable sources or scholarly consensus. See also my still current , which has never been really refuted or properly analyzed. ] (]) 03:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Eastern Europe case, reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
view·edit Frequently asked questions
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
General Concerns and Questions
Q1: Why does this article exist?
A1: This article exists because so far there has been no consensus to delete it. The latest AfD (2021) said that the Misplaced Pages editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. Six discussions to delete this article have been held, none of them resulting in a deletion:
Q2: Why isn't there also an article for "Mass killings under _________ regimes"? Isn't this title biased?
A2: Each article must stand on its own merits, as justified by its sources. The existence (or not) of some other similar article does not determine the existence of this one, and vice versa. Having said that, there are other articles such as Anti-communist mass killings and Genocide of indigenous peoples which also exist. This article has a descriptive title arrived at by consensus in November 2009.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a sub-page has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Excess deaths and improved life expectancy in China and India
I was sent here when I noticed the subject "Excess deaths under Communist regimes" in the index (I was actually originally looking for excess deaths from Covid19). I was hoping there might be some scholarly clarification of a problem I noticed decades ago. A brief look at some data decades ago suggested, perhaps incorrectly, that life expectancy under Chinese Communism seemed to have improved faster than in neighbouring democratic India (and this seemed to start well before the economic boom in what should probably no longer be called Communist China, since it seems basically now an undemocratic but capitalist system (but let's not digress into that)). It occurred to me that this might mean (rather embarrassingly for a democrat and anti-Communist like me, as well as somebody who is vaguely interested in the question of whether the worst human ever was Mao or Hitler) that Chinese Communism on balance possibly actually saved lives if the improved life expectancy (presumably due to things like better access to education and healthcare and other forms of social welfare) more than offset the horrors of mass killings like those under The Great Leap Forward, at least in a purely statistical sense, something for which reliable scholarship would obviously be needed. Unfortunately there seems to be nothing about this here, not even as a caveat in the "estimates" section. It seems to me that the article would be improved if reliable sources could be found at least to supply such a caveat in that Estimates section. But I am not sufficiently interested to look for such sources myself, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY (after all, in this case I was hoping Misplaced Pages would supply info to me rather than the other way round). But if some other more interested editor could find and include such a reliably sourced caveat (if it exists), I think that might well improve the article, if only by making it seem (at least to me) less like one-sided propaganda (which is not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to look like, even if unfortunately in practice it can't always easily avoid this). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding any sentences to the article that directly relate to its topic and are verifiably sourced to something that meets or exceeds the minimum criteria for a reliable source are fine by me. I am not aware of a source for this particular point, but I have not been looking for it either. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Source of Mao Quote on Destroying Peasants
In the section "Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries" it states that Mao discussed potentially destroying 1/10th of all peasants in official study materials. I was unable to find an english language copy of these documents and the Goldhagen source refers to Rummel's "China's Bloody Century" (which I'm having dificulty getting access to).
Thank you for the tip. I was able to get a relatively clear line of sources through. It seems like its is based on this quote from the 1958 Wuchang conference:
"In this kind of situation, I think if we do half of China's population unquestionably will die; and if it's not a half, it'll be a third or ten percent, a death toll of 50 million people... If with a death toll of 50 million, you didn't lose your jobs, I at least should lose mine; head would be open to question. Anhui wants to do so many things, it's quite all right to do a lot, but make it a principle to have no deaths."- from The Secret Speeches of Mao.
This seems to imply something completely different from the article, which seems to say that Mao was intending (or at least willing) to kill 1/10th of peasants Bouncyknight (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by "relatively clear line of sources through"? Are you saying "relatively" because you do not know the actual source cited by Rummel but you think you identified the source independently? Isn't the Rummel source from "official 1948 study materials", rather than a 1958 conference? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
RfC: Change "communist" to "totalitarian" in title?
Support: A good argument can be made that some/most/all of the regimes discussed in this article were totalitarian rather than communist. If some believe communism is synonymous with totalitarianism, they should have no objection to this proposed change. By contrast, others might argue communism and totalitarianism are not necessarily synonymous, or are even diametrical opposites, though the regimes were indisputably totalitarian, as they had omnipotent central governments whereas Marxism called for elimination of central government, notwithstanding how 20th century totalitarians may have misappropriated what Marx actually wrote in 1848 and branded themselves "communists." soibangla (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. The regimes were all generally known as "Communist". If we want a separate article about "Mass killings under totalitarian regimes", it could include Nazi Germany too, and that would be fine. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Support. This is plainly a descriptive title and not a common name (since no one descriptor directly unites all the diverse underlying viewpoints covered here), and as such WP:NDESC applies. Totalitarianism is a more precise and neutral summary in that respect, and is broadly a more useful main topic, since most of the academic discourse on the subject focuses on totalitarianism as the unifying factor. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Brought here by the bot . This seems like an unnecessarily narrow article, however, based on the content of the article -- a list of peoples republics -- the current name is most appropriate per WP:NDESC. Renaming it "totalitarian" uses Misplaced Pages's voice to indict or castigate the governments of the states listed. "Totalitarian" is a loaded term that is implicitly negative, while "communist" is a descriptive term that is not values-laden. The fact that its use may be imperfect in this case would be better addressed through careful wording in the lead rather than retitling. Chetsford (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose It would make the article to broad. Right now the current title fits the content very well and is by far the most WP:COMMONNAME. If we expand it to totalitarian we would also have to include other groups such as Nazi's or Italian regime during WW2, plus a multitude of others. Which would start to get a little out of hand in scope and fail WP:NDESC. PackMecEng (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose Sure, the regimes might not be "true" communists, but are commonly described as such. While totalitarianism was what ultimately made most or all of these killings possible, it is seen by most academics in the Proposed Causes section as mediating variable between communism and mass killings. 15 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: As the effect of the proposed renaming would be to completely change the content/scope of the article, which has survived numerous previous attempts at deletion based on arguments very similar to those presented by the supporters above. (As an aside, the suggestion that "totalitarianism" is a more narrow or better-understood concept, in the academic literature or otherwise, than 20th-century self-described communist regimes is laughable.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: There's overlap between communism & totalitarianism but they are not synonymous. The ideology section specifically and exclusively talks about communism and its variants. Likewise, the entire 'States where mass killings have occurred' section includes only communist regimes. There's a reason why totalitarian regimes like Italy under Mussolini or Haiti under Duvalier are not mentioned at all in this article (i.e., they weren't communist). COMMONNAME applies, but so does WP:PRECISION. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the arguments above that changing the title would result in changing the scope of the article. 07:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) TOAThe owner of all ☑️
Oppose Communism and Totalitarianism are not synonymous, the regimes are mostly referred to as Communist. Sea Ane (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - to change it to totalitarian would then require the inclusion of a litany of other regimes which have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, or any other attempt towards communism. --Cdjp1 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Main topic and primary sources
I took a break from this and I would have hoped that Aquillion, BeŻet, Buidhe, C.J. Griffin, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert, Rick Norwood, and others (I also call on other users like GreenC, Mathglot, and MjolnirPants for further input and a source analysis to avoid any original research and synthesis violations) would have kept discussing and finding a consensus on the main topic; this was not the case and the template was removed. The article's main topic is still unclear; is it about the events, which are variously described as mass killings? Problem is scholars actually disagree on this and attempts to propose a common terminology (until recently, it was stated as fact that there was one) have repeatedly failed, and the current article's name is problematic because it presupposes there is consensus. Is it about an alleged link between communism and genocide/mass killing? Then the article should be changed to Communism and genocide or Communism and mass killing (other, more precise titles may include use of Communist states over Communism). This would be better but would still require a restructuring to make it more about scholarly analysis and less repeating the events themselves. Is it about Communist death toll? The title should be changed to Communism death toll, Death toll under Communist states, or Excess deaths under Communist states. It would, and it should, still require a restructuring.
So what are primary sources in this case? They are certainly not the Communist state themselves but rather the authors who may propose the topic. Problem is that in this sense most sources are primary sources, and follows "he said, she said", in light of attributing minority views, especially about the Proposed causes section. But we should not be citing Conquest about what Conquest wrote, or Rummel about what Rummel wrote (in this sense, they are primary sources); we need to find and cite secondary sources, and not just any secondary source, but reliable secondary sources that clearly refer to the main topic. If one is quoting Conquest about Stalinism or the Stalinism era, it is not enough; it needs to be about excess deaths or mass killings in the broad context of Communist states. Problem is, very few, if any at all, do that. They do not discuss all Communist states as we do. If we cannot find such secondary sources to establish weight (e.g. Hicks and Watson, who are neither experts of genocide or historians of Communism), they are undue.
I understand that this can be a pain in the ass because one actually has to do research, read all the relevant books on the topic, distinguish between majority and minority, read reviews and secondary sources about them to establish what they actually say rather than our own POV and due weight. We are all guilty of boldly adding primary sources in that sense, but it is fine so that someone else who has more time and resources can do that for us and replace content with secondary sources. But our policies and guidelines are clear; we should report what secondary sources say about Conquest et al. when we are citing what they say and their views. This article even misrepresents scholars from the "orthodox" or "anti-communist" historiography POV, as Conquest does not support this alleged link and he mainly studied Stalin's Soviet Union. Even The Black Book of Communism, if one actually reads the review rather than make their own analysis, find that it does not support this topic (at best, only the intro does, and it is controversial and "historically revisionist" in equating Communism and Nazism); The Black Book of Communism is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." (Andrzej Paczkowski) For the umpteenth time, Valentino does not support Mass killings under communist regimes but Communist mass killing, which is a different thing, and clearly says that "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." (Valentino is an original research and synthesis violation, and contradicts the whole lead) Rummel is about totalitarian governments in general and democide, another topic.
If we follow this, you will see that, once the main topic is established, very few reliable, academic secondary sources are to be found that link all Communist states together as we do ("Mass killings under Communist regimes"). What we do have are actually secondary academic sources that supports the fact this article is original research and synthesis. Per Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, discussion of the number of victims of Communism, an more appropriate topic (except it is not a mainstream view among scholars and it is mainly associated with the European Union and Eastern European double genocide theory, and this would be clarified in the lead) has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased." Per Anton Weiss-Wendt, "here is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe." Yet we are acting like there is consensus on this and selctively, cherry pick those who seem to support it and misrepresent others. So why do we base a whole article on this? Where we use any source that use any of that terminology to mean the same thing, as if they support this article? See criticism of "the idea to connect the deaths with some 'generic Communism' concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals", "hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss", and the "alleged connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" (to paraphrase).
Those are not my opinions but of genocide scholars and historians of Communism, which are the only ones we should be using for this article. Problem is there is no consensus not only among them outside but even among them themselves in their respective fields. Those who disagree should actually engage us rather than dismiss and perpetuate their echo-chamber. TLDR, after reaching consensus on the main topic (if there is not a clear consensus on it, what are we even talking about and have this article for?), can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? Are there any academic Communist Genocide or Communist Mass Killings books, rather than just chapter about selective events under Communist regimes (which are then originally researched and synthesized to lump them all together as we still do)?
As an example, rather than writing "There were many mass killings under communist regimes of the 20th century. Death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them", which seem to imply the title should actually be Communist death tolls, we would be writing something like "Some authors posit that there is a link between communism, as exemplified by 20th-century Communist states, and genocide/mass killing. ... ."
P.S. If Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes are two separated main topics supported by reliable academic secondary sources and do not violate any of our policies and guidelines, they should be first mentioned or discussed at either Crimes against humanity, Genocide, and Mass killing. They are not, because they are likely content forks and do not warrant two separate main articles, and books about them do not discuss them all together as we do, implying a sort of link or common denominator, but only singular events and they do not just compare themto other eventsunder Communist regimes (this is also why we do not have, and should not have, articles about genocide and mass killings under capitalist, Christians, fascist, Muslim, etc. regimes. All those can and must be discussed in the relevant articles (Genocide, History of genocide, and the like), not create more than one POV fork article to imply a sort of link which is not supported by reliable sources or scholarly consensus. See also my still current "Analysis of sources and main topic", which has never been really refuted or properly analyzed. Davide King (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
