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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:57, 12 December 2009 editPaul Siebert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 edits →Lede← Previous edit Revision as of 03:58, 12 December 2009 edit undoTermer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,543 edits →Lede: reNext edit →
Line 382: Line 382:
::Re: "''... but edit articles according to ]''" WP:RS recommend to "''try to cite scholarly consensus when available.''" The source presented by me demonstrates that Valentino does not express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--] (]) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) ::Re: "''... but edit articles according to ]''" WP:RS recommend to "''try to cite scholarly consensus when available.''" The source presented by me demonstrates that Valentino does not express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--] (]) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
::Re: "''And yes, unlike according to your opinion...''" There is no my or your opinion, only Valentino ''vs'' Wheatcroft.--] (]) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC) ::Re: "''And yes, unlike according to your opinion...''" There is no my or your opinion, only Valentino ''vs'' Wheatcroft.--] (]) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Please let me remind you ] that this talk page is not for a discussion about articles existence, Such matters are only relevant to Afd-s. And please let the reader decide what Valentino says in his book, there is no need to add any commentary like you to his statements. Not at this talk page nor in the article. And please kindly restore the relevant sections from the article that you have removed. thanks!--] (]) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
::::Please ] do not hesitate and try to cite scholarly consensus on the subject. Nobody has ever claimed that Valentino does express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--] (]) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:58, 12 December 2009

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.
WikiProject iconHistory Start‑class 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconPolitics Unassessed
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights C‑class Mid‑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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Mass killings under communist regimes received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
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: 14 days 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 3 August 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
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: 14 days 

Capitalist Mass Killings

If someone wants to create Mass killings under other regimes, go right ahead. Otherwise I don't see the productivity of this beyond a WP:TALK violation.

No; this discussion is quite relevant as it is not about adding other articles but about the acceptability of this particular article under this title. If nobody can even explain in talk what is particularly "communist" about these mass killings, this article should be deleted or renamed and re-framed. csloat (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was disingeneous of you to close this discussion without bothering to read the contents, I have unwrapped at least one portion which was directly relevant, and I chastise you here for poor editorial decisions regarding discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but if you're going to write an article called mass killings under communist regimes, it is biased not to write one called mass killings under capitalist regimes, and there were / are plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.216.157 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep wondering from where this logic comes from that the opposite of Communism would be Capitalism? As in essence economicaly communist countries were/are not anything more or less than State capitalism where the state had a total monopoly and acted as a giant Corporation. And nowdays if we're talking about Communist China than economicaly it's flat out capitalist system. So what exactly are you talking about with this "mass killings under capitalist regimes"? There are totalitarian regimes like Commnism and Nazism and then there are democratic societies. If anybody really wants to make a point in connection with this article here, please suggest a title like "mass killings under democratic societies" instead perhaps.--Termer (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
So should this article be moved to Mass killings under State Capitalist regimes? csloat (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
why? the economic system like state capitalism has not been the reason for those mass killings but political ideology called communism.--Termer (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
According to you the communists did not follow communist ideology at all. Which of course supports my point below that brutality was inherent in Eastern European politics, whether under the tsar, Germany or the Soviets. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Its not really a place to discuss such things but once you asked, as far as I can tell the communists followed the communist ideology just fine. After all, one of the agendas the communists had since Marx spelled it out, take away the means of production from private hands and put it under the control of the state -meaning the communist elite. So instead of the free market economy it became a state/communist party operated monopoly. And unlike you keep insisting, communist mass killings haven't occurred only in the EE, but around the world, please read any of the books in the article reference section FFI. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You just said these regimes were not communist but state capitalist. You do realize you're not making sense, right? csloat (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
What has it to do with me? Please red any books on the subject or the article State_capitalist, especially chapters under State_capitalist#Use_by_Marxists that should explain the connection between Communist regimes and state capitalism. Also, there is a difference between a political regime, lest say communist and an economical system. Capitalism is an economical system, it can bee a free market economy in one end and state capitalism as a total monopoly on another. Communist regime however is a political regime based on the communist ideology, it's a form of a totalitarian state vs. Democracy&civil society. therefore what doesn't make any sense is to go and say "Communist regime vs capitalst regime mass killings" etc. Hope that it helps.--Termer (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, what you're saying is that this article should be called Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. csloat (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
csloat -please read the article totalitarian regimes, that would cover much wider scope and include National Socialist Germany etc--Termer (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly the point. If you want an article that isn't full of WP:SYN violations you can't just pick out the countries you don't like on the basis of a connection that you manufacture with the help of a few sources strung together. There actually is a connection between totalitarian regimes and mass killing that is well established in reliable sources. The same cannot be said of the material in this article. csloat (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no Syn here. majority of the sources given in the article speak about the mass killings committed by the communist regimes. FFI please see Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ISBN 0801472733. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This article is nothing but SYN. You are well aware that we've already discussed the problems with the Valentino piece ad nauseum, so we're not going to rehash that again. If you're insistent though you should start an article on Valentino's theory alone so it can be discussed rationally rather than positing it in an article like this as some kind of absolute truth. In either case, it's pretty clear that this article is at best about Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, but you have (unwittingly, perhaps) made some persuasive arguments for a name like Mass killings under totalitarian regimes; in either case, perhaps a simple name change will solve these otherwise crippling problems with the page. csloat (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've heard all this the first time you brought it up about 3 months ago, and I hope I've made myself clear from the beginning that I can see the sources provided in the article discussing the subject directly under appropriate chapters that define the Communist mass killings. So I can't see any reasons to keep repeating ourselves over and over again. thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that is one way to completely avoid addressing the issue when you find you are unable to respond to the arguments. csloat (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The left communists claimed that communists abandoned communism and became capitalists. So was the mass killing part of the original communist ideology or was it a function of the capitalism of the degenerated workers' state that was later adopted when the revolution was betrayed (to paraphrase Trotsky)? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, it's a common pattern to all religions. (yes commnism is often considered to be just another religion ) For example many Christians claim that some other Christians have abandoned Christianity and became...So do the communists claim over who is the true communist and who's not. And the so called 'left communists' or Trotskyists were expelled by the various Communist Parties from their ranks throughout the world. So the bottom line, the internal disputes of communists are a bit out of the scope of this article. But in case there are any sourced opinions out there what was the position of sc. left communists regarding the mass killigs committed by the communist regimes, those statements would be most relevant to the article.--Termer (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
So your logic is that because of the mass killings by crusaders and the inquisition that this somehow reflects on the teachings of the New Testament. Incredible. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
my logic has nothing to do with anything here, it's the followers of religions/totalitarian political ideologies who interpret the teachings, either its the New or Old testament, Koran, the communist manifest or mein kampf etc. they follow.--Termer (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
So you are now arguing that communist mass killings had nothing to do with communist ideology but rather with the actions taken by some of their followers. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Calling the Soviet Union and Communist China, 2 mayor Communist powers in the world history just "some followers of communist ideology" is quite a stretch of imagination I think. So you're saying basically that those communist countries were not in fact following the communist ideology? A little like Inquisition didn't have anything much to do with Christianity? I guess its a valid POV like any other. Why don't you come up with some sources that discuss such matters and simply add it to the article.--Termer (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You should not write an article without a basis in academic theory. There are no respected theories that connect mass killings with economic or political theory except in specific circumstances like Nazi Germany. Most historians attribute mass killings to the nature of the individual countries rather than temporal political or economic theory. For example Eastern Europe had a history of brutality and extemely backward government which continues until today. No one connects the brutality in Eastern Europe with their tsarist, communist, or capitalist governments but rather see it as a function of the backward nature of those states. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"...a function of the backward nature of those states"? That was interesting! are you The Four Deuces suggesting a new title to this article, perhaps something like Mass killings in the backward states? I wouldn't arque against the communist states being backwards, just that I'm not aware of any WP:RS calling it this way. All we have is the sources speaking of the Communist political killings that the article is based on. But I'm open minded, in case you have any sources that spell out this backwardness you brought up, feel free to list it here.--Termer (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have provided a novel explanation of communism and I would appreciate your further comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
"You should not write an article without a basis in academic theory. There are no respected theories that connect mass killings with economic or political theory except in specific circumstances like Nazi Germany": have you ever heard of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, ...? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I have indeed. Do you know what a "respected theory" is? In this case it would be a theory published in reputable academic literature that argues that communist ideology caused the killings in those countries. Do you think that Stalin killed Trotsky because of the writings of Marx and Engels? If you do then kindly find a reliable source that explains this line of reasoning. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be 'moved to' Mass killings under authoritarian regimes. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Or different parts could be merged, respectively with Human rights in the Soviet Union, Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Human rights in Cambodia. --FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
These are both excellent suggestions. An article on authoritarian regimes could include such mass killings as this one, for example, which otherwise don't fit here but are obviously connected in substantive ways. The problem with this page is that the arguments people are making supposedly identifying "communism" as the main reason for mass killings are really saying that totalitarianism or authoritarianism is the issue. That is a specific political system and set of institutions that these societies have in common. But for various political reasons people want to identify "communism" as the root commonality even though they cannot point to such mass killings under Castro's Cuba or Ortega's Nicaragua, for example. I would also support the merging of relevant content to other articles that aren't SYN, as suggested by FormerIP. csloat (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with this present discussion, and with this article in general, is that people are not advancing arguments discovered in high quality reliable secondary sources authored by historians, politicial scientists, sociologists or anthropologists; and, that when these arguments are raised they are selectively distorted, for instance, the shoe horning of Valentino into claiming communist mass killings are an explicit catagory rather than a convenience device to structure the discussion of a subset of one of his real categories. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think its going to be a problem. In case needed the politically motivated mass executions by the Communists in Cuba etc. and in Nicaragua etc. can be also added to this article. And widening the scope of this article from Communist regimes to all totalitarian and even authoritarian regimes wouldn't be necessary, there already is a list of Genocides in history that covers such a broader scope.--Termer (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you please pre-screen the sources you provide for your arguments. I clicked on a couple of them and several are sourced to the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which was supported by the Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, and another was an article in Human Events. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
But "authoritarian mass killings" is not broader in scope; the only things connecting these events are their authoritarianism, as we can see from your own faltering attempts to defend this concept of "communist mass killings." And if we're talking about genocides, I don't see how you can compare the events you link in Cuba and Nicaragua, leaving aside the rather dubious nature of many of the claims supported in those links. If this article includes every killing of more than 30 people or so, often during a war, then there really is no basis for connecting any of it and we should just call it Mass killings and be done with it. csloat (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
RE:Fifelfoo really? How about Frank W. Wayman from The University of Michigan and Atsushi Tago from University of Tokyo who in their Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing: Democide and Politicide categorize mass killings by 4 different regimes : Democratic Regime, Autocratic Regime, Communist Regime and Military Regime (see Table II). So only according to this work there could be easily be 4 separate articles on Misplaced Pages: Mass killings under communist regimes, Mass killings under democratic regimes, Mass killings under autocratic regimes and Mass killings under military regimes.
And a citation perhaps from the work on the current subject: mass killings by Communist regimes: An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings."--Termer (talk) 01:04, 7

December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, far from underming Fifeloo's point, your sources do seem sort of barrel-scraping. They also seem to underscore the amibuity/menainlgessness of the article title. I don't support the deaths of 95 people ordered by Che Guavara (even if the source is self-published) or the deaths of 500-1000 people as a result of the Sandanista revolution in Nicaragua. But the deaths of 152 people were ordered by George W Bush as Governor of Texas and the US-backed Contras in Nicaragua killed about 70,000 30,000. I'm not making a point about political equivalence, but how is the case made for an article focusing on "communist" killings? --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
the deaths of 152 people etc. you FormerIP mentioned would most likely belong to any of the articles that could be started up according to Wayman&Tago categorizations of mass killings.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
But does an obscure, apparently unpublished, university thesis necessitate the creation of four hightly contestable wikipedia articles? The categorisations are rubbish anyway. The Sandanista regime belongs, arguably, in all four categories, for example. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Termer, thanks for bringing up the democide school. Tabulation of concepts is notoriously a poor form of presentation of social theory. Can you find within the work where the authors structure their categories for analysis? Do they nominate a specific cause that sets out communist mass killings from other mass killings, or is it just a thematic grouping, "these states were communist within our schema." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo says who? In case you really missed the quotation on a specific cause from the last source, no problem, here it is again:

An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings.

And in case you forgot about the one by Valentino, no problem again: here it is once more:

The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies.

Now, in case you're aware of any alternative viewpoints of the subject as evident by published sources, why don't you just add it to the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Valentino quote is deliberately deceptive because he is describing a sub-set of his actual category; which isn't "communist" at all, his category is states mobilising for radical social transformations, as you would well know. Wayman and Tago is also deceptive

Additionally, we create military regime and communist regime variables. Mostly, both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes, but we consider it is very important to set such variables to separate different types of autocratic countries. Military regime and communist regimes, in theory, create very different conditions vis-à-vis initiation of mass murder. A military regime, by its definition, is more likely to have stronger armed forces and a lower threshold for using them (Wayman, 1975). Any regime has policies that affect society, and the regime, if it wishes to carry out these policies, needs to find a way to get its way and impose its acts on society.

Part of the very paragraph you quoted. Termer, your mischaracterisation of sources has reached a level that indicates your conduct is an issue. Please read your sources in full and adequately characterise their findings rather than cherry picking. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read these sources (and don't have time to now), so in all likelihood I may be missing something important, but could I ask you to clarify: From what you write above, it seems (very simply put) that Valentino is stating that communist regimes are regimes which tend to attempt radical social transformations, which in turn can lead them to conduct mass killings. Whereas Wayman and Tago are saying that communist regimes are a particular kind of autocratic regimes, which due to their ideology and organization sometimes engage in mass killings. Sounds to me like two different attempts at explaining why communist regimes engage in mass killings. Why is the sub-category vs main category distinction crucial? Isn't there an argument to be made that if many other categories of mass killings are analyzed, then those could also be valid topics for their own wikipedia articles? The idea that one could create an article such as "mass killings under military regimes" doesn't seem to imply that "mass killings under communist regimes" is an unacceptable topic for an article. --Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the question, Anderssl. Set A containing (C, D, E, F) causes mass killings because of B. This means the article is "Mass-killings in A. Lede: Mass killings in A happened because B." This article is currently "Mass-killings in C. Mass killings in C happened because of B." This is deceptive and misleading conduct: C is a case-study or example of the set of A. Escalating this article to "Comparative theories of Mass killing, Genocide, and Democide" and actually covering comparative horrorific social behaviour en mass studies would be the optimal outcome. This would be effectively a rewrite from scratch though. Neither Wayman and Tago nor Valentino address "Communist states / governments / etc" as an object of theoretical analysis, they address them as a case study within a set that is the object of theoretical analysis. This is the reasoning for why the article should be deleted: the object of this article is not an object of academic study. As should any other "Mass killings in ". I'm aware of a few generalised claims for the causes of mass killing in capitalism, but these are a) primitive (alienation, commodification of the human being, extraction of labour power while enclosing common land) and b) not currently cited at the other pathetic article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm, but what makes me wonder about this argument is that it seems to isolate every source. If you view it from a different perspective, we have: "A number of communist regimes have conducted mass killings. Source A claims this is because communist regimes belong to category X, which lead them to do mass killings. Source B claims it is because they belong to category Y, etc." So multiple sources offer different explanations of the phenomenon. I am not sure if this holds, but I am also not sure that it doesn't - there is the difference between being convinced that this is a sound theory, and being convinced that it deserves being mentioned in Misplaced Pages (as you probably can tell, I am an inclusionist). --Anderssl (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Even for an inclusionist this is problematic way forward. A(b,c,d,e) caused by X ; F(b,g,h,i) caused by Y=> Article Mass-killings in b as part of A due to X; in b as part of F due to Y is synthesis, as b is never an object of study. The object of the article is simply not an object of study. The correct articles would be A and X; or F and Y. There is a place for scholarly thematic pieces; but, the place is defined by the literature available. The best way to present the possible thematic piece is by moving the substantive literature survey achieved here to a general comparative genocide/mass killing/population destruction piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually I think that is a very good point. You may just have convinced me. --Anderssl (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Rewrap, I'm not going to fully unwrap the discussion, but the above portion was a very good explanation of why the article is a COATRACK Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is self evident that communist regimes can and always have been subcategorized under totalitarian and/or autocratic regimes. So are the mass killings under communist regimes subcategorized accordingly and that's what this article is all about. Just that you keep ignoring the sources on the subject written by numerous authors is not going to make it go away, I'm sorry. But there is always an option to take it to another AfD in case you feel so strongly that an article about the mass killings committed by communist totalitarian regimes is WP:UNDUE and it doesn't deserve a separate article on Misplaced Pages.--Termer (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Certainly you are welcome to your opinion that these things are "self-evident," but if the reliable sources don't indicate that they are self evident we cannot assume they are. It is telling that you quote a source identifying "mass killings under communist regimes" as a category alongside mass killings in "democratic" "autocratic" and "military" regimes, yet you don't seem eager to start articles on any of those topics. Ultimately can you even begin to address the question, what makes "communist mass killings" fundamentally different from "totalitarian mass killings" or some similar category? csloat (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this argument - is Termer under an obligation to create all these other articles because he is also working on this article? He has already acknowledged that his arguments imply that those could be appropriate topics for articles, but that doesn't mean he has to go and write them to prove his point.--Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is I think this "point" is disingenuous. He's already been caught mischaracterizing the sources in terms of what they actually say. If this was truly a parallel taxonomy accepted in the literature he would be defending an article that clearly put these categories alongside each other, whether or not he focused on creating the other three articles. But he's only defending the claim provisionally as a way of winning an argument here. Or, at least, that's what it seems -- I don't mean to speculate on his motives but it is hard to see how he is doing anything else. csloat (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not that hard to see - most likely it is a matter of people not understanding each other. It is not entirely uncommon. You say you don't mean to speculate on Termer's motives, and yet you just did. --Anderssl (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Sloat is challenging whether Termer is really serious about his line of argument or whether he's just grabbing at something that may help him achieve a narrower objective. By convention, you couch that sort of challenge by acknowledging your own impoliteness ("I don't mean to be rude, but..."). But only Termer can know the reality behind that, so we might as well move on. Termer isn't obliged to create the other articles (although it would only be proper for him to support anyone else who did). But the point is, surely, that all four of the proposed articles are appropriate, or else none of them is. --FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, first of all it wasn't me who suggested this Mass killings under capitalist regimes at this talk page. I just explained how "communist" vs "capitalist" regime doesn't make sense first of all because one refers to a political regime and another speaks about an economical system, and further on the communist regimes were/are in fact state capitalist. So what I also did, suggested some alternatives according to published sources but in the end if someone really likes to create this Mass killings under capitalist regimes, what do I care, go ahead.--Termer (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As you should be aware, no academic consensus exists on the specific nature of the Soviet-style societies. Please stop mischaracterising the nature of scholarly opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
From where did you get an idea that every article on wikipedia needs to be based on academic consensus Fifelfoo? It that was the case, most of Misplaced Pages should be deleted. Articles on wikipedia need to be based on WP:Verify, WP:RS and written according to WP:NPOV&WP:YESPOV. In case you're aware of any other perspectives on the subject as evident by WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, please help yourself, add those opposing opinions to the article that contradict the sources that the article is based on. There is no other way to improve the artcile.--Termer (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
WEIGHT. While consensus is out, as it is, could you refrain from pushing a particular POV up hill about the composition of the Soviet Union, for instance, that it was state capitalist rather than any of the other 34 flavours of analysis present in the academic literature in high quality reliable sources? I'd like to invite you to stop disrupting the encyclopedia at this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to your beliefs I only edit articles on wikipedia according to the published sources that I'm aware of. And again, in case you're aware of any conflicting perspectives and respective sources on the subjcet, why don't you just improve the article accordingly. I'd love to help you out with this but unfortunately I'm not aware of any sources that question the ideological pattern in Communist mass killings.--Termer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. Also contrary to your beliefs there has been a strong consensus here, which was renaming this article from Communist genocide to Mass killings under Communist regimes. As clearly "Communist genocide" could imply that all communists have something to do with a genocide, vs Mass killings under communist regimes]] clearly refers to totalitarian communist regimes that have comitted mass killings in history. And do I need to mention that I still support this achieved consensus on the subject.--Termer (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Termer, that is a misrepresentation of the consensus that led to the name change, and besides I think you are misunderstanding what Fifelfoo is trying to say: That you shouldn't state as a fact that the economic system in the Soviet Union was "state capitalist", given that there is no academic consensus on that point. It might be a good idea to slow down a little and make sure you are understanding the comments made here before answering. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
misrepresentation of the consensus led to the name change? Sorry Anderssl that just didn't make any sense to me. Such requested name changes can only happen according to consensus, please see the relevant discussion . Regarding either economic systems in communist regimes were/are state capitalist systems, then again, why don't anybody take it to the relevant article and list all the 43 different interpretations instead of accusing me of something here. And yes, as far as I'm aware of it, it's a fact that Communist economic systems are in fact state capitalist, in cases of Communist China its flat out capitalism.--Termer (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I take back my rebuke of csloat above, and join the other editors' opinion that Termer's editing on this talk page has become disruptive. He is repeatedly responding to comments with nonsensical derailments, and whether it is intentional or not it is preventing constructive debate on improving the article. --Anderssl (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes which requests Arbitration related sanctions in the form of warning and counselling in relation to Termer's disruptive behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say other than sorry that you feel this way.--Termer (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You should probably try to make it clear to people what is the cause of the problem, which is that you are arguing in a way that suggests you are not understanding what other people are saying at all. It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to clear up your own misunderstandings. If this is the case your contributions here will never be helpful to improve the article. So you really need to demonstrate ability and willingness to comprehend other people's comments - and clear up misunderstandings when they happen. --Anderssl (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a misunderstanding here? I don't think so. I think it has been very clear since the beginning what this thread called "Capitalist Mass Killings" implies vs. the current subject Mass killings under Communist regimes is all about. But since its not going anywhere because there is no point for everybody to keep repeating themselves, it would be the best to put this discussion to sleep.--Termer (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of obvious cases where one editor brings forward one argument, which you then misrepresent/misinterpret and argue against the misrepresentation, thereby derailing the discussion into futility. If you insist that these misunderstandings are not intentional, it seems to imply that you are either not paying sufficient attention, or your understanding of English grammar is not sufficient to take part in this discussion. The problem is not limited to this thread - you are doing it again below - so I don't think ending this thread is enough to settle the issue. --Anderssl (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
the only issue I can see down there is the source published the Harvard University Press is getting a "peer review" on Misplaced Pages with words like "Fringe, laughable, and ridiculous". I must admit my understanding of English grammar is not sufficient enough indeed to understand either "COATRACK, SYNTHESIS, OR" according to Fifelfoo refers to the book published by Harvard University Press or something else?--Termer (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of the long thread discussing the nationality of the Unabomber. Did you not understand that the question of whether he actually was American or Eastern European was irrelevant to the argument put forward? --Anderssl (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I even don't know why do I respond to somethin so obious but anybodys nationality or anything else concerning this man has been compleaty irrelevat to this article and the discussion.--Termer (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Denial of mass killings under communist regimes

Off tangent as well. Let's actually discuss this article if we can.

I don't get it. Is anybody denying that they occurred? If so, put them on the same bench as Holocaust deniers. If not, what's the hubba hubba on this article? PS. For the record, I am all for creating parent article on Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

its a 'list of blue things.' None of the genocide studies people theorise communism as a category in the cause of killing. Cross cultural genocide studies deals with societies on the basis of broad organisational structures, or comparative two society case studies. Lacking a basis in academic literature this article is SYNTHESIS and OR. That's the only problem. The individual social instances are theorised and well documented and belong in their own articles as they currently do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Piotr, you are missing the point. Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers. No one is in denial about that. However that does not mean that there is a category called "Mass killings by Eastern Europeans". We need a theory that connects being Eastern European with being a mass murderer. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What about The black book of communism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As we discussed many times, the book was written outside the academic mainstream, and its ideas are not accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you point me to an academic mainstream review with this opinion? You may be right, but I tend to be wary of such unbacked claims (recalling the global warming debate, and how while 99% of scholars agreed that it is real, 50% of mainstream press kept saying otherwise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Because the theory advanced in the Black Book was never published in academic literature there is no academic literature that rebuts it. I do not understand your reference to climate science. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I went out and read the Black Book for this purpose. There are three chapters containing sections claiming to be multiple society cases: the preface, introduction, and conclusion. The conclusion says, straight out, "This deals with the USSR only" and gives three paragraphs to China, Vietnam and Kampuchea. The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. The conclusion is adequate academic work for a study on the Soviet Union (its narrative is ridiculous, its lack of theory laughable, but hey, it at least deals with the topic), but inadequate as a study in causes of multiple culture genocide. The Preface is laughable, it is short, inappropriate, and fails to meet academic standards—this is expected, its a Preface, its job isn't to theorise. The Introduction deals only with Russia and explicitly advances two claims: the rot set in in 1917; "Communism is inherently criminal (possibly because it isn't Catholicism)". That the rot set in in 1917 is debatable, and a theory with long standing: it is not multiple society. That Communism is inherently "criminal", and, accusations of the failure of a social concept because it doesn't meet the world view of French Catholicism is not acceptable practice in the humanities and social sciences, and hasn't been since 1789. As the editor of the book wrote the introduction and the introduction failed to receive adequate review (collected works are reviewed by their editor); as the theory is laughable; and, most importantly, as the theory is advanced over approximately three paragraphs without evidence to support it, or elucidation of what criminality comprises: we should not esteem this theory. It is FRINGE. The other chapters in the Black Book are adequate single country case studies, the one I previewed (Russia, by Conquest) written by an appropriate specialist (who I don't like, but he's certainly got the requirements). They necessarily can't be used to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing / genocide / democide / etc. I have stated this before, at length, in comments contained in the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I looked into this as well, the work is published by Harvard University Press - "a highly respected in academic publishing", "it was authored by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois" - a French historian, currently employed as research director (i.e. senior research scientist) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique", and all this is fringe, and laughable according to Fifelfoo? I guess we need to take it to WP:FTN than.--Termer (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think he is saying that. He is saying that the book is does not give a basis for the subject "Mass killings under Communist regimes" being WP article because it only contains three, apparently controversial, paragraphs which attempt to advance the thesis that it is a genuine historical phenomenon. In the whole body of historical literature, that does not look very significant. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what I read above "Fringe, the theory is laughable, narrative is ridiculous" etc. And what is this "to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing" all about? For example: The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. So fine, we can use the source for "describing a number of cases" and in case there is "no theory or cause of communist mass killing" i that source, so what. Is there "a theory or cause" to any other mass killings in history? And in this case it should be self explanatory that mass killings under communist regimes occurred because the communist parties wanted to get rid of all its possible and real political opponents. So what's the big deal, I'm not getting it.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

COATRACK, SYNTHESIS, OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That an random descriptive accumulation is not sufficient grounds to indicate a theory; ie: what this article is about; has been well established. To use the placing side by side in a collection of untheorised case studies as the basis of this article is COATRACKING, and is thus SYNTHESIS of external materials without a theory, and is thus ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This has been repeatedly gone over, in a variety of ways, with a variety of metaphors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The Four Deuces "Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"As far s I'm aware of it an "Eastern European" is not a political ideology that needs to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies by the use of something that has been referred to as Communist mass killings, also known as Communist genocide or -politicide, or -democide.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
PS Another question is how come this Theodore Kaczynski was according to The Four Deuces "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"? It says the guys is an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois. Is that a slight mistake in geography perhaps. In case I'm not mistaken Eastern Europe and Illinois are about 9000 miles apart and on different continents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, The Four Deuces.--Termer (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
More like 4500 miles, at least according to this; but I guess it depends which city in Eastern Europe. Why is this relevant? csloat (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That was my question, how is it relevant to this article that someone called Theodore Kaczynski- an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois is "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" according to The Four Deuces?--Termer (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was an example to make a different point here; if you re-read his comment perhaps you will see the point itself. csloat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, can't see a point in an American murderer been called "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" on the talk page of this article. --Termer (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Termer, this is a bit of a tangent. The Unabomber was a Polish citizen as well as a US citizen. But you are concentrating on the validity of the example used instead of the validity of the argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization

I would like to suggest that we reorganize the article to start with historical examples and then causes. We should have two large headers: history and causes, or better yet, a discussion about the individual examples with causes in between. I'm going to try it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article is becoming excessively long, now standing at 61 KB. Any suggestions on what to do about this? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut out the historical details since it's supposed to be about theories as to causes? I could cut all that out right now and I don't think there would be an ounce of difference to the article. Examples should be coming from the scholarly work, not "here's a bunch of horrible things Communists did and here's what some scholars think" with no connection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Alternatively, stop with the excessive quoting and actually start to think about the root causes the scholars are discussing. It's intellectually lazy just to put a bunch of quotes out and not even attempt to show similarities or differences in their views. That's difficult, I know, (especially with the god awful way citations are incompletely linked and separated all over the place) but that takes actual work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Both. Cull the litany. Comparative discussions of views must be founded in and grounded in... Reliable Sources. There is no meta literature survey of attempts to classify the behaviour of the soviet-style states in mass abhorrence. Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Watson1998 is appropriately summarised and characterised, but overlength ("Watson was batshit insane and working outside of his field of academic competence" is an adequate summary). The Black book is adequately summarised and characterised. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, create a new section for each source and let's discuss whether or not it's reliable. Otherwise, yeah, doing some comparative work is synthesis but it's also WP:UNDUE. It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis here. Are you telling me the last featured article had an actual source that compared the interpretations like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis" -- please see WP:SYN. If you have identified synthesis in another article, remove it, rather than using that as a reason to add it here. csloat (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I culled the litany under COATRACK. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

61K is nowhere near a "long page" -- Number 1000 is over 120K in length. 61K is, in fact, under the median when stubs are excluded (stubs now being somewhere around 40% of all articles). Collect (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Article size: "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". It is a rule of thumb but the article continues to expand. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have read it many times -- and note some editors have a propensity to cut articles they dislike by up to 75% -- from (say) 11K to 8K, or from 16K to 4K, or from 44K to 16K in one fell swoop. This article is not excessively long by any measure. Consider one article we have in common -- Sarah Palin currently at 144K. Or Fascism at 127K currently. This article is short considering its scope. Collect (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you read the consensus direction of the article from the archives? The bottom of the barrel has been scraped on theorised comparative studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no "consensus direction" in the archives, and certainly not here just reading everyone's replies following the mass deletion. Please refrain from the mass deletion of sourced material on Misplaced Pages without consensus.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The link is below. Go back and read. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Ricky81682:Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Completely agree with this. I mean, I'm not sure if it is necessary SYNTHESIS and OR but the section reminds me of WP:NOT PAPER for sure. I have brought it up before but it made no difference.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your position was explicitly rejected at the link you indicate. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes Fifelfoo, that's why I left the diff here to show that the section considered SYNTHESIS and OR by Ricky81682, that similar position by me has been "explicitly rejected" by you and 2 other editors.--Termer (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no reasonable way to make that interpretation from edits by User:Ricky81682, your poor conduct is continuing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks like Termer is referring to this unsigned edit by Fifelfoo. However, Termer's point - that we should cut out all the academic analysis and just leave in the sections on individual historic cases - doesn't seem to have much in common with Fifelfoo's, and seems to contradict his own statements. --Anderssl (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to apologise for the unsigned post, I've just signed it. I find it even more difficult to interepret my post as meaning the current academic approaches section is currently SYN/OR. Especially given the immediate context of User:Ricky81682 criticising the current "A says, B says" and arguing for a comparative approach. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive Deletes

Massive deletes of sourced material without consensus is not the Misplaced Pages way. After three failed attempts at deleting the whole article, deleting massive parts of article could be perceived as an attempt to go against consensus. Please discuss first. Bobanni (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, if you would have cared to read the discussion. Single society instances are not "in Communist regimes" do you note the plural there? Have you observed that none of the single society exemplars theorise connections or fundamental causes? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly no "agreed direction." Please do not engage in mass deletions of sourced material. Thanks.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you Read the archives Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you bother to read this very recent section of talk Bobanni? No? Thanks, but you haven't advanced anything, and you obviously haven't read the archives regarding what the current consensus on this article is. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Bobanni on that one. It would be nice if Fifelfoo could take a look at WP:PRESERVE, and in case anything is considered "COATRACK" the article should give wikilinks to relevant articles where the matters are discussed in more depth. Simply removing sourced matreial from wikipedia can't be considered acceptable.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, when people read these articles they want to know what mainstream thought is about these issues. They are not interested in reading POV articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, you do consider the material that has been removed a "POV"? So why does it get removed then? Please see WP:YESPOV: "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"". And again, in case you are aware of any conflictive perspectives to the things you consider "POV". alternative viewpoints should be added to the article instead of blanking out large junks of the article content.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well glory be that you are now admitting that it is POV. Note the keyword "solely". You are supposed to explain mainstream views before explaining minority views, which you did not do. And you are supposed to leave out crackpot ideas entirely. Please see WP:Weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please let me know according to whom exactly you can make a difference between "mainstream views" and "crackpot ideas" respectively in the context? Is there published apaper anywhere perhaps that looks into those questions? I'd need to see it, otherwise there is no way for me to tell on what bases you consider anything a "mainstream view" vs "crackpot ideas".--Termer (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Mainstream views are those published in peer-reviewed academic journals, particulary when they are generally accepted. Crackpot ideas lack the intellectual vigor and consistency to be published in academic media and include conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You can read more about how Misplaced Pages recommends the reporting of crackpot theories in Fringe. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, but this text was perfectly sourced. These are mainstream books published by best experts in the field. Were these sources ever discounted as unreliable at WP:RS? No.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The topic of this article, as discussed and achieved consensus on, as noted above in labelled links, is multiple society theorised accounts of mass killing in Communist regimes. Not mass killing in a communist regime. Or a miscellaneous collection of horrors. The object of research is comparative mass killings. A list of occurances does not relate to the topic of this article. This is not "random list of horrors," but theorised accounts of multiple society horrors. The presentation of a miscellanary is COATRACKing. Conquest, for example, does not theorise about societies other than the Soviet Union. This means that Conquest's scholarship is off topic for this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There are numerous academic books written by the best historians, specifically on the crimes against humanity under the Communist regimes, for example Black book of Communism and others cited here, but there are others as well. Thus, the subject was not invented by anyone here. This is well established academic subject.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We have repeatedly discussed the black book. Have you bothered to read the archives or the black book? If you had you would know that the book comprises a collation of single society case studies with no cross social analysis or theorisation. That the Introduction and Conclusion provide six paragraphs in total on cross social analysis, none up to the standards of comparative genocide studies (such as Valentino). If you'd bothered to read the archives or the article, you'd be aware of the fact that Valentino does not present a catagory of analysis "Communist mass killing" he presents a superior catagory and discusses communism as a descriptive, or narrative, instance of his catagory: this is insufficient to sustain the case. More over, see the unwrapped discussion above on explaining set theory to editors and why the object of analysis of a theorist needs to be communism in general, or a specific grouping of communist societies, as an explicit explanatory catagory, not a subset. We have gone over the academic literature. What was discovered is already in the article. And a COATRACK of single society case studies is not appropriate as it is not the object of this article. Blue for example, will not contain a list of blue objects. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing, I read "Black Book" and a lot of other books on the subject, including books by Conquest (the best Western specialist on Russian history), books by Pipes, by Figes, and so on and so on. I am also well familiar with writings by Lenin, Marx. I passed serious Marxism-Leninism exams (do you want me to cite them right away - I remember some quotes). I also lived in the Soviet society as a practical matter. So, what's precisely your background then? Do you have a history PhD degree?Biophys (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming that your field isn't the humanities though, is it? And that your familiarity with disciplinary practice in the humanities is minimal, your M-L course was a state requirement for enrolment in a soviet-style society. The generalist studies you've outlined are single society studies and do not theorise general causes: they are excellent sources for Rights abuses in the Soviet Union, or Mass killing in the Soviet Union, or Accusations of Genocide within the Soviet Union. I suggest that you do go and read the introduction to the Black Book and show me the theorisation of a common cause of barbarous actions across all soviet style societies, rather than just the Soviet Union as is Conquest's object. Perhaps the introduction to the French edition is superior in someway, if it is, please do quote from that with appropriate translation. My field is social history, and if you bothered to look at the article history I have made significant contributions outlining the theory relevant to this field. I would rather not out myself to the name level. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"The object of research is comparative mass killings",according to Fifelfoo? Is it me again who is missing something but how would be "comparative mass killings" related to this article? In case you'd like Fifelfoo, you're more than welcome to start up an article about the subject you mentioned. This however is an article called Mass killings under Communist regimes, please limit your comments on this talk page to the current subject only. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
RE:The Four Deuces, in case we're dealing with such a fringe theory in general, surely there should be some sources out there that mention it. I'm more than aware of your opinions that you have clearly spelled out. Please also provide any sources that look into this what you are talking about. In case it appears indeed that we're dealing with Fringe here, no problem, there is also Flat Earth article on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Academic sources normally do not analyze fringe theories, which is what makes them fringe, they are outside normal intellectual discussion. Since fringe theories are by nature irrational and have an irrational following it is pointless to analyze them. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
well, if you can't come up with academic sources showing that we're dealing with Fring here, there surely should be something out there saying so. You know, we'd need to get your claims veryfied, and then once its established that this is the case indeed, the article can exist happily next to other articles on wikipedia that are written on fringe theories. And all this still is not going to justify removing massive junks of material from this article.--Termer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

List article?

Just a thought, would it be a viable compromise to create a list article called List of mass killings under communist regimes or something equivalent, with a brief description of each atrocity and links to main articles where they exist? And then the present article can be cut down to appropriate size or even deleted. --Anderssl (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind personally if this is going to bring an end to massive blanking and this discussion that isn't going anywhere and just keeps going in circles. I think it could be a solution.--Termer (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. I don't think deleting it would be necessary, there is no good reason to get rid of the articles history, therefore a redirect would do just fine.--Termer (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Stand-alone_lists suggests not as, "Stand-alone lists are Misplaced Pages articles; thus, they are equally subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." . The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious. A category hierarchy, "Abuse of rights in Soviet-style societies" followed by sub-cats "Abuse of rights in the Soviet Union"…etc. would be a viable category grouping. Categories do not appear to be covered by article obligations, unlike lists. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious." Wouldn't this be possible to fix with some appropriate qualifications in the article? Seems that some reasonable modifications would do. --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like hedging to me. The fundamental aim of a list like that is to associate a series of societies and to claim by association a common structure behind their behaviour. The theorisation simply isn't present for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
See Tables of vampire traits for how problematic these list articles are, and for how association by proximity in a list produces a Synthesis. There are three good sentences in that article, and six screens of worthless cruft which has not been explicitly compared anywhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't find this argument particularly convincing. Obviously a list would need some sort of definition of "communist regime", but that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist". Such a list wouldn't have to omit the fact of large differences between such societies. It would be a list of facts, and that's it; theoretical discussion and interpretations could be dealt with elsewhere. --Anderssl (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist"" Some of these regimes called themselves "Democratic" or "Socialist" - is it a sufficient ground for creation list articles "Mass killing under democratic/socialist" regimes? (The question is rhetoric)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, but I think the regimes calling themselves "socialist" could be included, depending on some consensus. I am not an expert on the subject matter. But I think it should be possible to make some reasonable clarifications of the terms, and then just make a list of the historical events that fit those terms. Btw it should probably be "Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes", not under - to limit the range a little. (And I definitely think a list of mass killings by democratic regimes would have substantial content - think of what the US did to its natives, or the Belgians, the British and the French to their colonies, etc.)
The point would be to get us out of the current impasse, in which one side is complaining (justifiably so) about the lack of theoretization, whereas the other seems to just want to create a list of events. I really don't see the problem with providing this kind of list - it is a useful way of collecting links to further information. This seems to be perfectly in line with the purpose of Misplaced Pages, as far as I can see. --Anderssl (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a little bit odd that you see no problem in such a name ("Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes"). Socialist regimes (e.g. Sweden or France) are very vegetarian forms of social organisation and very mentioning of them in a context of mass killing is not more justified than mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death of, e.g., American Indians. I believe the very idea to collect various bloody dictatorships into the single list and to connect them to some single word ("Communism" or "Socialism") is deeply ideologically motivated, and, therefore, unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think Fredrik Reinfeldt would be quite surprised to find his country described as a "socialist regime". Sweden is a constitutional monarchy and has never described itself as socialist (surely you are aware that social democracy is a quite different ideology). As for my motivations, shouldn't you try to be open to the possibility that I just want to allow for the broadest possible presentation of knowledge, as an inclusionist Wikipedian? Have I said something earlier to disturb your assumption of good faith? It is a generally accepted fact that many communist regimes have committed these atrocities, why would it be POV to make a list of them? And why is the "mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death" so problematic? I will acknowledge one problem: It is hard to distinguish clearly between different types of regimes, so the precise classification needs to be discussed and qualified (i.e. communist vs socialist, socialist vs democratic etc). But that doesn't speak to the heart of the matter, which is whether such a list, with appropriate qualifications and definitions, would be appropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, I was coming here to ask the same thing - how about listyfing the article? I am afraid that at the current stage we - Misplaced Pages editors - are simply not ready to develop a reliable, high quality and stable article on this subject. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. Any list, with a reasonable working definition fitting Cold War OPFOR, will fail to mention "negative" cases, such as the failure of the HSWP to implement large scale starvation in Hungary. In effect, the production of a list is the production of an argument. In discursive fields, like history, political science, sociology of genocide, genocide studies, there are no "clear" facts separable from opinion, and most importantly, these fields demand the articulation of opinion by skilled academics. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(These restrictions *largely* flow from the fact that Lists are part of article space). As far as Categories go I couldn't find anything that says that Categories actually have to be legitimate etc. Perhaps someone can ask the Cat people. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, I have to disagree on this point. I think you are stretching the concept of "original research" too far. By this rationale, one couldn't have list articles within the humanities or social sicences at all. (And I'm not really sure what would constitue a non-discursive field, strictly speaking.) I would suggest to anyone who is hell-bent on collecting these historical "miscellany", to make a list article - and then we can discuss that article when it shows up. (I may make it myself, whenever I have time and the weather is bad - i.e. January. ;) Happy holidays, everyone - I'm off! --Anderssl (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo: The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. according to whom this is so?
There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. disagree, its pretty straight forward: Please see Communist mass killings by Benjamin A. Valentino, Published by Cornell University Press, 2005 FFI. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Miscellany in a thematic article dealing with cross cultural theorisation

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After an AFD, and, as a result of a long discussion a consensus was developed on the way forward for this article being theorised accounts of mass killing across more than one society. Given that this article is about theorisation of multiple society incidents eg ("All communists do X due to Y") should a series of individual case studies be included. Relevant recent arguments include this example. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The wording of this Rfc does not match the scope of the article. Though there is nothing indicating it was not made in good faith, the text appears like a rather blunt attempt to receive the desired answer. For example, there is no "cross cultural theorisation" necessary in the article. It appears to be a rather straight up historical article discussing the oft-written about topic of large numbers of killings in communist regimes over the past century. If there is some confusion, maybe a simple renaming to "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes" would be in order, in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.
In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article. Not once, but four times in seven hours: here, here, here and here. After being reported for 3RR here, you then reverted and did not phrase the question as "should we delete the two thirds of the article discussing the history of mass killings in Communist regimes" but instead phrased the RfC as (not particularly relevant to this article) "Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies?" Mosedschurte (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF much? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the archives which were explicitly pointed out to you describing what the article is yet? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I read the link you posted earlier to your own "summary_of_the_consensus_editorial_direction", though doing so is certainly not worth wading into now. Suffice to say that the scope of the rather plainly worded article is what editors, including those in response to this or more appropriately worded RfC's, determine it to be. As mentioned, if there is some confusion, some attempt to delete the two thirds of the article discussing the actual history of such killings could be headed off by a simple renaming it to something like "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes", in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.
Re: "WP:AGF much?" I assumed nothing, though I just stumbled across this rather revealing rant you just posted about those who disagree with you titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes": "The differential in administrator willingness to let wild, grossly incivil, anti-encyclopedic editing run wild even when they have discretionary editing to hand; the habit of non-humanities twonks with a personal vendetta about their precious special "I experienced this" BITING humanities specialists; and, the inane repetition of cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education; all this has irritated me sufficiently to the point where I am not going to attend unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page." (Fifelfoo) I suggest cutting down on the bile a bit.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all the article doesn't and shouldn't discuss "the theoretical structures common across multiple societies", Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.etc.--Termer (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if you believed that, you would be pushing for AfD on this article. csloat (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not posed in a neutral manner. As such, this RfC may be quite useless. I suggest this one be clasoed forthwith, and a proper NPOV question be posed. Collect (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you think it should be phrased? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This RFC seems to have been split up in many parts, including my input to it, which sort of came in the section above. So just for the record, my proposed solution is this: Make a list article which lists events described as "mass killings" in mainstream reliable sources, and which occurred under (or were perpetrated by) communist regimes (defined as regimes described as 'communist' in mainstream reliable sources). The discussion leading up to this can be seen above, under "List article". --Anderssl (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events." It is possible to do only if such a concept would really exist, in other words, if various examples of mass killing can fit into a single scheme and explained by a single reason, directly connected to the word "Communist". I doubt if it is really possible. For instance, mass killing perpetrated by African Communist and non-Communist regimes share many common features and differ from mass killing in other places.
A serious reason is needed to combine absolutely different events, and the word "Communist" is not sufficient for that.

Re: "In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article." The article combined the examples of excess mortality and mass murder under the name "mass killing", that is hardly justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article

Neutral question: Is it proper to remove historical examples from an article which directly deals with material in those examples?

The material in those examples comprises approximately two-thirds of an article.
That is hardly neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that isn't neutral, and I don't think it is worthy of an RfC, nor would it help to resolve any disagreement here. --FormerIP (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This question shows a lack of engagement with the article, its editorial history, and the consensuses developed here. It also demonstrates an almost perfect example of argument by tautology. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I note your position that the entire article should be deleted. (stated below as a direct quote). Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you note the origin of the sections discussing academics dealing with multiple societies published in credible presses, and how myself, and a number of other editors on different sides of the AFD vote, systematically grappled with potential literature in order to improve the article quality. Or do you cherry pick? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November by The Four Deuces who wrote "This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. "

!votes included "Delete: COATRACK, SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object. I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these. The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing). On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite. (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing"). Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause. George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson." There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality. The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in ". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "

There is a possibility that these positions relate to the removal of two thirds of this article. Neutrality of any edotor is an exercise left to the reader. Collect (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
They relate to the topic of this section, as stated. Is any of the material false? Any fabrication of a quote or the like? I would gladly correct any misquote, to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Collect. You are incapable of editing in a discursive field because of your stated opinion regarding the validity of opinions and the universality of facts. Also, at the time of your edits to fascism which won you a barnstar, the article was, at the time of the award, for the purposes of literature survey (ie: weight) sourced through a single literature review from Transaction publishers, who have a number of questionable features. The article also omitted mention of the major publishers on Fascism Trotsky, Gramsci, Benjamin. Do you have a secret capacity to engage in discursive fields which you haven't revealed, or are you limited to launching argumentum ad hominems and failing to read article archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Try WP:NPA and WP:AGF to start. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to state what the personal attack above amounted to? My good faith towards you evaporated when you engaged in attacking the person. Are you capable of reconciling AGF with this statement "Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, please be more specific. I asked "What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC?" You replied: "They relate to the topic of this section, as stated." How does it relate to the topic of the section? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article" is the title of this section. Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
So you are simply limited to argumentum ad hominem, and failing to read archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Collect, it is only the title of this section because you named it that. Whether or not Fifelfoo voted to delete this article is irrelevant and you should assume good faith. Although the outcome of the discussion was "no consensus", it is still possible to present the arguments for the theories concerning mass killings. It is unneccessary to add countless examples which have already swelled the article well above the suggested size and certainly examples that cannot be connected to the concept of mass killings should not be included. Incidentally all the examples mentioned are discussed in detail in other articles. It would be helpful if before commenting further you read the discussion threads so that you could provide informed comment on this issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) I would surely gladly remove any inaccurate quotes from anyone. As I started this section, the title is what I named the title. BTW, I read all the AfD discussions, and most of the article talk archives. Thank you most kindly, but your point may be taken amiss. Collect (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone placed a notice that "article is in need of attention from an expert", and here I am. Perhaps some of that belongs to article Communism. But one needs good secondary sources to do it well. Great place to start would be the book "Communism" by Richard Pipes.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Biophys, the Cold War is over and you should really read books by respected historians, not neoconservative polemicists. The findings of Team B were absolutely inaccurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Biophys, are you an expert in Communism, the History of Communism, or the institutional "Marxist Leninism" and history of Marxist Leninism of a limited geographic area in a certain time period. This is fairly important. The best expert for this article would be someone from genocide studies. The reason being that I could, with about forty minutes, COATRACK Krondstat, GULAG, the execution of the Vietnamese Trotskyites, and Hungary 1956 into a claim that "Communist regimes engage in a kind of mass killing to eliminate opponents from their own sector of the ideological spectrum, and to thereby ensure their hegemony over left wing discourses and their justification for rule as the agents of social liberation in history." Actually going out and finding these generalised accusations in credible (probably) Trotskyist academic writing would take a fair bit longer. Even worse, shoe horning this in is extremely problematic, as it only explains one kind of mass killing, its a non-viable theoretical contribution because it fails to explain population dislocations of ethnic groups and death by starvation (for example). This kind of generalised theory of all causes of mass killing, across a number of "communist" societies is what's asked for here. Not the history of a particular "communist" state or its ideological motivations. If you've got recent ready access to this kind of work, please bring it forward. I'm stalled in a number of generalised survey texts on Genocide, looking for survey reviews of the change in the field since the Democide-type people began publishing. So far we've exhausted Valentino's existing work, and the work around Lemkin's initial work has demonstrated Lemkin's a dead end (he stopped acting credibly as an academic, in attempts to garner support for his general convention). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

In my opinion, the lede section is an example of unjustified generalisation. The first sentence:

"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. "

seems odd. Khmer Rouge regime had collapsed as a result of the actions of Communist Vietnam, so it was not a typical example of Communists' rule. Maoist China can hardly be considered a pure example of a Communist state, especially taking into account that the periods of the Great Leap forward and cultural revolution was the time of the most severe opposition (especially ideological one) between the USSR and PRC. In the USSR during a Stalin's rule most Communist ideas were quietly dropped (and their carriers were eliminated). Therefore, we can speak only about some Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. Otherwise I see no reason for not writing the article named Mass killings under Capitalist regimes that would include genocide of native Americans, famines in India, Ireland, extermination of Australian aborigines etc (of course, it is just a reductio ad absurdum).

The last sentence:

"One common factor posited in Communist mass killings is the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation of society resulting in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people."

is hardly correct, because the main reason for Stalin to start his Great purge was just to seize a power in the USSR, to eliminate his major political opponents and to establish a regime where no opposition to existing authorities was able to develop. I believe, the same is true for most Communist genocides.
This odd statement can be partially explained by the fact that the article artificially mix real example of mass killing (e.g. Great Purge, Khmer atrocities) with examples of excessive mortality due to poor management (e.g. Soviet famine in 1932-33). Although the latter can be explained by "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes", it can be better explained as a result of inadequate management and criminal neglect. Famines, as well as all similar events must be removed from the article, because they simply do not fit the definition of mass killing ("the act of murdering a large number of people").--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not our task to "know" anything - rather it is WP policy that material found in any reliable source may be, and should be, used in articles. See WP:RS and WP:V. Collect (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
...provided that it is (i) relevant, and (ii) reflects majority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Kindly show me anywhere that WP policies or guidelines make that sort of statement. The aim is NPOV, not to make articles conform to any specific POV <g>. Relevance is, indeed, part of ongoing consensus. As this is not a BLP, it is difficult to see what in this article, precisely, is "irrelevant" to the topic. Collect (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
First, WP policy encourages editors to use common sense. That means that only relevant information should be used in articles. Obviously, population losses cannot be combined with mass murders in the article named "Mass killing".
Second, WP:NPOV requires "that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly". I don't think the idea of "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation" is a majority POV, however, such an interpretation is presented as the sole and well known driving force behind Communist mass murders.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You appear to assert specialist knowledge here. The mass removals and famines appear to be removable, but I daresay reliable sources disagree with what you "know." If a reliable source makes a claim, it can be in an article. Clearly if you have RS cites that the population losses were not caused by any deliberate acts, those cites should also be in the article. That is how NPOV is reached. Not by requiring that "majority POV" be the determining factor. Collect (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. " (Weathcroft The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353)
From the article's title I conclude that the article's subject is just purposive killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If the article was titled Mass murder under Communist regimes, then I would agree that it should only be about purposive killings. But "killings" is a broader term which also includes those perpetrated via criminal neglect, which Weathcroft argues caused the excess deaths. Hence I think your removal of the text is not justified. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say, you interpret it as a broader term. Mass killing is "the act of murdering a large number of people". "Murder" is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought). What relation does it have to "criminal neglect"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
No, Mass killing is merely a re-direct to Mass murder. Intent or malice aforethought are synonyms for "purposeful". People are killed every day, accidently and through neglect, they are not necessarily murdered, i.e purposely killed. Criminal neglect is the failure to use reasonable care to avoid the consequences of their actions. However this failure to use reasonable care could be purposeful, which many authors like James Mace, Michael Ellman and Robert Davies argue in the case of the famines. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
We discussed this issue previously. The term "killing" does not imply human agency or intention. If we want to use the term killing in its widest sense then all nature events must be included, such as earthquakes, not to mention wars, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This entire discussion is an example of single society case studies, and wikipedians generating arguments from their personal analysis thereof. We use "Mass Killings" because, at the time of the name change, the only theorist with credibility discussing the points of commonality across multiple societies then discovered was Valentino, who described them as "Mass Killings." This is why the article cannot move forward as a result of wikipedian's synthesis of single society case studies: when we are editing wikipedia we lose any offline capacity we have as experts to generate new and original analyses from interpretations of evidence—and, it goes around in the same tired circle. Our task is to honestly and faithfully record relevant theorisations of general causes (ie: causes pertinent to more than one society) of mass killings or other similar "mass" actions as reported by Reliable Sources, and as balanced by WEIGHT. If you discover excellent single society theorisations, why then take Robert Conquest and go to Human Rights abuses in the Soviet Union and describe that there. Or take it to the Great Purge. Given that this article discusses general causes "under Communist regimes" society specific theorisations are off topic. And of course as this is an academic object of study, the RS which ought to be used are high quality reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to sign this statement by Collect with my 2 hands.--Termer (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert when he says that :"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. " seems odd. Its because its not what Valentino in his Communist mass killings says. He says that he focuses on "histories most murderous communist states, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia" but he also refers to mass killings by communist regimes elsewhere -North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa. So the article lede currently clearly misleads the reader.--Termer (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Termer, could you please define mass killing. If it does not have any special meaning then we should start to include information about killings from natural disasters, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not what Termer defines as mass killing, it is what Valentino defines it as. --Martin (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, how does Valentino do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is not to define anything, but edit articles according to WP:RS. and how exactly for example Benjamin Valentino Ph.D. in Political Science defines Communist mass killings in his book published by Cornell University Press can be read by anybody who has access to internet or to a local library. The question that we need to deal with here is how to ensure that article is written according to this source and any other WP:RS that has been written on the subject. And that seems to be the problematic part. the lede is misleading and large junks of material just keeps disappearing ,, , , , from the article.--Termer (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And yes, unlike according to your opinion Paul Siebert, Benjamin Valentino in his book considers famine as one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. p. 93--Termer (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
They were deleted, you were present while we were discussing while they were deleted, they were deleted because they're not relevant to the argument contained in RS that theorise multiple society causes as they're uncontextualised individual case studies replicating full articles elsewhere, effectively, they're little itty bitty POVforks. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me, Google's reset my preview rights on Valentino, Final Solutions Cornell 2005. From 66-67 he outlines his theory of cause of mass killings:
"I contend that mass killing occurs when powerful groups come to believe it is the best available means to accomplish certain radical goals, counter specific types of threats, or solve difficult military problems. From this perspective, mass killing should be viewed as an instrumental policy calculated to achieve important political and military objectives with respect to other groups—a "final solution" to its perpetrators' most urgent problems."
This leaves his typology indicating Communist Mass Killings are specifically a subset, and a descriptive subset at that of Dispossessive mass killings (esp at 72-73). Valentino's 2005 work does not support this article's existence. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Re: "Our job here is not to define anything..." Incorrect. Before writing some article (obviously, based on RS) we must define what this article is about. Therefore, we have to agree what do we mean under "mass killing", and which RS definition is more appropriate. We ourselves, and noone else can and have to do this job.
Re: "... but edit articles according to WP:RS" WP:RS recommend to "try to cite scholarly consensus when available." The source presented by me demonstrates that Valentino does not express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: "And yes, unlike according to your opinion..." There is no my or your opinion, only Valentino vs Wheatcroft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please let me remind you Fifelfoo that this talk page is not for a discussion about articles existence, Such matters are only relevant to Afd-s. And please let the reader decide what Valentino says in his book, there is no need to add any commentary like you to his statements. Not at this talk page nor in the article. And please kindly restore the relevant sections from the article that you have removed. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Please Paul Siebert do not hesitate and try to cite scholarly consensus on the subject. Nobody has ever claimed that Valentino does express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories: