Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:11, 11 July 2010

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

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

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

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

Due to recent revert warring, be advised that reverting more than once without discussing it on the talk page is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring.

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

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

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

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

Archives

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

1RR restriction

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article >oldid=338617782#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FEastern_European_mailing_list_.282.29 by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup template messages

There are cleanup template messages at the top of the article which have just been sitting there being ignored. We should either address them or remove them. The "may not include all significant viewpoints" is probably still relevant and may be useful to keep as either a notice to new editors who could contribute or a reminder to old editors who have been busy. The "needs attention from an expert" message is old and should be either removed or reposted. The middle three require discussion, and I will start a talk page section for each to identify examples and work through them. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Template Message

Please post examples below of non-neutral language currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This one is easy. Could you provide a single reliable source which encompasses all the cases listed in this article? (Igny (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Why does it have to be one? If it was a list of mass killings, sure, but the article is not a list of them, but about the mass killings. So why only one source? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Igny, why is that required? AmateurEditor (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not, the POv tag can go mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does not explain that the connection between Communism and mass killings is a fringe theory, as explained in many peer-reviewed artcles, none of which are included in the article. TFD (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the source which states that the connection is a fringe theory please mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles that discuss the theory. If you give me a day I can look through the discussion archives where there are several more articles that discussion the theories.

• Jan Herman Brinks, "Anti-Semitism in Europe", 1914-2004".
• Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 "Europe-Asia Studies", Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353

TFD (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry TFD, looking at those archive links i see nothing which says the connection between commies and murder is fringe. I see people spouting on about a theory but nothing which sayd what you are claiming mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

However on the plus side the University of Cambridge says All Communist governments have practiced widespread killing of non- combatants Another problem solved i think mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What does that site have to do with Cambridge? It's a private project by an Associate Professor at George Mason University, a much less distinguished institution on the other side of the Atlantic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your right, it is hosted by George Mason University not cambridge, when i googled the url it came up cambridge, go figure :) mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I read your first source and all that is available of your second (the first page, found here) and they do not say what you claim. Both discuss the phenomenon of equating hitler's atrocities with Stalin's (or nazism with communism), which is not occurring in this article as the Nazis are not even mentioned. Neither says anything like that "the connection between Communism and mass killings is a fringe theory", as you described it. You still haven't justified keeping this template. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

agree please discuss before adding tags again Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles are clear enough. I am sorry but not surprised that you see nothing. incidentally, 8 minutes is a pretty short period to find and read the discussion thread and both articles and reply, leading me to believe that you have not in fact read them. TFD (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

tfd, i learned some communist are mass murderers in 5th grade, around the same time i picked up speed reading. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been firmly established (See "Arbitrary break 2") that there is no POV in this article. TFD claims everyone who doesn't agree with him is "fringe" and "neocon" but never provides any arguments or support for that position, so he can be ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis Template Message

Please post examples below of sentences containing synthesis or unverifiable facts currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No examples have been given, and it's been a week now. (Well, minus a couple of hours.) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Essay Template Message

Please post examples below of editors' personal reflections or opinions currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correct, this template was placed by Termer as a responce to some changes made by me. Since most of these changes already vanished as a result of subsequent modifications, I believe, this tag can be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates

This article was created by the blocked editor Joklolk as Communist genocide and was quickly adopted by members of the Eastern European Mailing List. When the article was listed for deletion, they decided off-wiki to rename the article. However the new title does not exist in academic sources. So basically the article is not supported by any sources and represents a far right view of history. There have been a number of attempts by the far right to create articles, including one about how the Jews control Hollywood. The argument they presented was that since some people believe that the Jews control Hollywood there is a controversy meriting a separate article. Fortunately the inherent bias and anti-Semitism of that article was obvious and it was deleted. Unfortunately the inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias of this article is less obvious, which is why it has not been deleted. But it does explain why it can never be a neutral article. TFD (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever created the article is not relevant. Nor is the history of the name. Nor is the EEML shibboleth relevant. Nor does WP require articles to conform to your sensibilities that everyone else is racist and anti-Semitic. Now can we go back to the purpose of the talk page which is to improve the article? Collect (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The topic itself is inherently biased. It is based on a far right conspiratorial view of Communism represented in this article by the fringe theorist Watson. No real encyclopaedia would have an article like this. The fact that the article was created by a troll and supported by a group that was willing to break the rules of Misplaced Pages in order to support their own personal view of Russia and the minorities that supported the Soviet Union is evidence that the topic matter is loaded. That is why this article cannot be improved. As I mentioned, we had a similar discussion with an article about how the Jews control Hollywood, created by an editor who believed that the Holocaust was a hoax. The discussion came down to that there were two legitimate articles: about the far right conspiracy theory that the Jews controlled Hollywood and an article about Jews in Hollywood. In the end it was agreed that the inherent bias of the article made it better to be deleted. TFD (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, WP:AGF is not good policy because all editors are in fact acting in good faith, it is good policy because editors' motivations are irrelevant to the merits of their arguments and because talk page discussions of other editors' motivations are counter-productive. Your concerns appear to be misplaced. Watson is a very small portion of the article. Judaism is not even mentioned in the article. The editors of the EEML are also not participating in this discussion and haven't been for some time. The title achieved a consensus of editors far beyond the members of that mailing list. That the title of this article does not exist verbatim in academic sources should suprise no one as it is a compromise descriptive title of the topic. There are several reliable sources which discuss the topic, so the article is in fact sourced. If you can think of a better title, please present it. If you think the article represents a far right view of history, please present additional sources you would like to see included. If you think there is an "inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias" in the article, then make your case as well as you can. I don't see it. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The bias probably is not apparent to you and I notice that the quotes on your user page are from Karl Rove and Jonah Goldberg. If you actually respect Goldberg, then you probably do not have an appreciation for neutrality. TFD (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not get you what you want. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I am not making a personal attack. Unfortunately you present yourself on your user page as supporting highly partisan persons, none of whom is respected as an historian or as a neutral writer. None of them are considered to be rational critics of social sciences. TFD (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article is biased because it collects the views of those scholars who see commonality between mass killings under different Communist regimes (and the regimes that only declared their adherence to the Communist doctrine). By contrast, the views of other scholars, who see no such commonality, and, therefore, discuss these events separately, cannot be included in this article because that would be a synthesis. As a result, this article article leads to a collision between two major WP principles, neutrality and NOR, which is immanent to such type articles.

In addition, I already quoted some sources that convey quite opposite ideas, namely that Cambodian regime was the only Communist regime whose nature was genocidal, whereas other Communist regimes, by contrast to Nazi, were not genocidal. The same source states that it was a Communist ideology that prevented a full-scale genocide in the USSR. In addition, other sources describe Cambodia as only formally Communist regime, thereby refusing to see any commonality between the events in this "Communist" country and other Communist states. Unfortunately, these example are not abundant, because the scholars that see no commonality between different mass killings prefer to write about the history of some concrete country, leaving the theories of various "...cides" to political writers and journalists.

I already proposed the solution and I repeat it again: the article can be fixed only if we build it as a story about theories that try to connect different mass killings in different Communist countries (along with their criticism). This should not be a list (each of the events listed here already have their own article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But Paul, it is not synthesis to include information in this article from sources which focus on only one instance of mass killing. If the article were titled "Mass killing..." rather than "Mass killings...", then I would be more inclined to agree with you that individual explanations have no place in the article. There are sections on commonalities; there can also be sections on particularities, and they would look very much like the list. In fact, incorporating those alternate, individual, non-common causes into the current list would be a good way to incorporate them. You see, if we were to limit articles on Misplaced Pages to just the individual instances of mass killing (the situation before this article was created), then we would have the opposite bias problem: only individual causes and explanations could be discussed and commonalities would have no place to be written about. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, formally, to to include information in this article from sources which focus on only one instance of mass killing is not synthesis. However, let's consider the following case: (i) a scholar V. defined a term "mass killings" as "mass killings of more than 50,000 non-combatants during the period of 5 years or less"; (ii) a scholar P. describes a decossackisation as a process of elimination of some ethnic group (Cossacks) by Communist regime in Russia; (iii) scholar X. tells a story of numerous killings committed by both sides during the Russian Civil War in the Don's basin. Can we combine all three sources to include them into this article? I doubt if that is correct. The first source (V.) tells about mass killings of non-combatants, whereas most Cossacks were the party of the Civil War, so decossackisation can hardly be described as mass killings of non-combatants. In addition, decossackisation does not fit a quantitative criterion, because 10,000 to 12,000 executed Cossacks is not "50,000". In other words, we can include decossackisation only if the scholar V. (who coined the term "mass killings") explicitly included it into his book. He didn't>printsec=frontcover>dq=valentino+final+solution>hl=en>ei=BaYuTPuOEMH68Aber-yGAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q=decossackization>f=false >printsec=frontcover>dq=valentino+final+solution>hl=en>ei=BaYuTPuOEMH68Aber-yGAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q=decossackisation>f=false >printsec=frontcover>dq=valentino+final+solution>hl=en>ei=BaYuTPuOEMH68Aber-yGAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q=cossack>f=false . The second source, P., describes the crimes of Communists against Cossacks, however, it is not clear from his book that that was a crime against non-combatants, so it is incorrect to combine V. and P. Finally, the scholar X. writes about history of the Civil War in Russia, including the crimes committed by both sides (and, btw, in similar scale). It would be incorrect to take the X.'s words out of the general context of the Civil war, and, importantly, the story of the White terror would be equally inappropriate here, because it has not direct relation to the article's subject. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While Valentino did come up with a precise working definition for "mass killing", he did not coin the term. It is a common term long predating him with no precise definition that I know of. And I don't know that any other writer uses Valentino's definition for "mass killing" (and Valentino himself refers to mass killings "on a smaller scale" than his definition on page 91). This article does not use his definition of the term, it uses the more general one. Whether we should or not is an open question. As for the other examples you give, whether they should be included depends on the details. We agree that only killings of non-combatants is appropriate, but shouldn't that include civilians and POWs? I don't agree that no examples can be included that are not explicitly mentioned in Valentino's book because he says explicitly that he does not discuss every example. If there is information included in the article that is taken out of context in a misleading way, then it should definitely be corrected. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino did define this term (similarly to Oscar W. Greenberg who coined the term colour), and at least one source in this article (Wayman > Tago) explicitly states that. With regard to the definition the article uses, I doubt the article in its present form to use any single definition. That opens an avenue for numerous non-neutral syntheses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some obvious examples can and should be included, because Valentino and similar scholars are not specialists in history of the countries they discuss (their field of interests are general genocide studies), so many details in their books are inaccurate of incomplete. However, that does not mean that the article has to become a collection of everything that has even marginal relation to real or alleged Communist crimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Valentino coined a definition for "mass killing", but he did not, of course, invent the term itself. As for the extent of the instances included, I doubt there will be any more at this point unless something very new is published. If there is an example already included which you do not think is appropriate, it should be discussed on the talk page. If there is a specific example of synthesis you have in mind, please post it in the synthesis template section here on the talk page. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, the reason there can never be a neutral article are because your world view is so common. You, and many others, clearly have the stance that you either turn a blind eye to the murders of "communist" regimes, or you are "far-right" and anti-semitic. And equally, many on the "far-right" have the idea that you either turn a blind eye to the evils of fascism, or you automatically are a communist.

Both those attitudes are complete and utter nonsense and has no connection to reality whatsoever. Anyone who has respect for their fellow being will be egalitarian, liberal, democratic anti-communist and anti-racist, ie neither your "far-right" nor "far-left" enough to be blind for the failings of communism. The attitude of left-vs-right, us-vs-them, that you show evidence of above, makes this into a choice between communism and antisemitism, when it's obvious to any thinking person that both are evil ideas.

I'd recommend you to stop thinking in terms of "left" and "right". It's an oversimplification with nothing but negative effects. The world isn't that simple. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not followed the discussion so I will summarize it for you. While it is implicit in the title of the article that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings, there are only fringe sources that make this connection. WP:Fringe means that they are not recognized in academic writing. Therefore the article is just a random list of atrocities whose only connection is that the perpetrators were Communist governments. We could just as easily write an article called "Mass killings under Protestant regimes" and include the holocaust and the Salem witch trials. The sources that do make a connection are in fact far right, and have been the subject of academic articles. The theory has been popularized in Eastern Europe because it shows Communism with its 100 million victims was a greater evil than Nazism with its 6 million victims. The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries. It is ironic that you consider opposition to a manichaean world-view to be simplistic. TFD (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if only fringe sources make that connection or not is both rather irrelevant and incorrect, as the article name is "Mass killings under communist regimes", which also is what the article contains. And the Nazi regime was not a protestant regime, so you are wrong there as well. The sources that make the connection are not all "far right", and although the theory might be popular in eastern europe, it's in fact "popular" (that is generally accepted) in academia all over the world, and this without rehablitating any Nazi collaborators or "villianizing" of any Jews.

And the whole point is that your world view isn't manichaean. You do not propose a choice between good and evil. You propose a choice between two evils.

So, sorry, pretty much every single sentence you write is just incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

a connection between Communism and mass killings, there are only fringe sources that make this connection Your kidding right? Commie dictators have murdered millions and this is well documented, and you say anyone making this connection is fringe? And why is it you only seem to have one source all the time btw, this valentino guy? mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that connects Communism with mass killings. TFD (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel There ya go mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And also , and of course The Black Book of Communism. None of these can in any way be labeled "fringe". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rummel wrote about mass killings in many countries, including many Communist countries but did not have a concept of Communist mass killings. In fact in his book Death by government he includes Great Britain and most other European nations as guilty of mass killings. While the introduction to the Black Book of Communism does connect Communism and mass killings, the editor Stéphane Courtois never submitted his theories to academic scrutiny and they are considered fringe. Even two of the contributors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, criticized him for exaggerating the number of deaths in order to reach the figure of 100 million. Mainstream academics have criticized him for recycling the far right theory about the French Revolution and applying it to Communism. TFD (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) but did not have a concept of Communist mass killings Try reading the source please, Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide Your habit of not hearing stuff is getting tedious mark nutley (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Rummel has a concept of communist massmurder. Neither he, nor anyone else, claims *only* communists commit genocides. But he does connect communism and massmurder.
• The Black Book of Communism is only considered fringe amongst communist circles. Yes, Courtois, when calculating the number of dead, takes the "worst case numbers" in all cases, which obviously means his total number is too high. But that's not the issue here, the issue here is if only fringe people make the connection between communism and mass murder, and the answer is clearly "no".

You are now trying to avoid that issue by taking up other criticisms or in the case of Rummel nonsense argumentation. But that doesn't change the fact that all of the above mentioned academic sources connect communism and mass murder and n one of the are fringe. Your statement that only fringe sources make the connection is therefore proven false. You should now admit that you were wrong, and go on in the discussion, but it seems to me you are not willing to do that, and instead you are going to dig yourself a deeper hole and become more and more wrong. That's not a helpful attitude when on Misplaced Pages, and it will do you no good. Admit error, go on, that's the ticket. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, my memory failed me on Rummel and I have looked through the talk page archives. The problem with his work is that again he did not publish it in peer-reviewed literature, his book was published by Transaction Publishers, and his theories have not attracted any sort of respect. Certainly there are writers who connect Communism and mass killings, but there are none in the mainstream academic literature on mass killings or Communism. To get back to the point of this discussion thread, which was about the article templates, the article cannot be neutral if it is based on theories that are considered fringe. Also, even the fringe sources disagree among themselves about what the connection is. Courtois for example saw Communism as developing from the democracy of the French Revolution, while Watson saw it as developing from conservatism. (As a Liberal, he hated both Tories and Labour.)

In fact the observation "The Black Book of Communism is only considered fringe amongst communist circles" is false and you really need sources to support that. My advice to you is to read through the mainstream literature on mass killings rather than only looking at highly controversial books that are fringe and more polemical than academic.

TFD (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your appeals to authority are a strawman, to say R. J. Rummel who is a professor emeritus of political science has not published in peer review is blatantly false he has written 24 books, and has around 100 publications in peer-reviewed journals, try again mark nutley (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

aw hell, it was only 50 million? lets give communism another try... ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.116.238.121 (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to using Rummel's writings that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals or are published by the academic press. But there is a distinction between scholarly writing and polemical writing. There is a difference between writing an informative book and one that advances a political viewpoint. The way to tell the difference is of course the choice of publishers and the reception by the academic community. Many academic writers choose the freedom of the non-academic press to express views which not be acceptable in the academic press. For example, he would have been laughed at had he tried to get a journal to publish the following comment, "Was it necessary to protect the United States against the likes of Saddam Hussein. You betcha. The 9/11 attack made this clear." That is what Transaction Publishers is for. Again, if the only sources for the article are fringe, then it cannot be neutral. TFD (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, TFD, but the fact is that pretty much everything you say is either irrelevant, an attempt to change the topic, or simply factually wrong. The sources mentioned above are not fringe. RJ Rummel is widely quoted, and has, despite your claims to the contrary, widespread respect gained from his research, and is widely quoted in other research: >q=RJ%20rummel . You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. The connection between communism and mass murder has been done by mainstream scholarly sources.

My advice to you is to read through the mainstream literature on mass killings - You see, that's what I have done. Maybe you should too? Then maybe you should read Marx and see what he says, then read some liberal criticism of communism, and then you'll also understand *why* communism so readily lends itself to mass murder. Then stop telling me to read things you haven't read yourself, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. Since you are so well read on the literature of mass killings, could you please provide me with an article in a peer-reviewed journal that explains the connection between Communism and mass killings. TFD (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw no personal attack above at all. Meanwhile, for the fiftieth time, WP has no requirement that the name of an article be found in "peer-reviewed journals" at all. >pg=PA91>dq=communism+%22mass+killing%22>hl=en>ei=OxsvTND6E8L_lgen5tiCCg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA Valentino. >pg=PA397>dq=communism+%22mass+killing%22>hl=en>ei=OxsvTND6E8L_lgen5tiCCg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=2>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ Penn. >pg=PA315>dq=communism+%22mass+killing%22>hl=en>ei=OxsvTND6E8L_lgen5tiCCg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=5>ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA Midlarsky. >pg=PA195>dq=communism+%22mass+killing%22>hl=en>ei=OxsvTND6E8L_lgen5tiCCg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=7>ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg Gvosdev. >pg=PA78>dq=communism+%22mass+killing%22>hl=en>ei=OxsvTND6E8L_lgen5tiCCg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=8>ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw Etcheson. >pg=PA6>dq=communism+%22mass+killing%22>hl=en>ei=QRwvTJDxEsGblgeq7KjaCA>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CCQQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage>q>f=false Weinstein. And a host of other reliable sources. Sufficient indeed. Collect (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you appear to have misread the comments to which you are replying. OpenFuture's comment, "You are, to be blunt, lying" is a personal attack. I did not say, " WP has requirement that the name of an article be found in "peer-reviewed journals"" but asked for "an article in a peer-reviewed journal that explains the connection between Communism and mass killings" (my emphasis). TFD (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! You left out the significant part of it. Maybe I should accuse you of personal attacks, you have after all accused Courtois of lying. "App-lying", more specifically, which reasonably must be worse. With creative quoting you can make your opposition say anything. It's not a serious way to discuss, though. So don't quote out of context, OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what above would be a personal attack above? And why just articles? Why not books? Books published in university press and widely cited in other works are also reliable sources, you know. That said, RJ Rummel has for example published many articles doing this connection in peer-reviewed journals, as I'm sure you would have known if you have even tried to look for them. But you brush off everyone that is not communist as "fringe", thereby supporting your theory that only "fringe" people contradict you.

The problem with that attitude is that in the end, the whole world becomes "fringe" and you are left alone as the only "mainstream" person in the universe. Not a very fruitful attitude... --OpenFuture (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Democide talk page you can find quotes that demonstrate that serious scholars doubt in validity of Rummel's conclusions and accuracy of his figures. Similarl evidences are presented on the BB's talk page. I admit, that is my fault that having these sources I haven't modified both these articles accordingly, but, taking into account low importance of these two subjects, this task has low priority for me. One way or the another, if someone build their arguments based on such reliable sources as Rummel and Cortois (in actuality, when people cite the BB they mean mostly The Courtois' introduction, the worst and least reliable book's part), then the problem of lack of reliable sources on anti-Communism is serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Scholars have different opinions. That's life. Let's recap: The claim was that *only* fringe sources would claim that communism and mass murder was connected. This claim has been thoroughly debunked by showing many non-fringe sources that argue for that connection. Is anything there unclear?

Then you bring up anti-communism, which is a much wider topic, and which has absolutely no lack of reliable sources. Marxism has been shown to be fundamentally flawed both in theory and practice. Pretending otherwise is denialism. But that's not the topic here. The topic is this: Are there non-fringe sources that connect communism and mass murder. And the answer is: Yes! --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's compare three statements: (i) "only fringe sources draw a connection between mass murder and Communism"; (ii) "the sources that draw a connection between mass murder and Communism are mainstream"; (iii) "Communists killed 120 million people". Obviously, the fact that (i) is an exaggeration does not automatically mean that (ii) and (iii) are true.

Therefore, the question is non correctly stated. The real topic is: can we conclude that the opinion that there was a direct connection between Communism (ideology and theory) and XX century mass murders is mainstream? The answer is: No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question is a resounding "yes". That there is a clear both ideological and practical connection between communism and mass murder is a well known and well accepted fact in history and sociology, and there has here been provided sources that show this. Try finding mainstream peer-reviewed post-cold war articles that claims there was no systematic violations of the human rights record in Soviet, China, Cambodia, etc. I would be very amused to see what you come up with. The murders are well attested and generally accepted. The discussion is only about how big they were, and how many millions that died. That they happened has not been contested since the fall of the wall, nor is it generally contested that the totalitarian and violent communist ideology lends itself to these violations. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "WP has no requirement that the name of an article be found in "peer-reviewed journals"" Yes, it hasn't. However, the policy explicitly states that peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources, so if these sources state that, e.g. Rummel's methodology is flawed, his data are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses and he is a controversial writer, then it must be explicitly stated here, and, accordingly, the article cannot be build as if Rummel and similar authors represent a mainstream POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously both viewpoints need to be attested in the article. Nobody said anything else. The discussion is the absurd claim that Rummel et al are "fringe". They are not. It's really not that hard to understand. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Openfuture and mark nutley, if you wish to base your understanding of history on what you read in neoconservative publications, that is your right. But please do not continue to assert these views are mainstream or that anyone who opposes them is a communist or is lying without any sources to support your views. TFD (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, in my opinion, the statement that these neoconservative publications are fringe is also too strong. Obviously, they are not fringe, although they are not mainstream either. They represent a significant minority views and due attention should be paid to them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See Identifying fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". The term covers a wide of theories. I am not implying that these theories are in the same league as people who believe the moon landing was faked. TFD (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, None of the sources I have given you are neoconservative, nor are they fringe. They are mainstream and liberal democratic. TFD, you don't have to choose between two evils. The communism and fascism are not the only alternatives, and you don't need to choose either one. In fact, communism and fascism are just two variants of the same evils. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Transaction Publishers, founded by Irving Louis Horowitz is the main neoconservative publishing house. While the Black Book was originally published in France, it recently notice and support in the U. S. virtually entirely from neoconservatives and the New Right. And fringe of course merely means "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". You need to step away from the view that anyone who is not a U. S. conservative is either a Communist or fascist. In any case the Communist mass killing theory is an over-simplification. For example, Russian agression against the people of Chechnya began under the czars and continued under Yeltsin and Putin. The Russian view that the conflict is part of the global war on terror is similarly simplistic. Mainstream historians approach history with neutrality and do not attempt to analyze events according to pre-conceived beliefs. TFD (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious from your answer that you regard everyone who is not communist as "neoconservative", which just confirms what I said before about your position. Rummel is not a neocon.

I repeat: Nobody claims that *only* communism is behind mass murder. That czars and other totalitarian dictators also violate human rights is not an argument for communism, and not an argument against the fact that communism has killed a lot of people. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It's obvious from your answer that you regard everyone who is not communist as "neoconservative"". If you do not wish to engage in rational discussion and resort to name calling, I am afraid that you are not contributing to the improvement of this article. TFD (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you, including me, by saying or implying that they are neocons. I have already made clear that I am not neo-conservative. I hereby make clear that I take any implications that I am as insults, and that you will be warned for personal attacks if you continue to imply that I am conservative. You can pretend that everyone that doesn't agree with you are evil, but it doesn't change the fact that almost every single sentence you have written here is completely incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not insulting those authors by ascribing political beliefs to them, I am merely stating facts. But it is not their political viewpoints that detract from their work, but that they are written as political rather than academic books. I have made no personal attacks against you, however you made the following attack: "You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong",>action=historysubmit>diff=371524353>oldid=371519489 I did not "accuse" you of being a conservative, I would not see that as an accusation at all, and accept that you are more likely a liberal. But our personal views are not important. Let us discuss the sources, not other editors. TFD (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. At least you seem to have realized now that not every anti-communist is a conservative. That's a step forward. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Re: OpenFuture's "The answer to your question is a resounding "yes". That there is a clear both ideological and practical connection between communism and mass murder is a well known and well accepted fact in history and sociology, and there has here been provided sources that show this. Try finding mainstream peer-reviewed post-cold war articles that claims there was no systematic violations of the human rights record in Soviet, China, Cambodia, etc. I would be very amused to see what you come up with. The murders are well attested and generally accepted. The discussion is only about how big they were, and how many millions that died. That they happened has not been contested since the fall of the wall, nor is it generally contested that the totalitarian and violent communist ideology lends --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)itself to these violations."
—Firstly, "Try finding mainstream peer-reviewed post-cold war articles that claims there was no systematic violations of the human rights record in Soviet, China, Cambodia, etc." You mix "human rights" (the term that is quite differently seen in different cultures and during different periods of history) and "mass killings" (the article's subject).
—Secondly, even genocide scholar themselves, e.g. Valentino on the page 91 of his "Final solution" states that "most regimes that describe themselves as Communist ... have not engaged in mass killings".
—Thirdly, although mass killings in the USSR can be attributed to communist ideology (although it is hard to speak seriously about any ideological moteves behind actions of Stalin, who initially allied with Bukharin against Trotsky and Zinovyev, and vehemently defended NEP, and then fought against Bukharin and condemned NEP; clearly, there were no ideology behind his actions, just pure will to power), many scholar note that Campuchea regime, the most pure example of genocidal regime, was Communist only by name. Moreover, this regime was vehemently condemned by the major Communist state, the USSR (and, interestingly, it was supported by the leading First World's country, the U.S.). How can we speak about common ideological roots here?
—Fourthly, "The murders are well attested and generally accepted." is probably too strong a statement. The only consensus is that some murders occurred. However, neither motives of these murders nor the figures are commonly accepted now. With regard to the figures, Rummel's "100+ million" is definitely a fringe views (see the quotes on the democide talk page). There is also no consensus what should be considered "murder", "killings", or just "excess mortality". A connection with ideology is also unclear: Rummel himself considers "Communism" just as one of parameters in his factor analysis, and his conclusion is that it is totaliarianism that strongly corellates with democide (i.e. mass killings), not Communism. However, even this conclusion is questioned by, others, e.g. by Wayman and Tago.
—Fifthly, "That they happened has not been contested since the fall of the wall..." That is constantly being contested, for instance, the numbers of victims under Stalin's rule has been re-considered to much lower values since the fall of the wall, and due to the fall of the wall, because opening of secret archives provided Western historians with more precise information, thus allowing them to leave the realm of estimations and to step into the realm of statistics.
—Sixthly, regarding yours "the totalitarian and violent communist ideology lends itself to these violations", can it be used as an argument in favour of creation of the article Mass killings under totalitarian regimes (or even Mass killings under authoritarian regimes, because many scholars see a connection between authoritarianism, not totalitarianism, and mass killings), and accordingly, of moving the content of this article there?-Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, because the mass killings of communism is mostly a result of a systematic violation of basic human rights. It's not like the Holocaust were people were rounded up and taken to death factories, or the Rwandan genocide were people were hunted and slaughtered by their neighbors. So I mix mass killings and systematic human rights violations, because when it comes to communism, they are so tightly connected that they are almost the same.

2. So? Most regimes of *any* kind has not done this. You can't deny both that communist regimes have engaged in mass killings, neither that communist regimes have done so in a higher degree than regimes in average.

3a. Communism is one ideology who readily lends itself to those who have a "will to power" as it provides an ideological basis, a rationalization and excuse, to use violence against anyone who doesn't agree with you. That communism so readily can be bent to support people like Stalin is one if the reasons for communist mass murders. Obviously in the end, it's people who do the killing. But that does not mean that we can pretend that the ideology doesn't play a part. It clearly does, or mass killings would not be more common under authoritarian regimes.

3b. Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. It's an excuse used to defend belief in communism and try to merge it with the fact of the Khmer Rouge murders, an excuse used for any communist regime that has ever existed. You find some part where the regime doesn't agree with you, declare that part an integral part of communism, and claim that the human rights violation under regime X was not because of communism, because they weren't "True Communists". It is, in short, just a variation of the "No True Scotsman"-argument. The fact is that the Khmer Rouge were intensely communist in their ideology. What they were not was Leninist. They did not believe in a protracted dictatorship of the proletariat. They wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat to pass quickly (simply because they had seen how Russia and China had gotten stuck in the bureaucratic dictatorships), and therefore started a quick an violent campaign to force people into the communist state directly without delay. This campaign led to the death of around a quarter of the population. In fact, the reason so many died was that the Khmer Rouge if anything was *more* communistic than other regimes. But that's nothing socialists want to hear, as this implies that the socialist utopia simply is not possible to attain.

4+5 I pointed out that the mass murders was not being contested, just the number of dead. Your answer is "Yes they are being contested, the number of dead is being re-appraised". Well, QED, they are not being contested, just the number of dead. That's what I said.

6. The mass killings under communism are so numerous that they probably warrant it's own article, as I suspect that a "Mass killing under authoritarian regimes" would be a seriously huge article and needed to be split up in several subarticles. But there is certainly nothing problematic with such an article in principle. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion page is not the place for general discussion but to assist in improving the article. It is also unhelpful to dismiss other editors' opinions as "purely pro-communist rationalization". Could you please provide reliable sources for your opinions. You might also find it useful to widen your reading beyond writings that validate your opinions. At least it may make you more tolerant of other viewpoints. TFD (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: TFD has been warned for this personal attack, but he removed that warning from his talk page (which is his right). Just so nobody warns him again. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been to a wedding and this thread seems to have gone awry, the two sections prior to TFD`s PA are insanely long and rambling. I see a suggestion to move this page, emphatic no, and start a new thread if such a move is to be discussed. Regarding the mainstream view on mass murder and commies, that is the mainstream view and sources have been given to prove it. The onus is now on others to disprove this with reliable sources which say that this view is fringe, as it appears to me that saying mass murder and commies go hand in hand is the mainstream view, and i do not see how anyone can say otherwise mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Yes, because the mass killings of communism is mostly a result of a systematic violation of basic human rights." Every killing is a result of a violation of the fundamental human right, so this argument can be applied to all mass killings, and, therefore, is useless and senseless here. Maybe, you imply that human right of Jews were not violated by Nazi? I would say the opposite: Nazi started with violation of civil and human rights of Jews (Nuremberg laws) and that eventually opened an avenue for the Holocaust.
Re: "Most regimes of *any* kind has not done this." That is why there is no articles like Mass killings under Calvinist (Democratic, Christian, anti-Communist, Fascist, Liberal, etc.) regimes, and I don't see why Communist regimes should be an exception. One way or the another, if a reliable source (Valentino) states that there were no mass killings under majority of Communist regimes, your speculation are just speculations and should be treated as such.
Re: "... as it provides an ideological basis, a rationalization and excuse, to use violence against anyone who doesn't agree with you". All other regimes do the same, the difference is only in details: the threshold of disagreement after which sanctions may be applied, as well as the degree of violence may vary. And, btw, noone (except some libertarian writers) has been able to find anything in Marx' or Lenin's theoretical works that justified the need of killing (by contrast to other kinds of violence, that are normal during all revolutions).
Re: "Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. " Feel free to report to WP:RSN about (un)reliability of the works of Helen Fein (you can find the ref in this article). If a consensus will be achieved that it is a fringe pro-communist source, we can return to this discussion. Otherwise, that is just your personal assertion, and it should be treated as such.
Re: "Your answer is "Yes they are being contested, the number of dead is being re-appraised". " You interpreted my words incorrectly. There are two separate questions: (i) which events should be considered Communist mass killings and (ii)what was the number of victims? Both these questions are the subject of corrections, because (i) the figures were re-examined, and (ii) many events (like famines, diseases, etc.) are not considered as mass killings by many scholars now, as they prefer to speak about the "victims of repressions", etc.
Re: "The mass killings under communism are so numerous that they probably warrant it's own article..." ...which should be a Mass killings under authoritatian regimes' daughter article, so all considerations about "mass killings" (which, according to the concept's author, were not specific to Communist regimes alone), "democide" (that, according to the term's inventor, is connected with totalitarianism, not Communism) and other "...cides" should be moved there.
In summary, during this dispute I am constantly referring to reliable sources, whereas you provide just your own opinions. Could you please be more serious?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Your quote of me is out of context, and your reply is therefore a straw man argument.

2. No, there are no "Mass killing under calvinist regimes" because there have been no Calvinist regimes. Mass killings under liberal or otherwise democratic regimes are so few that they don't warrant their own article. Mass killings under fascist regimes is pretty much only Nazi germany, unless you (as is common) extend the word "fascist" to mean any non-communist dictatorship, etc, etc. So no, that is *not* the reason these articles do not exist.

3a. All other regimes do the same, - You are now comparing regimes and ideologies. That's obviously not useful. Try again.

3b. Reliable sources can also be incorrect.

4. No, I did not misinterpret you.

5. No one has ever claimed only communist regimes are responsable for mass killings. I made that clear in discusson with TFD above, at least twice. I though that straw man argument was done with now.

6. No you are not referring to any reliable sources in this discussion, which is obvious from your answer above. That's a weird claim. What I'm doing now is explaining things to you. If there is a factual statement I make you don't believe, you are welcome to point that out. But most of it is simple explaining that doesn't require sources, just a rational mind and a sensible attitude. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there have been Calvinist regimes and there have been substantial mass killings under liberal regimes, including Calvinist ones. BTW instead of accusing other editors of "straw man" arguments, it would be helpful to point out the actual logical error, instead of just labelling the argument "straw man". TFD (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I like that you at least imply that communism is a religion. That said, your claims above, as most of your "factual" statements need a big . Calvinism isn't a political ideology, and there has not been Calvinist regimes in the same sense that we talk about communist regimes. Then you talk about "liberal regimes including Calvinist ones", and if you knew what liberalism meant you would know that it includes freedom of religion, and that a "Calvinist regime", at least of you use the word in a sense similar to "communist regime" therefore can't be liberal.

2. The actual logical error *is* that the argument is a straw man. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Re: "Your quote of me is out of context" What this context was, and how did I distort your argumentation?

2. Re: "No, there are no "Mass killing under calvinist regimes" because there have been no Calvinist regimes." What about Kalvin's Geneva?

3. Re: "Mass killings under liberal or otherwise democratic regimes are so few" By its scale the Belgian Congo genocide exceded the Holocaust, and famines in British India had much greater scale than Soviet famines.

4. Re: "You are now comparing regimes and ideologies" In other words, you propose to separate these two? Fully support. Let's discuss Stalin regime's or Pol Pot regime's crimes, because peoples were being killed by regimes, not ideologies. However, it is not clear why do we need this article: all these events have been already described in details in specialised articles.

5. Re: "Reliable sources can also be incorrect." In every particular case it must be proven based on other reliable sources.

6. Re: "No, I did not misinterpret you." I am not sure I understand what concretely do you mean.

7. Re: "No one has ever claimed only communist regimes are responsible for mass killings." Neither I did. I also didn't put these words into your mouth.

8. Re: "No you are not referring to any reliable sources in this discussion..." Valentino, Fein, and the refs in the Democide talk page. I am not sure I need to reproduce full refs here, because they are already in the article. I can provide more sources, however, for the beginning, let's dissect those I already provided. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I introduced numberings to your answers, as I don't want to double the size of this already needlessly long discussion by having to quote everything you say.

1. The context is the other text surrounding the quote.

2. How was that a Calvinist regime? Was the regime made up of Calvinist priests? Did they base all law and politics on Calvinist dogma? Or was Geneva during during Calvin a normal European medieval city-state who's main religions was Calvinism? Because that's *not* the same thing.

3. Neither Congo is not a liberal or democratic mass killing. Starvation in India in not a mass killing (and not liberal, as India during it's democracy has been strongly socialist in it's economic policy, which is the main reason for the starvation. BUt that's off topic).

4. A regime and an ideology are not the same thing, no. Therefore the statement "all regimes do the same" is irrelevant in a discussion about ideologies. The statement "all ideologies do the same" would not have been relevant. That I am forced to explain things like this is the reason this debate is pointless, and also why it is likely to stop soon.

5. Correct.

6. I mean that when you said that I thought I misinterpret me above, I did not.

7. OK, so you said "which, according to the concept's author, were not specific to Communist regimes alone" for no reason whatsoever. Fair enough.

8. If mentioning a bunch of names is "referring" then I have done it too. I have even given links to books and articles. You can't have other demands on me than you have on yourself during a debate.

I feel now that the debate has strayed to far away from the content of the article, as it seems to stray into basics of debate and language. I fear I don't know how to make a debate useful with you, when the debate strays into such things that the words "ideology" and "regime" aren't interchangeable, so this is the end from my part. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I am a bit confused by your response to Paul Sievert. There are no Calvinist priests and Paul Sievert was referring to India under the Raj not after independence. Of course the reference to the Belgian Congo was during the period when it was the Congo Free State. TFD (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, what exactly does a Calvinist regime or the Indian Raj have to do with communism, Keep it on topic, the topic being mass killings under commies mark nutley (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to read the discussion thread where Paul Sievert and OpenFuture discuss it. I am a bit confused however by some of OpenFuture's comments. TFD (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, if you think that no priests are Calvinists, and that India under the Raj or teh Congo Free state was a liberal democracies, then no wonder my answer confuses you. Again I have to ask you to check your facts before making a claim, since pretty much every factual statement you make are are in disagreement with reality. And as long as that situation persists, constructive debate is going to be impossible. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think there are Calvinist priests you obviously are not familiar with theology, and India and the Belgian Congo were governed by liberal states (U. K. and Belgium). Paul Sievert's point is that we could create an article called "mass killings under liberal regimes" but it would be synthesis, just as this one is. TFD (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they were not liberal states. I think you should let Paul make his own points. WP:SYN is when you use several sources to draw new conclusions that doesn't exist in any of the sources. I don't see how this article is that, nor how an article on mass killings under liberal regimes would be it. However, it would be very short. You seem to be struggling to find anything to put in such an article, for example. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Thank you for explaining me the meaning of the word "context". I would like, however, to obtain the answer on my question, namely, how concretely did I distort your thought. BTW, since the sentence I quoted was the first sentence in your post, it could not be "surrounded" by anything.

2. To stick to the word "Kalvinist" and to ignore the point in general is a kind of the straw man fallacy. Please, respond to my main thougt, or, if you have no arguments, just accept it.

3. "Democratic mass killing" is a little bit awkward wording. I would say, "mass killings committed by a democtratic regime. Re India, do you imply that famines as a result of some concrete economic policy are not mass killings? Frankly, I agree with that. Maybe we should discuss removal of Holodomor and similar famines from this article?

4. Well, do you agree with the following statement: "all kind regimes, that are based on quite different ideologies, from very liberal to absolutely totalitarian, used to suppress their opponents, although both degree of such supression and the threshold of disagreement after which sanctions may follow vary widely."?

5. That mean your initial statement was senseless: you had to prove that my RS was wrong before making any statements of this kind.

6. By refusing to explain me what concretely did you mean you demonstrate you decided to abstain from further discussion.

7. Good.

8. I have no demand at all. However, if you claim that something is a pro-communist propaganda, or that someone is a mainstream writer, it is natural to expect you to familiarise yourself with reliable sources that state the opposite. In addition, I didn't just "mentioned the bunch of names", I provided full citation (the exact refs are in the article) with page. I also provided quotes (both here and on the democide talk page).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I find your debating style poinless. You pretend to not understand what "quoting out of context" means or to not understand that "ideology" and "regime" are not equivalent words, and then you chastise me for explaining it to you. At the same time you completely ignore all questions or arguments. Sorry, I'm not interested in that. I could possibly keep the debate constructive by simply ignoring most of what you say, but I'm sure I would get criticized for that too, so no thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not pretend. I really don't understand that. And I thought I tried to address your arguments. If you find some of your arguments have not been addressed by me, please, explain what concrete arguments I ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I see no reason to discuss this subject further with OpenFuture and mark nutley. Neither of them has presented reasoned arguments. OpenFuture for example is talking about "Calvinist priests" while mark nutley is busy defending fringe theories. One defends ignorance, while the other rejects rationality. TFD (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Paul, it's hard for me to believe that somebody wouldn't understand these things, but if you say so I must take your word for it. In any case my earlier suspicion that it will be impossible for me to have a constructive conversation with you still stands, as it is beyond my powers to explain these things to anyone. The concrete arguments you ignored have been every single one of them, so pointing those out would just take the discussion from scratch once again, something that evidently would be pointless as it is beyond my ability to explain things like that two different things are not the same thing, etc. So sorry, you'll have to ask somebody else to explain these things to you. I have done my best but it clearly is not good enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD How exactly am i defending fringe theorys here? mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To OpenFuture. You claim it is hard to believe that "somebody wouldn't understand these things", but it is hard for me even to understand what concrete "these things" do you mean. You write:

"Yes, because the mass killings of communism is mostly a result of a systematic violation of basic human rights. It's not like the Holocaust were people were rounded up and taken to death factories, or the Rwandan genocide were people were hunted and slaughtered by their neighbors. So I mix mass killings and systematic human rights violations, because when it comes to communism, they are so tightly connected that they are almost the same." (look, I quote your words in full to avoid any accusation in taking your words out of context).

Let's try to dissect this para in more details. The first sentence represents your main idea: Communist mass killings were mostly a result of violation of human rights. The second sentence provides the examples of the opposite: mass killings that were a result of violation not of human rights, but of something else (unspecified). The third sentence is your conclusion: since Communist mass killings were tightly interconnected with violation of human rights, these two can be mixed in this particlular case (if I understand correct your thought, by contrast to other cases). I believe I transmited your idea correct.

Let's analyze the structure of this para. We have: (i) The main idea; (ii) the examples demonstrating your main thought; (iii) your conclusion. Examples and conclusions are not a context, because context is something that influences the way we understand the expression. In this particular case, the opposite took place, namely, the first sentence was a premise your argumentation is built on. It is hard to imagine how could I distort the major idea or your premise by omitting your conclusion. In other words, I simply was unable to take this fragment out of context because of the absence of any context. Therefore, my request to explain, what concretely did you mean under "quoting out of context" was quite justified.

In addition, any accusation in straw man fallacy implies that your opponent built his own proposition, only superficially similar to the original one. Therefore, by accusing me in constructing a straw man argument you implicitly assumed an obligation to explain what my proposition was, and what was the difference between your proposition and mine. However, you refused to explain that. Frankly, such a refusal is usually equivalent to withdrawal of the accusation.

Please, accept my apologies for so wordy reply, but I believe your major issue is not in "defending ignorance", but in inability to satisfactory explain your idea. The things that seem self-evident for you are not necessarily self-evident for everybody else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

To TFD. I concede the last Mark Nutley's question is justified. I believe, detailed and polite answer may help to resolve some issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, you are defending fringe theories in this article by supporting writers of fringe theories. OpenFuture, it is very offensive to suggest that Calvinists have a priesthood. Could you please stop attacking Protestantism. I suppose that you made these comments because you are ignorant of religion, but it is still offensive. Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. TFD (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@TFD: I didn't suggest they have a priesthood, although obviously they do, namely the priesthood of all believers. Now stop your ridiculous accusations and your pointless attempts of a vendetta. It's off topic and disruptive.

@Paul: I'm sorry I don't quote your replies at length to give you context to my reply. I was under the assumption that when I made a referral to something previously mentioned, like "these things" you would look at the text you wrote, to which I was answering, to find out the context. I now understand this was a mistake on my part to make that assumption. I'll try not to make that error with you in the future. In the meantime you are welcome to spend your time making analyses of the exact wording of a comment made on a talk page on Misplaced Pages, in the attempt to prove that your earlier out-of-context quote can't possibly exist. Obviously I could engage in a reply where I explain all your logical errors, but I do have difficulty imagining that to be anything except an enormous waste of time.

@Both of you: If you want the article to improve it would probably be more efficient if you engage in constructive debate instead of trying to just find errors in every single detail of everything written on the talk page. Constructive debate could for example include such things as actually stating what concrete problems you have with the article, beside it contradicting your ideologically based POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I suppose you believe that this Calvinist priesthood burns incense and prays to the saints. TFD (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You should suppose less. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) TFD, please make yourself clear, which fringe writers am i supporting? mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Well. Let's try to do that in another way. The article is biased because it presents the theories about connection between Communism (as ideology) and mass killings as well established fact, whereas only part, maybe a minor part, of scholars share this POW. That violates a neutrality principle. In addition, the article tends to become a collection of all-Commis'-dirty-deeds, which violates NOR or SYNTH principle. As a result, many editors have nominated, and, I am convinced, will nominate this article for deletion. Since I am not a proponent of deletion of this article, I am interested to prevent that. Do you have any idea how to fix POW and SYNTH issues?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is biased because it presents the theories about connection between Communism (as ideology) and mass killings as well established fact - No, it presents it as views, with sources and explanations, of a set of scholars.

whereas only part, maybe a minor part, of scholars share this POW. - The connection between mass killings and any kind of authoritarianism/totalitarianism, including communism, is well attested and I'd say even uncontroversial outside communist circles. After all, the only argument *against* these connections is statements similar to "it's not really communism", which is just a variant of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

In addition, the article tends to become a collection of all-Commis'-dirty-deeds, which violates NOR or SYNTH principle. - I'm not convinced it's OR/SYN unless it purports to be a list of communist mass killings.

Obviously we should try to make the article as good as possible, but deleting most of it because you are convinced it will get an AfD if we don't delete it ourselves is a line of thought I don't understand. :-) So I have a good idea of how to fix POV and SYN issues, I'm just not convinced this article have any of those issues. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The connection between commie`s and mass murder is a well established fact, and when you say the majority of scholars do not link the two you are wrong, and when you say you quote reliable sources the only one i ever see you quote is Valentino were`as others have quoted multipile sources which make the connection. It seems to me the only OR is from yourself and TFD in deciding that all sources which do not agree with your POV are fringe or not scholarly enough mark nutley (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And using Valentino to argue that there is no connection between communism and mass killings is pretty creative in itself, as he repeatedly argues for the connection. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me with a good example of straw man fallacy. It will be easier for me now to explain you what this fallacy is. You replaced my proposition ("there is no consensus among scholar that there was a commonality between mass killings under different Communist regimes, and that there is a strong connection between Marxist ideology and mass killings") with much weaker one ("there is no connection between communism and mass killings"). Obviously, it is much easier to refute the last proposition, because some connection definitely exists, so no serious scholar will claim that there were no such connection at all.

However, going back to my initial proposition, let me remind you that on the page 91 Valentino writes that most Communist regimes were not engaged in mass killings, and that he will discuss the reasons behind that below. With regards to the regimes where such killings occurred, Valentino notes that in many cases we simply have no documental evidences to seriously discuss their scale or motives of perpetrators (in other words, no hypotheses on connection of these mass killings with anything can be drawn). On the page 100 Valention concludes that mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot can be partially explained by these leaders' paranoia, and partially by their own radical interpretation of Marxism. Similarly, the crime of Inquisition can be attributed to radical interpretation of Christianity made by some Catholic leaders, not to Christianity as whole.

On the page 140 on Valentino describes other Communist regimes and concludes that less radical communist regimes were able to perform social transformations less violently. In other words, Communist mass killings were a result of radicalism of some Communist leaders, and were not specific to Communism as whole. Note, there were no mass killings in the USSR in 1920s and from 1953 till 1991, i.e. during the major part of its history.

I relied upon Valentino's book because it is being used the most extensively in this article, so it is natural to start with it to demonstrate that the major source the article is build upon is interpreted incorrectly. However, other sources also agree with that. For instance, Eric D. Weitz ("Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges", Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29.) writes:

"Yet it is important still to distinguish between states that commit genocide and genocidal regimes. The latter are, thankfully, relatively rare. They are the systems in which genocide moves to the core of state practices to such an extent that one can see the entire system revolving centrally around human destruction. The Third Reich constitutes the supreme example, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge a second one. The regimes that commit genocidal actions are many and include western colonial states going back to the fifteenth century as well as particular cases in the Soviet Union under Stalin."

In other words, not only Weitz contraposes Campuchea and the USSR, he even groups these two examples in quite different way: Cambodia and Nazi Germany were genocidal regimes according to him, whereas the USSR, along with non-Communist colonial states, was non-genocidal. Weitz goes even further, claiming that it was the Marxist ideology that prevented Stalin from unleashing full scale genocide.

Helen Fein also see more commonality between Cambodia and fascism than with Communism (the ref in the article).

Again, I have nothing against extensive discussion of Stalin's or Mao's crimes in this article, however, I strongly oppose to drawing unneeded parallelisms and making generalisations that have not been explicitly made in the sources used in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You replaced my proposition ("there is no consensus among scholar that there was a commonality between mass killings under different Communist regimes, and that there is a strong connection between Marxist ideology and mass killings") with much weaker one ("there is no connection between communism and mass killings"). Obviously, it is much easier to refute the last proposition, because some connection definitely exists, so no serious scholar will claim that there were no such connection at all. - Well, that's interesting, because you now agree there is a connection between communism and mass killing, but you at the same time disagree that there is a connection between communist regimes and mass killings and you disagree that there is a connection between marxist ideology and mass killings. So what then is the connection? If neither the ideology not the practice is connected, but there is a connection, where is that connection? In any case, since you admit that there *is* a connection that seems to undermine all your arguments against this article.

As to Weitz and Valentinos views of communism dogma and mass killing I can explain why they are wrong ( for example Campuchea was not genocidal in the way of Nazi germany, they did not create institutions with the specific aim of genocide), but that's hardly relevant for this article, and one of the problems in this discussion is that they tend to stray away on the most irrelevant tangents. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are always some connections between mass murder, totalitarianism, different ideologies, religion, and just plain human nature. It is however un-encyclopedic to talk about colloquial usage of the terms and some unspecified connections. To explain the very existence of this article some rigorous definitions and scholarly framework are required, otherwise Misplaced Pages would quickly turn into a propagandist tool where POV articles are created at whim of the current political agenda. So Paul is correct in his seemingly ambiguous statements. There is no consensus among scholars on whether a connection (as in cause and effect, see also correlation and causation, and also "happened after" =/= "happened because of") exists between communist ideologies and the mass killings in question. And no scholars claim absence of any connection as one could have indirectly or in part influenced the other or both could have the common cause. (Igny (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC))

And the way to decide if there is a "rigorous scientific framework" or not, is by using reliable scientific sources. Which is the case already. Hence, since the claim of a connection between communism and mass murder is well attested and accepted within the scientific community, the article is not POV.

I'm happy Paul started this attempt of serious on-topic debate about the article. The arguments here all say "We must do X otherwise the article breaks policy Y". And it turns out we already do X. Well, good! Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

agree, not pov Darkstar1st (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

It is obvious that all this discussion is not going anywhere. Is it time to ask for formal mediation? Bobanni (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the conflict here is because there are those who do not want this article for ideological reasons. Any article about extreme political ideologies, conspiracy theories or pseudo-science will be permanently afflicted by people who are unwilling to accept the consensus reality, and mediation will not change that. That means that a solution is unlikely to be found, at least through mediation. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the topic is not supported by mainstream sources and even writers who draw a connection between Communist ideology and mass killings do not agree on what the connection is and are not usually directly writing about mass killings but about human rights abuses in general. The article further suffers by listing atrocities rather than explaining them. For an article that has similar problems, see United States and state terrorism. When a concept is not accepted by academic consensus, the correct approach is to describe the theory and comment on how it has been received, rather than try to prove the theory through providing examples that support it. A good example is the Protestant ethic, which is the theory that Protestants work harder and explains the success of Protestant nations. Notice that that article focuses on the theory rather than enumerate Protestant success stories and non-Protestant failures. OpenFuture's comment that people oppose the article for "ideological reasons" is incorrect, but is an admission that the article has an inherent ideological bias, which goes against neutrality. No one objects to including any of the theories or facts in this article, the only objection is to the presentation. It should be obvious to anyone that the expression "Mass killings under Communist regimes" has an implicit anti-Communist bias. While anti-Communism is a legitimate ideology, it does not merit advocacy articles. TFD (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the topic is supported by mainstream sources, i pointed out a few to you above if you recall. And i still want my question above replied to, what fringe sources are you saying i am defending? mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, you have had this conversation many times with me and other editors. See WP:Fringe. TFD (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think not, were on this talkpage have i defended the use of fringe sources? Either answer the question or redact the remark mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, you are representing that the the fringe theories in the introduction to the Black Book and Death by government represent mainstream or even consensus views, when in fact they are polemical works, were not peer-reviewed and have no acceptance in the academic community. The fact that the writers have published in peer-reviewed sources is irrelevant, unless you can find peer-reviewed articles by them that support those views, or peer-reviewed articles by other writers that support their views. TFD (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...were not peer-reviewed..." Incorrect. They were. The reviewers concluded that the sources are controversial (see RSN for the BB, and Democide talk page for Rummel). In particular, Rummel's figures are inflated, his generalisations are disputable, and his theories are ovesimplification. One more point. Whereas the BB tells specifically about Communism, Rummel analyses the connection between totaliarianism and democide, not Communism and democide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD please read wp:sps R. J. Rummel meets the criteria and is well respected, HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER? i shall be using this as a source to add content to this article. mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to use self published sources, because Rummel published many articles in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, it is very likely that Rummel placed this article at his web site because he was unable to publish this concrete material in peer-reviewed journals. I am afraid I will have to revert your edits if they will be based on this source. Anyway, you have to separate two things: Rummel's theory and Rummel's figures. To discuss Rummel's theory with you seriously I would like to know your math background, in particular, your knowledge of statistics. Do you know what factor analysis is?

With regard to Rummels figures, multiple reliable sources agree they are unreliable and inflated. (Interestingly, the Rummel's figures contradict to even the BB. The Werth's chapter, the best part of the BB states that the number of victims of Stalinism was less than 15 million. Where additional Rummel' 40 million come from?). Therefore, Rummel is fringe for figures. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to think we need to research sources, we do not, we use what the reliable sources say. If you revert out material which is reliably sourced you will be edit warring and pushing a POV, do so and i shall have no option but to seek some form of restriction on you mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have to. The edits we made must be (i) verifiable (only good sources must be used); (ii) neutral (all significant opinion must be reflected); (iii) not original (the main source's idea should not be distorted). If at least one of these requirements is violated, removal of the text is warranted. For instance, if you use the source that is formally reliable, but is known to provide wrong numbers, these numbers can be used only with needed reservations if used at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are so incredibly wrong it stuns me, we use what the sources say, thats it. You are engaging in wp:or if you think we need to research a source which is reliable. And can you provide the ref`s which state that Rummel`s figure`s are fringe? mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

"Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses." (Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)

"He also assumes that the entire labour camp population was innocent: for Rummel, deaths in labour camps while serving a prison sentence are legitimate elements in what he calls 'democide' and much space is devoted to computing death rates in camps, yet some of those who died in this way were common criminals or actual Nazi collaborators, while a camp death rate of twenty-six per cent seems hard to credit, even at the height of Stalinism."(Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)

"I have shown that there are serious problems with Rummel's method, which is precisely why this one 'data point' might have wider implications. I do not understand why Rummel so categorically refuses to accept the possibility that he might have made similar errors elsewhere, when he has used the same method throughout his research. That is why I call on Rummel to revise his method and properly narrow down the sources to those that are indeed reasonably authoritative and credible. "(A Reply to Rummel. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106)--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

None of those say his figures are fringe, they just disagree with him. Please provide the ref`s which state his work is fringe please mark nutley (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not going to add the statement into the article that Rummel's figures are fringe, I am not obliged to provide such a source. By contrast, if you want to add/restore the Rummel's figures, please, prove that they reflect the majority views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley is asking us to prove a negative, but that is not how it works. He has to show that the theories in these books have gained acceptance among academics not just the lunatic fringe. The same standards apply here as in science articles, and mark nutley should re-read the talk pages where he has tried to insert fringe science into articles and try to understand the arguments. There is nothing wrong with holding fringe views, but it is against WP policy to inflict fringe viewpoints into articles. If you are unhappy with that policy, then you may wish to try to change it. TFD (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not asking you to prove a negative, you are saying rummel`s figures are fringe. Please provide the source for your claim per WP policy, thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not say his figures were fringe, but that his theories are fringe, which means they have gained zero acceptance in the academic community although they are popular with cranks. If you believe they have gained acceptance in the academic community then please provide a source for that. His figures on the other hand have been discredited, which is not the same as saying they are fringe. TFD (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You did say his figures were fringe, however please provide the sources per WP policy which say his theories are fringe and his figures discredited, thank you mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I never said his figures were fringe. As you are aware, Misplaced Pages does not have specific policies which state which figures have been discredited, we have to go to the sources for that and apply WP:NPOV. For an explanation of fringe, please see WP:Fringe. While you appear to support many fringe theories and discredited facts in general, it is pointless to argue that they are mainstream views. If you want to believe that scientists and social scientists are liars, that is your right, but please do not misrepresent what consensus exists. TFD (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Your kidding right? There is a consensus on mass murder now :). I doubt that somehow. Final time i shall ask you, were are your sources which state Rummels figures are discredited, if you do not supply any and i use him as a source you shall have to reason to revert me and should you do so then i will of course have to take matters further. Sources or give up please mark nutley (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It is actually up to the person inserting information to prove its validity. Could you please point to a peer-reviewed source that confirms these figures? Since you ask however, Valentino says, "Rummel's estimates tend to be considerably higher than those of most other scholars".>lpg=PP1>pg=PA255#v=onepage>q>f=false TFD (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don`t care what valentino says, The source is reliable that is it`s validity under WP policy. It does not have to be peer reviewed, nothing in WP has to be. You say his figures are junk, give a source to back it or stop saying it mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I just provided one. Please do not put incorrect data taken from fringe sources into the article. TFD (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No you have not, you have pointed out a source which disagree`s with Rummel. Either provide a source which states Rummel`s figures are junk or admit you are wrong mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

He was not in fact stating that he disagreed with Rummel but that most scholars disagree with him. TFD (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, so he was in fact giving an opinion, well that hardly counts now does it as a peer reviewed rebuttal of his findings, do try again mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would point you to WP policies. Your comments do not make any sense and I do not see any purpose in continuing this discussion thread, TFD (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy is we use third party reliable sources which are verifiable. My comments make perfect sense, you say rumml`s figures are discredited, please provide a source which actually says this, thanks mark nutley (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I provided reverences and quotes that persuasively demonstrate that Rummel's data are discredited, the question is closed. If someone has any doubt, (s)he may go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, all you have given are some other academics who disagree with his figures, I have yet to see your source saying his figures are discredited, please provide the sources as i am not interested in opinions here mark nutley (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything the scholar write (including the statement that someone's figures are discredited) is just their opinions. However, if someone is not interested in something, it is his/her private business unrelated to the present discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally you admit your wrong, well done. One academic disagreeing with another`s does not make either unreliable. This is just normal academic disagreement. Given there is obviously no source which states that Rummel`s figures are discredited i know i shall have no problems using this highly respected scholar as a source in this article, thank you mark nutley (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, could you please stop asking other editors to continue to explain something to you that is patently obvious. That is disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking Ps to explain anything, i am asking him to provide refs to back his claim that Rummel`s figure`s are discredited. He has not as none exist, hence my use of rummel shall not be an issue here shall it. Now to you it may be patently obvious, but as i do not engage in Or and tend to stick with wp:rs and wp:v i do not understand what you are trying to say mark nutley (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No they were not peer-reviewed. (Please see: peer review.) In the peer-review process, articles are sent to academic journals and they are then sent to academics who review them and provide commentaries. The articles are then improved to meet objections. The fact that another academic may have written a review or even quoted it does not elevate it to peer-reviewed status. In fact historians often use non academic sources. The sps rule should be used with care. It is not intended to be a loophole to allow theories that have no acceptance. TFD (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant "they were reviewed by peers and the reviewers concluded the sources are controversial".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial and fringe is not the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. That is why I disagree that Rummel in general is fringe, although he is highly controversial. With regards to his figures, these figures a so unusually high and are so widely criticised that they are obviously fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Causes

It is unclear in this section who and what is being proposed - please clarify or return section name to causes. Bobanni (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has been about removing the templates. TFD (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What are both of you guys talking about? The section name has been changed from "causes" to "proposed causes" by yours truly, since I see that there is quite a bit of difference in interpretation among the authors cited. What's proposed are the different explanations for the historical phenomena, obviously. But if you preferer "causes" to "proposed causes," it ain't gonna be a big deal to me. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Template

Removal of SYNTH template has been done under false pretext. No consensus on the talk page have been achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

disagree consensus has been reached, and sourced, unless you consider the university of Cambridge not a reliable source documenting the killings under every communist regime. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You contradict to yourself. Using disagree (in bold no less) means that there is no consensus. (Igny (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Erm no he is not contradicting himself, he is saying PS is wrong, and he is btw mark nutley (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, no examples were provided under the "Synthesis template message" section despite plenty of time being offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Although the examples have not been provided in this section, the discussion below is devoted, among other problems, to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That section and its arbitrary breaks are the perfect example of what not to do here. The discussion of specific sentences and citations from the article are required if we are to make any headway. Specific examples were not provided in that section either. We can't have these templates up forever based upon vague unprovable (or undisprovable) notions. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

the discussion below is devoted, among other problems, to this issue - That's not true. All you have said about synthesis is: "In addition, the article tends to become a collection of all-Commis'-dirty-deeds, which violates NOR or SYNTH principle.". There is no explanation of that logic. I do not see how that is WP:SYN no explanation has been given. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st. The SYNTH issue is not connected with the absence of sources, it is connected with misuse of the sources. Therefore your argument is not working.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st obviously has not read the article or the discussion. I have set up a discussion thread about this at ANI (see: WP:ANI#Removal of POV templates). TFD (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

support remove tag "Although the examples have not been provided", what more need be said? describing this article as an attack page, or fringe theory must discount documented evidence, mass graves, witness accounts, photos, etc. the proof cited above suggesting this is fringe theory, is by a lone unknown. TFD, i did read it and your edits here are the same pov as your others in wp Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A section was setup above, you did not respond to it. The fact that you will not respond to a section until you revert the removal of the templates speaks volumes. Please specify whic hparts of the article text you believe is synth mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I set up a section called "Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates" above which you contributed to. I am sorry that you did not understand that the purpose of the discussion thread was to reply to the four sections set up to discuss the templates. Perhaps you could suggest how I might have phrased it more clearly. Also, since you contributed to that section, what do you think we were discussing? TFD (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think it would have been better to use the sections which were set up previously and discuss each tag one at a time? As for what was discussed in that section i have no idea as you all went so far of topic it is impossible to follow mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So you did not know what the discussion thread was about but made nine postings to it anyway. I believe that. TFD (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I made posts at the beginning, went to a wedding came back and found it so far off topic as to be unreadable, what`s hard to believe about that given i actually posted that in the thread? Now instead of addressing the editor could you focus on what you believe is SYNTH in this article? mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality template links to WP:NPOVD, which says: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." Can Igny or TFD or Paul Siebert please point to specific instances in the article which justify this tag. Copying the sentence in question from the article and pasting it here would be best, to avoid any possible confusion. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not in some specific examples (otherwise the tag would be placed in appropriate sections) but is the way the article has been built. As TFD and I pointed out, the article's core is formed by few books that convey the idea that mass killings are specific to Communism, and other books and articles, that do not explicitly state the same are being used to strengthen this point. The example is the Valentino's "Final solution", the most extensively cited book in this article. I already dissected his 4th chapter and demonstrated that Valentino's idea was that some (not majority) Communist regimes did commit mass killings, the reasons of these killings were (i) radicalism of these concrete regimes, and (ii) some pecularities of their leaders. Therefore, to use Valentino's to push the idea that mass killings were specific to Communism is synthesis.

To resolve the issue, both I and TFD proposed to focus on the description of the concept of Communist mass killings, to write that this idea is shared by some scholars and is not shared by others, and to remove all tangentially related examples. Frankly, I noticed some positive changes in the article that would help to find a way out of impasse. Nevertheless, it is little bit premature to remove the template.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under several communist governments". While factually accurate, it implies that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings when no academic consensus exists. A neutral opening sentence would say something like, "x claims that there is a connection between Communist ideology and mass killings that occurred in countries governed by Communists. These theories have been widely accepted/partly accepted/widely rejected by mainstream academics because...."

1) It is simply false that any sources used in this article convey the idea that mass killings are specific to communism. It is also false that the article itself conveys that idea. That you cannot provide quotations to show this from the article proves it. If you insist on believing that such an implication exists, by all means please remove it by adding a sourced sentence to the lede which would dispel it.

2) Re-focusing the article on a "concept of Communist mass killings" would mean either not using any of the existing sources, since none of them discuss a "concept of Communist mass killings", or engaging in pure original research on our part, which is forbidden. On the other hand, focusing on "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is, as TFD said, "factually accurate". If either of you can find sources which discuss the "concept" of communist mass killings, rather than the history, then it would be appropriate to add a section in the article about this. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re These theories have been widely accepted/partly accepted/widely rejected by mainstream academics because...."

I would actually agree with removal of the tags, if the article is renamed to theories connecting communism to mass killings and reformatted accordingly. Any objections to this course of action? (Igny (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Can you show even one source from the article which discusses a "theory" about communist mass killings, rather than the literal occurances? And why should the tags not stay or go based upon the merits of their message? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:rather than the literal occurances? Isn't is a synthesis to pile up sources discussing various occurrences of the mass killings filtered by requirement to have the communist trait into one article, thus suggesting the idea of common causality (communist ideology) behind these killings? (Igny (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages is all about "piling up sources" about a topic. And those sources did the "filtering", not us. If you are objecting to inclusion of sources which only discuss a single event, please point to a sentence where that was not appropriate. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You correctly outlined the issue. Whereas only few sources in the article attempt to draw an intrinsic connection between Communism and mass killings, the article is written in such a way that such a connection is well established and widely recognized, hence the tags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The percentage of sources in the article is irrelevant. If you have several WP:RS that supports a statement, and you can find no sources that contradicts it, it can go into the article. That most of the sources in the article neither supports nor contradicts it makes no difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, an "intrinsic connection" and "a connection" are different things. Obviously there is a connection: some communist regimes killed masses of people. This is a fact, universally acknowledged, and the topic of the article. Fewer people acknowledge an "intrinsic connection" between communism and mass killing. Do you think some of the sources are being mischaracterized as the latter, when they are only the former? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:rather than the literal occurances?

Yourself and TFD are wrong, and in fact appear to be engaging in wp:or Stop. Now were do you get the idea that not all commies are mass murders? From your perspective of Valentino`s work? well the University of Cambridge says All Communist governments have practiced widespread killing of non- combatants disagree`s with you, as does Rummel mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re "x claims that there is a connection between Communist ideology and mass killings that occurred in countries governed by Communists. These theories have been widely accepted/partly accepted/widely rejected by mainstream academics because...." Correct. That is close to what the previous version of the lede stated.

Re: "...well the University of Cambridge says..." Exactly. Some scholars believe that there was a commonality whereas others either do not support or directly disagree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you keep saying we should follow the consensus right? An overwhelming consensus of historians from a wide range of political viewpoints concludes that the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous - often greater, in fact, than those of the infamous Nazi Germany. Case Closed mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS I am not sure if University of Cambridge can have its own opinion on this quistion. You probably misunderstand what the word "University" mean (or how do western universities function).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Of course a university can have an opinion, hell they do press release all the time see Climategate and the University of East Anglia for examples of this mark nutley (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you imply the Bryan Caplan's page publish press-releases of the University of Cambridge.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not implying anything, you asked a question and got a reply, Universities can have an opinion, did you actually have another point here? mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no argumentation for in what way this article is WP:SYN. You can't claims that there is WP:SYN without argumentation. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, a consensus is needed to remove the template.

Secondly, these two statements: "the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous" and "mass killings under Communist regimes stemmed from Marxis ideology and were specific to Communism" are two quite different things.

Thirdly, the quote provided by you is taken from some non-peer-reviewed source. I myself work for some Western University and I also have a web page in the .edu domain. Nothing can prevent me to place whatever I want there, however, cannot be considered as a serious publication.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To OpenFuture. If you do not understand my arguments, that does not mean there is no argumentation. Try to read again, or ask concrete questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but if you present no arguments, that measn there is no argumentation. And you didn't. For a week. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Paul, your reply makes little sense, The two statements you refer to are fact and easily shown to be true. Not all sources need to be peer reviewed, the source i provided is an online museum hosted by the University of Cambridge, it is as reliable a source as can exist. Please do not try to argue this as it is pointless mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The two statements you refer to are fact and easily shown to be true" Show, please.

Re: "Not all sources need to be peer reviewed" Yes, but peer reviewed sources have more weight.

Re: "the source i provided is an online museum hosted by the University of Cambridge" My own web page is hosted by top 50 American University, I can place there whatever I want, however, by no mean I will present such a text as a reliable source.

Re: "Please do not try to argue this as it is pointless" I agree that some arguments presented in this dispute are pointless, although I have a different opinion on what whose are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the page is by Bryan Caplan, who is very respected and in absolutely no way any sort of fringe whatsoever. So although it's wrong to say that "UC says", it's correct to say "Bryan Caplan, of the UC says", and that is enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) In reply to the first of your contested statements, from the council of europe The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of mass physical terror, persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, violation of freedom of conscience, thought and expression, of freedom of the press, and also lack of political pluralism I`ll deal wit hyour second fallacy in a minute mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, there is synthesis since reputable sources are used to support theories that they are not advancing. TFD (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If so, why have you not, under one weeks of intense discussion, been able to provide one single example of this? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The examples (as well as suggestions how to resolve the problem) have been provided many times. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No examples have been provided. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Sievert brought up the example of Valentino as a source that makes the article synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino was only brought up as an example of a source contradicting the notion that the article implied mass killing was specific to communism. But since that notion is not in the article, so there can be no contradiction about it with Valentino. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino is the most extensively cited source in this article. The whole article is based on the concept of mass killing formulated by him. In connection to that, it is hard to understand for me why the fact that Valentino saw not strict connection between Communism adn mass killing is omitted. In addition, it is also very hard to understand why only one chapter of his one book is used, whereas in his other works he groups mass killings into quite different way. For instance in his "Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare (Benjamin Valentino, Paul Huth, Dylan Balch-Lindsay. Source: International Organization, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 375-407) he put mass killing committed by Communist into the same category as mass killings committed by democtrats, i.e. into the counter-guerilla mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. By the way, the attempt to create two separate sections that discuss the views of the scholars who see connection between mass killings and Communism, and those who do not support these views or disagree is a step in right direction. I do not support the revert of this change and propose to develop this idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While Valentino is cited extensively, the whole article is not based on Valentino's definition of "mass killing". "Mass killing" is used as the term for this article because it is a very neutral term and does not carry the emotional baggage that "genocide" does. Other writers use the term mass killing without Valentino's definition. Still other writers use other terms which they prefer (like genocide, or crime against humanity, or politicide, etc.) in talking about these same events. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "strict connection", but Valentino obviously does see a connection between communism and mass killing, because he wrote a chapter on Communist Mass Killings and described the commonalities. That Valentino also writes about other types of mass killings and not only communist mass killings should be no surprise. He says in his book that some of the events he discusses have multiple motives on the part of the perpetrators and can therefore be categorized under multiple types. I'm also all for developing the separate sections idea, but I let it stay reverted so that I could focus on one change at a time. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: ""Mass killing" is used as the term for this article because it is a very neutral term and does not carry the emotional baggage that "genocide" does. " Cannot agree. Valentino's "mass killings" is much broader term than commonsensual "mass killings". The former include famine, disease, and other excess mortality cases that usually are not covered by conventional "mass killings". Therefore, we either have to accept Valentino's definition of mass killings ("mass killings sensu stricto + "deprivation mass killings""), or to switch to the traditional definition and change the article's scope accordingly. However, if I remembered it correct, I already presented this argument on this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino does not include excess mortality. He only includes famine if it was used as a weapon by the regime. He limits inclusion to 50,000 killed within 5 years. This is a narrower definition than common sense. But it is ironic that each of us is aguing for the wider definition as we see it. Perhaps "crimes against humanity" is the better umbrella term? I just added a reference review to the article which uses it, as do several other sources already included. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. He introduced a concept of "dispossessive mass killings" (p. 71), according to which all peoples died as a result of forceful dispossession (grain or land confiscation, imprisonment etc.) are considered as victims of "mass killings". He writes that, although Communist regimes did not plan to kill people, they didn't try to prevent deaths as a result of dispossession, and even used these deaths as a tool to implement the social transformations they wanted. However, when he counts the number of deaths he adds victims of dispossessive mass killings and victims of mass killings sensu stricto. If we exclude the victims of dispossessive mass killings, we will get, for instance, for the USSR not more than 2-5 million (Great Purge, Civil War, and, probably Gulag executions). Therefore, we either speak about mass killings sensu stricto (and reduce the number of victims accordingly), or we use Valentino's definition (and are trying to preserve main points of his book).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What you and AmateurEditor says is the same thing: He only includes famine if it was used as a weapon by the regime. vs He introduced a concept of "dispossessive mass killings" (p. 71). More or less the same thing, but different words. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not. Dispossessive mass killings are the death caused by dispossession, regardless of intentionality. Valentino does not specify which part of famine was used as weapon, and it is not clear from his book that he included only those famines that were used as a weapon. The same is true for deportation victims, camp mortality, etc. Please, demonstrate (with sources) that I am wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "regardless of intentionality". Valentino is very specific on this point. From page 10 of his book: "... defined here simply as the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants... First the mass killing must be intentional, which distinguishes it from deaths caused by natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, or the unintentional killing of civilians during war..." Additionally, if you aren't sure what events he includes, you can see Valentino's entire list of incidents of Communist mass killing (table 2) on page 75, in the >printsec=frontcover>dq=final+solutions>hl=en>ei=L844TJjVJ4WclgejnfjVBw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage>q>f=false Google Books preview. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Recent removal of the tag occurred trice during the day >action=historysubmit>diff=372617468>oldid=372588441 , >action=historysubmit>diff=372588441>oldid=372581521 , >action=historysubmit>diff=372570015>oldid=372565162 . Although these reverts were performed by three different accounts, they will likely be considered as WP:1RR violation in the event if someone decided to report to ANI. Although I personally am not going to do that, I cannot rule out the possibility that someone else will do. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you claim that you yourself has broken 1RR. In any case it's completely clear that you have not one single argument to keep this tags. Your reversions of the removal of the tags may indeed be seen as disruption, but I don't agree with you that you have broken the 1RR rule. Consensus has been reached, you are providing no argumentation, you are just now doing nothing but claiming that here is no consensus because you don't agree that there is consensus. But you also need to provide arguments for keeping the tags, and you are not even trying that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If the detailed explanation of why the very way the article have been built is synthesis is not an argument, I simply do not understand what type of information will be considered as an argument by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with you that the article's structure is itself synthesis, we can leave that template in place while we continue that discussion, if you like. But what about the neutrality template? What is your objection to removing that one? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Were Where We Currently Stand

Thus far with regards to the complaints brought up by two editors.

• That Academic sources do not link mass murder and commies. This has been proven wrong. An overwhelming consensus of historians from a wide range of political viewpoints concludes that the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous And Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide So that`s that issue sorted.

• That there is wp:synth within the article, two examples were given.
  • "the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous" This source rebut`s that issue The Council of Europe The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights

The second statement which has been called synth is "mass killings under Communist regimes stemmed from Marxist ideology and were specific to Communism" This issue is also covered by R. J. Rummel.

So we have covered the synth issue which was raised. We have a respected scholar who clearly states that there is a consensus that mass murder and reds go hand in hand, do we have any other issues here? mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If sources do link murder and commies then the article should explain that. Go ahead and rewrite the lead to make the connection clear. Part of the complaint of synthesis was that the connection was not spelled out. TFD (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, since you use the term "commie" alot, do you think we should change the name of the article to "Mass killings under Commie regimes"? TFD (talk) 21

28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So in fact, you claim that you and Paul says that the article is WP:POV because it claims there is a connection between communism and mass murders, and you claim that it's WP:SYN because it does *not* claim there is a connection between communism and mass murders!?! --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "That Academic sources do not link mass murder and commies." Straw man. Obviously, some sources do link mass killings and Communism, whereas other sources see no strict connection.

Re: "the human rights violations of Communist regimes... " This qoute has been taken from some non-peer-reviewed source so it is irrelevant to the opinions expressed in the academic sources. Try to go to your local library for better sources.

In addition, mixing "murders", "killings" and "human right violations" can hardly make discussion more productive. In addition, if we agree to limit ourselves with "murders", 90% of the article's content should be removed as irrelevent. If we decide to discuss "human right violations", the article must be extended and re-named accordingly.

I also strongly discourage everyone to use Rummel as a main source. The amount of criticism of his works is so significant that the article would become a discussion of the Rummel's views, not of Communist mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to raise a question on that point. What is the notability of Rummel's view, and why does this section seem to suggest that we can safely rely so heavily upon it? Is it considered authoritative? ... mainstream? (And obviously the first link presented in the first post of this thread is not worth much as a reliable tertiary source, as it lists no references for its claim, notwithstanding that the author is a pretty unabashed libertarian.) BigK HeX (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel is a highly respected scholar who has written several books and published papers on this subject, he is certainly an authority on it mark nutley (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Only Rummels numbers are criticized, and he in fact gives numbers from low to high, which are very wide, with a "most likely" number in between. Usually the "high" and sometimes most likely numbers are criticized. So this is not significant for the discussion which has been about the connection between communism and mass murder, not specific numbers. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture it is always WP:SYN for editors to create their own connections. It is WP:POV to present theories as facts. It is however acceptable to present published theories in articles and in fact this happens in many articles. TFD (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see, some clarification is needed. Rummel is known for its mathematical approach to mass killing studies. He used math for two main purposes. Firstly, he applied statistical apparatus to obtain the most reasonable estimates of the numbers of deaths under different regimes (not only Communist), and he used factor analysis to find correlation between regimes' traits and the number of their victims. In actuality, both his numbers and the results have been criticised. Rummel is regarded as very intellectual, controversial and provocative author, so, altough his works are not a pseudoscience, his views by no means can be considered as mainstream.

In addition, one of Rummel's main theses is that the strong connection is between totaliarianism amd democide, not only with Communism.

Anyvay, if anybody wants to discuss Rummel's views seriously, he is supposed to understand such terms as eigenvector, covariance etc. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again you imply that somebody here claims that it's only communist regimes that have this connection. Nobody ever claimed that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Actually OpenFuture is correct, only Rummels figures have been questioned so there is no synth there, even Byran Caplan says that Others have taken issue with some of Rummel's calculations, but not with his basic conclusions. mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Despite his rich and detailed information and data, Rummel's attempt at explanation seems oversimplified. He introduces but does not review the theoretical literature, and apologizes for his failure to offer attributions." (Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996)

"Evaluation of Rummel's arguments indicates that he does not understand the nature of the Azar data set sonstruction and misinterprets multiple regression and Kendall's Tau B results. Extensive re-analysis further demonstrated a lack of relationship between nonfreedom and conflict in the Azar data set."(On Rummel's Omnipresent Theory. Author(s): Jack Vincent. Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 119-125)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"R. J. Rummel has been one of the more controversial figures in the academic field of international relations in the last two decades. He has also been lavishly supported by funding agencies, and is a prolific researcher and writer." (Understanding Rummel. Author(s): James Lee Ray Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 161-187)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are other scholars who do not agree. This is normal scholarly disagreement. This is *not* in any way an indication that he is unreliable or fringe. This has been explained repeatedly in the above discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"skepticism is aroused by his enthusiasm for "libertarian" political systems. Rummel is understandably confident that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few leaders, as it is in authoritative or coercive political systems, corruption and violence will occur. My skepticism begins when Rummel succumbs to serene confidence that the decentralization of power within libertarian political systems will save a society from the corrupting, violence- producing effects of concentrated power. If the government plays the role of impartial bystander that Rummel advocates (never mind whether this is possible or likely in a capitalist system), there will, of course, be winners as well as losers in the conflicts, including economic conflicts, outside the government. It is a virtual certainty, furthermore, that these victories and losses will not be randomly or evenly distributed across the population of a society. As conservatives are fond of pointing out, some people will win more often because they are more talented, and/or more ambitious. As liberals are prone to argue, some people will accumulate great wealth because of advantages they inherited from rich parents and relatives. The result will be a highly unequal distribution of wealth, as well as power. "(ibid)

In other words, Rummel's views are strongly libertarian, which hardly can reflect majority views.

Re: "This is *not* in any way an indication that he is unreliable or fringe." Good. However, it is hard to see how this your "theory" can be falsified. In other words, what *is* such an indication in your opinion? Every good secondary sources which criticises Rummel can be rejected under the same pretext, because every book and every article just reflects the point of views of another scholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, your second ref is not about communism is it? And you are engaging in Or with your last post mark nutley (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, Rummels political views are no more relevant than yours for this article as it has zero influence on how accepted/fringe his research is. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My second ref is about the Rummel's methodology. I added it as a response to the claim that only Rummel's figures are the subject of controvercy.

Re Rummel's political views. Obvioulsy, they are relevant, because he aggressively push them in his books.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No his politics are of no interest here, only his work. Please stop engaging in OR it is not helping anything mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, anyone who criticizes Rummels research because Rummel has political views they don't agree with would automatically disqualify themselves as they would let their political opinions override the science. That's not how scientific consensus works. Science is independent of political standpoints. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not. The quote provided by me states that these Rummel's libertarian views are disputable because (see detailed explanation above), not because they are libertarian. I pointed your attention at the word "libertarian" because such views (as well as Communist) are situated at the very edge of the views' spectrum, so by no mean can be considered "mainstream".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources explain how they believe Rummel's political beliefs are being pushed in his book, then, it does become relevant. Is this the only RS we have to tie in the concept to the incidents listed in the wiki article? BigK HeX (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not in Rummel's political views, but in if his works can be considered mainstream. The source states Rummel develops libertarian ideas. Libertarian views are not mainstream. Therefore, Rummel's views are not mainstream. Obviously, it is hard to imagine that one scholar will call the works of his colleague "mainstream" or "fringe", that simply violate scientific ethics. Therefore, we ourself have to make such conclusion based on what the sources write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No we do not, that is engaging in wp:or you are drawing conclusions you want from a source, please stop mark nutley (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations are not helping advance anything, mark nutley, sir. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, are there no reliable tertiary sources from which helps to bring the proper weighting of the views into perspective. I don't see this issue advancing productively until a good tertiary source is presented to establish what the most mainstream views are. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) We have Bryan Caplan another well respected scholar who also says much the same as Rummel This is a reliable source. mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not in Rummel's political views - So why did you bring it up? And why did you then continue to bring it up after I had pointed out to you it was irrelevant?

The source states Rummel develops libertarian ideas. Libertarian views are not mainstream. - Oh, so now the question *is* his political views? Can you make up your mind? Are you deliberately stalling for time and trying to make the discussion OT? The discussion is still why the POV and SYN templates should be on this article. Rummels political views are both irrelevant for this article and this discussion and this whole area of research. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Caplan is an economist at the Cato Institute. The Museum, which is chaired by Lee Edwards has basically taken its information from the Black Book and Rummel. TFD (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will further discuss Rummel's works only with those who understand what his method consists in. Although we cannot interpret sources, we must understand them. Again, my question is what, in your understanding, the Rummel's approach consists in?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I interpret this sudden change of topic as you not wanting to discuss the old topic (if Rummels political views is relevant or not) any longer. This is no doubt because you realized you were wrong. Rummels political standpoints are not relevant for this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say I proposed to return to initial topic, because this dispute has come into an impasse. As I already pointed out (several times on this talk page), to speak about Rummel one has to have some knowledge of math and statistics, because, by contrast to many other scholars the essence of Rummel's approach is factor analysis. Btw, for everyone with minimal math education is obvious that the statement:

"Only Rummels numbers are criticized, and he in fact gives numbers from low to high, which are very wide, with a "most likely" number in between. Usually the "high" and sometimes most likely numbers are criticized. So this is not significant for the discussion which has been about the connection between communism and mass murder, not specific numbers."

sounds not better than "this car runs well, although its engine constantly fails".--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say I proposed to return to initial topic - Well, in any case it's an silent that his political views are irrelevant, and you are right, that does mean we can return to discuss something that actually is relevant.

'this car runs well, although its engine constantly fails - So you are saying that if a car, that goes faster in a downslope, doesn't go as fast in an upslope, then it's engine has failed? Aha. Yeah, that makes sense. Not. Try again.

Do you understand that Rummels high and low numbers are supposed to be unlikely high and low? It's in pracice a sort of minimum and maximum numbers. That his max numbers by others are criticized as being higher than the actual death count is *not* a failure of Rummels research. If his *minimum* numbers where too high, then *that* would be a failure. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Before we continue, could you please explain me how do you understand the term "factor analysis"? I am asking because that is essential for further discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's like asking "how do you understand geometry". It's an open-ended question with no answer. I'm convinced it's not essential to understand this for further discussion, because your and mine opinions and understandnings about Rummels research is irrelevant as none of us is reliable sources.

To get the discussion back to it's relevant start, you criticize the inclusion of Rummels research and try to call him "fringe" so that he can't be used, and you try to show that his conclusions and arguments about why communism and mass murder are related, by trying to undermine his numbers. Again, I agree his numbers has been criticized, but that does not undermine his argumentation about the causes. We can discuss factor analysis till your ears bleed, but it's completely irrelevant. Your attempts to redefine Rummel as fringe is doomed to failure. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you're thinking of a different online museum. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... that webpage itself is most certainly not a reliable source; there's no indication of the sources from which Caplan has surveyed. Also, while I have no problems with citing Bryan Caplan as a (usually minority) perspective on meta-economic studies, I'm less sure of his credentials on historical matters. Anyways, we need a real tertiary source here. I've mentioned this months ago, so I'd be a bit surprised if there still weren't any made available. BigK HeX (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because Misplaced Pages is the only tertiary source in the world that has an article on this subject. TFD (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then my initial perception of this article as a possibly-POV patchwork of sources receiving questionable amounts of weighting is likely to persist in the article, then... sad. I haven't had time to read the latest versions, but I hope it does a far better job of giving a clear indication of the major mainstream views of the topic. BigK HeX (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of topics which WP is the only tertiary source in the world to cover. Don't know why I'm pointing that out, since I think the existence of this article is a terrible reflection on WP, but there it is. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK Hex, what is the problem with the weighing? Can you be specific? As evident in the debate above, the problem here is that those who want to keep the tags can't point to anything specific that's wrong with the article, but just exhibit a general malaise about the article. The lack of sources that claim that there are no connection between communism and mass murder comes not out of bad weighing, but because nobody has been able to produce a RS that claims there is no such connection, so that is certainly not a problem of weight. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see that every specific statement in the article may be reliably sourced and verified and yet the whole presentation is POV and SYNTH? (Igny (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes I do see them, don't you see the answers? It is not enough to claim that an article is POV or SYN, you have to explain why and how. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I do not have much time now, but in the next 1-2 weeks I can attempt to rewrite the whole article. It would also have sourced and verified individual statements, but their presentation would differ from this current version significantly. Is it ok with you? (Igny (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Wouldn't it be better if you could explain what is wrong with the current "presentation" first? Unless you do, you really don't have a case. These vague accusations of POV and SYN with not one single explanation or example is getting quite ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I could rename the article to Mass killings under totalitarian regimes, trim the communist part significantly by moving details into the corresponding main articles, add other examples of totalitarian regimes, and then I would like to see how you'd argue against that presentation. (Igny (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I notice that you don't answer the question. There is still no explanation of what is wrong with the current presentation. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In essence, this article is a POV fork of genocides in history attempting to present the theory that mass killings occurred under communist regimes are somehow a result of communist ideology as a well-established fact. (Igny (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

The sources use the term communist regimes. The article does not push the ideological cause explanation. And certainly not as fact. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In current form is does. (Igny (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Then you should have no problem with providing quotes from the article where this occurs. The POV tag requires you to do this. Per WP:NPOVD: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." AmateurEditor (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read through the main articles about the incidents described in this article, they all discuss historical and political background, possible causes (such as Stalin's drive to power or simply crimes committed by individuals), and in some cases even justifications for example, for incidents during the war time or policies aimed at avoiding bigger catastrophes. Now we have all these incidents put on one coat track under one title, as if the incidents were caused by ideology, and forgetting or diminishing other factors (those described by most of the main articles about incidents). If one wants to keep this list of misdeeds happened under a particular regime, one should not leave out significant details such as possible causes or background. And it would become a huge hundreds of kb article filled with points and counter-points. In current form, the article places a lot of weight on one particular commonality of the incidents that is that they occurred under a communist regime. By doing so (that is eliminating the background and discussion about possible causes about each and every incident), the article in current form implies that communism ideology contributed significantly to (or even resulted in) the mass killings, which is point of view mostly shared by anti-communists, usually cultivated during the Cold War. There is nothing intrinsic in either communist nor capitalist ideologies which could lead to the mass killings. Thus, the article is clearly POV. (Igny (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

The main articles will go into background and more detail on individual incidents more than this article can, which is why it provides main article links to them. There's nothing inherently wrong with providing info on the mass killings which are the point of the topic. However, I completely agree with you that the article needs more content, including proposed individual explanations for the incidents that are not common to multiple regimes. In fact, I tried to split the causes section that way and I haven't given up on that, and I proposed to Paul Siebert that individual explanations be incorporated into the list. It would not make the article too long. But this deficiency is completely covered by the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag, making the neutrality tag redundant on this point. The article "places a lot of weight on one particular commonality of the incidents that is that they occurred under a communist regime" because that is exactly the topic, whether you like it or not, found in multiple reliable sources. This wasn't made up by editors here, as a showed with the four examples I gave at the last AfD. The article is not about - and does not imply with the title - and "intrinsic" connection to communist ideology. Perhaps the Communist regimes were not following ideology when they made these decisions. But to assume that the opinion of anti-communists during the cold war was incorrect and try to impose that view on all Misplaced Pages articles is to insert your own POV. We must all stick to what reliable sources say and, where they disagree, include both. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Igny: The article makes no such claim at all. It makes the claim that loads of mass murders happened under communist regimes, which nobody contests, and lists the proposed reasons for this. That the ideology is a major cause (because the ideology is totalitarian) is not treated as a well established fact by the article, but as a proposed cause. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

agree, no evidence to keep tag Darkstar1st (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your history of willful POV pushing aside, there is plenty of evidence to keep the tag --- primarily that the editors have not met a burden of proof regarding whether the amount of weight they've assigning to potentially isolated viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

confused about weight, do you mean too much emphasis has been placed on non-combatants who were executed by communist? would you have share your rewrite of a more npov. do you think the page should be deleted instead? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which tag are we talking about here? Weight has nothing to do with synthesis, and only some to do with neutrality. Weighting issues are already covered by the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag which was not going anywhere anyway. The burden of proof in on those who added or readded the tags. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@igny, instead of changing the name, why not create a new page called "mass killing under totalitarian regimes", or even "mass killings under capitalist regimes"?(see: Wounded Knee Massacre) Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what WP:POVFORK is all about. There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever in communism or capitalism as ideologies what may lead to mass killings of non-combatants. (Igny (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I understand that you think that, but the article is not about an "intrinsic" connection, it's about the connection that reliable sources make. What are your examples of a NPOV violation? AmateurEditor (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Since statistically significant correlation exists between mass killings and authoritarian (not only totalitarian) regimes, I already proposed to create the article "mass killing under authoritarian regimes" and to move all general considerations there. I'll probably do that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The sources use the term communist regimes." The sources use this term along with others. For instance, only one chapter of Valentino's book is devoted to communist regimes (to be specific, to only three regimes), whereas the rest of the chapter explains why other regimes did not commit mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino's other chapters are on topics already covered by other articles, such as Ethnic cleansing and counter-insurgency. His explanations of communist regimes which did not commit mass killing by his definition can also be included in this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul can you in fact name one commie regime which has not committed mass murder? And as we have several sources which say all commie regimes did this what exactly is your issue? mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, can you name one major non-commie regime that did not commit mass killings? TFD (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You require the Mass Killings Under Democracy this is about commies. Did you mum never tell you it is rude to answer a question with a question? Please answer mine mark nutley (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, mark, my family may not have provided me with the same lessons in politeness that yours did. TFD (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Commies"? Can we please drop this loaded language. The tags are clearly required as this article falls far short of our criteria, as outlined by TFD. Verbal chat 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD is incorrect, and has yet to provide any justification for the tags mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Paul can you in fact name one commie regime which has not committed mass murder?" Thank you for deliberately making your proposition weaker. It is easy to name the regimes that committed no mass "murders", because murder is much narrower then "killings". Hungary, Bulgaria, probably Cuba, Poland, DDR. With regard to the USSR, some scholars argue that even Stalin's purges were not "murder" but "executions" because they were performed according to some legal procedure (by contrast to what took place in Nazi Germany). In that sense, even the USSR committed no mass murder.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? >pg=PA22>dq=mass+murder+in+cuba>hl=en>ei=2qs4TNb5B9ChnQey7pGsDg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20cuba>f=false Mass Murder in Cuba >q=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>hl=en>ei=6K44TPX-IdjNjAeGuNTjAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA Mass Murder in Hungary >pg=PA112>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Bulgaria>hl=en>ei=L684TIj0OJCQjAfhzL32Aw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q>f=false Mass Murder in Bulgaria >pg=PA259>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Poland>hl=en>ei=e684TI7KBoGRjAf-x_XtAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20communist%20Poland>f=false Mass Murder in Poland, any others you may think have not committed mass murder? Now back on topic, we have sources which link commies to murder, and none which refute it. Please explain your issue with the POV of the article mark nutley (talk)

Not only is the POV of the article a huge problem, but the unbelievable (I guess I'm naive) POV of the comments here is not helping resolve this problem. Verbal chat 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What part of this article do you think violates NPOV? mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The title, for one, and then most of what follows due to the title and context of the article. Unfortunately. Verbal chat 21:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just what do you think would be a better title? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Really? >pg=PA22>dq=mass+murder+in+cuba>hl=en>ei=2qs4TNb5B9ChnQey7pGsDg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20cuba>f=false Mass Murder in Cuba >q=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>hl=en>ei=6K44TPX-IdjNjAeGuNTjAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA Mass Murder in Hungary >pg=PA112>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Bulgaria>hl=en>ei=L684TIj0OJCQjAfhzL32Aw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q>f=false Mass Murder in Bulgaria >pg=PA259>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Poland>hl=en>ei=e684TI7KBoGRjAf-x_XtAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20communist%20Poland>f=false Mass Murder in Poland, any others you may think have not committed mass murder? Now back on topic, we have sources which link commies to murder, and none which refute it. Please explain your issue with the POV of the article." Please, do not present crude results of google search next time. It is your job to analyse them, not mine. Of course, by typing mass murders in Communist Bulgaria you will be able to find many books that contain the words "mass", "murder", "communist" and "Bulgaria". However, that proves only that these books contain these words, not not that these words are contextually linked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass murder in Essex returns 39,200 hits, while mass murder in Bradford returns 37,600 hits. Mass murder in Guildford only returns 8,590 hits, but of course it is a much safer place. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC

hard to deny facts supplied by the oldest regime in the world. Communist regimes have killed the most people in this century, followed by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union killed 54.7 million between 1917 and 1987, and China killed 35.6 million between 1949 and 1987. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st211.pdf Darkstar1st (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting radical right-wing American sources, like this one from the National Center for Policy Analysis. Don't you ever read mainstream stuff? This is from the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein could nuke the U. S, within one hour and was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Or do you still believe that?) TFD (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Formal Mediation

I don't think we are making progress with the current format of discussion. I propose we ask for formal mediation of this dispute, but it requires consent from all parties involved. Would all editors who consider themselves involved please express either their agreement or disagreement to file for formal mediation below?

Agree, but suspect it pointless mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

agree Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis

Right, lets take this one at a time starting with the supposed Synth. Could the editors who believe there is a violation of wp:synth please post here which part of this article is the issue. I ask you keep your comments on topic and try to be brief, just copy and paste over what you think is synth so we can take a look at it mark nutley (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a single source discussing all these incidents of mass killings? I understand that there are a list of sources which discuss individual incidents, but is there one source which encompasses them all under the common umbrella of mass killing by communist regimes? (Igny (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

• Yes we do have such a source R. J. Rummel who passes wp:sps and also Bryan Caplan who also passes wp:sps Rummel also has several books and papers published which link communism to mass killings mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis means coming up with a novel concept such as the troll, Joklolk, who created this article did. Unless you can provide sources that the concept exists, then it is synthesis. Here is a link to a Google scholar search for "mass killings under Communist regimes".>hl=en>btnG=Search>as_sdt=2001>as_sdtp=on It returns zero hits. Could someone please provide sources that the concept exists. I realize that mark nutley obtains his information from different sources from me and would appreciate if he would direct me to his sources of information. TFD (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The so-called "novel concept" this article was created with existed prior to its creation (you can see the Google scholar hits >hl=en>btnG=Search>as_sdt=20000001 here). You could look in the extensive references section of the article for sources but, for your convenience, here are four sources which discuss mass killings under communist regimes.>action=historysubmit>diff=356111921>oldid=356097683 . AmateurEditor (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The hits are for "communist genocide", which is the name given to the article by the troll Joklolk. Do you want to rename the article? TFD (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop calling people Troll`s. And please stay ontopic, any off topic discussion will be hat hab`d. You have been given two sources in reply to your question above, please see my reply to Igny, thank you. Also see this link, >um=1>ie=UTF-8>sa=N>hl=en>tab=ws mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

the wording was off slightly, try "communist murder", hundreds of hits from different sources. >q=communist+murder>btnG=Search>as_sdt=2000>as_ylo=>as_vis=0 Communist regimes have killed the most people in this century, followed by Nazi Germany, which killed more than 16 million people between 1933 and 1945. The Soviet Union killed 54.7 million between 1917 and 1987, and China killed 35.6 million between 1949 and 1987. The Khmer Rouge killed a much larger percentage of its nation’s people, liquidating about a third of all Cambodians between 1975 and 1979." http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st211.pdf Darkstar1st (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That PDF gives us a third source which links mass killing to communism, see page six All Communist states have committed democide and about one-fourth have practiced genocide. And it`s author seems to be an academic so wp:sps applys mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD: No, SYN is not "creating a novel concept". SYN is using two (or more) sources to say something that neither source says. This article does not do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Per the discussion above i would request the SYNTH tag be removed from this article. Three reliable sources have been presented above as requested which shows the link to communism and mass killings. One of the editors who says the reason for the synth tag is due to no sources linking the two. He has been active on this page but does not seem to want to reply, i am assuming from his silence he now agrees that the SYNTH issue is settled and we may move onto the next tag mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree We need to find a reliably sourced definition for the topic. Also, we should wait more than 3 1/2 hours before deciding that no one will reply to this thread. TFD (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree, A couple of self published sources from biased authors who have been criticized for their methods and conclusions is not good enough to support synthesis of extravagant views. Care to provide reliable mainstream sources covering all these incidents? (Igny (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

All three authors both pass wp:sps and are highly respected. The sources are reliable and your personal opinion of them has no place here mark nutley (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Igny, I provided 4 sources above, none of which are self published. And you have the burden of proof backwards. You must show where there is synthesis. It isn't up to others to show that there is none. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your post above. However I am familiar with the sources, and two points: this article should not be a POV fork of the Black Book of Communism, because removing criticisms of this book and adding more quotations in support of the BB's POV does not really strengthen your argument against the POV tag. Also your sources mostly focus on Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes. Throwing other instances of mass killings is not justified by these sources and a clear synthesis to support genocidal nature of communist regimes, which is not true in general. (Igny (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

• • TFD you have edited this page four times since the sources were presented and have not replied until now, would you explain why please? Igny, i did not interpret your silence as agreement. You asked for a source linking mass murder and communism, three have been supplied mark nutley (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, as you know, multiple threads were created and I therefore created a thread called "Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates". You posted to that thread about a dozen times, but say you had no idea what the subject of the thread was. When I set it up I intended it as a reply to the four sections that had been set up to discuss the templates. I apologize if you did not understand the purpose of the discussion thread. Anyway, I posted my comments to the four sections that had been set up to discuss the templates under that section. I apologize for any confusion. TFD (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: We don't seem to have a consensus for this change yet. >mdash;>nbsp;Martin (MSGJ>nbsp;·>nbsp;talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree to removal of the SYN tag. No argument that passes even basic scrutiny has been presented for how this article is WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree the synth tag needs to remain as a fair warning to our readers that the article is problematic in this reguard. The topic and name of the page is a synth problem in itself, and the mixture of these separate incidents in this way is a clear WP:SYNTH violation. Verbal chat 08:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal in what way is the article title Synth? Do you deny there have been mass killings under communist regimes? That is obviously wrong therefore the title is not Synth. We have four reliable sources in this section alone which connect the two, AmateurEditor has also provided four sources which link mass murder to communists. That is eight sources linking the two, please explain how you think the title is synth mark nutley (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The title is not the only problem. However, the title implies that genocides/mass killings are a natural by product of communism. One way of addressing the synth and npov problems of the content is to turn this article into a list, with links to main articles about the notable incidents, and links to similar lists about Capitalist genocides, US, British Empire, etc. Verbal chat 09:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The title implies nothing. It states what the article is about per wp:mos Titles should match the article content We can discuss the supposed POV issue in another thread once we have this issue sorted, we shall do it one at a time. Thanks you mark nutley (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

agree remove tag Darkstar1st (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic Discussion

Why should I not call Joklolk a troll? TFD (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Because there is no need for it mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved this off topic reply and PA to here, it is in response to Darkstars comment @ 22:22, 10 July 2010 mark nutley (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe that is a topic you can discuss at your next meeting of the Young Americans for Freedom. But the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. TFD (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

tdf, i had no idea such a group exist, thank you, ill give it a look, although few consider me "young" and american could mean castro, chavez, and Pinochet were all "americans" so the name is a bit confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

marknutley,If you do not think that the account Joklolk was controlled by a troll, then you can request his reinstatement. Here a link to his manifesto, posted under the edit description "**** off nazi" (my redaction), where he states, "If you work on Misplaced Pages, I’m just going to make you angry. What I am doing is trying to stop people from working on Misplaced Pages....">diff=prev>oldid=306382021 Why are you supporting him? TFD (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, don't miss their 'Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day' contest! TFD (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD i am not supporting him, i just see no need for rudeness. Could you please focus on the section above dealing with Synth, thank you mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

where is the contest? i think if we stage a checkpoint outside ice cream parlors we could win. i can tell who is illegal the flavor they order. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, TFD, stop implying everyone that doesn't agree with you are conservatives. Stop discussing the editors and start discussing the article. You have shown yourself to be extremely oversensitive to Wikiquette issues. Start behaving towards others as you require them to behave towards you. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Openfuture, it is important to distinguish between the sources we use and other editors. The fact is that the author of introduction to the Black Book is an exponent of a radical right wing view of history and has collaborated with Ernst Nolte, and his theories on Communism are heavily promoted by American conservatives. Rummel is a neoconservative, you can read his views on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the link between 911 and Saddam Hussein. Many writers have commented on the reactionary nature of their views and pointed out the exaggerations they have used. They have also pointed out that their views have become popular with the "New Right" in Europe, including neofascist groups. No mainstream conservative, liberal or left-wing writers have given any credence to their views, and they have not been published in academic journals. Essentially this is a radical right wing fringe theory. Incidentally I have great respect for conservatives, just little respect for extremists. TFD (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Openfuture, it is important to distinguish between the sources we use and other editors - When it comes to personal attacks of different kinds it is not. You are to not insult anybody, editor or source. You accuse Rummel of neing a neocon, Paul claims he is a libertarian. No matter if anyone of you is right, Rummels political standpoint is irrelevant, and your opinions about Rummels standpoints are doubly irrelevant.

No mainstream conservative, liberal or left-wing writers have given any credence to their views, and they have not been published in academic journals. - This is simply untrue.

Incidentally I have great respect for conservatives, just little respect for extremists. - That seems quite ironic. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no irony. However, could you please present these journal articles supporting Courtois and Rummel's beliefs. TFD (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Beliefs"? Anyway, don't try to switch the topic, it doesn't work with me. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of synthesis

In a response to the request to provide the example of synthesis I give some of them below. Before doing that, let me remind you the example of the synthesis as it is described on the WP policy page:

• A simple example of original synthesis:

The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

Although no conclusion is drawn and both parts of the sentence are true, it implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

Let me apply the same approach to the "Terminology" section. The first paragraph states:

"Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants. Under the Genocide Convention, the Crime of Genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances."

Although no conclusion is drawn and all statements are true and well sourced, the para implies that the authors discuss the terminology for adequate description of Communist mass killings, whereas all authors cited here discuss mass killings in general. My conclusion: obvious synthesis.

The second para starts with:

"The term "politicide" is used to describe the killing of political or economic groups that would otherwise be covered by the Genocide Convention. "

in actuality, the authors Harff>Ted present "a global survey of cases of massive state repression since World War II." They developed and used "a typology which distinguishes between two categories of genocide (in which the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of communal characteristics) and four types of politicide (in which victim groups are defined in terms of their political status or opposition to the state)." These four forms of politicide are (i) "Retributive politicides", "Repressive politicides", "Revolutionary politicides" and "Repressive/hegemonial politicide". No separate concepts for Communist politicide were proposed by the authors.
Nevertheless, the para implies (although does not states explicitly) that the authors proposed the concept of some separate "Communist politicide". My conclusion: obvious synthesis.

The fourth para states:

"The latter term has been defined by Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants," where a "massive number" is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less. He applies this definition to the cases of Stalin's USSR, PRC under Mao and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, while admitting that mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa.

The para implies that the author defined the term in a context of Communism and applied it mostly to Communist mass killings. That is simply wrong. My conclusion: obvious synthesis and misinterpretation of the source.

Obviously, most of that would be quite appropriate for the Mass killings under authoritarian (or totalitarian) regimes article, however, when placed in a context of Communist mass killings it is obvious synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Communist mass killings, whereas all authors cited here discuss mass killings in general" - I do not doubt that communists would like to see another definition applied to them than to the rest of the world, but luckily that's not how reality works. A definition of mass killings that can be applied to fascists, capitalists, catholics and democrats can be applied to communists as well. This claim of SYN has no basis.

"Nevertheless, the para implies (although does not states explicitly) that the authors proposed the concept of some separate "Communist politicide"." - No it does not. There is no such implication at all. This claim of SYN has no basis.

"The para implies that the author defined the term in a context of Communism and applied it mostly to Communist mass killings. That is simply wrong. My conclusion: obvious synthesis " - Synthesis is using two sources to claim something neither source claims. This is obviously not synthesis in any way shape or form. This claim of SYN has no basis, and completely ignores what SYN is. Read WP:SYN again, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article's name is "Mass killings under Communist...". Therefore, the "Terminology" section is supposed to discuss terminology used for Communist mass killings, not mass killings in general. In actuality, only one source (classicide) deals with Communism specifically (although even this source tells about "leftists", not Communists). All other sources does not tell about Communism solely and specifically. In addition, I expect to get real arguments, not just "not, it does not". Don't waste the talk page space, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Synthesis is using two sources to claim something neither source claims." Incorrect. Synthesis is using two sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. So if something is even implied it is already a synthesis --Paul Siebert (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again you imply that mass killings under communist regimes need other definitions from mass killings under other regimes. Again I point out that I understand the desire to redefine it in a way that makes communism sound like a nice ideology, and again I point out that the definition of mass killing that's used in other cases works fine for communism too and no separate definition is needed.

Yes, even implied, you are right. No such implication is in this article. You have come with no examples of WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

When placed into the beginning of the "Terminology" section of the article "Mass killings under Communist regimes" the words "Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants..." imply "mass killings by Communists". That is obvious. In addition, I am impressed by depth and persuasiveness of your arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That does not imply anything, it is a statement of fact that different people use different terminology. How do you think it imply`s mass killings by communists? Our readers need to know the different terminology used it these areas. mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, none of your so called "implication" actually exist. Can we drop this now? You have no arguments for POV nor for SYN. How long do we need to keep tags for which nobody have any arguments? Come with actual arguments, not non-existing implications, or remove the tags. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

agree no examples offered, delete tag Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And what makes you believe that you agree no examples offered, delete tag? (Igny (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

From what I've seen on the talk page (and as I've mentioned previously), it's my opinion that the burden of proof has not been met here in order to avoid synthesis of the type described by Paul Siebert here. BigK HeX (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you. We can not fix issues that does not exist. You must first show that the issues *do* exist. Paul Siebert has not. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

igny, somehow me and several other editors are unable to find the examples of syn or pov, i was agreeing with openfuture no exist on this talk page. the reason i believe myself is because my neural network is incapable of producing errors. I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you." Burden of proof is always on those who adds/restores a material. If I state it is a synthesis, you must prove it is not. So far, you provided no arguments proving I am wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Paul Siebert. Personally, I think it's pretty gracious to go through all of this hassle in merely tagging the material instead of deletion, when the burden of proof is really on the editors who support the addition of the text which has been challenged with SYN and potential UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags stay

• SYN: At least until issues outlined by Paul are addressed in a constructive way. Claiming that the issues do not exist is not constructive.
• POV As per points outlined by me above (note: AmateurEditor in principle agreed with that more work has to be done here) Until background and discussion about other possible factors and causes for each and every incident (as they all differ in nature) are properly placed into this article, and it is explained why communist ideology should be singled out as the decisive factor.

And in general per WP:NPOVD, tags should stay until consensus is reached. Consensus reached by one side of the dispute is not the consensus.

I would also appreciate constructive approach to the issues raised. (Igny (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

• Disagree: Pauls issues has been answered. The tags can be removed. Your interpretation of consensus is "everyone agrees". That is not what Consensus means. See WP:CONS. When one side of the conflict has no other argument that "there is no consensus", then there is consensus. What you are doing now is Filibustering. I would appreciate a constructive approach to the debate instead. You have no arguments to keep the tags. The tags should go. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree NPOV is violated by presenting minority views as generally accepted and it is synthesis to support their conclusions with writings taken from authors who do not support their views. TFD (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How come you can't present any WP:RS of the opposing view? What does that say about which view is the minority? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. The issues have been outlined as requested, and, IMO, the tags are justified. Either the tags should stay or the dubious text should be removed since the burden of proof has not been met for the fairly authoritative implications made. BigK HeX (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No dubious text has been presented. In fact, the argument has been that although there is no specific errors, somehow the whole article is at fault. So you here contradict what was said earlier. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What was "said earlier" by others is irrelevant to my comment. If the synthesized implications happen to inundate the whole article, then I'm fine with "the whole article" being stubbed out until the problems are addressed and assertions properly attributed and weighted.... or the tags can simply be present until the problems are addressed. Either would be adequate. BigK HeX (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you have to show that this is the case. Which Paul have tried, and failed. The only serious attempt of showing actual problems with the article has been in the Examples of Synthesis section. Unfortunately, none of the was examples of synthesis. So, the only serious attempt failed. This debate has been going on for ages now, and no examples of problems with the article has been forthcoming. The conclusion is inevitably that there is no problems. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No. There is a group of editors here who claim that there is no problem with the bias of the article. Other editors demonstrated the issues with the article showing that there is a bias. The conclusion is that some editors share the POVs of the article in question and some do not. Which shows lack of consensus to remove the POV tag. I do not think I can be spell it out more clearly to you. (Igny (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

• disagree consensus has been reached, since no other arguments have been presented, the tags should go. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ 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. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
2. Cite error: The named reference wheat_scale was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Beth van Schaack. The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259-2291
4. Harff, Barbara (1988). "Toward Empirical Theory of Genocides and Politicides: Identification and Measurement of Cases since 1945". 32: 359–371. {{cite journal}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
5. “Draining the Sea”: Benjamin Valentino, Paul Huth, Dylan Balch-Lindsay. Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare. International Organization 58, Spring 2004, pp. 375–407

Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Old requests for peer review