This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 8 November 2021 (→AFD it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:41, 8 November 2021 by The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (→AFD it)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
 | Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Eastern Europe case, 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. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.
the Misplaced Pages editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. Six discussions to delete this article have been held, none of them resulting in a deletion:
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
 | Daily page views
|
| Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a sub-page has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material. |
Causes
Before we started to rewrite it, let's summarize the view of each author that will be used in that section. So far, it is clear that Rummel and Valentino will stay. If someone wants to add some other source, add it to the list and describe the author's position as whole, as well as a linkage between the author's theoretical views and our topic. Cherry-picking is not welcome.
I suggest the following approach:
- 1 What is the main author's concept?
- 2 Which category of events the author analysed?
- 3 How author's conclusions are related to our (sub)topic?
For example, if the subtopic is "Causes of MKuCR", and the author writes about MKuCR specifically. then we can just reproduce what they say. If the author writes about, e.g. "democide" and totalitarianosm, and Communism is just a subttopic of their study, we should briefly explain that the author found the linkage between totalitarianism and democide, and then explain how that (in author's opinion) relates to our subtopic (mass killings and Communism). If the authors writes about, e.g. Great Purge only, we explain their view of the causes of Great Purge.
If you believe the procedure is incomplete, propose your amendments/corrections.
- Rummel.
- Main subject: State violence in general, and killing of civilians by their own state ("democide") as a subset thereof.
- Major findings:
- Factor analysis of the global genocide database (collected from Cold-war era data) demonstrates a significant correlation between democide and such regime parameter as totalitarianism. Based on that correlation, author concluded that "absolute power kills absolutely", and links totalitarianism with democide (a.k.a. mass killings). Since Communist regimes are totalitarian, the author concludes their totalitarianism is the primary cause of mass killings.
- How the author links ideology and mass killings. He actually draws no direct casual linkages, his main approach is to find correlations (and we know that correlation does not imply causation). However, since the author is libertarian, and he believes that the less state, the better, it seems obvious to him that totalitarianism, which is an opposite to libertarianism, is the worst possible state system, and the absolutist ideology (as he sees Marxism) exacerbates the worst features of totalitarianism.
- Valentino.
- Main subject:
- Explanation of the onset of "Mass killings" (i.e. killing of more than 50,000 civilians in less than 5 years, reproduced from memory, correct me if some figure is wrong).
- Major findings:
- This author developed a new theory of mass killings. This theory states that mass killings occur when a small group of elite leaders decides that mass killings is the optimal way to achieve their goals (i.e., in their perception, "advantages" of the mass killing approach outweigh their "disadvantages"). He performed comparative analysis of eight cases of what he defines as mass killings, including three cases that took place under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and one case in Soviet controlled Afghanistan (other cases were non related to Communism), and this analysis corroborated the theory. A main practical consequence of this theory is that elimination of a small group of leaders from power may prevent mass killings even if the social structure stays the same.
- How the author links ideology and mass killings. According to Valentino, and contrary to earlier Rummels conjecture, the regime type, ideology or similar factors are insufficient to explain onset of mass killings. Valentino conceded that ideology, to some degree, may shape a strategy of some leaders who are prone to mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Goldhagen, Pipes, Gray.
- Existing information is insufficient for making a summary. If found the brief description of their view in the article, and it is as follows:
- "Scholars such as Rummel (already discussed) Daniel Goldhagen, Richard Pipes, and John Gray consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings."
- The sources for this statement are Harff, 1996 and Harff&Gurr, 1988. The first source is a review on Rummel exclusively, which means it is totally unrelated to other authors. Moreover, it contains not a single word "Ideology". The second source does not mention Goldhagen (which is not a surprise, because his own writings were published after 1988), Gray and Pipes. That means the whole statement is fake. Note, I just started to analyze this text, and I have already found so many blatant errors, twistings and distortions. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Goldhagen.
- Main subject
- In his "Worse than war" the author put forward the idea that the desire to eliminate peoples or groups should be understood as the overarching category and the core act, and makes it the focus of his study.
- Major findings:
- The author delineates five principal forms of eliminationism - transformation, repression, expulsion, prevention of reproduction, extermination, where difference between destruction of people and other forms of repressions (not always lethal) is blurred.
- How the author links ideology and mass killings. At page 207-9, the author explains that some Communist regimes use ideology to raise a new generation of indoctrinated eliminationists and to justify elimination of some groups. It seems ideology is seen as a tool rather a cause by him. I saw no direct or indirect clam that Communist ideology was a causative factor.
- One more false statement. Continue digging.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
References
- Goldhagen 2009, p. 206. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGoldhagen2009 (help)
- Pipes 2001, p. 147. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPipes2001 (help)
- Gray 1990, p. 116. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGray1990 (help)
- Harff 1996, p. 118. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarff1996 (help)
- Harff & Gurr 1988, pp. 360, 369. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHarffGurr1988 (help)
- My concern is that "compare and contrast" is original research and should be sourced to secondary sources. Also, it is difficult to establish weight, that is, how to we determine how accepted the various approaches are? Pipes, Goldhagen and Rummel (particularly what he posts on his website) have extremely controversial views.
- Also, they disagree on mass killings in Afghanistan. While the other authors attribute them to Communism, Valentino categorizes them as counter-insurgency mass killings along with killings carried out by U.S. backed death squads. IOW, he does not see the ideology of the perpetrators to be significant, but rather attributes it to how imperial powers treat people in war zones.
- As I said before, it's not possible to write this article without considerable OR and weight issues. At some point someone may write an article or book about the subject, but without that we can't really go forward.
- TFD (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- TFD, we may try to write this article without OR. As I explained, that can be done according to the following scheme:
- Soviet Union (description of each separate case, or group thereof, if most sources group some of them)
- China
- Cambodia
- ....
- Generalizations. (The latter section will be a description of those author who, like Courtois, draw some general conclusions; these narratives will be put in a proper context).
- This approach is purely descriptive, which rules out a possibility of original research.
- We have a choice between keeping this article in a current state (which is a piece of original research, POV pusing and fact distortion), or to try to make something reasonable. Your position by no means helps to make some progress. Can you please join the work on article's improvement? I propose to re-write this section for the beginning. Can you try to summarize other authors mentioned in this section or to comment on my summaries? That will help us to come to a joint decision on which authors should be included in this section, and in what context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that providing an accurate description of what sources say will address the weight issue: to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Imagine writing an article on climate change by summarizing various views without regard to their acceptance in scientific literature. It would be neutral in the sense that views of both scientists and cranks would be explained, but it would not be consistent with Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy. That article treats climate change as a fact and says that climate change denial is misinformation funded by the fossil fuel industry. While some people, such as Larry Sanger, argue that Misplaced Pages articles should give parity to various views, it's not current policy.
- WP:TERTIARY says, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." If we had such sources, then we could write a neutral article. But we don't.
- TFD (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Paul Siebert, I'd be curious to read your response to The Four Deuces, and also hope to see the conclusion of your good source analysis. Davide King (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Outside comments
I would really like if The Four Deuces would respond you on this, so I respond to the OP to leave some space for both of you to discuss this. I sympathize with them that "it's not possible to write this article without considerable OR and weight issues" but I am willing to work with you and see what a rewrite would look like. Certainly, OR/SYNTH is not a good enough reason to dismiss you or a rewrite effort since, no matter what one may think or say, this article clearly fails both already, and also NPOV, and WEIGHT, and even basic VERIFY, as you digged deeper. On the other hand, this article is clearly not going to be deleted because so many users do not understand the topic, sources, etc. Your proposal is a good compromise, and I am curious to see how it would look like, all the differences, if it would really solve all issues of NPOV, OR/SYNTH, etc. Because all that matters to me is that we actually respect and follow our policies. Davide King (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with TFD's latest comment, and is why tertiary sources can be so important and helpful, yet AmateurEditor dismiss them, and actually did admit that there are none but that the article can still be written because it is notable by giving all views minority status; yet, this still clearly violates NPOV and WEIGHT. Even if an article may be notable (I am curious about TFD's response of AmeteurEditor's reading of criteria for notability, general sources, etc.), if it cannot be written without respecting NPOV and WEIGHT ... it should not be written, it is simple. Clearly, keeping the article as it is would be much worse than at least trying to fix it and rewrite it by trying to respect our policies; I do not think in the end it will respect our policies (per TFD) but trying does not hurt, and it would still be a great improvement; when both articles violates our policies, and cannot be written without not violating them, they should be deleted but rules do not apply to this article, so if both articles still violate our policies, I prefer a better-written article, one that does not even fail basic VERIFY as the current one, over the awful mess we have now. Paul Siebert, apparently previous wording was Daniel Goldhagen, Richard Pipes, and John N. Gray have written about theories regarding the role of communism in books for a popular audience.
It makes more sense but it is all sourced to primary sources, so a reader does not get what are those theories nor how accepted, or not, they are. But yeah, this article fails basic VERIFY ... but sure, it has no problems. Davide King (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- While AmateurEditor is correct that policy does not require tertiary sources for a topic to be notable, it does require secondary sources. While sources such as the Black Book are secondary sources in that they "provide an author's own thinking based on primary sources," they are primary sources for their opinions. We need a secondary source that reports them in order to establish their significance. In an article I created, Radical right (United States), I did not cite the theorists who created the concept, but used secondary sources writing about them. One editor wrote, "it is unimaginable that this article does not cite Hofstadter's seminal The Paranoid Style in American Politics." I replied that he was discussed in the article. While not required, using secondary sources helps to correctly interpret opinions, establish what is relevant and determine weight. TFD (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The Four Deuces, you are right on this and all articles should actually follow your lead and article's example; that is the only way to actually respect our policies and guidelines. Perhaps the problem is that the Black Book is a secondary source, but AmateurEditor ignore that it is a primary source for its own interpretation, so they can dismiss our concerns by claiming that we are wrong about saying they are primary sources for their opinions and theories. To stay on topic, this is the problem of the whole Causes section. Apart from Rummel, everything is sourced to the authors' own work, rather than follow secondary sources, which results in all the problems of NPOV, OR/SYNTH, and even SYNTH because if we do not have independent, secondary sources for their own interpretation, we are engaging in OR/SYNTH by paraphrasing their own primary sources (worse of all, it is done wrong, hence even fails VERIFY), is this correct?
- This could be fixed if we use secondary sources, like Paul Siebert did for Valentino; the problem is that such sources are not about the topic because MKuCR exists only in some users' minds, and the only good secondary source (Karlsson and Schoenhals 2008) says that Courtois and Rummel are fringe, and Siebert is still correct when they wrote
sources that try to propose some theoretical schemes connecting Communism in general and mass killings (the BB, Rummel) are either obsolete or not mainstream
, which is the point. The whole MKuCR is a rightist, anti-communist POV exercise, which makes it impossible to write a NPOV article about it, unless we follow the narrative topic. If we want to report on the events, we need to report all sources but limit it to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (if we want to report all events in all Communist states, the topic must be much broadened to be a scholarly analysis of Communism, and not limited to mass killings, because that is what scholars do, they provide all the necessary context and societal analysis); if we want to report on the narrative, we need to present it as such and not as fact; if we want to do both, the article needs to be rewritten. The current article pretends to do both but it follows the generic Communism grouping and treats it as an established fact, violating NPOV, OR/SYNTH, VERIFY, and WEIGHT in doing so, and merging the topic with Communist death toll. I am very curious about a comparison between Siebert's and TFD's full article, and then between the current article; I think this could help us to (1) highlight any differences between Siebert's and TFD's, and hoefully to (2) make it even more obvious how not-NPOV-adhering the current article is. - To remain on the topic of this section, I will try to summarize Courtois:
- Courtois.
- Main subject: equivalency between class and racial genocide (Jaffrelot & Sémelin 2009, p. 37). In The Black Book of Communism, only Courtois made the comparison between Communism and Nazism, while the other sections of the book "are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations." The Black Book of Communism is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." (Paczkowski 2001)
- Major findings: Courtois does not actually discuss mass killings, as he is not a genocide scholar. His views are considered to be on the fringes by Karlsson and Schoenhals.
- How the author links ideology and mass killings. Courtois does not actually discuss mass killings but propose the equivalency between class and racial genocide, and between Communism and Nazism, which is controversial. Within the context of Communism and Nazism equivalence, Courtois is a proponent of the "victims of Communism" narrative, which he listed at 94 million, while he estimated that Nazis killed 25 million, hence Communism was worse.
- Siebert, is this a good enough summary analysis of Courtois? Davide King (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
David and Paul
Davide King Since September you have effectively taken over this article and turned it into your private playground, which is now quite evident with edits such as this one which is:
- biased and written from your personal point of view perspective, which ignores all the opposing views that were raised here before
- written entirely in WP:WEASEL language
- completely unsourced by any WP:RS
I found it impossible to have any reasonable fact-based debate with you and Paul Siebert since you're both not responding to any arguments, just flooding the discussion with largely unrelated opinions, as seen above. As result I have abandoned it and saw your outrageous edits only because someone had reverted it (and rightly so). I have therefore filed a dispute resolution process under Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes of which you will be surely notified individually. Cloud200 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Cloud200, can you please explain again your arguments (for the beginning, present just one), and I will try to address it as briefly as possible, and will do my best to stay focused.
- Meanwhile, can you please respond to one my argument, namely that the "Causes" section is awful, it is desperately biased, and it contains direct and obvious misinterpretation of sources, or say something the sources do not say. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, it looks like you accused me of article ownership. Such accusations require serious evidences, otherwise it may be considered a personal attack. I am not sure that approach is productive. However, I agree that David's language needs a significant improvement. It would be good if m=somebody joined this work. I am busy now, and I cannot do that alone, especially when I have a feeling my work may be contested/reverted. Therefore, I would prefer to achieve an agreement on the talk page first. In that situation, it would be highly desirable if you stopped throwing your (in my opinion, baseless) accusation and switched to a more productive regime. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- With regard to this, the statement " posit that most communist regimes did not engage in mass killings, and some in particular" was taken (to the best of my knowledge) from Valentino, so the only problem is that a citation is missing. Similarly, the second statement discusses a double genocide theory, which is considered to be linked with novel trends in Holocaust denial or trivialization. Thus, M Shafir (Revista de Istorie a Evreilor din Romania, 2020 - ceeol.com) discusses it in details, and, in particular, discusses Courtois introduction to the Black Book in that context (with references to Omer Bartov's opinion). Therefore, although the wording may be (and should be) improved, I see no significant factual problems with this text. Of course, I may be wrong, and if you find some concrete mistakes in this my post, I would be grateful. However, I respectfully request you to refrain from general accusations and personal attacks. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is absurd. You have just stopped discussing, and my new edits have been pretty stable since then; previous lead did not have any source either and it is not necessary if everything is already in the body, of which I simply tried to summarize and actually introduce the topic. I wished Paul Siebert and others could have helped me to improve the wording and all the other work there is to do but perhaps it is about time to take you, not us, to a dispute resolution for having supported such outrageous policy and guideline violations (NPOV, OR/SYNTH, WEIGHT), as Siebert once suggested. See also this comment by Ivanvector that accurately summarizes the topic, of which you and many others users have a complete lack of knowledge because you actually believe in it, when it is OR/SYNTH. Davide King (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I would like to note the lead reflects the issues of this article; if there is no consensus among scholars on so many things like definitions, terminology, causes ... of course the lead is going to be like that; there would be no need for all that if the article was actually neutrally written and not synthetized. But the solution is not a return to the status quo ... As written by Siebert in their summary there, we either fix the article, or it should be deleted as a POV content fork, among many other issues, with NPOV being non-negotiable according to our policies and guidelines. Any attempts by Siebert and I have been disrupted, though my latest work has been mostly accepted, especially in the body, but it is not acknowledged by you. Davide King (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Read meIn regards to , I do not know how exactly that would work. It may sound elitist, and I am personally not one, but I am wary about a RfC or AfD in this specific case because
- so many users have shown a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the topic and Siebert's rational arguments backed by sources and policies
- one needs to have the context for this whole diatribe
- the mere existence of this article for well over a decade by now, despite none of the raised issues (POV FORK, NPOV, OR/SYNTH, WEIGHT) being fixed in the meantime, may wrongly lead some users, without having the adeguate context, to think Siebert and I are fringe, or simply assume that RS actually support the article as currently structured
- this is clearly a controversial topic and article, probably the most controversial one, and it is political, so there are political biases but also geographical ones too (do I need to remind of the Easter Europe ban stuff?), as I have wrote at , especially in the notes
- political because, whatever the reason, many users who took it to this article believe in an equivalency between Communism and Nazism, perhaps even the double genocide theory (this also reflects a geographical bias), and are legitimized by political institutions like the European Union (for the record, I am not anti-EU) through the controversial Prague Declaration and resolutions equating not just Stalinism with Nazism, which is still debated even among scholars, but communism and Nazism.
- problem is that academic discourse does not support the above, and we have been dismissed by Cloud200 as Soviet and Stalin apologists
- even though we are simply explaining the academic discourse, which is much more nuanced and actually does not support such equivalence
- see The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945 (2016), pp. 377–378
- which is considered to be a revisionist view dating back to Nolte but has since been re-popularized by Courtois (who is controversial), and the double genocide theory being a fringe view but supported by state governments in Eastern Europe, amounting to Holocaust trivialization according to scholars
Nonetheless, I am a pragmatist, and I am not sure that is going to solve anything, but I am open and willing about it. What would the topic of the RfCs be about exactly? I just would prefer a rational analysis of arguments and sources, e.g. is Siebert's analysis correct about the summary of topic and the article's issues? Are they correct about how sources are used and synthesized, even not reflecting what they actually say? Or are sources presented by Cloud200 and others in support of their favoured structure correct and good enough? Sources must be scrupulously scrutinized and analyzed, especially in regards to due and weight, and whether they are subject-matter experts or contradict country experts and scholars of Communism.
Perhaps having a RfC about this? With one on more mediators further verifying our arguments and sources? Too complicated but desperate times needs desperate solution, and I am honestly tired of this diatribe. So even if "it is likely to break down either into one very large RFC or several relatively large RFCs", I am willing to try, and hopefully it will not break down but will reach a conclusion that either side must accept and move on. I do not know if Robert McClenon, or anyone else for that matter, are willing to do this but I feel like this is the only way to end it once and for all, so that we can all work together to reflect the result. Because all attempts by Siebert, including the use of country experts, have been rejected, and my attempts to improve the first few sections and the lead took us to dispute resolution, even though they have since been stable (apart from a few IPs who did not want any dialogue or provided no policy I have actually broken), especially my copy editing to the body, which has never been reverted, and accepted as you can see at . Clearly, I am willing for a mediation and to solve this once and for all, I am just not sure about the best way to do it but rational analysis of sources and topic would be the best way, as that is the heart of the matter.I have some reservations about a RfC for this controversial topic and article per the outlined issues I have raised in • above, but I accept Robert McClenon's offer to mediate. I also have a few questions on whether they already have in mind what would be the questions for a RfC, and I express my belief that it should be based on an analysis of sources, our policies, and whose's side reading is 'correct' on the topic, and those involved should have a broad context and understanding of both sides, and a summary of the dispute, which users like Siebert can concisely do.
Davide King (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
AFD it
If the last AFD was 11 years ago, it's time to review recent scholarship. I don't think it passes WP:N for largely the same reasons raised in the last AFD from 2010. I think it's a SYNTH POVFORK (same argument made in the AFDs), and I wonder if the community of today would look at it differently than the community did in 2010. Levivich 16:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is currently a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that some of the editors are participating in. An Articles for Deletion nomination takes precedence over other content dispute mechanisms. If this article is nominated for deletion, I will put the DRN on hold until the AFD is resolved. Obviously, if the conclusion is to delete the article, the DRN will be closed as resolved by deleting the article. Otherwise the DRN may or may not resume, depending on what is found by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- The material in here certainly needs to be covered but to me the compound qualifiers in the title looks a bit POV. But IMO this article certainly meets WP:Notability criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Certainly the material in here needs to be covered somewhere, but I'm not sure about it being covered on the same page like this. What are the WP:THREE that support the topic "Mass killing under communist regimes"? Valentino, Mann, and Chirot--mentioned in the most-recent AFD from July 2010--aren't about "communist regimes", but specifically about USSR, China, and Cambodia, which is a small subset of "communist regimes". "Mass killings by USSR, China, and Cambodia" seems like it should be three separate articles. Are there three good sources that talk about mass killings in "communist regimes" overall and together, beyond just USSR, China, and Cambodia? There are books about mass killings that mention some done by communist states, and books about communist states that mention some mass killings, and like maybe three or four works that talk about mass killings in three communist states together (USSR, China, Cambodia), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV of "mass killings by communist regimes" (as opposed to a topic like, war crimes by the soviet union, or by pol pot, etc.), and even the keep !voters seemed to acknowledge that in the last AFD (that "mass killings by communist regime" is not a phrase in use in the scholarship). It seems like for us to group mass killings by political ideology is WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure if this needs to be AFD'd so much as split/merged (so RFC, not AFD), but then if this article becomes a redirect, what's the target? Levivich 19:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously this article fails notability because there is not a body of literature about the topic. All we have are studies of individual countries or time periods and a few sources that attempt to connect mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who together account for the vast majority of numbers.Were it not for the topic, the article would have been deleted long ago.
- Perhaps we could split the article in two: one about comparative studies of mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and one about the New Right project to prove that the Communists killed more people than the Nazis, both of which unlike this topic are documented in reliable sources.
- TFD (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- History articles needing attention
- WikiProject History articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-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
- C-Class Soviet Union articles
- Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- B-Class Death articles
- High-importance Death articles