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 07:09, 30 June 2010 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,510 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,934 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 = 17 |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>

== RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described? ==

How should allegations of genocide against Ceausescu be described? Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians? Should we give equal weight to both? ] (]) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:] was convicted of the Dec. 17, 1989 mass killings of 60,000 people at Timişoara, which was widely reported at the time. However, the Museum of the 1989 Romanian Revolution in Timisoara states that the actual number was 97. Modern scholarship places the total at fewer than 1,000. ] (]) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

::The use of "However" is not recommended - it looks like the purpose is not to report the allegation and conviction, but to imply no crime existed. NC was also accused of prior killings, if one reads the accounts provided. Are we going to imply that the prior killings did not exist? That sort of arguemnt is used by deniers, to be sure. ] (]) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Could you please suggest a "recommended" alternative to however? Ceausescu was not accused of any killings prior to the 1989 revolution. If you want to put such killings in the article then please do so using reliable sources. ] (]) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest killing the article. It has created a situation that CAN NOT be solved.] (]) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:There are no grounds for that, Aaaronsmith. Please see the . ] (]) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

:I did. It's still a terrible article. The problem is not the subject, notability, or documentation. The problem(s) are: A lack of definition for what is to be included (does a mass execution of genuine criminals count? And what is a genuine criminal?), an impossibly huge and contentious subject. Notability aside, there is not way this article can avoid POV (of some kind), ever be complete, ever get even marginal agreement that it has been properly structured to INFORM the reader and not disINFORM by omission and vagueness.] (]) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
::Let's not clutter up this space with a tangent. If you really want to discuss this, start a new section. ] (]) 17:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
:::At the risk of re-opening Pandora's Box, I'm going to also say that having article by this name is a really bad idea. All of the material in this article can easily be included in an article on, for instance, mass killings, rather than have an article whose very title is created to promote a particular point of view. These types of articles have huge NPOV problems. While we're at it, why not have an article titled 'Jews Convicted of Usury', or 'Republicans Convicted of Sex Crimes', or 'African Americans Convicted of Murder'? An article like this violates NPOV before it even gets off the ground. ] (]) 02:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::This box has never been closed. However, your arguments are not completely correct: we ''cannot'' have the article 'African Americans Convicted of Murder' because ''no'' serious scholar proposed a theory connecting African Americans and murders. By contrast, there ''are'' some scholars who connect Communism and mass killings, therefore, the article has a right to exist. However, this article should be devoted to these theories only, not to the events they describe, because ''other'' interpretations of these events also exist that discuss the same events without connecting mass killings and Communism as a concept.
::::The article created a situation when the neutrality policy comes into a contradiction with no-original-research policy: neutrality requires us to present ''all'' points of view (including the point of view of those scholars who see no connection between Communism and mass killings, or consider such a connection non-essential), however, no-original-research prohibits us to include such a statement into the article (because many scholars who study history of the USSR, PRC, etc. simply ignore the theories like Democide or Politicide). --] (]) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)



*Just state all the figures that are available in reliable sources without implying that one figure is better than another. The figure Ceaucescu was indicted for is relevant and sourceable to news reports from the time. The estimates made later by historians are also relevant. Do avoid using "however". Simply break with a full stop or a semicolon. ] (]) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

*Itsmejudith has got it exactly right (except "indicted for" should be "convicted of"). If possible it should be noted WHICH mass murders are being discussed: it's very possible NC was properly convicted of 60,000 murders, but in another case only 97 people were killed, and in another the total was less than 1,000. ] (]) 20:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

**'''Comment''' I did not suggest that the article should use the terms "however" or "indictment", which is absolutely clear by what I wrote above. I mentioned the indictment because it outlined the charges for which Ceausescu was convicted. The actual conviction does not do this - it says he was convicted of the charges in the indictment. Smallbones, where did you get the idea that the numbers in the indictment could possibly be true? Please provide a source that says any reputable source accepts this figure. ] (]) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
***'''Reply''' you asked for a comment - I consider it to be in very bad form to then argue about the comment. Nobody should argue about a suggestion to identify which mass murder you are talking about. As I see it, you have been questioning whether any mass murder at all occurred; confusing the issue by quoting several sources which quote different numbers in different languages without identifying which mass murders they are talking about, and then arguing for deleting the section because of the confusion. What you need to do is find sources that state what you think happened - how many people were murdered under what circumstances. Nobody argues that NC was NOT convicted of mass murder. If you disagree with the source cited, you need to GET a SOURCE that squarely eliminates the confusion. If the sources disagree, so be it. But do not add to the confusion and then argue to delete. ] (]) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I am not questioning the source: the source in fact does not say that Ceausescu was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 people. What I am saying is that the actual number killed should be sourced. I find it ironic that you would accept the findings of this court as the truth. ] (]) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::It is '''not''' our function here to determine "truth"; it is only our function to assure '''verifiability'''. See ]. Where editors insist that their view of '''truth''' be what is presented, they are basically ignoring WP policy. ] (]) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::In actuality, our function is three-prong: verifiability, neutrality and no original research. I doubt this section to meet these criteria. If mass killings really took place, the reliable academic sources must exist that clearly state that. Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania. Otherwise, the section should be removed per ]--] (]) 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Synthesis is taking ''multiple'' sources to each support ''part'' of a single claim in a single sentence. Such is not the case here. The source used states that NC was found guilty by a court of mass killings. It is ''not'' up to us to judge the court, or to state that the matters of fact found by the court are not "true." And the requirement is that the source be "reliable" not that it be "academic" by the way. The NYT is not "peer reviewed" and is an RS under WP policies. ] (]) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Collect, you are claiming that the findings of the tribunal that convicted Ceausescu are a reliable source for facts. Can you please point to any guideline that supports your faith. ] (]) 15:28, 2 (UTC)
::::::::::Re: "''Synthesis is taking ''multiple'' sources''" Correct. frankly, I meant ], synthesis is a part of. In connection to that, please, compare my words:
:::::::::::"'' Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania.''"
::::::::::with:
:::::::::::]
::::::::::Please, demonstrate that the Romania section is not ]. Per ] you must do that.--] (]) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
(Out) No - '''I am claiming that a RS reported what the tribunal did.''' ] is not about "truth" or "facts" - it is about "verifiability." It is most specifically '''not''' up to editors to determine "truth." As to the OR claim, as long as the individual claims are sdirectly supported by RS sources, and as long as no conclusion is drawn therefrom, OR does not apply. To wit: ''The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.'' If the material is as cited and is found in RS sources, and no synthesis occurred, then WP:OR has not been violated. ] (]) 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, the source telling about the tribunal is reliable, and it meets ] criteria. However, since this article not about NC, and not about tribunal, to conclude from this source that Communist mass killings took place in Romania would be ]. Again, please, demonstrate the opposite, otherwise I'll remove the section soon. By "demonstrate" I mean to provide quotes and sources that explicitly state that mass killings were perpetrated by the Communist regime in Romania. If these killings really occurred, and if the issue is notable enough, it will be not a problem to find such sources.--] (]) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania. That is what the source explicitly says. It is a relaibkle source. It is not OR to aver that NC was a Communist <g>. In fact, the NYT says he was a Communist. No OR. The source is RS. The cite remains proper. "''If they really occurred''" seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." That is, moreover, the one thing as editors we can ''not'' try using as a rationale. ] (]) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Reliable sources state that the numbers of victims in the indictment against Ceausescu, for which he was convicted, were false. There is no reason why we should not accept what reliable sources state with the argument that no one can "know the truth". Remember that articles are based on verifiability not truth. ] (]) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::Re: "''It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania.''" Correct. However, to include this fact into the article about mass killings ''is'' OR, because the source does ''not'' directly support the idea that these mass killings really took place. Again, if you believe they did, please, find the source that directly state that.
::Re: "''seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." ''" I know the WP policy; I also started to suspect that there were no mass killings in Romania, because, despite my multiple requests, noone has provided reliable sources so far that tell about ''mass killings'' (not ''conviction'') in NC's Romania.--] (]) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Careful Paul, you're being too logical/correct for Misplaced Pages. You'll just make people hate you.] (]) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::I have never heard about the shooting of demonstrators described as mass killings. When the US government shot students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State it was called a "massacre" not a mass killing. How is this different? ] (]) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Is it possible that 97 is a greater number than 4? Most people do not consider 4 to be a very large number. Meanwhile, it is up to us to use the words used in reliable sources, not to assert what we "know." NYT NC hired assassins to kill dissidents and to try to kill radio employees. ''General Plesita showed no remorse for crushing anti-Communist dissent..'' ''Mr. Ceausescu literally sold ethnic Germans to the West German government for hard currency, several thousand dollars worth for each of them, in return allowing roughly 10,000 to 15,000 of them to emigrate each year from 1978 to 1989.'' ''but he built such a brutal cult of personality and such a foreign debt that he ended up the only leader to be executed.'' et alia. The sources make claims - it is not for us to say the claims in RS sources are not what we "know" to be wrong. ] (]) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You repeatedly ignore the point: noone questions the validity of the source's statements. However, to state that ''mass killings'' (50,000 for 5 years or less) occurred in Communist Romania would mean to make a ''conclusion'', which constitute an original research (and simply contradicts to what the source states).--] (]) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Even the strongest opponents of the US used the term '']'', not ''My Lai mass killings'', even though more people were killed there than during the Romanian revolution. And Ceausescu's agreement with the West German government had nothing to do with mass killings. ] (]) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::The Romania section may exist in the article ''only'' if some reliable source supports the fact that mass killings took place there. Instead of wasting my time in endless discussions with the person who refuses to get absolutely clear point, I've performed a search and I found that almost nothing is known about mass killings in Romania. However, I found a table in the Valentino's book where Romania is listed among the states where some killings ''may have occurred'', although the evidences are insufficient to judge about their scale, intentionality of motives. Such a statement ''is'' sufficient to include the Romania section into the article. -

::::::Based on that, I include the materials from the Valentino's book into the article, remove the OR tag and delete all non-relevant material from the section. I also propose to close this RfC, because the issue is resolved. --] (]) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Why single Romania? The book uses the same terms about Bulgaria and DDR. Better have a section under the Controversies header listing "possible cases". Also, a note in the article about Valentino's domain of expertise would be needed, as he used a lot of time as a source.] (]) 18:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The source is a table in Valentino's book where he says, "All figures in this... table are author's esimates based on numerous sources". It seems that if we are going to mention cases of estimates of possible cases then we should use the sources upon which Valentino relies. Incidentally, the entry is for East Germany not the DDR. Presumably this occurred during ''de jure'' Soviet occupation in 1945-1949 since the cause listed is "Political repression by Soviet Union". ] (]) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::IIRC, the US and many other nations never recognized the "DDR" and continued to refer to it as "East Germany." For the earlier era it was called the "Soviet Zone." (Hallstein Doctrine) The FRG and DDR joined the UN in 1973 - well after your 1949 date. So much for that cavil. ] (]) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::In 1972 the two Germanies agreed to recognize each other and they were both admitted into the UN in 1973. The GDR was recognized by the US and the GDR and the US exchanged ambassadors. However none of this is relevant. The term "East Germany" refers both to the Soviet Zone and the GDR. We should not say that mass killings may have occurred in the GDR when the source says "East Germany" - the reference to "political oppression by Soviet Union" may have occurred during the Soviet ''de jure'' occupation (which by the way was recognized by the United States) rather than 1949-1989. ] (]) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Any killings from 1949 to 1972 would be described as "East Germany" which appears to be the case in the RS source. ] (]) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::What reason do you have to believe that Valentino would make this distinction? ] (]) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{out}}Collect, if you want to change Paul Siebert's edit for Romania, please use reliable sources that support what you are putting in. ] (]) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
:Since they were reliable sources for the claims made in the first place, your comment is useless here. ] (]) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::Sources must also be '']'' (simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article). ] (]) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::The sourrces refer to Ceausescu. I assume that the fact he was a Communist is not seriously in dispute, nor the fact that he was from Romania, nor the fact that he ruled Romania under a "communist regime", nor the fact that he was convicted of mass killings. The article is about mass killings under communist regimes. Seems 4 for 4 on being related. What other article fits that 4 for 4 fit? ] (]) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::The source does not say he committed mass killings. Please find a source that says he did. Also, do not assume, please see ]. ] (]) 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Sources say he was '''convicted'''. Which was what I said. No assumptions involved. Still 4 for 4. ] (]) 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::No sources say he '''committed''' mass killings under Communist regimes. ] (]) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The present article tells nothing about the leader's fate. For instance, nothing is said about de-Stalinisation in the USSR. One way or the another, any attempts to re-introduce the text about NC conviction will be reverted per ] until more reliable sources on mass killings will be provided. However, I doubt it is possible taking into account that such a serious scholar as Valentino failed to find anything concrete.--] (]) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::<s>I would like to point out to Collect that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to promote anti-Communism or other American extremist views but to present a fair and balanced opinion of subjects. I would also like to point out that distorting sources will probably discredit your views and that the best way to defend your views is to insist on accurate presentation of facts. ] (]) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)</s>
::::::::Putting misleading information into the article is unhelpful, and will make it appear more like an anti-Communist tract that a neutral account of mass killings under Communist regimes. While the intentions may be noble, to warn people of the dangers of Communism, it may also have the opposite effect, because anyone looking into the Ceausescu trial would see that this article is misleading and therefore question the entire article. However unpopular a system of government may be, we must not abandon ] in writing about it. ] (]) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::A commnent from the Guardian is ''unlikely'' to represent "American extremism." Nor does the new material make any specific accusation agaoinst Ceausescu. ] (]) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(out) Straw man issues such as "American extremist views" are a personal attack, and I insist that the attack be stricken. Such has no place on this talk page, or on any talk page. ] (]) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:Collect, the term "]" has a specific meaning and is inapplicable here. It was not my intention to personally attack you, so I have rephrased my comments. ] (]) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
* Guys, could you next time formulate RFC questions better? It looks as if the murder of NC and his wife is equated to "genocide against Ceausescu". To the point: whatever the killers invented in the heat of the moment should be clearly labeled as such - gunmen's apology. They could say 60 thousand, or 600. That's the way the revolutions work, the loser takes it all and pays the bill for everybody. ] (]) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
:I am at fault and I changed it. You make an interesting point though. Ceausescu was convicted by a Communist court and may therefore be a "Victim of Communism". However one editor, ], thinks that the findings of Communist courts are reliable sources and take precedence over the opinions of American academics. ] (]) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::Making false statements about what I "think" ill-serves your position. I insist that ] is official policy here, and that the New York Times is a reliable source for stating that Romanians were found guilty of genocide. And others at RSN agree that the New York Times is a reliable source for that sort of factual information. I also insist that inserting what an editor "knows" is directly contrary to WP policy and rules. ] (]) 11:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree. You should not insist on inserting what you know about about mass killings in Romania but should find reliable sources. The findings of a Communist tribunal are not a reliable source. Also, please avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting. ] (]) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::The term is "quotation marks" and use is dictated by manuals of style, not by your "knowing" what "quote marks" must be used for. '''The use of quotation marks around "know" is thus proper and correct.''' What I believe to be proper in an article is '''material found in reliable sources''' which means the Guardian and NYT meet that requirement of ]. Thank you most kindly. ] (]) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Could you please provide a source for your position on the use of "quotation marks"? ] (]) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::What a strange debate, why is it even going on? Ceausescu was convicted of mass killings, this was widely reported so why is it an issue? There are even books on the subject, really what exactly is the issue? ] (]) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::As explained at the top of this section this strange debate is about "Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians?" The second source you provide says, "On the orders of Ceausescu, hundreds and perhaps thousands of these protesters were killed on December 19, 1989". Those are the numbers accepted by historians. However, Collect and others insist on presenting the numbers in the indictment, which is 60,000. What do you think? By the way, your first reference does not mention mass killings by ] at all. Could you please take the time to read your sources before presenting them. ] (]) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Strange as the first source says, ''mass killings during the 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the ceusescu regime'' perhaps you should take the time to read the sources before commenting? Also i`m with collect on this, we use what the sources say and if the sources say 60k were killed then that`s what goes into the article per ] Lets face it 60k is on the low side for murder for NC. ] (]) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{out}}Although the words "straw man" have been already utilized here, that was done in the incorrect way. Let me point out that this RfC ''as whole'' is a typical example of the ] fallacy. <u>Firstly</u>, it is impossible to question the fact that NC was found guilty of genocide by revolutionary tribunal, and all sources that describe that fact are reliable and unquestionable. <u>Secondly</u>, these ''reliable'' sources do not provide independent confirmation of the fact that mass killings took place. In other words, these sources are quite reliable for the circumstances of NC conviction and execution, however, they are ''not'' reliable for the very fact of genocide. <u>Thirdly</u>, we already have a ''reliable'' source in the article that states that the data about mass killing are ''insufficient'' for making judgement, therefore, it would be an original research to write that the fact of genocide has been well established.<br>One way or the another, the attempt to use ] as a pretext for violation of ] is not acceptable.--] (]) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While in this case, the people accused of genocide were acting under the instructions of Nicolae Ceausescu, it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. Anyway you are missing the point. No reliable source uses the figure 60,000. If you want to use that number, then please provide a reliable source. ] (]) 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:Re: "''it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. ''" By writing this you provide your opponents with additional arguments. Obviously, the source ''is'' both valid and reliable, however, it is used in incorrect way. The problem is ''not'' with the source but with its usage.--] (]) 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::I am referring to ], which does not say anything about Ceausescu's connection with mass killings. (Of course one may infer that since mass killings occurred under his regime, he committed mass killings.) ] (]) 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::: I hope the ] is reliable enough ] (]) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::The article says, "initial reports suggested many hundreds had been killed. In fact the number of dead was probably fewer than 100.... Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people...." Could you please provide a reliable source that states 60,000 people were killed. ] (]) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Do you not actually read the sources? The initial reports is about the actual uprising, not how many people he had put to death. That is a reliable source saying he was accused of killing 60k people, do you have a source saying he did not? ] (]) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::But here`s another source saying he killed 60k
::::::The source you provide is a Dec. 26th editorial from the ] of Lawrence, Kansas that says "Ceausescu reportedly was responsible for killing 60,000 Romanians...." Do you have a source saying that he killed 60,000 people? BTW we do not add false information to articles and require people challenging it to provide a source that disputes it, although in fact historians do dispute this figure. ] (]) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I have now given you two sources which say he was accused of killing 60k people i have also given sources from books which say he was a mass murderer and was tried for it exactly what is it about these sources you have an issue with? ] (]) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::And another and another ] (]) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, these are contemporaneous news stories that report the charges against Ceausescu, not sources that he killed 60,000 people. I noticed that you added text to the Romania section where you refer to the conviction but not to scholarly estimates of the actual numbers. This is a gross violation of ]. Also, you have used a source that is about trials that took place after Ceasescu's death. Furthermore, your section is poorly written. It ends with a part sentence. ] (]) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
All those sources say he was accused of killing 60k people, everything you removed was reliably sourced. The section was written just fine, your removal of reliably sourced material is disruptive and i shall ask you to self revert. Note this, i did not say nor did the sources that he killed 60k people, the section stated he was accused of this per so self revert please ] (]) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems with your edit:
*It is poorly written. Schabas' book was not a ], which normally refers to a work of fiction (i.e., about things that did ''not'' happen.) Also, the last sentence is incomplete.
*It says Ceausescu was executed "for the mass murder of 60 thousand people over the course of the Ceausescu regime". In fact the source does not say that this was over the course of the regime. Also, it implies that 60,000 people were murdered, which is speculation.
*] requires that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That does not mean that we report a discredited finding at a summary trial but ignore the consensus of historians.
] (]) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:You are in error ''The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" '' is most certainly in the book the sentence is not incomplete at all. It is not poorly written, that is your pov. ] were is the bias in reporting what the sources say? there is none. Last chance please self revert or i will revert you for removing reliably sourced material from an article without a policy based reason ] (]) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::The final sentence in your edit reads, ''In his novel Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" ''. It is normal in English to use two sets of quotes and to end sentences with periods. Why do you call the book a ]? Also, it leaves a false impression that the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. I have fully explained my position about why this is NPOV and see no value in repeating it. By the way, this is an RfC and perhaps other editors will weigh in on the subject. In the meantime, please note that this article is under a 1RR restriction and therefore you cannot re-insert this subject matter which is the subject matter of this discussion. ] (]) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:::And again you are mistaken, even though this article is under 1r i most certainly can revert you. There is no false impression here, the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, your point makes no sense. It is not normal when quoting from a book or another source to use "stuff here" and it is normal to end a sentence with a full stop, not a period. You appear to be grasping at straws here, btw policy dictates you should have improved upon the content not removed it, if you thought "Novel" was wrong you should have replaced it with book ] (]) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu in the entire "novel". And yes 1RR applies. ] (]) 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ec}}
::::You will be pleased to see i have taken your concerns seriously, I have changed novel-book and i added the missing ", problems solved ] (]) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::''The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu'' Erm, he mentions the Ceausescu Regime of which she was a part, did you actually have a point? ] (]) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Sorry i think you will find in what i added she is mention in this ref , not the book. ] (]) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
#As it was shown several times already, the 60,000 figure is not supported by any modern (post-1995) reliable source. The fact that some reputable sources reported the ''allegations'' in 1989 doesn't mean that we should ignore newer research (just like we don't quote ] when he say the word is flat, even if his works are a prerequisite for any serious study about European antiquity).
#Unless, there's a source explicitly saying the Ceausescu committed mass killing because he was a leader of a communist regime, his mention here is a violation of ]. Otherwise we can create an article about ], where we can include all mass killing in history until 1848, and 80% of the ones after 1848. If you want to present original ideas in this article, please produce a research paper, get it peer reviewed by a reputable institution, and then we will discuss. Until then, please read again ].] (]) 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed during the regime which is what the sources i added clearly state. I have no need to produce a paper nor get it peer reviewed so don`t be silly, per ] the sources and what they say stand, try again please ] (]) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Your comment just shows one more time that you aren't interested in facts or building consensus, just in promoting a certain opinion. Otherwise you would have noticed the numerous sources presented again and again, that show the figure you cite had no relation whatsoever with reality. Yes, the verifiability policy allows you to use those sources, but on a relevant article, such as one about Nicolae Ceausescu or Nicolae Ceausescu's trial, the present article being neither of them. Also, per ] you should not give undue weight to allegations proven wrong, and acknowledged as such even by the people who originated them (in this case, the leadership of the Romanian revolution).] (]) 01:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
{{out}}Re: "''Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed...''" Sorry, but per ] the burden of proof rest with those who adds materials, not removes it. Nevertheless, such a source exists and it has already been cited in the article. Valentino in his book argues that more than 60,000 ''may have been killed'' starting from 1947, however, the documentary evidences are insufficient to make more concrete conclusion.--] (]) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead during the regime did not happen according to modern sources, yet all three fail to provide links to sources saying that 60k people did not die under the regime. Either provide sources to back the claims you are making or give it up ] (]) 08:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::You must have trouble understanding sources. All your sources clearly say that figure is only what Ceausescu's executioners claimed. On the other hand. Another source you quoted, says explicitly: "genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, '''believed, erroneously, to have numbered in the thousands'''". It's clear for anyone with a average knowledge of the English language that the source says that the death toll was less than "in the thousands", which corroborates with , that says "the genocide charge was based on the killing of '''several hundred''' civilians". You can also see in , how the US media already began to back down on the figure in January 1990, which reached 10,000 on the 10th, 4,000 to 7,000 on the 12th, only to reach several hundreds in March 1990. The 60,000 figure is clearly untenable. You can report the accusation in an article about Ceausescu, making it clear who and in what context made the accusation, but not in this article.] (]) 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::Re: "''I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead''" You demonstrated complete misunderstanding of WP policy. Firstly, ]. Secondly, since I do ''not'' insert new claims into the article, I do ''not'' have to provide any sources. By contrast, you (as well as some other editors) want to add some material, so, please, provide a quote form the reliable source that states that 60,000 were killed (not ''believed to be killed'', because such a source, which was added by me, is already in the article). --] (]) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Your full of crap, an edit can`t be reverted out on the pretext that there is new research stating that 60k people did not die under the regime and then not supply the actual sources for it. The links you posted above only deal with the uprising, C was convicted of murdering 60k people during his regime which is what the sources i added actually say. Now either show your source saying he did not have that many murdered or i`ll put it back in ] (]) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Ceausescu's fellow Communists claimed he killed 60,000 people and shot him. Unlike Marknutley, I do not believe that the statements of Communist officials take priority over those of historians. ] (]) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Ok this is getting real boring real fast, were are the sources? Were are the papers by these historians which say 60k people did not die during the C regime? You guys keep saying there are some, lets see them ] (]) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Sources have been provided, but apparently you choose only to accept official Communist statements. While I appreciate we may have different points of view, we are bound to follow ]. ] (]) 22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::No sources have been provided at all, just a lot of hot air. Sources now or my edit goes back in ] (]) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The sources are contained in the second paragraph this RfC. You may find it helpful to actually read the contents of RfCs before responding to them. Regardless the burden is on you to provide ''reliable sources'' for information you wish to insert. ] (]) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Your kidding right? which does not even mention how many died during the C regime. only mentions how many might have dies during the uprising, not how many died during the C Regime. My sources are for how many died throughout the length of the regime, so i reckon my edit stands per ] and ] ] (]) 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:Your first source, the BBC, says they were "'''accused''' of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been '''charged''' in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis). Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara. (Please do not belittle the ''1989 Revolution Museum, Timisoara'' because it is a tourist attraction. The ''British Museum'' is also a tourist attraction. In fact it says exactly what your first and third souces say.) ] (]) 23:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::Your point is? That is what my edit says they were accused and then shot. However you are focusing on the uprising, not the regime lenght, the aources talk of those dead during the length of the regime not just during the uprising, spot the difference. Your tourist museum source is riddled with spelling errors and mistakes, it is not a reliable source for this at all ] (]) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Again, please do not denigrate the museum, which merely states the facts that are shown in your sources. Where is your evidence that there were any killings before the uprising? Can you at least name one victim? ] (]) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Again it`s not a museum it`s a travel agents. All the sources i used in my edit say there were 60k dead during the C regime. The ] The ] Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes All reliable sources, all saying the same thing he was accused and executed for the murder of 60k people throughout the course of his regime. ] (]) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::BTW ''Can you at least name one victim?'' Vasile Milea ] (]) 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::] died during the 1989 revolution along with hundreds of others. In fact he was not a victim of Ceasescu at all. However I was referring to victims from before the revolution - we are agreed that there were victims in December 1989. (No, I cannot name any vicims before the 1989 revolution.)] (]) 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Care to comment on the sources i presented? ] (]) 01:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Your first source, the BBC, says they were "'''accused''' of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been '''charged''' in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis). Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara. ] (]) 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
You keep saying that, yes that is what the sources say. And that is what my edit also said. So what exactly is your issue with the edit i made to the article? btw the third source also says ''as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime'' strange that you missed that out ] (]) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:I do not consider the Communist Party of Romania to be a reliable source. I do not know if you are a Communist or a Romanian and hold neither against you but WP is based on reliable sources. ] (]) 04:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - This apparently reliable source give the figure of 1,104 deaths during the 1989 revolution: http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/The-fall-of-Communism/The-Romanian-revolution-and-the-price-of-freedom Are you talking about deaths during his entire time in power? Here is his obit from the NY Times - no mention of allegations of genocide: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicolae_ceausescu/index.html ] (]) 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

== Conviction for genocide rather implies Mass killing - really! Even the UN definition says so! ==

The factual material from the NYT was removed on the basis that a source using "genocide" in it does not mean "mass killing." I know of no reason for removal of the Guardian cite at all. Query: Does "Genocide" imply "Mass killing"? I ratbher thinbk it is implicit. Especially as the UN defined "genocide" as including ""any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." How one can thus claim that "genocide" somehow fails to fall within the purview of this article is rather hard to comprehend. Please restore that material, as being fully sourced and germane. ] (]) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:Obviously, the quote provided by you demonstrate you were wrong. Not all mass killings are genocide and not all genocides imply mass killings. For instance, Nazi program of Germanisation of the Poles ("''forcibly transferring children of the group to another group''") was a genocide, however it was not mass killing.
:However, my point is different. You problem is that you make a wrong emphasis. The source is irrelevant because it tells about ''allegation'' of genocide, not allegation of ''genocide'' (the emphasis on the word "allegation", not "genocide"). The statement that some people may have been killed in Socialist Romania is already in the article, so the quotes provided by you give no additional information and create a ''visibility'' of clarity.--] (]) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::Try '''Conviction''' not ''allegation.'' Convictions are generally regarded as '''facts''', last I checked. Your mileage varies? ] (]) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::''Conviction'' by some court in some Western country mean much more than just ''allegation'' (although the difference between "legally proven" and "scientifically established" is huge). However, the situation with NC was different: he was never convicted by more or less objective court to speak about any truth (btw, that can equally mean his actual crimes were ''greater'', not ''smaller''). One way or the another, I already presented this argument, so I see no reason to re-iterate all of that again and again. Try to provide anything fresh.--] (]) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::The NYT source does not refer to NC, so the cavil about him is not relevant. ] (]) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Collect, many of the victims in this article were in fact convicted by Commmunist tribunals of treachery. Should these be excluded because we can assume as fact that they were guilty of the charges? ] (]) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Find RS sources and add that in then - but excluding the NYT is silly. I would be delighted to see sources saying that those killed under communist rule in Romania were executed for "treachery" as you state. Add them. ] (]) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::Where does the ''NYT'' say that the allegations in the indictment on which Ceuasescu was convicted may be considered to be facts? Where in WP policy does it say that a conviction verifies facts? ] (]) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::The NYT cite I gave does not accuse NC of anything, thus it certainly does not even say he was convicted. It does say that certain Romaniand were convicted og genocide - and is a RS for the '''fact that the convictions took place'''. Which is all that the claim says, and thus is all the RS need say. ] (]) 01:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{od}}
You are of course correct Collect. ] (]) 01:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::The fact that some Romanian court convicted some Romanians of genocide neither confirms nor refutes the thesis that mass killings took place in Romania, therefore these quotes add no additional information to what the article already says. By contrast, in the absence of needed reservations these quotes create a false impression that some genocide occurred in Romania. I myself have no idea if some mass killings took place in Romania (probably, yes). However, the sources used provide no information on this account. Try to find better sources if you want to clarify already existing text supported by Valentino's book.--] (]) 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

== Request For Comment ==


This text has recently been added and then reverted out.

On the 22 of December 1989, Romania's communist leader ] was overthrown in a revolution. Both he and his wife ] were executed on the 25 of December 1989 by firing squad for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime. <ref name="David Lauter">{{cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-26/news/mn-981_1_security-forces|title=Ceausescu, Wife Reported Executed Secret Trial Condemned Dictator; Bucharest Calm Romania: The army announces plans for a 'final offensive' against the security forces loyal to the ex-ruler.|last=Lauter|first=David|date=December 26, 1989|work=Los Angeles Times|publisher=Los Angeles Times|accessdate=7 June 2010}}</ref> <ref name="Romania's bloody revolution">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/574200.stm|title=Romania's bloody revolution|last=Horsley|first=William|date=22 December, 1999|publisher=BBC|page=1|accessdate=5 June 2010}}</ref> The provisional government announced that they had rejected the charge of genocide <ref name="Guardian Centuary">{{cite news|url=http://century.guardian.co.uk/1980-1989/Story/0,,110504,00.html|title=Television shows last hours of the 'anti-Christ'|date=27 December 1989|work=The Guardian|publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited|page=1|accessdate=7 June 2010}}</ref> Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people <ref name="Bryan Brumley">{{cite news|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19891227&id=THstAAAAIBAJ&sjid=g84EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6852,3874940|title=US Sending $500,000 aid package to Romania|last=Brumley|first=Bryan|date=Dec 27, 1989|work=Herald-Journal|publisher=AP|page=2|accessdate=5 June 2010}}</ref>
In his book ''Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes'' William Schabas wrote, "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" <ref>{{cite book|last=Schabas|first=William|title=Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes|url=http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521787904|edition=2|year=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521787901|page=624}}</ref>

{{reflist}}

I believe wider community input is required here to decide if these sources used support the proposed text. ] (]) 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


====Comments by Involved users====
I insist the question has been incorrectly stated. Of course, the sources ##2 and 3 support the fact that NC and his wife were executed for genocide. With regard to the source #1, it is not clear from it if those 60,000 were killed during the revolution or before that. <br>However, that is not the major issue. The fact that NC was tried, convicted and executed for "genocide of 60,000 people" is well established and unquestionable, however, the question is quite different. Correct formulation of this RfC should be:
:"''Are the materials on NC trial and execution relevant to this article?''"

The answer is not as obvious as someone thinks. Firstly, killings in Socialist Romania were hardly a genocide. On the page 391 of his book (ref #3) William Schabas writes that legislation in Ethiopia, Spain, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Romaina use a non-conventional and too loose definition of genocide. In other words, the Romanian definition of genocide is wider than that defined by UNO convention.<br>Secondly, on the page 392 William Schabas noted that the accusation of genocide was based solely on the large number of victims, and that this number was determined incorrectly:
:"''...prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands''"(ibid)

In other words, whereas the source #3 confirms that NC was convicted of genocide, both the conviction and the number of killed has been questioned by the source.<br>Thirdly, this article tells about mass killings perpetrated by Communist authorities in some Communist states, not about the biographies of their leaders. Therefore, the sources and facts telling about NC, not about mass killings in Socialist Romania shed no additional light on the events described in this article, are irrelevant and misleading.<br>My conclusion is: the sources carry no information about mass killings and, importantly, are presented in such a way that they create a false impression that the events in Romania were genocide. That is not what the sources say, therefore, this text was correctly removed per ].--] (]) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)<br>PS. A direct comparison of the source #3 with the RfC text demonstrates that mark nutley committed misinterpretation of the source. Although I believe that has been done unintentionally, it would be good if he commented something on that.--] (]) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:*'''Question''' Which part of ref 3(now ref5) do you think is misinterpreted? ] (]) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::Firstly, the ref was incorrect. The text you refer to is on the page 391-2, not on the page 624. Secondly, the source states that
:::''"The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"'''
::on the same page the author specifies that he disagrees with that conclusion:
:::''...prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands''"
::In other words, according to the author, although NC was tried and convicted of genocide it is incorrect to speak about genocide in this case, because (i) genocide was not a proper charge, and (ii) the number of victims was determined erroneously. By providing the first quote and omitting the second one you presented the author's description of the event as his conclusion, although his conclusion was quite different. You distorted the author's idea to push your own POV. That is a major violation of the WP policy.--] (]) 13:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::You are conflating two issues, one is the amount of dead during the uprising. The second is the amount dead during the time C was in power. The ref`s used above all talk of the amount of people killed during the regime, not during the uprising ] (]) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Also ''prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousand'' refers not to C but to four of his aides, and their part in the uprising ] (]) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::It is not clear form the sources how many people did he killed during the time he was in power. Provide extended quotes to demonstrate your idea.
:::::Re: "''refers not to C but to four of his aides''" The book has no other mentions of Ceausescu. Does it mean that Ceausescu was not charged of genocide?--] (]) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::PS. I noticed you continue to collect the sources that reproduce the official Romanian reports on circumstances of Ceausescu's death. Since all of them are just a repetition of the same information (and since noone questioned he was executed for alleged genocide) I doubt it to add more weight to your statements. All these materials are unquestionable, and all of that is irrelevant to the article's subject.--] (]) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::I would recommend you reread this ref, you appear to be getting confused by it. This refers to C ''"The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"''' the second part ''prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands'' refers to four of his aides and their part in the uprising. I am unsure why you are finding this so difficult to get? ] (]) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Can you please explain me what concrete idea this source is supposed to support and how all of that can be relevant to this article ("Mass killings under Communist regimes")?--] (]) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


WP policy dictates that material from reliable sources be used for any claims. If someone has a different POV to give, then it is proper to add reliable sources for differing claims. Removal of the initial claims, moreover, violates ] ''ab initio''. There appears to be no argument that the sources I offered (NYT and Guardian) do not support the claims made (it is not up to us to "know" (]) anything about a topic, only that we accurately assign claims to the sources). ] (]) 14:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) No. ] cannot come in a contradiction with ]. There is no explicit statements in the sources about mass killings ''committed'' (not allegedly committed) in Romania, so you must prove you performed no synthesis by adding this material into the article. Let me also point out that the synthesis can be performed even by combining several verbatim quotes form reliable sources ''even'' if no other text is added at all.--] (]) 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:Collect are you saying the removal of the above text was in fact a breach of policy? ] (]) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::Removal of synthesis is not a breach of WP policy. --] (]) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::What part of the proposed text do you think is synth? All is sourced and quoted correctly there is no synth that i can see ] (]) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::The mention of "''mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime''" that have been reproduced by many sources is just a quote from one single primary source (that, obviously, was considerably biased). None of the secondary sources neither confirm nor refute these accusations. Therefore, by providing the quote without reservations you push the idea not explicitly stated in these sources. Moreover, the fact that after more that 20 year passed from NC death no reliable secondary sources exist that describe the details of mass killings committed by his regime means that the issue is not as clear as you want to present. I personally am very surprised that neither you nor Collect were able to find anything serious on that account.--] (]) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::That is not synth, that is stating what the sources say, your argument about synth is a fraud, the book itself is a reliable secondary source, as are the other refs per ] and ] ] (]) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::The fact that the book is a reliable source (btw, why did you decide that I disagree with that?) does not mean that you can arbitrarily take short fragments from there and to use them to demonstrate the idea not explicitly stated by this reliable source.--] (]) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I`m not, i`m quoting what is in the book, it is you who are conflating two entirely seperate statements in the book not I ] (]) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, you are quoting the book, but you do that selectively. Can you tell me what is the main idea William Schabas is trying to convey on the pages 390-393?--] (]) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::In addition, the author's remark ("''... romanian prosecutors ...etc''") seems to summarise the whole para, not just the case of Ceausescu's assistants. In other words, it seems to be equally relevant to the circumstances of Ceausescu's conviction.
::::::::In other words, you quoted Schabas' words where he reproduced what the newspapers say about Ceausescu's death, however, you omitted the Schabas' own opinion on that account. In actuality, in this part of the book Schabas analyses the examples of incorrect applications of the accusations of genocide. He consider the cases of Ethiopia, Cambodia, Spain and Romania. In the Romanian case, his conclusion (quoted by me above) was that both accusations and the number of victims were incorrect. Obviously, these words have a relation to ''all'' accusations, including those put forward against Ceausescu. (Interestingly, NC was not mentioned by Schabas at all, the only person mentioned explicitly is the Nicolae Ceausescu's son. So, formally speaking, this book, that does not address the NC conviction explicitly, cannot be used at all. Of course, by writing that I just point your attention at the danger of a formal approach.)
::::::::From your comments I conclude that you made this misinterpretation unintentionally, because you simply didn't understand what was the major author's idea. However, now, when I explained you what was your mistake I expect you to stop insisting on your wrong interpretation of the source, otherwise it will be hard for me to assume your good faith.--] (]) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::And again you are either misreading the ref or are doing so intentionally, I`ll quote the lot for you as you are having such difficulty with it. "Several Romanian leaders including the son of nicolae Ceausescu were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide. The allegations concerned mass killings during the december 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu regime." This is entirely separate to the section about the four aides which says "Four Ceausescu aides were convicted of complicity in genocide at Timisoara" This was two separate trials and verdicts which you are lumping into one, read the ref properly please. ] (]) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
{{out}}re: "''read the ref properly please''" Well, the chapter we are talking about is "''Prosecution of genocide". On the page 391 the authors writes that "several national jurisdictions have prosecuted mass killings and atrocities under the label of genocide. In some cases, national law had changed the definition of genocide to give it a wider reach. Prosecutions pursuant to these idiosyncratic definitions of genocide have been indicated in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Romania and Spain''"

On the next pages Schabas analyses all these four cases of application of these ''idiosyncratic definitions of genocide'' separately. Each para, devoted to the analysis of each case, starts with a brief description of the events and ends with the author's comments. The para about Romania is quoted below in full:
:"''Several Romanian leaders, including the son of Nicolae Ceausescu, were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide(<small>a ref to eric David</small>). The allegation concerned mass killings during December 1989 popular uprising, as well as other victims on the Ceausescu regime(<small>the refs added to NYT and WP</small>). Genocide charges were also filed against former police officers for their participation in killings in Timisoara in 1989 where nearly 100 people died(<small>ref to NYT</small>). Ceausescu's son was acquitted of complicity of genocide(<small>NYT</small>), but the former dictator's brother, Nicolae Andruta Ceausescu, was convicted of indictment to genocide(<small>NYT</small>). Four other Ceausescu aides, Emil Bobu, Manea Manescu, Ion Dinca and Tudor Postelnicu, were convicted of complicity in genocide for their role at Timisoara(<small>WP</small>) Romanian prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands''"

In other words, all but the last sentence is a brief summary of what newspapers wrote about the events in Romania. Just a brief comparison of this para with other paras devoted to other three countries demonstrates that it was not a Schabas' goal to educate a reader or just to reproduce what newspapers wrote on that account, because his actual goal was to come to some conclusion. Obviously, the author's conclusion is made in the last para's sentence, and this conclusion is about the Romanian case ''as whole'', i.e. about the whole paragraph, not to the penultimate sentence only.

And, finally, please, note that the para and the book itself tells only about trials of Ceausescu's brother, son and his aides, not about Ceausescu himself, so formally it supports nothing. I already wrote about that but you seem to ignore this my point.

In summary, after reading the book carefully, I have to re-consider my initial opinion: not only this source cannot be used per ], it even has to be excluded per ], because it contains no information on Ceausescu himself. As a result, the only sources the proposed text is based upon are the 20 years old newspaper articles that cite a single source: revolutionary Romanian mass-media. All these source just transmit what the Romanian mass-media did write about Ceausescu conviction. No independent verification of these facts has been done, according to the sources you provided. The fact that ''no'' scholarly articles have been written so far on the subject is an indication that the mass killings you refer to hardly took place in actuality, or that the documentary evidences do not exist (see, e.g. Valentino) --] (]) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

====Comments by uninvolved users====
I had been editing this article before, but I stayed out of this particular dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved. Apparently, some people argue here that there is a difference between the BBC quote
:''In a summary court martial held in secret, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people''
and what was added to the article
:''Both he and his wife were executed for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime.''
So my question is whether there is an RS supporting the latter? (] (]) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
:*Yes, ] (]) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:*And this one also ] (]) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::So, ok. There was a revolution and new government brought charges against the old government, convicted and executed the previous head of state. That was not the first time something like that happened in history of revolutions and it has been known that such charges are quite often made up and had little basis on actual events. Now, is there an ''independent verification'' of whether the charges were true? Nearly all statements in the current version of the text deserve characterization as "alleged" or "allegedly" at this moment. (] (]) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
::::I am unsure as to what your question means? The LA times says it was an estimated number, the guardian says the rejected the charge of genocide. Neither says allegedly. The first four refs do not say alleged or allegedly at all in fact. However i don`t understand why this actually matters? The ref`s support the proposed text right? ] (]) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::No. The sources say that ''according to the provisional government'' blahblahblah. The provisional government is not an independent source. Is there an independent researcher confirming the findings of the new government? (] (]) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
* '''Comment''' - This apparently reliable source gives the figure of 1,104 deaths during the 1989 revolution: http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/The-fall-of-Communism/The-Romanian-revolution-and-the-price-of-freedom Are you talking about deaths during his entire time in power? Here is his obit from the NY Times - no mention of allegations of genocide: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicolae_ceausescu/index.html I also posted this at the RFC above. You could say he was accused of killing 60,000 at his trial, but it was later found that this was not substantiated and give more reliable figures. ] (]) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
::That seems like an excellent compromise, especially given the point about independent confirmation for the 60,000 figure pointed out by Igny above.--] (]) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The convictions exist and are not "alleged." Adding what we ] is ] and ] - the policy is to cover what is in the source without editorial comment from WP editors on any side. ] (]) 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:Collect, the findings of a tribunal do not establish fact. Incidentally it is part of U. S. law that only judgments of courts of record may be considered conclusive proof and even then only within the jurisdiction of the court (see ]. ] (]) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
:: I find it extremely unlikely that a Romanian revolutionary tribunal presented a neutral or factually accurate view of Ceausescus, bearing in mind that it was essentially a summary trial. The short amount of time taken to try him prevented any accurate data concerning his abuses of power being collected at the time. The '''reason''' he and his wife were machine-gunned was that the anti-communist revolutionaries wanted to eliminate a political threat, not because he was a mass-muderer (which is almost certainly also the case). ] ] 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Actually the tribunal that executed him was also Communist. However ] and ] believe that Communists are more reliable than "Western" academic sources. Comrades, I disagree. ] (]) 02:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

====Moved Comments From The Question Section====

:Setting up an RfC when an RfC already exists on substantially the same topic is ''']'''. Editors may comment on it at ANI I am prepared to set up an RfC about the conduct of ] if anyone has the time to join in. I choose not to participate in this RfC and ask ] to close it. ] (]) 00:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

::Actually, it is not "disruptive editing" as I have seen such in the past on other articles. As for soliciting people to join in an RFC/U, such CANVASSing is highly improper in the first place. Thanks! ] (]) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
:::IMHO, the references to policy violation, complains to ANI etc, is the last resort of those who appeared to be unable to continue a normal dispute. I even see no problem with canvassing: if new people present new arguments, is is always good, if their participation is limited with just "support X", then their opinions have a zero weight per ]. One way or the another, mark nutley seems to exhaust his arguments, so if he will not come out with some new sources in reasonable future the RfC will be closed. BTW, if he ''will'' be able to provide new and reliable sources demonstrating his point, I'll be satisfied too.--] (]) 02:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

:::You should read ] and not accuse other people which is a ]: "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but '''messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive''' (my emphasis). For example if you were to secretly write to editors you believed would support your views on articles such as ] or the ], that would be disruptive editing. But if one is editing an article where an editor is being disruptive and one openly recommends an RfC, then one is not being secretive and not trying to influence the outcome. Perhaps you could explain to me why your opinion is that ] is not being disruptive. ] (]) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Moved this off topic junk from the Question section to here. ] (]) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Reliable sources noticeboard ==

These is a discussion about the reliability of the ''Black Book'' and the ''Victims of Communism'' at RSN. ] (]) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
== How about Ukraine??? ==

Why isn't there a mention of the mass killing by the Communists in Ukraine? 30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists??? There should be a mention of this.--] (]) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:It is mentioned. ] (]) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
::Since Ukraine was one of four co-founders of the USSR (and continued to be a member of the USSR until 1991) it should be covered in the USSR section. With regard to "''30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists???''", I would like to see your sources (of course, Rummel, or similar ''controversial writers'' is not an adequate support).--] (]) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Dear Paul: Give me some time. I will get you sources. If this wasn't Misplaced Pages--I choose to remain anon--I would share with you a picture of my family--I adopted my children from the Ukraine--standing in Independence Square in Kiev, in front of the memorial to the 30 million. Have a good day!--] (]) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I have no doubts that the number of 30 million is being frequently quoted by some nationalists. In addition, I also know that previous Ukrainian government made extensive efforts to victimise Ukrainians, partially to distract public opinion from catastrophic effect their own rule had on their country. However, neutral sources (I mean the articles in Western peer-reviewed scientific journals) disagree with that. It is generally accepted that totally not more than 15 million people died prematurely in whole USSR/Soviet Russia during 1917-53 as a result of actions of Communist authorities, including famine, executions, GULAG prisoners mortality, civil war, etc. I fully understand your emotions and assume your good faith. However, again, reliable sources do not confirm your assertions.--] (]) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Ukraine is an independent state - thus it is properly treated as one. As for evaluating bias of sources, WP policy is that is ''not'' the function of editors to ] the truth. ] (]) 00:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Well, did I understand you correct that you imply that Communist mass killings took place in independent Ukraine, or you propose to split the Soviet Union section onto 15 sections corresponding to presently independent post-Soviet states?
::::Re truth. WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources, and these sources state that Rummel is a controversial writer that is prone to exaggerations.--] (]) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::Consider that during WW II, Poland was part of Germany. We do not, however, say that incidents in what is now Poland took place in Germany! WP uses ''current place identifications'' -- Beethoven was ''not'' born in "Germany" but it is clear that he was born in Germany - get the picture? Ethiopia was part of Italy during WW II -- yet we refer to events there as being in Ethiopia, not as being in Italy. As to the second comment - the WP policy is to ''add'' contrasting opinions rather than delete the opinion one does not like. ] (]) 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::False analogy. Occupied states are not considered to be part of the conquering power. Where maps have been redrawn we use the borders that existed at the time. Otherwise we have St. Patrick going from the U. K. to the Irish Republic, the Pilgrims going from the U. K. to the U. S., and ancient Italians saying "]" and "All France is divided into three parts". (]). ] (]) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::So Beethoven was born in an "occupied state"? Nope. BTW, in the UK, the ''nation'' in which Plymouth is located is England. Nor is silliness regarding quotations proper argument here. The fat is that under the USSR, the ''nation'' was officially Ukraine, and that ''Ukraine is no longer a part of the USSR.'' Period. ] (]) 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Collect is correct, even when a part of the soviet union all the country`s within still retained their country`s name. ] (]) 13:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Re: "''So Beethoven was born in an "occupied state"?''" Germany is not a good example, because during the major part of its history it was a conglomerate of smaller states. The term "Germany" was used since Roman times to describe territories populated by German speaking people.
:::::::::Yes, the nation was officially Ukraine, but the state was the USSR. However, if you propose to discuss mass killings committed ''separately'' by Ukrainian, Russian, Belorussian and other national Communist regimes, let's talk about that.--] (]) 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::False analogy. Beethoven is called German, because he was an ethnic German, not because he was born in what is now Germany. Notice that Germans born in the ] and ] are normally called Germans not Czechs and Poles. Germans who lived in E. Prussia before 1871 are called Prussians. However if we write about the history of the states where these people lived, we write about Prussia, Westphalia, etc. Re: England - the name of the ''country'' the Pilgrims sailed from was England. Collect ignores the reference to St. Patrick who sailed from what is now England but there was no England then. And no when we have articles that discuss government policies throughout the world we would not for example have separate sections for income taxes in England, Wales, etc. ] (]) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Re: "''the <u>nation</u> in which Plymouth is located is England.''" I am not sure if it is possible to say in English that ''something'' is located ''in'' the nation. By contrast to "country", "nation" is not a geographical term.--] (]) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::1. See ] 2. Note that '''Ukraine was one of the founding members of the UN.''' Clearly Ukrainians viewd Ukraine as a nation. 3. Trying to parse a difference between "country" and "nation" reaches new depths.


== Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer ==
''na·tion (nā'shən)
''n. 1.
''a.A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.


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)
''b.The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
: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)
''c.A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.


: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.
''d.The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe. ''
: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)


== 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)
: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. ==
''coun·try   /ˈkʌntri/ Show Spelled Show IPA noun, plural -tries, adjective
–noun
''1. a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
''2. the territory of a nation.


This whole page needs to be cleaned up. ] (]) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
So while "country" has some geographical connexion, trying to claim they are different when dealing with entities such as England or Ukraine is silly. And so the nation Plymouth is located in was, and remains, England. ] (]) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:Well, could you please summarise the point you are trying to convey? Did I understand you correct that instead of discussing mass killings in the USSR you propose to discuss them separately in Ukraine, Belorussia, Russian Federation, Georgia, etc? Or your point is that position of Ukraine in the USSR was different from that of other republics?--] (]) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::As I made no such statement, the queestion is non-utile. The question posed was about Ukraine, which was a UN member. Georgia etc. were ''not'' UN members. The concept of the UN is that members are nations. Clear? ] (]) 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::By that logic, we should exclude China, because they were considered to be part of the anti-Communist ] until the 1970s and the Baltic states because they were never recognized as part of the U. S. S. R. Also, you ignore the fact that the U. S. S. R. government was recognized as the government of the Ukraine. ] (]) 22:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
:::IMO, to observe the most basic formal logic rules is absolutely required in any serious discussion. Firstly, "UN members are nations" does not mean "non-UN members are not nations". Secondly, the USSR was also the UN member. Does that mean that "Soviet", "Ukrainian" and "Belorussian" were three different nations? If yes, it remind me the ] paradox. Thirdly, Ukraine and Belorussia became UN members due to Stalin. Does it mean that you support the idea that Stalin, "''a peoples' father''", was authorised to decide which ethnicity constitutes a nation and which is not, and do you support his decision?--] (]) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Read the section title. Any other speculation is wondrously irrelevant here. It is, moreover, clear that Ukraine is a nation in all definitions of the word. ] (]) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::1. Ukraine is the nation ''and'' was a co-founder of the USSR ''and'' was the part of the USSR during the period of time discussed in the article.
:::::2. There is a section in the article devoted to mass killings in the USSR, which includes mass killings in Ukraine.
:::::3. Therefore, a separate section devoted to Ukraine cannot be included because the same events would be discussed ''twice''. In addition the Holodomor section is already in the article that discusses famine in Ukraine (although not all sources agree that we have sufficient ground for that).--] (]) 04:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::I suggest using the sources themselves as indications of where the information should be located. If the source says "USSR" and mentions the Ukraine ''en passant'', then that source should be placed under "USSR" while any source referring primarily to "Ukraine" and only ''en passant'' to the USSR, belongs under Ukraine. Saying that a source which specifically mentions "Ukraine" must be placed under "USSR" for the reasoning you give, fails the common-sense test of how sources should be used. ] (]) 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Since Ukraine at this time is a part of USSR, it should go under USSR. If there is enough, a subsection is warranted, but under USSR. This is pretty self-evident. --] (]) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Agree. Just because Stalin said it was an independent country does not make it true. ] (]) 14:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


:You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? ] (]) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
==Albanian anti-Communist law==
*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)
There is a discussion about renaming the article ], which was created by the now banned editor ]. If anyone would like to comment on it the discussion is . ] (]) 07:09, 30 June 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: