Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 8 May 2012

In application and enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBEE#Discretionary sanctions, the following discretionary sanctions apply to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either minor edits as described at WP:Minor edit and marked as minor, reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious WP:BLP violation, or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus. Procedural details The rules at WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans apply to reverts of vandalism or BLP violations. (For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, for any reason, are neither minor edits nor vandalism.) For the purpose of this sanction, an edit may only be deemed to have consensus if the following minimum procedural requirements are met: It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours. In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal. The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal. The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof. Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBEE#Discretionary sanctions. In addition, a previously imposed WP:1RR restriction concerning this article continues to apply.  Sandstein  20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep, 13 July 2010, see discussion. Keep, 13 April 2010, see discussion. No consensus, 8 November 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 24 September 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 3 August 2009, see discussion.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 10, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus September 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed October 2, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus November 15, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus April 22, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept July 19, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

Afganistan Controversies

Soviet invasion, you mean intervention.

RfC on proposed edit of term "Genocide"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current article has a short description of "Genocide." An editor has proposed a substantially longer exposition. Is the proposed edit superior to the existing wording? 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Current wording:

Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.

Proposed wording:

The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin in the work "Axis rule of occupied Europe". This term had been formalized by the UN Genocide Convention, which defined it as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, etnical, racial or religious group; genocide defined in such a way is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments that destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that made it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events in XX century. These limitations are as follows:

1. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution, because many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal rebellions.
2. The highest level of specific intent needs to be established for conviction of genocide.
3. The intent to destroy some group in part may fit the genocide definition only if the perpetrators view the part of the group they wish to destroy as a distinct entity which must be eliminated as such.

As a result, most some the most deadly instances of mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (such as Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine).
Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely that would allow expansion of protection of Genocide Convention on political groups, inclusion of both specific and constructive intent (i.e., the cases when perpetrator should realise that his behaviour makes the harm likely), and bringing the term "in part" in accordance with lay people's understanding. If this definition will be commonly accepted, it can be applied to most cases of violence in Communist led countries. However, such an approach has been accepted with skepticism by other scholars, who argued that loose definition would make genocide not a uniquely horrible and rare event, and large number of cases, starting from colonization of America and ending with the economic sanctions against Iraq would fit such a definition.
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence, including the violence under Communist regimes. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms describing lethal forms of mass violence, which are being discussed below.

Note: The "proposed wording" has been altered since the RfC was started. See for version at start. The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular. Collect (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, please stop this ridiculous wikilawyering. You took my version (with which you strongly disagree) and started the RfC without attempting to discuss it with me. Of course, I have a right, as a proposer of this text, to modify it to take into account some reasonable concerns that have been raised during the previous discussion. If you want others to assume your good faith, please, behave accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I used the version existing at the time the RfC was started - well after you posted at the Consensus talk page positing a hypothetical edit of:

I propose to add the following sentence to the article:

"The rain in Spain stays only in the plains"

Which I considered as being a teensy bit far from the actual edit you sought. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

???--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This new text presents more problems than it solves, for example this statement "As a result, most mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine)." appears to be pure synthesis not attributable to any source. --Nug (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to correctly identify one more issue. Whereas many sources state that the term is not applicable to separate major instances of MKuCR, it would be not correct to make a general claim. I changed the text accordingly to take into account your second concrete objection. What other concrete issues do you see with the text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The edit is not an improvement. It is lengthy, makes legal arguments, and is not a furtherance of the topic of the article. It may also contain OR/SYNTH, and evince a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is already an article on genocide. The purpose of the article here is not to discuss who invented the word "genocide" or all the different ways in which genocide is not technically, legally speaking, genocide. Far from clarifying, this just injects content which detracts from the topic at hand. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Though the proposal is well sourced and written it is overly long when an article on genocide already exists, the current wording is ample so long as there are a link to the genocide article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here by the RfC robot. In light of the framing of the question, I would have to oppose this proposal for reasons that have already been stated. However, I will add the caveat that I think there is room for improvement to the definition of genocide provided (this may even mean incorporating some of the proposed elements above, if it can be shortened considerably). Namely, the current phrasing seems concerned only with explaining what genocide is not, thereby providing a segue into politicide and democide. A very basic affirmative definition would also be appropriate, given that there are some elements of campaigns under communism that arguably do satisfy the conventional definition of genocide (eg. the persecution of Tibetans from the 1950s onward). Homunculus (duihua) 14:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah because the anti-communist KMT regime and Ma clique totally have no plans to annex Tibet and reclaim lost territory including Outer Mongolia, and totally didn't launch the Sino-Tibetan War against the 13th Dalai Lama. LMAO--PCPP (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• RfC Comment

Oppose:, for the following reasons: (i)As mentioned by several others, the topic here is not 'genocide'. (ii) The poorly constructed alternative text (iii) The Genocide Convention does not provide a legal definition of the term. And thus, to paraphrase Collect, the proposed wording may contain OR/SYNTH, and evince a POV.--Misha Atreides (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) The topic is "application of the term "genocide" to MKuCR", so it has a direct relation to genocide.

(ii) What concretely is poorly constructed?

(iii) That is simply untrue. The Convention defines genocide as a crime, and provides a legal definition of this crime . Based on this legal definition, a number of international tribunals took place; obviously that would not be possible in the absence of legal definition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(i) It still does not make 'genocide' the topic of this page, unfortunately. Further, arbitrarily re/defining and expanding the term as a sub-topic, when it already has a page of its own, is rather superfluous.

(ii) The odd use of past perfect continuous tenses (had been), spelling (etnical), poor construction (many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments and the whole third paragraph) and the use of both British and American spellings in the text .

(iii) Actually, it is. You're confusing definition with 'legal definition'. To this day, jurists continue to struggle to legally define genocide - to distinguish it from war crimes and crimes against humanity, questions on the exclusion of certain socio-political-cultural group from its ambit of protection and perhaps most importantly, whether deaths are even required in a genocide prosecution. A couple of reading materials: 1 2 --Misha Atreides (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, as a proposer of the text I need to explain the following. I was not an initiator of this RfC. I posted this text just to initiate a discussion about improvement of the existing text. Instead of that, Collect started the RfC, and the goal, obviously, was to preserve the existing version. In contrast, I am open to any discussion about improvement of the proposed text (or of the existing version).

Secondly, you are obviously not right. There is a profound difference between word "genocide" an all other "cides": whereas the latter are just scholarly terms, "genocide" (as it was defihed by the UNO Convention) is a crime, and an accusations of genocide sensu stricto have concrete and severe legal consequences. That would be impossible if the Convention contained no legal definition of genocide, so the Convention provides a legal definition of this crime. For sources of this my claim, see, for example, Hagnn et al, Criminology of genocide: the death and rape in Darfur. Criminology Volume 43, Issue 3, 18 AUG 2005. However, many authors, including Lemkin himself, started to expand the meaning of this term, so it became a generic category that is evoked to describe various forms of lethal and non-lethal mass violence. The latter meaning makes it applicable to most events described in this article, so that does make it the topic of this article. However, such an interpretation of the word "genocide" has no legal consequences, and it is not a mainstream view (although it is a significant minority view). For sources, see Ellman (op. cit), Weiss-Wendt (op. cit).

The present version is totally unsatisfactory: it just tells that the Convention is not applicable to the MKuCR, and, as a result, the first question upon reading this paragraph is: if this term is not applicable, why do we need to mention it at all?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul, it seems that the primary objection that has been raised to the wording proposed in this RfC is that it is excessively long (such is my reading, anyway). Do you have other proposals on what the phrasing could look like? I think there is a legitimate need (if we can call it that) to improve this definition, and your comment above demonstrates why. Another RfC is probably not necessary; a collaborate process, perhaps involving more voices, might yield better results. Homunculus (duihua) 15:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do that. Do you have any concrete ideas on that subject? I can try to take them into account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would (very humbly) submit the following for consideration. Note that I have likely lost some important layer of nuance or sophistication, and am not at all attached to this wording. I am just trying to be helpful in whatever minor way I can be.

The term Genocide is defined under the UN Genocide Convention as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments to destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that make it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events; notably, protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause would limit their right to suppress political opponents. Consequently, some the most deadly instances of mass killing and mass mortality in Communist-led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts targeted political groups (such as Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or did not involve explicit intent (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine). Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely, including expanding protection to political groups. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms for lethal forms of mass violence, which are discussed below.

I will defer to the judgement of other editors on how this might be improved further. My one additional suggestion is that it might be worth noting that some events under Communism do more clearly satisfy the conventional definition (though when it comes to genocide, there is rarely a consensus). Homunculus (duihua) 00:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like this text, although I have some comments. Firstly, my idea was to discuss each term according to the following general scheme: (i) who proposed the term and why; (ii) how the term is defined; (iii) to which instances of MKuCR it was applied and by whom; (iv) what are the limitations of this term. If you agree with that, then we need to explain the limitations of the term "genocide", and the problems with its usage. The main problem is that the term is being very frequently used by various writers to describe a wide range of the events in Communist states, so we in actuality have two totally different terms: "genocide" in its strict legal definition, which is applied to a very limited range of very rare events, and "genocide" as a term used to discredit political adversaries. In addition, the word "genocide" is frequently being used by scholars as a synonym of mass killings. Thus, Straus in his article "Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide" World Politics, Volume 59, Number 3, April 2007, pp. 476-501, discusses the works of six authors, Levene, Mann, Semelin, Midlarsky, Valentino, Semelin and Weitz, almost each of whom proposed or used their own terminology to describe mass killing events, and he speaks about them as "genocide scholars", despite the fact that those authors did not see majority of the events they study as "genocides", and used "mass killings", "politicide", "classicide", etc, instead. Obviously, Straus uses "genocide" as an umbrella term, and that "genocide" has little in common with the internationally punishable crime described by the UNO convention.

Regarding you notion that "some events under Communism do more clearly satisfy the conventional definition", to my big surprise, even Kampuchean Genocide, which was the purest example of Communism related genocidal event (especially taking into account extreme Khmer nationalism and racism), is not described as genocide by some authors. They prefer to use "classicide" or similar terms instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Hmm. Could we not simply add a sentence to the proposed definition to note that the term is often used loosely (ie. not necessarily in according with the strict legal definition) to described MKuCR? I think it may be beyond the scope of the 'terminology' section to include the more detailed etymology and history of the term and its specific applications. I might suggest that, where specific events have been described as genocides, that debate be described in the relevant sections. Thoughts?Homunculus (duihua) 17:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

References

1. Raphael Lemkin. Genocide as a Crime under International Law. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1947), pp. 145-151.
2. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
3. ^ Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693.
4. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259–2291
5. Adam Jones. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2 edition (August 1, 2010). ISBN 041548619X
6. Helen Fein. Genocide. A sociologocal perspective. in Genocide: an anthropological reader, Volume 3 of Blackwell readers in anthropology. Blackwell Anthologies in Social and Cultural Sociology. Alexander Laban Hinton, ed. Wiley-Blackwell, (2002) ISBN 063122355X, 9780631223559, p. 74
7. Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559.

Capitalization in title

Is there any reason why 'Communist' is capitalised in the page title? The MOS specifies that titles should not be capitalised unless it's a proper noun, 'communist' is an adjective and shoud not be capitalised. IMO, the page should be moved to Mass killings under communist regimes. Has there been a previous discussion? LK (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the artile history - back to when "genocide" was in the title. The capitalization appears to have been done by consensus, and used in the common (capitalized) sense of "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-whateverist regimes". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Big "C" Communism refers to the ruling parties of the countries mentioned in the article. Presumably small-"c" "communist regime" would be an oxymoron, because once communism was achieved the state would have "withered away". TFD (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Other communist regimes

In the "Anti-communist mass killings" page the deaths of regimes such as 60's Iraq, Pinochet and the White Terror in Hungary where the number of deaths is listed in the thousands, I think their needs to be mentions of mass killing committed by Castro (10's of thousands suspected of being murdered), the Sadanista's (Thousand's suspected of being murdered), the MPLA (10's of thousands suspected of being murdered) and Cold war era Poland. I think reliable sources could be found for these 4 regimes (especially Cuba) and their degree of mass killing is certainly comparable if not much higher than Pinochet's Chile and Arif's Iraq. Even if their is ambiguity over these mass killings they could be placed under the "Controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about other articles should take place on their own talk pages. I was not aware by the way that Castro, the Sandinistas, the MPLA, and Polish Communists were anti-Communists, let alone responsible for anti-Communist mass killings. TFD (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I too am confused. Editor, can you clarify whether your recommendation relates to anti-Communist mass killings, or if you were just invoking that page as an example? Homunculus (duihua) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I was saying killing of a similar (if not smaller) magnitude are listed in the the page Mass killings under anti-Communist regimes. The examples I cited were Pinochet's Chile and Arif's Iraq. Since as far as I am aware killingd of a comparable scale (if not considerably higher in the case of Cuba) occured in Castro's Cuba, Sadansitan Nicaragua, under the MPLA in a Angola and in Communist Poland, I thought it would only be fair if there were sections about these 4 regimes on this page (Mass killings under Communist regimes). I did not mean to imply that these four regimes were anti-communist. I was merely comparing them and the alleged scale of their crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. You are welcome to propose some text for inclusion on the talk page, along with references. I think some of the other editors involved here may have a better handle than I on some of these events, so I will withhold comment on whether I think they are notable enough to meet whatever criteria for inclusion is in place here. Homunculus (duihua) 21:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and it's anti-communist bias

Funny thing, one can edit the article related to the mass killings that occurred under anti-communist regimes, but no edits can be done here. Also, it should be noted that the above mentioned article has a neutrality tag, but this one does not (it's quite obvious why it happeens). As a fellow Wikipedian, I demand that the Misplaced Pages anti-communist administration put such tags here too, since it's heavily biased and counts only with anti-communist references.

Guto2003 Talk to me and prove your point instead of deleting this —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment