Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 07:09, 30 June 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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)

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

How should allegations of genocide against Ceausescu be described? Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians? Should we give equal weight to both? TFD (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceauşescu was convicted of the Dec. 17, 1989 mass killings of 60,000 people at Timişoara, which was widely reported at the time. However, the Museum of the 1989 Romanian Revolution in Timisoara states that the actual number was 97. Modern scholarship places the total at fewer than 1,000. TFD (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I would suggest killing the article. It has created a situation that CAN NOT be solved.Aaaronsmith (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no grounds for that, Aaaronsmith. Please see the previous AfD. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. It's still a terrible article. The problem is not the subject, notability, or documentation. The problem(s) are: A lack of definition for what is to be included (does a mass execution of genuine criminals count? And what is a genuine criminal?), an impossibly huge and contentious subject. Notability aside, there is not way this article can avoid POV (of some kind), ever be complete, ever get even marginal agreement that it has been properly structured to INFORM the reader and not disINFORM by omission and vagueness.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not clutter up this space with a tangent. If you really want to discuss this, start a new section. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of re-opening Pandora's Box, I'm going to also say that having article by this name is a really bad idea. All of the material in this article can easily be included in an article on, for instance, mass killings, rather than have an article whose very title is created to promote a particular point of view. These types of articles have huge NPOV problems. While we're at it, why not have an article titled 'Jews Convicted of Usury', or 'Republicans Convicted of Sex Crimes', or 'African Americans Convicted of Murder'? An article like this violates NPOV before it even gets off the ground. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This box has never been closed. However, your arguments are not completely correct: we cannot have the article 'African Americans Convicted of Murder' because no serious scholar proposed a theory connecting African Americans and murders. By contrast, there are some scholars who connect Communism and mass killings, therefore, the article has a right to exist. However, this article should be devoted to these theories only, not to the events they describe, because other interpretations of these events also exist that discuss the same events without connecting mass killings and Communism as a concept.

The article created a situation when the neutrality policy comes into a contradiction with no-original-research policy: neutrality requires us to present all points of view (including the point of view of those scholars who see no connection between Communism and mass killings, or consider such a connection non-essential), however, no-original-research prohibits us to include such a statement into the article (because many scholars who study history of the USSR, PRC, etc. simply ignore the theories like Democide or Politicide). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• • Comment I did not suggest that the article should use the terms "however" or "indictment", which is absolutely clear by what I wrote above. I mentioned the indictment because it outlined the charges for which Ceausescu was convicted. The actual conviction does not do this - it says he was convicted of the charges in the indictment. Smallbones, where did you get the idea that the numbers in the indictment could possibly be true? Please provide a source that says any reputable source accepts this figure. TFD (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply you asked for a comment - I consider it to be in very bad form to then argue about the comment. Nobody should argue about a suggestion to identify which mass murder you are talking about. As I see it, you have been questioning whether any mass murder at all occurred; confusing the issue by quoting several sources which quote different numbers in different languages without identifying which mass murders they are talking about, and then arguing for deleting the section because of the confusion. What you need to do is find sources that state what you think happened - how many people were murdered under what circumstances. Nobody argues that NC was NOT convicted of mass murder. If you disagree with the source cited, you need to GET a SOURCE that squarely eliminates the confusion. If the sources disagree, so be it. But do not add to the confusion and then argue to delete. Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning the source: the source in fact does not say that Ceausescu was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 people. What I am saying is that the actual number killed should be sourced. I find it ironic that you would accept the findings of this court as the truth. TFD (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not our function here to determine "truth"; it is only our function to assure verifiability. See WP:V. Where editors insist that their view of truth be what is presented, they are basically ignoring WP policy. Collect (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, our function is three-prong: verifiability, neutrality and no original research. I doubt this section to meet these criteria. If mass killings really took place, the reliable academic sources must exist that clearly state that. Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania. Otherwise, the section should be removed per WP:SYNTH--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is taking multiple sources to each support part of a single claim in a single sentence. Such is not the case here. The source used states that NC was found guilty by a court of mass killings. It is not up to us to judge the court, or to state that the matters of fact found by the court are not "true." And the requirement is that the source be "reliable" not that it be "academic" by the way. The NYT is not "peer reviewed" and is an RS under WP policies. Collect (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you are claiming that the findings of the tribunal that convicted Ceausescu are a reliable source for facts. Can you please point to any guideline that supports your faith. TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 (UTC)

Re: "Synthesis is taking multiple sources" Correct. frankly, I meant WP:OR, synthesis is a part of. In connection to that, please, compare my words:

" Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania."

with:

" To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

Please, demonstrate that the Romania section is not WP:OR. Per WP:BURDEN you must do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Out) No - I am claiming that a RS reported what the tribunal did. WP:V is not about "truth" or "facts" - it is about "verifiability." It is most specifically not up to editors to determine "truth." As to the OR claim, as long as the individual claims are sdirectly supported by RS sources, and as long as no conclusion is drawn therefrom, OR does not apply. To wit: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. If the material is as cited and is found in RS sources, and no synthesis occurred, then WP:OR has not been violated. Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the source telling about the tribunal is reliable, and it meets reliable sources criteria. However, since this article not about NC, and not about tribunal, to conclude from this source that Communist mass killings took place in Romania would be WP:OR. Again, please, demonstrate the opposite, otherwise I'll remove the section soon. By "demonstrate" I mean to provide quotes and sources that explicitly state that mass killings were perpetrated by the Communist regime in Romania. If these killings really occurred, and if the issue is notable enough, it will be not a problem to find such sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania. That is what the source explicitly says. It is a relaibkle source. It is not OR to aver that NC was a Communist <g>. In fact, the NYT says he was a Communist. No OR. The source is RS. The cite remains proper. "If they really occurred" seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." That is, moreover, the one thing as editors we can not try using as a rationale. Collect (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that the numbers of victims in the indictment against Ceausescu, for which he was convicted, were false. There is no reason why we should not accept what reliable sources state with the argument that no one can "know the truth". Remember that articles are based on verifiability not truth. TFD (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania." Correct. However, to include this fact into the article about mass killings is OR, because the source does not directly support the idea that these mass killings really took place. Again, if you believe they did, please, find the source that directly state that.

Re: "seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." " I know the WP policy; I also started to suspect that there were no mass killings in Romania, because, despite my multiple requests, noone has provided reliable sources so far that tell about mass killings (not conviction) in NC's Romania.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful Paul, you're being too logical/correct for Misplaced Pages. You'll just make people hate you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard about the shooting of demonstrators described as mass killings. When the US government shot students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State it was called a "massacre" not a mass killing. How is this different? TFD (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that 97 is a greater number than 4? Most people do not consider 4 to be a very large number. Meanwhile, it is up to us to use the words used in reliable sources, not to assert what we "know." NYT NC hired assassins to kill dissidents and to try to kill radio employees. General Plesita showed no remorse for crushing anti-Communist dissent.. Mr. Ceausescu literally sold ethnic Germans to the West German government for hard currency, several thousand dollars worth for each of them, in return allowing roughly 10,000 to 15,000 of them to emigrate each year from 1978 to 1989. but he built such a brutal cult of personality and such a foreign debt that he ended up the only leader to be executed. et alia. The sources make claims - it is not for us to say the claims in RS sources are not what we "know" to be wrong. Collect (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly ignore the point: noone questions the validity of the source's statements. However, to state that mass killings (50,000 for 5 years or less) occurred in Communist Romania would mean to make a conclusion, which constitute an original research (and simply contradicts to what the source states).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the strongest opponents of the US used the term My Lai Massacre, not My Lai mass killings, even though more people were killed there than during the Romanian revolution. And Ceausescu's agreement with the West German government had nothing to do with mass killings. TFD (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Romania section may exist in the article only if some reliable source supports the fact that mass killings took place there. Instead of wasting my time in endless discussions with the person who refuses to get absolutely clear point, I've performed a search and I found that almost nothing is known about mass killings in Romania. However, I found a table in the Valentino's book where Romania is listed among the states where some killings may have occurred, although the evidences are insufficient to judge about their scale, intentionality of motives. Such a statement is sufficient to include the Romania section into the article. -

Based on that, I include the materials from the Valentino's book into the article, remove the OR tag and delete all non-relevant material from the section. I also propose to close this RfC, because the issue is resolved. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why single Romania? The book uses the same terms about Bulgaria and DDR. Better have a section under the Controversies header listing "possible cases". Also, a note in the article about Valentino's domain of expertise would be needed, as he used a lot of time as a source.Anonimu (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is a table in Valentino's book where he says, "All figures in this... table are author's esimates based on numerous sources". It seems that if we are going to mention cases of estimates of possible cases then we should use the sources upon which Valentino relies. Incidentally, the entry is for East Germany not the DDR. Presumably this occurred during de jure Soviet occupation in 1945-1949 since the cause listed is "Political repression by Soviet Union". TFD (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the US and many other nations never recognized the "DDR" and continued to refer to it as "East Germany." For the earlier era it was called the "Soviet Zone." (Hallstein Doctrine) The FRG and DDR joined the UN in 1973 - well after your 1949 date. So much for that cavil. Collect (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In 1972 the two Germanies agreed to recognize each other and they were both admitted into the UN in 1973. The GDR was recognized by the US and the GDR and the US exchanged ambassadors. However none of this is relevant. The term "East Germany" refers both to the Soviet Zone and the GDR. We should not say that mass killings may have occurred in the GDR when the source says "East Germany" - the reference to "political oppression by Soviet Union" may have occurred during the Soviet de jure occupation (which by the way was recognized by the United States) rather than 1949-1989. TFD (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Any killings from 1949 to 1972 would be described as "East Germany" which appears to be the case in the RS source. Collect (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What reason do you have to believe that Valentino would make this distinction? TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you want to change Paul Siebert's edit for Romania, please use reliable sources that support what you are putting in. TFD (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since they were reliable sources for the claims made in the first place, your comment is useless here. Collect (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources must also be relevant (simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article). TFD (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The sourrces refer to Ceausescu. I assume that the fact he was a Communist is not seriously in dispute, nor the fact that he was from Romania, nor the fact that he ruled Romania under a "communist regime", nor the fact that he was convicted of mass killings. The article is about mass killings under communist regimes. Seems 4 for 4 on being related. What other article fits that 4 for 4 fit? Collect (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say he committed mass killings. Please find a source that says he did. Also, do not assume, please see WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources say he was convicted. Which was what I said. No assumptions involved. Still 4 for 4. Collect (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No sources say he committed mass killings under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The present article tells nothing about the leader's fate. For instance, nothing is said about de-Stalinisation in the USSR. One way or the another, any attempts to re-introduce the text about NC conviction will be reverted per WP:BURDEN until more reliable sources on mass killings will be provided. However, I doubt it is possible taking into account that such a serious scholar as Valentino failed to find anything concrete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Collect that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to promote anti-Communism or other American extremist views but to present a fair and balanced opinion of subjects. I would also like to point out that distorting sources will probably discredit your views and that the best way to defend your views is to insist on accurate presentation of facts. TFD (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting misleading information into the article is unhelpful, and will make it appear more like an anti-Communist tract that a neutral account of mass killings under Communist regimes. While the intentions may be noble, to warn people of the dangers of Communism, it may also have the opposite effect, because anyone looking into the Ceausescu trial would see that this article is misleading and therefore question the entire article. However unpopular a system of government may be, we must not abandon neutrality in writing about it. TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A commnent from the Guardian is unlikely to represent "American extremism." Nor does the new material make any specific accusation agaoinst Ceausescu. Collect (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Straw man issues such as "American extremist views" are a personal attack, and I insist that the attack be stricken. Such has no place on this talk page, or on any talk page. Collect (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, the term "straw man" has a specific meaning and is inapplicable here. It was not my intention to personally attack you, so I have rephrased my comments. TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, could you next time formulate RFC questions better? It looks as if the murder of NC and his wife is equated to "genocide against Ceausescu". To the point: whatever the killers invented in the heat of the moment should be clearly labeled as such - gunmen's apology. They could say 60 thousand, or 600. That's the way the revolutions work, the loser takes it all and pays the bill for everybody. East of Borschov (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am at fault and I changed it. You make an interesting point though. Ceausescu was convicted by a Communist court and may therefore be a "Victim of Communism". However one editor, User:Collect, thinks that the findings of Communist courts are reliable sources and take precedence over the opinions of American academics. TFD (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Making false statements about what I "think" ill-serves your position. I insist that WP:V is official policy here, and that the New York Times is a reliable source for stating that Romanians were found guilty of genocide. And others at RSN agree that the New York Times is a reliable source for that sort of factual information. I also insist that inserting what an editor "knows" is directly contrary to WP policy and rules. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You should not insist on inserting what you know about about mass killings in Romania but should find reliable sources. The findings of a Communist tribunal are not a reliable source. Also, please avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting. TFD (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is "quotation marks" and use is dictated by manuals of style, not by your "knowing" what "quote marks" must be used for. The use of quotation marks around "know" is thus proper and correct. What I believe to be proper in an article is material found in reliable sources which means the Guardian and NYT meet that requirement of WP:V. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source for your position on the use of "quotation marks"? TFD (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What a strange debate, why is it even going on? Ceausescu was convicted of mass killings, this was widely reported so why is it an issue? There are even books on the subject, Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes The future of Germany and the Atlantic Alliance really what exactly is the issue? mark nutley (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As explained at the top of this section this strange debate is about "Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians?" The second source you provide says, "On the orders of Ceausescu, hundreds and perhaps thousands of these protesters were killed on December 19, 1989". Those are the numbers accepted by historians. However, Collect and others insist on presenting the numbers in the indictment, which is 60,000. What do you think? By the way, your first reference does not mention mass killings by Nicolae Ceausescu at all. Could you please take the time to read your sources before presenting them. TFD (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange as the first source says, mass killings during the 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the ceusescu regime perhaps you should take the time to read the sources before commenting? Also i`m with collect on this, we use what the sources say and if the sources say 60k were killed then that`s what goes into the article per wp:v Lets face it 60k is on the low side for murder for NC. mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although the words "straw man" have been already utilized here, that was done in the incorrect way. Let me point out that this RfC as whole is a typical example of the straw man fallacy. Firstly, it is impossible to question the fact that NC was found guilty of genocide by revolutionary tribunal, and all sources that describe that fact are reliable and unquestionable. Secondly, these reliable sources do not provide independent confirmation of the fact that mass killings took place. In other words, these sources are quite reliable for the circumstances of NC conviction and execution, however, they are not reliable for the very fact of genocide. Thirdly, we already have a reliable source in the article that states that the data about mass killing are insufficient for making judgement, therefore, it would be an original research to write that the fact of genocide has been well established.
One way or the another, the attempt to use WP:V as a pretext for violation of WP:NOR is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While in this case, the people accused of genocide were acting under the instructions of Nicolae Ceausescu, it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. Anyway you are missing the point. No reliable source uses the figure 60,000. If you want to use that number, then please provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. " By writing this you provide your opponents with additional arguments. Obviously, the source is both valid and reliable, however, it is used in incorrect way. The problem is not with the source but with its usage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to , which does not say anything about Ceausescu's connection with mass killings. (Of course one may infer that since mass killings occurred under his regime, he committed mass killings.) TFD (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people I hope the BBC is reliable enough mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says, "initial reports suggested many hundreds had been killed. In fact the number of dead was probably fewer than 100.... Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people...." Could you please provide a reliable source that states 60,000 people were killed. TFD (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you not actually read the sources? The initial reports is about the actual uprising, not how many people he had put to death. That is a reliable source saying he was accused of killing 60k people, do you have a source saying he did not? mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But here`s another source saying he killed 60k Lawrence Journal-World - Dec 26, 1989

The source you provide is a Dec. 26th editorial from the Lawrence Journal-World of Lawrence, Kansas that says "Ceausescu reportedly was responsible for killing 60,000 Romanians...." Do you have a source saying that he killed 60,000 people? BTW we do not add false information to articles and require people challenging it to provide a source that disputes it, although in fact historians do dispute this figure. TFD (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now given you two sources which say he was accused of killing 60k people i have also given sources from books which say he was a mass murderer and was tried for it exactly what is it about these sources you have an issue with? mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And another The Age and another The Herald mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, these are contemporaneous news stories that report the charges against Ceausescu, not sources that he killed 60,000 people. I noticed that you added text to the Romania section where you refer to the conviction but not to scholarly estimates of the actual numbers. This is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Also, you have used a source that is about trials that took place after Ceasescu's death. Furthermore, your section is poorly written. It ends with a part sentence. TFD (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All those sources say he was accused of killing 60k people, everything you removed was reliably sourced. The section was written just fine, your removal of reliably sourced material is disruptive and i shall ask you to self revert. Note this, i did not say nor did the sources that he killed 60k people, the section stated he was accused of this per so self revert please mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems with your edit:

• It is poorly written. Schabas' book was not a novel, which normally refers to a work of fiction (i.e., about things that did not happen.) Also, the last sentence is incomplete.
• It says Ceausescu was executed "for the mass murder of 60 thousand people over the course of the Ceausescu regime". In fact the source does not say that this was over the course of the regime. Also, it implies that 60,000 people were murdered, which is speculation.
• WP:NPOV requires that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That does not mean that we report a discredited finding at a summary trial but ignore the consensus of historians.

TFD (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are in error The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" is most certainly in the book the sentence is not incomplete at all. It is not poorly written, that is your pov. wp:npov were is the bias in reporting what the sources say? there is none. Last chance please self revert or i will revert you for removing reliably sourced material from an article without a policy based reason mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The final sentence in your edit reads, In his novel Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" . It is normal in English to use two sets of quotes and to end sentences with periods. Why do you call the book a novel? Also, it leaves a false impression that the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. I have fully explained my position about why this is NPOV and see no value in repeating it. By the way, this is an RfC and perhaps other editors will weigh in on the subject. In the meantime, please note that this article is under a 1RR restriction and therefore you cannot re-insert this subject matter which is the subject matter of this discussion. TFD (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And again you are mistaken, even though this article is under 1r i most certainly can revert you. There is no false impression here, the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, your point makes no sense. It is not normal when quoting from a book or another source to use "stuff here" and it is normal to end a sentence with a full stop, not a period. You appear to be grasping at straws here, btw policy dictates you should have improved upon the content not removed it, if you thought "Novel" was wrong you should have replaced it with book mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu in the entire "novel". And yes 1RR applies. TFD (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You will be pleased to see i have taken your concerns seriously, I have changed novel-book and i added the missing ", problems solved mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu Erm, he mentions the Ceausescu Regime of which she was a part, did you actually have a point? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i think you will find in what i added she is mention in this ref The BBC, not the book. mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1. As it was shown several times already, the 60,000 figure is not supported by any modern (post-1995) reliable source. The fact that some reputable sources reported the allegations in 1989 doesn't mean that we should ignore newer research (just like we don't quote Strabo when he say the word is flat, even if his works are a prerequisite for any serious study about European antiquity).
2. Unless, there's a source explicitly saying the Ceausescu committed mass killing because he was a leader of a communist regime, his mention here is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Otherwise we can create an article about Mass killing under non-Communist regimes, where we can include all mass killing in history until 1848, and 80% of the ones after 1848. If you want to present original ideas in this article, please produce a research paper, get it peer reviewed by a reputable institution, and then we will discuss. Until then, please read again what Misplaced Pages is really about.Anonimu (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed during the regime which is what the sources i added clearly state. I have no need to produce a paper nor get it peer reviewed so don`t be silly, per wp:v the sources and what they say stand, try again please mark nutley (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment just shows one more time that you aren't interested in facts or building consensus, just in promoting a certain opinion. Otherwise you would have noticed the numerous sources presented again and again, that show the figure you cite had no relation whatsoever with reality. Yes, the verifiability policy allows you to use those sources, but on a relevant article, such as one about Nicolae Ceausescu or Nicolae Ceausescu's trial, the present article being neither of them. Also, per WP:NPOV you should not give undue weight to allegations proven wrong, and acknowledged as such even by the people who originated them (in this case, the leadership of the Romanian revolution).Anonimu (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed..." Sorry, but per WP:BURDEN the burden of proof rest with those who adds materials, not removes it. Nevertheless, such a source exists and it has already been cited in the article. Valentino in his book argues that more than 60,000 may have been killed starting from 1947, however, the documentary evidences are insufficient to make more concrete conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead during the regime did not happen according to modern sources, yet all three fail to provide links to sources saying that 60k people did not die under the regime. Either provide sources to back the claims you are making or give it up mark nutley (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You must have trouble understanding sources. All your sources clearly say that figure is only what Ceausescu's executioners claimed. On the other hand. Another source you quoted, says explicitly: "genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in the thousands". It's clear for anyone with a average knowledge of the English language that the source says that the death toll was less than "in the thousands", which corroborates with this reliable source, that says "the genocide charge was based on the killing of several hundred civilians". You can also see in this reliable sources (page 156 and on), how the US media already began to back down on the figure in January 1990, which reached 10,000 on the 10th, 4,000 to 7,000 on the 12th, only to reach several hundreds in March 1990. The 60,000 figure is clearly untenable. You can report the accusation in an article about Ceausescu, making it clear who and in what context made the accusation, but not in this article.Anonimu (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead" You demonstrated complete misunderstanding of WP policy. Firstly, WP is not a democracy. Secondly, since I do not insert new claims into the article, I do not have to provide any sources. By contrast, you (as well as some other editors) want to add some material, so, please, provide a quote form the reliable source that states that 60,000 were killed (not believed to be killed, because such a source, which was added by me, is already in the article). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your full of crap, an edit can`t be reverted out on the pretext that there is new research stating that 60k people did not die under the regime and then not supply the actual sources for it. The links you posted above only deal with the uprising, C was convicted of murdering 60k people during his regime which is what the sources i added actually say. Now either show your source saying he did not have that many murdered or i`ll put it back in mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceausescu's fellow Communists claimed he killed 60,000 people and shot him. Unlike Marknutley, I do not believe that the statements of Communist officials take priority over those of historians. TFD (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is getting real boring real fast, were are the sources? Were are the papers by these historians which say 60k people did not die during the C regime? You guys keep saying there are some, lets see them mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been provided, but apparently you choose only to accept official Communist statements. While I appreciate we may have different points of view, we are bound to follow WP:Neutrality. TFD (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No sources have been provided at all, just a lot of hot air. Sources now or my edit goes back in mark nutley (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are contained in the second paragraph this RfC. You may find it helpful to actually read the contents of RfCs before responding to them. Regardless the burden is on you to provide reliable sources for information you wish to insert. TFD (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding right? A Travel Agent which does not even mention how many died during the C regime. The Genocide Convention: an international law analysis only mentions how many might have dies during the uprising, not how many died during the C Regime. My sources are for how many died throughout the length of the regime, so i reckon my edit stands per wp:v and wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first source, the BBC, says they were "accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been charged in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis). Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara. (Please do not belittle the 1989 Revolution Museum, Timisoara because it is a tourist attraction. The British Museum is also a tourist attraction. In fact it says exactly what your first and third souces say.) TFD (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point is? That is what my edit says they were accused and then shot. However you are focusing on the uprising, not the regime lenght, the aources talk of those dead during the length of the regime not just during the uprising, spot the difference. Your tourist museum source is riddled with spelling errors and mistakes, it is not a reliable source for this at all mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, please do not denigrate the museum, which merely states the facts that are shown in your sources. Where is your evidence that there were any killings before the uprising? Can you at least name one victim? TFD (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again it`s not a museum it`s a travel agents. All the sources i used in my edit say there were 60k dead during the C regime. The BBC were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 peopleThe Herald Journal Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime All reliable sources, all saying the same thing he was accused and executed for the murder of 60k people throughout the course of his regime. mark nutley (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW Can you at least name one victim? Vasile Milea mark nutley (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Vasile Milea died during the 1989 revolution along with hundreds of others. In fact he was not a victim of Ceasescu at all. However I was referring to victims from before the revolution - we are agreed that there were victims in December 1989. (No, I cannot name any vicims before the 1989 revolution.)TFD (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Care to comment on the sources i presented? mark nutley (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first source, the BBC, says they were "accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been charged in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis). Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara. TFD (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that, yes that is what the sources say. And that is what my edit also said. So what exactly is your issue with the edit i made to the article? btw the third source also says as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime strange that you missed that out mark nutley (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider the Communist Party of Romania to be a reliable source. I do not know if you are a Communist or a Romanian and hold neither against you but WP is based on reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This apparently reliable source give the figure of 1,104 deaths during the 1989 revolution: http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/The-fall-of-Communism/The-Romanian-revolution-and-the-price-of-freedom Are you talking about deaths during his entire time in power? Here is his obit from the NY Times - no mention of allegations of genocide: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicolae_ceausescu/index.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The factual material from the NYT was removed on the basis that a source using "genocide" in it does not mean "mass killing." I know of no reason for removal of the Guardian cite at all. Query: Does "Genocide" imply "Mass killing"? I ratbher thinbk it is implicit. Especially as the UN defined "genocide" as including ""any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." How one can thus claim that "genocide" somehow fails to fall within the purview of this article is rather hard to comprehend. Please restore that material, as being fully sourced and germane. Collect (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the quote provided by you demonstrate you were wrong. Not all mass killings are genocide and not all genocides imply mass killings. For instance, Nazi program of Germanisation of the Poles ("forcibly transferring children of the group to another group") was a genocide, however it was not mass killing.

However, my point is different. You problem is that you make a wrong emphasis. The source is irrelevant because it tells about allegation of genocide, not allegation of genocide (the emphasis on the word "allegation", not "genocide"). The statement that some people may have been killed in Socialist Romania is already in the article, so the quotes provided by you give no additional information and create a visibility of clarity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Try Conviction not allegation. Convictions are generally regarded as facts, last I checked. Your mileage varies? Collect (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Conviction by some court in some Western country mean much more than just allegation (although the difference between "legally proven" and "scientifically established" is huge). However, the situation with NC was different: he was never convicted by more or less objective court to speak about any truth (btw, that can equally mean his actual crimes were greater, not smaller). One way or the another, I already presented this argument, so I see no reason to re-iterate all of that again and again. Try to provide anything fresh.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The NYT source does not refer to NC, so the cavil about him is not relevant. Collect (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, many of the victims in this article were in fact convicted by Commmunist tribunals of treachery. Should these be excluded because we can assume as fact that they were guilty of the charges? TFD (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Find RS sources and add that in then - but excluding the NYT is silly. I would be delighted to see sources saying that those killed under communist rule in Romania were executed for "treachery" as you state. Add them. Collect (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the NYT say that the allegations in the indictment on which Ceuasescu was convicted may be considered to be facts? Where in WP policy does it say that a conviction verifies facts? TFD (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The NYT cite I gave does not accuse NC of anything, thus it certainly does not even say he was convicted. It does say that certain Romaniand were convicted og genocide - and is a RS for the fact that the convictions took place. Which is all that the claim says, and thus is all the RS need say. Collect (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are of course correct Collect. mark nutley (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some Romanian court convicted some Romanians of genocide neither confirms nor refutes the thesis that mass killings took place in Romania, therefore these quotes add no additional information to what the article already says. By contrast, in the absence of needed reservations these quotes create a false impression that some genocide occurred in Romania. I myself have no idea if some mass killings took place in Romania (probably, yes). However, the sources used provide no information on this account. Try to find better sources if you want to clarify already existing text supported by Valentino's book.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

This text has recently been added and then reverted out.

On the 22 of December 1989, Romania's communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in a revolution. Both he and his wife Elena Ceausescu were executed on the 25 of December 1989 by firing squad for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime. The provisional government announced that they had rejected the charge of genocide Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people

In his book Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"

1. Lauter, David (December 26, 1989). "Ceausescu, Wife Reported Executed Secret Trial Condemned Dictator; Bucharest Calm Romania: The army announces plans for a 'final offensive' against the security forces loyal to the ex-ruler". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
2. Horsley, William (22 December, 1999). "Romania's bloody revolution". BBC. p. 1. Retrieved 5 June 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. "Television shows last hours of the 'anti-Christ'". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited. 27 December 1989. p. 1. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
4. Brumley, Bryan (Dec 27, 1989). "US Sending $500,000 aid package to Romania". Herald-Journal. AP. p. 2. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
5. Schabas, William (2009). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 624. ISBN 9780521787901.

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

Comments by Involved users

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

"Are the materials on NC trial and execution relevant to this article?"

The answer is not as obvious as someone thinks. Firstly, killings in Socialist Romania were hardly a genocide. On the page 391 of his book (ref #3) William Schabas writes that legislation in Ethiopia, Spain, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Romaina use a non-conventional and too loose definition of genocide. In other words, the Romanian definition of genocide is wider than that defined by UNO convention.
Secondly, on the page 392 William Schabas noted that the accusation of genocide was based solely on the large number of victims, and that this number was determined incorrectly:

"...prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands"(ibid)

In other words, whereas the source #3 confirms that NC was convicted of genocide, both the conviction and the number of killed has been questioned by the source.
Thirdly, this article tells about mass killings perpetrated by Communist authorities in some Communist states, not about the biographies of their leaders. Therefore, the sources and facts telling about NC, not about mass killings in Socialist Romania shed no additional light on the events described in this article, are irrelevant and misleading.
My conclusion is: the sources carry no information about mass killings and, importantly, are presented in such a way that they create a false impression that the events in Romania were genocide. That is not what the sources say, therefore, this text was correctly removed per WP:NOR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
PS. A direct comparison of the source #3 with the RfC text demonstrates that mark nutley committed misinterpretation of the source. Although I believe that has been done unintentionally, it would be good if he commented something on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question Which part of ref 3(now ref5) do you think is misinterpreted? mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the ref was incorrect. The text you refer to is on the page 391-2, not on the page 624. Secondly, the source states that

"The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"'

on the same page the author specifies that he disagrees with that conclusion:

...prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands"

In other words, according to the author, although NC was tried and convicted of genocide it is incorrect to speak about genocide in this case, because (i) genocide was not a proper charge, and (ii) the number of victims was determined erroneously. By providing the first quote and omitting the second one you presented the author's description of the event as his conclusion, although his conclusion was quite different. You distorted the author's idea to push your own POV. That is a major violation of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are conflating two issues, one is the amount of dead during the uprising. The second is the amount dead during the time C was in power. The ref`s used above all talk of the amount of people killed during the regime, not during the uprising mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousand refers not to C but to four of his aides, and their part in the uprising mark nutley (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear form the sources how many people did he killed during the time he was in power. Provide extended quotes to demonstrate your idea.

Re: "refers not to C but to four of his aides" The book has no other mentions of Ceausescu. Does it mean that Ceausescu was not charged of genocide?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

PS. I noticed you continue to collect the sources that reproduce the official Romanian reports on circumstances of Ceausescu's death. Since all of them are just a repetition of the same information (and since noone questioned he was executed for alleged genocide) I doubt it to add more weight to your statements. All these materials are unquestionable, and all of that is irrelevant to the article's subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend you reread this ref, you appear to be getting confused by it. This refers to C "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"' the second part prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands refers to four of his aides and their part in the uprising. I am unsure why you are finding this so difficult to get? mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain me what concrete idea this source is supposed to support and how all of that can be relevant to this article ("Mass killings under Communist regimes")?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WP policy dictates that material from reliable sources be used for any claims. If someone has a different POV to give, then it is proper to add reliable sources for differing claims. Removal of the initial claims, moreover, violates WP:NPOV ab initio. There appears to be no argument that the sources I offered (NYT and Guardian) do not support the claims made (it is not up to us to "know" (WP:Josh Billings) anything about a topic, only that we accurately assign claims to the sources). Collect (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No. WP:NPOV cannot come in a contradiction with WP:NOR. There is no explicit statements in the sources about mass killings committed (not allegedly committed) in Romania, so you must prove you performed no synthesis by adding this material into the article. Let me also point out that the synthesis can be performed even by combining several verbatim quotes form reliable sources even if no other text is added at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect are you saying the removal of the above text was in fact a breach of policy? mark nutley (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of synthesis is not a breach of WP policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What part of the proposed text do you think is synth? All is sourced and quoted correctly there is no synth that i can see mark nutley (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The mention of "mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" that have been reproduced by many sources is just a quote from one single primary source (that, obviously, was considerably biased). None of the secondary sources neither confirm nor refute these accusations. Therefore, by providing the quote without reservations you push the idea not explicitly stated in these sources. Moreover, the fact that after more that 20 year passed from NC death no reliable secondary sources exist that describe the details of mass killings committed by his regime means that the issue is not as clear as you want to present. I personally am very surprised that neither you nor Collect were able to find anything serious on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not synth, that is stating what the sources say, your argument about synth is a fraud, the book itself is a reliable secondary source, as are the other refs per wp:rs and wp:v mark nutley (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the book is a reliable source (btw, why did you decide that I disagree with that?) does not mean that you can arbitrarily take short fragments from there and to use them to demonstrate the idea not explicitly stated by this reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I`m not, i`m quoting what is in the book, it is you who are conflating two entirely seperate statements in the book not I mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quoting the book, but you do that selectively. Can you tell me what is the main idea William Schabas is trying to convey on the pages 390-393?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the author's remark ("... romanian prosecutors ...etc") seems to summarise the whole para, not just the case of Ceausescu's assistants. In other words, it seems to be equally relevant to the circumstances of Ceausescu's conviction.

In other words, you quoted Schabas' words where he reproduced what the newspapers say about Ceausescu's death, however, you omitted the Schabas' own opinion on that account. In actuality, in this part of the book Schabas analyses the examples of incorrect applications of the accusations of genocide. He consider the cases of Ethiopia, Cambodia, Spain and Romania. In the Romanian case, his conclusion (quoted by me above) was that both accusations and the number of victims were incorrect. Obviously, these words have a relation to all accusations, including those put forward against Ceausescu. (Interestingly, NC was not mentioned by Schabas at all, the only person mentioned explicitly is the Nicolae Ceausescu's son. So, formally speaking, this book, that does not address the NC conviction explicitly, cannot be used at all. Of course, by writing that I just point your attention at the danger of a formal approach.)

From your comments I conclude that you made this misinterpretation unintentionally, because you simply didn't understand what was the major author's idea. However, now, when I explained you what was your mistake I expect you to stop insisting on your wrong interpretation of the source, otherwise it will be hard for me to assume your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And again you are either misreading the ref or are doing so intentionally, I`ll quote the lot for you as you are having such difficulty with it. "Several Romanian leaders including the son of nicolae Ceausescu were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide. The allegations concerned mass killings during the december 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu regime." This is entirely separate to the section about the four aides which says "Four Ceausescu aides were convicted of complicity in genocide at Timisoara" This was two separate trials and verdicts which you are lumping into one, read the ref properly please. mark nutley (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

re: "read the ref properly please" Well, the chapter we are talking about is "Prosecution of genocide". On the page 391 the authors writes that "several national jurisdictions have prosecuted mass killings and atrocities under the label of genocide. In some cases, national law had changed the definition of genocide to give it a wider reach. Prosecutions pursuant to these idiosyncratic definitions of genocide have been indicated in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Romania and Spain"

On the next pages Schabas analyses all these four cases of application of these idiosyncratic definitions of genocide separately. Each para, devoted to the analysis of each case, starts with a brief description of the events and ends with the author's comments. The para about Romania is quoted below in full:

"Several Romanian leaders, including the son of Nicolae Ceausescu, were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide(a ref to eric David). The allegation concerned mass killings during December 1989 popular uprising, as well as other victims on the Ceausescu regime(the refs added to NYT and WP). Genocide charges were also filed against former police officers for their participation in killings in Timisoara in 1989 where nearly 100 people died(ref to NYT). Ceausescu's son was acquitted of complicity of genocide(NYT), but the former dictator's brother, Nicolae Andruta Ceausescu, was convicted of indictment to genocide(NYT). Four other Ceausescu aides, Emil Bobu, Manea Manescu, Ion Dinca and Tudor Postelnicu, were convicted of complicity in genocide for their role at Timisoara(WP) Romanian prosecutors appeared to have taken in views that genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in thousands"

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

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

In summary, after reading the book carefully, I have to re-consider my initial opinion: not only this source cannot be used per WP:NOR, it even has to be excluded per WP:V, because it contains no information on Ceausescu himself. As a result, the only sources the proposed text is based upon are the 20 years old newspaper articles that cite a single source: revolutionary Romanian mass-media. All these source just transmit what the Romanian mass-media did write about Ceausescu conviction. No independent verification of these facts has been done, according to the sources you provided. The fact that no scholarly articles have been written so far on the subject is an indication that the mass killings you refer to hardly took place in actuality, or that the documentary evidences do not exist (see, e.g. Valentino) --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved users

I had been editing this article before, but I stayed out of this particular dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved. Apparently, some people argue here that there is a difference between the BBC quote

In a summary court martial held in secret, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people

and what was added to the article

Both he and his wife were executed for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime.

So my question is whether there is an RS supporting the latter? (Igny (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

• Yes, The Ceausescus had rejected charges of of causing the "genocide" of more than 60,000 people during their 24 years in power, the provisional government announced. mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• And this one also The genocide charge, the announcer said, was based on an estimated 60,000 killings during the dictator's rule. mark nutley (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So, ok. There was a revolution and new government brought charges against the old government, convicted and executed the previous head of state. That was not the first time something like that happened in history of revolutions and it has been known that such charges are quite often made up and had little basis on actual events. Now, is there an independent verification of whether the charges were true? Nearly all statements in the current version of the text deserve characterization as "alleged" or "allegedly" at this moment. (Igny (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

I am unsure as to what your question means? The LA times says it was an estimated number, the guardian says the rejected the charge of genocide. Neither says allegedly. The first four refs do not say alleged or allegedly at all in fact. However i don`t understand why this actually matters? The ref`s support the proposed text right? mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The sources say that according to the provisional government blahblahblah. The provisional government is not an independent source. Is there an independent researcher confirming the findings of the new government? (Igny (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

• Comment - This apparently reliable source gives the figure of 1,104 deaths during the 1989 revolution: http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/The-fall-of-Communism/The-Romanian-revolution-and-the-price-of-freedom Are you talking about deaths during his entire time in power? Here is his obit from the NY Times - no mention of allegations of genocide: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicolae_ceausescu/index.html I also posted this at the RFC above. You could say he was accused of killing 60,000 at his trial, but it was later found that this was not substantiated and give more reliable figures. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like an excellent compromise, especially given the point about independent confirmation for the 60,000 figure pointed out by Igny above.--204.75.125.136 (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The convictions exist and are not "alleged." Adding what we WP:KNOW is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - the policy is to cover what is in the source without editorial comment from WP editors on any side. Collect (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, the findings of a tribunal do not establish fact. Incidentally it is part of U. S. law that only judgments of courts of record may be considered conclusive proof and even then only within the jurisdiction of the court (see Hilton v. Guyot. TFD (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it extremely unlikely that a Romanian revolutionary tribunal presented a neutral or factually accurate view of Ceausescus, bearing in mind that it was essentially a summary trial. The short amount of time taken to try him prevented any accurate data concerning his abuses of power being collected at the time. The reason he and his wife were machine-gunned was that the anti-communist revolutionaries wanted to eliminate a political threat, not because he was a mass-muderer (which is almost certainly also the case). Claritas § 16:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Moved Comments From The Question Section

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

Actually, it is not "disruptive editing" as I have seen such in the past on other articles. As for soliciting people to join in an RFC/U, such CANVASSing is highly improper in the first place. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the references to policy violation, complains to ANI etc, is the last resort of those who appeared to be unable to continue a normal dispute. I even see no problem with canvassing: if new people present new arguments, is is always good, if their participation is limited with just "support X", then their opinions have a zero weight per WP:DEMOCRACY. One way or the another, mark nutley seems to exhaust his arguments, so if he will not come out with some new sources in reasonable future the RfC will be closed. BTW, if he will be able to provide new and reliable sources demonstrating his point, I'll be satisfied too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You should read WP:Canvass and not accuse other people which is a personal attack: "Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive (my emphasis). For example if you were to secretly write to editors you believed would support your views on articles such as left-wing nationalism or the Daily Mail, that would be disruptive editing. But if one is editing an article where an editor is being disruptive and one openly recommends an RfC, then one is not being secretive and not trying to influence the outcome. Perhaps you could explain to me why your opinion is that User:Marknutley is not being disruptive. TFD (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved this off topic junk from the Question section to here. mark nutley (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

These is a discussion about the reliability of the Black Book and the Victims of Communism at RSN. TFD (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How about Ukraine???

Why isn't there a mention of the mass killing by the Communists in Ukraine? 30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists??? There should be a mention of this.--InaMaka (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned. TFD (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Ukraine was one of four co-founders of the USSR (and continued to be a member of the USSR until 1991) it should be covered in the USSR section. With regard to "30 million were either shot, hung, or starved by the communists???", I would like to see your sources (of course, Rummel, or similar controversial writers is not an adequate support).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul: Give me some time. I will get you sources. If this wasn't Misplaced Pages--I choose to remain anon--I would share with you a picture of my family--I adopted my children from the Ukraine--standing in Independence Square in Kiev, in front of the memorial to the 30 million. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubts that the number of 30 million is being frequently quoted by some nationalists. In addition, I also know that previous Ukrainian government made extensive efforts to victimise Ukrainians, partially to distract public opinion from catastrophic effect their own rule had on their country. However, neutral sources (I mean the articles in Western peer-reviewed scientific journals) disagree with that. It is generally accepted that totally not more than 15 million people died prematurely in whole USSR/Soviet Russia during 1917-53 as a result of actions of Communist authorities, including famine, executions, GULAG prisoners mortality, civil war, etc. I fully understand your emotions and assume your good faith. However, again, reliable sources do not confirm your assertions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine is an independent state - thus it is properly treated as one. As for evaluating bias of sources, WP policy is that is not the function of editors to WP:KNOW the truth. Collect (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, did I understand you correct that you imply that Communist mass killings took place in independent Ukraine, or you propose to split the Soviet Union section onto 15 sections corresponding to presently independent post-Soviet states?

Re truth. WP is supposed to be based on reliable sources, and these sources state that Rummel is a controversial writer that is prone to exaggerations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider that during WW II, Poland was part of Germany. We do not, however, say that incidents in what is now Poland took place in Germany! WP uses current place identifications -- Beethoven was not born in "Germany" but it is clear that he was born in Germany - get the picture? Ethiopia was part of Italy during WW II -- yet we refer to events there as being in Ethiopia, not as being in Italy. As to the second comment - the WP policy is to add contrasting opinions rather than delete the opinion one does not like. Collect (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

False analogy. Occupied states are not considered to be part of the conquering power. Where maps have been redrawn we use the borders that existed at the time. Otherwise we have St. Patrick going from the U. K. to the Irish Republic, the Pilgrims going from the U. K. to the U. S., and ancient Italians saying "Tunisia must be destroyed" and "All France is divided into three parts". (Commentarii de Bello Gallico). TFD (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So Beethoven was born in an "occupied state"? Nope. BTW, in the UK, the nation in which Plymouth is located is England. Nor is silliness regarding quotations proper argument here. The fat is that under the USSR, the nation was officially Ukraine, and that Ukraine is no longer a part of the USSR. Period. Collect (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect is correct, even when a part of the soviet union all the country`s within still retained their country`s name. mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "So Beethoven was born in an "occupied state"?" Germany is not a good example, because during the major part of its history it was a conglomerate of smaller states. The term "Germany" was used since Roman times to describe territories populated by German speaking people.

Yes, the nation was officially Ukraine, but the state was the USSR. However, if you propose to discuss mass killings committed separately by Ukrainian, Russian, Belorussian and other national Communist regimes, let's talk about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

False analogy. Beethoven is called German, because he was an ethnic German, not because he was born in what is now Germany. Notice that Germans born in the Sudetenland and East Prussia are normally called Germans not Czechs and Poles. Germans who lived in E. Prussia before 1871 are called Prussians. However if we write about the history of the states where these people lived, we write about Prussia, Westphalia, etc. Re: England - the name of the country the Pilgrims sailed from was England. Collect ignores the reference to St. Patrick who sailed from what is now England but there was no England then. And no when we have articles that discuss government policies throughout the world we would not for example have separate sections for income taxes in England, Wales, etc. TFD (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the nation in which Plymouth is located is England." I am not sure if it is possible to say in English that something is located in the nation. By contrast to "country", "nation" is not a geographical term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1. See England 2. Note that Ukraine was one of the founding members of the UN. Clearly Ukrainians viewd Ukraine as a nation. 3. Trying to parse a difference between "country" and "nation" reaches new depths.

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

b.The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.

c.A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.

d.The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

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

So while "country" has some geographical connexion, trying to claim they are different when dealing with entities such as England or Ukraine is silly. And so the nation Plymouth is located in was, and remains, England. Collect (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, could you please summarise the point you are trying to convey? Did I understand you correct that instead of discussing mass killings in the USSR you propose to discuss them separately in Ukraine, Belorussia, Russian Federation, Georgia, etc? Or your point is that position of Ukraine in the USSR was different from that of other republics?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I made no such statement, the queestion is non-utile. The question posed was about Ukraine, which was a UN member. Georgia etc. were not UN members. The concept of the UN is that members are nations. Clear? Collect (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we should exclude China, because they were considered to be part of the anti-Communist Republic of China until the 1970s and the Baltic states because they were never recognized as part of the U. S. S. R. Also, you ignore the fact that the U. S. S. R. government was recognized as the government of the Ukraine. TFD (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, to observe the most basic formal logic rules is absolutely required in any serious discussion. Firstly, "UN members are nations" does not mean "non-UN members are not nations". Secondly, the USSR was also the UN member. Does that mean that "Soviet", "Ukrainian" and "Belorussian" were three different nations? If yes, it remind me the Holy trinity paradox. Thirdly, Ukraine and Belorussia became UN members due to Stalin. Does it mean that you support the idea that Stalin, "a peoples' father", was authorised to decide which ethnicity constitutes a nation and which is not, and do you support his decision?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the section title. Any other speculation is wondrously irrelevant here. It is, moreover, clear that Ukraine is a nation in all definitions of the word. Collect (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Ukraine is the nation and was a co-founder of the USSR and was the part of the USSR during the period of time discussed in the article.

2. There is a section in the article devoted to mass killings in the USSR, which includes mass killings in Ukraine.

3. Therefore, a separate section devoted to Ukraine cannot be included because the same events would be discussed twice. In addition the Holodomor section is already in the article that discusses famine in Ukraine (although not all sources agree that we have sufficient ground for that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using the sources themselves as indications of where the information should be located. If the source says "USSR" and mentions the Ukraine en passant, then that source should be placed under "USSR" while any source referring primarily to "Ukraine" and only en passant to the USSR, belongs under Ukraine. Saying that a source which specifically mentions "Ukraine" must be placed under "USSR" for the reasoning you give, fails the common-sense test of how sources should be used. Collect (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Ukraine at this time is a part of USSR, it should go under USSR. If there is enough, a subsection is warranted, but under USSR. This is pretty self-evident. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Just because Stalin said it was an independent country does not make it true. TFD (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Albanian anti-Communist law

There is a discussion about renaming the article On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives, which was created by the now banned editor User:Altenmann. If anyone would like to comment on it the discussion is here. TFD (talk) 07:09, 30 June 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