Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 23 July 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

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

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.

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, 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 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 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)

Specific concerns with the article

I am a neutral and uninvolved editor in this discussion and I would like to attempt to aide the consensus-building process here and avoid any further edit-warring which many editors appear to have been involved in. I've put a nice clear changes to make here, and invite anyone who has a specific idea of how to improve the article to make suggested changes in that box. Please do not put "keep the tags" or "remove the tags" in the box, that's not constructive. Please number each suggestion and then discuss each suggestion under a level-3 header below. I'm hoping that this layout will improve the flow of ideas and make it clear what the issues are.

Please do not leave any comments for or against any issues in the box, discuss them instead in a relevant section below. I've left a layout to make it clearer what I mean. I'm not acting in any "official" capacity here, but I think this discussion desperately needs improved organisation so I hope that all will agree that this is a sensible way of organisation the discussion.

Please try to keep all comments relevant and constructive. GiftigerWunsch 16:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for discussion

1. The biggest change needed is that a "baseline" needs to be established. This is the most fundamental issue that I see with this article. One (or more) good tertiary sources needs to be drawn from so that we can establish which points of view are prominent. Right now, the article stands on a small handful of isolated works, which I think were intended for popular audience, and not scholarly review. The article (beginning with the title itself) makes a pretty definitive link between "Mass killings" and groups claiming a political ideology (in this case, communism), which, in this article, is effectively strongly implying a causal link between "Mass killings" and a political ideology. There is no problem with such a link, unless it is a small or tiny minority viewpoint which is ignored within or even contradicted by the broader academic community. The article does not explicitly establish the mainstream thought, and instead weaves together isolated studies --- the article could easily be a legitimate reflection of the significant viewpoints, but what is known for certain is that the burden of proof to establish that has not been met. The voluminous talk page archives seem to indicate that various aspects of the fundamental assertion made by the article have been challenged ... with issues ranging from which killings should be counted, up to whether the link is actually assignable to "Communists," "communism," "totalitarianism," etc. Given how authoritatively this link is proposed in the article, I think the burden of proof should be met that the link asserted in this article is reflective of the most significant viewpoints in the academic community. If it is, then great. If it is not, then this article is no more NPOV than a hypothetical NASA and all of its moon landing hoaxes article. A good tertiary source can establish the basics, and once the fundamentals are in place, we can work from there. I'll be explicit that I'm not saying the article is not valid, only that the use of the sources currently imply an authoritativeness to the basic claim which seems stronger than the handful of isolated sources justifies, resulting in a potentially broad SYN problem. BigK HeX (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Courtois' introduction to the Black book of Communism and Rummel's Death by government were published outside the academic mainstream and not subjected to peer-review. Neither of these sources are directly about mass killings under Communist regimes: the first one was about the evils of Communism in general, while the second was about mass killings by governments in general. There are numerous good sources for each of the events discussed in this article, but none that connect the killings in the various countries as having a common cause. (These seem to be potential SYN issues described by TFD)
3. BigK Hex's Synthesis issues: The title. The "Proposed Causes" section. The lede (though to a lesser extent now). --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 1

You want a tertiary source, but of what is unclear. That many mass killings has been done under communist regimes is uncontroversial, so that's not it. Do you want a tertiary source of what these mass killings are? There we have both R.J. Rummel and the Black Book of Communism, who both are exactly that: Tertiary sources of mass killings under communist regimes. Or do you want a tertiary source for the discussions of the reasons for why communist regimes so often do mass killings? I don't know of that, but that is only in regards to one section, and you seem to criticize the whole article.

The link between communism and mass murder is not given authoritatively. It's one section with several different scholars ideas of what that link may be. That's hardly an authoritative link. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many "mass killings" have been done under all manner of regimes. This article does little to establish whether mainstream thought isolates Communist regimes in particular, or whether the Communists were differentiated from authoritarians for specific reasons, etc. Is is even established clearly what is generally regarded as a "mass killing"? BigK HeX (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does little to establish whether mainstream thought isolates Communist regimes in particular, or whether the Communists were differentiated from authoritarians for specific reasons, etc. - And? What's your point? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What is my point? Well, I'm trying to point out that the most fundamental thing that a person should learn from the article is not described by the article. First and foremost, a person should get a fair grasp on the mainstream understanding of the relationship between "mass killings" and "Communist regimes" in an article entitled Mass killings under Communist regimes.

The most fundamental thing a person should learn from this article is missing, if my point is still somehow not clear. BigK HeX (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles name is not "The link between communist regimes and mass killings", so no, that's not the fundamental thing you should learn. You are welcome to start such an article if you think it's important that Misplaced Pages teaches people about what communism leads too, but I think the section in this article is enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are 3 more wp:rs confirming communist mass killings

• The Aggressors: Ho Chi Minh, North Vietnam, and the Communist Bloc By Martin Scott Catino. page 17
• The russian revolution and the soviet state, 1917-1921 by Martin McCauley page 188, 189.
• Mao's China and after: a history of the People's Republic By Maurice J. Meisner, page 136

i will continue to add sources as needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No one questions whether there are reliable sources for mass killings in different countries. We need sources that provide a causal link between Communist ideology and mass killings, otherwise the article is POV synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

after you have had a chance to re-review the 3 sources, you will find the link between communist ideology and mass killing. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have WP:RS that provides such a causal link. They are referred under Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Proposed_causes --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please briefly summarize what the causal link is? TFD (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, sources differ on the role ideology played in these events. That's why there is a "Proposed causes" section. But the premise of your comment is wrong: we do not "need sources that provide a causal link between Communist ideology and mass killings" to avoid POV and synthesis. The title is "...under Communist regimes" specifically to avoid assuming ideology was the cause. It would be non-neutral otherwise. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet this distinction is NOT clearly described in the article itself, further contributing to the problems. BigK HeX (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any improvements you can offer would be appreciated. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor. Cannot agree. The article title implies a connection with ideology, because Communist ideology was the only common trait of all regimes discussed there. One way or the another, many readers (including myself) would understand the title in that way. In addition, some sources (Semelin, Rummel (in his self-published books, Rosenfielde) do see a connection between ideology and mass killings, so it would be not fully correct to mix these sources with all others. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is only if you accept that all the "Communist regimes" which existed or still exist practiced actual communism (the ideology). The word is capitalized in the title precisely to make it clear that this is a proper noun, referring to regimes which were called "Communist", and not an adjective. This is made even more clear in the terminology section on just what is meant by "Communist regimes". Any implication people may see should be swamped by this prominent explicitness. If you like, this can be made even more prominent by explaining it in the lede. Ideological explanations from sources are segregated under the appropriate section of "Proposed causes". AmateurEditor (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, people may react with "Oh, is there a connection between communist ideology and mass murder?" when they see the title. And indeed there may be, and there is a whole section devoted to discussing that and having some proposed links. So what is the actual problem? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 2

