| Revision as of 17:30, 28 September 2024 editThe Four Deuces (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,495 edits →Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:00, 28 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 60) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
| There are quite a few sources on the historiography of communism in the 20th century, and they usually do cover mass killings and other crimes. Maybe we could use some of them? - ] (]) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | There are quite a few sources on the historiography of communism in the 20th century, and they usually do cover mass killings and other crimes. Maybe we could use some of them? - ] (]) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| == A source on this page appears to cite Misplaced Pages == | |||
| I've seen a claim that the book, Red Holocaust, by ] cites Misplaced Pages articles in its text. Naturally, I wanted to double check this myself and . I'm impaired by the fact I don't have access to the full book, but where you can see the Misplaced Pages pages together with other references. Inclusion of it on this page likely violates ] and ]. These Misplaced Pages citations also don't include the date they were accessed or what version of the article they were from, further making them problematic. Keep in mind the book was published in 2009. Given that I see this source used in a couple different areas on this page and this page's controversial history, I didn't want to remove it myself without discussing it with the other editors. I looked through the Talk Page Archives to see if the issue had been discussed before, and it doesn't appear to have been. Forgive me if I missed it, given the endless discussions that have occurred here. I have to admit, I would be a bit surprised if this issue hasn't been broached before. ] (]) 02:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't require that WP:Reliable sources use only WP:Reliable sources. And ] prohibits using mirrors of Misplaced Pages and so is really not applicable to this. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This article should at least be very cautious with how this book is employed through this page given that, again, it cites Misplaced Pages Articles from 15 years ago and it's unknown which exact version of the articles they are. Are you sure this wouldn't fall under ]? It's only one more step removed. ] (]) 23:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree with North8000. The only other case where it might be important is if a source is used for a fact that the source cites to a Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 19:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::What about broader arguments from Rosefielde mentioned on the page that might draw from some of the facts mentioned in the book? ] (]) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Scholars routinely use unreliable sources. In fact, scholarship would be impossible without them. How else for example could anyone write the history of the Roman Empire, since there were no reliable sources to record any of its events? | |||
| :::Scholars are expected to be able determine what information in unreliable sources is true and what isn't unlike Misplaced Pages editors who lack that expertise. | |||
| :::I myself would never use a Misplaced Pages article as a source for a paper, but might use it to find sources. | |||
| :::Presumably, Rosenfeld did not come to his conclusions from erroneous information in Misplaced Pages. While I don't know that for a fact, other experts reviewed his work and one of the leading academic publishers accepted it. | |||
| :::The other issue is that most conclusions are treated as opinions, not facts, hence rs does not apply. We report opinions based on their acceptance in reliable sources, not whether or not they are true. | |||
| :::Incidentally, much of the information in reliable sources is unsourced, for example Encyclopedia Britannia articles. How is that better than using Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 02:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When historians quote and rely on ancient & Medieval writers, they also employ skepticism towards them. I don't see how that issue matters because writing pre-modern history is much different from writing modern history due to the relative lack of primary sources for the former. | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::Encyclopedia Britannica isn't immune to scrutiny, but it's more reliable than Misplaced Pages, because it avoids many of Misplaced Pages's issues. I'll scrutinize Encyclopedia Britannica in the same way I'd scrutinize any other source. Likewise, I would expect Encyclopedia Britannica to avoid recycling facts from itself found in another book. | |||
| :::: | |||
| ::::The difference is that Misplaced Pages does not consider itself a reliable secondary source. I'll come back to this topic at some point when I have full access to the book and can confirm what the book is using it for. To me, it appears to be using it as a secondary source. ] (]) 18:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The specific question here is (implicitly) whether Misplaced Pages's rules (excluding citing Misplaced Pages as a source) apply. The answer to that narrow question is NO. Any other questions should be clearly stated for discussion. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you saying that if Rosefielde had not provided sources where he cited Misplaced Pages, that information would have been reliable, since the book otherwise meets rs as an academic work? | |||
| :::::BTW I doubt that Rosefielde used Misplaced Pages without scepticism. | |||
| :::::Also, how do you scrutinize EB since it provides no sources? To me, the is the reason I never use it. ] (]) 19:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I want to come back to this topic at some point when I have access to the full book, but you mentioned there were academic reviews of it. Do you know what their titles were? I would like to read them if possible. ] (]) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I wrote "other experts reviewed his work." I meant in the course of publication. You can find Routledge's publishing process . Academic sources are considered the most reliable because the of the process they follow in publication. | |||
| :::::::While academic publishers will publish controversial books, the publication process should weed out glaring errors of fact. ] (]) 12:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@] you can find a review of Red Holocaust here: . The work does not appear to have been widely reviewed in the academic press, although I did not do a thorough search. Regards, ] (]) 04:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I do think that if nothing else this might be a reason to consider whether we're giving the work ] weight. We list him under "notable estimate attempts" (what makes an estimate attempt "notable"?), and devote more than half the lead of the "Comparisons to other mass killings" section to his views. At a glance it's not clear why we rely on him so much. And Kragh's review of the book is not particularly kind; his ultimate conclusion is that {{tq|All in all, the book has some relevant merits that deserve praise. It brings forward new perspectives on Communist repression and makes valuable comparisons between different totalitarian systems. It further provides interesting data from various sources, adding to its relevance for scholars working on contemporary political history. However, Rosefielde's promise to describe events ‘without normative gloss’ (p. xv), is lost among editorial mistakes and polemics that distract the reader.}} That doesn't sound like a source we should be using so aggressively. (And IMHO this shows what the correct thing to do when a source seems to use weird / unreliable sourcing itself - it is not ''itself'' automatically disqualifying, no, as people said above. But it ''is'' a reason to investigate further and to see what other RS coverage has said about the source, which in this case doesn't seem to be good.) --] (]) 08:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Merger == | == Merger == | ||
Revision as of 19:00, 28 September 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. |
|
| 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.
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:
|
| 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
 | Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Historiography info missing?
I think a section dedicated to historiography of this subject is needed. After all, the latest AFD nomination was closed as "no consensus". Attempts to change the title has failed numerous times. Furthermore, the topic has been under arbitration remedies and barely studied by academics. George Ho (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be possible. Can you cite any review articles that outline the literature? That btw is the reason many editors have found the article unencyclopedic. TFD (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I found one chapter from The Historiography of Genocide, "Mao's China". The title has "Historiography" within. Another book, The Historiography of Communism, might or might not cover this subject, but I still am looking. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- See my comments in the section about. This article is about mass killings under communist regimes, not mass killings in Mao's China specifically. TFD (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I found one chapter from The Historiography of Genocide, "Mao's China". The title has "Historiography" within. Another book, The Historiography of Communism, might or might not cover this subject, but I still am looking. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
There are quite a few sources on the historiography of communism in the 20th century, and they usually do cover mass killings and other crimes. Maybe we could use some of them? - Small colossal (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Merger
There was a decision last week to merge the article on Crimes against humanity under communist regimes into this article. I noticed that this has not yet been done, so I would like to give it a try. After reading both articles, it seems to me that the best way to do it is to just copy the content from the Crimes against humanity article into a new section here. I will go ahead and do that, with an introduction that links the new section to this article without repeating what this article already says, and the rest of the content just copied and pasted. But I intend to leave out the Bulgaria section, since it does not cite any sources. I have not done a merger before, so I apologize in advance if copying and pasting is not what is supposed to be done. Feel free to change things after me in that case! - Small colossal (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done! I also re-ordered the sections a little, to put the USSR section first, for chronological reasons. But the content was simply copied and pasted from Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (minus the Bulgaria section, as I said above, since it lacked sources). Important: I did not check any of the sources used in this content. If there are concerns about any of them, they still need to be checked. - Small colossal (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have issues with this merge. Even aside from the question of whether it makes sense under this title, the structure and content seem to go against the 2022 RFC - most of the sources don't connect the individual aspects into a central concept; it's just a laundry list of atrocities. The structure by country is also inappropriate - it needs to be rearranged to focus on the broad themes identified by secondary sources discussing the overarching concept of war crimes under Communism, and anything that can't be cited to that (in particular, anything cited solely to sources that just focus on one country / regime and which don't touch on the concept of "war crimes under Communism" as a thing) is going to need to be deleted if sourcing connecting it to the broad topic can't be found. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class Cambodia articles
- Mid-importance Cambodia articles
- WikiProject Cambodia articles
- C-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- C-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- High-importance Death articles
- C-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class socialism articles
- Mid-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- C-Class Soviet Union articles
- Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Old requests for peer review
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press