Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:45, 29 May 2010 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,499 edits →Why not?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,266 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High), Politics (Rater) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{afd-merged-from|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (2nd nomination)|28 August 2024}}
{{talkheader}}
{{skip to talk}}
{{mbox|text=Due to recent ], be advised that reverting more than ''once'' without discussing it on the ] is considered ], and users doing so are subject to being ]. Please see ].}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}} {{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|ee|1RR=yes}}
{{WPBS|1=
{{round in circles|search=no}}
{{WikiProject History
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|small=
{{tmbox
|class=start
|image=none
|importance=low
|style=background-color:#CCFFCC;text-align:center;
|Attention=yes
|text=''Due to the editing restrictions on this article, ] to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.''
|A-Class=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=no
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=no
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=no
<!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. -->
|B-Class-6=no
<!-- Task forces -->
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=C |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Cambodia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Socialism |class=C |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject China|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=mid|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
}}
<!--Clearly of relevance as a long-standing talking point-->
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{American English}}
{{Old XfD multi
<!-- 1st -->
|date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
|result = '''no consensus'''
|page = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide
|link =
|caption =
<!-- 2nd -->
|date2 = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|result2 = '''no consensus'''
|page2 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
|link2 =
|caption2 =
<!-- 3rd -->
|date3 = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|result3 = '''no consensus'''
|page3 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
|link3 =
|caption3 =
<!-- 4th -->
|date4 = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|result4 = '''keep'''
|page4 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|link4 =
|caption4 =
<!-- 5th -->
|date5 = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|result5 = '''keep'''
|page5 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|link5 =
|caption5 =
<!-- 6th -->
|date6 = 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
|result6 = '''no consensus'''
|page6 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)
|link6 =
|caption6 =
}} }}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD | action1 = PR
| action1date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | action1date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1
| action1result = no consensus | action1result = reviewed
| action1oldid = 307184164 | action1oldid = 311235290

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

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

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

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

| currentstatus =
| topic =
}} }}
{{Press
{{archives
|collapsed = yes
|archivelist=/archivelist
|author = Lott, Maxim
|auto=long
|title = Inside Misplaced Pages's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried
|index=/Archive index
|date = February 18, 2021
|image=Crystal Clear app file-manager.png
|org = ]
|<inputbox>
|url = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed
type=fulltext
|author2 = Abbott, Joel
width=25
|title2 = The Misplaced Pages page titled "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes" is being considered for deletion 😬
prefix=Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive
|date2 = November 24, 2021
searchbuttonlabel=Search the archives
|org2 = ]
|</inputbox>
|url2 = https://notthebee.com/article/wikipedia-is-considering-the-deletion-of-the-page-titled-mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-/
|bot=MiszaBot I |age=14
|author3 = Kangadis, Nick
|title3 = 'Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes' Misplaced Pages Page 'Being Considered for Deletion'
|date3 = November 24, 2021
|org3 = MRC TV
|url3 = https://www.mrctv.org/blog/mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-wikipedia-page-being-considered-deletion
|author4 = Johnson, Autumn
|title4 = Misplaced Pages Contemplates Deleting Article On Communist Mass Killings
|date4 = November 25, 2021
|org4 = MRC News Buster
|url4 = https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/autumn-johnson/2021/11/25/wikipedia-contemplates-deleting-article-communist-mass
|author5 = Simpson, Craig
|title5 = Misplaced Pages may delete entry on ‘mass killings’ under Communism due to claims of bias
|date5 = November 27, 2021
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/
|author6 = Nolan, Lucas
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Community Considers Deleting Entry on Mass Killings Under Communism over Claims of ‘Bias’
|date6 = November 29, 2021
|org6 = ]
|url6 =
|author7 = ((]))
|title7 = Deletion Report: What we lost, what we gained
|date7 = November 29, 2021
|org7 = ]
|url7 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-11-29/Deletion_report
|author8 = Chasmar, Jessica
|title8 = Misplaced Pages page on 'Mass killings under communist regimes' considered for deletion, prompting bias accusations
|date8 = November 29, 2021
|org8 = ]
|url8 = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias
|author9 = Blair, Douglas
|title9 = Misplaced Pages Threatens to Purge ‘Communist Mass Killings’ Page, Cites Anti-Communist Bias
|date9 = December 12, 2021
|org9 = ]
|url9 = https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/12/12/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page-cites-anti-communist-bias
|author10 = Blair, Douglas
|title10 = Misplaced Pages threatens to purge ‘communist mass killings’ page, cites anti-communist bias
|date10 = December 14, 2021
|org10 = ]
|url10 = https://www.christianpost.com/voices/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page.html
|author11 = Edwards, Lee and Hafera, Brenda
|title11 = Why We Should Never Forget the Crimes of Communism
|date11 = December 14, 2021
|org11 = ]
|url11 = https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/why-we-should-never-forget-the-crimes-communism
}} }}
{{old moves
|date1=13 September 2009 |from1=Communist genocide |destination1=Communist politicide |link1=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 2#Requested move |result1=no consensus
|date2=16 September 2009 |from2=Communist genocide |destination2=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link2=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 3#Requested move II |result2=moved
|date3=16 April 2010 |destionation3=Classicide |link3=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 14#Requested move |result3=not moved
|date4=13 August 2018 |destination4=Communist states and mass killing |result4=no consensus to move |link4=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 40#Requested move 13 August 2018
|date5=31 July 2019 |destination5= |link5=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 31 July 2019 |result5=not moved
|date6=14 August 2019 |destination6=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link6=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 14 August 2019 |result6=not moved
|date7=31 January 2022 |destination7=Mass killings by communist regimes |result7=procedural close |link7=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 59#Requested move 31 January 2022
}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 16 |counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{TOC left}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Clear}}
|target=Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |template= }}

== ] restriction ==

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the ] authorized in the ] and clarified to apply to this article , I am hereby placing this article under ]. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
:<small>The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)</small>

== We've left out one very big category ==

Leaving out all the trivia about causes and philosophy, why aren't the NAZI killings included in this list?

I know, I know, "the NAZIs weren't communists". Only they were. According to Hitler himself in his speeches there was no difference between a NAZI and a Communist. One of the great lies of all time is how the western liberals (press, Hollywood, intelligentsia) managed to separate themselves from the holocaust after it was discovered by simply never referring to their mass admiration of Hitler and Stalin and quietly implying the NAZIs were far right, when in reality, they were far left. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Until there is a stable consensus on the ] article that they were somehow communists, it shouldn't be listed here. --] <font size="-2">(]/])</font> 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::], already used in this article, considers the Nazis as a type of socialist movement and mentions that their mass killing policies were inherited from the left. I suggest also discussing the Nazis' bloodlettings and moving this article to ]. ] (]) 16:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
:::] would be a fringe theory proposed by Watson and supported by tiny minority of scholar. I am not sure if it will pass a notability test.--] (]) 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Well, I would be very interested in an explanation as to why that might be. Given your position here and the broader editorializing going on here, you seem to be using Watson's work selectively. The very book cited here, Watson's ''Lost Literature of Socialism'', actually discusses mass killings through the lens of the view of genocide as ''a socialist concept'' -- he specifically considers such bloody ideas as an inheritance rooted in the socialist tradition, including the 1840s articles of Marx and Engels, which he presents as seminal writing in just that respect.
::::On that very note, since Watson's scholarship, ''already'' reflecting exactly this particular view, is included in this article, and has been determined by the consensus of editors of this talk page to constitute a source reliable enough to be included, this seems like a moot point and I don't quite see what different rationale behind your disagreement on this point could be. The majority of the editors who have chimed in on this talk page have expressed the view that the mass murders discussed are related by virtue of the underlying ideology of the governments responsible for them, and the overall direction of the current text has survived many revisions and AFDs on this basis. And the same consensus has overruled the already-discussed contention that Watson is somehow ] and reaffirmed that Watson's views are reliable and significant enough to be discussed in an article structured around the intersection of communism and mass killing.
::::It's actually an exceedingly simple issue: the Communist systems established across Eastern Europe and in the USSR were all ''socialist regimes'', just as their histories, and the history of Marxism generally, are a subset of ''socialist history''. The Communist rulers of the 20th century, like their genocidal predecessors, Marx and Engels, were all proponents of socialism, and the Stalinist mass murder period in the 1930s occured in an empire officially known as the ''Union of Soviet <u>Socialist</u> Republics''. As those studying political theory generally know, Marxist ideology even describes "communism" as the hypothetical stage of history where the state withers away: this stage is the culmination of socialist construction, and is preceded by a post-revolutionary era in which the state exists in the historical period of socialism.
::::In fact, by expanding the article's subject to ] (per Watson), to ], or ], we will have the breadth to include additional information on the murderous deeds carried out by other supporters of socialism, like the National Socialist German Workers' Party of Germany and the socialist dictatorship in Burma. And Misplaced Pages correctly positions a discussion of national socialism as a subcategory within the article ].
::::If such bloody governments as the Nazis and others are already recognized as heirs of socialism alongside the communists by serious scholarship, like distinguished Oxford University professor's George Watson (and it really seems needless to go at length into its presence among the writings of popular authors such as ] and others), I don't see what further argument against these proposals might be put up. Like the present article, the broader one would also describe the specific instances of mass killing and the theoretical connections to ideology which are present according to Watson and all sorts of other experts -- still allowing the critics to have their say in counterpoint. ] (]) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Since according to Watson, socialism was conservative and right-wing, why not re-name the article "right-wing mass killings"? ] (]) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Some libertarians do associate all authoritarianism with the right, but if Watson's work were entitled ''The Lost Literature of Conservatism'', you'd have a far stronger case on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Zloyvolsheb, that Watson is included does not mean that he isn't fringe, either as a source or in relation to the topic. That he is a reliable enough source to be included does not make him appropriate to base the article upon. The topic is limited to communist regimes, rather than all socialist regimes, simply because that is how the sources upon which it is based have chosen to frame the issue. If you want to make an article about ], then you can gather your sources and do it, but that is not this article. ] (]) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::As far as what I gather, most of the sources used here simply describe the individual events carried out by 20th century regimes like the Soviet Union and Mao Tse-Tung's China (we see, ''e.g., the Great Purge, the Chinese famine during the late '50s, de-Cossackization, and such''), while only a relatively small section, as well as a minority of the references I could find at the bottom of the article, actually directly focus on some specific link connecting any or all of these distinct events with the underlying political commonalities behind them.
::::::The second part of your response concerns the framing of the set of atrocities outlined here, while I see this as the most flexible aspect of the article. The objection you propose is already partially answered by the fact that Communism is a subset of socialism, as explained previously. Watson's ''Lost Literature of Socialism'' on the matter the "socialist genocide" of the smaller "primitive" peoples isn't the only one, of course, of the influential names on historical and political questions to examine and dissect the connection between mass killing and the leftist ideal of socialism.
::::::], a member of the ] and later a respected lecturer at ], describes the mass killing of the kulaks during collectivization as the first "socialist genocide" , ] of the ] has written an essay entitled "The Socialist Holocaust in Armenia" , and noted French thinker ] philosophizes about the Stalinist period of killings in the USSR as "a mode of socialism. Gulag is not an accident.' At fault, he argues, is socialism's obsession with homogeneity, 'expelling from its borders the forces of heterogeneity and ... squelching its rebels.'" Since both "socialist" and "Communist" can be applied to define these massacres and their perpetrators, it's really a question of which term is the preferable one for this article. Since George Watson's take is already given, there is already a good argument made in favor of expanding the article's title to mirror the points of view presently in the article. Making an article about ] would be one resolution of Aaronsmith's original proposal, but what I haven't seen so far is an argument for the current title. ] (]) 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Watson's "Lost literature" has been cited ''only seven times'' according to GoogleScholar . Neither of citing works (except, probably, Conquest) discuss his idea on connection between socialism and genocide (suggesting ''zero'' notability). And, again, please, read the discussion of this issue on this talk page.--] (]) 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:The term socialist is too wide. The mass killings of Iraqi civilians by Western powers could be described as socialist mass killings because the UK had a socialist prime minister while the president of Iraq is a socialist. Murders by right-wing death squads in Columbia could also be seen as socialist because the president is a socialist. The people who tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez are also socialists. In the recent UK election the liberals and conservatives were silent about mass killings by the Labour Party (who got to them!) and the US is silent about socialist provincial governments in Canada, and Reagan appointed a socialist as ambassador to the UN. However, you probably think that Reagan was a socialist. I agree however that this article should explain the supposed connection between Marxism and mass killings. ] (]) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
::"Socialist" is not too wide. The problem with your examples is that they are all absolutely moot, since you're determined to conflate ] (the ideological ground for much of the political establishment in Canada and Europe, as well as the official ideology of the mainstream European liberal left, including American allies like the United Kingdom under Brown and Tony Blair) with ] (the official ideology of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, ] Burma, and ] ]).
::I agree that the connection between ideology and practice should be the primary point of this article. My only point here has been that a good place to start from would be with the intersection of all mass killing regimes from the socialist tradition (e.g., ], ], ], ], ], and others) rather than the much narrower Marxist subset included here. ] (]) 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::In other words, fascists and Ba'athists are really secret socialists, parties that belong to the ] are really liberals, parties in the ] are really social democrats, and so are conservatives and Christian democrats. Do you have a source for any of that? ] (]) 04:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::TFD, if you read any serious work on the political history of the mainstream left, you'll learn that the reformist current of socialism broke away in the late-1800s to early 1900s, with the European Social Democratic parties completely severing their links to Marxist theory by the mid-20th century, and I'd thought that this was common knowledge to those familiar with the field. The Social Democratic current, which largely no longer self-identifies as socialist regardless whether some parties remain in the Socialist International or not, advocates a reformed capitalism with a large welfare state alongisde the democratic institutions condemned by the traditional Marxist left as "bourgeois democracy"; traditional socialism asks for the replacement of capitalism by a fundamentally different system and expresses disdain for the institutions of "bourgeois democracy". If there are specific parties or groups you would like to discuss, I am completely willing to go along, but please point them out by name, as you've been very vague in your last couple of posts. ] (]) 06:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::The fascism is left wing theory has them evolving from pro-Great War Socialism not Communism, and point out that Mosley was Labour while Mussolini was a socialist. If you believe that today's socialists have abandoned socialism, you need a date for that. Was it 1915 (which would make the fascists non-socialists) or was it 1959, then you have to explain what prevented the Weimar Republic from carrying out mass killings. Your definition of socialism appears to include Communists, fascists, some socialists (including those like the Burmese who did not evolve from either socialist tradition) and other unrelated parties like the Ba'athists. Or are you saying that violent socialists are violent, while peaceful socialists are not? What is the connection between socialist theory and mass killings? ] (]) 08:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Re ''"The fascism is left wing theory has them evolving from pro-Great War Socialism not Communism, and point out that Mosley was Labour while Mussolini was a socialist."''
::::::Exactly, fascism under Mussolini and Germany's National Socialism (also labelled as "fascism" by leftists trying to negate the self-identification of the Nazis with socialist ideology in their effort to conceal something) evolved from the pro-Great War Socialism of the 1910s. Benito Mussolini, the founding father of fascism, was not only a socialist, but a leading figure in Italian socialism before the Great War. The ex-Labour Party MP Oswald Mosley in Britain is a tad less interesting, since he is hardly as relevant in the great scheme of things by comparison as the ''Duce'' and his German ally. (Incidentally, Mosley did come from an era in which the Labour Party stood far closer to "socialism" than it does today.)
::::::Re ''"If you believe that today's socialists have abandoned socialism, you need a date for that."''
::::::I merely began by pointing out the differences between the socialists and the modern center-left. You seem to have suggested that the neoliberal Tony Blair governed as head of a socialist government, when it was explained that neither Labour Party of the UK nor the European Social Democratic movements advocate any political program of socialism today. Even "Old Labour" in its heyday under Attlee did not rise to anything more radical than the positions of the European Social Democratic left and appealed merely for the establishment of a welfare state while rejecting its own earlier slogans of wholesale redistribution of property and the means of production. The Labour Party no longer chooses to self-identify as socialist today even for rhetorical purposes, whereas in practice the original "socialist clause" was never applied by any Labour government, at last being jettisoned by Tony Blair's party as a complete anachronism by 1995.
::::::The raised ideological banner of the party's recent days has been a very open ], particularly since the advent of ] and Blair's aforementioned rejection of the last vestiges of the party's original taint at that point, but even in infancy the party's overall direction has been from the left towards the center. Granted: some pro-socialist sentiment amid the party's more leftist tendencies has always coexisted alongside the less radical sections of good-old-Labour to some extent. The fact that such black-sheep politicians as ] (long disassociated from Labour and no longer even a Member of Parliament) have held office as members of the Labour Party does not distinguish them as representative members of the party either, any more than such ] within the Democratic Party of the United States as ] reflect the mainstream side of the Democratic Party.
::::::Re ''"Was it 1915 (which would make the fascists non-socialists) or was it 1959, then you have to explain what prevented the Weimar Republic from carrying out mass killings. Your definition of socialism appears to include Communists, fascists, some socialists (including those like the Burmese who did not evolve from either socialist tradition) and other unrelated parties like the Ba'athists. Or are you saying that violent socialists are violent, while peaceful socialists are not? What is the connection between socialist theory and mass killings?"''
::::::Both of these questions are trivial, since the basic fact that throughout history socialist rulers such as the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and the Maoists, the movement for "Burmese socialism" under Ne Win, and the Ba'ath Party government under the socialist dictator Saddam Hussein all sought to implement their socialistic political aims while committing gross violations of human rights to the point of extinguishing whole classes of their own people in the course of their political pursuits. The mere fact that the liberal government of the Weimar Republic of Germany so happened to be largely dominated by the German Social Democrats and the German Communist Party at a particular time when the Social Democrats identified with socialism is no more relevant an objection than the fact that the Chilean government under the Socialist leader Salvador Allende carried out no mass killings in Chile. Such observations no more preclude us from creating an article entitled ] or ] than the fact that such countries as Communist Czechoslovakia, Communist Moldova, and Communist Poland refrained from mass killings has precluded us from writing an encyclopedic article about the intersection of mass murder and Communist rule. It is sufficient to list the various examples of such cases and to provide whatever scholarly literature exists on the underlying commonalities of the atrocities.
::::::The significant question here is simply this: given the existence of scholarly literature on the intersection of socialism and a pattern of mass killings by various socialist regimes, what is it that prevents us from going on to remark about the wider phenomenon, and compels us to limit our investigation to the such states as China, Cambodia, and certain states within the old Soviet bloc, as editors such as yourself and Paul appear to suggest? ] (]) 12:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::It is still confusing because the fascists also moved to the right, abandoning Strasserism for example. I think the best place to describe fascist mass killings as socialist-inspired is in this article. ] (]) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::TFD, does this mean you have changed your position that this article should be deleted, or do you simply see inclusion of this material as bolstering that position? ] (]) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::AmateurEditor, you asked this question before and I answered it. Please stop raising the same questions over and over again. ] (]) 07:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I asked before for the same reason I am asking now: to reconcile your contradictory actions. You make suggestions on the talk page for how to improve the article at the same time as you argue for deletion on the grounds that such efforts are pointless. Which is it? ] (]) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Zloyvolsheb, I don't know how long you have been monitoring this article, but there have been many, many arguments about the title on this talk page. A rough consensus on the current title was a long time coming. That's one of the reasons I am reluctant to see the issue reopened. I think the best way to handle this would be to create the separate article, see if it survives Afd nomination (and it ''will'' be nominated), and see how it develops. If there is enough sourcing to sustain an article like that, then we can talk about whether to merge the two articles or to leave them separate. Many of the sources currently used in this article focus on one aspect of the topic simply because of the inclusion of a list of incidents. But that there is an article at all is based on those fewer sources which discuss the events as a group. I quoted four such sources in the most recent Afd . ] (]) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
:The point of view Zloyvolsheb is trying to push is a novel version of ]: a rather childish belief that our world is divided onto the realm of good and the realm of evil. He (as well as Watson) believes that it is possible to find one single word that would be able to manifest all evil of our world (and, accordingly, this word's antithesis is supposed to manifest the eternal good). This approach is hardly novel: orthodox Marxists saw the world evil in private property, Hitler - in Jews and Communists, libertarians - in state control, etc. However, since serious scholars do not use such primitive propagandistic generalisations, the article that is supposed to be based on ''scholarly'' sources can hardly be build according to the concept proposed by Zloyvolsheb.--] (]) 05:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:PS. The only general term that we seriously can use to combine the deeds of "''], ], ], ], ], and others)''" in one single article would be "bad guys". Even "totalitarian or authoritarian regimes" would not be a good substitute for "bad guys", because in that case many clients of democratic states (Southern Vientam, Indonesia, Latin American juntas etc.) will also join this company. In connection to that I propose not to waste your time and to turn to more serious ideas.--] (]) 05:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::Dear Paul Siebert, please see the Misplaced Pages article on ]. Nowhere did I mention anything morally general or abstract, and let me assure you that never did my statements ever convey anything that bears on concerns with good, evil, or any other metaphysical assertion relevant to Manicheanism or some other scheme. Indeed, my sole in aim in all of the points I've made thus far is to reflect what has already been established by eminent scholars like distinguished Oxford University professor George Watson (apparently a ] writer in the minds of some), as well as many other voices who can be described as experts in the field. In other words, throughout our exchanges I have committed myself to following the official Misplaced Pages approach, as set out in ] policy regarding sources, and would ask you do likewise. And please -- let us henceforth carry on in such a way that no extraneous words be put in my mouth, nor any positions imbued to me, as I mean no more than that which I commit to stating explicitly. ] (]) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::Actually Marxism was not Manichean, private property and the state were seen as necessary stages in social development. But anti-Communism is Manichean and I agree that these views should be properly explained here, provided they have received coverage. While I like Watson's theory that evil can be traced to conservative ], the theory that it can be traced to liberal ] is more popular. ] (]) 05:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Dear Zloyvolsheb, I myself hate the straw man type arguments, and I am trying to avoid putting my own words into my opponent's mouth. My major point was not that your statements "convey anything that bears on concerns with good, evil, etc", but that the ''concept'' you are trying to push ''inevitably'' leads to that. Your (and Watson's) ideas are ''dramatic oversimplification'' of the issue, and, as a result, will lead to one or another metaphysical assertion independent on your will. BTW, you didn't comment on my notion about low notability of the Watson's concept: the fact that Watson is a distinguished professor does not automatically mean all his ideas are notable and deserve to be reflected in WP.--] (]) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I think you are too hasty to dismiss the argument. Misplaced Pages does not so much care for what is or what is not an oversimplification, but for what is notable enough to be encyclopedically discussed. Needless to say, I completely disagree with you about the supposedly low notability of Watson's concept; the idea of the Nazis as a socialist movement has its critics and thus some controversy surrounding it, but it is hardly a fringe theory -- at least in the United States. ] (]) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::PS You argument about Mussolini is moot because no mass killings were committed by Mussolini's regime (except, probably Ethiopia, however, anti-partisan warfare is hardly a prerogative of totalitarian regimes).--] (]) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I'm actually largely in agreement with you on that: Mussolini has little to do with the kind of article I have in mind, and was only mentioned in passing in reply to TFD. It's far more notable that a good deal of writers, especially libertarians, describe the Nazi Party as a socialist movement. It's easy to name a number of other high-profile people if for one reason or another you think of Watson as being too fringe. For instance, the American political philosopher ], whose schema of political classification insists on the traditional identification of the 18th-century liberals with the left and their counterrevolutionary opponents with the right, describes the national-socialist government of the Nazi party as a type of "right-wing socialism" -- i.e., an adaptation of the collectivist and statist elements of the broader socialist movement to the anti-liberal reactionaries' categorical rejection of the liberal changes of the Enlightenment. ] (]) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Watson's book has had zero influence and therefore is just a footnote to the article. The libertarians did believe that fascism was socialist, but it was a right-wing socialism that eventually influenced all governments, including the Communists. But it was a heresy to Marxism, which was anti-statist. Their theory has not become popular because Americans do not know the difference between liberalism and conservatism. The most popular anti-communist theory is in the ''Black Book''. Essentially Communism is an evil conspiracy and mass killings are an objective rather than a means. It is essentially an update of the Protocols of Zion and has the advantage that it can be tied into the New World Order and the black helicopters. ] (]) 06:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We're missing an opportunity here. Remember the Misplaced Pages article on Massacres? The one that was an absolute can of worms where they had no idea what they were trying to do? Well, we can use their (In my opinion, incredible weasel worded) fix for this article. If "List of Massacres" can solve its problems by renaming to "List of Events Named Massacres (leaving out the Barbie Massacre, the Saturday Night Massacre, etc.)", we can fix this article by renaming it to: "Mass Killings Under Regimes Calling Themselves Socialist".

This has a couple of advantages: We don't make the call, the originators make the call. It will pick up even regimes with controversy i.e. the NAZIs where NAZIs was only an acronym for National Socialis . . . and one that was almost never used by the NAZIs themselves. They were "National Socialists" in their own minds.] (]) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:We would have to include British mass killings under Labour or coalition governments in Iraq, Germany and other places, killings by right-wing death squads in Columbia, and the Indian government's crackdown on various minorities. ] (]) 00:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're starting to catch on. Anyone else think this article is just as poorly conceived as all the other articles in Wiki with an "agenda"? About we AfD this thing before someone says (and it's been done for other articles just as dumb) "It doesn't matter how wrong it is. We've put in too much work to AfD".] (]) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:I would support an AfD. ] (]) 05:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
::I am not sure it would be correct, because the arguments of those who oppose the article's deletion are unbeatable: the sources (''reliable'' sources) exist that discuss mass killing under Communist regimes thereby making the article's subject notable. However, the problem with this article is different (I already tried to explain that elsewhere): the article with such a name should be based ''exclusively'' on the sources that discuss mass killings under Communist regimes as something pertinent to Communism, and these theories should be presented not as established facts, but as ''theories'' (not shared by other scholars, btw), otherwise the article becomes a pure original research. It is incorrect to add sources and facts from other books and articles that deal with some Communist countries taken separately, and it is incorrect to take the scholars' views out of context. We can use Rosenfielde with his "Red Holocaust", but not Wheathcroft, whose works are focused on the USSR only, not on Communist mass killings in general. We can use the Black Book, but I am not sure we can use a Rummel's works, because his "Democide" is a much wider concept (he draw a connection between totalitarianism and democide not between Communism and democide). In other words, the article should be seriously modified: it should discuss not the ''events'' (that have already been covered in many other articles), but the ''views'' of some scholars on commonality between different mass killings under different Communist regimes. And, of course, a critique of these views also should be added.
::In other words, the article should ''not'' be deleted, it should be ''significantly modified'' to comply with its name.--] (]) 06:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