There are no tertiary sources for this article and the only sources that provide a link, Courtois' introduction to the Black book of Communism and Rummel's Death by government were published outside the academic mainstream and not subjected to peer-review. Neither of these sources are directly about mass killings under Communist regimes: the first one was about the evils of Communism in general, while the second was about mass killings by governments in general. However, the authors were scholars and these sources are occassionaly cited. Several peer-reviewed articles have been written that are highly critical of the Black Book and the numbers in these sources have been widely dismissed. There are however numerous good sources for each of the events discussed in this article, but none that connect the killings in the various countries as having a common cause. TFD (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not "outside academic mainstream", that's just your usual claim that anyone that doesn't agree with your extreme POV are "fringe". In this case you are claiming this about Harvard University Press, which is patently absurd. The requirement that the sources are *only* about mass killings under communist regimes is completely without basis, and in the case of the Black book of Communism incorrect. It's exactly what it is about. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "One (or more) good tertiary sources needs" I doubt tertiary source to resolve the issue, because WP generally relies upon the secondary ones. In addition, who can guarantee reliability of this tertiary source?

With regards to the rest, I fully agree, although I would say that not only the article does not explicitly establish the mainstream thought, it even cites selectively some of those sources that allegedly support the article's main idea. See the Harff's article on politicide as an example. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly semantic, but I'll note that this talk page previously has made a pretty big stink about differentiating rather sharply between "communism" and regimes labeled as "Communist". BigK HeX (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harvard was not the original publisher of the Black book, but re-published the book after translation. Therefore it did not go through the usual publication process of fact-checking and peer-review. Also, it is a collection of articles. Most books like that contain articles from a wide range of sources, and each article should be separately assessed for its acceptance by the academic community. Usually most of the articles in collections are re-publications of peer-reviewed articles or are based on them. I have repeatly asked for articles that have been published in academic journals but none have been provided. TFD (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You think harvard would not have fact checked the book beforehand? And please try to remember, not all sources need to be peer reviewed. Plenty of sources have been given linking commies to mass killings yet you persist in saying none have. What is your issue with the sources already provided? mark nutley (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point out any changes Harvard made to the book before re-publication. And if there are "plenty of sources" Could you please point out an article in a peer-reviewed journal that makes this connection. TFD (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, sources do not need to be peer reviewed, please read wp:rs and wp:v. The sources which link the two are in the above sections and frankly i am fed up of pointing them out to you only for you to ignore them and then ask the same question over and over. Please look in the section i started titled synth mark nutley (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the article supports a theory that is not recognized in the academic literature, and therefore is fringe. TFD (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Something does not need to be in academic literature to be recognised. The fact that Rummel Caplan and scully (All Academics btw) all say the same thing, That all Communist regimes commit mass killings means it is mainstream. As stated, WP polict is wp:rs and wp:v we have sources which state what the article is about. That is all that is required of us as editors mark nutley (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The premise where "3 academics (including at least one of whom is speaking outside his academic field) have presented a certain POV" is a sufficient criteria for a viewpoint to be mainstream is entirely dubious. It's not that difficult to find a small handful of academics who make claims counter to the actual mainstream thinking on a range of topics, such as Global Warming, if I had to present an example. BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BK, you are incorrect i`m afraid. All three are writing within their areas of expertise. Scully is looking at it from an economic viewpoint, not ideological one. mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You cited Caplan. His academic credentials are for economics. BigK HeX (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harvard was not the original publisher of the Black book, but re-published the book after translation. Therefore it did not go through the usual publication process of fact-checking and peer-review. - Oh really? Citation Needed, please. Tell me where their requirements on translated books are lower than non-translated books. You are just making things up now. Please provide reliable sources that Rummel is fringe, or stop claiming it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The material cites Rummel rather heavily. The burden of proof is on editors supporting this use of the text to provide the evidence that this weight is appropriate. Oddly, though it's been months since I requested this burden of proof to be met, it doesn't seem that anyone has this answer available at the present. BigK HeX (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A new pattern in this debate is emerging. You are now starting to claim that it's up to us to prove that nothing is wrong. This is self-evidently incorrect. You need to prove that something *is* wrong. You can not prove a negative fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Our policy is The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material; prove, therefore, your material sound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Those templates are "material" as well. Sentences in the article are "proved" by their citations. The templates require explanation on the talk page. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would separate Courtois' introduction, the BB proper and Rummel. Introduction to the BB is highly criticised whereas the Werth's section on the USSR is generally accepted positively. Rummel is a brilliant thinker, although it is generally accepted that he is a very controversial writer. In addition, as I noted above, although we cannot interpret the sources, we must understand them. For instance, if you want contribute to the Special theory of relativity article you must know what Lorentz transforms are. Similarly, to discuss Rummel one must know what factor analysis is. If someone claims the knowledge of this subject is not necessary to discuss Rummel's views, (s)he thereby concedes (s)he is not ready to speak seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) The book was originally published by Éditions Robert Laffont. Here] is a link to their website. As can be seen they are a general publisher, publishing everything from novels to academic books. The English version of the Black Book acknowledges that it was published by them first and was translated into English. TFD (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Rummel's Death by government was published by the academic press Transaction Publishers To suggest it is outside the mainstream is incorrect mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Although Transaction Publishers began as a publisher of social sciences, they do not have the same review process as academic publishers like Routledge, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westview Press, Wiley-Blackwell or university publishing houses, and include many popular books. TFD (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And many reprints (they feature three books as I type; two are from 1961 and 1965, from commercial publishers); they are the private effort of a single Rutgers professor in suburban Piscataway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Routledge is the publisher of Rosefielde's Red Holocaust (2009 book), an analysis of "peacetime communist mass killings and related crimes" (from introduction). I'm assuming because it's so new is the basic reason for it being ignored in these discussions regarding a scholarly consensus of Communist mass killings. Rosefielde is a respected academic as far as I can tell, and has published a multitude of books and articles on Soviet and Communist repression/killings. People really need to take of the ideological blinders I think, because if you look at the references/notes section you can plainly see that this article contains a plethora of scholarly citations (150+ at this point) that are not just Rummel, Valentino, and Courtois. Communism across the globe has a blood-soaked record and that this is not some fringe viewpoint akin to holocaust denial or skepticism about the moon landing, as these citations prove (almost every one is either an academic source or mainstream media source). I think it should also be noted that the Anti-communist mass killings article contains no scholarly sources (let alone any kind of scholarly consensus) whatsoever linking "anti-communism" and "mass killings," and yet for some odd reason it is not hit with deletion requests again and again along with requests for peer review like this one is.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "this article contains a plethora of scholarly citations..." most of which deals with some separate cases and do not connect the killings directly to ideology.

Re: "Communism across the globe has a blood-soaked record" Taking into account that during XX century most populated countries (excluding India) were Communist, and that most brutal wars (including civil wars) occurred there, it is not a big surprise that mass mortality is associated primarily with Communism. However, only in some cases the casual linkage with ideology is obvious.

Re: "Anti-communist mass killings" It is impossible to demonstrate the linkage with some single ideology because, strictly speaking, anti-communism is not some positive and uniform ideology. For instance, both Hitler and Churchill were anti-communists. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. Again, I have no objection to collect into the article all sources that draw a connection between Communism (not totaliarianism as whole) and mass killings, and to discuss these theories. However, it is incorrect to combine 150+ citations where one or another events of Soviet or Chinese history are being discussed without a connection with Communist ideology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "most of which deals with some separate cases and do not connect the killings directly to ideology" Um, the title of the article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes", not "Mass killings as a result of Communist ideology." All the data and related citations deal with "mass killings" that were committed by "Communist regimes." Now, that being said, if the article contained the latter title (or something like it), then it would make sense that killings of class enemies in various land reforms and collectivizations would be included, but off hand massacres, such as Tiananmen Square Massacre or the Novocherkassk massacre, would not be, as these killings were carried out simply to suppress protest and rioting.

Re: "It is impossible to demonstrate the linkage with some single ideology because, strictly speaking, anti-communism is not some positive and uniform ideology. For instance, both Hitler and Churchill were anti-communists." That being the case it sounds to me that that particular article is far more worthy of deletion requests and the like than this one is.

Re: "However, it is incorrect to combine 150+ citations where one or another events of Soviet or Chinese history are being discussed without a connection with Communist ideology." Again, considering the title of the article (and the article itself) relates to communist regimes and not strictly ideology, the citations that pertain to mass killings under governments that called themselves Communist, be it the PRC, USSR, Cambodia, etc., seem entirely relevant to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re "he title of the article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes"" Not only the article cannot convey any ideas not explicitly stated in the sources, it even cannot imply them. The article's name implies that some connection with ideology exists. If there is no connection, then the material cannot be placed there. For instance, I do not understand the relevance of the Afghan section, because this event should be grouped based on quite different trait, counter-guerilla warfare (together with Vietnam and Algeria, what many scholars do, btw.) By the way, in this fragment:

"it would make sense that killings of class enemies in various land reforms and collectivizations would be included"

you adequately described my vision of this article, although massacres such as Tiananmen Square Massacre or the Novocherkassk massacre, also should be included because they were an indirect result of the Communist policy.

Re: "That being the case it sounds to me that that particular article is far more worthy of deletion requests..." Disagree, because in this case a commonality is quite obvious: the victims were Communists. This commonality is so strong that there is no chances that any AfD will have any success. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:"because in this case a commonality is quite obvious: the victims were Communists." The commonality for this article is also quite obvious: the killers were Communist governments. Hmmm... perhaps we should just re-name the article "Communist mass killings" so as to include killings by Communists not in power (i.e. Shining Path, Maoist guerrillas pre-1949, Red Army Faction, etc.). The other article, which includes "anti-communist" killing by both governments and terrorist groups, has given me this idea.

Re:The article's name implies that some connection with ideology exists. If there is no connection, then the material cannot be placed there. Oh that's just an excuse to delete the article and you know it. There seems to be a blatant double standard to allow one article to exist that lists any alleged killings by anti-Communists (the Holocaust - the extermination of European Jewry - is included for God's sake) with few scholarly sources but an article that is specifically titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes," with content that relates to the title and nothing else, not to mention the 150+ scholarly sources - that's a "no no." I call total BS on that.

Re: "I do not understand the relevance of the Afghan section, because this event should be grouped based on quite different trait, counter-guerilla warfare." Do you not know that many of those murdered by the DRA's security forces were imams and other religious figures, along with those branded arbitrarily as "counterrevolutionaries" if they opposed the socialist reforms of the new government? This from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan article:

Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, Afghan Communists executed an estimated 27,000 political prisoners at Pul-e-Charkhi prison six miles east of Kabul. Many of the victims were village mullahs and headmen who were obstructing the modernization and secularization of the intensely religious Afghan countryside.

How is that not relevant to ideology?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The commonality for this article is also quite obvious." Disagree. Whereas all victims of anti-Communist mass killings were killed because they were Communists, there is no proof that all killings committed by Communist government occurred because the regimes were Communist. I see no difference, for instance, between Soviet migrational genocide in Afghanistan and Amegican genocide in Vietnam.

Re blatant. The anti-communist mass killing can be a list article, because the connection with political beliefs of the victims is obvious. Re Holocaust, the main article do include killing of Communists. If the main article includes it, why the anti-communist mass killings cannot?

Re: Afghan. As Wayman and Tago noted, Afghan regime had never became a real Communist regime. It was a clan war that started after deposition of Daud and that lasts until today. Obviously religious leaders had an enormous effect on the course of the events (which, btw, takes place in Afghanistan even now), so they hardly can be considered a neutral party in the war. Anyway, strictly speaking, the Afghan regime was just a "regime that declared its adherence to a Communist doctrine".

Re How is that not relevant to ideology?- You answered by yourself. They were killed for obstructing the modernization and secularization of the intensely religious Afghan countryside, not for anti-Communism. Not every modernization and secularization is dictated by Communist doctrine. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of ways that it could have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. The bottom line is that there is an objection that the sources are being misused here.

Trying to bring up the "Anti-communist" article as an analogy is pretty useless since "anti-communism" certainly is NOT seriously regarded by anyone as an actual ideology. Not only is your attempted analogy fallacious, but even if the concepts in the two article were equivalent, it would still be fallacious to expect that this article should receive a pass on its problems because you think another article has. BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's name implies that some connection with ideology exists. - No it does not. You may misunderstand it as such if you do not understand the difference between ideology and regime, but it does not imply this. For anyone that understand the difference, the title is quite clear. For those who don't the difference is made clear in the terminology section. And besides, the connection between ideology and mass killings is discussed in the article, reliably sourced. So what is the problem, really? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I cede the point, reluctantly, that a connection between the ideology and the killings should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, and actually it is to a significant extent in the section "proposed causes" (I recently added some material myself from Rosefielde and Goldhagen). But it seems unreasonable to expect that every single source in other sections should explicitly link the ideology and the killings. For example, in the section "Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial" the first sentence mentions that Mengistu, the Soviet-backed Communist dictator of Ethiopia, was tried and convicted of genocide. But as this is a pretty recent event, the primary source material is most likely going to be news reports - and these might not mention explicitly the role communist ideology played in the killings. Does that make it unacceptable? It would seem me that, being the only Communist leader convicted by a court for Genocide and mass killings, details of his conviction certainly warrant a place in an article on Communist mass killings, no? Or what if it is already established that Stalin's purges can be linked to ideology ("states where mass killings occurred" section), then adding materials on mass graves from the era, using as sources mainstream news reports of such macabre discoveries which mention Stalin's role but nothing about ideology, would also be unacceptable because the sources don't explicitly connect the ideology to the killings that occurred there? Seems ridiculous to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you have now twice mentioned the "original publisher". Explain why this is relevant. I've asked you before to show a RS that explains how translated or republished books somehow is not a reliable source and only the original edition is counted. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read peer review and academic publishing for an overview of how the process works. Here is a link to a reliable source describing the peer review process. Harvard states that the book is a translation of le livre noir. Do you have any reason to doubt them? The original publisher is relevant because that is where peer review is done. I suspect you do not understand the concept or you would not be asking these questions. However it is useful to know, because it helps us to distinguish between reliable sources and fringe theories. TFD (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere there does it say that peer review is done only at the original publisher, and that academic publishers who normally publish only peer reviewed books will publish books that has not been peer reviewed if they are translations. Again you are just stating things with no support for your statemens. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again your response shows that you do not understand the peer review process and I would suggest you read the sources I provided. The suggestion that the book was submitted to the peer review process by Harvard is ludicrous. TFD (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I've read them and there is nothing in there to support your statements as far as I can see. Be explicit, and stop making bare assertions. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't you think the Harvard version would have mentioned had any revisions been made to the original book? TFD (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are presuming that: 1. The book is incorrect. 2. That is was not peer reviewed originally, and that 3. Peer reviewers caught the errors. None of these assumptions have been shown to be true. You have not shown that Harvard Press does not apply the same quality requirements on translated books as other books they publish. You need to do that, or drop this line of debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, none of those comments make sense and I strongly suggest you read the sources I provided in order to understand academic publishing procedures. TFD (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read them. You refuse to support your case. Duly noted. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, no one has objected to Red Holocaust as a source. Paul Siebert even mentioned it as a reliable source. No one is objecting to sources because of "ideological blinders" but the use of unreliable sources and the misuse of reliable sources. If there are people with "ideological blinders" it is those who come here with pre-conceived ideas and then data-mine for sources that back up their views. TFD (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 3. BigK Hex's Synthesis issues

Note: Synthesis is when you take two or more sources and draw or imply a conclusion from them that doesn't exist in either source. It's a form of original research.

1. The title

The title "Mass killings under Communist regimes" only needs sources that claims that Mass killings have happened under Communist regimes. There are many sources for this in the article, hence this is clearly *not* synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The "Proposed Causes" section

The Proposed Causes section takes up several researchers view of the proposed causes. No conclusions or synthesis is done of these causes. Not synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The lede (though to a lesser extent now)

I can see no synthesis in the lead. Can you explain what exactly is synthesis in the lead? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions.

I removed a section recently added, as it breached WP:NPOV (claims that Stalin was extremely paranoid etc), and was based on a single (American) source which may not be reliable. Claritas § 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I don't understand your explanation. Why can't a scholar assert that Stalin was paranoid? Without bothering to adequately explain, you've simply gone on and removed an attributed piece of text that was a verbatim statement from the scholar in question, appropriately placed into a subsection titled "Personal responsibility" of a subsection titled "Proposed causes." Yes, there are other scholars, but it's nice to have a starting place, and I do beseech you to tell me where I've gone wrong in including the text. Surely you do realize that WP:NPOV means that relevant points of view can be included from any credible WP:RS - presumably, you don't find the view that Stalin's personality was a factor of some sort to be WP:FRINGE? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of sad that some one without even passing knowledge of Stalin can delete something that is so obvious that Stalin was paranoid. A GOOGLE search of the terms: "Stalin and paranoia" yields 3,130,000 hits. A lot more than single source. Please revert your uncalled for delete. Bobanni (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is believed (although no ultimate proof exists) that after meeting with Stalin, Bekhterev diagnosed him with paranoia. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/162/8/1506.pdf--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation is accurate. I think the text should be restored, unless Claritas can explain why the source itself is unreliable. Suspicion of unreliability is not enough. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can produce a pychiatrist's record saying that Stalin was diagnosed as "Paranoid", this isn't an acceptable neutral claim. Claritas § 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, your objections are starting to resemble the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument Misplaced Pages generally asks us to avoid, and so far it's just you holding that position alone. If you take the time to show me where on Misplaced Pages policies it states that "Unless you can produce a pychiatrist's record saying that Stalin was diagnosed as 'Paranoid', this isn't an acceptable neutral claim," I promise that I will gladly defer to your point of view. Until then, the cited material ought to stay per WP:RS and WP:V. If you do not believe that the author - a Columbia University Russian studies graduate and a professor of Russian history published by a respectable publisher - duly satisfies the criterion of WP:RS, please take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate has died: Time for action

The few attempts to justify the tags has been answered. No more arguments for the tags have arrived. This must reasonably mean that we have reached consensus now, and the tags can be removed. We also have reached a consensus for how to move forward See Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#A_way_forward. So the tags can be removed. Bets would be if somebody who once reverted back the tags can remove them, both to show good faith and because it then would be a self-revert and not count towards 1RR. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Answered"? ... not quite. A reply isn't the same thing as a (substantive) answer. Your continued attempts to declare a premature "case closed" are not helpful.