:::The article will always be problematic because we are combining a number of obscure, unrelated non-academic theories from a variety of sources, none of which are specifically about "mass killings under Communist regimes", or even use that term. ] (]) 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
::::No. If we remove all OR the article will ''not'' be problematic. However, after having that done the article should be constantly watchlisted and all attempts to ''" combine a number of obscure, unrelated non-academic theories from a variety of sources ''" should be stopped as attempts to decrease the article's quality and, thereby, to prepare it for new AfD.--] (]) 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. ] (]) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

== More Original Research shoe horned into this article ==

Well sourced material has been deleted based on one editor's OR.

Source defines some mass killings as genocide.
Another source clearly combines people that were killed or deported.

because they use synonyms for mass killings then one editor (based on his own OR that genocide is not mass killing) uses this a justification for deleting properly sourced relative material. ] (]) 07:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:The sentence removed was "During the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks," which for some reaon had five footnotes. Unfortunately, Cossacks do not form an ethnic group and therefore the term "genocide" is inapplicable. Please look up the definition of genocide in the mainstream sources used for the article. If minority opinions are presented as fact, this article will never receive ] status. ] (]) 08:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

::Cossacks are not an ethnic group? See

::''(esp. in czarist Russia) a person belonging to any of certain groups of Slavs living chiefly in the southern part of russia in Europe and forming an elite corps of horsemen. ''

::''Origin: 1590–1600; < Polish kozak or Ukrainian kozák, ult. < a Turkic word taken to mean “adventurer, freebooter,” '''adopted as an ethnic name by Turkic tribal groups of the Eurasian steppes''' ' ''

::Sure looks to me like they are an ethnic group. ] (]) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

:::''Sure looks to me like they are an ethnic group.'''. Sure. And so are the cowboys. (] (]) 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
::::Well -- so far I found dictionary entries and encyclopedia entries using "ethnic" with regard to Cossacks, but not with regard to "cowboys." I suggest that where RSs use "ethnic" that this meand Cossacks are, indeed, ethnic. ] (]) 11:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Also ''Today, Cossacks have been granted status as an ethnic group by President Boris Yeltsin,'' So -- legally an "ethnic group" under Russian law. ] (]) 12:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for disproving your own point. That means that they were not an ethnic group before Eltsin. (] (]) 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
::::::Yeltsin could not "create" a group -- what he did was "recognize" it. Just like when an Indian tribe gets recognized in the US, it does not mean the tribe did not even exist before <g>. ] (]) 12:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Then it would be very easy for you prove your assertions with a RS. (] (]) 13:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Firstly, the statement "''Source defines some mass killings as genocide''" is quite correct, however, the conclusion drawn from it is not. If ''some mass killings'' are genocide that does not mean that every act of genocide is a mass killing (read the basic Lemkin's definition). Mass deportation may also be considered as an act genocide, however, they are not necessarily mass killing. <br />However, the most importantly, the newly added text in actuality ''duplicated'' what the article already says:
:"'' The policy of ] amounted to an attempt by ] leaders to "eliminate, ], and ] the population of a whole territory," according to Nicolas Werth.<ref>Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, ], ''The ]: Crimes, Terror, Repression'', ], 1999, hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 p. 98</ref> In the early months of 1919, some 10,000 to 12,000 ] were executed<ref name="mass terror">Peter Holquist. ""</ref><ref>]. ''A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891–1924.'' ], 1998. ISBN 014024364X p. 660</ref> and many more deported after their villages were razed to the ground.<ref name="Gellately">]. '''' ], 2007 ISBN 1400040051 pp. 70–71.</ref>''"

so the number of killed is already there. Since the number of "killed or deported" hardly sheds more light on the article's subject (mass killings) the new addition simply obscured the issue.--] (]) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:PS. With regard to ethymology, the Turkish word Kazak (Kozak) means "the man from the border"; old German tribe "markomanns" means the same. In that sense, modern Kazakh and Cossacks have the same ethymology, "peoples from the border between steppes and forests".--] (]) 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::PS. IMO before talking about decossacisation, it is necessary to add few words on the reason for that, namely, that cossacks were traditionally one of the most reactionary groups of population of Russian empire, and were used by the tzarist regime to suppress numerous revolts and uprisings. Their very active participation on the White side (and their atrocities) should also be mentioned.--] (]) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

== ''Explaining Postmodernism'' ==

appears to be a self-published book by a professor of philosphy but is shown on his personal website not that of the university where he teaches. The book has been written outside the academic mainstream. Does anyone know if Hicks has subjected any of his views in the book to peer review? Did it attract any attention outside the Mises and Ayn Rand crowd? While I understand that were it not for fringe writers we would not have an article, I think we need to establish that they have received some recognition, like the ''Black Book''. ] (]) 08:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
:Reviewed by Mises Review etc. No reason to dismiss it as "self-published". Publisher also printed "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and "Problems in Finite Group Theory" so is not problematic as to what is published. As for asserting the "Mises and Ayn Rand crowd" is somehow anathema to WP, recall that JW is a follower of Rand. The only valid issue is - does Hicls have credentials sufficient to write a book on philosophy? ] (]) 11:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages, to avoid opening itself to absolutely every idea anyone wants to promote, needs to limit the kinds of sources it uses. Even if a self-published book is reliable, there is probably a book from a major academic press that says the same thing. If there is not, that is a sign that the ideas are fringe. Mainstream ideas have many sources. ] (]) 16:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

== Romania section deleted by anon editor ==

References for Romania found in investigation of victims of communist repression also incudes deaths and disappeared individuals (presumed dead) ] (]) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:That is original research. You have to show that there were mass killings. ] (]) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:The use of the source in the article is a very tendentious original research. The source specifically says that "direct victims" includes 600,000 people put under trial for political crimes, of which only 1/3 were condemned. The rest (1,4 mil) are peasants put under trial for refusing to participate in the activities of the kolhozes, the POWs taken by Soviets between 23 Aug '44 (the date when Romania declared it changed sides) and 12 September '45 (when Romania signed an armistice with the Allies), which other sources put at around 100,000, deportees (including about 70,000 ethnic Germans expelled after 1945 according to the Allied decision, plus some 45,000 people temporarily moved from the western border in expectation of a Yugoslav invasion), Soviet citizens from Bessarabia and Bukovina repatriated to the Soviet Union, 520,000 people who served in the "grey army" (as the size of Romania's military was limited by the Paris Treaty, a part of the conscripts were not enrolled in the regular army, but in work detachments for public construction projects), "tens of thousand" of people who were put under trial for trying to illegally cross the boundary. So nothing about 2,000,000 deaths. The documents talks about "several thousands" of "unnatural" deaths, including in this number people who died of illness caused by environmental detention conditions, and the largest group killing mentioned is that of 7 (seven!) detainees. Moreover, when talking about indirect victims, it specifically mention that this category refers to "family members who suffered from social discrimination", making it clear that it considers the people "who died in liberty as a result of their treatment in communist prisons" and "who died because of the dire economic circumstances in which the country found itself." as part of the 2,000,000 direct victims. Any Romanian speaker can read the source and confirm the above.
:So either bring other sources for that extraordinary large number of deaths, or remove the section.] (]) 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
::If "''the number of direct victims of communist repression at two million people''" refers to the number of arrested, tried, convicted, executed, exiled, deported, died from hunger, disease, etc., then the material re-added by Bobani is not relevant. Please, provide a quote (translated to English) demonstrating that all these two million were killed (or showing another number of killed). The second para (execution of Ceausescu) is irrelevant anyway. --] (]) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::The text, that seems to be irrelevant to the article, has been recently re-added. Since it is impossible to "improve" the irrelevant text, the only reasonable improvement would be its removal. However, before doing that I would like to know if anyone can explain why this text is relevant to the article. --] (]) 04:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::An editor has restored the Rumania section with the notation: "Undid revision 362576700 by The Four Deuces (talk)as it covers an actual conviction for mass murder, it is decidedly on-topic". First, could that editor please explain why the 1989 killing of citizens (now estimated at fewer than 1,000) for which Ceausescu was convicted is seen as "Communist mass killings". Also, could he please explain why the source, a 2001 article on www.moreorless.au.com written by an amateur historian is a reliable source. A side note on writing articles: please go to reliable sources and present what is found there rather than write one's own personal opinion and search for sources that support them. ] (]) 12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::As the criminal convictions were for mass killingfs, it would appear per se to be on topic. is an undoybted RS for ''Four senior officials in the Nicolai Ceausescu Government were convicted yesterday in Bucharest of charges of complicity in genocide. They were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court.'' Is the New York Times insufficient to make a claim of mass killings by the Romanain governemnt? ] (]) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::The fact that a statement is true is no reason to provide an unreliable source. The source used was a personal website, not the ''New York Times''. You are well aware of ]. Incidentally the link in the ''New York Times'' you provided is to the caption of a photograph of officials in Ceausescu government and does not even mention the Ceausescu trial. Could you please read the sources that you are providing. Also, do you have any '''reliable''' source that claims the killings were "mass killings"/ If not could you please remove the section. Thanks! ] (]) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Re: "''Is the New York Times insufficient to make a claim of mass killings by the Romanain governemnt?''" Of course, no. The New York Times article is a reliable source to make a claim that Ceausescu and his subordinates had been ''accused in genocide by their political opponents'', not that mass killings took place in Romania. It is not clear if (i) the mass killings took place in actuality (genocide =/= mass killing); and (ii) if these accusations were genuine: although I do not argue that Romanian regime was brutal, the primary goal of its opponents was to get rid of Communist leaders as fast as possible, not to establish real facts. Remember ] was executed for being a foreign spy, that was absolutely ridiculous, although completely understandable: his opponents wanted to execute him as quick as possible, and the most universal pretext during those times was treason.--] (]) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Not just "accused" - but "convicted." WP requires that where such a claim is made by a reliable source (such as the NYT) that it not be ignored. BTW, the NYT has a number of articles thereon - I chose the one which most succinctly stated the claim. Ascribing the matter of a few thousand deaths as acusations by "opponents" is perilously close to a Godwin's Law invocation. ] (]) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Accused, convicted, no matter. You apply a Western vision of legal procedures to the ex-Communist country. If someone has been convicted in genocide by communist or ex-communist authorities that doesn't mean he really committed it. Again, Beria was executed for treason, however, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that he really did that. One way or the another, we need the source that openly states that mass killings (not genocide) were committed by Romanian authorities, because not every genocide is a mass killing. --] (]) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's widely accepted nowadays that Ceausescu's trial was a kangaroo court. Even those who participated directly acknowledged in the last few years that the trial did not even respect the laws of the communist regime. Actually Ceausescu's rule was the least bloody part of the Communist regime, with only about a dozen political killings (if you include deaths of women who died during illegal abortions, the number could be raised to hundred, but this is not directly to the political ideology, and it's even contrary to communism).] (]) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) Find an RS for the conviction being a fake then. Until then WP '''requires''' we give ] the edge - with the NYT being RS n spades. ] (]) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:The section you support is not supported by the ''New York Times'', but by a personal website. Please read ] in order to gain an understanding of reliable sources. Thanks! ] (]) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
::Re: "'' Find an RS for the conviction being a fake then.''" It is rather loose interpretation of ]. Per WP policy, the burden of proof rests with those who adds/restores the material, and you seem not to sustain the burden. The fact that someone in post-communist Romania was convicted for ''genocide'' does not mean that (i) the genocide took place in actuality, and (ii) that that genocide was ''mass killing'' (per Valentino definition). --] (]) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Collect did a google search and found something that appeared to be a reliable source from the ''New York Times.'' However, the source did not even mention the trial. Collect should provide real sources and read them before presenting them. This article is an embarrassment. Anyone reading it would think that Misplaced Pages was a collaboration between US teabaggers and Eastern European fascists. ] (]) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
:::In short you want truth and not verifiability to be the rule? It isn't. NYT NYT 1000 killings in one incident. Reuters NYT with the wonderful claim ''I can't remember if I gave such an order or not.'' AP ''An officer testified today that President Nicolae Ceausescu's Defense Minister shot himself in the heart because he could not bring himself to obey the dictator and order troops to fire on demonstrators during last month's uprising.'' NYT teporting tribunal verdict NYT ''Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Idi Amin racked up well over 100 million deaths themselves.'' True or not this all meets ]. Scholarly works , , , etc. @TFD, the search is a NYT search for NYT articles. Note the several additional sources for what should be considered supported by RS per WP. ] (]) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Please stop this. You presented what you said was a source about Ceausescu. is the link to the source. Please do not pretend it is anything other than what it is. People can click on the link and read it! It is a description of a '''picture''' of Ceausescu followers who were on trial. It says nothing about Ceausescu. Since you have never read this source you presented, please click on the link now and read it. Now you are providing nine sources! It takes you all of one minute to google search for them and then you expect other editors to actually examine them. Are you aware for example that your first reference is from 1991? How does its reference to "the massacre of almost 100 people" morph into "mass killings under Communist regimes"? Why are you providing a newspaper reference close to the event when 1989 was a long time ago and there are now more accurate sources? Before you reply you should ask yourself whether you intend to improve articles so that they present topics in a neutral point of view or whether you want to use these articles to present your Tea Bag point of view. ] (]) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::] please. The RS source was quoted ''precisely'' by me - despite ] on your part. Did you read the sources furnished? Are thay somehow deficient because they do not agree with what you "know"? Sorry -- ] is what applies, and you well ought to consider the WP policies as being binding. ] (]) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put in 2 Reliable source - in English- that state NC was convicted of the murder of 60,000 people AND genocide. This is obviously related to the topic of Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. It's from reliable sources. If you want to take this to ] please do so, but I can't imagine that they'll have much patience with such an obvious case. ] (]) 02:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

:Collect & Smallbones, I am not questioning that Ceausescu was convicted of genocide, merely stating that the source used is unreliable as a personal website and the first source provided by Collect said nothing about Ceausescu's trial. The next source provided by Collect referred to "the massacre of almost 100 people", which is fewer than the 60,000 claimed by Smallbones. Collect, could you please delete those links which are irrelevant to the facts that you have re-inserted into the article. Smallbones, I am surprised at your total confidence in the indictment against Ceausescu considering that the judges were Communists and no evidence was presented. In fact objective estimates of the massacres during the Rhoumanian revolution are below 1,000. Do you have any sources that claim this was a Communist mass killing? ] (]) 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:Smallbones, your first source does not mention the trial of Nicolae Ceausescu at all. I am unable to access your second source, however if you mention that Ceausescu was convicted of killing 60,000 people you should also mention what informed opinion is about that. ] (]) 08:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Is anybody actually denying that there were mass killings under Ceausescu? Are you saying that because you have a source that says 1,000 rather than 60,000 killings, or for another incident only 100 killings, that Ceausescu was not guilty of mass killings? Are you saying that Ceausescu did not head a Communist regime? Earlier somebody compared Ceausescu to Beria, suggesting that therefore he was not a mass killer, and that genocide is not evidence of mass killing! Quit this nonsense - read the passage I put in and the 2 English language footnotes- both are online. If you have reliable sources who say anything different, you may put them in. ] (]) 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::Reread ] It is not up to us ot "know" what is "true" only to make sure that reliable sources are used for any statements.
::'''The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.''' is quite clear. ] (]) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Correct. In connection to that the NYT article ''is'' a reliable source for the article about circumstances of Ceausescu's conviction. However, to make a conclusion about mass killing in Romania based on this article is an original research. Try to find some academic source that tells explicitly that mass killings (in a Valentino's scale, more than fifty thousand for five years or less) took place in Romania.--] (]) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Pray tell why we need to use a scale from a single source for determining what is a mass killing? Seems to me that a court finding such is sufficient - as is the lumping of NC with Stalin et al as a mass murderer. And if we take your point seriously, '''a dictator of an island nation of 49,000 people could kill every single one of the inhabitants and not commit a "mass killing"?''' Romania is not a juge nation, hence the level to be a mass killing can not be assigned an arbitrary numerical value. ] (]) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Smallbones, you are missing the point. Whether or not the material you sourced is true, it must be backed up by sources. Your source from ''Genocide in international law'' does not say anything about Ceausescu. Collect, it does not matter what your personal opinion on what mass killing is. That is original research. ] (]) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}}Re: "''The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth''" Correct. The statement that Ceausescu was convicted for genocide is verifiable and the source is relevant ''to the article about the circumstances of Ceausescu's death''. <br />Re: "''Seems to me that a court finding such is sufficient...''" Yes, if it is a Western court. In actuality, a decision of Romanian court, immediately after revolution, is hardly an evidence. More reliable evidences have to exist if mass killings took place in actuality.<br />Re: "''a dictator of an island nation of 49,000 people could kill every single one of the inhabitants and not commit a "mass killing''" It is a very interesting question. In actuality, as I already wrote before, only few scolars cited in the article see a commonality between ''mass killings'' and Communism, and Valentino is one who coined the term "mass killing". Majority of other sources ''do not'' see any commonality and discuss different mass killings that occured in one or another Communist country separately. Without Valentino's "Final solution" the whole article would fall apart, because other authors write about Communist ''repressions'' (that include not only mass killings), or about ''genocide'' (not Communist genocide), ''democide'' (committed by ''totalitarian'', not only ''communist'' regimes), etc., but not about "Mass killings under Communist regimes". Therefore, if we want this article to exist, we must stick to the Valentino's definition of mass killings. Otherwise the article will become a pure original research (a compilation of unconnected sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly present in none of them) and I will vote for its deletion (although, as you probably noticed, I didn't vote for that before).--] (]) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Why must we use one interpretation from Valentino when the article relies on many sources? Last I checked, the article made no such claim that only Valentino was a valid source. ] (]) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:The article's claims are not relevant because WP is not a source for itself. The article is based on Valentino's "Final solution" (in actuality, on the fourth chapter of his book; interestingly, Valentino studies not ''Communist'' mass killings, but mass killings in general, so such a selective use of this source is somewhat odd). Other authors write about Communist ''repressions'' (for each country separately), '']'' (by all totalitarian regimes, not only by Communists), '']'' (the same), '']'', etc., so without Valentino the article becomes a compilation of other WP article made around some non-existing concept. In addition, Valentino's concept of "deprivation mass killings" allows us to discuss famines and deportations here (other authors use the term "mass killings" in much narrow sense, so without Valentino, all of that should go). If we do not stick to Valentino we are creating our own concept, that is not explicitly stated in sources. This is a synthesis. Again, although I am not an advocate of deletion of this article, the way you and some other editor change the article suggests that it probably should be deleted because it serves as a permanent seed for sustained attempts of massive synthesis.--] (]) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Collect, you need sources to support allegations of mass killings. Articles must be based on reliable sources, not your personal opinions. Paul Siebert is correct about the weight to be given to the summary court that convicted Ceausescu. Do you think that the findings of Communist courts can be considered reliable? If so we should remove from the article any mention of "mass killings" where the individuals were killed as a result of judicial decisions. ] (]) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I have no "personal opinions" on this issue nor do I need to substantiate such. '''What I presented is that the NYT ''inter alia'' reerred to such crimes, and that the NYT is a reliable soure for claims made in it.''' ] applies. As the NYT referred to the court, please feel free to add any RS material about the court - that is how ] works. Not by excising RS material because you "know" it is wrong. ] (]) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Collect, yes the ''NYT'' is a reliable source. But the article you present, which says, "A Romanian court jailed eight Communist officials and members of the secret police today for as long as 25 years for the massacre of almost 100 people during the December 1989 anti-Communist uprising in a western city, Timisoara," is not a source for the statement, "Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people". Do you understand that a source about people convicted of killing 100 and does not mention any accusations against Ceausescu is not an acceptable source for a statement he killed 60,000 people? ] (]) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
(out) Since I did '''not''' use the NYT for a claim about "60,000 people" it is clear that you are quite confused as to what the NYT says about a conviction of mass killing / genocide in Romania as the various articles refer to them, and the linking by the NYT of NC to Stalin, Pol Pot etc. Please deal wiyth the cites preented and not with straw man issues. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 22:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
:Collect, what are you using this source for? I will post a message at the RSN noticeboard. I do not know what noticeboard to use when editors use sources that are totally unrelated to the opinions they present. ] (]) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:I set up a discussion thread at the RSN noticeboard . Perhaps Smallbones and Collect can explain their "reason" and "logic" there. ] (]) 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
::"According to William Schabas, these charges were based on an overestimation of the number of deaths during the events of the Romanian revolution." That gives the impression that some people acually accept the indictment used in the summary trial of Ceausescu, which is misleading. Read for example what it says at the museum of the 1989 revolution in Romania: "The scale of the massacre becomes more and more exaggerated with reports of up to 60,000 dead in Timisoara. The borders are closed so frustrated reporters cannot verify anything (actual figures later published were 97 dead and 210 injured in total)." ] (]) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

== Cambodia ==

An editor continues to remove sourced material about US involvement in Cambodia without discussion, with the notations, "false "citing," and this theory is prominent only on the fringe left" and "not reliable sources, sorry you hate America". The source used was ''Governments, citizens, and genocide: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach'' published by the ]. Could this editor please restore the edit and explain why they consider this "false citing" and why they consider the source to be unreliable. The deleted text was, "Following the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime, they and their coalition parters received aid and assistance from the United States government. While the US was aware of their genocide they supported them as a check on Vietnamese power". The source says, "In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge received aid and assistance from the United States after their regime was overthrown by the Vietnamese in the late 1970s. Even though the nature of the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge was by then well known, the United States saw them as an important check on Vietnamese power...." ] (]) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:That is a harsh allegation to make citing only one source, and given the academic divergence, and the fact that the only other person I've heart blame America for the Khmer Rouge is Noam Chomsky, I felt that there is inherent POV when few sources are used in such a strong allegation. Its not even mainstream history.] (]) 01:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

::There are plenty of sources which you can find by looking through the books listed . There is in fact no "academic diversion" from these facts and it is not an allegation against the US. The US did not put the Khmer Rouge into power, they supported ]. But after the Khmer Rouge victory, they supported them because they sided with China against the pro-Soviet Vietnam in order to weaken Soviet power. They justified this on the basis that ending Communism took priority, and publicly supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government long after they were overthrown. ] (]) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:As far as i remember, the United States government (and Western Europe) backed ], even after he was forced from power and replaced with a "good" communist regime, or at least ''much'' better than the previous. The United States gave 5 million of dollars to Pol Pot's Prime Minister after his ousting to continue the fight against the vietnamese satelite state. Saying this is ''POV'' clearly shows that you don't know about the matter at hand. --] (]) 18:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

== Dead by starvation is still dead ==

Am I missing something? I can find no mention of the Holmodor.] (]) 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, but they didn't kill all those people on purpose. Stalin didn't start the collectivization project to purposly kill thousands, if not millions of people. That was not his intention. An example on something that was his intention was the Great Purge in the 1930s were he purposly killed thousand, maybe even millions of people, to keep power. --] (]) 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:Actually it is in the article. ] (]) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


== Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer ==
::Oops. You're right. I didn't spell it correctly when I did my search.] (]) 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Regarding removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from ], we also cite a paper published in the journal '''' by Ghodsee and '''' by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --] (]) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. So, if I remember my history and understand you: If you lock someone up in a cage and don't feed them it is murder, but if you simply use the army to keep them from leaving a district w no food, it is politics?] (]) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
::It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. ] (]) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed , or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and ] objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --] (]) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. ] (]) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. ] (]) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


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


:PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
I've reverted the text added by Bobani , that is a pure example of synthesis. The sources do not describe expulsion of Germans as Communist mass killing. In connection to that, I re-iterate my recent proposal: since the article is based on the works of those scholars who see a commonality between mass killings in different Communist states and present these killings as pertinent to Communism (Black Book, Rosenfielde, probably Valentino) the article should describe these theories ''only'' (along with their criticism). The works of the scholars who study the mass mortality in Communist countries ''separately'' from each other, and who do not connect these event with the Communist doctrine should ''not'' be used in this article as a support for Communist mass killing theory, because that would be a ]. <br>Although I am not a proponent of the article's deletion, I am afraid that I will have to change my opinion if the tendency to convert the article into a collection of all facts about excessive mortality under Communist will prevail. --] (]) 23:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. ] (]) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? ] (]) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|The Four Deuces}} All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of ) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - ] (]) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


== Why not? == == Recent removals ==


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


== Bad sourcing and obvious bias. ==
Anyway, why doesn't WIKI have a coincident article "Mass Killings under Free Market Regimes"?


This whole page needs to be cleaned up. ] (]) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Notice I did not say "capitalist" Despite 100 years of misuse, the opposite of "communism (socialism)" is free market. Both are social economic systems. Capitalism is a PROCESS (invest today to benefit tomorrow) and is practiced by everybody, regardless of what they claim.


:You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? ] (]) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
So, while I believe this article is bad, I also think the bias of only listing one side of the coin is really bad. And no, I'm not going to create it myself. Let someone w an agenda do the work.] (]) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
*You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --] (]) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can you find any sources showing it is a valid topic for an article? ] (]) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:(edit conflict)If we assume that the current article should tell about the ''theories'' combining mass killings under various Communist regimes together, the answer to the question: "why doesn't WIKI have a coincident article "Mass Killings under Free Market Regimes"?" would be:" because no reputable non-fringe scholars developed such a theory, so we simply have no sources for that; we ''cannot'' start to collect different examples of mass killings under free market regimes, because that would be a synthesis"<br>However, if we decide that the present article, that is just a collection of facts about Communist regimes, is satisfactory, I see ''absolutely no'' reason why similar synthesis cannot be performed for the free market regimes, and, therefore, the answer would be: "because, such an article has not been created yet".--] (]) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::AmateurEditor, you missed the irony. Why do we have an article that promotes the views of ] extremists, people who equate communism with fascism, deny the holocaust, trivialize it by comparing it with Ukrainian famines and promote the same conspiracy theories as the ]? Do you not agree that this is an embarrassment? ] (]) 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mass killings under communist regimes. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

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

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

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussions:

Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer

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

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

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

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

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

Recent removals

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

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

Bad sourcing and obvious bias.

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

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