Without a retraction of the objections, then obviously, any changes should be based on consensus. Clearly, you don't have any reasonable claim to consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

They have been answered multipile times now. Lets try this, which part of this article do you think is Synth? mark nutley (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The title. The "Proposed Causes" section. The lede (though to a lesser extent now). This is incidental to my primary objection though, but in any case, I'll not entertain any further requests to rehash my objections for the Nth time. If you're underlying goal is to "win" some argument by exhaustion, then it might be better not to waste your time, as my future responses will be that you please review my previous posts, most especially the one requesting a burden of proof that has obviously not been met as policy describes it should be. (Though your good faith attempts to try meeting that burden are appreciated, even if not quite on the mark.) BigK HeX (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to rehash it, if your objections exist somewhere on this page you can just link to them or the diffs where you made them. But you have just as little right to declare your objections unanswered as we have to declare them answered, so you *must* engage in debate about the issues. When you refuse to debate or "rehash" them all you do is show that you have no arguments, and then the issue is no longer an issue. Your stated opinions of Synthesis here does *not* appear in the "Specific concerns above". We can then only draw the conclusion that this isn't an issue, and that you are simply filibustering. But I'll do your job and add them above. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please add explanation of what is SYN in the lead. The others are answered. Again. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incidental to my primary objection though - And what is that, exactly? Your states issue before is that you wnat a tertiary source, but you could never explain what needed a tertiary source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK: Your constant attempts of claiming there are issues, and refusing to state or discuss them isn't particularly helpful either. Above in the "Specific concerns with the article", there has been listed two concerns. They are in my opinion answered. If you don't think they are answered, why do you not discuss the issues under it's respective sub section? If you have other concerns why have you not, after repeated requests, not added them to that section? And if you do not agree with the proposed way forward, why did you not say so? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"In your opinion" ... now we're getting somewhere. Do you think you have a reasonable claim to relevant consensus for this OPINION of yours? BigK HeX (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this where I say, "No, you don't" and where we return to the massive talk page failure thing? Clearly, you've decided to just try to "win" your way through exhaustion and repetition instead of true reconciliation. I'd rather see reconcialition, personally ... and in "putting my money where my mouth is", I have this page. BigK HeX (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone judges others by their own pattern. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not everybody so readily engages in projection, as you seem to be suggesting here. BigK HeX (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Besides, according to you when is it *not* premature to declare the discussion over? Apparently it's too early to say so when people have stopped discussing. Is it only not premature when *you* say so?) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Or ... better than to ask me suggestive questions, perhaps, let's AGF a bit. BigK HeX (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done that all the time. I'm happy to hear you will do the same. Maybe you can then retract your accusations that I'm trying to disrupt the debate and win by exhaustion? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. well let me clarify, then. Let's AGF a bit when the alternative is baseless speculation. In case it's not clear, in contradiction to your baseless speculation, I have given ZERO indication that I would grant to myself the right to declare an end to a discussion with claims of "consensus" given what we're describing above. Contrast this to your statements here that there's an effective consensus to remove the NPOV violation tag. BigK HeX (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are clearly not going to AGF. Too bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since my AFD comment, which I think gets to the nub of the problem, is now hidden in a collapsed section, and is a call to action beyond the AFD, I repeat it here.

here's the nub of it, beneath much smoke and mirrors:

as PaulSiebert said: " Let me consider Democratic Kampuchea as an example. I found that, although reliable sources do draw a connection between KR's Communist beliefs and genocide there, at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them: a very strong Khmer nationalism and national tradition of revenge. Since both of these things have no roots in Marxism (and directly contradict to it), the really comprehensive analysis of the issue must include a discussion of mutual interaction and relative contribution of these factors."

The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing. It should be merged, split, turned inside out or whatever - whatever it takes to allow an appropriate analytical approach which neither downplays (for those concerned with this above all) the views of some about the role of Communist ideology in these cases, nor the role of other attendant factors specific to each; nor precludes inclusion of cases of mass killings where Communist ideology is not a plausible factor. That is why a Merge to mass killing is the only encyclopedic outcome. However, should this increasingly messy AFD not end with that, I hope somebody goes and expands mass killing appropriately, turns that into a good article which puts this one to shame and ultimately makes even its current supporters see the wisdom of a merge. Rd232 10:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. So far, I've seen roughly 5 pretty good suggestions of alternatives to the present state of affairs. If nothing else is decided, I hope to go over the alternatives later. BigK HeX (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them - Yes. And that means that Democratic Kampuchea is in itself, seen isolated, not any proof that Communism is related to the mass killing. And the same goes for all other cases too. What exactly do you mean is the problem with this? You are unclear on that in your comment above. If you say it is WP:SYN, I would agree I agree it would be SYN if this was just a collection of mass killings under communist rule. But it is not just that. It has many academic reliable sources in mainstream debate that directly connects communist rule and mass killings. And these theories are discussed under the "proposed causes" section. So it's *not* SYN, so that is not the problem (and you don't claim it is, I just want to clarify).
2. The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing - Why? It looks like you somehow arrive to that conclusion from your previous comment, but I don't see a connection. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Debate's alive, but it IS time for action! JOIN MEDIATION!

We are clearly at an impasse here. I'm not sure how this could be more clear. Everyone here means the best for the project, so let's take the next step towards forward progress -- click here to take that step. BigK HeX (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone clarify to me, what purpose of this mediation is? Is it going to be about NPOV tag debate, or about ways to fix POV, or what? How does the mediation work, anyway? Did anyone here have success/experience with mediation before, or it is just that you presume mediation is some sort of a panacea? (Igny (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

It's still not exactly clear what the foray into mediation will focus on, but I am hoping a break in the impasse on any significant issue will allow us to reach consensus on many other issues. We have a pretty well-clarified list of issues on the AfD page. Most of the issues are varieties of NPOV, so it'll likely be one of those. BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the idea of mediation for the reason described below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Iterated attempts to delete have failed - this page is to work on the article, not for infinite debate about settled issues

Clear enough? Collect (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those two (or three) observations of the obvious! BigK HeX (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD's positive result

The last AfD had one positive result, namely that several editors agreed that it would be useful to convert a Mass killing article into a full summary style article, and after that to return to this article as Mass killing's daughter article, and to bring it in accordance with the former. In connection to that I propose to stop any work on this article for a while and to switch to the Mass killing. I am busy for next three or four weeks, so I'll join this work later. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cough* This was agreed on *before* the AfD. See "A way forward" above and notice how little arguments against there is. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think mediation to be neither helpful nor useful here, because noone will be able to carefully analyse and take into account all numerous arguments put forward by all parties. However, creation of more general and concise article ("Mass killing") will make future mediation (if it will be still needed) technically more possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the accusing party just lays forward their complaints with the article in a clear, concrete and concise manner you will see that the defense will be perfectly able to do the same, and which case 99% of the compaints will be readily dismissed and we can discuss the few (if any) that remains. I agree with AmateurEditor that option for using spokespersons is a good idea, since that will avoid the general fuzzy "I don't like it therefore it's OR" complaints that so much of the stated "issues" are. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times you suggest that "you don't see the objections," they've been detailed quite clearly. You say that you are ready to answer these objections, but one of the things that is most clear in your responses to the threads is a conspicuous attempt shift the burden of proof, even though it is clearly spelled out in the policies quoted for your convenience. If you really are serious about answering the objections then please refer to the above thread and follow the Misplaced Pages-prescribed method for showing that the viewpoint is not one outside of academic acceptance. Anything less than an RS is not a useful answer to the objections detailed. BigK HeX (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul: if what BigK Hex describes is accurate, then mediation should help to iron at least some of that out. For example, an IDHT attitude would be harder to sustain in mediation (OpenFuture, I am not accusing you of this, just using it for the sake of argument). I agree that mediation may run into difficulties in taking into account the varied POVs presented here (a reason, actually, why representatives may not be a good idea - can any one editor speak for any one "side" of the case), but I think it could deal with some of the obstacles to productive discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation will hardly resolve the issue because the issue is simply unresolvable in present terms (delete vs keep). Remember, initially the article was created under the name "Communist genocide", and both the name and the scope of the article were quite legitimate: the article described the only confirmed case of genocide committed by the regime that declared adherence to a Marxist doctrine (I mean Kampuchea). The problems started to appear when the article became a collection of all mass mortality events under Communist regimes (and was renamed accordingly). The article's major issues are that it is based on minority views (the article's core is the views of scholars who see a commonality between these different events), whereas other views (e.g. the views of scholars who prefer to discuss each regime separately, and not in connection to Communism) cannot be included per SYNTH. Since this problem is theoretically fixable I see no reason to delete the article.

My conclusion is that no mediation is needed to decide if the article should be kept or not: the article should be kept. However, it should be profoundly modified to comply with NOR and NPOV. However, it will be much easier to do that when (not if) a full "Mass killings" article will be created, because it will allow us to look at the "Mass killings under Communists" article from different point of view. "Mass killing" is definitely a notable concept, it leaves much lesser space for POV, because most general sources cited in "Mass killings under Communist" in actuality tell about "Mass killings" in general, so I see no problem with the latter article. I'll start to work on it on August.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killing is a disambiguation page you will need a consensus to do as you suggest, an RFC on the talk page and posted on the articles linked to from it i think will be necessary mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of constructive arguments from you is just appalling. I do not need consensus to move the disambig page to mass killing (disambiguation). (Igny (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Of course you do, if someone types mass killing into the search the disambiguation should be the first to come up, not mass killing (disambiguation). Also, comment on content not editor. I was making a suggestion on how best to proceed on this course. However carry on, I do oppose any attempt to bury this article in it though, and a consensus for that will most certainly be needed mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The very existence of mass killings under Communist regimes warrants creation of the parent mass killing. There is actually no need for the mass killing disambiguation, because we already have genocide (disambiguation), holocaust (disambiguation), which link to the articles genocide or holocaust may refer to. What other article the mass killing disambig might link to, in your opinion? (Igny (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

I would also recommend reading WP:DAB guideline. WP needs disambiguation for ambiguous terms only. For example creating a disambig bad deeds with a link to bad deeds by some evil entity is a big no no, as partial matches are not a reason for disambiguation. And you are wrong again, the google search should come up with the main article on the subject, not a disambig page, as you suggested. (Igny (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

In actuality, disambiguation page should not be used here, because it is needed for ambiguous terms, e.g. for "the word "Mercury", which can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things". In this particular case, different mass killings are in actuality different parts of the same phenomenon (and some reliable sources explicitly state that, e.g. Valentino's book on mass killings contains a chapter on mass killings under Communist regimes); a summary style article is definitely needed, because the present disambiguation page creates an absolutely wrong impression that the subjects presented there are totally unrelated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Capitalist regimes

There is a new article called Mass killings under Capitalist regimes which has been listed for deletion. Editors here may wish to comment on that article because many of the same arguments used here are being used in that article. TFD (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly WP:POINT and thus may end up being deleted. That is, moreover, irrelevant to the ongoing, repeated, iterated and redundant discussions here. Collect (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The result of the Mass killings under Capitalist regimes AfD was Delete. The record, including the fabulously straw-grasping, any-port-in-a-storm result summary"While this is quite obviously WP:POINT,...it is WP:SYNTH", can be found here or at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes.

Four editors: OpenFuture, Shadowjams, Teeninvestor and Torchiest, voted to Delete the Capitalism article while voting to Keep this Communism article in a partially concurrent AfD.
Anarchangel (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All of which is fully irrelevant to this article talk page. Collect (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Need verification that Rummel is not mainstream and possibly fringe

There is a lot of discussion suggesting that Rummel is not a mainstream scholar when it comes to genocide and mass killings. The research that I have done has not come up with anything significant to indicate that. I would appreciate any help so that I can verify these assertions. Also there are suggestions that Rummel's writings are "fringe theory". Where can I verify that? Thanks Bobanni (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Rummel is "Fringe" is baseless. This has also been discussed on WP:RSN already. We can see on Google Scholar that Rummel has thousands of citations . He is not fringe. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No claim has been made that Rummel is fringe, because the term fringe applies to published works not to individuals. Articles written by Rummel that have appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals and books he has had published by academic publishers are mainstream, although they can be evaluated for their degree of acceptance. Books and articles of his published by non-academic publishers, for example Transaction Publishers, which publishes neoconservative polemical works, are fringe. Applied Factor Analysis and Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900 are reliable sources; Death by government is fringe. The same may be said for Isaac Newton: his writings on physics were mainstream while his writings on alchemy (e.g., turning lead into gold) were fringe. TFD (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does one go to verify that Death by Government is fringe? Bobanni (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here: As you see it's been cited by hundreds of other publications. It's clearly *not* fringe. But really it's not the publication that is fringe, but the ideas and theories, but that's almost impossible to prove either way, because it's so fuzzy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Go here.

See "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance.

Then notice that -- despite his many premature declarations of victory and endless handwaving, that OpenFuture has still failed to actually do as recommended by policy. (And that he persistently ignores this part of the policy ... as he will do again shortly, I'm sure.) BigK HeX (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please I need sources not opinions or conclusions of Wikipedian editors. RS publications or articles would be helpful in verifying these assertions. Bobanni (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none. Rummel, his books and his theories are not fringe. You will not find any sources to tell you he is. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bobanni asks for WP:RS.

OpenFuture says, "There is none."

Policy says, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance."

Looks like you have your answer, Bobanni. BigK HeX (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Bobanni asked for reliable sources that he is fringe. There is none. There is plenty of proper attribution among reliable sources. You'll find the link above. Again. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So .. now your basis for ignoring the policy is that you've suddenly been stricken by a case of poor comprehension of straightforward English? You have provided ZERO sources regarding Rummel's theory that "document...the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community". You can continue to refer to citation counts as a convenient distraction, but that certainly doesn't resemble following the Misplaced Pages directives pretty clearly described (and quoted for you many, many times).

Feel free to post an RS that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory". Of course, I expect another distraction from this. BigK HeX (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So .. now your basis for ignoring the policy - This is ad hominem, and clearly uncivil. Please retract. I do not ignore any policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's this? Now that there's a response containing no RS's, I've become a bit distracted from ... the FRINGE policy or whatever we were talking about. How unexpected... BigK HeX (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you find your own ad hominem arguments distracting, then maybe you should stop them? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is an assertion that Rummel relied on anti-semitic sources when estimating killings in Yugoslavia (Igny (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

The question if he is correct is another question than if he is fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When a respectable article says he relied on unreliable data, hearsay and biased sources, that is in plain English is equal to "fringe" (Igny (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

No, it is most definitely not. Please read WP:FRINGE to learn what the word means. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you questioning my learning capabilities here? (Igny (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Please stay on topic for this section. Please take this learning question elsewhere. Bobanni (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rummel wrote two books based on the same data, Death by Government (1997) and Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900 (1999). The second book was published by the academic press and is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A "Google Book Search Case Study" published by Google about Transaction Publishers states in part that, Transaction Publishers is widely recognized as a major independent academic publisher of books, well-defined series, and serial publications in the social sciences. Lt.Specht (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Leutnant, but independent means outside the mainstream academic community, in fact it is a euphemism for neoconservative. The pubishing company is run by Irving Horowitz. One neocon working in his basement does not an academic publisher make. (Hauptmann) TFD (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

on all of the claims above, TFD. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Need verification that Black Book of Communism is a fringe publication not accepted in the mainstream

There is a lot of discussion suggesting that Black Book of Communism is fringe publication not accepted in the mainstream. This figures quite prominently in many editing decisions. I have done some quick search to explore this connection and have come up empty. Can anyone direct me to publications and reviews that can be used to verify these assertions? Bobanni (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't really verify that it is fringe (which is why the accusations are so problematic). You can however verify that something is *not* fringe. , . Doesn't look fringe to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since fringe theories are by definition ignored by the academic community, one would not expect to see them analyzed in mainstream sources on the subject. However some academic writers have written about the theories advanced in the introduction to the Black Book. In French writers and the politics of complicity (JHU Press, 2006), Richard J. Golsan accuses Courtois of historical revisionism. There are many other high quality sources that similarly dismiss Courtois' historical theories with similar criticisms, which I could list if required. Some have already been mentioned in past discussions. TFD (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, his numbers are probably inflated. So we don't use them. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we rationalize this with other sources that others that take a different view such as review in Canadian Journal of History August 1, 2001 by Jolanta T.Pekacz

"The Black Book of Communism, a collective work of a group of European scholars published first in French in 1997, is the first global balance sheet of crimes against humanity committed by communist regimes since the October Revolution in 1917 in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's European satellites, and the Soviet-backed countries in Asia and the Third World. The authors amassed a huge amount of material from the best available sources, including newly opened Soviet archives, which reveal the unprecedented cruelty and scale of communist genocide. After eighty years of communism the cumulative total of its victims is estimated by the authors at between 85 and 100 million (by comparison, the Nazis were responsible for about 25 million deaths). This record makes communism responsible for the largest political carnage in history"

Bobanni (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Golsans book is an attempt to stamp Courtois as a fascist by guilt by association. It takes up complicity by French authors, which is definitely something that happened a lot, but ignores the fact that most of the French intellectuals who were aligned with anti-democrats were communists. There is a reason the book is about "the 1940's and 1990's", because in between the complicity was all communist. Which he just ignores. There is a reason it has 1 citation on Google Scholar. :-)

In short: The "deletionists" here has been looking for excuses to ignore these sources since the article was created last year. They have failed. Give up. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Pekacz's article is a book review. It is not even an area that she writes about. Many books are reviewed in peer-reviewed journals, but that does not elevate the books or the reviews to peer-reviewed literature. Also book reviews are written at the time of publication, and therefore do not incorporate academic criticism which of course would not yet have been published. (I can provide more information about this anomaly if you like.) She does say,

And yet the book was acclaimed a "highly controversial bestseller." How can an account of facts be controversial?

The controversy was partly sparked by Stephane Courtois, who in the introduction to the volume compared communism's "class genocide" with Nazism's "race genocide" and classified both as crimes against humanity. Such classification implies, of course, that communist crimes should be subject to moral condemnation and legal judgement the same way the Nazis' crimes have been. Yet, communism has never had its Nuremberg and it may never have. Debates as to what extent the comparison between communism and Nazism is legitimate divided their participants, including the authors of The Black Book.

Certainly Pekacz is correct in saying that the Black Book is the first book that attempts to catalog the crimes of Communism and that it has used sources not previously available. Later scholars have ignored the connections drawn in the introduction and rejected the conclusions reached on numbers, although they have accepted the validity of primary documents in the archives of Eastern Europe, which were first examined by the authors of the Black Book.

Golsan is a noted scholar on French intellectual history, and his view of the book is a mainstream view. See his cv. He correctly notes that the Black Book's introduction was based on the views of François Furet and Ernst Nolte, both of whom were highly controversial and whose views have received the same criticism that the Black Book did.

A clear distinction must be made however between attempts to deny or minimize crimes committed by Communist regimes (which scholars do not do) and acceptance of Courtois's opinions. Even if the Black Book had been highly regarded, we still would have to report that it is one of a range of opinions, rather than the authoritative interpretation.

TFD (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's also worth noting here that most of the scholarly disagreement of this topic is about how many died, not that communist regimes did a lot of mass killings. So in any case of where this article mentions numbers, it would be prudent to mention several sources and a "between X and Y", and not just one number. (That is, exactly when it comes to the Black Book, and not exactly at all when it comes to your comment about Golsan). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please explain your comment, "That is, exactly when it comes to the Black Book, and not exactly at all when it comes to your comment about Golsan". Exactly what? Also, while we could present a range, we should also point out which figures are more accepted, which can be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. (And not exactly right, when it comes to Golsan). Sorry for being unclear. We should not present any numbers that can not be reliably sourced. All of the sources for numbers mentioned in this discussion are reliable (unless I've missed a mention of some obscure one) but Courtois numbers are not generally accepted. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still missing your point about Golsan. What is "exactly right"? TFD (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again: What you said about Golsan is *not* exactly right. In fact, it's wrong. The rest I agree with. Hence the "exactly" comment. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Balance

Having recently come to this article (and almost wishing I hadn't) it seems confused in purpose and deeply ideological in nature

• To list mass killings under communist regimes is obviously legitimate, some of the horror stories of the last Century are all there
• However there seems to be a strong editorial position in the article which seeks to argue that such horror is an inevitable consequence of Communism. Such a view is present in the literature, but there appears to be a desire to keep stacking in more and more quotes, when the point can be made once that such a position is held with some references.
• We have the frequent US confusion which equates anything left wing (by US standards) with communism, where the writing is in effect a polemic for a particular variety of capitalism
• In terms of balance capitalism has killed at least as many if not more people by neglect (and sometimes deliberately) and there are cases of near genocide (Australian Aboriginals for one) arising from indifference. I was always taught that a sin of omission is as great as a sin of commission.

I'd suggest that the "explanatory" sections need to be radically cut down and the reporting of events (which is anything should be expanded) have any ideological content removed. --Snowded 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Many agree with your observations (especially #2). There is an small army of editors who rather prefer a presentation of the information that keeps the current blatant ideological writing. BigK HeX (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

However there seems to be a strong editorial position in the article which seeks to argue that such horror is an inevitable consequence of Communism. - Where does that seem to be such an editorial position? Can you point it out so it can be rectified?

In terms of balance capitalism has killed at least as many if not more people by neglect (and sometimes deliberately) and there are cases of near genocide (Australian Aboriginals for one) arising from indifference. - Then it's also the fault of trees, because they are also indifferent to the suffering of Aboriginals. And rocks. And Fishes. I look forward to "Mass killings caused by the indifference of Crustaceans". :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Section 3.1 needs to be cut back to a paragraph with citations, at the moment its a political list

At the risk of giving a 101 lecture in ethics, a tree can not be held responsible if someone is mugged under its boughs, but we would take a very different view of a human being simply stood there and watched it happen. As to crustaceans, well hiding in shells to escape reality comes to mind. --Snowded 04:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Section 3.1 now outlines several different scholarly opinions on the subject. Cutting it down to one paragraph with citations is impossible while preserving NPOV and not giving one or a few particular scholars WP:UNDUE weight. Also I don't see what the problem is with that section from the issues you stated above. That section doesn't have any "editorial position". It just outlines available scholars view of things. If you think there is a scholar who is missing or shouldn't be in there, that would make sense, but this request doesn't. I thought your problem was with the article in general. Now it seems your problem with the article is that you don't like what it says. Well, that can't be helped.

And at the risk of giving a 101 lecture in economics, capitalism is not a person. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

They are all making very similar points, the long list is an attempt to give undue weight to a particular explanation amongst several

At the risk of a 101 lecture in systems and cognition (as well as ethics) the economic systems we adopt either as a result of upbringing or as a result of deliberate choice produce moral consequences --Snowded 05:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although a couple of the ideas are the same, most of them are actually quite different. They don't contradict each other, so they could be merged, but we can't do that, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS if you can find one reliable source that takes a look at the other research and summarizes it, then that would solve the problem. Claiming that it gives undue weight to one view because it includes many is kinda strange. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The section concerned argues that it is the nature of communism which is the cause of the problem, it doesn't require every single variation of that to be listed with multiple quotes many (such as the Trotsky one) completely out of context. --Snowded 08:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

it doesn't require every single variation of that to be listed - Yes, it does, as there is no tertiary sources summarizing this and coming up with a consensus view on what in the communist ideology that causes mass killings. If we were to change that and say "Many scholars believe mass killings are caused by the nature of communist ideology", that would be WP:SYN.

You seem to be saying that by listing every scholars view, the view that communism was responsable gets undue weight. This is clearly not true, because each scholar is given about the same place. When doing that, the opinion that the ideology is to blame clearly has more weight, but it's also clearly not *undue* since this in fact is the most common view amongst scholars. The problem here is simply that you don't like it. But Misplaced Pages doesn't care what you, I or any one else here likes and doesn't like.

I do agree the Trotsky quote can go. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try and address content issues. Its not just listing multiple authors, but its also extensive quotes. An encyclopedia summarises it does not list everything. There may be a few strands in the thought that can be summarised with references to the authors. Please advise your third party source which says this is the most common view --Snowded 08:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

but its also extensive quotes. - So? They are all "extensively" quoted. That's not undue weight.

There may be a few strands in the thought that can be summarised with references to the authors. - That would be WP:SYN.

Please advise your third party source which says this is the most common view - Again: If there was a tertiary source, *then* we could summarize. There isn't and hence we can't. Your objections are invalid. You are welcome with new objections if you have any, but the claim of undue weight is clearly false. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK so your comment that this was the majority view is not supported? I think you are confused on WP:SYN but we are not going to get much further discussing it one to one here. If I get time in the next week I will draft a change. --Snowded 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly the majority view, as you can see from the article. No, we don't have a tertiary source stating it. Is this somehow confusing for you? I think it's pointless to draft a change unless you understand why we are listing each scholar separately instead of making a WP:SYN out of it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right in a sense that article clearly presents it as the majority view. But Showded is right saying that the article is unbalanced by giving undue weight to a particular point of view. (Igny (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

• 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