Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

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.

RfC: Change "communist" to "totalitarian" in title?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against the (de-facto) move proposal Seems to be consensus that the current title fits the article. Whether the scope of the article should be expanded is another issue which would warrant a more explicit discussion of the subject (instead of being bluntly implied via a move request). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Should "communist" be changed to "totalitarian" in the title? soibangla (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support: A good argument can be made that some/most/all of the regimes discussed in this article were totalitarian rather than communist. If some believe communism is synonymous with totalitarianism, they should have no objection to this proposed change. By contrast, others might argue communism and totalitarianism are not necessarily synonymous, or are even diametrical opposites, though the regimes were indisputably totalitarian, as they had omnipotent central governments whereas Marxism called for elimination of central government, notwithstanding how 20th century totalitarians may have misappropriated what Marx actually wrote in 1848 and branded themselves "communists." soibangla (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME. The regimes were all generally known as "Communist". If we want a separate article about "Mass killings under totalitarian regimes", it could include Nazi Germany too, and that would be fine. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is plainly a descriptive title and not a common name (since no one descriptor directly unites all the diverse underlying viewpoints covered here), and as such WP:NDESC applies. Totalitarianism is a more precise and neutral summary in that respect, and is broadly a more useful main topic, since most of the academic discourse on the subject focuses on totalitarianism as the unifying factor. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Brought here by the bot [19]. This seems like an unnecessarily narrow article, however, based on the content of the article -- a list of peoples republics -- the current name is most appropriate per WP:NDESC. Renaming it "totalitarian" uses Wikipedia's voice to indict or castigate the governments of the states listed. "Totalitarian" is a loaded term that is implicitly negative, while "communist" is a descriptive term that is not values-laden. The fact that its use may be imperfect in this case would be better addressed through careful wording in the lead rather than retitling. Chetsford (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It would make the article to broad. Right now the current title fits the content very well and is by far the most WP:COMMONNAME. If we expand it to totalitarian we would also have to include other groups such as Nazi's or Italian regime during WW2, plus a multitude of others. Which would start to get a little out of hand in scope and fail WP:NDESC. PackMecEng (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Sure, the regimes might not be "true" communists, but are commonly described as such. While totalitarianism was what ultimately made most or all of these killings possible, it is seen by most academics in the Proposed Causes section as mediating variable between communism and mass killings. 15 (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: As the effect of the proposed renaming would be to completely change the content/scope of the article, which has survived numerous previous attempts at deletion based on arguments very similar to those presented by the supporters above. (As an aside, the suggestion that "totalitarianism" is a more narrow or better-understood concept, in the academic literature or otherwise, than 20th-century self-described communist regimes is laughable.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: There's overlap between communism & totalitarianism but they are not synonymous. The ideology section specifically and exclusively talks about communism and its variants. Likewise, the entire 'States where mass killings have occurred' section includes only communist regimes. There's a reason why totalitarian regimes like Italy under Mussolini or Haiti under Duvalier are not mentioned at all in this article (i.e., they weren't communist). COMMONNAME applies, but so does WP:PRECISION. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title fits the content of the article. If we're to change the name, we'd have to broaden the same. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Soibangla: This is not an RfC matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments above that changing the title would result in changing the scope of the article. 07:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
• Oppose Communism and Totalitarianism are not synonymous, the regimes are mostly referred to as Communist. Sea Ane (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose COMMONNAMEאברהסה בו (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - to change it to totalitarian would then require the inclusion of a litany of other regimes which have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, or any other attempt towards communism. --Cdjp1 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Aquillion and Adoring nanny's proposal that we make an article about totalitarian regimes in general (I only disagree with Adoring nanny that it should be another article; I propose it to be this article, while another article is created about Communist death tolls and the narrative). This article should be expanded to be about totalitarian regimes in general, and not limited to Communist regimes. There is no scholarly literature that treats the topic as we do, and many of sources are misrepresented, even The Black Book of Communism (per historian Andrzej Paczkowski, who positively reviewed the work, the book is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon") and Valentino, who is heavily relied on ("Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"). On the other hand, there is plenty of literature about totalitarian regimes and genocide/mass killings, see Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue, and Final Solutions. Neither of those works limit themselves to Communist regimes, so why should we, too? Another article, focused on Communist states and about death tolls and the victims of Communism narrative, can be written based on this lead. Davide King (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main topic and primary sources

I took a break from this and I would have hoped that Aquillion, BeŻet, Buidhe, C.J. Griffin, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert, Rick Norwood, and others (I also call on other users like GreenC, Mathglot, and MjolnirPants for further input and a source analysis to avoid any original research and synthesis violations) would have kept discussing and finding a consensus on the main topic; this was not the case and the template was removed. The article's main topic is still unclear; is it about the events, which are variously described as mass killings? Problem is scholars actually disagree on this and attempts to propose a common terminology (until recently, it was stated as fact that there was one) have repeatedly failed, and the current article's name is problematic because it presupposes there is consensus. Is it about an alleged link between communism and genocide/mass killing? Then the article should be changed to Communism and genocide or Communism and mass killing (other, more precise titles may include use of Communist states over Communism). This would be better but would still require a restructuring to make it more about scholarly analysis and less repeating the events themselves. Is it about Communist death toll? The title should be changed to Communism death toll, Death toll under Communist states, or Excess deaths under Communist states. It would, and it should, still require a restructuring.

So what are primary sources in this case? They are certainly not the Communist state themselves but rather the authors who may propose the topic. Problem is that in this sense most sources are primary sources, and follows "he said, she said", in light of attributing minority views, especially about the Proposed causes section. But we should not be citing Conquest about what Conquest wrote, or Rummel about what Rummel wrote (in this sense, they are primary sources); we need to find and cite secondary sources, and not just any secondary source, but reliable secondary sources that clearly refer to the main topic. If one is quoting Conquest about Stalinism or the Stalinism era, it is not enough; it needs to be about excess deaths or mass killings in the broad context of Communist states. Problem is, very few, if any at all, do that. They do not discuss all Communist states as we do. If we cannot find such secondary sources to establish weight (e.g. Hicks and Watson, who are neither experts of genocide or historians of Communism), they are undue.

I understand that this can be a pain in the ass because one actually has to do research, read all the relevant books on the topic, distinguish between majority and minority, read reviews and secondary sources about them to establish what they actually say rather than our own POV and due weight. We are all guilty of boldly adding primary sources in that sense, but it is fine so that someone else who has more time and resources can do that for us and replace content with secondary sources. But our policies and guidelines are clear; we should report what secondary sources say about Conquest et al. when we are citing what they say and their views. This article even misrepresents scholars from the "orthodox" or "anti-communist" historiography POV, as Conquest does not support this alleged link and he mainly studied Stalin's Soviet Union. Even The Black Book of Communism, if one actually reads the review rather than make their own analysis, they find it does not support this topic (at best, only the intro does, and it is controversial and "historically revisionist" in equating Communism and Nazism); The Black Book of Communism is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." (Andrzej Paczkowski) For the umpteenth time, Valentino does not support Mass killings under communist regimes but Communist mass killing, which is a different thing, and clearly says that "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." (Valentino is an original research and synthesis violation, and contradicts the whole lead) Rummel is about totalitarian governments in general and democide, another topic.

If we follow this, you will see that, once the main topic is established, very few reliable, academic secondary sources are to be found that link all Communist states together as we do ("Mass killings under Communist regimes"). What we do have are actually secondary academic sources that supports the fact this article is original research and synthesis. Per Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, discussion of the number of victims of Communism, an more appropriate topic (except it is not a mainstream view among scholars and it is mainly associated with the European Union and Eastern European double genocide theory, and this would be clarified in the lead) has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased." Per Anton Weiss-Wendt, "[t]here is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe." Yet we are acting like there is consensus on this and selctively, cherry pick those who seem to support it and misrepresent others. So why do we base a whole article on this? Where we use any source that use any of that terminology to mean the same thing, as if they support this article? See "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss", and criticism of "the idea to connect the deaths with some 'generic Communism' concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals" and the "alleged connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" (to paraphrase).

Those are not my opinions but of genocide scholars and historians of Communism, which are the only ones we should be using for this article. Problem is there is no consensus not only among them outside but even among them themselves in their respective fields. Those who disagree should actually engage us rather than dismiss and perpetuate their echo-chamber. TLDR, after reaching consensus on the main topic (if there is not a clear consensus on it, what are we even talking about and have this article for?), can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? Are there any academic Communist Genocide or Communist Mass Killings books, rather than just chapters about selective events under Communist regimes (which are then originally researched and synthesized to lump them all together as we still do)?

P.S. If Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes are two separated main topics supported by reliable academic secondary sources and do not violate any of our policies and guidelines, they should be first mentioned or discussed at either Crimes against humanity, Genocide, and Mass killing. They are not, because they are likely content forks and do not warrant two separate main articles, and books about them do not discuss them all together as we do, implying a sort of link or common denominator, but only singular events and they do not just compare them to other events under Communist regimes (this is also why we do not have, and should not have, articles about genocide and mass killings under capitalist, Christians, fascist, Muslim, etc. regimes. All those can and must be discussed in the relevant articles (Genocide, History of genocide, and the like), not create more than one POV fork article to imply a sort of link which is not supported by reliable sources or scholarly consensus. See also my still current "Analysis of sources and main topic", which has never been really refuted or properly analyzed. Davide King (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think you can condense this down to a few, specific questions? This is not a subject I'm very familiar with, and having specific points to look into would be helpful to me in formulating a response. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, first of all, thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, summarization is not my strength and I needed to summarize the last two to three archives for the previous discussions we had. The Four Deuces, could you please summarize my points, since you are very good at that and you can also summarize the many discussion we took part in the last two to three archives? By the way, I think my revised and expanded lead clarified many points and fixed some issues. Now we need to move it to something like Excess deaths under Communist states and Excess mortality under Communist states because, as we way, there is no consensus on the terminology, scholars actually disagree (see Valentino stating that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings), and excess deaths and mass mortality are more accurate and neutral, descriptive terms. Then we need to capitalize instances of communism when they are clearly referring to Communist states, both because many sources do that and treat it as a proper noun, and to clarify that those were not actual communist societies but rather constitutional socialist states, commonly known in the West as Communist states, with a ruling Communist party, usually following the ideology of Marxism–Leninism or a variant. Finally, we need to fix the body by using secondary reliable sources, preferably academic, and remove undue opinions by non-experts. Davide King (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I did try a TLDR, though seriously one needs to read it all once, please.

After reaching consensus on the main topic (if there is not a clear consensus on it, what are we even talking about and have this article for?), can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? Are there any academic Communist Genocide or Communist Mass Killings books, rather than just chapters about selective events under Communist regimes (which are then originally researched and synthesized to lump them all together as we still do)? See also my "Analysis of sources and main topic" for why most of sources given in response are problematic or even misrepresented.

Was this not helpful enough? Davide King (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

An example of how this article should be restrutured is Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, which actually has a proper scholarly literature. There is no scholarly literature that lumps all Communist states together and attributes them all as 'mass killing.' Valentino, who has been misrepresented to support this article, clearly stated that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings. There have been authors who have engaged in body counting (Courtois), who have spoken of a victims of communist narrative (Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation), or equated Communism with Nazism (double genocide) but they are revisionists and are not the mainstream or majority view in scholarship (the article's body and the previous lead all treated this as fact or as if there was some scholarly consensus); there is no scholarly literature the way we treat the article (I have shown that scholars actually disagree on lumping all Communist states together as did by Courtois), which is why the body is still synthesis and gives selective, undue weight to non-experts. Davide King (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• In following this discussion for a few years now, I've distilled that there are two working theories about what the main topic should be. The first is that the main topic is the actual mass killings under communist regimes - in other words, names, dates, numbers, and the like - briefly the events. The second is that the main topic is the theory of "mass killings under communist regimes" - the scholarship of the names, dates, numbers, and the like - briefly, the narrative. Judging by the recent reworking of the lead by Davide King, and by our previous discussion, he seems to take the position that the narrative is the primary topic. Indeed, if that is the position, then his new lead is ideal.

However, that is not the position I take, nor has it been the position of the majority of editors who have contributed to this talk page discussion. As such, I propose restoring the lead to the way it was prior to 8/8. My rationale is unchanged from when this kind of lead was proposed in December of 2020. And, for the record, most editors involved in the discussion opposed the sort of lead Davide King has written. Now, I grant that the !votes in December 2020 were on a different lead, but the problems there are the same as the problems here. The thrust of the lead does not match the thrust of the article. The topic of this article is not that "Various authors have written about the events of 20th-century communist states." Further, the use of "some authors" verses "several authors" in paragraph 1 of the new lead is not neutral. Neither is the present undue weight to criticism of the narrative without there being a section on criticism of the narrative in the body of the article itself. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the new lead fails to sufficiently introduce section 4, which is the backbone of the entire article.

Further, I oppose, on principal, any change to the lead without making prerequisite changes to the body. Changing the lede without reworking the article creates a disconnect. We have a dedicated sandbox, which has been unused since 2018, and it should be utilized to create a new body, then to create a lead that matches it - this new one does not.

I close with a paraphrase of what I wrote in December 2020: "The lead, as it stood, is neutral and a good summary of the article, albeit a short one. It is not factually inaccurate or violate our NPOV guidelines, and is a closer fit with MOS:LEAD than the new one. schetm (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The previous lead did not check this. It made no mention of criticism and memories studies, and acted like there is a consensus on terminology or on lumping Communist states together. It can be further improved but it is an improvement from the previous one, and of course the body must be worked too. Again, I take the quotes I provided to hold much more weight than the opinion of a Wikipedian user, no matter who or how many. They are not my opinion, unlike yours, but the summary of scholarly consensus, or in this case its lack thereof. Also Wikipedia is not about votes, and I always expressed the belief that one or more expert admins should actually analyze given sources, and clarify whose side's reading is correct. Because it all boil downs to "per sources" and "they do not actually support that." This article should actually be about the history of genocides and mass killings by given regimes, many of which have been described or categorized as 'totalitarian.' As I wrote in the RfC above, there is no scholarly literature the way we structure this article but there is plenty of literature about totalitarian regimes and genocide/mass killings, see Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue, and Final Solutions. Neither of those works limit themselves to Communist regimes, so why should we, too? Another article, focused on Communist states and about death tolls and the victims of Communism narrative, can be written based on my lead. So this article should actually be expanded to be a history of genocides and mass killings, not limited to Communist states... because... guess what... that is what sources actually do; they do not limit themselves to Communist states and do not just make comparative analysis between Communist states but between wildly different regimes. Davide King (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the new lead strays a little to much away from an NPOV. Given the breath and depth of sourcing for this article starting with the definition of MOS:WEASEL is probably not great. Going on to try and cast doubt on if it happened and to what extent is also out of line with what the article talks about. Judging by the RFC just above I think you should revert your changes to the lead and try to get consensus for your changes. PackMecEng (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP succinctly explained the problem, issue, and difference, except that scholars do not actually agree that "Mass killings took place in some/many communist states." (see Valentino). What they and we can all agree is that tragedies and awful events happened which have resulted in the deaths of many people. I think a solution to salvage this article and avoid any issue of original research and synthesis is to make it about the history of genocides and mass killings. Because most scholars do not find a link between capitalism, communism, or whatever and genocide and mass killings; the only exception may be fascism, and in that case mainly Nazism. There is no serious valid reason to refuse this, other than political bias, because scholars discuss wildly different regimes together; they do not discuss all Communist regimes together, only some of them, and they may compare them not to other Communist regimes, but to other regimes in general, such as Nazi Germany (in the case of the Cambodian genocide). Another article about the Communist death toll can be created to support the proposition B summarized by the IP. That is the only solution. We already have singular articles about each event and tragedies; there is no need to engage in original research and synthesis by positing there is a link with "Communism." Sources do not treat it as a separate subject. Davide King (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but that is all just incorrect. Please see my previous comment that addresses the policy based issues with the lead change you made. Again please self revert pending consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Yeah but that is all just incorrect."

Per Anton Weiss-Wendt, "[t]here is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe." Per Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, discussion of the number of victims of Communism has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased."

Per Benjamin Valentino, "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." Per Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermannm, "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss."

Per Michael David-Fox, the idea to connect the deaths with some 'generic Communism' concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals and the alleged connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category (to paraphrase).

Per Andrzej Paczkowski, 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." While a good question [comparison between Communism and Nazism], it is hardly new and inappropriate because The Black Book of Communism is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon."

But sure, my analysis must be "all just incorrect." Davide King (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You didn't respond to any of the issues I raised or sources I provided. You have now reverted my lead, even though I would have been curious about what others users had to say. Can you provide a source for "There were many mass killings under communist regimes of the 20th century" rather than "Awful things and tragedies did indeed happen and many people have lost their lives" (which we all agree with)? That statement is contradicted by Valentino and other scholars, per sources I have provided. Davide King (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Even The Black Book of Communism doesn't really discuss mass killings other than passing mentions and very specific events, most of which happened in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. We can make this article about a scholarly comparative analysis between those three regimes, but the title is misleading because most Communist states didn't engage in mass killings. Davide King (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times over the life of this article. With no new arguments or new information there is no reason to go against previous consensus. It is well documented that the majority of major communist states did, in fact, engage in mass killings of their own citizens. That is not really up for debate. If you think that another article should be created documenting your personal point of view you are free to do so. This article however is not for that. PackMecEng (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Claiming "consensus" or saying that this "has been discussed numerous times over the life of this article" doesn't mean anything, if sources don't support it. It is well documented that the majority of major communist states did, in fact, engage in mass killings of their own citizens." Again, Benjamin Valentino disagrees. "That is not really up for debate." No, what's really not up for debate is that tragedies and awful events happened, which have resulted in the deaths of many people. What is debatable is whether all these events can be categorized as mass killings and whether Communism was the link. Again, I provided sources that reject this article and the lumping all Communist states. All you have is your personal opinion. I have provided over ten sources, you have provided none. Davide King (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been away for a week and at the risk of re-starting a thread that seems to have died: No, Davide King, Benjamin Valentino does not agree. Valentino is talking specifically about his own definition of mass killing (50,000 killed within 5 years or less) when he says "Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." It is important to understand that mass killing in English is also a generic term for large-scale killing, and Valentino does acknowledge that mass killing in this generic sense did occur in other communist states that he chooses not to focus on ("Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa."). AmateurEditor (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I would like to say I appreciate your work and for taking our concerns seriously, even if we disagree. As you said, we discussed this many times, so I hope Paul Siebert can more specifically answer, if they did not do this already; but Valentino's interpretation needs to be sourced to secondary sources; we need a secondary source that explicitily support what you summarized. I still think the title is one of the issues because it implies a link that is not supported by scholarly sources; it would be the same thing like Mass killings under capitalist, fascism, Muslim, etc. regimes, as if ideology alone was the sole culprit, which is not the case according to genocide scholars, including Valentino. Excess deaths, excess mortality, or mass deaths would be more neutral and accurate terms, especially because mass killing is problematic due to not having clear, or using different, criteria, and scholars themselves disagreeing on terminology. Davide King (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of primary source because one can cherry pick quotes; however, secondary sources do not support Valentino as a proponent of mass killings under Communist regimes but rather as a proponent of Communist mass killing, which is a different thing, a subcategory of dispossessive mass killing vis-a-vis coercive mass killing. I believe this is also what Paul Siebert said to such objections. Davide King (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Davide King, but I'm not going to be able to read this entire thread, previous threads and familiarize myself with the sources in time to provide any meaningful commentary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  This really sucks and is a serious problem. The article should have been deleted with the first AfD (K) 22–27 (D) due to being created by an indefinitely banned user. Because it was kept, despite three consecutive no consensus results (if there is no consensus to keep, the solution is not to keep it; the onus is on those to make the positive charge of keep to gain consensus to keep the article in the first place), which gave strength to those who were fine with the article and had no incentive in fixing the problems. Keeping the article in that AfD just give more strength to those in favor of Keep because, by the mere fact the article exists, it is assumed there is no original research and synthesis violations to warrant deletion, or anything other than the article's structure as it has existed for so long. Can you at least check the sources that I cited? Davide King (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  Davide King, you write "if there is no consensus to keep, the solution is not to keep it" — that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AfD works. In AfD, the proposed question is whether or not an article should be deleted. If there is a no consensus close, then there is simply no consensus to delete, per WP:NOCON. And, as to the trope that this was G5 eligible, by the time the creator was identified as a sock there were substantial edits made by other users, making it explicitly not eligible for speedy deletion. I also find it interesting that you brought up the vote total of the first AfD when you yourself said to me just yesterday that "Wikipedia is not about votes." I would challenge you (as I have others) to put the thing up for deletion if you think it should be deleted. Heck, if it gets deleted, you'd be saving everyone a lot of time! I'd do it myself, while paradoxically !voting keep, but that would likely be a WP:POINT violation.

I do want to address an earlier point you made. You wrote, in response to me, "Another article, focused on Communist states and about death tolls and the victims of Communism narrative, can be written based on my lead." Dude, we already have that article, and it's this one! Write your own article if you want an expanded look at totalitarianism and mass killings. And, if you don't like this article, put it up for deletion. But what you propose is deletion by stealth, and there is, thus far, no consensus for you to do that. I echo the call for you to self revert. schetm (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That is a problem of consensus itself, which is misinterpreted, as was also reflected by Paul Siebert here and here but that is beside the point; the damage has already been done. "I also find it interesting that you brought up the vote total of the first AfD when you yourself said to me just yesterday that 'Wikipedia is not about votes.'" I brought it up because even by that standard, there are problems; you also ignored that I specified that the arguments were largely the same. It is unclear why there was a double standard in the AfDs. By the way, considering the controversy, it would not have been a bad idea to delete the article while improvements to the articles could have been done in a draft and/or sandbox, and then reach consensus on whether the improvements are now enough to warrant the article.

You call that "deletion by stealth", I call that writing a proper article that does not violate any policy and that actually follows the scholarly literature. I propose this article to be about the history and analysis of genocide and mass killings (an actual topic and literature), rather than writing a new one myself, simply because it already includes Communist states; we just need to add other types of regimes discusses, dude! Either way, you are deflecting and have not properly responded to any of the issues I raised. Why should we not follow actual sources, such as Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue, and Final Solutions? They do not limit themselves to Communist states, so why should we do the same and imply mass killings are only something Communist states do or did? Why does only Communist regimes, of all regimes under which many people have lost their lives, warrant an article of its own rather than a large section about my proposed-expanded article?

Even though actual, scholarly sources do not limit to them. Valentino and other scholars clearly disprove the theory that mass killings took place in some/many communist states; they agree on the tragic events and that many people died but they do not describe them as mass killings, and Valentino say that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings. Who holds more weight? You, or what those scholars actually say? So the topics supported by sources are:

Proposition A: Many tragic events happened under Communist states and many, many people lost their lives. Many tragic events also happened under wildly different regimes and many, many people lost their lives. Why is that? And what can we learn from them to avoid happening it in the future?

Proposition B: These events are connected to each other, and/or to the ideology of communism, through the victims of communism narrative, and several authors have engaged in estimates of death tolls. It is a controversial theory, it has been compared to the double genocide theory, many estimates have been criticized, and is not supported by most scholars but it is relevant and notable.

Finally, can you, any of you, answer to this?

After reaching consensus on the main topic [we disagree, as summarized by the IP below, you are for A, I am for B, and I am also for A if it is about analysis of genocide and mass killings in general, not limited to Communist states], can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? [I am referring mainly at the Proposed causes section, where we are like "he said, she said" but rather than use secondary sources that analyze what they actually say, we cite the authors themselves]

Are there any academic Communist Genocide or Communist Mass Killings books [which actually support that mass killings took place in some/many communist states as scholarly consensus rather than a few authors' view], rather than just chapters about selective events under Communist regimes [I have shown that there is no consensus among scholars, who disagree in lumping all Communist states together as if they are a monolithic block, that they disagree about describing the events as mass killings, that only a few events, such as the Cambodian genocide, are commonly described in scholarly literature as genocide, and there is no consensus on the terminology; many of this, we already say it in the body. If the main topic is not about mass killings but excess deaths and mortality, that is a different thing and would still require a rewrite]. Be my guest. Davide King (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"They do not limit themselves to Communist states, so why should we do the same" — we shouldn't, but this article is about mass killings under communist regimes. This article is not about mass killings under totalitarian regimes. To push that point is to deny the clear consensus in the RFC above. I think that sums up my criticism of the IP's Prop A well. As to Prop B, I'd need sourcing that specifically says it "is not supported by most scholars". The existence of sources that criticize the theory is not evidence of that particular point, and a SYNTH violation is committed by adding up sources on either side and coming to that conclusion. schetm (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As I expected, you keep deflecting and didn't answer most of points I raised, including sources. As noted by The Four Deuces below, and as stated by Valentino, most Communist states didn't engage in mass killings, so the only fact is that many peoples have died under Communist states and those were tragic events; this is the fact. What is not a fact is that all those events were either a genocide or mass killings because scholars are still debating them, and most Communist states did not engage in either genocide or mass killing. Communists in Nepal democratically shared the power with Social Democrats and others. The whole mass killing category has definitional problems because it may mean any deaths over 5 and anything over 50,000. This is why scholars don't describe those events as mass killing, and this is where original research come in. Valentino says that ideology doesn't explain genocide or mass killing.

"... but this article is about mass killings under communist regimes." It shouldn't be because this is synthesis per above ("Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing"), and because it implies Communism, rather than any other factor, was the main cause. Again, scholars and sources do not treat it it as a separate subject (Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue, and Final Solutions). It shouldn't be about totalitarian regimes either because it would be committing the same synthesis by claiming that totalitarianism is the cause of genocide and mass killing, when that is not supported by scholars, is not even what sources say, and totalitarianism is also a debated concept among scholars.

The only solution is to make this article about an history and analysis of genocide and mass killing, including Communist regimes and many others wildly different regimes. You are the one supporting the article as it is, so the onus is on you; I have yet to see any source that says the article as it currently is reflects sources and "is ... supported by most scholars." You are the one who is making positive claims, and any positive claim I have actually made was backed up by sources, which you ignored.

"To push that point is to deny the clear consensus in the RFC above." That is to be established by the closer, and you may have the numbers, but they shouldn't matter; I believe the other side gave the strongest argument, while you keep reducing yourself to "per source" arguments, when they don't actually support what they claim to do. Davide King (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A compromise solution is to make this article about what TFD described. "Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization." After all, those are the three states where most things happened, and as noted by Valentino most Communist regimes didn't engage in mass killing, and democratic Communists in the post-war period, or democratic Nepal, didn't engage in genocide or mass killing. Davide King (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, if you look at the definitions of the other terms in the terminology section, and the excerpts supporting them, all of them use the generic mass killing explicitly in their definitions (or some equivalent phrase like "large-scale killing" or "mass murder"). Valentino's non-generic definition of mass killing should not be confused with the generic term. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But do they specifically discuss Communist states or are they talking in general? Why not turn this article into a scholarly analysis of genocide and mass killing, which would include Communist states and many other and wildly different regimes? An article more focused on Communism (the narrative, excess deaths and mortality, and only scholarly estimates) can be created but this one, since it already discuss Communist regimes, it can be expanded to support my Proposition A (Many tragic events happened under Communist states and many, many people lost their lives. Many tragic events also happened under wildly different regimes and many, many people lost their lives. Why is that? And what can we learn from them to avoid happening it in the future?), which is what genocide scholars actually do. Davide King (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The sources cited for those terms have specifically applied them to communist states. Please read the excerpts cited in that section if you don't want to take my word for it. That's why the excerpts are there. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia for this article as well as other more general articles. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That may be true for each term but I am specifically referring to the introductory phrasing at the start of the section. Krain 1997 is about genocide and mass killing in general, and even if you are right, Wheatcroft 1996 and others still do not support the article as you have written. The fact there is no clear criteria for what constitute a mass killing is the problem (when that number can range from as few as four to more than 50,000 people, what are we talking about?), and for why we should not have such a controversial article.

I agree with Siebert and TFD's points below; we should be using all sources but by doing that we would actually have to rewrite the article because sources do not support the events as mass killings, while it only includes, through synthesis and original research, events where many people have died and act like they were mass killing and communism is the link. "Some editors say lets use that definition and enumerate every case in Communist countries." Unfortunately, that is exactly what the article does. If a source says an event was a mass killing, or use any other term (which add further confusions, as stated by TFD, because any term is treated as a synonym or as treating the same thing or topic, hence that section is still synthesis), but defines mass killing as any events with at least four deaths, and other describe the same event as mass killing but defines it as any event with more than 50,000, we have got a problem, there is no consensus, and we are engaging in original research and synthesis. Essentially, this article lists the Great Chinese Famine as a mass killing under a Communist regime because a few sources are synthetized to support that, ignoring all the others who do not; if scholarly consensus, or lack thereof, says it was not a mass killing, we are not going to list it here just because you have found a few minority sources who do. In many cases, they are not even significant enough to be in the individual event's main article.

If any of this is not enough, we actually have a genocide scholar source that disproves this article. It is not just a genocide scholar source but an actual global database of mass killings which, coincidentally, is also the most frequently used by genocide scholars. Most of the events we discuss in this article are not there, and even the few that are there, no link is made between communism or that they are mass killings under Communist regimes, rather than a genocide (Cambodian genocide) or politicide (others) which just happened to take place under regimes governed by self-professed Communist parties. Davide King (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You say "The fact there is no clear criteria for what constitute a mass killing is the problem...". It is the sources' problem, not ours. The sources are aware of the problem and discuss it. We need only reflect what they have published, warts and all. I responded to Paul Siebert's points below. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

And if it's the sources' problem, it's also ours; I can't understand how you don't see this. "The sources are aware of the problem and discuss it." They certainly don't discuss in the same way this article is structured; they don't draw a link with communism or lump together all states governed by self-professed Communist parties as the article does. I look forward to The Four Deuces and Paul Siebert addressing your points below. I am surprised you didn't point out that the global database combines all mass killing events since 1955 because I would say that's irrelevant, as there is no link drawn to communism, are not categorized or divided into mass killings under Communist regimes; they are all listed together, which is why you're always welcome to help me turn this article into a scholarly analysis of genocides and mass killings irrespective of ideology or regime-type, and the other article about TFD's victims of Communism narrative and Paul Siebert's neutral analysis proposal. That would be following what actual genocide scholars do, and not original researching through cherry picking and synthesis, by violating NPOV, this content POV fork article of Genocide and Mass killing. Davide King (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Our only problem as wikipedia editors is to write an article that reflects the content of the identified reliable sources on the topic in accordance with wikipedia policies/guidelines. It is not our problem to resolve any issues that the sources themselves are grappling with. There certainly are sources (included in the article already) that do lump together states governed by self-professed communist parties. For examples, see the following excerpts, among others: excerpt "i" by Rummel (from an essay titled "How Many did Communist Regimes Murder?"), excerpt "ag" by Valentino ("...Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million..."), and excerpt "aj" by Alex Bellamy ("Between 1945 and 1989, communist regimes massacred literally millions of civilians."). The global database of genocide/politicide events you mentioned that is reproduced in the more general Mass killing article is of course not restricted to communist governments, but the author, Barbara Harff (with Ted Gurr), has written about Marxist-Leninist politicide specifically: see excerpt "bw": Harff & Gurr 1988, p. 369: "Revolutionary mass murder: the most common type of politicide (following repressive politicide), with ten examples in our data set. In all these instances new regimes have come to power committed to bringing about fundamental social, economic, and political change. Their enemies usually are defined by variants of Marxist-Leninist ideology: initially their victims include the officials and most prominent supporters of the old regime and landowners and wealthy peasants. Later they may include-as they did in Kampuchea and in China during the Cultural Revolution-cadres who lack revolutionary zeal. In Laos and Ethiopia they have included ordinary peasants in regions which actively or passively resisted revolutionary policies. Most Marxist-Leninist regimes which came to power through protracted armed struggle in the postwar period perpetrated one or more politicides, though of vastly different magnitudes. The worst offender was the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea; the second worst, the Chinese Communist regime.". Most sources use "communist regimes", but "Marxist-Leninist regimes" is clearly referring to the same thing. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"... but the author, Barbara Harff (with Ted Gurr), has written about Marxist-Leninist politicide specifically." So why do we not rename this Marxist-Leninist rather than communist then? And she has not written about many of the events we currently synthesised them with. "Most Marxist-Leninist regimes which came to power through protracted armed struggle in the postwar period perpetrated one or more politicides, though of vastly different magnitudes." Most is not all, and there remains the terminology synthesis issue ("So you are saying that as long as a source uses the expression mass killing we can put it in even if the sources define mass killings differently.") The whole categorisation of lumping them all together is disputed (when there is a dispute, the solution is not to take the side of those who propose the lumping, such as using a title biased towards their views or implying it as a fact, rather than a more descriptive title; if scholars dispute the categorisation of Communist states, that warrants a more neutral rewrite, it does not warrant having an article that gives more weight to those who support the lumping), and sources can include some and exclude others; consistency does not rank high on your priorities. "Most sources use 'communist regimes', but "Marxist-Leninist regimes" is clearly referring to the same thing." Again, it would be helpful to at least capitalise it then, because Communist is capitalised exactly to make it clear it is referring to Marxism-Leninism (Communist state) and not necessarily to communism. Finally, this remains a primary source issue because they are sources as interpreted by AmateurEditor; the quotes may be very explicit but we still need a secondary source establishing that they are discussing this topic (and we still disagree on the topic, so what are even discussing about? You say they support yours, I say they support ours, wall against wall), or else they just remain your word against mine because we interpret them differently. Rather than cherry pick quotes from their own work, you need to give me a secondary source about what Harff and Valentino thought, and whether they support the topic as you understand it, or as I and others understand it. Again, why cannot those sources used to actually expand the Mass killing article to discuss Communist states there? Why we must have a separate, content POV fork article limited to Communist states, when genocide scholars do not discuss them in a vacuum, as we currently do? We need a secondary source about what Harff et al. thought, and the few out there still do not support the article as currently structured and do not rule out a rewriting or TFD/Siebert proposal. This just is not going nowhere, so I hope that TFD/Siebert can reply you on this, or correct/clarify something. Davide King (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Just one last thing. As stated by Paul Siebert, as long as main articles about the events disagree with what we write here, all of this is irrelevant; for most of the content here, if truly due, should belong first to the main articles. If there is a contradiction, it is a NPOV, OR, SYNTH, WEIGHT, and so on and so forth violation(s), all the tags remain appropriate, and a rewrite would be necessary. We cannot even agree on the main topic, or how to interpret it, so we can continue to discuss this for months, it will be irrelevant; the fair solution would be to rewrite it together and find some common ground. As I said, I think your interpretation can easily fit TFD/Siebert proposal; it is much harder to fit ours in the current article because it is full of violations and would require a big re-structuring, which is why your calls to simply add things, criticism, analysis, etc. to the article miss our points and concerns. Davide King (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, I apologize for the delay in responding, but here it is:

1) you asked "why do we not rename this 'Marxist-Leninist'"? I answered that question before you even asked it: as I said at the end of my previous post, "Most sources use "communist regimes", but "Marxist-Leninist regimes" is clearly referring to the same thing." For the policy, see WP:COMMONNAME.

2) you say "she has not written about many of the events..." but she does not have to. She only has to write about the topic of mass killings under communist regimes, and she did.

3) you say "Most is not all..." but that is only a problem if we are citing her for saying all. We are not. Her saying most committed politicides is her take on the topic.

4) you say "So you are saying that as long as a source uses the expression mass killing we can put it in even if the sources define mass killings differently." I am saying that mass killing is used as an undefined generic term for the terms politicide, genocide, classicide, etc. in the sources themselves, so it is not a case of sources using "mass killing" differently. Valentino uses "mass killing" differently with a specific definition, but even he also uses "mass killing as an undefined generic term (when he mentions "mass killings on a smaller scale" than his specific definition on page 91; see excerpt "ag"). We also have a source that explicitly states that "mass killing" in the field of genocide studies has a "sort of consensus" (see excerpt "g"). It is not synthesis to use the common term that reliable sources themselves use.

5) you say "lumping them all together is disputed". I assume you mean it is disputed by reliable sources, rather than wikipedia editors, but you have not provided sourcing for that. According to Michael Mann "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not." (see excerpt "av"). If there is legitimate reliable sourcing disputing lumping them all together, then that should of course be included in the article, but you can't jut assert it. You have to base it on reliable sources.

6) you say "sources can include some and exclude others". Yes they can. The views of sources should be accurately reflected in the article where they are being cited. If you see a sentence where that is not the case, it should be fixed. But a source stating that regimes A, B, and C committed mass killing and another source stating that regimes A, C, and D committed mass killing are both discussing the same topic of mass killing under communist regimes.

7) you say "consistency does not rank high on your priorities". Considering you falsely accused me of disrespecting you in this edit, I'm surprised that you appear to be doing that to me here. I have tried to be consistent with wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think I have been and I think the article is currently.

8) you say "Communist is capitalised exactly to make it clear it is referring to Marxism-Leninism (Communist state) and not necessarily to communism". See MOS:IDEOLOGY. It says not to capitalize when referring to an ideology such as marxism-leninism and to capitalize only when referring to the proper name of a political party. The article is currently in compliance with the Manual of Style on this by using lower-case "communist regimes".

9) you say "this remains a primary source issue because they are sources as interpreted by AmateurEditor". No, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. All secondary sources used in wikipedia are paraphrased by wikipedia editors unless directly quoted (which is rarely done); that doesn't make them primary sources. I have not interpreted anything from these sources that is not there is plain english. The analysis/interpretation of Harff and others about mass killings under communist regimes is not a primary source about mass killings under communist regimes. You could argue that they are primary sources about a different meta-topic (maybe "Analysis of mass killings under communist regimes"), but treating them that way would be inconsistent with both wikipedia policy and practice.

10) you say "why cannot those sources used to actually expand the Mass killing article to discuss Communist states there". They can be if you want, but that does not mean getting rid of the more focused article here. Wikipedia frequently has articles at different levels of detail and/or overlapping scope. For example, there are the articles Slavery, Slavery in the United States, Slavery among Native Americans in the United States, and History of slavery in Indiana, among other related articles. Communist mass killing, specifically, is a distinct topic found in reliable secondary sources and it is appropriate to have an article about it. It is not a POV fork any more than the various slavery articles are.

11) you say "As stated by Paul Siebert, ...". If you don't mind, I will reply to Paul Siebert's points when and where he makes them. There is no point in me also responding to your paraphrasing of him.

12) you say "We cannot even agree on the main topic, or how to interpret it". We agreed on the topic a long time ago: mass killings under communist regimes. That is a descriptive title, meaning a description of the topic, per WP:NDESC. "Mass killing" was chosen as a more neutral term than genocide, and we have since identified additional reliable sources and statements that make "mass killing" an even better choice. One source states that there is "a sort of consensus that the term 'mass killing' is much more straightforward than either genocide or politicide" (see excerpt "g"). Wheatcroft source mentions "mass killing" along with "repression" as one of the more neutral terms for the events of the USSR (see reference 30). The term "communist regimes" is also frequently found in the reliable sources and appears to be the best and most neutral choice. "Mass killings under communist regimes" likewise mirrors the neutral phrasing of one of the scholarly sources by Karlsson ("Crimes against humanity under communist regimes". If you or others no longer agree with that topic or that description, then you need to show why it is inappropriate according to wikipedia policy/guidelines/manual of style, which you have not yet done. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) WP:CRITERIA, which are seen as goal rather than rules, includes precision; precision would be making it clear that the Communist regimes we are talking about are Marxist-Leninist, so we could be more precise about it, and also using the Marxist-Leninist sidebar, not communism. If communism actually refers to Communist states and Marxism-Leninism, well, we have a problem because the Communism article is about the whole movement, not 20th-century Communism. We are just confusing readers by falsely implying those regimes represented all communism, when the source themselves, as you yourself admitted, are referring to Marxism-Leninism, so I see no harm in clarifying that. What matters is what sources actually mean by Communism; they mean Communist states and Marxism-Leninism, not broader communism. Unless someone has an inner motive in wanting to associate all communism with Communist states and Marxism-Leninism, I see no reason why we should not do our readers the favour of clarify what sources actually mean by that and they are not referring to all communism.

(2) "She only has to write about the topic of mass killings under communist regimes, and she did." She did not wrote about the topic of mass killings under Communist regimes, she wrote about genocide and mass killing, the latter of which is a proposed concept and theory for killings that make no distinction in membership; it is a theory and she writes in general, not Communist regimes.

(3) "Her saying most committed politicides is her take on the topic." Her database only lists the Cambodian genocide, the Cultural Revolution, and the Tibet Uprising, and she makes no connection with communism or between them.

(4) I do not necessarily disagree with any of that but this topic should be about the analysis and theory, not the events. Because scholars do not state it as fact, and secondary sources describe them as analysis and theory. "We also have a source that explicitly states that 'mass killing' in the field of genocide studies has a 'sort of consensus'." But is it about Communist regimes or in general? I think the issue is that I first want mass killings to be discussed in general terms, not limited to Communist states, to which you seem to attribute , or interpret source as doing it, some sort of speciality that is not there.

(5) See Dallin's review of The Black Book of Communism. "Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." A 'Red Holocaust'? A Critique of the Black Book of Communism by Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann, and "On the Primacy of Ideology: Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)" by Michael David-Fox. It was even mentioned in Malia's foreword ("... commentators in the liberal Le Monde argue that it is illegitimate to speak of a single Communist movement from Phnom Penh to Paris. Rather, the rampage of the Khmer Rouge is like the ethnic massacres of third-world Rwanda, or the 'rural' Communism of Asia is radically different from the 'urban' Communism of Europe; or Asian Communism is really only anticolonial nationalism. ... conflating sociologically diverse movements is merely a stratagem to obtain a higher body count against Communism, and thus against all the left.")

(6) But they are clearly disagreeing among themselves, so there is not actually consensus for mass killings under Communist regimes as you understand it. "Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization." This an actual topic that would not violate our policies.

(7) That is your opinion; I thought you respected our views, as I respect yours, even if we disagree but I guess this is not reciprocal on your part, or perhaps that was just a misunderstanding on both parts, and we respect each other. You also clearly misunderstood here of what I stated here. It is unclear what exactly you meant by that but I agreed with Siebert's statement, which is why we no longer advocate outright deletion because there are sources that would not violate original research but they support our proposed topic of analysis and theories, not yours of mass killings as fact, rather than mass, excess deaths, which is the fact; mass killing is just one theory to categorize the killings. "I have tried to be consistent with wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think I have been and I think the article is currently." I agree with everything, which also applies to me, except the bolded part, which is our disagreement.

(8) They are capitalized as proper noun, thus no policy violations. See "... communism (noun) ... 2. The economic and political system instituted in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Also, the economic and political system of several Soviet allies, such as China and Cuba. (Writers often capitalize Communism when they use the word in this sense.) These Communist economic systems often did not achieve the ideals of communist theory. For example, although many forms of property were owned by the government in the USSR and China, neither the work nor the products were shared in a manner that would be considered equitable by many communist or Marxist theorists."

(9) They are paraphrased only through other secondary sources. i.e. we should not paraphrase what Rummel said and citing it to Rummel himself; we need to paraphrase the secondary source (Jacobs and Totten) about what Rummel said. We do this for Rummel, why should we not do the same for others? You may paraphrase them well but you need to paraphrase the secondary source (i.e. a review of Rummel), not Rummel's primary source (i.e. Rummel's work itself). You did this for Rummel, you just need to do this for all the others too. Is this more clear? "The analysis/interpretation of Harff and others about mass killings under communist regimes is not a primary source about mass killings under communist regimes." Again, the topic is not and should not be "mass killings under communist regimes" but their analysis and theories, hence why they are primary sources in that sense. "You could argue that they are primary sources about a different meta-topic (maybe 'Analysis of mass killings under communist regimes'), but treating them that way would be inconsistent with both wikipedia policy and practice." Why? That is the topic we propose because your topic is original research because it treats theories as facts, and makes no distinction between deaths (fact) and their categorisation (theory).

(10) How is that topic different? That is what Valentino actually propose according to secondary sources (Straus 2007), not what you interpreted.

(11) I agree. I also suggest you to discuss what we are talking about with both The Four Deuces and Paul Siebert because English is their primary language and I believe they can express better my main points; in short, I am afraid I may express myself in ways that do not actually support what I was trying to say, so apart from clarifying some points I asked you here, I think it is better if you discuss this with them. They can better address and explain our points.

(12) Consensus can and does change; many users are discouraged because of our long discussions, and I assure there are several more users that would make it more clear there is no consensus on the main topic. There has not been a proper AfD or RfC in a decade by now. We just need to neutrally write one that correctly summarize both sides. Again, sources are discussing mass killing in general terms, not in special Communist regimes terms, mass killing is a more straightforward term to describe non-genocide killings in general, which is why most sources are about genocide and mass killing in general or in the 20th century. ". If you or others no longer agree with that topic or that description, then you need to show why it is inappropriate according to wikipedia policy/guidelines/manual of style, which you have not yet done." I believe I have done this by providing many sources that treat this as a theory, that genocide studies are a minority school of thought and are not mainstream political science to treat this as fact, that this article should be an offset of Mass killing but first we need to put the analysis there in a section focused on Communism. As things stand, it is a content fork article because none of this is discussed in main articles about event, or at Genocide and Mass killing. Davide King (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The terminology section provides a range of definitions from one death per year to 50,000 over five years, caused by any government action, deliberate or accidental. Some editors say lets use that definition and enumerate every case in Communist countries. But WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Per policy, we need a defined topic that includes events that reliable sources place within the topic. This article would be an embarrassment to the World Anti-Communist League. But note that the sanctions for this article aren't even about ideology, they're about an ethic-nationalist dispute between Russia and Eastern European states in the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine. Somehow Pol Pot's massacres in Kampuchea have relevance to the Russian annexation of Crimea. TFD (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You said: "Some editors say lets use that definition and enumerate every case in Communist countries". No, editors do not say that and the article does not do that. The article title/topic does not refer to that specific definition, it refers to generic "mass killing" as it is used in just about every source cited in the article. "Generic "mass killing" is most appropriate because it is generic. Please see the excerpts. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that as long as a source uses the expression mass killing we can put it in even if the sources define mass killings differently. To add to the confusion, we are assuming that other expressions be considered to be synonyms. TFD (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, AmateurEditor literally says that the sources that use some certain terminology should be used in the article, whereas the sources that use different terminology should not be used. By doing that, a huge number of sources are either left beyond the scope or put in a subordinated position, which is a violation of our policy. We have a list of events (Great Purge, Great Chinese Famine, etc), and we must use all sources, fairly and without editorial bias, what those sources say about those events. If we do a comprehensive analysis of sources, we will see that the sources this article is based upon are minority sources. See the example provided by me in the section below. Thus, the article discusses in details if the Great Chinese famine was mass killing, democide, politicide etc, but the relative contribution of FAD1/FAD2 or entitlement famine components is totally overlooked, despite the fact that true famine experts discuss that event in those terms. The article definitely expresses minority POV and put the experts opinia in a subordinated position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I literally say that sources about the article's topic are the reason the article exists and are what the article must be based upon, and that sources that do not discuss the topic in general but do discuss part of the topic (such as one event, but not in the context of mass killings under communist regimes generally) can and should be included in a supplementary capacity. You have been arguing that we should draw our own OR conclusions about what sources that do not discuss mass killings under communist regimes generally intend by not doing that. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You mix two totally unrelated questions: article's existence and article's structure. Yes, several sources exist that make the topic non-OR. That is true, and we never had any disagreement about that. However, it does not mean the structure of the article must reflect what those sources say. As I already said, must prove that the sources you are talking about reflect majority views, and I you failed to provide any evidences for that. As I already explained (and I am a little bit annoyed that I have to repeat these explanations again and again, although it is quite possible that I cannot find correct words to explain my thought), the topic covers some concrete list of events, and if different sources can be obtained when you use different terminology and/or keywords for our goggle scholar search, that means our set of sources may be incomplete, and we need to be very careful in defining the topic, otherwise some sources may be even ignored or placed in a subordinated positions relative to the sources that we voluntaristically selected as a base for the article. In connection to that, I suggest you to focus on teh Great Chinese Famine: the authors writing about "Communist mass killings"/"-cides" usually include it into the global "Communist death toll", whereas the authors who write about that event specifically usually describe it otherwise. Meanwhile, that event is responsible for up to 50% of all deaths inflicted by Communist regimes, therefore it event alone significantly change the overall picture. So far, the evidences already provided by me, and additional evidences that I have and can provide, say that GCF is not considered as mass killing/democide by most authors. Therefore, the view of Valentino, Rummel, Courtois, and few other authors should be presented as an opinion, and should not be used as a base for the article's structure.

In addition the Great Chinese Famine article tells a totally different story about that event (thus, it even does not contain the word "democide" or "mass killing"). By telling two totally different stories in two different articles we clearly and obviously violate NPOV.

I perfectly understand how and why all of that happened. This article started as the article about Cambodian genocide, which was a clear and obvious case of a mass killing (and which was recognized as genocide first by Communist regimes of Vietnam and USSR, whereas the US we tacitly supporting KR). However, to this very obvious case, other cases were being added piece by piece, and the article quickly became a non-neutral collection of anticommunist journalism.

I see two ways to fix this article. The first way, in my opinion it is preferable, is to convert the article into the description of theories (Rummel, Valentino, and few others), and supplement it with a critical analysis of them. This approach is preferable, because we don't need to tell about the events themselves, for each of them is perfectly described in specialized articles.

The second approach is to describe mass mortality events in Communist states (and probably rename it to the "Mass mortality events in Communist states", and, in a separate section, describe what Valentino et al say about them.

I already explained all of that, and I and a little bit worried that your response will be "No, this article is perfectly in agreement with our policy", but that is definitely wrong, because I persuasively demonstrated it is not. Please, provide fresh arguments if you disagree with me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. In a situation when we are having this and that, your attempts to pretend that the article does not violate NPOV does not look convincing. The topic may exist, but the article's structure is totally inadequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you say "Yes, several sources exist that make the topic non-OR. That is true, and we never had any disagreement about that." Well, then tell that to Davide King, who seems to think you do. If you're annoyed about having to repeat yourself, then you know how I feel. Per WP:RS/AC, if we do not currently have sourcing to justify that a particular view is a majority view, then we must present all the views as significant minority views (meaning as opinion), which is what we have done. That is, we have to present all the views on the article topic. The topic is not just some random list of events. We do not consider any and all sources that mention any of the events as sources that discuss the article topic: the topic is not just mass killings, it is mass killings under communist regimes (plural). Meaning only those sources that discuss the killing of multiple communist regimes together are the sources on which the article is based (but that must include sources that criticize such sources or just criticize the idea of lumping the regimes/killing together). Sources that focus on a single event or a single regime without lumping communist regimes' killings together are sources on which other articles for those single event or single regimes should be based. They can be cited here for facts and analysis of the individual events/regimes, but in a supplementary capacity, and cannot be what the article structure is based upon. Otherwise we have clear synthesis/OR.

I hate trying to reason by analogy or hypothetical, but for an article like Slavery in Africa you might have critics saying that there is nothing that justifies such an article because slavery has and does exist on other continents, Africa itself is hugely diverse with a long and varied history, the types of bondage described are also diverse, and it is misleading to restrict the topic to just Africa because people could be misled by omission in all sorts of ways. Wikipedia's solution to all that is not to get rid of the "Slavery in Africa" article (which is presumably reliably sourced), it is to also have other articles that are more general, more specific, and/or overlapping in all sorts of ways (again, assuming there are reliable secondary sources that justify each of them), such as Slavery, Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Atlantic slave trade, Slavery on the Barbary Coast, Slavery in ancient Egypt, Slavery in contemporary Africa, Trans-Saharan slave trade, etc., etc., etc.

Your example of the Great Chinese Famine article not mentioning mass killing (or democide, etc.) means that that article is incomplete/missing information because we definitely do have reliable sources that characterize the Great Chinese Famine that way. Each article is supposed to be comprehensive of its topic (within reasonable level-of-detail size constraints) and this perspective is a part of it. WP:NPOV says NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Also, topics define articles, so NPOV policy applies within an article/topic, not between articles/topics.

You say "This article started as the article about Cambodian genocide...". That's incorrect; the article was general to communism as a whole from the beginning. Here is the entire article as it was created with the first edit on August 3, 2009: Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes accross the world. Courtois in The Black Book of Communism compared Communism and Nazism as slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis" [1]. According to Dr. Kors, founder of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), "No other system has caused as much death as communism has".[2] As you can see, the article has improved since then.

About article structure, we have to follow wikipedia policy/guidelines/MOS (such as WP:STRUCTURE) but there are few explicit rules other than being neutral. In my view, article structure should be whatever allows us to most effectively present the currently identified secondary sources on the topic in a neutral manner, so it may change as additional sources are identified. The currently identified sources discuss subtopics of terminology, totals, causes, and also details of individual regimes/events, so that is what the article does. Your suggestion to change the entire article into a "description of theories and supplement it with a critical analysis of them" is close to what we have right now in sections 1, 2, 3, and 5 (although criticism is thin, it is there, but mostly of individual sources, rather than criticism of the topic itself). Your suggestion to change the article to be "mass mortality events in Communist states", is a significant change away from the sources and appears to be OR. What source describes these events as "mass mortality events"? That kind of language is used for natural disasters (maybe some famines are characterized that way, but famines are disputed in general for this topic, which is why we have the "Debate over famines" section). It seems to me to be very non-neutral when applied to the non-controversial/non-famine events in which people were deliberately and directly killed by the regimes.

About your search results, please see Wikipedia:Search engine test (search results are not part of any policy/guideline I am aware of). We make very clear in the article currently that famines are disputed as being mass killing. Some sources do say they are and also meet wikipedia's reliable source standard, so their view should be included in wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• "..."we do not currently have sourcing to justify that a particular view is a majority view, then we must present all the views as significant minority views". Wrong. Per policy, we should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias, and the article's atricture you are advocating introduces a strong editorial bias. Furthermore the policy requires us to assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, which means we must make a good faith effort to evaluate prominence of each point. I made such efforts, whereas you persistently refuse to do so, and you reject my conclusions under a false pretext. You say that "search results are not part of any policy/guideline I am aware of", which looks odd, because WP:SOURCES (a policy) contains a direct reference to Wikipedia:Search engine test. Your position is fundamentally wrong, because you literally say that if two or more different points of view exists, they must be presented as opinia, and presented equally. In reality, the policy says they must be presented proportionally to their prominence (not equally), and it is our job to determine this proportion. You refuse to do so, and you are blocking my efforts to do that.
• Of course, I may be wrong. However, doesn't it look natural to represent conflicting points of view from description of facts that are universally recogrized by all parties? I am sure, no good faith person can disagree with that. What fact is universally recognized in this topic? The fact that mass mortality events did occur in some Communist states. That means that fact should be a core of the article. That fact is recognised by Courtois, Valentino, Rummel, Ellman, O'Grada, and by all country experts, genocide scholars, famine experts, etc. That means that is a point we must start with. Later, we may present views of Valentino (who claimed those deaths were strategic mass killing), Rummel, who claimed that was democide, O'Grada, who explained Chinese famine totally differently, etc. That is a normal and totally natural approach, which is totally consistent with our policy, and that will be neither original research not non-neutral description. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, the first sentence from WP:NPOV is "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The topic here is mass killings under communist regimes, which we have reliable sources to justify, (as you have acknowledged - and as the large community has acknowledged, per the results of the AfDs years ago). The structure of the article should be whatever allows us to fairly represent the content of reliable sources on this specific topic. As I tried to explain with the Slavery in Africa example, different sources choose their own topics (or frames within larger topics), which are then legitimate topics for wikipedia articles, despite potentially excluding other frames from other sources (which can have their own wikipedia articles). You want to expand the scope of this article beyond its current topic so that you can include sources that do not address this specific topic, which is original research/synthesis if there are no sources on the specific topic you propose. I have been saying that other sources that do not contain this specific topic can still contribute significant supplemental material to the article but are not sources that justify the article and determine its structure. You say that the topic itself is too restricting and excludes sources that do not agree with the topic. However, sources that explicitly disagree are definitely not excluded (and are even required to be included in the article, when identified, per NPOV). The problem is that you are assuming that sources that do not address the topic at all one way or the other are implicitly rejecting the topic, which is original research.

Yes, Wikipedia:Search engine test is referenced in the policy WP:SOURCES, but only as a way to find individual reliable sources, not as a way to determine weight between sources. Wikipedia:Search engine test warns against relying on the numbers produced by search results and it explicitly states that searches are not a legitimate method of determining notability ("A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability."). Wikipedia:Search engine test explains what search engine results can and can't do and explicitly states that "search engines often will not [...] Be neutral." It also says: "Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. Google indexes self-created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that is mandatory and applies to all articles, and all article-related editorial activity. As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity."

About proportional representation of views, per WP:WEIGHT (and WP:RS/AC) all we can determine are where sources fall in the three different levels of acceptance: majority views, significant minority views, and fringe views. The proportionality we need to in representing views as their correct category (i.e. not treating a fringe view as a majority or significant minority view). I think the article currently correctly treats all the identified views as significant minority views, pending identification of a majority view at some point in the future. About "mass mortality events in some communist states", that is a significantly different article that would require sources speaking to that specific topic. Such an article would seem to include combatant war deaths, which this article excludes, and would include natural disaster deaths, which this article also excludes (famines are only included to fairly represent those sources that include them in this topic, which is acknowledged in the article to be controversial). Assuming there are reliable sources for the topic of mass mortality in communist states, or however you choose to title that, it is a different enough topic that it would be a separate article, rather than a replacement for this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

As schetm correctly noted below, the article's subject is events, not a narrative. That means ALL sources writing about, for example, the Great Chinese famine, must be represented equally, proportionally, and without bias. As I persuasively demonstrated, >95% sources write about that event in a totally different way than this article is doing. That happened because the selection of sources based on terminology used by them is an intrinsically flawed approach. If the article's structure does not allow us neutrally describe the topic, that means the structure is inadequate, and it must be changed. The current structure does NOT allow us to do so, moreover, it contains some general sources and country-specific that directly contradict to each other, and they are put is separate sections, which is clearly and strongly discouraged by our policy WP:STRUCTURE. That must be fixed, and I am intended to do that.

Regarding Search engine test, you must concede you were not right, because the policy contains a direct reference to it. We may argue about a context, but the fact is that the policy refers to it. And, I at least provided an example of a neutral and unbiased procedure of mainstream source identification (and you know that reliable sources say that my approach is quite correct). In contrast, you provided no alternative approach, you just say, without any evidences, that your sources are good, and those sources must be used as a core sources the article's structure is based upon.

In addition, since schetm noted that the "Causes" section is well written and well sourced, I decided to check that. Frankly speaking, I didn't review that section for several years. I am currently in the middle of that work, but my preliminary conclusion is that the section if terribly one-sided, dramatically incomplete, it contains a lot of synthesis, and it directly misenterprets the views of some authors, including Valentino himself. I was sick during the last week, so I had a time for writing that review. Now I recovered, and I return to my RL work, so I cannot tell you when the review will be posted here. However, after it will be posted, I am going to completely re-write that section, and I propose you to present your counter-arguments if you believe the current text is good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible summary

I hope it's ok for a non-wikipedian to comment here. I read the article and came here to post about it, then I saw the thread above. I'm thinking that my post could perhaps serve as a summary of the same issues detailed above, since it seems that a summary is needed.

Anyway, here is what I wanted to say. Consider the following two propositions:

Proposition A: Mass killings took place in some/many communist states.

Proposition B: These mass killings are connected to each other, and/or to the ideology of communism.

Proposition A is a fact. Proposition B is an opinion shared by some historians. The problem with this article is that it conflates A and B as if they were the same thing, and implies that everyone who agrees with A also agrees with B. That is not true.

As far as I can tell, the discussion above is basically about this, and about whether the article should be about A or B or both. Right now it seems to be about both, but without distinguishing them (in other words, it does not explain that "mass killings took place" and "all these mass killings are connected and happened for the same reasons" are two different ideas with very different levels of academic support; one is simply a fact, the other is a highly controversial opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:b029:2a63:d2c6:63f4:9b4:635c (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good and fairly accurate summary. The only problem is that scholars do not actually agree that "Mass killings took place in some/many communist states." (see Valentino), which makes this article remaining as it is even worse, because it clearly does not reflect what scholarly sources say and even misrepresent them. Like us, they only agree that awful things and tragedies did indeed happen and many people have lost their lives. Instead, Proposition B is a perfect summary. What I propose is to have a single article about history of genocide and mass killings, where we discuss the views of scholars of why they happened, what can we do to avoid them happening again, etc. but without using any single label or category, whether capitalism, Communism, totalitarian, etc.

Because by using a label or category, we are indirectly implying that is the link why they happened, which is not what scholarly sources say. Even totalitarianism is not a full-agreed concept among scholars and there is no consensus that totalitarianism is the sole reason why such events and tragedies happened. Indeed, Valentino actually says that ideology alone, or even ideology in general, does not fully explain why genocide and mass killings happened.

To sign your comment, use ~~~~ Davide King (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, as I stated above, this a good summary by the IP. I hope it can help you, so that you can make your contribute. Davide King (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A would be synthesis. It would be like mass killings in English speaking countries. Some connection between speaking English and mass killing would have to be made. There are I think two versions of B: (i) Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization. (ii) The other version is that mass killings were dictated in otherwise forgotten works of Karl Marx. Under this view, COVID-19 can be seen as the latest attempt by the Communists to wipe out the world population. Anyone who argues for A probably believes B (ii). TFD (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, this is correct. "Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization." Is this not exactly what Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. Research review? Can you summarize what this source is arguing? My understanding is that it is B (i). Davide King (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is arguing anything, since it is a review study summarizing what others have argued. It does however confirm what I said. The "geographical scope" is the USSR, China and Cambodia. The reason for the mass killings was rapid industrialization: "what marked the beginning of the unbalanced Russian modernisation process that was to have such terrible consequences?" It mentions that some writers see the origins of mass killings in Marx's writings. Unfortunately, there is very little literature that compares mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and the literature that does exist mostly enumerates mass killings rather than explain their ideological reasons. TFD (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I agree, especially that the reason was not necessarily ideology but rapid industrialization. Do you agree, then, that this source may be used for B (ii)? We could use it to summarize what they have argued within the narrative of Victims of Communism article. The problem of this article is that it uses too many primary sources (perhaps because secondary sources that support don't actually exists...), especially for the Proposed causes section about "he said, she said." Rather than using a secondary or tertiary source like this one, they use a primary source of the authors themselves. When you cite the author to say what the author say, it's a use of a primary source, right? Davide King (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If you use a source for the opinion of its author, it is a primary source. While allowed, I would avoid this because it requires us to interpret the passage and determine its degree of acceptance. The only exception would be direct quotes that had been reported in secondary sources. So for example in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is useful to cite the text of the amendment. TFD (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, so are those tags accurate? I just tagged the obvious one, but essentially the whole body is like this, with just a few exceptions. Davide King (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, those are not primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY, which says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." ... "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." ... "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.[h] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources." A primary source for this article would be something like original documents from the USSR with lists of people to be executed without trial. The sources used in this article use in-sentence attribution because we are trying to follow WP:RS/AC, which says "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." AmateurEditor (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

They are primary sources in the sense that any interpretation requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, as we do for Rummel with Jacobs and Totten. Either way, we should not be citing the authors themselves to say what they think; we need secondary sources; if we cannot find secondary sources, and they need to be specifically about the topic and not passing mentions, it means they are undue. For example, we should not be citing Conquest for In the 2007 revision of his book The Great Terror, Robert Conquest estimates that while exact numbers will never be certain, the communist leaders of the Soviet Union were responsible for no fewer than 15 million deaths. We could be citing Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (1999), who says The arguments about excess mortality are far more complex than normally believed. R. Conquest, The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (London, 1992) does not really get to grips with the new data and continues to present an exaggerated picture of the repression. The view of the 'revisionists' has been largely substantiated (J. Arch Getty & R. T. Manning (eds), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, 1993)). The popular press, even TLS and The Independent, have contained erroneous journalistic articles that should not be cited in respectable academic articles. Too bad he is writing about "victims of Stalinism", which are "a matter of political judgement" (Ellman 2002), and like Conquest, they did not write about mass killing or lumped all Communist states together as we do, but that at least would be a secondary source for what Conquest said. See? Davide King (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, these are not primary sources for the topic of mass killings under communist regimes. I linked you to the policy/guideline pages and quoted directly from them: we are supposed to identify the various opinions as the opinions of the particular authors, per WP:RS/AC. Finding a source that criticizes another source means you include both, it doesn't mean that one cancels out the other. Redefining the secondary sources as primary sources and then arguing that we need "secondary sources" for the analyses is nonsense. If you read what I posted before (and bolded for you), analysis and opinion is one of the characteristics of a secondary source. Primary sources are documents of the base facts and secondary sources are authors' "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts", which is what we have here. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Original interpretations or opinions are primary sources. Secondary sources report those opinions. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia articles must rely primarily on secondary sources. What confuses some editors is that the same source may contain all three types of source at one time. It would be helpful if we had secondary sources that compared and contrasted various studies on mass killings under communist regimes. Unfortunately none exist since there is no reliable literature about the topic of this article. Instead this article combines material to create a novel synthesis. TFD (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You say "Original interpretations or opinions are primary sources." No, they aren't. Original interpretations or opinions about the facts are what secondary sources do. See WP:PRIMARY, which says "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." ... "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." AmateurEditor (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe The Four Deuces gave you a better explanation than I ever could, and that's exactly what I was talking about. Another thing is that many sources, especially at "Proposed causes", are mainly about Communist state than Mass killing or the topic of this article, and are also non-scholarly, undue, or by non-experts, even if properly attributed and everything; they need a secondary source for their interpretation, as explained by TFD. The reason why you or someone else could not provide such secondary sources is because "none exist since there is no reliable literature about the topic of this article. Instead this article combines material to create a novel synthesis." Davide King (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said, some source may contain all three types of sources at one time. If it expresses a novel theory about the information it analyzes, it becomes a primary source for that theory. A biographer of Caesar for example will use all available sources to write about his life, which is a secondary source. But when he starts talking about his own theories, it becomes a primary source for those theories. Note that we attach the description reliable to secondary sources. Reliability relates to facts, i.e., the facts established by the author. But opinions are not facts and we don't require reliable secondary sources for them, since opinions expressed are primary sources. Alex Jones' website for example is just as reliable a source for what he says as is a peer-reviewed article for what its author says. The difference is that one is a reliable secondary source for the facts while the other is not. I guess the confusion is that secondary sources analyze primary sources to determine facts, but they also use those facts to determine opinions. Facts and oipnions are different things. While our main concern about facts is their accuracy, our main concern about opinions is their degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I will give you an example. There are no reliable primary sources for the life of Caesar and no primary sources that say he was assassinated in 44 B.C., since that dating system had not been developed. It requires "evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" to determine that date. TFD (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The current sources that analyze and interpret mass killings under communist regimes are rightly considered reliable secondary sources on the topic of mass killings under communist regimes. If you want to call them primary sources on the different topic of "analysis of mass killings under communist regimes", that's irrelevant to this article. If you want to have an article about the topic of "analysis of mass killings under communist regimes", you need reliable secondary sources for that topic. All secondary sources contain opinions, whether you call it evaluation, interpretation, or whatever else. There are three categories of degrees of acceptance for secondary sources in Wikipedia: fringe, significant minority, and majority. Until evidence is presented that the identified sources are fringe or majority views, we rightly treat them as significant minority views. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot actively participate in this discussion right now, but, Since David pinged me, let me explain my position again.

Surely, mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes, and that is an objective fact. This fact is undeniable, but the interpretation provided in this article is one-sided and distorted. As an example, let's take a look at and the main mass mortality event the Great Chinese famine. This event alone is responsible for about 50% of what is called by some authors "Communist death toll". Therefore, if this event, along with other mass mortality events is a topic of this article, the Great Chinese famine is expected to be described as "Communist mass killing", "democide", "politicide" or other "-cide" in majority of sources writing about it. However, if that is not the case, then by using this terminology we are leaving a significant amount of sources beyond the scope. In other words, if the search phrase great chinese famine and "mass killing" great chinese famine yields the same sources, the topic was defined correctly. However, if these two search produce totally different sets of sources, then the topic was defined incorrectly. As you can see, the first scenario takes place: by using "mass killing" or "democide" or other "-cides" during a search, we artificially narrow the range of sources telling about "Great Chinese famine". Thus O'Grada, a renown famine expert, never uses the term "mass killing" in his article about the Great Chinese famine. Therefore, is we use, for example, Valentino, to define a topic and then add the O'Grada article to provide additional information, we thereby imply that O'Grada shares Valentino's views, although there is no evidences that that is the case. In other words, by doing that, we are engaged in original research, which is not allowed per our policy.

If we take a look at the whole body of sources telling about mass mortality events in Communist states, we will see that few of them (e.g. Cambodian genocide) are universally seen as genocide, whereas others are described otherwise. Only few sources describe all mass mortality events in Communist states as genocide or politicide or mass killing etc. Moreover, even genocide scholars themselves, such as Harff, do not consider the most deadly events such as Great Chinese famine as mass killing a.k.a demo/politicide (it is not listed in the mass killing database). That means the article is dramatically non-neutral, and it is a piece of original research. The article must be totally rewritten, and it must tell about theories by Valentino or few other scholars, and about claims made by some authors, such as Courtois, and explain who support them (they do have a significant support), and who cricitise them (there is a lot of criticism). And, the description of the events themselves must be removed from this article, because it is written from the the point of view of the scholars who share the "mass killing" concept and ignores the views of majority of authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, this, this, this. Why can't such defenders of the article understand this? The fact Crimes against humanity, Genocide, and Mass killing do not really discuss Communist states as a monolithic, if they do at all, apart a few cases, is proof that Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes, apart from being original research and synthesis per reasons outlined by Siebert, are content POV forks. Of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source in itself and there is WP:OTHER, but assuming good faith, if Communist states are such notable cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and mass killing, surely they would be at least discussed in such articles in the first place? I noticed only now but the fact there is an actual database of mass killing, operated by a respected genocide scholar, who we misrepresent, among others, in this article, and it doesn't include mass killings by Communist states (apart the few exceptions also mentioned by Siebert, e.g. Cambodian genocide), it is an indictment against this own article and 'proof' that it is original research. It essentially contradicts the whole By state section, for any relevant scholar (not any author), who describes the event as something (in contrast to scholars who do not describe it as mass killing), it belongs to that article if a significant minority view, not here. The fact this article is admittedly based on minority views is the problem. When there is no consensus among genocide scholars and scholars of Communism, and among themselves in their own respective fields, original research, synthesis, and other serious policy and guidelines violations are only natural; they shouldn't be though, they are serious violations. Davide King (talk) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have boldly tagged the section for such reasoning. In short, this whole article, as currently structured, can only be supported if there is consensus among scholars (especially genocides scholars and scholars of Communism); if all we have are minority views, of which we give undue weight to authors and non-experts over scholars and specialists, this article as currently structured cannot exist, and needs to be rewritten per above. If that is the standard, similar articles about capitalist, Christian, colonial, fascist, Muslim, and the like can be easily created because there are similar minority views; of course, I hope this is not the standard because it would be original research and synthesis but then this article exists and seems to be the only one where our policies and guidelines do not apply. Davide King (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, please read WP:RS/AC. It does not support what you say about there needing to be a consensus among scholars. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but the article is titled Mass killings under communist regimes, and despite the body being full of admittedly minority views (significant ones for you), the lead states it as fact, including the terminology, which the body now at least say is only an attempt, and I still think it is synthesis; I mean, the whole article acts like there is consensus among scholars, so Paul Siebert's diagnosis is still correct, and the article needs a name change and a rewrite. WP:RS/AC also says Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus. While the article may not directly implies such a consensus exists, it makes it obvious indirectly, and is also why many users who support the article, and who have less knowledge than you do (even if we disagree), take it for granted. I mean, the real reason this article still exists is because many users are convinced there is consensus among scholars, for God forbid one say "mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes, and that is an objective fact. This fact is undeniable, but the interpretation provided in this article is one-sided and distorted", and it is full of original research and synthesis, exactly because there is no such consensus and sources used to support the article are either misrepresented or non-experts. Davide King (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Mass killings under communist regimes" is very much a fact and the lead correctly states it as such. I am not thrilled with the wording of the last sentence in the lead about terms, but it's ok, I guess. I have used the term "significant minority" in discussions here because it has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and you should not understand that as me saying I think they are actual minority views. Views included in the article are assumed to be "significant minority" for weight purposes views if there is no documentation of them being either of the other two weight categories (fringe or majority views). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, since you say you will be inactively participating in the discussion, I will respond to you comments in detail and you can replay whenever you have time.

1) You say "Surely, mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes, and that is an objective fact. This fact is undeniable, but the interpretation provided in this article is one-sided and distorted." I don't think anything in the article is distorted, but I can certainly believe that there are missing interpretations since most of the effort on the apologist side has been here on the talk page, rather than doing the work of contributing to the article itself. My contributions have been focused over the years on demonstrating with sources that there is no synthesis or original research related to the existence of the topic as expressed in the descriptive article title. The solution to missing interpretations is to add them.

2) You give the example of the Great Chinese Famine and say that if it is part of the topic, then it "is expected to be described as "Communist mass killing", "democide", "politicide" or other "-cide" in majority of sources writing about it." I disagree: even among the sources on the topic of mass killings under communist regimes generally (which is the more appropriate pool of sources), an event does not have to be included by the majority of sources to be a part of the topic and a part of this article. It is demonstrably a part of the topic if at least one of the reliable secondary sources we have identified includes it as part of the topic. The famines are the most controversial part of this topic among the communist mass killing sources themselves, which is why we have a separate section devoted to explaining that, so I would not expect a majority of sources about the Great Chinese Famine which are not general communist mass killing sources to use mass killing terminology.

3) You say that adding information on the Great Chinese Famine by O'Grada we would be implying that he agrees with characterizing it as Valentino or others do. I think that is not necessarily true because it depends on the particulars of what is written.

4) You say "even genocide scholars themselves, such as Harff, do not consider the most deadly events such as Great Chinese famine as mass killing a.k.a demo/politicide (it is not listed in the mass killing database)". Valentino is also a genocide scholar and does consider it mass killing (Rummel also changed his mind in 2005), and the article directly acknowledge the controversy over famines in the "Debate over famines" section. It is not original research to include famines in the list of events when we have sources that include it. The list should be a superset of all the events listed in all the reliable sources, with the controversies explained. That is basically what we have now.

5) You say "The article must be totally rewritten, and it must tell about theories by Valentino or few other scholars, and about claims made by some authors, such as Courtois, and explain who support them (they do have a significant support), and who cricitise them (there is a lot of criticism)." The article currently does tell about the "theories" (I would prefer "analysis") of Valentino and (more than) a few other scholars. It names the scholars in the sentences with their ideas. It also does currently include criticism (and any missing criticism should be added, as I said in point 1 above). Totally rewriting the article is unnecessary, in my opinion.

6) You say "And, the description of the events themselves must be removed from this article, because it is written from the the point of view of the scholars who share the "mass killing" concept and ignores the views of majority of authors." This is a niche mainstream topic with a relatively small number of scholars but uncontroversial enough to be written about in mainstream newspapers in the US. A "majority of authors" do not address the topic at all, but that is not grounds for removing details about specific events from the sources that do address the topic. The mass killing concept itself is not controversial, it is the details that are controversial (such as which term/definition is best, which events were deliberate killing, and which death toll estimates are most accurate). The article should reflect all the information about the topic (including all the criticism) found in reliable sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"'Mass killings under communist regimes' is very much a fact and the lead correctly states it as such." Too bad it's not. The fact is that "mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes." We need scholars to actually draw a link; the global database of mass killings, which lists the 1959 Tibetan uprising (genocide and politicide), the Cambodian genocide (genocide and politicide), and the Cultural Revolution (politicide), make no link between them or communism; they just happened to take place under self-professed Communist parties in Eastern Asia, so why should such structured article exists? Most mass killings happened in Afro-Eurasia on vastly different regime-types, do we write Mass killings in Afro-Eurasia or something? Both are original research, synthesis, and violate NPOV.

Ironically, what you believe of the topic can be easily discussed in Siebert's proposal; it would just be neutral and not be original research. The problem remains that such sources are secondary sources when discussing the events, but since they are minority views, they must be attributed; if they are attributed and we provide their interpretation, they become primary sources, and we need secondary sources that explain their interpretation and draw a link. As things stand, apart a few exceptions where the interpretation is sourced to someone other than the author, it's authors paraphrased by AmateurEditor, and not by secondary sources. Either way, I agree we should do something about it rather than just discuss it because you, as the principal author of this article, are of course convinced of your work and believe the article is mostly fine as it is, and nothing is going to change this; I just don't feel doing a draft alone, and wish that Buidhe, Czar, The Four Deuces, and Paul Siebert could help in writing it, so that we can compare both articles, or something, and find a way to move forward.

P.S. "This is a niche mainstream topic with a relatively small number of scholars but uncontroversial enough to be written about in mainstream newspapers in the US." I am not surprised because, as I have stated, this may well be caused by our own biases, including geographical ones and political (such as the double genocide theory and the Prague Declaration), as reflected by memory studies and experts (Ghodsee 2014, Neumayer 2017, Neumayer 2020, and Dujisin 2021, among others), and this should be taken seriously and not dismissed. I would note that WP:SOURCES put them at last place, after university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, and magazines. Wheatcroft 1999 noted that the popular press "have contained erroneous journalistic articles that should not be cited in respectable academic articles." This is such a controversial article, we need academic and scholarly sources. If you cannot provide such secondary sources for their interpretations, they are either undue or original research; with no secondary sources, parts are going to be removed, and you will see we will have to rewrite it anyway in light of this. Davide King (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We do have academic and scholarly sources that actually draw a link. See again excerpts i, ag, aj, bw, and others. You say "...if they are attributed and we provide their interpretation, they become primary sources". The primary/secondary source distinction is relative to the topic. Since the topic here is mass killing under communist regimes, these sources are secondary relative to that. Valentino's work would be considered a primary source on the topic of "Valentino's publications" or something like that. WP:PRIMARY gives this example: "An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event". WP:SECONDARY gives this example: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." And as I mentioned before, per WP:RS/AC, analysis from secondary sources on any topic that do not represent a general academic consensus on that topic are always supposed to be attributed to the authors in a wikipedia article ("...individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources"). But naming the authors in-sentence that does not change them from secondary to primary sources because the topic and the sources' relation to it is unchanged. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"Since the topic here is mass killing under communist regimes ... " This is the problem; this should not be the topic because it is original research and synthesis stated as fact, directly or indirectly, that there exists an actually literature that lumps all Communist states together. The topic should be as outlined by The Four Deuces and Paul Siebert, or an analysis of genocide and mass killing in general. The quotes said it themselves; they are secondary sources only about the events, about their interpretation they become a primary source. "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Changes this to "A book by Rummmel about events in the Communist states might be a secondary source about the events themselves, but where it includes details of the author's own interpretation of the events, it would be a primary source about those interpretations." Hence, we need a secondary source to see whether they actually support the topic as you understand it, or as I and others understand it. Davide King (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You say "this should not be the topic because it is original research and synthesis stated as fact, directly or indirectly, that there exists an actually literature that lumps all Communist states together". The topic is clearly not original research or synthesis given the secondary sources we have (and that dispute was ended a long time ago by the two "keep" determinations at the last two AfD discussions in 2010). See excerpts i (from a Rummel essay titled "How Many did Communist Regimes Murder?"), ag (Valentino states "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million..."; the 110 million figure he mentioned comes from Rummel's democide work, by the way), aj (Bellamy states "Between 1945 and 1989, communist regimes massacred literally millions of civilians. A conservative estimate puts the total number of civilians deliberately killed by communists after the Second World War between 6.7 million and 15.5 million people, with the true figure probably much higher..."), and many others. Clearly they do lump communist states together. The article is about the mass killings and it properly contains analysis of the mass killings from secondary sources, but the topic of the article is not the analysis itself, nor should it be. If you want the topic to change to be the analysis, rather than the mass killing itself, then you would indeed need secondary sources for that topic, which we do not have. Since we do not have such sources, we cannot change this article to that topic or even create a separate article on that topic. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I will try to keep this short. No one is disputing that deaths occurred but you need to provide secondary sources for what Valentino et al. said because neither I nor Siebert dispute that such scholars (Courtois, Valentino) proposed the theory; the problem is that you see this as fact rather than a disputed theory among scholars. So quoting such authors, the ones who propose the concept and theory, is problematic because (1) they are the minority, (2) they only say that many deaths occurred under Communist states, (3) we need a secondary source that support your analysis of Valentino et al. I clearly asked you a secondary source that review Valentino et al. in support of your analysis.

"Clearly they do lump communist states together." That does not mean we should do the same. They also do not discuss them in a vacuum; Valentino's Final Solutions is about genocide and mass killing in the 20th century, so why should this be a separate article rather than be a section of Mass killing? TFD is right that "[s]ince there is a body of literature that connects mass killings by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, it would be a section in a proposed mass killings article and would probably be large enough to spin into its own article, leading back to what we have now", without original research.

"The article is about the mass killings ..." which is synthesis because scholars disagree about the events being mass killings; they are mass death events, some scholars have proposed a theory of mass killing about it, but it is a theory, not a fact, and is what Siebert and I want to discuss. "... and it properly contains analysis of the mass killings from secondary sources, but the topic of the article is not the analysis itself, nor should it be." It should be because otherwise it is synthesis and POV fork, as main articles contradict this.

"If you want the topic to change to be the analysis, rather than the mass killing itself, then you would indeed need secondary sources for that topic, which we do not have. Since we do not have such sources, we cannot change this article to that topic or even create a separate article on that topic." Ironic, because that actually applies to your proposed topic. TFD/Siebert and mine's proposed topic is actually supported by secondary sources because they treat this is a theory, not a fact; the fact is that mass deaths occurred, mass killing is the theory. This article can be easily rewritten if we actually follow sources and remove such synthesis.

P.S. Genocide studies is a minority school of thought and genocide scholarship rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals (Verdeja 2012), meaning this topic should be a about the theories of the events, not as fact or the events themselves, but sure, you are right (sarcasm). Davide King (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"I clearly asked you a secondary source that review Valentino et al. in support of your analysis" If you want to redefine the topic to be about the theories, rather than the killing, then you need to find reliable sources for that. Insisting that the secondary sources about the current topic are primary sources for a different topic is irrelevant.

"why should this be a separate article rather than be a section of Mass killing?" It should be both. The separate article just allows for a greater level of detail.

""The article is about the mass killings ..." which is synthesis because scholars disagree". That's not what WP:SYNTHESIS means. Disagreement between sources on a topic is normal. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you were able to summarize your response so concisely. Let me respond to such points. (1) That is precisely what I want to do, so we can agree on this. What I disagree is the rest; I do not need to find reliable sources because they are already here, they are just misrepresented to imply mass killing is a fact rather than a proposed theory or categorization, which is proposed by a minority within a minority but is clearly relevant and worth discussing. Such sources as Straus 2007 and secondary sources that analyze Valentino, and do not support your views but Paul Siebert's and mine. They remain primary sources for their interpretations; why the hell should we be citing Valentino and all others to their own work rather than secondary sources like Straus 2007 and others? This is a recipe for original research and synthesis, which can be easily avoided if you use secondary sources, which you will see support our claims.

(2) The problem is that first Mass killing should have been expanded and only later this could have been created; instead, as things stand, this article acts as a coatrack for that and misrepresent sources. Indeed, this whole article was created as a troll attempt, and then became the synthesis mess it remains to this day.

(3) The problem is they are misrepresented to support your topic (as you understand it) rather than ours (as backed by secondary sources), which better reflects what sources actually say. Mass mortality events are the fact and how sources treat the topic; the controversial, minority theory is that all those events were mass killing, which may be true only for three specific periods of three different Communist states out of dozens and dozens. This article mixes the two and treats the latter as a fact or majority, consensus view among scholars, when genocide studies is a minority within a minority, not mainstream political science. Davide King (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you should not be adding tags to the article that you do not have time to discuss on the talk page (the template usage notes state: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."). Such tags were removed in the past because the discussion had ended, which is one of the triggers also in the "Learn how and when to remove these template messages" link in the template itself. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert has been editing this article long enough not to be considered a drive-by editor. This approaches a personal attack which is not conducive to our long term goal of producing a good article. TFD (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't call Paul a drive-by editor. He stated "Unfortunately, I cannot actively participate in this discussion right now..." Adding tags that require active discussion on the talk page with no intention of discussing them afterward is called "drive-by tagging" in the template usage notes and it is inappropriate. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The key word here is "actively", which means I will not be able to reply promptly. That does not mean I am not going to participate at all. And, I added the tag because the discussion has resumed, and, by the way, the previous discussion never lead to any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Fine, but you've promised to resume discussion "in close future" before and then gone quiet for months. You can't expect tags to stay up in the absence of active discussion (and when I removed tags last time I gave the reason in my edit summary, so you saying in your edit summary adding them "I do not understand why the tags are constantly being removed" is very strange). Per WP:WTRMT, item 7, the tag can be removed when "the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template". Consensus does not have to be achieved in a discussion for the discussion to be dormant. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I hate to be that guy but if there is anyone to have a conflict of interest, that is you, as you have authored almost 70% of this article, and I understand you put a lot of work to it and it sucks we want to rewrite but we ardently believe that it fails our policies and guidelines, and a rewrite is necessary. I think the tags are appropriate (I was the one to first add them to the two sections, Siebert simply moved them to the lead through the multiple issues tag), as there is a significant and well-argued dissident view, otherwise you wouldn't have lost all this time to engage with us, if we were just spouting nonsense or without legitimate reasons. Davide King (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The amount of time I spend responding to arguments here is not a reflection of their quality or legitimacy. It is a reflection of my available free time. I am very, very familiar with the article and most of its sources, so I imagine it takes me less time to respond than it would others. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That is a bit disrespectful then. About the tags, I think they should stay. You may have well been right in removing them months ago because both Paul Siebert and I didn't respond to the talk page but now we're here, and I think our reasoning is still legitimate; more users would also agree with us, if this wasn't such a long story to summarize and understand. Certainly, TFD is right about why the primary source tags are appropriate; they are secondary sources for the events but primary sources for the interpretations. We need secondary sources for the latter, and if as you say, they are significant, this article is supported by reliable sources, and doesn't violate original research and yadda, yadda, yadda, it should be very easy to provide them; otherwise, they're going to be removed as either undue or original research, and you will see the article will have to be rewritten anyway in light of this. There just isn't any scholarly literature about the topic as you and the current article interpret/propose/structure it. Davide King (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rereading my comment again, I don't think there is anything disrespectful in it. It simply can take longer to respond to a low-quality or illegitimate argument with lots of component elements than to a clear and high-quality comment, so the amount of time it takes to respond to any given comment is not a good indicator of that comments quality/legitimacy. The tags should stay as long as there is a reason for them to stay, as described in the how-to guide here. The primary source tags are not appropriate, as I explained above. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

"The tags should stay as long as there is a reason for them to stay, as described in the how-to guide here." I agree, and I think they are warranted again now. 15, this was a good edit; now we just need to also reflect this in the body, requiring some restructuring, rewriting, renaming, whatever will be necessary. "The primary source tags are not appropriate, as I explained above." They are absolutely appropriate because they are only secondary sources for the events, they are primary sources for their interpretation, which is what they are about in that case, hence the tag. The Four Deuces gave the correct reading of the policy. Davide King (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, the sources tagged as primary are actually secondary sources for the topic of mass killings under communist regimes. Analysis is what you find in secondary sources, but the analysis itself is not the topic itself. Those tags should be removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem, the main topic is still the problem, and we do not agree on it or have different interpretations, which can only be solved through secondary sources (they support Siebert's analysis). You focus on the events, while the topic is about the interpretations and theories. This is why the article is original research and synthesis because (1) it lumps all Communist states together as a monolithic, (2) they are not connected by most scholars (the only possible literature is TFD's "Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization."), just like killings in capitalist, Christian, fascist, Muslim regimes, etc. are not connected, and (3) it treats the few authors who do that as the majority, rather than minority, by giving them unwarranted weight by treating it as fact or consensus, i.e. what Siebert laments. I think the policy is clear and we need secondary sources for the interpretations (where is the noticeboard to discuss this?) I mean, we do that for Rummel by citing Jacobs and Tottens, why should we not do the same for all the others, so what is the fuss? Perhaps because you could not find secondary sources for them too, meaning they are undue? Hence why, unless secondary sources like Jacobs and Tottens are provided for the others, they should be removed. Davide King (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

When you say "...which can only be solved through secondary sources" you appear to mean tertiary sources. Please re-review the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. We have secondary sources for this article on the topic of mass killings under communist regimes, which is all we need. Per WP:GNG, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," [...] ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." WP:SECONDARY states "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." That is what we have here. WP:PRIMARY sources would be documentation of the events themselves, rather than the analysis of it. WP:TERTIARY sources are what would be what "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." AmateurEditor (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see how this affects anything I wrote. Yes, they are tertiary sources but become secondary sources for the interpretation of Valentino et al. Which is why we should use them rather than cite the work in which the author said such, as we currently do in most of the article. The sources are there, which is why we are not even advocating deletion, the problem is the topic and the fact sources are misrepresented, exactly because we do not use such tertiary sources to verify whether the authors support the topic as you understand it. The topic should either be the events but only limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (so no under communist regimes), or the narrative and interpretations, the controversial theory (rejected or criticized by most country specialist and other scholars), proposed by some genocide scholars (minority and not yet mainstream) that all those mass mortality events under Communist regimes (fact) are mass killings, the whole body counting, that those were "victims of Communism" (anti-communist, right-wing authors, etc.), its criticism, etc. The current topic is original research and synthesis because it conflates mass mortality events with mass killings and it describes it as fact. If I recall correctly, in the past you argued to not bold Mass killings under communist regimes (I do not remember the exact reason but I agree with it), yet it is now bolded, the lead fails our policies in outlining the topic, including criticism, controversy, and the rest. Davide King (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style italics for terms

I think most of the italics recently added to terms in the article are incorrect, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. We should only italicize mass killing, for example, if it is being referenced as a word/term, rather than being used normally. In other words, if you can insert "the term" in front of mass killing, genocide, etc. without it changing the meaning of the sentence, then mass killing, genocide, etc. should be italicized. If inserting "the term" changes the meaning of the sentence, then mass killing, genocide, etc. should not be italicized. For example, the sentence "Wheatcroft excludes all famine deaths as "purposive deaths" and claims those that do qualify fit more closely the category of execution rather than murder." has inappropriate use of italics, because inserting "the term" in front of "execution" and in front of "murder" changes the meaning of the sentence. The sentence is clearly using those terms in the normal way and not referring to the words as words. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I have fixed that specific case you mentioned; if you have other examples, let me know. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Davide King, the other examples are almost all of the italics you added since August 8th. Will you please go through the article and revise the use of italics to be in accordance with MOS:WORDSASWORDS? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, my bad for that. I thought they were still referring to words as words, and I did not mean to change the meaning of the sentence. Thanks for pointing this out, I will try to work that out as soon as I can. Davide King (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving forward and real attempts at improving the article

This comment by Paul Siebert, or more correctly the source provided by Siebert ("The Political Science of Genocide: Outlines of an Emerging Research Agenda"), is why the article as currently structured must be deal with. Unless things have changed, and it should be easy to provide a proper source that summarize it, genocide studies, the relevant field for this article, are a minority school of thought that does not enjoy yet support from mainstream political science; this means the current article, as it is, is unacceptable and contrary to sources. What we need to look at are sources like "Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide", and you will see that they support the topic as understood by Siebert et al. vis-à-vis AmateurEditor et al. They do not limit themselves to Communist states, as we currently do by violating several of our policies and guidelines in doing so. Yet, the lead treats it as a done thing, as a clear consensus among relevant scholars when that is not the case at all, and the reverse is true.

This is a case of undue weight given to a minority, unsupported view, and treat it as fact or consensus, as in the lead. Again, the lead state it as fact that mass killings happened under Communist states (they did not happen in most Communist states, and the high body count mainly comes from three out of many Communist states that at one point covered one third of the global population), when the fact is that mass deaths (excess deaths, excess mortality, etc.) indeed occurred but there is no consensus that communism was the link (I would argue the opposite is true, that most scholars and experts do not make the link, but a significant, and popular among the population, minority seemingly does), and there is no consensus on terminology, only attempts (but this is not reflected in the lead).

More importantly, Mass killing, like Democide, is a proposed concept, not a fact, and they are not as widely accepted as Genocide, and even then there are debates about its definition, legal or not; this means we need to restructure the article to better clarify and reflect this, as argued by The Four Deuces and Siebert. Both concepts have been applied to many, widely different regime-types, yet only for Communist states do we do this; this can be done but not the way it is currently done.

Davide King (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What Is to Be Done?

What I propose, as discussions are not leading nowhere (even though I always appreciate Siebert's comments), is to do something about it:

1. If no source is provided that say genocide studies enjoys mainstream status, this needs to be fixed. This is a lead that better respects our policies and guidelines by actually outlining the topic (mass deaths indeed took place under several nominally Communist states, scholars have attempted to find a terminology to define them, some engaged in body counting and proposed the narrative that those are victims of Communism, others completely reject the latter, or simply discuss the events individually or through specific phases, such as Stalinist repression, reject the lumping, or highlight differences between them, etc.) and not treating it as a fact, majority view, or worse as consensus, as we currently do directly or indirectly.

2. At the same time, the body will also be worked on to reflect the new lead, and vice versa. This will include the following:

• Removal of tagged primary sources. I will give you a month to fix this and find secondary sources that supports the paraphrasing work done by AmateurEditor.
• Removal of non-notable, clearly unreliable estimates and undue opinions not sourced to secondary sources, plus fringe views and clear non-experts (Stephen Hicks, George Watson, etc.).
  • You have nothing to worry about it because I have already saved or moved the content to more relevant articles, so nothing will actually be lost.
• Addition of criticism of the lumping process, as was done in The Black Book of Communism, which popularizing both the body counting and the narrative.

3. Name change

• I like Siebert's proposals here, and they would surely be an improvement. I just think all of that can easily be done at Mass killing, and apart from their proponents, most scholars do not treat it as a sperate subject worthy of a main article, they discuss it within mass killing, so we should do the same.
  • I would avoid any wording that mention communism or Communist states et similia because for that we need a clear link that sources do not make or do not agree with, and it would give unwarranted weight to those who lump Communist states together or treat them as monolithic. Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin is neutral because it is limited to a single period (very specific) of a single Communist state.
  • An alternative, as proposed by TFD, would be Victims of Communism. It is the name used by memory studies, and it is what Courtois and Rosefielde consider the dead to be, i.e. victims of Communism. It could be argued that the aforementioned criticism above equally applies here, as it can be seen as giving unwarranted weight to those who support the narrative, but this mainly rests on what to prioritize: scholarly analysis or the narrative?
    • This seems to be the only significant difference between TFD/Siebert's proposal. The former proposal priorities the narrative, while the latter prioritize the scholarly analysis but essentially the topic is the same and the only main disagreement is about the name. This should be discussed once all the other issues are fixed.
    • Another alternative is to greatly expand the Mass killing article, which should be done anyway, and make it a broad scholarly analysis of mass killing, as scholars do not make any clear separation between regime-types, so why should we do it? We should only do it if there are spacing issues, which is not the case, as Mass killing is very short and concise. If following this, this article will be mainly about TFD's proposal of narrative ("Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization. (ii) The other version is that mass killings were dictated in otherwise forgotten works of Karl Marx. Under this view, COVID-19 can be seen as the latest attempt by the Communists to wipe out the world population.")
      • It would be written in a way to address Siebert's concerns (NPOV, treating Courtois et al. as minority rather than majority view as the article currently implies, etc.), as it would still have to include scholarly analysis and criticism (the narrative is a minority or at worse fringe view but very popular at that and legitimized in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, and by the European Union through the double genocide theory and comparison and equiparation of Communism and Nazism, both of which are revisionist, controversial views among scholars), and AmateurEditor's (it will not be outright deleted but it will be structured neutrally at Mass killing, where we can easily discuss Courtois and Valentino's theories as a section in the same article).

4. Expand the Mass killing article

• That article needs to be expanded to summarize scholarly views, as is done in "Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide"; this is the kind of secondary sources we need in support of author's interpretations, as sources like this summarize for what authors actually say (establishing weight in what relevant they said and what was not) and do the interpretation for us, thus avoiding any issue of original research and synthesis, as is the case for this talk page's article.

5. Merge or rewrite Crimes against humanity under communist regimes into Mass killing, as it is the same topic just under a different name because, guess what, scholars disagree on the terminology, there is no consensus, and we should not treat it as fact. Davide King (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary

In short, Mass killing would become the scholarly analysis and debates (Siebert's proposal) of genocide and mass killing in general; it will include discussion of Communist states but it will not be limited to that because scholars do not divide or make such categorisations as this article implies, and it will become its own article only when there are space issues. Victims of Communism* (or whatever the name of this article) would incorporate both TFD/Siebert's proposal, and be an expansion from Mass killing more specifically focused on Communism, and the neutral, not-policies violating AmateurEditor's proposal.

To repeat, you have time to provide sources that establish genocide studies as mainstream, rather than the minority school of thought it seems to be, and secondary sources for the authors' interpretations. If you cannot do that, I and others will attempt to do something about it by removing currently-tagged content and start the restructuring process. Davide King (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Since there is a body of literature that connects mass killings by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, it would be a section in a proposed mass killings article and would probably be large enough to spin into its own article, leading back to what we have now. TFD (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, problem is that needed to be done first; both this and the other article were created as content forks, when they should have been first added in their main articles. Either way, the spin to its own article would result in a much different article that would not have such problems because it would be treated as the theory you correctly outlined below and not as fact. Davide King (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am still not convinced any change is required minus removing all the tags recently added. PackMecEng (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• The problem has always been that the topic does not exist in reliable sources. There are sources that connect killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. There's also considerable literature about the anti-Communist theory that tries to prove that Communism is a greater threat than Fascism. This article argues in favor of the second, thereby treating a fringe theory as a consensus view. TFD (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I am not really seeing that though. I am seeing a fairly neutral and balanced assessment of extremely reliable sources about mass killings under communist regimes. PackMecEng (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability says, "if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." In this case while reliable sources exist for the two topics I mentioned, none exist for this article. Without reliable sources for the topic, we cannot write a balanced article. It would be like writing an article called "American conservative sexual perverts." No doubt we could find many reliably sourced examples, but the article would promote an implicit thesis that there was a connection between being a conservative and being a sexual pervert. The article could only be neutral if we said who made the connection and how accepted the connection was. TFD (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources have been provided, repeatedly, throughout the years this article has been debated. For the past decade they have been provided and given in the article itself. Your assessment is not accurate. Looking through the FAQs here it looks like you have been repeatedly making the same argument and repeatedly it has been shutdown by the community at large.[20] PackMecEng (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact few if any sources have been provided. Could you please name one? TFD (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, at 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC), I provided the example that demonstrates that an overwhelming majority of sources describe the Great Chinese famine (which, along with the Great Leap forward, is responsible for lion's share of "Communist death toll", aka "Communist mass killing", aka, "Communist democide") using a totally different terminology. That means, the sources you are talking about represent a minority view. The same can be said about almost all mass mortality events under Communist regimes, except the Great Purge, Cambodian genocide, Red Terror, and several others.

The logic of those sources is faulty: by combining two indisputable facts, namely, that mass killings did occur under some communist regimes, and that the total population losses amounted to nearly 100 million, they imply all those deaths should be considered as mass killings. However, this viewpoint is not shared my the majority of country experts. Thus, it is broadly recognized that Red terror did take place during the Russian civil war, however, it is also well known that majority of deaths were a result of typhus, hunger, military deaths, and, in addition, White terror also took place to some extent. If we combine these number together, we obtain a very impressive figure. However, only few sources claim all those deaths were a result of Communist mass killings.

Therefore, I would like to ask these questions:

• Do we agree that mass mortality events took place under Communist regimes, and the total number of deaths was nearly 80-90 million?
• Do we agree that some sources combine those death together under such categories as "Communist democide", "Communist mass killings" etc?
• Do we agree that majority of country experts describe a majority of those events using totally different terms, separately, in a different historical context, and do not see any common cause in them?

I personally cannot see how an educated and good faith user can answer "no" to any of those questions. If you agree with that, let's think how to fix the article. I have a solution, and I can discuss it when the answer to these three questions will be obtained from all participants of that discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but your logic on a lot of the sources you provided is basically original research and synth. The sources in the article support the premise of the article. Full stop. The fact that you found some sources you think disproves or challenge some of the content of the article does not change that. That is the problem I keep seeing in this talk page. It's a few editors that over and over, for years now, push the fringe view that this topic as a whole is not real. Even in the face of overwhelming and continued rebukes by the community at large. That is the reason we have that FAQ at the top. PackMecEng (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not answer the questions, you are diverging. "It's a few editors that over and over, for years now, push the fringe view that this topic as a whole is not real. Even in the face of overwhelming and continued rebukes by the community at large." I find it funny because the reverse is actually true; you are the one pushing the fringe, or minority, but widely popular view that "tries to prove that Communism is a greater threat than Fascism" because it killed "100 million", and state it as fact or consensus among scholars; you are also misrepresenting us because this article should not be about the events but about the theories and interpretations. I have provided sources that prove it is yours that is the minority, if not fringe, view among sources, not ours. You are the perfect example of what TFD said, namely that "Anyone who argues for A probably believes B." Davide King (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

See my responce to AmateurEditor few minutes ago.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Until reliable sources are found that discuss a topic of something like "mass mortality events took place under Communist regimes", it is original research to argue for such an article. In my response to Paul Siebert's response I also argue that, if such sources are found, a mass mortality topic is different enough that it should probably be a separate article anyway. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No. The article discusses events, not interpretations. These events include the Great Chinese famine, Soviet famine, and several less deadly events like Cambodian genocide or the Great Purge. And that dictates the choice of sources. Majority of sources do NOT call GCF "mass killing" or "democide", or some other "-cide", and these views are dramatically underrepresented in this article. You are persistently advocating violation of NPOV with the reference to NOR. That is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

"Until reliable sources are found that discuss a topic of something like 'mass mortality events took place under Communist regimes', it is original research to argue for such an article." I am baffled, is not that exactly what you support? At least mass mortality events are a fact. The difference is that you treat mass killing as a fact and agreement among scholars, rather than as a popular but controversial minority theory and categorization within a minority itself (genocide studies), which does not appear in mainstream political science journals. This is exactly our point. You are the one supporting this, while Siebert only support it through a rewrite and restructuring that makes it neutral and not-policies violating, and their proposed topic is fine because mass mortality events are a fact (we do not need source for this, we do not need "reliable sources ... that discuss a topic of something like 'mass mortality events took place under Communist regimes'" because it is a fact, and is what reliable sources actually support at best), what is not a fact is their whole categorization as mass killing, as this article clearly implies. Does not this contradict the whole article and your support for it? That is precisely the point, there are no such sources, only theories and interpretations. Which is why I support the interpretations/narrative, not the events. What you propose may done but it needs to be limited only to Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia (only three very specific periods of three different Communist states out of dozens and dozens), as noted by TFD (those are the only events where mass killing can be applied), and it also needs to discuss all relevant sources, as noted by Siebert. If you want to discuss Communist states, that can only be done under the narrative, and as a popular but controversial theory not accepted by most scholars. No matter how this is spinned, the article should be rewritten. Davide King (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• We have a dedicated sandbox for this article - any rewrite should start there. I, and others, would take massive exception if the article becomes a laboratory experiment for repeatedly failed proposals. schetm (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  That is a fair point but we are going to respect our policies and guidelines. You need to do something about it, too. You have plenty of time to substitute tagged primary sources with secondary sources that support the paraphrase. If you cannot do that, it could mean our analysis is actually correct and it needs to be rewritten. Davide King (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  It could mean that. But it does not. And, before demanding my time, you should familiarize yourself with WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Again, the sandbox is the place to start. schetm (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any rule that requires us to use a sandbox for rewriting articles. If you know such a rule, kindly drop a link.

In contrast, a talk page discussion is considered a universal and highly desirable tool for achievement of consensus. Here, we are discussing a new concept of the article, and you are welcome to join this discussion. Of course, Wikipedia is not compulsory, and we cannot demand you to do so, if you have no time for that, or just don't want to participate. However, if you remove yourself from the consensus building process, the attempts to invent some artificial rule (such as usage of a sandbox) does not look productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As you'll be aware, this article has been indefinitely locked in the recent past. I should know - I got the thing unlocked, and it could very well be locked again if edit warring persists. If a small group of editors wishes to make changes against longstanding consensus, it would be helpful if they would actually demonstrate in concrete fashion what those changes are, to allow for specific line by line discussion and input from other editors. To prevent edit warring and page disruption, that's best done in the sandbox. I was on vacation for the past two weeks, hence my absence from the process. Indeed, I've participated in the consensus building process for three years, and have provided line by line critiques when new leads have been proposed, among other things. That's the best way to not only build consensus, but to build an article, and that's best done in the sandbox. schetm (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As you probably know, I am trying to avoid editing the article unless a talk page consensus is achieved about some concrete change. That is why my approach is 100% consistent with our policy, and if someone will try to request for a full article protection, my voice will be heard by admins. I am perfectly aware of your request to unlock the article, and I agree that was a highly commendable step. I doubt, however, that the article, which was locked for several years, and after that is under a strict 1RR is a long standing consensus version. IMO, "frozen accident" is much more appropriate term. Many, many users are dramatically dissatisfied with the current version, so it is by no means reflects consensus.

By saying that, I by no means imply I am going to make significant changes to the article before some consensus has been achieved. My approach is as follows:

1. Start a discussion about a new article's concept.

2. Come to some consensus.

3. Start rewriting, section by section, on the talk page.

4. After the draft is ready, put it into the article space.

The main difference between my and your proposal is that you de facto ghettoize those who are dissatisfied with the article in some sandbox, and propose to spend a significant time and efforts for writing a text, and implicitly reserve a right to approve/reject the results of that work. That is somewhat disrespectful. You respect your own time and efforts, but show much less respect to others. It would be much more respectful if you expressed your opinion on the new concept in advance, thereby allowing us to include your opinion into the draft.

In connection to that, I propose to come to an agreement about a new concept, and, after the agreement is achieved, to start writing a draft.

You must agree that my approach is more respectful to all participants of the discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Viz the new article concept, I've in the past described the dueling concepts as events vs. narrative. I oppose any rewrite that shifts the focus from events to narrative. I have not yet seen a proposal of that nature that shifts the focus to the narrative that satisfies my NPOV, GNG, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V concerns. Those concerns may be satisfied if there's actually some text to scrutinize, but, as I think the article is fine as is, I have little incentive to initiate a rewrite myself.

If, however, I was motivated to work on a rewrite, I'd switch 2 and 3 in your outline above. The fact is that significant time and effort (11 years worth!) has been spent on discussion, and to what end? Time and effort would be saved if those who want to see the article changed actually draft something concrete to be scrutinized. And, as to ghettoizing to a sandbox, I could care less whether there's a new draft in the sandbox or on the talk page - just not in the mainspace before consensus is reached! schetm (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Schetm, I actually agree that it would be better to start a draft because clearly discussions are not leading us nowhere but I would need some help from The Four Deuces and Paul Siebert. Or a RfC about the main topic but we need to be very careful about it because it needs to be neutral and correctly represent both sides' views, and we can not fuck that up too.

P.S. "I have not yet seen a proposal of that nature that shifts the focus to the narrative that satisfies my NPOV, GNG, WP:UNDUE, and WP:V concerns." I have yet to seen scholarly sources that satisfies my NPOV, GNG, WP:UNDUE, WP:V, etc. concerns. It goes both ways. About the topic and sources, let me quote TFD. The article title implies a causal connection between Communist regimes and mass killings. Unless we can show that reliable sources have made that connection, it is synthesis or the topic lacks WP:Notablity. ... If there is no connection, then what is the point of an article? Sources given in support provide "little that connects them" and only discuss "Stalinist USSR, Maoist China and Kampuchea." If we actually follow the literature, the article's scope needs to be reduced, and it still needs to be restructured. Davide King (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If there is no connection, then what is the point of an article? - The connection is that these mass killings/mortality events occurred under communist regimes. I am less interested in presenting ideological motivations behind the mass mortality events. However, the proposed causes section is well written and well sourced. schetm (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Then you ought to support mass killings/mortality events occurred under any other type of regimes. I would not support such articles because we need a clear connection, not just that they are all Christian, capitalist, Communist, or whatever regimes, otherwise it is clear original research and synthesis. See Dallin's review of The Black Book of Communism. "Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." See also A 'Red Holocaust'? A Critique of the Black Book of Communism by Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann, and "On the Primacy of Ideology: Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)" by Michael David-Fox. It was even mentioned in Malia's foreword ("... commentators in the liberal Le Monde argue that it is illegitimate to speak of a single Communist movement from Phnom Penh to Paris. Rather, the rampage of the Khmer Rouge is like the ethnic massacres of third-world Rwanda, or the 'rural' Communism of Asia is radically different from the 'urban' Communism of Europe; or Asian Communism is really only anticolonial nationalism. ... conflating sociologically diverse movements is merely a stratagem to obtain a higher body count against Communism, and thus against all the left.") The lumping itself is clearly disputed, and you have to prove Courtois, Rummel, Valentino, and the like are the majority; Courtois is actually a revisionist in positing the equivalence between Communism and Nazism, which goes back to the Historikerstreit. You are acting like those authors are the majority or that their views are the scholarly consensus! So no, "[t]he connection is that these mass killings/mortality events occurred under communist regimes" is not good enough and is actually disputed, as shown by such sources, something that you never provided to reply to any of our arguments; you just assume that your sources are the majority and consensus; you assume that all the events are and can be categorized as mass killings just because they were mass deaths events, when mass killing is a proposed concept and the mass killing categorization for Communism is a theory, not a fact (the fact is that mass deaths occurred), and is not actually applied to Communist states, only to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's. I am not parroting my opinion, I am just summarizing what sources actually say. Davide King (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Alas, your claim that "the proposed causes section is well written and well sourced" just demonstrates you unfamiliarity with the subject.

Thus, per Scott Straus, (World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Apr., 2007), pp. 476-501) Valentino claims that ideology is insufficient as an explanation, although he conceded it may shape the choice of some leaders (in his theory, leader's personality plays a key role). This is an example of usage of Valentino asa primary source, whereas it could be much more appropriate to use Straus' interpretation of Valentinio's view.

Second, the "Proposed causes" should be actually re-named to "Proposed common causes", for each of the event had its own cause/causes. To demonstrate that, just read what such experts as O'Grada or Sen writes about teh causes of the Great Chinese famine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the proposed causes section is extremely well sourced and I thank schetm for saying well written, since I wrote much of it. Every sentence can be traced to a high quality source and often to an excerpt from that source. About using Strauss on Valentino, rather than Valentino: there can be no more reliable source for Valentino's analysis than Valentino himself (and likewise for the other authors' views), so we should not be using Strauss to write about Valentino's analysis of communist mass killing when we have access to Valentino's analysis itself. This is not an example of Valentino being a primary source for the topic of mass killings under communist regimes, it is just Valentino being a primary source for Strauss' 2007 analysis of what he calls "Second-generation comparative research on genocide". The Straus book reviews can be a helpful source for this article to the extent he mentions the topic (he only does so in passing), but it seems to include at least two major errors:

1) he says on page 484 that "Weitz also includes communist cases, whereas Semelin does not." However, Semelin certainly does include communist cases in his book (at least the 2007 English translation found here): Semelin has a sub-chapter called "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body". There is even an excerpt cited in the "Proposed causes" section of the article right now (excerpt "at").

2) he says on page 496 "Some authors, such as Weitz, Valentino, Mann, and Levene, incorporate communist cases, which generally involve targeting class groups (not ethnic or racial ones). Other authors exclude communist cases." The authors whose works he is discussing are those four that he acknowledges discuss communist cases plus two others: Midlarsky and Semelin. Both of them do discuss communist cases. Semelin I just mentioned above. The Midlarsky book discusses communist cases on page 310 here (which is also currently excerpted in the article as excerpt "x"): "Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia. Not all Communist states participated in extensive politicide, but the particular circumstances of Cambodia in 1975 lent themselves to the commission of systematic mass murder." AmateurEditor (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Since you are perfectly aware of my editorial style, I cannot understand why you decided I could made/advocate any significant change until a consensus has been achieved on the talk page

Regarding events vs narrative, both approaches are ok. The problem is, however, that the description of events is strongly biased towards a small group of sources that describe this huge topic as a single event, whereas more specialized sources, which are more recent, more accurate and more professional, are placed in a subordinated position. One of the most blatant example is Rummel, who claimed 70+ million of Soviet citizens perished in "Communist democide", despite the fact that this claim is based on very rough estimated made according to a criticized algorithm, which uses Cold War era outdated figures, and which are ignored by all country experts. Meanwhile, more recent and broadly recognised works, including Erlikhman, Wheatcroft, Ellman etc are ghettoized into the country-specific section, which attenuates a dramatic conflict between obsolete and incorrect Rummel's data and them.

If we want to discuss events, let's stick with what majority sources say about each separate event. I already provided the example that demonstrates that the Great Leap Forward famine (which is responsible for up to 50% all excess deaths under Communist rule) is NOT described as "mass killing", "democide", "genocide" or other "cides" in an overwhelming majority of sources. Therefore, if we want to discuss events, the story should be as follows:

"A large number of mass mortality events occurred under Communist rule. They occurred as a result of (... various explanations are provided ...), the scale of each separate event was (... figures are provided ...). Some authors (author's list is provided) call that "mass killing", "democide" etc, whereas others describe them otherwise (description is presented). Some authors (author's list is presented) link those events together under a category "Communist mass killings", "Global communist death toll" etc, whereas others (a long list follows) see no direct linkage between them, or group them with other mass killing/mass mortality events (e.g. Cambodia, Indonesia, and China are grouped in a category "Genocides in East Asia, which has little in common with the events in the USSR).

If you want to move in that direction, I will totally support the focus on events, not the narrative. However, to do that neutrally, a focus must be shifted from the general sources that describe the whole topic (although they provide one sided interpretations and present very inaccurate facts) to modern country specific sources. For example, if you want give more weight to Rummel than to Ellman just because the former wrote about totalitarian regimes as whole (although was doing that very inaccurately and superficially), whereas the latter provided more reliable figures for the USSR only, I will strongly oppose to that, because that would be a dramatic violation of neutrality. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

more recent and broadly recognised works...are ghettoized into the country-specific section - Can those sources be included in the general discussion of communist regimes and mass killings without violating WP:SYNTH? And good, some text to critique. I very much like the language of "some authors" vs "other authors." Previous lead proposals have presented those who draw a harder connection between communist regimes and mass killings as a minority opinion - something that I think we absolutely must avoid, unless we get sources saying specifically that x-opinion is the minority opinion. And, I agree with you that, when it comes to calculating a death toll, we should go by the most hyper-accurate sources we can find, while writing something like "Sources estimate a death toll between x and y, with z being the most widely-accepted toll." schetm (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Re "Can those sources be included in the general discussion of communist regimes and mass killings without violating WP:SYNTH?" They can, but only if the structure of this article will be modified as I propose. The primary reason is that country-specific sources we are talking about and the sources this article are based upon exist in two different domains: the former do not cite the latter, and there is no direct dispute between them. For example, Rummel says the death toll of Soviet democide amounted to 70+ million, including 10+ million in 1960s-70s, whereas Erlichman provides the total number of population losses that directly contradict to Rummel, and Ellman says that the number of victims cannot be reliably calculated because the very term "victim of Stalinism" is vague, and it strongly depends on political views of a concrete author. In other words, we have an obvious conflict between Rummel and other two authors. However, we cannot adequately reflect that conflict in that article, because both Ellman and Erlikhman do not cite Rummel, they ignore him as an obsolete source authored by a non-expert, so it is hardly possible to find a source that says "Rummel contradicts to Ellman".

That situation is not resolvable until theh structure of the article is modified, because the very fact that the section "(Global) Number of victims" goes first, and country-specific sections go after it, a false hierarchy is created that gives more weight to the authors like Rummel and less weight to the experts like Ellman or Erlikhman.

However, we can solve this problem if change the article's structure by providing a neutral description of events, which will be based on the work of country experts, and, at the end of the article, put the sections like, "attempts to propose a common terminology", attempts to calculate the global death toll", "attempts to propose the common mechanism/causes".

And, taking into account that the overwhelming majority of sources do not apply the term "mass killing" to the majority of those events, especially to the Great Chinese famine, Volga Famine, Great Soviet famine, which are responsible for lion's share of Communist death toll, the article should be renamed accordingly, for example, to Mass mortality and mass killings under Communist regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The current article's structure is suitable for description of such events as the Holocaust of Cambodian genocide, which were relatively simple and uniform, and about which there is a consensus among scholars. In contrast, when you try try to apply that scheme to wide range of events, from the Great chinese famine to Russian Civil war, you inevitably face serious problems with neutrality and/or synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Siebert has written above. I too can accept the focus on the events, but only if we provide the whole background, scholarly analysis without limiting ourselves to killings (we should mention, for example, the lives saved by the Soviet Union for helping the Allies in defeating fascism, and by other Communist states by simply modernizing, that it was Communist Vietnam to put an end to the Cambodian genocide, etc.) and give weight to all those scholars (majority) who disagree with Rummel and Valentino (minority). Either way, in which way you spin it, it ought to be rewritten anyway. Davide King (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why should we be mentioning, in this article, the USSR's involvement in WWII? That is massively out of scope. In fact, all of that is almost entirely out of scope. Further, I am not convinced that Rummel and Valention hold the minority viewpoint, apart from that of death toll. I need specific sourcing that says they hold the minority opinion. Barring that, any rewrite must not imply that they hold the minority viewpoint. schetm (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WWII is out of scope. However, since we are discussing "global Communist death toll", which includes mass mortality due to war, famine and disease (and which is considered, by a small fraction of authors as Communist mass killing), lets present a complete picture. As Ellman noted, Communist rule lead not only to a large number of excess deaths (a.k.a "Communist mass killings"), but to large number of "excess lives" (the life expectancy in the USSR was arount 35 years in the beginning of Stalin's rule, but it increased to nearly 60 by the end). If excess deaths (actually the death of 40 old man due to harsh living conditions, which was likely to occur in 1925, but which was far less likely to occur in 1955) are attributed to Coummunists, shouldn't the prevention of those death be attribited (and mentioned) to them? We can easily do that under the topic "Population dynamics".

Similarly, as O'Grada writes, Great Chinese famine was the most deadly (although only in absolute figures) famine in China, but it was the last famine in the centuries long chain of deadly famine that routinely and regularly hit China. I think it would be fair to explain that in the article.

Regarding Rummel, I already explained that on this talk page, but I can repeat my explanations in a hope that you will take it seriously, and will join the work on the new article's structure. Rummel's expertise, and his main contribution is application of Factor analysis to social sciences. That is the field where he is a real expert. He also was an author of the "democratic piece" theory, which demonstrated that democratic countries are much less likely to wage a war against each other than non-democratic ones. To use his factor analysis tools, Rummel needed to have a world wide statistics of all wars, genocides, and other deadly events, and he obtained that statistics by collecting all numerical data without any Source criticism (which is a necessary part of teh work of any professional historian), and, based on those data, estimated lower and higher boundary of mortality in each event. Dulic pointed at fundamental problems with this approach, which inevitably leads to inflated figures, and Rummel failed to defend his point in the subsequent discussion. Other authors just ignore Rummel's views. Moreover, as I already pointed out, Rummel is arguably the only author who never reconsidered his views after 1990s, when tons of new archival sources about USSR became available, and all his data are based on obsolete figures.

Finally, if Rummel is a renown expert, he is supposed to be cited by country experts. Meanwhile virtually no expert in Soviet history cite him (he is cited by specialists in Cambodia, but mostly because his figures are pretty close to the commonly accepted ones, and because there is no significant difference between his "democide" and commonly accepted "genocide" when we discuss such a relatively simple case as Cambodia.

Similarly, Valentino may be a good source for a discussion of the causes of mass killings, but, being a "genocide scholar", not a historian, he cannot be considered a good source for facts and events. You yourself prefer to make a stress on events, so I am surprised you consider Valentino, who is not too much concerned about accuracy in description of events, and who is more interested in general theorising, a good core source for description of events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In addition, schetm, your assertion that Rummel and/or Valentino not necessarily represent minority views is not completely accurate. It seems Valentino is a very influential representative of the "second generation genocide scholars", and Rummel is very respected by the genocide scholars. The problem is that "genocide studies" is a separate discipline, which exists in parallel with historical schools that discuss facts and events. "Genocide scholars" are more interested in finding commonalities and general rules, whereas historians are more focused on events in their historical context. It is not surprise that the former see mire commonalities and less specifics that the latter. It also worth mentioning that this article selectively uses the work of "genocide scholars" when they support the "Communist mass killings" idea and its linkage with Communism, but ignore their opinia when they say about the absence of such a linkage.

The thesis about two "parallel universes" (historians (country experts) and "genocide scholars") can be easily confirmed by looking at mutual citations. How frequently Rummel and "democide" is used by historians writing about Volga famine, Great Purge or Great Chinese famine"?

Let's check:

• "Volga famine" 176 results, "Volga famine" Rummel 1 result (the book itself was cited just once), "Volga famine" democide 2 results (these two sources were cited just once)
• "Great Chinese famine" -democide 1880 results, "Great Chinese famine" democide 9 results
• "Great Purge" Stalin -democide 5,170 results, "Great Purge" Stalin democide 32 results.

The first three articles in the first list ("Great Purge" Stalin -democide) were cited 142, 37 and 9 times, accordingly, and they do not mention Rummel at all. The first article in the second list ("Great Purge" Stalin democide) was cited 0 times (which implies poor notability), and other two were authored by Rummel himself (self-citation). I think no further comments are needed.

If I were a naive Wikipedian with zero preliminary knowledge of the topic, and if I had to start writing the article that combines such topics as Volga famine, Great Purge, Great Chinese famine etc together, it seems the logical conclusion from my totally neutral and unbiased search results would be: Rummel is definitely not a source that represents a majority viewpoint. If you disagree, please provide a neutral and unbiased procedure that could allow us to come to a different conclusion. If you disagree with my approach, please, point at errors and omissions in my logic and my search procedure. Please, keep in mind that I am actively using search engines in my professional work, and, per this reliable source, authored by a scholar who studies Wikipedia, the approach used by me, a user Paul Siebert (yes, that article explicitly discusses me), is quite adequate, and it allows identification of pretty decent sources. You must agree that only few Wikipedians are explicitly mentioned in academic sources, and a small fraction of them are mentioned in that context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, correct me if I am wrong, but the key paragraph from that source that mentions you is this one on page 449: "This debate is an extended illustration of Pfister’s argument that Wikipedia “destabilizes familiar information routines”, that is, changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive. Paul Siebert constructs himself as a model information searcher (according to his user page he has a PhD so this is perhaps not so surprising). He claims no biases, uses the information technology of choice for Wikipedia editors (Google Scholar) and applies the criteria of peer-review as a means to filter potential information sources. And the sources he finds I think would be viewed by the majority of librarians or scholars as decent enough: Pacific Affairs is a scholarly journal with a long history of publishing the work of illustrious scholars. Cold War History is a more recent journal, but is also seen as publishing quality work while Porter’s work appeared in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars which is seen as a leftist journal, but one which adheres to standards of rigour in scholarship." The part bolded is faint praise. Using google scholar to find reliable source is perfectly normal and something we probably all do. I certainly do. There is a big difference between that, which is allowed by wikipedia policies, and using search results to define topics for articles or determine weight for sources, which is not allowed by wikipedia policies. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. The question is not that I use google scholar (many users do that), the question is how I am doing that. In addition, since you love to literally follow our policy, let me remind you, again, that the policy requires us [[WP:WEIGHT| that mainspace articles and pages 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.]] The policy does not explain how that proportion can be identified, which means that question is either described elsewhere, or that each user may use their own approach to define that proportion. However, it is absolutely clear from the policy that it requires us to find that proportion. In contrast, you claim that the relative weight of different sources or different viewpoints can be found only in some reliable source, and if no such source exist, we cannot speak about any proportion, and all views should be treated as significant minority view. That idea does not follow from our policy, the policy never said that, and that is your own invention. In contrast, I am using the procedure that is close to what every scientist of scholar is doing in their routine job, which means the procedure is neutral, unbiased and reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

But listing all deaths under Communist regimes, even though Mann, Valentino, and others limit themselves to the Big Three (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) is not? It is not up to us to prove that they are the minority, it is up to you to prove that they are the majority; you are asking us to prove a negative. Anyway, while Wikipedia is not a reliable sources in itself, the sources used in those two articles I am going to mention certainly are. Actually read Genocide studies and Mass killing; only a POV pusher would not realize how little consensus there is and that Siebert's proposal is the only one that does not violates our policies and guidelines, which is something you care about only when it suits you. A Perspectives on Politics (mainstream political science) article summarizing the problems of genocide studies and their minority status, courtesy of Siebert:

This new generation of scholarship has crystallized into the interdisciplinary field of "genocide studies," a community of scholars and practitioners dedicated to researching and preventing genocide. However, genocide studies has emerged as its own research field, developing in parallel rather than in conversation with work on other areas of political violence. Aside from a few important exceptions, mainstream political scientists rarely engage with the most recent work on comparative genocide. Some of the newest genocide research appears in topic-specific conferences and journals like "Genocide Studies and Prevention" and the "Journal of Genocide Research", but not in political science venues. The reasons for this separation are complex, but partly stem from the field's roots in the humanities (especially history) and reliance on methodological approaches that have had little resonance in mainstream political science, as well as the field's explicit commitment to humanitarian activism and praxis. Earlier generations of political scientists and sociologists who studied genocide often found little interest for their work among dominant political science journals and book publishers; they instead opted to establish their own journals and professional organizations. Although the field has grown enormously over the past decade and a half, genocide scholarship still rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journals.

Davide King (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Can those sources be included in the general discussion of communist regimes and mass killings without violating WP:SYNTH?" The article is in itself SYNTH by making a link or connection that most scholars do not make, including proponents like Valentino. See this. [Main point]

While noting that mass killings have occurred under Communist regimes, Valentino provides no theory about the connection. It would be the same as if he said that there have been mass killings in Asia and we created an article called "Mass killings under Asian regimes." Valentino identifies mass killings as over 50,000 people intentionally killed in a 5 year period, which is not the definition used here, and concluded that most Communist regimes did not carry out mass killings and only three definitely did (Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia), and only in specific periods (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot). ...

Valentino provides little that connects them and only discusses Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, and Kampuchea; it only discusses specific instances where over 50,000 people were killed and excludes "counter-insurgency" mass killings, which he groups in his book with similar killings by capitalist regimes. In other words, they were not ideologically driven according to him but resulted from the same motivations as non-Communist states. So if we were to use his article as a model, it would restrict the scope of the article. Yet, we act like Valentino is talking about all Communist states and that communism is the main culprit, hence original research and synthesis, and why we desperately need secondary sources explaining for us what those authors actually wrote.

Davide King (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, Valentino's theory of "strategic mass killings" says that, under some circumstances, some leaders of some regimes may resort to mass killings as a tool for implementing certain social transformations. That happens when they feel that may be the most suitable way to achieve their goals. Valentino never provided any significant link between Communism and mass killings, and between mass killings and any ideology. He also openly says that most Communist regimes were not engaged in mass killings, the idea that is significantly attenuated in the article.

In conection to that, I recall I saw the article (can find it if somebody wants to see it), where Valentino's approach was applied for camparative study of the Great Purge and Rwandian genocide, which means "strategic mass killings" is not a concept that describes Communist mass killings only. Again, the role of ideology, and Communism in particular, is minimal (if not zero) in Valentino's theory. That fact is carefully attenuated in the article, which is an example of original research.

Moreover, "Communist mass killings" is just a chapter in the Valentinio's book, he never wrote specifically about Communism and mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Moreover, "Communist mass killings" is just a chapter in the Valentinio's book, he never wrote specifically about Communism and mass killings." No, a chapter on communist mass killings in his book is in fact Valentino writing specifically about communism and mass killings. This is becoming absurd. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What is really absurd is the attempt to defend a blatant NPOV violation by reference to NOR, and, simultaneously, making event worse NOR violations. Valentino never wrote about "Mass killings under Communist regimes". His theory is totally different. The concept is " ... [continues here].--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you may have missed my question above: "In fact few if any sources have been provided. Could you please name one? [01:22, 25 August 2021] TFD (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick comment about AmateurEditor's comment (please, do not reply me back, at least until Paul Siebert replied to you back, because I think it is better if you discuss this and anything else with him, since I feel like he is better at doing that than me) to which I hope.

1. "there can be no more reliable source for Valentino's analysis than Valentino himself." This clearly contradicts our policies and guidelines, which I believe Siebert can agree with and better explain to you why. We need a secondary/tertiary source for all this, which is why all the tags I put in (and I could have added many more, since the whole article is like this, which just highlights the whole issue) are justified and correct. This is precisely what can avoid forms of original research and synthesis, using a reliable source that comments on what someone said and do the analysis and paraphrase for us.
2. "The Straus book reviews can be a helpful source for this article to the extent he mentions the topic (he only does so in passing), but it seems to include at least two major errors." Pretty much everything else is your personal opinion not backed by secondary reliable sources, which is the whole point; neither you nor me have the expertise to point out what the academic Straus 2007 article got wrong. If you could provide a secondary source that supports this, or that criticizes Strauss 2007 on those grounds, it would be helpful. Note that your own quotes show the main topic is Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia, not all Communist states, which means the scope should be much narrow only to those three and their comparative analysis, rather than cherry pick any author, even if not an expert, who wrote about Communist states and killings.

P.S. With all due respect but I think this just highlights that you are the cause of such original research and synthesis, as you wrote most of this article, and apparently believe that primary sources are better than secondary sources about what someone meant, which is contrary to our policies and guidelines. Davide King (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Response to AmateurEditor

It will be somewhat long, so, for sake of readability, I put it into a separate subsection.

Yes, you are right, it is becoming absurd. Under "absurd" I mean persistent attempts to defend a blatant NPOV violation under pretext of NOR, and, simultaneously, making event worse NOR violations. Below, I am explaining that.

First, the claim that Valentino can be used as a core source because this source defines the topic is WRONG. Valentino never wrote about "Mass killings under Communist regimes". His theory is totally different. To demonstrate that, I propose to stop providing quotes from Valentino, because we may misinterpret him (which, actually, already takes place, as I'll demonstrate below). Instead, let's take a look at the description of Valentino's ideas in reliable secondary sources. I took all reviews on his book that I was able to find in google.scholar or jstor using keywords: "valentino final solutions mass killings", and read most of them. After I found many of them repeat each other, I stopped reading, because I believe I got a full impression on how scholars interpret Valentino's ideas. If someone finds a review or another source that provides a different interpretation, please, feel free to present it here.

• Gregory H. Stanton. Source: The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Autumn, 2004, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 116-117

"...That's traditional perspective on it, but Valentino believes otherwise. In his view, mass killing represents a rational choice of elites to achieve or stay in political power in the face of perceived threats to their dominance. Valentino develops his argument through eight case studies. Three fit the legal definition of genocide (the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a "national, ethnical, racial, or religious group"): Armenia, the Holocaust, and Rwanda. The remaining five amount to what political scientist Barbara Harff calls "politicide," mass killing for political reasons: Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia, Guatemala, and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. By emphasizing cases of politicide over those of genocide, Valentino stacks the deck in favor of his politics-centered argument from the start."

• Jessica Priselac. Source: The SAIS Review of International Affairs, Winter-Spring 2005, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Winter-Spring 2005), pp. 207-209

"After defining mass killing as the intentional killing of noncombatants resulting in 50,000 or more deaths within a five-year period, Valentino examines a number of specific cases to explain his theory. In this “strategic approach” to assessing mass killing, Valentino divides his case studies into three types: Communist, ethnic and counter-guerrilla. He examines the communist regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot; mass killing based on ethnicity in Rwanda, Nazi Germany, and Turkey; and mass killings during counter-guerrilla operations in the Guatemalan civil war and under the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. One of Valentino’s central arguments is that “characteristics of society at large, such as pre-existing cleaves, hatred and discrimination between groups and non-democratic forms of government, are of limited utility in distinguishing societies at high risk for mass killing.” Valentino’s strongest arguments in support of this statement are his comparative studies of regimes that committed mass killing with similar regimes that did not."

• Matthew Krain. Source: Perspectives on Politics, Mar., 2006, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Mar., 2006), pp. 233-235

" Valentino lays out the strategic logic of mass killing at length and proceeds to examine in separate chapters three different types of cases-communist, ethnic, and counter-guerrilla mass killings - each with its own unique and deadly logic. In each chapter, relevant cases of mass killings are subjected to thorough historical process tracing in order to highlight the role of the elite decision-making calculus. In each chapter, the author also briefly discusses cases in which mass killings did not occur."

• Gerard Alexander. Source: The Virginia Quarterly Review, FALL 2004, Vol. 80, No. 4 (FALL 2004), p. 280

"Valentino sets out to diminish the role that ethnicist ideologies and other social dysfunctions play in explanations of genocides. He instead traces these terrible outcomes to small sets of committed rulers, for whom mass murder is an instrumental means to such ends as regime security from suspect or threatening minority groups. As such, his thesis touches directly on the question of whether such regimes require the active support of at least important segments of the general population in order to carry out genocides. In arguing they do not, he categorizes most citizens of afflicted societies as bystanders and frontally challenges Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's claim that a committed regime and an "eliminationist" culture are both necessary conditions for a genocidal outcome. Valentino tests his thesis against an array of evidence that is admirable in two ways. First, including Maoist China and military-ruled Guatemala retrieves often-overlooked cases for our consideration. Second, adding China, the USSR, and Soviet occupied Afghanistan may remind readers— too many of whom need reminding—just how many innocents were slaughtered by Communist regimes. For its many virtues, the analysis disappoints in two key ways. First, the study does not really identify the origins of rulers' beliefs about the threats they face. This matters because if he cannot explain in rationalist terms why Nazis believed they had to kill Jewish grandmothers in Poland, then Valentino risks inviting ideational explanations for genocides in through the back door, preserving the form of an instrumentalist account but not its content. Second, he ultimately does not explain why rulers resorted to genocide to deal with threats as opposed to other option."

• G. John Ikenberry. Source: Foreign Affairs, Sep. - Oct., 2004, Vol. 83, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2004), pp. 164-165

"In this astute and provocative study, Valentino argues instead that leaders, not societies, are to blame. In most cases, he finds that power fuil leaders use mass killing to advance their own interests or indulge their own hatreds, rather than to carry out the desires of their constituencies. This "strategic" view emerges from a review of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia; ethnic killing in Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda; and counter-guerrilla killing in Guatemala and Afghanistan."

• Otis L. Scott. Source: The International History Review, Dec., 2005, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Dec., 2005), pp. 909-912

" Valentino argues for a 'strategic approach' to understand the etiology of mass killing that 'seeks to identify the specific situations, goals, and conditions that give leaders incentives to consider this kind of violence' (p. 67). He tells us that this approach is more productive because it focuses the observers' attention on mass killing as a strategy to a larger end and not necessarily an end in itself. We are reminded that mass public support is unnecessary for mass killings to occur. All that is needed is a group of people - large or small - having the requisite resources: political power, the ability to employ force, and opportunity to work their murderous mayhem.

Valentino's typology of mass killings is well supported by persuasive examples of episodes of violence against civilians. These cover a wide historical sweep, from the former Soviet Union, Turkish Armenia, and Nazi Germany, to the more recent examples from Cambodia, Guatemala, Afghanistan and Rwanda."

• Aysegul Aydin. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Jul., 2006, Vol. 43, No. 4, Special Issue on Alliances (Jul., 2006), p. 499

"In Final Solutions, Valentino investigates the roots of this human tragedy and finds the answers - not in broad political and social structures within a society frequently modeled in human security studies, but in the goals and perceptions of small and powerful groups carrying out these policies. Valentino's rationalist approach to the study of mass killings is novel and insightful. He presents historical evidence that shows that leaders resorting to 'final solutions' are highly influenced by radical goals that touch the social fabric of society and their perception of effective strategies to best suppress the popular dissent that usually follows the implementation of these goals. Most importantly, Valentino's analysis is far reaching. Its emphasis on the rationality of killers and the instrumentality of mass killings shows that the scientific study of mass killings is possible and desirable, despite the ethical dimension of the issue."

• Frank W. Wayman and Atsushi Tago. Source: Journal of Peace Research, january 2010, Vol. 47, No. 1 (january 2010), pp. 3-13

" Disagreeing with Rummel's finding that authoritarian and totalitarian government explains mass murder, Valentino (2004) argues that regime type does not matter; to Valentino the crucial thing is the motive For mass killing (Valentino, 2004: 70). He divides motive into the two categories of dispossessive mass killing (as in ethnic cleansing, colonial enlargement, or collectivization of agriculture) and coercive mass killing (as in counter-guerrilla, terrorist, and Axis imperialist conquests)." It worth noting that Wayman & Tago concede that Valentino partially sees some ideological component in mass killing committed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, so their general conclusion is close to that of Strauss (quoted by me in one previous post)

• Daniel Chirot, Source: COMPARATIVE POLITICAL STUDIES / June 2005

"He claims that almost all cases are initiated by small groups of leaders, not by mass hatred or intolerance nor by poverty and suffering. Those deplorable conditions are very widespread, yet mass political murder on a genocidal scale is much less frequent. Not only is it beyond our capacity to end human nastiness and misery, but in any case, leaders not structural conditions or the wrong cultural values are responsible for mass slaughter. Perhaps even more important is the clear evidence that genocidal acts are ordered by those leaders for instrumental purposes, to gain very specific political ends. They are neither irrational outbursts of emotion nor driven by mass hatred. They are calculated strategies by powerful elites, sometimes even by single dictators who feel that they and their cherished programs are gravely endangered by the existence of hostile enemies who must be either terrorized into submission or eliminated entirely. Not trading with them, or threatening them with justice, is unlikely to stop them because by the time the decision to engage in mass killing has been taken, they view the situation as desperate.

Looking only at the 20th-century cases and focusing on eight specific cases, Valentino is able to provide a reasonable amount of detail about each one to support his strong conclusions. He divides the kinds of “final solutions” into three types. First, he looks at Stalin’s mass murders, at those in Mao’s China, and at the Khmer Rouge genocide. In all three cases, a small cadre of leaders led by a dedicated revolutionary chief was driven by utopian fantasies and ideological certitude that made it see enemies everywhere and kill millions. The fact that the leaders’ people did not conform to revolutionary ideals could not mean that these ideals were wrong but that, instead, there were many traitors and saboteurs who had to be eliminated. Their revolutionary paranoia was much more than the personal monstrosity of each of these leaders but a fundamental part of their worldview and that of those immediately around them."

Again, Chirot's interpretation of Valentino's concept is that personal utopian fantasies of a handful of crazy fanatics explain onset of mass killings in each case, and each case has very specific features that strongly depend of each leader's personality and depends on them. Again there is not much ground for a claim that Valentino proposes any serious generalizations, quite the opposite, according to him, each case is unique.

At that moment, I decided to stop, because further reading did not add fresh information. What is the summary? It seems all sources agree that:

1. Valentino's main idea is that mass killings were the results of leader's personality, not in some particular ideology, socioeconomic , ethnic or similar factors.

2. Valentino analyzed eight separate cases divided on three subgroups. For each case (or a subgroup) he analyzes similar societies (with similar ideology, socioeconomics etc), which were NOT engaged in mass killings.

3. He analyzed NOT all mass killings committed in/by the USSR, but mass killings perpetrated by Stalin's regime only. Never in his book he states that other cases belong to the same category.

4. He considers mass killings in Afghanistan as a category that is different from Stalin's mass killings. That additionally demonstrates that the chapter "Communist mass killings" (the chapter 4) contains no generalizations: it just describes the three concrete cases, i.e. Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, and contrasts it with another case (Afghanistan), which is not "Communist mass killing", according to Valentino.

• Therefore, Valentino NEVER wrote about Communist mass killings in general, he analyzed just THREE cases, and explicitly noted that majority of Communist regimes were NOT engaged in mass killings. If we add more cases, besides Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, we are engaged in SYNTHESIS, and the very claim that Valentino defines a new category "Mass killings under Communist regime" is a piece of original research.

• Valentino CAN be used as an aggregator source for the article Mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Khmer Rouge regimes, but ... why do we need to have such an article if each of those topics already has their own articles?

• Valentino explicitly wrote that ideology is not an important factor. By adding more and more sources saying that it is, we directly distort Valentino's concept, and perform SYNTHESIS.

• Valentino wrote that leader's personality is the key factor that explains almost all. By ignoring that and replacing it with theorizing of other authors, we engage in blatant SYNTHESIS.

I argued, for many times, that the article is blatantly non-neutral, but the responce was: that is the only way to write the article without engaging in original research. Here I demonstrated, with sources, that that argument is totally false: not only this article is blatantly non-neutral, it is a blatant WP:SYN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I am busy for the next two weeks, but I will have time to respond this weekend (and next weekend, if needed). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you say: "First, the claim that Valentino can be used as a core source because this source defines the topic is WRONG. Valentino never wrote about "Mass killings under Communist regimes". His theory is totally different." You misunderstand me: Valentino does not define this topic and the topic is not his theory. I have said that the Valentino book is one of the sources that justifies the existence of this article because that source contains substantial material on the topic of large scale killing of civilians by communist states generally in the chapter "Communist Mass Killing: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Other sources that include material only on the closely related topics but isolated topics of such killing by individual communist states cannot justify an article about mass killing in communist states generally because that is forbidden OR/synthesis. Valentino's book is one of the clearest examples of a source that includes the topic of civilian killing by communist regimes generally and, because it is such a high quality academic source, it is convenient to point to it (along with other such sources) when the charge of OR/synthesis is raised. Regardless of the details of Valentino's "Mass killing" definition and specifics of his theories, he definitely wrote on the topic of the killing of non-combatants by "communist regimes", and denying that is what I find absurd. You say "stop providing quotes from Valentino, because we may misinterpret him", but you then make statements about what Valentino did and did not say, so quoting him is the best way to demonstrate that your numbered points and bullets are incorrect.

1) You say "Valentino's main idea is that mass killings were the results of leader's personality, not in some particular ideology, socioeconomic , ethnic or similar factors." Arguing about the details of what he wrote doesn't change that he did write on this topic and he meets Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. Valentino is the one who chose to group communist regimes into their own chapter. Even if he concluded that leader's personality was the only significant factor and ideology or regime type played no role (which is not what he concluded), it would still support having this article. Even if every reliable source on this topic were entirely filled with explanations of why the killing by communist regimes had no commonalities that set it apart from non-communist mass killings, it would still justify having this article (although the content of the article would need to reflect that content, of course).

2) You say "Valentino analyzed eight separate cases divided on three subgroups. For each case (or a subgroup) he analyzes similar societies (with similar ideology, socioeconomics etc), which were NOT engaged in mass killings." There is material in the book that touches on lots of different topics and could be used to contribute to lots of different wikipedia articles. Again the article is about the topic of mass killings under communist regimes, not Valentino's theory per se. Valentino does discuss the topic and his views should be accurately reflected in the article where he is referenced (I think they are currently).

3) You say "He analyzed NOT all mass killings committed in/by the USSR, but mass killings perpetrated by Stalin's regime only. Never in his book he states that other cases belong to the same category." He doesn't have to analyze all communist mass killing to write about the topic of communist mass killing. His introduction to the Communist mass killing chapter begins by citing other sources that do analyze all such killings (in the USSR and globally), such as Courtois and Rummel. The material can be read in excerpts "ag" and "ab".

4) You say "He considers mass killings in Afghanistan as a category that is different from Stalin's mass killings. That additionally demonstrates that the chapter "Communist mass killings" (the chapter 4) contains no generalizations: it just describes the three concrete cases, i.e. Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, and contrasts it with another case (Afghanistan), which is not "Communist mass killing", according to Valentino." Here are some generalizations from that chapter: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa." Note that the sources he cites are reproduced in excerpt "ab". You are right that he includes the Soviet killing in Afghanistan in a different chapter, but even there he includes "Communist" as a secondary motive for the killing.

• You say "Valentino NEVER wrote about Communist mass killings in general" and "If we add more cases, besides Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, we are engaged in SYNTHESIS, and the very claim that Valentino defines a new category "Mass killings under Communist regime" is a piece of original research." He begins his Communist Mass Killing chapter by writing about communist mass killings in general: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million.
• You say "Valentino CAN be used as an aggregator source for the article Mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Khmer Rouge regimes, but ... why do we need to have such an article if each of those topics already has their own articles?" Valentino focuses on those three in his chapter, but also makes it clear in that chapter that more killing than that occurred under communist regimes. "Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa."
• You say "Valentino explicitly wrote that ideology is not an important factor. By adding more and more sources saying that it is, we directly distort Valentino's concept, and perform SYNTHESIS." Again, this article is not about Valentino's chapter or theory. It is about the topic of communist mass killing and his chapter is an example of that topic in a reliable secondary source.
• You say "Valentino wrote that leader's personality is the key factor that explains almost all. By ignoring that and replacing it with theorizing of other authors, we engage in blatant SYNTHESIS." Again, this article is not about Valentino's chapter or theory. It is about the topic of communist mass killing and his chapter is an example of that topic in a reliable secondary source. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Outside comments

Just wanted to leave a quick comment. How can this article still be defended after such work is beyond me. Honestly, if even after this they are not convinced that Valentino is totally misrepresented, this may amount to ownership; they have authored almost 70% so they have little incentive to be convinced by your rational arguments and secondary/tertiary sources. Could you please also analyze those other three sources? Because apparently it was those sources that changed the result from no consensus to keep in the first place.

At first glance, I would say that those sources only support Mass killings under Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot but as Siebert noted, "why do we need to have such an article if each of those topics already has their own articles?" Even if we make a comparative analysis article, it needs to be rewritten anyway because the scope will be limited to those three very specific periods of three different Communist states out of dozens and dozens. I think the only way to show that this article is synthesis, etc., and it needs to be rewritten and restructured, is to take down as you did here, one by one, each author and source allegedly supporting the article and topic as currently written and structured.

Davide King (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A quick answer is as follows: many people really were killed or died prematurely, and many authors write about each separate event, of about some group of the events. Some of them see commonalities, some of them describe each event in separation from other, some authors see common cause for a certain group of events, others group the same events in a different way, and so on, and so forth. We just need to present an unbiased story without attempting to put our own words in the author's mouth, and maintain a balance based on prominence of each view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, here it appears that there is a disagreement and misunderstanding about the topic. It looks like supporters of this article, as it currently is, essentially want it to be a (List of) Mass killings under Communist regimes, where any mass death events is categorized as mass killing (original research/synthesis in my view; for such an article, we would need a clear link between communism and mass killing that is not there). Critics of the article either want it to be about Communist mass killing as a subtopic of Mass killing (theory) but limited to the Big Three, or essentially the same AmateurEditor's topic but understood to be about mass mortality events, not all of which are categorized as mass killing; like Communist mass killing, it is a theory proposed by some authors.

Again, what matters is what reliable sources say about Valentino; if they did not pick up what AmateurEditor quoted, and do not say he supports or proposes MKuCR but rather he proposes Communist mass killing as a subcategory of dispossessive mass killing vs. coercive mass killing, which is a very different thing, it means that it is either original research or undue, and Paul Siebert is right and AmateurEditor is wrong. I am curious about Siebert's reply, especially what they will comment and respond about the topic and the misunderstanding of it.

If Valentino does not define this topic, then who does? It would still be original research to cherry pick sources that discuss some killings under Communist regimes and then synthetize them together, as if they support MKuCR, which is what the article currently does. it would still support having this article But we are not even arguing about deletion, we are arguing, to quote Siebert, about presenting "an unbiased story without attempting to put our own words in the author's mouth, and maintain a balance based on prominence of each view." What, in my view, AmateurEditor still do is cherry pick Valentino's quotes, without any secondary analysis that do it for us, as Siebert did. In my view, Cloud200 did the same thing below; no secondary/tertiary sources are provided in support of their arguments and interpretation, Siebert is the only one who is doing that, they are not basing their arguments on their own analysis of Valentino and the like, they are summarizing what secondary/tertiary sources said about them, that do the interpretation for us, and thus avoid any form of original research and synthesis.

When we do not rely on such secondary/tertiary sources, we have statements like the article is about the topic of mass killings under communist regimes, not Valentino's theory per se. Valentino does discuss the topic (but he writes about Communist mass killing, not MKuCR) and doesn't have to analyze all communist mass killing to write about the topic of communist mass killing. So which is which? It is either Communist mass killing or MKuCR. The former is supported by Valentino and sources, the latter is not; they are mass mortality events, and only Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's can be considered mass killing events.

When Valentino is discussing the estimates, he is not writing about MKuCR but rather about the Communist death toll, another notable yet controversial topic, i.e. the Victims of Communism narrative, and Valentino is mainly summarizing the estimates, though he seems to rely mainly on those on the high-end, which are not supported by most scholars. You see? I can interpret Valentino differently, so who is right? The secondary/tertiary reliable sources, of course, which overwhelmingly say that Valentino is writing about Communist mass killing as a theory to explain excess deaths and mass mortality events under Communist states (only Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's are certain, in his view, to be categorized as mass killings), not MKuCR, and mass killing is itself a concept proposed by some genocide studies (not mainstream political science) scholars to categorize killings that do not fit the category of genocide. Davide King (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources and their tagging

In regard to this, it is coming from the same user who wrote there can be no more reliable source for Valentino's analysis than Valentino himself. As I explained here, that is a mockery of our policies and guidelines. What is absurd is not us pointing out that Valentino did not connect Communist states, or communism and mass killing, as reported by actual, independent secondary sources (which say Valentino supports Communist mass killing as a subtype category of mass killing, not mass killings under Communist regimes, and were not ideologically driven but resulted from the same motivations as non-Communist states) but the mockery of our own policies and guidelines, which say sources must be secondary and independent of the authors when we are discussing what they think or have said. Let us summarize primary, secondary, and tertiary sources on this article:

1. Primary sources are Communist states (about the events) and authors (about their own interpretations).
2. Secondary and tertiary sources are authors writing about the events (i.e. mainly saying what happened for key and uncontroversial facts rather than saying why or giving their own interpretation) and sources summarizing what such authors think and have said (what we actually need to verify the authors' interpretation).

Our policies and guidelines are clear, and the primary source tags, or similar tags, are warranted. I did discuss this with AmateurEditor (you can see here our discussion), so there is no need for them to reply (we agree to disagree). In my view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources is clear about it, and WP:PRIMARY says:

A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

[My example would be:]

A book by Valentino about the events in Communist states might be a secondary source about the events themselves, but where it includes details of the author's own interpretation of the events, it would be a primary source about their own interpretation.

[The differences were bolded.]

I do not see any difference, and any of you? This is the reason why the whole article is original research and synthesis; for the most part, we are actually relying on primary sources by the authors for their interpretations, rather than relying on secondary and tertiary sources that do that for us. Once this is fixed, the topic, and our understanding and interpretation of it (which is probably the main issue of contention) will be much clearer, and you will see it would be much different but in a good way, i.e. neutrally written.

References

• Straus, Scott (April 2007). "Review: Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide". World Politics. 59 (3). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 476–501. doi:10.1017/S004388710002089X. JSTOR 40060166. S2CID 144879341.

Davide King (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I see a difference. The sources that provide interpretation of facts are secondary sources. The real problem is that Valentino's views are significantly misinterpreted by cherry-picking quotes from him and ignoring or distorting his main concept, as I explained above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please clarify the difference? Because I actually agree with what you wrote, so perhaps I did not explain myself good? "The sources that provide interpretation of facts are secondary sources." My understanding is that they are only secondary when we are using a tertiary source, i.e. we are using a secondary source for what Valentino says or thinks, which becomes the secondary source about what Valentino says or thinks. In other words, we cannot use Valentino to says what he thinks and his own interpretation of facts and the proposed concept, we need a secondary/tertiary source doing that for us. Here at Mass killing, we are using Straus to describe the views of Mann, Midlarsky, and Valentino, not the works of Mann, Midlarsky, and Valentino (which are primary sources in this case). See The Four Deuces' comments here and here.

Either way, I agree that the bigger issue is Valentino's views (but there are many others) are indeed "significantly misinterpreted by cherry-picking quotes from him and ignoring or distorting his main concept." So even if I am technically wrong about this, which is why I asked for outside comments, it does not preclude a rewriting or restructuring because the bigger problem is that the sources, no matter which type, are misinterpreted and cherry picked, as you clearly demonstrated here for Valentino. Davide King (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The true reason for primary-secondary-tertiary separation is that primary sources may contain errors or a direct lie that may be overlooked by non-professionals. That is why a separate discipline called Source criticism exists. For example, if some Medieval chronicle says a king X had 100,000 troops, and he won the battle Y, a amateur always takes these words literally. Meanwhile, a professional historian will conclude that, in that concrete historical context (which, among other factors, includes a comparative analysis of other chronicles), 100,000 meant "many" (which in Medieval realities normally meant 1,500 - 5,000), and "won" meant "didn't obviously lose" (for his opponent, a king Y claimed victory too, and subsequent events demonstrated that the real outcome of the battle was "a draw").

In this particular case, Valentino is definitely a secondary source, but that source was dramatically misused and misinterpreted. The very idea of Valentino was totally distorted, because, to understand it, one has to read not only the chapter of interest ("Communist mass killings"), but the book in full. The main Valentino's idea is that ideology, political system and similar factors play much less role than many people believe. The core explanation of "mass killings" is personality of the leaders: if, for some reason, they conclude mass killing is the most optimal way to achieve their goals, mass killings can be perpetrated. To demonstrate this goal, Valentino analyzed eight cases (and compared them with similar societies where mass killings never occurred), and his analysis seems to confirm his conclusion. All of that is carefully ignored in the article, and totally different words are put in Valentino's mouth. The article implies that Valentino invented a category "Communist mass killings", and all mass killings that occurred under Communists fit that category. That is a direct lie. The article implies that Valentino emphasizes the role of Communist ideology in mass killings, although in reality the situation is directly opposite: he rejects the Rummel's claim about the role of ideology, although he concedes that it can shape the choice of some leaders (i.e. it may be important, although it is never a key factor). That means the article description of Valentino's views on ideology is a lie too. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This was very interesting and helpful. The reason why I still think the tags are warranted is that we actually do this for Rummel, we cite it not to Rummel's work, as we do with pretty much everyone else, but to Totten & Jacobs 2002. All I ask is why cannot the same be done for all the others? Perhaps because there are no such secondary/tertiary sources, and thus the section is going to be emptied because they are undue, and are original research/synthesis by misrepresenting sources. The NPOV tag I added was removed by AmateurEditor, who has written much of the section, as was acknowledged here, and thus there may be a conflict of interest in not wanting that section to be NPOV tagged. Perhaps better source needed or undue weight inline (Hicks, Watson, and the like) are more appropriate tags than non-primary source needed, but the NPOV tag should stay per your analysis here and here. Davide King (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is possible when we speak about some external relationships. In this case, it would be incorrect to speak about any COI, as well as any lack of a good faith of any party. In general, your attempts to use tangentially related issues to criticize the text do not add points to your position. The text by itself is deeply one-sided, misleading, and contains fundamental errors and misinterpretations. I am in a process of reviewing it, I need some time to finish it, so I am not ready to speak about that so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I get that and I agree with it. It was mainly an euphemism, and I meant it more as a compliment for your work, because I just could not understand after all the work you have done here, all backed by reliable secondary sources in your arguments, and now an accurate analysis here (it was really interesting the fact that "Valentino's 'mass killings' ... happened many years after Russian or Chinese revolution", I do not know how I did not think that before) how can someone still not see all the problems with this article. This is something I do not really get. Davide King (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal - I am not seeing any reason those sources would be tagged as primary. They are not primary sources for the content they are supporting. If you think there is a case I would suggest taking it to RSN. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"Proposed causes" section

I decided to check schetm's statement that this section is well soured and well written. Let's see.

Ideology The section draws some general connections between Communist ideology and "mass killing". That means the views of each cited author should be represented in such a way that it should be clear (i) what connection the author draws between Communist ideology and mass killing, (ii) what exactly each author means under "mass killing" (e.g. they do not mean some broader phenomenae, such as "human right violation" or "mass violence" (including non-lethal one), or do not writhe about, e.g. Red Terror only), (iii) the author's views were not taken out of context. If all these criteria are met, we can claim this section is properly sourced. Let's see:

1. Since one of the cornerstones this article rests upon is Valentino's writings, it seems his opinion deserves to be presented first. The current version provided lengthy quotes from Valentino, however, the section completely distorts Valentino's concept. I already provided the analysis of evidences in the previous section, and I am not going to repeat it here. Let me just re-iterate a conclusion: Valentino's view clearly and obviously distorted to advocate a totally opposite idea. Correct description should be "Valentino concludes that leader's personality is the key and primary cause of mass killings, and he sees no significant linkage between ideology and mass killing, although he admits that Communist ideology can affect certain decisions of some leaders. Valentino's view of the role of ideology should go first, because his book served as one of the cornerstones of this article.

2. I don't see how Karlsson's quote helps understanding a linkage between ideology and mass killings. It is a trivial statement that carries zero information ("Communists committed numerous crimes, and they were Communists". So what?) Conclusion: remove

3. Rudolph Rummel is mentioned twice. I see no reason to mention him here Conclusion: remove a non-referenced and duplicated mention of Rummel.

4. Goldhagen does see Communist ideology as a significant factor in mass killing, but, how he defines it? At p. 28, he defines "mass killing" differently that Valentino (more than few hundreds of people, and without any specific time frame), he also adds an eliminationist outcome as a trait, but he specifies that an explicit intent to kill is a mandatory trait of the term "mass killing". That means, Goldhagen's assertion about the role of ideology is applicable to only a small subset of "mass killings" (as defined by Valentino) or "democide" (per Rummel). That means these three authors speak about different categories of events (obviously, Great Chinese famine or Volga famine do not fit Goldhagen's definition of "mass killing", whereas they fit Rummel's "democide" category). The current text does not explain that nuance, which makes it a misleading piece of original research. Conclusion: re-write the statement totally, expand and clarify what concrete category of events Goldhagen means in his analysis.

5. Pipes. I am not sure what exact text at the page 147 supports this claim. I would also like to see a clarification of what category of mass killings/death/murders is seen by Pipes as motivated by Communist ideology. Conclusion: I would like to see an extended quote demonstrating the linkage between mass killing and ideology per Pipes, and his vision of what he considers a "Communist mass killing".

6. Gray. I couldn't find that (pretty outdated) book, and I would like to see what kind of "mass killing" that author means, and how his definition of mass killing related to more recent definitions proposed by Valentino and other modern authors. Without having that information, it is hard to tell if this Cold War era book authored by a political philosopher (not a historian or genocide scholar) is relevant, and what additional information it carries. And, since the very concept of "mass killings" was formulated by Valentino and other genocide scholars in 1990s and later, how can we make sure Gray speaks about the same events? Conclusion: this book is used to demonstrate th elinkage between "mass killing" and ideology, despite the fact that the very concept of "mass killing" was proposed long after that book was published. Remove this outdated source.

7. Bradley. In the provided quote, the author confirms there always was a tension between Communism and human rights (although by the end of the quote he conceded the situation was more complex). He also says Communists committed mass killings. However, it is unclear from the provided quote if the author says Communist ideology was a cause of mass killings. He says Communists sometimes dismissed human rights, sometimes celebrated human rights, and sometimes committed mass killings. But where he says Communist ideology was a cause of mass killings? Conclusion: the source was misused to create a false impression the author draws a linkage between mass killings and Communist ideology. Remove.

8. Finlay. This source says a pretty trivial thing: that Marxism justifies revolutionary violence. However, if you read any source from this list, and the sources presented there are pretty good quality secondary sources, you may see that most of them agree that violence is a necessary component of most revolutions. In addition, the most deadly "Communist mass killings" (as defined by Valentino) took place long after revolutions, and, therefore, it is not clear what relation between the Finlay's notion about revolutionary violence and Valentino's "mass killings" that happened many years after Russian or Chinese revolution. Conclusion: the source was misused to create a false impression the author draws a linkage between mass killings and Communist ideology, whereas it confirms that Marx was advocating revolutionary violence (the same thing that other, non-Marxist revolutionaries did). Remove.

9. Watson. It is a very, very controversial paragraph. Yes, at the first glance, it looks like a propaganda of genocide. However, Watson clearly takes Engels out of context, and it is not a surprise the next author severely criticises him. Indeed, that article by Engels discusses national bourgeois revolutions in Europe, the processes that, according to Marx and Engels, are predecessors of Communist revolutions. According to Engels, many, many cruel things must happen before Communists come to power, and some of those cruel things are good (i.e. they accelerate social transformations that lead to proletarian revolution) other are bad (i.e. they decelerate that process), however, all of that is not a description of what Communists should do after they come to power. Conclusion: We should either provide a neutral and detailed discussion of this article by Engels, or remove the paragraph completely. We have no space for such a discussion, which does not seem directly relevant to the topic. Remove.

10. Rummel. This author does see a linkage between his "democide" and totalitarian ideology, so he is the first source in the section that was used correctly without any serious reservations. However, Rummel is a pioneer and an expert in application of Factor analysis to social sciences, so his own findings are correlations, whereas his other theorizing are less valuable (and less cited). IMO, the focus in the text should be shifted to real correlations found by Rummel, whereas his weasel words are much less valuable.

11. Valentino. Already discussed. This author was dramatically misinterpreted and misplaced.

12. Semelin. It is absolutely unclear from the presented quote what linkage the author (Semelin) draws between Communist ideology and mass killing. The quote implies some linkage exists, but WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Conclusion: We should either clearly explain what is the relationship between mass killings (in general) and ideology per Semelin, or remove it completely as SYN.}

13. Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley write about fanaticism of leaders, which, in my opinion, is, at least partially, in agreement with Valentino's ideas. It would be interesting to check who proposed this idea first, and who took it from whom (if time allows, I'll check cross-references). However, whereas the linkage between mass killings and leader's personality is clear from the provided quote, the linkage with Communist ideology is not. Conclusion: Re-write and probably put into a different section.

14. Mann. The quote literally says: " Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven (...). Killings were often popular (...)." In other words, "they were ideology driven. They killed." What type of connection the author draws? How he explains the linkage between Communist ideology and killings? It is absolutely unclear from the quote, and the quote was provided to imply some linkage that the author does not describe clearly. Conclusion: we should either explain what was the linkage between mass killings and Communist ideology, according to Mann, or remove it completely.

15. Tismăneanu, Bellamy, Katz, Shaw. These authors seem to discuss some concrete instances of Communist mass killings, e.g. mass killings by Stalin, mass killings in the USSR, China, Cambodia and Albania, etc. That means all of that are some specific examples. In connection to that, I am wondering why all other specific causes are discussed in country-specific sections. Conclusion: all sources that discuss ideology as a cause of mass killings in a selected group of states or a separate group of events cannot be discussed in the section that describes common causes.

I think it is a time to take a break. As we can see, this "well sourced" section is full of marginally relevant sources, and most sources that are relevant are misused or directly misinterpreted here. In addition, since many sources discuss not mass killings in general, but some specific categories of Communist mass killings and their relation to ideology, the section must be expanded by moving all country-specific causes here. We must do that, because that is required by WP:STRUCTURE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It seems obvious that the section about the linkage between Communist ideology and mass killings should start with brief description of that ideology, and those aspects of that ideology that cause mass killings. So far, I found no good sources, but I found several sources that discuss a linkage of ideology (in general) and mass killing. That confirms that the main part of this content belongs to Mass killing article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There's an obvious weight issue, because we are presented with a number of opinions without any indication of the degree of their acceptance in mainstream sources. schetm, could you please provide a link to a review study that explains this. TFD (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A discussion of weight issues will be dramatically facilitated after all SYN and direct misinterpretations will be removed. My analysis shows that more than a half of the text should be removed, and the rest should be re-written.

With regard to weight, if we clearly separate general theories (that discuss Communist mass killings as a single phenomenon) from case-specific explanations, the weight issues do not look really dramatic, because the number of authors who seriously discuss common causes is relatively small. Overwhelming majority of sources discuss causes of each case of mass killing/mass mortality separately, and, in each specific case, the mainstream viewpoint of causes of each event is pretty easy to establish. Thus, a mainstream view of causes of Great Chinese famine is that the famine was a result of a combination of natural and antropogenic (communal dining rooms, disrupted communication between local and central authorities, poor statistical apparatus etc) factors, and it was a mass mortality event, not mass killing. In contrast, a mainstream view of causes of Cambodian genocide is that it was caused by a combination of three factors: huge social tensions between desperately poor Khmer rural population and (predominantly non-Khmer) rich urban population, historical tradition of revenge, and KR's ultraMaoism. All of that is not a problem at all. If we combine common causes and case-specific causes in a single section (as NPOV advises us to do), the weigh issues will be resolved automatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For a review, try to read this: Rethinking the role of ideology in mass atrocities. J Leader Maynard - Terrorism and Political Violence, 2014 - Taylor & Francis.

It is not about "Communist mass killings", but about mass killings in general, and, obviously, it does not cover famine, but the review is good, and it is well cited, which implies wide acceptance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Maynard's book say that sources don't draw connections between ideology and mass killings, or at least do so only superficially? TFD (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

He cites a number of works authored by several scholars, part of whom have already been cited here, but those works either discuss mass killings in general (not MKuCR) or focus on some specific examples (some concrete MKuCR). Non of them discuss ideology as a cause of "mass killings under Communist regimes" as they are defined here. In addition, most works speak about ideology as a justification of mass killings, not ideology as a cause of mass killings. To me, that is an important nuance. The claim that ideology was used for justification of some killing, and the claim that ideology was a cause are two totally different claims.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I am busy for the next two weeks, but I will have time to respond this weekend (and next weekend, if needed). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, take your time. You definitely need some time ti find fresh and strong counter-arguments, because my arguments are totally new. I was able to demonstrate that, whereas you were persistently defending NPOV violations with numerous references to NOR, your own edits are totally inconsistent with NOR, and you make generalizations not found in the source (Valentino) you yourself are using as a core source in your work. If you disagree with that, please, address this criticism. If you have no counter-arguments (which is quite likely, because the sources cited by me clearly support my claims), let's think together how can we fix all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Please check Dictatorship of the proletariat as it also discusses numerous references for justification of mass terror in communist regimes. Marxist sources in this aspect were quite prevalent, especially in Marxism-Leninism, with Lenin's The State and Revolution being practically one large compilation of quotes from Marx and Engels in support of mass terror, especially chapter 1, part 4 "The Withering Away of the State, and Violent Revolution" which can be found in whole here[21]. So while vagueness of parts of M&E writings could be now used to claim they didn't directly justify violence, their followers like Lenin clearly chose the most violent possible interpretation of M&E teachings, and they did so largely in compliance with their authors' intentions. This is further confirmed by reading of Critique of the Gotha Programme where Marx unrolls a scathing attack on a social-democratic program that specifically did not postulate a violent revolution, and includes the famous quote on the need for dictatorship of the proletariat: "Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one with the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". Which Lenin of course did read correctly as "panegyric of violent revolution" and quoted in "The State and Revolution". Cloud200 (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I see nothing unusual in Marxist attitude to revolutionary violence. In XIX-early XX century, most revolutionaries supported violence, and that was not a specific trait of Marxists. The problem is that majority of the events that article is discussing took place long after socialist revolutions, so it is hard to tell how Marx's or Lenin's views of revolutionary violence are related to post-revolutionary events.

By saying that, I think that some "theorizing" of self-appointed Marx's successors, such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc, can and should be considered as a "theoretical" base for mass killing. The most pure example is the infamous Stalin's "theory" about permanent exacerbation of class struggle. There is a direct linkage between this "theory" and the Great Purge, and this "theory" was criticized and debunked by Communists themselves during de-stalinization. I think it is quite necessary to add discussions of this type "theories" in the analysis of concrete mass killings or mass mortality events, but all of that must be placed into a proper context, to avoid unneeded generalizations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Red Terror unrolled literally one year after Lenin wrote The State and Revolution. Not seeing the link between one and another approaches the verge of denialism. Cloud200 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI. Red Terror unrolled literally few days after an unsuccessful attempt of Lenin's assassination and after killing of Uritsky. Assassination (even unsuccessful) is the event that may have a profound effect on human mind. If Lenin's original plan was to unfold a mass killing campaign, what he was waiting for? And, FYI, the infamous CheKa was created not in addition to an ordinary police: in reality, all police forces were disbanded by Bolsheviks, who initially believed there were no more need in them. Therefore, CheKa's function, among other purposes, was to maintain order.

I am not arguing Bolsheviks rejected the idea of violence. Yes, they were ready to resort to violence when needed. However, it is clear that their policy was more reactive (the violence level was increasing). Thus, literally one day after the overturn of the Provisional government, Lenin's government banned a capital punishment, which is inconsistent with the idea that they planned the mass killings campaign from the very beginning. Their attitude to violence can be seen from the Lenin's reaction on Fyodor Kokoshkin (politician)'s murder. Yes, Lenin was not a dove, and he quickly changed his position when the opponents' resistance increased. However, to draw the roots of mass violence from his ideology would be incorrect.

@Paul Siebert: Lenin and Uritsky (chef of CheKa) assassination attempts happened in August 1918. What was the background of these assassination attempts? It was because already in April 1918 Bolsheviks, using CheKa, started to ruthlessly eliminate all internal opposition: "Of all the revolutionary elements in Russia it is the Anarchists who now suffer the most ruthless and systematic persecution. Their suppression by the Bolsheviki began already in 1918, when — in the month of April of that year — the Communist Government attacked, without provocation or warning, the Anarchist Club of Moscow and by the use of machine guns and artillery “liquidated” the whole organisation."[22] Cloud200 (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Second, Red Terror or Kronshtadt rebellion are the Civil war events, they fall under a "revolutionary violence" category. Meanwhile, this article discuss much broader range of events, and the most deadly events are separated from the revolution by more than 10-20 years period. How these events are connected with Lenin's "State and Revolution"? It follows from S&R letter and spirit that Lenin believed no state would exist in such a "distant future", and no state violence would be possible at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: The postulates of Kronstadt rebellion were exclusively political and they originated specifically from the opposition to the Bolshevik methods and elimination of all opposition: "reduction in Bolshevik power, newly elected soviet councils to include socialist and anarchist groups, economic freedom for peasants and workers, dissolution of the bureaucratic governmental organs created during the civil war, and the restoration of civil rights for the working class". Kronstadt rebels argued these were the true Marxist ideals abandoned by Bolshevik, the latter argued by crushing Kronstadt they were merely implementing Marxist recipe of establishing ultimate rule of the proletarian party over "reactionaries". Dialectically, both were right. Cloud200 (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

That is true, but one has to keep in mind that the rebellion took place almost immediately after the end of a very bloody Civil war, when many purely political actions had quite concrete and very violent military continuation. Those time people had a different approach to resolution of political disputes, but that approach was shared by all parties of the conflict.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source that linked support of violent revolution with mass killings. The U.S. came into being as a result of a violent revolution, yet its government has never carried out mass killings of its own citizens. TFD (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

American revolution never postulated dictatorship of the proletariat or anyone else, so it's logical it didn't end up in a dictatorship. Bolshevik revolution postulated exactly that, and it ended exactly there. For a detailed first-hand analysis of ideological background and practice of Bolshevik revolution I recommend Bertrand Russell's "The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism" available in full on Gutenberg[23]. Cloud200 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Apart from what others have already said, that same article mentions Marxist criticism and the rest is based on your personal reading of primary sources ("Which Lenin of course did read correctly as 'panegyric of violent revolution' ...." How convenient that of course Lenin's interpretation is the correct line and only reading of Marx, that is so... 'Stalinist', to say the least). Marxists debated about the Russian Revolution even before the Bolsheviks took power, and as soon as they did, they already criticized them (such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain), so Marxists were not like a monolithic who threw all their support behind the Bolsheviks and when things went bad, they retracted; they, among other socialists and communists, criticized them in the first place and correctly predicted the state-capitalist development. It is ironic that anti-communists and 'Stalinists' agree that Marxism is Leninism/Stalinism. When it is pointed out the democratic Social Democrats, who were also Marxists, apparently they were not real Marxists (again, agreeing with the 'Stalinists'), not because of a rational reason but because it contradicts the link between an absolutist and extremist Marxism and mass killing.

In short, this alleged link is almost as bad as claiming that there is no link between revolutionaries and violence. Both views are extreme, and reality, including academic reality, is much more nuanced than that. As noted by Siebert, Marxists are not the first nor the last in their attitude to revolutionary violence, which is more nuanced than you think, and many Marxists totally rejected it, alongside the use of terror and the like. Or were they not real Marxists? You see, the argument can go both ways. It is much more complicated than you and the synthesis, NPOV-violating, original research-section is describing. And these are very serious policy violations, including the strenuous defense of, and support for, such policy violations. Davide King (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Because Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik party it's rather obvious that he pushed his interpretation of Marx and Engels outlined in The State and Revolution. Of course, there were disagreements and there were numerous criticisms - from anarchists, from Socialist Revolutionaries, from Marxists in Europe such as Karl Kautsky. Lenin did the only logical thing he could derive from his interpretation of Marx and Engels - physically eliminated anarchists[24], Socialist Revolutionaries, unrolled Red Terror, crushed Kronstadt rebellion and called all critics "renegades"[25]. And it worked - the Bolshevik party gained power according to Marxist recipe, which was the ultimate confirmation of his interpretation being correct. Cloud200 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "real Marxists" — since there's no single or canonical interpretation of Marx-Engels writings, and such interpretation cannot be presented due to their dialectical vagueness and ambiguousness, you can't really deny Lenin the right to claiming his interpretation as right or wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's just one of many equally right interpretations of the Scripture that happened to be the most successful in establishing political power due to its ruthlessness. Oh and many Western Marxists actually supported it exactly for that reason ("you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs"). Reactions to reporting by Gareth Jones (journalist) and Malcolm Muggeridge are especially teaching on that aspect. Cloud200 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Lenin did the only logical thing he could derive from his interpretation of Marx and Engels." That is your interpretation, which still read as your original research rather than tertiary sources summarizing that for us, and at best it is only one side of historiography. "... you can't really deny Lenin the right to claiming his interpretation as right or wrong." Except you are doing it exactly this by positing it was right, contradicting yourselves. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not supported by all Marxists (at least insofar as many Marxists support it as a direct-democratic state, not as the dictatorship of the party). Social Democrats, who were also Marxists, did not result in Lenin's dictatorship of the party, something that you did not respond to because it contradicts the link, so you are engaging in original research in positing a link that does not exist, and as noted by TFD, we need "a secondary source that linked support of violent revolution with mass killings", or in this case communism and mass killing. Siebert demonstrated that there is not for the latter. All this reeks of Cold War era anyway. Davide King (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: After Marx himself in Critique of the Gotha Programme described Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany as "revisionist" and broke all ties, specifically for refusal to support the violent revolution, describing them as "Marxist" is a very long stretch. Not every socialist movement in history was "Marxist", socialism existed before Marx, and Marxian version of socialism is specifically distinguished by features such as violent revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat, none of which were supported by social democrats. They certainly were inspired by Marx writings, but chose radically way of social change. Cloud200 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

While Marx was unhappy with the compromises of the Gotha program, his followers continued in the SDP. The split between socialism and communism took place over the Russian Revolution. Who's to say that Lenin was closer to true Marxism than Kautsky? TFD (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Nobody here argues he was. Quite the opposite, I demonstrated how the concept of "true Marxism" is irrelevant in the absence of any ultimate compliance check. What we're arguing about is whether Bolshevik terror was inspired by Marx and Engels, and once again I believe I demonstrated that it undoubtedly was. Cloud200 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

You just said that "describing them as "Marxist: is a very long stretch." TFD (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying "Lenin's interpretation was right". I specifically explained that "right" or "wrong" is not applicable in the context of Marxism due to its dialectical character. That was the very point of Marx and Engels use of dialectics - you can't argue on the Scripture based on its reading and applying "bourgeois" logic alone, because it's composed of contradictory, vague and ambiguous statements. Lenin certainly believed his interpretation was correct, as did many other authors, but in a system like Marxism there's no objective criterion that allows you to judge which one is objectively correct, it was just not designed this way. So when Lenin wanted to start the revolution and his comrades argued there's not suitable proletarian base in Russia, he just quoted passages from Marx letters to Vera Zasulich where Marx says farming communes can replace proletariat and voilà. When he wanted to unroll Red Terror, he also had suitable passages from Marx and Engels. When he wanted to start New Economic Policy (contradicting both Red Terror and war communism), here you go with Marx passages about the need for development of proleterian base first. Stalin also quoted Marx a lot, if you haven't noticed, every single Stalinist postulate was supported by extensive selection of quotes from Marx and Engels, as well as brilliant analyses of leading Marxist philosophers in the USSR and abroad. And they have all followed Marx himself who in 1857 wrote the following tongue-in-cheek letter to Engels:[26] "As to the Delhi affair, it seems to me that the English ought to begin their retreat as soon as the rainy season has set in in real earnest. Being obliged for the present to hold the fort for you as the Tribune’s military correspondent I have taken it upon myself to put this forward. NB, on the supposition that the reports to date have been true. It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way." Cloud200 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"Marxian version of socialism is specifically distinguished by features such as violent revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat." Again, you are generalizing; this was not the case for the Social Democrats, who also did the same thing as Lenin et al. and claimed support from Marx both directly (Social Democratic party) and through his works; later in their life, both Marx and Engels came to argue that in some countries workers might be able to achieve their aims through peaceful means (Gray, Johnson, & Walker (2014), pp. 119–120), and Engels was skeptical of "top-down revolutions" and later in life advocated "a peaceful, democratic road to socialism." (Hunt 2009) Of course, Engels also harshly criticized Kautsky for misrepresenting his views, but the issue seemed to be more that it gave the impression Engels rejected any form of revolution ("a peace-loving proponent of legality [at all costs]") than anything (Steger 1999, p. 182). So I do not see why you should exclude Social Democrats as Marxists just because they do not subscribe to your personal interpretation of Marxism. "[Bolshevism] falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition. In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition. It has built up a rigid theology which is incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism." (Frankfurt Declaration 1951). Even today where most mainstream social-democratic parties renounced Marxism as a doctrine, they still loosely held to be valuable for its emphasis on changing the world for a more just, better future (Berman 2006, p. 153). You are simply proposing one side of historiography, which is mainly supported by anti-communists, and passing it off as the be-all and end-all (of course, all Communists leaders justified their policies on ideology, but that is the thing, justified, not caused; again, it is mainly anti-communists and 'Stalinists' who agree on 'Leninism–Stalinism' as true Marxism, while I am presenting the other, more nuanced, and in my view accurate, side. Anyways, this is all interesting but we are diverging, and none of what you wrote answered, challenged, or debunked the great critical analysis and issues raised by Paul Siebert. Davide King (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"why you should exclude Social Democrats as Marxists" - because they were 1) excluded from Marxism by Marx himself who called them "reactionary" (Stalin called them "social-fascists"), 2) because later social-democratic movements carefully separated themselves from Marxists (calling them "Communists") which is nicely highlighted in the Frankfurt Declaration. Cloud200 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"both Marx and Engels came to argue that in some countries workers might be able to achieve their aims through peaceful means" - no, they didn't. There's one quote of late Marx or Engels, who - when confronted with a question why the world revolution hasn't arrived yet after decades, in spite of being "scientifically" predicted by "iron laws of dialectics" - reluctantly answered that maybe communism can arrive without revolution. And that's it. I'm not aware of any other their significant statements on that subject. Cloud200 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like you treat Marxism solely as a doctrine and ideology, rather than a method of socioeconomic analysis, which is why you see it as a Scripture or teleological. Davide King (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

You can find the answer to why I treat it as a doctrine in the same Frankfurt Declaration you referred to above: "Communism falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition. In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition. It has built up a rigid theology which is incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism". And while it's hard not to agree with the second part, the reason why I find the first part unconvincing is that the voice of LSI and other non-Bolshevik socialist movements was marginal in 1917 and beyond. Bertrand Russell, quoted above, was one of the very few communists who dared to criticise Bolsheviks back then, and he was of course criticised for that by his comrades in UK. The majority of Western left accepted the Bolshevik way of "pragmatism" and happily supported it well until 30's. People like Berthold Brecht or Jean-Paul Sartre openly supported Stalinism well into 50's. For Sartre, even the Khruschev's lecture wasn't enough. So once again, the "spirit of Marxism" they're talking about was a feeling of minority of the people back then while dominating position was that "violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" (Communist Manifesto, foundational document by Marx and Engels!) is the right way to go, and Bolshevik were pioneers in that approach. Cloud200 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources I actually provided say otherwise about Marx and Engels. 'Communists' was an euphemism of Bolshevism, and they still supported Marxism. As noted by TFD, "[w]hile Marx was unhappy with the compromises of the Gotha program, his followers continued in the SDP. The split between socialism and communism took place over the Russian Revolution. Who's to say that Lenin was closer to true Marxism than Kautsky?" Note that it says: "In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition. It has built up a rigid theology which is incompatible with the critical spirit of Marxism." While you emphasize only the theology part, you ignore the rest, which show they could still be rightly called Marxists (in a neutral, non-pejorative way). Also describing Russell as a 'communist' is a bit of a stretch; he has always been a socialist (especially guild socialist), and prior to that a Georgist. He admired Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eduard Bernstein, and had expressed great hope in "the Communist experiment", which is much different and more nuanced, but I have not really seen described him as a 'communist.' You mention Brecht and Sarte as if they are they are the be-all and end-all. What about Rosa Luxemburg? What about Otto Rühle? You also provide no context for why they accepted it (I wish Paul Siebert would respond you on this, as they did for the Red Terror), and ignore the many who did not, and well before, during, and right after the revolution. Unlike you, I do not pretend to know which is the real Marxist, or to say that Lenin was closer to true Marxism than Kautzky and vice versa; ironically, you are being dogmatic and determinist, which is very 'Marxist'-like according to your own interpretation of it. "... while dominating position was that 'violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie' (Communist Manifesto, foundational document by Marx and Engels!)", as if that is the be-all and end-all of Marxist communism, and Marx and Engels did not write anything else. As I wrote, this is contradicted by the good, reliable sources I provided, which you have not addressed. Davide King (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

To add, what you are ascribing here only to Marxism is true of every revolution, as noted again by both TFD and Siebert. Davide King (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC) I also completely agree with what Siebert wrote here. That is precisely the context we need but this whole article, as currently structured and understood, precludes us from doing that precisely because most scholars do not see ideology as the cause, or link, for mass killing, but as concisely explained by Siebert, they see it as a justification for it, which is not the same thing as it being the cause ("I do not see how the sources [c]ited in this section support the claim that the most deadly events, such as the Great Chinese famine can be explained by Lenin's or Marx's view of revolutionary violence. I see a clear WP:SYN problem here."), and scholars do not treat it as the same thing, and do not generalize for communism; for some scholars, ideology can be used to justify, say, mass killing A (not mass killings in general) but it is mainly other factors that explain mass killings in general, which cannot be reduced to communism = mass killing. Therefore, I support Siebert's proposals below to clarify this and correctly reflect reliable sources and authors. Davide King (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a valid criticism, how far has Maoism gone from Marxism and whether the former's policies can be directly attributed to the latter. In case of Marxism-Leninism it's trivial to demonstrate as both Lenin and Stalin directly referred to Marx and Engels extensively. I don't have sufficient knowledge of Maoism to judge on that matter but I will check in my favourite encyclopedia on that subject — Main Currents of Marxism. Cloud200 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding WP:PRIMARY — Lenin's book quoting Marx is secondary source just as Pipes or any other scholar quoting Marx. Cloud200 (talk)

Regarding your comments at 19:47, 2 September 2021, are you saying that it's not violent revolution as advocated by Marx and U.S. Founding Fathers that leads to mass killings, but only if it is combined with advocacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat? But why would that necessarily lead to mass killings? I can see that it could if the leaders decided to kill non-proletarian elements, but every revolution has opponents loyal to the old order. TFD (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: "as if that [the 'violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie' Communist Manifesto] is the be-all and end-all of Marxist communism, and Marx and Engels did not write anything else" - what else they wrote is irrelevant in this article because specifically that violence factor in Marxian revolutionary socialism was what distinguished it from the other fractions, and which ultimately led to the atrocities we're talking about it. If you take the NSDAP programme, it has 25 points and only a few of them praised racism, eugenics and violence. Can you think of a reason why we aren't we discussing all the remaining good things they proposed? It's specifically these few points that differentiated NSDAP program from programs of other parties (including SPD), exactly in the same way as the tirades on the need of "purge" and "violent revolution" differentiated Marx and Engels from less radical socialists. And these differences had consequences. Cloud200 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

As written by Siebert, "the only issue that has a relation to the current section is the relationship between Marxism and mass killings." What you are doing is projecting your personal views and interpretation without using any secondary or tertiary source; we have yet to see a source for it, after Siebert demonstrated current source fail that. I find it ironic that you went for that argument. If you think that is primary document of Nazism, you are solely mistaken; yes, the reason why is that the economic program was just propaganda to gain Communist and working-class voters, and indeed privatization was coined after the Nazi's privatizations in the 1930s. Do you also believe that the Nazis were socialists and left-wing? If so, you (not me, TFD, or Siebert) are presenting fringe views, which can explain your comments here and below. Davide King (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Cloud200 and TFD, it seems you are missing the major point.

• The "Causes" section (in its present form) is not discussing concrete cases. Each concrete case is discussed in country-specific sections. Therefore, when we claim that the author X says M-L ideology was a cause of mass killings, we imply this author is speaking about mass killings "in general", which includes the Great Purge, the Great Chinese famine, etc. Whereas I agree that some sources see Lenin's advocacy of revolutionary violence as one of the causes of the Red Terror, I do not see how the sources sited in this section support the claim that the most deadly events, such as the Great Chinese famine can be explained by Lenin's or Marx's view of revolutionary violence. I see a clear WP:SYN problem here.

• Of course, all of that can be resolved if we switch to the format: "A scholar X links the theory Y with the mass killing Z (not to "mass killings" in general)" (for example, Lenin's views with the Red Terror). However, if we do that in this section, what is the reason to keep country-specific sections? In connection to that, the most reasonable way would be to remove this section completely, and move all properly sourced content to the sections that discuss each concrete event. In that case, only few authors, who, like Rummel, discuss mass killings in general, can be moved to the bottom into the section named "Attempts to propose common causes", where their view of common causes (which explain a whole range of mass killings, starting from the Red Terror and endidng with the Great Chinese famine) will be presented, and supplemented with a due criticism. Thus, the same section must explain that Valentino does NOT see ideology as a primary factor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind that approach. I see I need to re-read Main Currents of Marxism as he was looking at this aspect (=how much various "communist" movements' policies were inspired by Marx) in great detail. Cloud200 (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Cloud200, Davide King & TFD. I have a feeling that the discussion started to deviate from the original topic. Don't you mind me to put the "arbitrary break" section and, which would be even better, to move all the text in this subsection to the separate section? It seems we achieved a consensus on the overall structure, and the discussion that followed the 08:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Cloud200's post is just blurring that fact. I will gladly join that discussion, but, since I don't like arguments for sake of arguments, it would be better if we summarized the interim agreement. Let me ask it again Do we all agree that the approach proposed by me (Description of country-specific and/or case specific causes, followed by a discussion of proposed general causes) is seen as a reasonable alternative to the current structure?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Anything would be better than what we have. I liked your proposed lead (see here) and I am really curious about a whole article, neutrally written based on such a lead. I am also curious about TFD's Victims of Communism narrative article, which could either be incorporated here, or be a separate article, where we discuss the estimates and criticism, while this article mainly focuses on authors who "link those events together under a category 'Communist mass killings', 'Global communist death toll' etc, whereas others (a long list follows) see no direct linkage between them, or group them with other mass killing/mass mortality events." Or where this article will be only scholarly, while the other will include the narrative very popular in the popular press, with criticism from scholars of course. Davide King (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I was just going to propose the same. We can actually start re-drafting the section right here using excerpts from sources you laboriously collected above. Cloud200 (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Cloud200, what excerpts are you referring to? The only excerpts from Paul Siebert above that I see are the book reviews of Valentino's mass killing book, all of which discuss Valentino's overall thesis and none of which discuss the topic of this article directly. Rewriting the article based on those book reviews seems indefensible from a policy standpoint as well as a dramatic redefinition of the article's topic. Paul Siebert has been saying that the wikipedia article is about Valentino's term, but that is incorrect. The descriptive title "Mass killings under communist regimes" was chosen as a neutral descriptive title because generic mass killing is a neutral descriptor of all the various terms preferred by different authors (genocide, politicide, etc). Valentino's specific definition of mass killing also falls under the generic mass killing umbrella but is not what is intended when the generic term is used when used in other sources to describe genocide, politicide, etc. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Cloud200, I think the first step is to rename the section, because the title implies some specific casual linkage. In reality, we should discuss some factors and their relationship with mass killings (both positive and negative). Thus, as soon as Valentino is one of the core sources, we should just describe what his theory says in general, and what he says about the three Communist regimes analyzed by him.

Second, in a discussion of ideology, the stress should me made not on ideology as a cause, but on its role as a justification of mass killings. Whereas the former is a big question, the fact that some leaders used references to Marx as a justification of mass killings. Thus, a famous Marx words about liquidation of bourgeois as a class were interpreted by some later leaders as "physical extermination of them", which is a total nonsense and directly contradicts to the spirit of Marxism: for Marx, membership in some class means involvement in a certain type of economic relationships, and not as some biological trait, so if, e.g. a bourgeois becomes deprived of their assets, they cannot act as a capitalists any more, which means they stopped to be capitalists. In that sense, "liquidation" meant "deprivation of all capitalist possessions". However, when taken literally, this phrase could be (and was) used by some later leaders as a justification of mass killing.

(a side note. You refer to Marxism as a quasireligious concept. Yes, to many people it was a kind of religion. However, the same can be said about many other things. Thus, science in general became a religion for many people in XIX-XX centuries. That is a legacy of Enlightenment, whose latest reincarnation Communism was. Many, many people expected too much from science, and many of them believed in it in a religious manner. Hence a disappointment, which we are witnessing now. That is normal.).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Marxism and mass killing

For a comprehensive scientific and historical analysis of links between the Soviet system and Marxism, I recommend Main Currents of Marxism, especially volume III that can be found here[27]. Unfortunately, no copy-paste. For a general introduction I recommend pages 2-4. Then he goes through lengthy recollections on Stalin's biography, and interesting analysis against starts on page 41 explaining how Stalin came up with the "rigid theology" that we now call Stalinism:

"As long as the bulk of the population was economically more or less independent of the state, and even kept the state in some degree of dependence on itself; the ideal of an indivisible dictatorship could not be fully realized. Marxist-Leninist doctrine taught, however, that socialism could only be built up by a completely centralized political and economic power. The abolition of private ownership of the means of production was the supreme task of humanity and the main obligation of the most progressive system in the world. Marxism held out the prospect of the merging or unification of civil society with the state through the dictatorship of the proletariat; and the only way to such unity was by liquidating all spontaneous forms of political, economic, and cultural life and replacing them by forms imposed by the state. Stalin thus realized Marxism-Leninism in the only possible way by consolidating his dictatorship over society, destroying all social ties that were not state-imposed and all classes, including the working class itself. This process, of course, did not take place overnight."

This is clear link between the Marxist doctrine and Stalin's policies that Kołakowski describes. You may not agree with that, but Main Currents of Marxism is one of the fundamental monographs on the subject so at least it has to be respected. Now, this imperative of "completely centralized political and economic power" takes us logically to dekulakization, Great Purge and other well-known mass killing campaigns:

"The destruction of the Soviet peasantry, who formed three- quarters of the population, was not only an economic but a moral disaster for the entire country. Tens of millions were driven into semi-servitude, and millions more were employed as executants of the process. The whole party became an organization of torturers and oppressors: no one was innocent, and all Com- munists were accomplices in the coercion of society. Thus the party acquired a new species of moral unity, and embarked on a course from which there was no turning back."

Then, in Chapter III, especially pages 95+ he goes in great detail through the version of Marxism laid out as canonical by Stalin in History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), and concludes the following, which I believe is highly relevant to the discussion:

"It should not be supposed, however, that Marxism as codified by Stalin differed in any essential way from Leninism. It was a bald, primitive version, but contained scarcely anything new. Indeed, very little that is original can be found in any of Stalin’s works before 1950, with two exceptions. The first, of which we have considered the import, was that socialism could be built in one country. The second was that the class struggle must become fiercer as the building of socialism progressed. This principle remained officially valid even after Stalin declared that there were no longer any antagonistic classes in the Soviet Union—there were no classes, but the class struggle was acuter than ever. A third principle, which Stalin seems first to have enunciated at a plenum of the Central Committee on 12 January 1933, was that before the state ‘withered away’ under Com- munism it must, for dialectical reasons, first develop to a point of maximum strength; but this idea had already been formulated by Trotsky during the Civil War. The second and third principles, in any case, were of no significance except as a Justification of the system of police terror. However, it should be emphasized once again that what mattered about Stalinist ideology was not its content—even though it was expressed in catechetical form—but the fact that there was a supreme authority from whose judgement on ideological matters there was no appeal. Ideology was thus completely institutionalized, and virtually the whole of intellec- tual life was subordinated to it. The ‘unity of theory and practice’ was expressed by the concentration of doctrinal, political, and police authority in Stalin's person."

Which is, in my opinion, quite honest and convincing analysis of the logic between Marx -> Lenin -> Trotsky -> Stalin development of the original Marx's postulates, that can be summarised as "first develop to a point of maximum strength". Cloud200 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we may argue about details of Marx -> Lenin -> Trotsky -> Stalin etc, but the only issue that has a relation to the current section is the relationship between Marxism and mass killings. The quotes provided by you fully confirm my initial claim, namely that the two exceptions (socialism could be built in one country, and that the class struggle must become fiercer as the building of socialism progressed) are related to mass killings, and they, especially, the second one, were a justification of mass killings during the Great Purge, dekulakization and other later events (which took place during the deadliest part of Stalin's rule). These two exceptions are the only thing that are directly relevant, and I am glad that we have no disagreement on that matter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

As you correctly noted, it is "your initial claim" - and it neither changes nor falsifies the view of Kołakowski and numerous other authors quoted here that these additions did not really matter much for the Bolshevik policies ("completely centralized political and economic power") and that it did not even appear under Stalin exclusively ("this idea had already been formulated by Trotsky during the Civil War"). If you have published your views in the form of scholar articles, I'm sure we can include them in the article as one of the competing views on that subject. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is a logical error in your claims. The fact that some author see a continuity between Marx and Stalin, does not mean it relates to our topic (namely, that mass killings can be derived from the original Marxism). In reality, the differences between the society created by Stalin and the society that existed in Russia in 1925 or in 1965 were relatively small, however, there were NO mass killings in 1925 or 1965, despite the fact that state economy, Gosplan, five years plans and other traits of the society were the same. In reality, very small difference in the society may lead to a shift from a grim murderous state (like STalin's USSR), to a quite peaceful autocracy (Khrushchev's USSR). Similarly, the analysis of political organization in the US and Liberia shows that formally these two societies are pretty similar (market economy, free elections etc), but the actual difference is huge.

Again, even if the overall organization of the Soviet state can be traced back to the Marx's writings (which is not necessarily the case, but I am not going to argue with Kołakowski), that is not sufficient for drawing a linkage between Marxism and mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope Siebert can respond you on this (they just did and is the same point I made in this message I wrote before their published their response) but I do not see how this is relevant. Kołakowski and Main Currents of Marxism are about Marxism, not mass killing, and he did not discuss mass killings because, well, the concept only became proposed in the 1990s. In addition, while I find it useful and good, it is not the sole or definitive authority on Marxism. Kołakowski was criticized for omitting discussions of particular authors or topics, his hostility to Marxism, his adherence to Lukács's interpretation of Marx, his failure to explain Marxism's appeal, and for giving a misleading impression of Marxism by focusing on Marxist philosophers at the expense of other Marxist writers. This is also a good and fair summary of criticism, and the latest point is the criticism I gave to you. You are essentially presenting this, and state it as fact. You are only presenting one side (anti-communist, orthodoxed, etc.) of historiography, and even I think you are giving more extreme views than some scholars who belong to such side.

You are presenting Communist leaders as faithful and accurate followers of Marx, that Leninism was the correct interpretation of Marxism, that Stalinism is the inevitable result of Marxism, that Lenin and Stalin were essentially the same, and the Soviet Union was totalitarian since the beginning, which is a view not supported by all scholars, including those who belong to the anti-communist side which, as in the case of Valentino, are distorted to present much extremer views than what they actually hold. Just like mass killing, totalitarianism is a proposed concept, not a fact; the fact is that many people have died and that they were ruled authoritatively, the theory is that some killings which do not fit the category of genocide can be categorized as mass killing, and something similar for totalitarianism, with countries that go beyond authoritarianism through the use of mass politics and an elaborate ideology (it dates back to the 1950s and was used as a tool to convert anti-fascism into anti-communism during the Cold War, so as to equate Nazism with Stalinism and support their efforts; this may surprise you, since you are proposing the anti-communist paradigm of historiography, but the equation between the two is also a theory, not a fact, not shared by all scholars, and is a revisionist view, though it is legitimized by political institutions, which is why I believe many users are confused when they found out the academic view).

I believe The Four Deuces was onto something whey they said that anti-communists and 'Stalinists' share much more than they would like to admit, or something like that (they are free to correct me and better clarify this). They are both dogmatic and determinist, and present their views as the true and sole facts. Incidentally, it is mainly anti-communists and 'Stalinists' who agree that Communist states were socialists, of course for vastly different reasons but also sharing the same misconceptions about socialism. Davide King (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: "You are presenting Communist leaders as faithful and accurate followers of Marx, that Leninism was the correct interpretation of Marxism" - as I explained above, I am not since there is no "correct" interpretation of Marxism. That's the whole point of dialectical materialism. As every quasi-religious movement based on reading of one Scripture, you can create infinite number of competing interpretations and you have no authority to rule which one is correct. Marxism-Leninism ultimately came out to be the most effective in achieving its political goals, and most widespread in geographical and economical terms, and because of that for a period of time it was supported by vast majority of Western left, some of which ultimately got disillusioned. As a counter-argument you're presenting some marginal movements that rarely achieved any political power and try to present them as mainstream alternatives to Marxism-Leninism. The key question in the article we are discussing is - did Marxism inspire mass killings and I believe it is already proven beyond any doubt that it did, by glorifying violence and the need to eradicate a whole class of society as the required step for the bright future. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"he did not discuss mass killings because, well, the concept only became proposed in the 1990s" - what?! Mass killings in Bolshevik Russia have been widely discussed since they started, that is from 1917 (see this poster from 1920) and continued through the whole period of the existence of the USSR as it was marked by mass killings. You have clearly missed a whole piece of literature on Red Terror, Kronstadt rebellion (whose objectives were exclusively political, not military), Great Purge, writings by Arthur Koestler, Malcolm Muggeridge, Gareth Jones, Victor Kravchenko (and related court case called "trial of the century" in France), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the whole Gulag literature and debates on all other massacres in the Soviet Union. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It is necessary to discriminate "mass killings" it its colloquial meaning and "mass killings" as defined by genocide scholars such as Valentino and several others. This article pretends it discusses the latter (as some separate scholarly concept/phenomenon, which had its concrete definition, like "genocide" and a concrete set of common causes). When we mix these two approaches, we inevitably have problems. For example, it is universally accepted that the Great Purge was a mass killing, and we all know that the actual number of victims was ca 1.2 million. However, some (very few authors) claim that the Great Chinese famine was a mass killing too. By combining these two events in a single category, we make a blatant logical error: "1. All scholars agree that the Great Purge was a mass killing; 2. Valentino claims the Great Chinese famine and similar event was a mass killing; 3. Therefore, everybody (implicitly) agree that the Great Purge, the Great Chinese famine, and other "Communist mass killings" lead to the death of 80+ million". In other words, we take some indisputable claim about some narrow topic, add an opinion of few authors (who dramatically expand the topic), and present this expanded version as universally acceptable one. In fact, the lack of criticism does not necessarily means a support. (If we abandon flawed this approach (and it seems you are agreeing with that), many contradictions will be easily resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]], you say "It is necessary to discriminate "mass killings" it its colloquial meaning and "mass killings" as defined by genocide scholars such as Valentino and several others. This article pretends it discusses the latter (as some separate scholarly concept/phenomenon, which had its concrete definition, like "genocide" and a concrete set of common causes)." This is the key disagreement. I agree it is necessary to distinguish between generic "mass killing", which is a term used to describe genocide, politicide, classicide, etc., from Valentino's proposed definition of "mass killing" as 50,000 noncombatants deliberately killed within 5 years. But the article title and topic references the former, not the latter. Valentino's specific definition of mass killing is really just another of the genocide, politicide, classicide, etc. defined terms, all of which fall under the generic mass killing as used in the title. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

"Just like mass killing, totalitarianism is a proposed concept, not a fact" - I assume you're writing it from a country that never directly experienced either Nazi or Soviet occupation, and for you it might be indeed a "proposed concept, not a fact". For people who lived under either of regimes, it was actually a very much life-or-death experience, and in USSR or generally Eastern Bloc every family had someone who was at someone point subject to repressions for "anti-socialist agitation" as a minimum (read: complaining about shortages or prices in public). Go talk to Holocaust survivors about anything they gone through being "a proposed concept" or "wrong interpretation of national socialism", you will have the same reactions. Ignoring this sensitivity is widespread in the West, where some people still tend to believe you can postulate a "violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" without mass-scale violence which breeds new waves of violence, which breeds more violence etc. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"equate Nazism with Stalinism" - if you look at their methods and numbers of dead people, they were absolutely equal in scale of the atrocities. This is confirmed by historic sources as well as testimonies of those who survived repressions under both totalitarian regimes (Margarete Buber-Neumann: "Between the misdeeds of Hitler and those of Stalin, in my opinion, there exists only a quantitative difference"). The only difference was the motivation - it's an argument raised by people who subscribe to "goal justifies means" logic, and believe that the "violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" could seriously lead to establishing of a peaceful, egalitarian democracy. It's a rather weak argument however, if you start with millions of dead people. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Too primitive. They were different in many aspects, see, e.g. Wheatcroft. In reality, they were different in almost all aspects: Nazism didn't kill its own citizens (except Jews), Stalinism was killing mostly its own people. Nazism was killing people by their biological traits - Stalinism was intrinsically non-genocidal (I recall I saw one source that explicitly said Marxist ideology was a restraining factor that didn't allow Stalin to unleash a true genocide; you also may read "Affirmative action empire" a broadly cited book. Finally, genocidal activity of Nazism was quickly stopped (mostly thanks to Stalinism), so we don't know the actual scale of potential Nazi mass murders, whereas the murderous potential of Stalinism had its natural limit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"the Soviet Union was totalitarian since the beginning" - it was, as clearly demonstrated by the Red Terror and War communism that followed immediately after the revolution in compliance with the doctrine of dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that you're dismissing them as "oh that was just civil war" doesn't change anything in the views of those who see a clear link between the ideology and the actions of Bolshevik. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"which is a view not supported by all scholars" - so what? You have scholars who deny Holocaust ever happened, and you have scholars who say Great Purges were justified, and you have scholars supporting literally every bizarre view on any subject in existence. The primary rule of WP:NPOV is not to find a single compromise interpretation of described events, or somehow average them, but to present all notable interpretations without undue weight bias. The claim that mass killings in communist states were not inspired by Marxism certainly has its place in the article (it's notable) but it certainly is not the view held by majority of the scholars. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"anti-communists and 'Stalinists' share much more than they would like to admit" - please do not resort to ad hominem. Cloud200 (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Most leading anti-Communists were originally Communists: Furet, Courtois, Kołakowski for example. They merely switched one irrational, conspiratorial, authoritarian ideology for another. I find it strange that people who would not listen to them when they were Communists treat their views as gospel truth once they convert. TFD (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"Most leading anti-Communists were originally Communists" - this could be a fact if somebody did the maths, but it's at least feasible. This however: "They merely switched one irrational" is simple ad hominem nothing else. Kołakowski, Koestler, Orwell, Russell - all were disillusioned communists (aka revolutionary socialists, aka Marxists) who however held to social-democratic or socialist views. They rejected the violent part of Marxism that made it so distinctive from social-democracy, and I really can't see how this is "irrational" after all they have seen with their own eyes in the states that followed the Marxist-Leninist path. Cloud200 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Orwell and Russell were not revolutionary communists or anti-communists, although ant-communists may claim them, particularly Orwell. If you recall, the farmer in Animal Farm was actually raising animals for food and the revolution initially improved the animals' lives until it is highjacked by a pig modelled on Stalin. There are a range of positions between Stalinism and anti-Communism. Part of the irrationality of both Stalinism and anti-Communism is that their adherents don't know that. So the first group calls all their opponents fascists, while the other group called all their opponents communists. That's why it is so easy to flip from Stalinism to anti-Communism. TFD (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

While the 'former Communist' label may be well-applied to Kołakowsk and Koestler, it does not to Orwell and Russell, who were a social-anarchist-leaning democratic socialist (Orwell) and simply a socialist (Russell), respectively, and were not Marxists. If you conflate Marxism with any form of revolutionary socialism, it may explain such misunderstanding of Orwell and Russell, both of whom were never members of a Communist party, unlike Kołakowsk and Koestler. P.S. TFD just anticipated me. Kudos to them for further clarifying and explaining this. Davide King (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What you did here was simply presenting the anti-communist, double-genocide, and Eastern European POV.

As every quasi-religious movement based on reading of one Scripture, you can create infinite number of competing interpretations and you have no authority to rule which one is correct. You are doing it again, you are treating Marxism as a "quasi-religious movement based on reading of one Scripture", as if that is a fact or the one and only mainstream interpretation; it is not.

The key question in the article we are discussing is - did Marxism inspire mass killings and I believe it is already proven beyond any doubt that it did, by glorifying violence and the need to eradicate a whole class of society as the required step for the bright future. And this has been debunked by TFD and Siebert. What you have proven is that you are presenting your own interpretation and reading as fact; you have provided no source to back up your claim. If any of this comes from Main Currents of Marxism, it is even more extreme than what the book actually said, and is irrelevant because that book is not about mass killings.

Mass killings in Bolshevik Russia have been widely discussed since they started, that is from 1917 This just shows that you have no idea what mass killing actually is; it is a proposed concept, just like genocide, for real events, in this case for events which do not fit the category of genocide. Only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's may fit the category of mass killing, not communism as a whole or any Communist state. And yes, it mainly originated in the 1990s. I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but you seriously need to read Genocide studies and Mass killing, for all those sources certainly are. Here, Siebert perfectly explained what I was referring to.

I assume you're writing it from a country that never directly experienced either Nazi or Soviet occupation, and for you it might be indeed a "proposed concept, not a fact". I come from the country where fascism originated. But I do not think I am representing the Western European POV because there is no such thing as this; it is just mainstream scholarship. On the other hand, Eastern European POV is a real thing (double genocide and Holocaust memories studies).

Go talk to Holocaust survivors about anything they gone through being "a proposed concept" or "wrong interpretation of national socialism", you will have the same reactions. You seem to ignore the fact that concepts are applied to real-life events; in this case, totalitarianism is applied to real-life events but is not a concept accepted by most scholars and is more useful as a word. I am not the one who is engaging in Holocaust trivialization by supporting the concept of a Communist or Red holocaust and the double-genocide theory, as it looks like you are doing. I think it is much more respectful for all victims to truly understand what happened, as historians and scholars do (without acting like ideology alone or long-dead dudes are to blame as the main cause of 20th-century tragedies, or applying a double standard in capitalist and Communist-led atrocities), and avoid such things from happening ever again; what is truly disrespecting is engaging in body-counting and trivialize the Holocaust.

if you look at their methods and numbers of dead people, they were absolutely equal in scale of the atrocities. Again, this is the double-genocide theory. That they were absolutely equal is something proposed by some authors, not most scholars. What you are presenting is the equivalence of class and racial genocide as proposed by Courtois (Jaffrelot & Sémelin 2009, p. 37). This is not a view accepted by most scholars, though it is very popular in Eastern Europe, which is likely why you misunderstand it. See also this.

it's an argument raised by people who subscribe to "goal justifies means" logic, and believe that the "violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" could seriously lead to establishing of a peaceful, egalitarian democracy. It's a rather weak argument however, if you start with millions of dead people. I actually personally agree on this, which is why I consistently oppose all forms of authoritarianism, and that alternatives to capitalism should be popularly supported and not forced; a peaceful, egalitarian democracy, if one has the goal to establish it and make it work long-term, it simply will not come out from authoritarianism; however, this is mainly an argument against revolutions, and TFD and Siebert are right to contextualize revolutions. You seem to blame it all on the revolutionaries, and ignore the role of counter-revolutionaries. Revolutionary violence mainly results because counter-revolutionary forces oppose it; it goes both ways, it is not a one-sided show, or limited to Marxism.

it was, as clearly demonstrated by the Red Terror and War communism that followed immediately after the revolution in compliance with the doctrine of dictatorship of the proletariat. Wrong. Again, you are presenting this as an undisputed fact when this is the anti-communist side of historiography. Most scholars mainly cite Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's eras as totalitarian. Some scholars propose a continuity between Lenin and Stalin but some is the key word; you are treating this as fact or clear majority view.

The fact that you're dismissing them as "oh that was just civil war" doesn't change anything in the views of those who see a clear link between the ideology and the actions of Bolshevik. That you think this shows the problem and your bias. Neither I nor Siebert are justifying what they did, we are simply contextualizing, which ironically is what historians do. Shocking, I know?!

so what? You have scholars who deny Holocaust ever happened, and you have scholars who say Great Purges were justified, and you have scholars supporting literally every bizarre view on any subject in existence. That you think fringe authors who deny the Holocaust are scholars is telling; they are not scholars. Saying that the Great Purge was justified, which is also a fringe view but is not as extreme, is not the same thing as denying the Holocaust, and is an example of false equivalence and balance. Most mainstream scholars do not say this, they simply contextualize the Great Purge but do not justify it, so your point is irrelevant.

The claim that mass killings in communist states were not inspired by Marxism certainly has its place in the article (it's notable) but it certainly is not the view held by majority of the scholars. See? We do actually agree on this, it is your generalization and treating some interpretations as undisputed facts that I disagree with. The problem is that the current article does not do a good or neutral job, and I believe Siebert's rewriting and suggestions would be much better and improving. Davide King (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Response to Paul Siebert

You say "The section draws some general connections between Communist ideology and "mass killing"." No, the section is about the subtopic of ideological causes for the mass killing in communist states. It should contain whatever reliable sources have said related to that, pro or con.

1) You say "Since one of the cornerstones this article rests upon is Valentino's writings, it seems his opinion deserves to be presented first." The order of the sources should be whatever allows us to most effectively and neutrally present the material in all the sources. It should have a logical order that flows as well as possible from one sentence to the next. Placement of sentences should not be based on what a source "deserves". It should be justified by the content of the particular sentence(s). You say "The current version provided lengthy quotes from Valentino, however, the section completely distorts Valentino's concept." Please note that the first few Valentino sentences were very recently altered by Davide King with this edit, which I don't think is a good edit. Your proposed sentences are about Valentino's overall mass killing thesis, rather than being strictly about what he has to say about the article topic specifically.

2) You say "I don't see how Karlsson's quote helps understanding a linkage between ideology and mass killings. It is a trivial statement that carries zero information ("Communists committed numerous crimes, and they were Communists". So what?)" The sentence serves the purpose of introducing the section. The information it carries is Karlsson's view that communist crimes were committed "in the name of communist ideology". This is directly relevant to the section.

3, 4, 5, 6) The second sentence ("Scholars such as Rudolph Rummel, Daniel Goldhagen,[48] Richard Pipes,[49] and John Gray[50] consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings.") should be replaced with more detail of what those authors specifically say, I agree. The individual author's views should be either grouped with their other sentences or grouped by subject, whichever makes the most sense from the reader's perspective. But, again, "mass killing" is a generic term for genocide, politicide, and other large scale killing terms. It was not invented by Valentino or anyone else recently. Valentino simply adopted it and assigned a more specific definition to it so he could use that instead of genocide or other terms. Let's not remove Gray until we see what is being referenced and can conclude it is inappropriate.

7) You say "But where he says Communist ideology was a cause of mass killings?" Bradley talks about "communism", not just communist regimes, so he is talking about the ideology. He talks about Marx rejecting the very idea of human rights and the regimes following suit. He talks about "state-orchestrated mass killings and what have come to be called gross violations of human rights being "almost commonplace in communist-led states." That is accurately reflected in the sentence he is being cited for and it is directly relevant to that section.

8) You say "This source says a pretty trivial thing: that Marxism justifies revolutionary violence." It is not a trivial thing to say that Marxism in particular justifies "any action, however atrocious" and "the total legitimation of violence in revolution, with no principle of restriction". What other sources say is only relevant to the extent they are talking about this article's topic. If you want another view represented in the article, find a reliable source for it.

9) You're allowed to personally disagree with a source's analysis, but you are not allowed to impose that view on the article. Just as you drew you own conclusion when presented by Watson's opinion and Grant's criticism of it, so will other readers.

10) I don't know what "weasel words" you mean, regarding Rummel.

11) You have misinterpreted Valentino's relation to the topic. The article topic is not Valentino's theory and never was. "Mass killing" is a generic term for large scale killing. Valentino took that :generic term and is trying to define it more rigorously so it can replace genocide, politicide, etc.

12) Semelin states that the populations of communist countries were destroyed because the regimes "aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving :it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." That is an ideological motivation.

13) It's about ideological fanaticism: "Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction."

14) You keep insisting on "linkage", whatever that means. We only need to accurately reflect what the source said related to an ideological component of the killing.

15) You say "These authors seem to discuss some concrete instances of Communist mass killings". Each discussed killing by communist regimes generally, as can be seen in their excerpts.

It has taken me hours to respond to each of your points. If the past is any guide, you are going to object to at least some of what I have said. This is not a practical way to write an article, especially if you still do not agree with the most basic of premises: that the article must be based on sources that discuss the topic of communist killing generally and NOT a synthesis of what sources on individual communist regimes say. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot accept your arguments, because they are focused on minor details without addressing my main concern.

With regard to your last sentence, you distorted my position. In reality, I do NOT object to the idea that the article must be based on sources that discuss the topic of communist killing generally. My objection is totally different: I object to that idea if that leads to numerous NPOV and NOR violations. In reality, this your premise (which is, formally, quite legitimate and quite correct) ALREADY LEAD to numerous NOR and NPOV violations. Thus:

Valentino's main idea was blatantly distorted in the article. This author openly claims (and that is the central idea his concept is based upon) that the regime type is not a good predictor of the onset of mass killings, and he finds an explanation of mass killings in personality of concrete leaders. He never wrote about Communists regimes as whole, in contrast, he clearly says that some Communist regimes engaged in mass killings, whereas majority didn't. This CORE idea of this author was totally distorted and attenuated in the article, because it DIRECTLY contradicts to the article's concept. Meanwhile, this author is the core source that gave the name to this article. You are persistently opposing my attempts to fix NPOV issues by making references to NOR, but your own position is a direct violation of NOR.

I would fully support your concept ("that the article must be based on sources that discuss the topic of communist killing generally"), if it were applied consistently and correctly. For that, several criteria must be met:

1. The terms "mass killing"/various "-cides" must be universally accepted, and different authors interpreted them in the same way.

2. All authors writing about "Communist mass killings" in general meant the same range of events and apply the same terminology to them.

3. The authors writing about those events belonged to the same field of knowledge (which meant they were interconnected by a network of cross-references).

In reality, NO those conditions are met. We have NO evidences that all authors ostensibly writing about "Communist mass killings" in general mean the same. In contrast, numerous evidences exist that some authors (like Valentino) exclude Afghanistan, other authors (Harff) exclude Great Chinese famine, and so on. In reality, lion's share of ostensibly "general" sources are not general at all. In reality, just few general sources exist: (i) "Red Holocaust", (ii) Courtois introduction to the Black Book (but not the book itself), (iii) Rummel (the latter is, actually, writing about totalitarianism, not Communism). All other sources mean some subset (or superset) of mass killings, even if they speak about "Communist mass killings" in general. Therefore, if we follow your approach, we must base this article on these three sources, each of which already have their own Wikipedia articles, so if we limit ourselves with those sources, there will be no need in that article.

Actually, I see no value in your further arguments until you either admit that the current version of the article grossly misinterprets Valentino's main idea, or prove that it does not (which will be virtually impossible taking into account all quotes presented by me). You are constantly repeating the mantra "We only need to accurately reflect what the source said", but the article, of which you are a main contributor, contains blatant misinterpretations of the core sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you say I need to "admit that the current version of the article grossly misinterprets Valentino's main idea, or prove that it does not". First, Valentino's specific definition of mass killing is not the generic mass killing from the title/topic. Valentino's definition is just one of many more defined terms used in genocide studies, along with genocide, politicide, etc., and just one of the terms used specifically when discussing killings by communist regimes generally. We must agree on that before we can have a productive conversation on anything downstream from it. Second, you say I must "either admit that the current version of the article grossly misinterprets Valentino's main idea, or prove that it does not". The current version of the article is attempting to neutrally represent all of the reliable sources on the topic, not just Valentino's book, so I think your premise is wrong here. If you accept that and still believe that Valentino's views are being misrepresented in the article in just the sentences about Valentino's views, then I can address that specifically. Let me know.

You again say that Valentino "never wrote about Communists regimes as whole, in contrast, he clearly says that some Communist regimes engaged in mass killings, whereas majority didn't." This is frustrating. I thought I had demonstrated very clearly that he does write about communist regimes as a whole in the very first page of his "Communist mass killings chapter" because he references The Black Book of Communism and other sources that clearly are talking about communist regimes as a whole. I will quote the first paragraph of page 91 (the first page of his dedicated chapter) and the associated endnotes from page 275, as well as the "table 2" on page 75 referenced in the endnote:

Page 91: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million.¹ In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths.² Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Documentation of these cases in secondary sources, however, remains inadequate to render a reliable judgment regarding the numbers and identity of the victims or the true intentions of their killers.³"

Page 275: "1. Rudolph J. Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994), p. 15. A team of six French historians coordinated by Stéphane Courtois estimates that communist regimes are responsible for between 85 and 100 million deaths. See Martin Malia, 'Foreword: The Uses of Atrocity,' in Stéphane Courtois et.al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), p. x. Zbigniew Brzezinski estimates that 'the failed effort to build communism' cost the lives of almost sixty million people. See Zbigniew Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993), p. 16. Matthew White estimates eighty-one million deaths from communist 'genocide and tyranny' and 'man-made famine.' See Matthew White, 'Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century,' http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm [June 2002]. Todd Culbertson estimates that communist regimes killed 'perhaps 100 million' people. See Todd Culbertson, 'The Human Cost of World Communism,' Human Events, August 19, 1978, pp. 10-11. These estimates should be considered at the highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributable to communist regimes.

2. Author's estimate based on numerous sources. Estimates vary widely regarding both how many people died and how many deaths were intentional. See table 2.

3. Relatively high estimates of mass killings by these smaller communist states can be found in Rudolph Rummel, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900 (Charlottesville: Center for National Security Law, 1997). See also Courtois et al., Black Book of Communism."

Page 75, Table 2: "Communist Mass Killings in the Twentieth Century

Soviet Union (1917-23) ... 250,000-2,500,000

Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (1927-45) ... 10,000,000-20,000,000

China (including Tibet) (1949-72) ... 10,000,000-46,000,000

Cambodia (1975-79) ... 1,000,000-2,000,000

Possible cases:

Bulgaria (1944-?) ... 50,000-100,000

East Germany (1945-?) ... 80,000-100,000

Romania (1945-?) ... 60,000-300,000

North Korea (1945-?) ... 400,000-1,500,000

North and South Vietnam (1953-?) ... 80,000-200,000"

In addition to that, Valentino does speak to ideology playing a significant role. See this sentence from Valentino's book about communism's ideological impact on the killing on page 4:

Page 4: "I contend that the adherence of communist leaders to a pseudo-Marxist notion - that resistance to communist policies was motivated by the immutable 'class consciousness' of certain groups - greatly magnified the scale of communist mass killings."

You say "All other sources mean some subset (or superset) of mass killings, even if they speak about "Communist mass killings" in general. Therefore, if we follow your approach, we must base this article on these three sources, each of which already have their own Wikipedia articles, so if we limit ourselves with those sources, there will be no need in that article." We must base the article on the sources that address the article topic, which is mass killings under communist regimes. If some sources speak about communist regimes in general and also choose to focus on specific regimes in more detail, it is not original research to include their general comments and their specific comments in the article. We do not have to limit ourselves to sources that give details on every single regime. Valentino says he focuses on the USSR, China, and Cambodia in his dedicated chapter, but it is clear from these excerpts that he does not limit himself to those and he acknowledges that the topic is not limited to those regimes. The three criteria you propose are not based on wikipedia policies and I don't see why we should impose such a restriction ourselves if we are trying to follow WP:NPOV, which states that articles should include "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." AmateurEditor (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

(This is my responce to the two posts made by you here and in the above subsections).

• What I see here is your attempt to present your own vision of Valentino's concept, whereas I present its interpretations made by professionals. You must admit my arguments have much more solid ground.

Yes, the quotes picked from Valentino seemingly confirm your point. However, taking into account a clear contradiction between your views and the interpretations made by professional scholars, there is a strong reason to suspect your interpretation if WRONG.

To understand what is wrong with your arguments, let return to the main Valentino's concept. You carefully avoid its discussion, but the concept is clear: "Mass killings happen when a leader of some regime decided to do so. Regime's type, or other factors, are much less important than the leader's personality. That was demonstrated by comparing similar regimes, one of them committed mass killing, whereas another didn't." Yes, some additional factors may make mass killings more probable, or increase their scale, etc, but those factors are less important than leader's personality. Therefore, to speak about "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a topic defined based on Valentino's book is a piece of original research. He analyzed EIGHT cases, THREE of them were grouped in one chapter (and one, which also happened under Communist rule in another chapter). That does not give you a right to claim he outlined a specific type of mass killings, which is typical for Communist states, had common causes and common mechanism. Instead of resisting to the obvious, you must admit you made a mistake, and join a discussion about possible ways to fix it.

• Regarding colloquial meaning of "mass killings". Colloquially, "mass killings" means just "killing of many people". Therefore, if we interpret the article topic as all cases when people were massively killed (or died from hunger) under Communist regime, then we just need to do what I was proposing before, and to what you were persistently resisting: to collect all mainstream sources about each event, and to describe what they say. However, if we use this approach, we must remove the following sections:

1. Total estimates. Separate sources provide different data for separate events, and most of them are not represented in Rummel's/Valentino's staistics. Instead, we should present the most recent, the most accurate, and the most universally accepted figures for each event. Rummel's data (especially for the USSR) have only historic value.

2. Causes. Each event had its own cause, and only a very small subset of sources draws common causes for such different events as Red Terror and teh Great Chinese famine.

3. If we speak about mass killings in a colloquial meaning, it is illogical to speak about a general scholarly term for that. We can speak about usage of some specific term for some specific event, but that belongs to country specific/case specific sections. In reality, in a situation when overwhalming majority of authors do not apply the terms described in the terminology section to more than 90% of total deaths, this section is deeply misleading.

In future, please, be consistent in your approach, for some your statements are mutually exclusive and contradict to each other.

Thus, your recent argument about "mass killings" in a colloquial meaning TOTALLY kills your previous argument about the topic. Can you tell me, how many author write about just "killing of many people by Communists" IN GENERAL? Courtois? Who else? 99% sources discuss some specific cases (like Valentino), or, like Rummel, some broader categories. Therefore, your interpretation means we must include only those authors who write about Communism as whole, which is less that 1% of all sources. I see absolutely no logical ground in it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert,

• Have you ever heard of the game of telephone? It plays on the fact that no interpretation is perfect and errors will magnify over time if you chain interpretations in series. That is, person 1 whispers a sentence to person 2 (who partially understands it). Person 2 then whispers their partial understanding of person 1's sentence to person 3 (who partially understands person 2's distorted version). And so on. In the game, at the end of the chain the sentence has often been changed beyond recognition relative to the original sentence from person 1. That game is an exaggerated version of what you are proposing we do here. You are proposing that we try to be accurate to Valentino's views by paraphrasing book reviewers' interpretations of Valentino's book and then applying those interpretations to where we cite Valentino in this article. In other words, we would be person 3 in the interpretation chain, instead of person 2. That cannot help but increase the distortion of Valentino's views and should only be done if we do not have access to Valentino's views ourselves. However, since we do have access to Valentino's views, it is better to consult them directly when trying to understand and paraphrase them for the article. That is what I meant when I said elsewhere on this talk page that "there can be no more reliable source for Valentino's analysis than Valentino himself (and likewise for the other authors' views)". In addition to that, those book reviewers are focused on Valentino's overall theme and conclusions in the book, rather than what he has to say on the specific topic of mass killings under communist regimes and their generalizations of Valentino are simply not as useful for our purposes as the specifics we can find from Valentino ourselves. If a book reviewer does mention what Valentino thinks about mass killings under communist regimes, it is fine to include it in the article, but there is no point in replacing a reference to Valentino's book with a reference to a reviewer of Valentino's book. If there is a contradiction between what the book reviewer says Valentino says and what Valentino himself says, then we should obviously favor Valentino himself as the more reliable source for Valentino's views and not cite the book reviewer at all for that. I quoted Valentino's exact words related to this topic. You seem to agree with me that the sentences I cited do support my interpretation of Valentino's views. But citing a book review that is trying to compress his entire book into a few pages is not a better source on Valentino's views by a long shot. If you think the way Valentino's views are cited in the article is inaccurate, then prove it from Valentino's book. For example, if you can find where he says that communist leaders are the key determinant of communist mass killing, then by all means add that to the article with a proper citation. I don't claim the article or any section or sentence is perfect or perfectly complete.

You say " Therefore, to speak about "Mass killing under Communist regimes" as a topic defined based on Valentino's book is a piece of original research. He analyzed EIGHT cases, THREE of them were grouped in one chapter (and one, which also happened under Communist rule in another chapter). That does not give you a right to claim he outlined a specific type of mass killings, which is typical for Communist states, had common causes and common mechanism." You're putting words in my mouth. I did not say he "outlined a type of mass killings", I have been saying only that Valentino has written about the topic of this article, which is described via descriptive title as mass killings (generic term) under communist regimes. The topic of mass killings under communist regimes is found in sources prior to Valentino's 2005 book and after it. It is NOT a topic created by or limited to Valentino, although his book is a good source for the article. Every use of it in the article has in-text attribution to Valentino so that we do NOT attribute views from him to others and vice versa. He is simply one of the sources.

• Since you are responding to both of my comments here I will repost my first comment with my response to your second bullet (which is the one that seems to be responding to it): "I agree it is necessary to distinguish between generic "mass killing", which is a term used to describe genocide, politicide, classicide, etc., from Valentino's proposed definition of "mass killing" as 50,000 noncombatants deliberately killed within 5 years. But the article title and topic references the former, not the latter. Valentino's specific definition of mass killing is really just another of the genocide, politicide, classicide, etc. defined terms, all of which fall under the generic mass killing as used in the title. " Now to my response:

You say "Therefore, if we interpret the article topic as all cases when people were massively killed (or died from hunger) under Communist regime, then we just need to do what I was proposing before, and to what you were persistently resisting: to collect all mainstream sources about each event, and to describe what they say." You were proposing collecting sources about each individual event/regime that do not discuss the topic of mass killings under communist regimes generally at all and discuss only a specific event/regime. Such sources can obviously only be used in the article for information about what they discuss: their specific event/regime. They cannot be the basis of an article on communist regimes in general if they do not mention communist regimes in general. They can be used in a supplemental capacity in the section for their event/regime. There is no way around that without violating OR/SYNTH. But I am not actually sure that there is a great gap between the event/regime-specific sources and the aggregator sources on numbers to begin with. I certainly don't remember you proving it.

1. You say, for estimates: "Instead, we should present the most recent, the most accurate, and the most universally accepted figures for each event. Rummel's data (especially for the USSR) have only historic value." All the estimates in the estimates section are "historic" in the sense that they all are listed chronologically, which is the best/most neutral way to do it, in my opinion. All event/regime-specific estimates should be in event/regime-specific sections. If there is a contradiction between a documented majority view for an event/regime estimate and the overall estimates, then we will need to make sure that is made clear in a way consistent with wikipedia policy on NPOV, weight, etc. That has not yet been demonstrated. But all we can do is find reliable sources that claim a majority view on a particular point and search for sources that contradict that. We cannot determine what sources are "accurate" (or inaccurate) ourselves.

2. You say, "Each event had its own cause, and only a very small subset of sources draws common causes for such different events as Red Terror and teh Great Chinese famine." Our job is to write the article on a topic based on sources that discuss the topic. The topic is about communist regimes generally. Details about each event/regime are subtopics. Sections for subtopics should follow after sections for the overall topic. You keep trying to reverse this, and I read this sentence from you as arguing for that again: that the causes section should be made of the event/regime-specific sources instead of the sources that discuss communist regimes generally. You keep returning to the Great Chinese Famine in your examples. Would you be placated if we moved all the country-specific famine sections to the "Debate over famines" section? Would that be an improvement, in your view?

3. You say, "If we speak about mass killings in a colloquial meaning, it is illogical to speak about a general scholarly term for that." If you need me to copy and paste the excerpts where the scholarly sources are referring to these various terms using undefined/generic "mass killing", I can do that.

You say "your recent argument about "mass killings" in a colloquial meaning TOTALLY kills your previous argument about the topic." What previous argument are to talking about? I believe I have been very consistent over the last few years at least, but I can't say I have never misspoken or been misinterpreted. I have been learning about this topic over time myself, so let me reiterate my current understanding: the term "mass killing" is a common English term for large scale killing. It has been used by scholarly sources in a casual way to describe genocide, politicide, etc., as a synonym. Some scholars, in the face of the various terms and definitions in what has become known as "genocide studies", have created their own definitions of "mass killing" (not just Valentino) to avoid using other terms and all the baggage those terms carry with them (the term "genocide", in particular, is very politicized and problematic). The title as a whole is a "non-judgmental descriptive title", per WP:NDESC. As I have found additional sources, the choice of "mass killing" for the title has looked better.

You say "Can you tell me, how many author write about just "killing of many people by Communists" IN GENERAL? Courtois? Who else? 99% sources discuss some specific cases (like Valentino), or, like Rummel, some broader categories. Therefore, your interpretation means we must include only those authors who write about Communism as whole, which is less that 1% of all sources. I see absolutely no logical ground in it." If you want me to copy and paste excerpts here on the talk page for all the sources so far identified that write about killing by communist regimes generally, I can do that. Comparing the number of sources that write about communist killing generally with the number who write about specific events/regimes is not a useful metric. Single event/regime sources are not an appropriate denominator in that fraction. A more appropriate denominator would be sources that discuss mass killing generally, where it appears that the ratio of communist killing to general killing approaches 1/1. The 2007 Straus article called "Second-generation comparative research on genocide" was in error when it said that two of the six sources it reviewed did not include communist regimes (both did mention communist killing generally, as I showed in my comment here). And according to Michael Mann, "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes." AmateurEditor (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

All of that is becoming increasingly confusing. AmateurEditor, can you please explain me what is, in your opinion, the topic of this article: 1. "Mass killings (in a colloquial meaning of this word) that happened in Communist states", i.e. a broad range of events, starting from Red Terror and ending with the Great Chinese famine, which were described as "mass killings" by at least one author, or 2. The "mass killings under Communist regimes", which were defined as such in at least one source? I am asking because I have a feeling that I either didn't understand your old posts, or your position has changed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I don't think my position has changed, so I believe there has been misunderstanding. I am not entirely clear what the intended difference is between your two options, so I definitely think there is some miscommunication between us and I apologize for my part in it (I am aware that English is not your native language, but you write so well that it is easy to forget). If I understand you correctly that the only difference between the two options is that number 1 is generic mass killing and number 2 is proper noun/defined "Mass killing", I would choose number 1 because the sources sometimes use genocide, politicide, democide, or other terms despite all talking about the same topic and even citing each other regardless of the different terms being used by the other sources they cite. For example, the quote from Michael Mann I included in my last post used "mass murder", rather than generic mass killing, but obviously meant the same thing ("All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes."). However, if you mean that number 1 is a variety of individual events each called "mass killing" (with a separate source for each event/regime, presumably) and number 2 is a single group of events called "mass killing" (with a single source including multiple events/regimes), then I would have to choose number 2. In my own words, the topic of the article is mass killing (in the generic/colloquial sense) by communist regimes as a group. That is what is meant by the descriptive title "Mass killings under communist regimes". I believe my comments have been consistent with that understanding of the topic. It is a subtle distinction because the sources that describe mass killing by communist regimes as a group also describe details of individual regimes/events. It's an important distinction, though, because if all we had were sources that described individual regimes/events, then there would be no justification for the article. It would be synthesis to base the article on a variety of sources about regimes/events that do not speak about communist regimes generally. Of course, I believe that Wikipedia policy does allow us to include those individual regime/event sources in this article in a supplementary capacity, however, on the basis of WP:COMMONSENSE, if nothing else. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The difference is simple. The first option does not imply any theorising, it just means "Mass killings that happened in Communist states". Accordingly, we should just select the best and most recent sources telling about each event (either grouped together or taken separately), and tell, neutrally and without distortions, what they say. The second implies we are writing about some strictly defines concept. In the latter case, before writing the text, one has to prove this concept represents a majority view.

Note, ALL current participants of the talk page discussion, including me, Cloud200, schetm, Davide King & TFD support the option 1. It seems you are the only person who disagrees with that. In connection to that, can you please tell which source covers ALL mass killings described in this article and describes it as a single topic, covered by a single term and linked to a single cause?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been clear that this topic is NOT a theory, so I also support option 1 in that sense. I recall TFD in particular arguing that this WAS a theory not too long ago, which seems to be where the recent primary/secondary source nonsense began. But the topic definitely does CONTAIN theories (meaning analysis/interpretation) about what the best term is to describe the killing, how many were killed, and what events should be included. For that reason it is not a strictly defined concept, as the sources themselves discuss (and the various terms they use reflect this). You say, "Accordingly, we should just select the best and most recent sources telling about each event (either grouped together or taken separately), and tell, neutrally and without distortions, what they say." That is not what WP:NPOV tells us to do. It says we MUST include "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is original research for us to pick and choose the "best" source in our opinion among several different reliable sources that disagree with each other on this topic and use that source in wikipedia's voice as truth. It is synthesis for us to assemble a variety of sources on individual events/regimes that do not discuss the topic of killing in communist states generally and use them to build the article about communist killing generally. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, some agreement between us here cannot override the policies against OR and SYNTH: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

But even ignoring that, the current participants of the talk page are not the only ones who should be involved in any local consensus determination to begin with. This recent spate of posts began with Davide King pinging all the critics of the article he could find after scouring the talk page archives for critics (which was disruptive WP:CANVASSING, but he was new here and I assumed good faith). If you want to prove consensus on some proposed change, then make a formal proposal and allow time for all interested/involved editors to comment. As a reminder: I will not be available much in the coming workweek to participate in any discussions but I will be available again beginning next weekend.

About me having to tell you "which source covers ALL mass killings described in this article and describes it as a single topic, covered by a single term and linked to a single cause", that premise is wrong. The requirement, again, is that the article include "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If we have two sources that discuss the topic and one includes events A, B, and C and the other includes events A, B, and D, then the article should cover events A, B, C, and D. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

If you support the option #1, I see no reason to continue this discussion. The main disagreement is resolved, and the article should be re-written (starting from the "Causes" section, as proposed by Cloud200.

Your objection regarding my "most recent sources telling about each event" does not look completely sincere, because you perfectly aware of my approach to source finding: it is MORE stringent than our policy say, so if I select some source, I can guarantee that each of them is a best quality source, and it represents either majority or significant minority view. You perfectly know that my major objection to this article is that it violates NPOV, and I am going to fix it in accordance with the policy's letter and spirit. Therefore, I am surprised to see this your argument.

Regarding CANVASS, if you have any comment on another user, please, discuss them with that user, not with me. I was NOT canvassed, I, as well as many other users, am constantly watchlisting this page, and I am perfectly aware of what happens here. I am sure this page is being watchlisted by many other users, and, as you probably noticed, the list of users named by me at the top of my previous post (Cloud200, schetm, Davide King & TFD) is significantly different from the list of users who were ostensibly "canvassed" by DK (Aquillion, BeŻet, Buidhe, C.J. Griffin, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert, Rick Norwood). Only TWO users are found in both lists (TFD and me), and, as I already explained, I joined this discussion not because my name was mentioned there, but because I am carefully watching this page (although silently). Therefore, this your comment may be seen as an attempt to win a dispute by inappropriate means. I am glad if this my impression was wrong, and I expect you to return to your normal, respectful and productive style.

To summarize, we need to collect ALL best quality and non-outdated sources telling about each instance of mass mortality under Communist regimes (I wrote "mass mortality", because overwhelming majority of good sources do not describe famine, which were the most lethal events, as "mass killing", "democide" ets), and describe, neutrally, correclty, and without editorial bias what they say. Do you agree to join that work?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I can't participate fully right now as my first son was born last week, and I, naturally, have more important matters to attend to. Sleep is also nice from time to time. So, I'll be checking now and again, and will weigh in if a substantive RFC/something like that is put forward and I notice it. Just want to make that clear so that, if that time comes, I won't be honestly accused of bad faith voting and running. I do tend to like a gradual move toward a broader focus on mass-mortality events, if and only if they can be connected to the policies/practices of communist regimes. An inclusion criteria should be put forth if that direction is taken, and a draft of what that article would look like would be most helpful. schetm (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Outside comments

Extract from this that was particularly helpful and clarifying:

1. The terms "mass killing"/various "-cides" must be universally accepted, and different authors interpreted them in the same way.

2. All authors writing about "Communist mass killings" in general meant the same range of events and apply the same terminology to them.

3. The authors writing about those events belonged to the same field of knowledge (which meant they were interconnected by a network of cross-references).

This is precisely why this article violates our policies and guidelines. If this article met all three points, we would not even be discussing here, and the article would be absolutely legitimate as currently written and structured. Unfortunately, none of those conditions are met, per Siebert, and this is why the article fails and violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:WEIGHT. So no, there is no contradiction between Siebert and I, and if there is any issue, it is mainly on me for not explaining it clearly or is something so minor that it is irrelevant to our shared criticism and suggested restructure–rewriting. Davide King (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Here, I did analyze, among other sources and topic, the three sources mentioned by Siebert which I agree with that they are appropriate. Yet, even those sources are misrepresented (Courtois and Valentino), less extreme or more nuanced (Rosefielde), not limited to Communism (Rummel), and all have their own articles; Courtois has Double genocide theory (per Jaffrelot & Sémelin 2009, p. 37, Courtois supports the equivalence between class and racial genocide, not MKuCR) and his own article, Rosefielde (who does acknowledge the difference between Gorbachev and Deng from Stalin and Mao, and that "the conditions for the Red Holocaust were rooted in Stalin's, Kim's, Mao's, Ho's and Pol Pot's siege-mobilized terror-command economic systems, not in Marx's utopian vision or other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms.") has Holocaust trivialization and his own page, and Rummel and Valentino have Democide and Mass killing, respectively, alongside their own articles. Davide King (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

A possible response may be that we do not actually need to meet any of three points, they just need to discuss Communist mass killings, even though they mean different things, etc. This would be problematic and still violate our policies... but even this would require a restructure–rewriting, especially to the lead. There were many mass killings under communist regimes of the 20th century. This must be totally changed to something like Various authors have written about the 20th-century Communist events, which they characterize as mass killings. And we must then make it clear that there is no consensus about criteria, terminology, events analyzed, etc. It would simply be a bunch of "He said, she said", and minority opinions, some of which even fringe, about 20th-century Communist events that completely ignores historians of Communism. It would be much better to follow Siebert's suggestion and solutions than this. But even if you disagree with their solution, you must agree that a restructure–rewriting is still necessary because even if you say that it does not need to meet any of the aforementioned criteria, the article must still mention those facts; the article in general, and the lead in particular, treat those three criteria as fact, consensus, or majority views, which are fasely supported in the body by a bunch of minority, cherry picked, or irrelevant views which fail NPOV's broadly representation criteria. Davide King (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

In regard to this, in particular This recent spate of posts began with Davide King pinging all the critics of the article he could find after scouring the talk page archives for critics (which was disruptive WP:CANVASSING, but he was new here and I assumed good faith), while I appreciated that you assumed good faith, and you were right in doing that, I take it as an insult what you wrote, as if I have some hidden agenda rather than simply want that our policies and guidelines are respected for all our articles, and we do not have special rules for just one article. I am just very passionate about it because I think that our policies and guidelines are very clear on this, Siebert has been very clear on this, providing time and time again why they are violated, and I just do not get how this article is still in the status it is; of course, I do not assume Siebert, others, and I must be correct but so far I was provided with to rational arguments and evidence that addressed both our arguments and rationales and debunked them.

If you were referring to the users I pinged here, I simply assumed that defenders of the article would appear, and that you were free to do the same; I just could not ping everyone, and I had a right to ping them since I did not comment in months, and I wanted to hear if there were any update, any new thoughts, etc. I believe that all the users I pinged were either neutral on the issue, or gave more than valid reasons to dissent, and since I was dissenting in a new thread I wanted to hear whether they agree. In addition, as noted, it also included three new users (GreenC, Mathglot, and MjolnirPants) who are neutral on this, two administrations (Buidhe and Czar), and Czar is also neutral, while Buidhe expressed their views, and C.J. Griffin was one of the defenders of this article-turned critic. So I believe that your allegations are just that, allegations, and your wording is an oversimplification, generalization, and misinterpretation, ironically enough not much different from this same article. This article's problems certainly have nothing to do with such allegations.

If we have two sources that discuss the topic and one includes events A, B, and C and the other includes events A, B, and D, then the article should cover events A, B, C, and D. As for sources, it is original research and synthesis doing what you suggested. If a source includes only Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and another one adds North Korea and Vietnam, we can only discuss the first three, as there is no agreement or consensus on North Korea and Vietnam. It is not much different from what Siebert argued when they objected using the estimates from The Black Book of Communism in the lead; if sources disagree, or there is no consensus, we do not create a false balance and equivalence in presenting both but we only present what sources agree and there is consensus on. Finally, you write of grouping but that is part of the problem, as repeatedly showed and proved by Siebert; Communist states are not to be treated as a monolithic group, and by doing this we are giving undue weight to the few scholars like Courtois who have done it. So either we treat this as a theory, including the grouping, or we follow Siebert's solutions. Davide King (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

2018 peer-review

This June 2018 peer-review by Fifelfoo can be useful and helpful, as it is still relevant and current. Some interesting excerpts:

Biggest problems with the text

• He said She said vacillation. Either the topic is an accepted significant scholarly belief about the nature of the external world first and foremost, and therefore claims are put as fact. Or it ain't, in which case the article needs to be refactored to strip fact and discuss the "theory."

Missing sections

Criticism of the concepts and associated scholarship

• Scholarly [or other high quality reliable source discourse] criticisms of the theoretical concept, or the application of either the agent assignment or claimed historical process. Should generally come last in the body. Should only be based on field review works. IIRC I cited years ago a ?Swedish field review which proposed high level studies of politically or socially caused preventable mass death was no longer a way forward in studies of preventable mass deaths. This would be a one liner if weighty, "[Widely / narrowly] received study says that in preventable mass death literature attention now focuses on small studies, [due to theory fatigue]," etc. Each major discourse would deserve no more than one line, unless it is a scholarly debate equivalent to the importance the Nove-Millar debate (https://glam.rl.talis.com/items/855C3D93-FBCD-CC19-57F6-D331A8947579.html) was to NEP economics for example, for which we could afford a paragraph at most.
• Criticism of poor Scholarship. Throw the fringe, harshly criticised, and narrowly received scholars on the bonfire. Get it out of the body of the article where it is unweighty. If the only claims which give the article notability are unweighty there shouldn't be a section on historical phenomena at all, the article should be about a fringe or rejected scholarly position. If there are some rejected and some accepted scholars, guess where the rejected scholars belong?

Lede

• The article positions its subject as an actual historical process, rather than a scholarly discourse. Editors need to be aware of this editorial decision.

Terminology

• Fails to deal with "Communist regimes" the other half of the relationship of the articles' topic.

States where mass killings have occurred

• Tiresomely too long.
• The article's topic is the claimed link between a claimed set of agents and a claimed set of linked processes. This section is coatrack, not because of its existence so much as because it unWEIGHTily dominates the article.
• If you're going to play capitalisation games, don't, "Soviet and communist studies" => "Soviet and Communist studies.
• Almost all of these sections could be reduced to one well written paragraph each.
• Much of the remainder is "Some scholars [believe]" "[Fred] writes that" "According to [Fred]". Again. Either the discourse is a major scholarly consensus appropriate to cite as the circumstances of what is real (within the expected limits that a reader knows that historiography is a process of debate), OR, the article is actually about a narrow or fringe scholarly position, in which case putting weasel words in front of unWeighty claims is garbage editorially. Either way: the text goes, or the weasel words go. They're mutually incompatible.

Davide King (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008)

Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008) is the kind source we need but it is also the only one that generalize. This comment by Siebert was insightful:

1. K & S do not come up with some sophisticated theoretical schemes, they describe their goal modestly: to discuss the crimes of three the most murderous Communist regimes. The same idea can be found in the Valentino's "Final solutions". The sources that try to propose some theoretical schemes connecting Communism in general and mass killings (the BB, Rummel) are either obsolete or not mainstream. Therefore, the article should follow the K&S's and Valentino's scheme, so we, without any theorising, should simply explain that the article is focused on mas killings in Cambodia (Kampuchea), PRC and the USSR. Everything else may be discussed briefly in the separate section.
2. K & S are more analytic than synthetic, they pay more attention to the analysis of specific features of the three different regimes, therefore, we also should abandon our approach to the discussion of the causes of mass killings in general, and to focus on single society features instead.
3. K & S provide an excellent review of the historiography of the Soviet repressions, and we should devote serious attention to that in the article, because the development of the views on this subject, especially in a context of the development of the world political situation (end of the Cold War, dissolution of the USSR, "archival revolution", etc) is totally ignored in the article. That is a critical omission.
4. K & S characterised some sources, which are extremely popular among some fraction of Wikipedians (Rummel's non-peer-reviewed writings, the BB, some pro-Communist books) as fringe, and that is in a full accordance with the opinion of other serious scholars. In connection to that, I suggest to exclude these sources from the main article, and to discuss them in the separate section (as an examples of fringe or obsolete views).
5. Since the idea to draw parallelism between Communism and Nazism is rather popular, I suggest to devote a separate section to this discussions where all pro et contra will be presented.

Davide King (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A "drive-by" remark on original research (evolved into a longer rant)

I have a suspicion that the very hatnote definition is original research: it includes "... and deaths that occurred during forced deportations and imprisonment, and deaths that resulted from forced labor... " into the definition of mass killing for the purpose of this article . I briefly read "mass killing and see there is no unified definition. Is there a distinction between "deliberate" and "byproduct" killing? For example, I am pretty much sure that in the Soviet Union the Gulag camps were pretty much utilitarian establisment to colonize sparsely populated resource rich areas rather than to kill dissenters. I think so because they had no qualms with direct kill-off of the "class enemies". (P.S. I forgot to mention that colonization was specifically mentioned in the early decrees on the establisgment of the GULAG system.)

Even deliberate Soviet mass killings which were in some cases "policide" in appearance, but in fact a "dire necessity". For example at the onset of the German invasion there were numerous NKVD killings of prison inmates and especially egregious Katyn Massacre. They were carried out because the Soviets simply had no time to "utilize" them properly in Gulag, and killing the potential combatant enemies was "a good idea". There were other killings of this "utilitarian" type, i.e., one has to be careful with the classification of killings into -cides.

A yet another case is "man-made famines" On the insistence of Ukraine Holodomor was classified as genocide. However there were quite a few massive famine-related death tolls. I am not even talking about the fact taht Holodowmr was part of a wider famine at ghat time. There were several severe famines in Central Asia, in which collectivization carried out by Bolsheviks sent by Kremlin failed to address the specifics of agriculture in this area. So these man-made famines were the result of stupidity rather than ill will. Shall they be counted as "mass killings", as Kazakh famine of 1931–1933? (Unfortunately our article misrepresents the event describing it as part of Soviet famine of 1932–1933: it was part only superficial coincidence with statewide collectivization; the natural causes were completely different.) Much smaller in absolute numbers but significant in relative numbers were death tolls during efforts to "sedentiarize" the Siberian nomads, which in no way could be counted into "class enemies". Did any researcher consider the category" "mass deaths due to negligence"?

All this leads me to suggest a title Mass deaths and killings in Communist states. Of course "deaths and killings" looks like WP:SYNTH, In quite a few cases it is difficult to draw a line. Once again, do researchers draw a distinction between direct and indirect killings? Such a distingciot would at least decrease the mess with this article. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your comment and participation. I believe Paul Siebert can better explain the issue but I can try to show some issues. My issue is that it says and speaks of mass killing but it does not really mean Mass killing but Mass murder, and it mixes the two. Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's are the only leaders under whom events can be categorized as mass killing, yet this article acts like all mass murders by Communist states can be categorized as, or indeed are, mass killings. This article should really be scholarly and focus only on genocide studies and scholars of Communism, not any author who has written about the events of Communist states, which are not a monolithic and the grouping itself in biased in assuming only the similarities between them and not giving enough weight to the many differences, and in general following the totalitarian model, which per sources is outdated. Further problems are that (1) genocide studies is a minority school of thought which has been rarely published in mainstream political science article; (2) they disagree among themselves; (3) Communist scholars disagree with genocide studies. As provided by Siebert, "Barbara Harff gives an explanation that may resolve our dispute: genocide scholars are not too interested in calculating exact numbers, because their major goal is not the figures, but a search of correlations and theoretical explanations of the causes and mechanisms of mass killings."

"Compiling global data is hazardous and will inevitably invite chagrin and criticism from country experts. Case study people have a problem with systematic data because they often think they know better what happened in one particular country. I have sympathized with this view, because my area expertise was the Middle East. But when empiricists focus on global data, we have to consider 190 countries and must rely on country experts selectively. When we look for patterns and test explanations, we cannot expect absolute precision, in fact we do not require it."

Again, I believe Siebert can clarify and explain this much better. Davide King (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan, a real situation is as follows.

1. Some (very few) authors (Courtois and some others) collected all facts of deliberate killings or mass mortality under Communists into a category "Communist death toll", which amounted, according to them, to 85 million.

2. Some (different) authors discuss separate groups of events, which they call "mass killing" (like Valentino), "democide" (Rummel), "politicide", etc. These events include different categories, but usually, with few exception, famine deaths (>50 million of deaths) are not included. Their provide different theories and explanations, and they see some commonalities or differences.

3. Majority (actually, absolute majority) of authors study each event separately. For example, many historians study only the Great Chinese famine, without any connection to any other mass mortality event under Communists, or, for example, discuss it in a context of Irish and Bengal famine. These authors work totally separately from the group 1&2 authors (and do not cite them).

What the current version of the article is doing? By selectively citing and cherry picking fragments taken from the group 2&3 scholars, the article creates an impression of false consensus, and of a nearly universal support of the viewpoint expressed by the group 1 scholars and journalists, so the reader gets an impression that there are just minor disagreement between different sources, whereas different sources provide conceptually different view on the same events, and the opinion of a minority (and severely criticized minority, like Courtois) is represented as the majority view. Thus, 99% sources do not consider the Great Chinese famine (up to 50 million deaths) as mass killing at all: according to them, it was a combination of poor management with natural factors. Significant part of sources explains the Great Soviet famine of 1933 similarly, whereas Volga famine or post-war famine are universally explained as the consequence of devastating wars. Interestingly, specialized Wikipedia articles say the same, and the fact that there is a direct contradiction between two Wikipedia article is a gross violation of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: - re: "Mass murder" - well, in terminology of Wikipedia, IMO the proper term would be Homicide#By state actors. "Murder" implies unlawfulness, whereas communist states had convenient laws. We can classify them "unlawful" in terms of the international concept of human rights, but that would be an anachronism. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Michael Mann uses mass murder. "All accounts of 20th century mass murder include the Communist regimes." Davide King (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Responsibility for Katyn massacre

I umderstand the text becomes a bit clumsier, but IMO it is important no notice that Russian Duma explicitly put responsibility on the whole state. As you may know, a popular excuse (by an example of Khruschef) for Soviet bad things has been to put all blame on Stalin, just like "Führerprinzip": "it is the leader who was bad, we just followed the orders; we didnt know". Lembit Staan (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the core idea of the Valentino's book (which is one of the cornerstones this article rests upon) is that mass killings (as he defiens them) are a result of strategic decisions made by a very small group of leaders. His analysis of eight cases (three of then were "Communist mass killings", whereas others were not) fully confirms this point. So, unless this source is removed from the article, we must follow what it says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Russian government is not a reliable source, while The New York Times is. We should follow reliable sources. 'Totalitarian state' is also weasely, as (1) totalitarianism as a theory is no longer accepted by scholars and mainly remains a useful word; (2) scholars only agree on Stalin era (and not since 1917 or 1924) as 'totalitarian.' Anyway, that is another section that should likely go (we should only use scholarly sources, not news sources, much less government sources), and Siebert is right again. As things stand, the long-standing version is better, as it least reflects The New York Times, which is a reliable source, and did not find due to mention that part or 'totalitarian.' I was not even the one to write that but your edit made things already bad even worse, or was no improvement. Davide King (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

BTW, this and [28] is an example of selective usage of sources by both parties. The full quote is

"В начале 1990-х годов наша страна совершила важные шаги на пути к установлению истины в Катынской трагедии. Было признано, что массовое уничтожение польских граждан на территории СССР во время Второй мировой войны стало актом произвола тоталитарного государства, подвергшего репрессиям также сотни тысяч советских людей за политические и религиозные убеждения, по социальным и иным признакам. Опубликованные материалы, многие годы хранившиеся в секретных архивах, не только раскрывают масштабы этой страшной трагедии, но и свидетельствуют, что Катынское преступление было совершено по прямому указанию Сталина и других советских руководителей."

Using google translator, it is easy to see that (i) a responsibility of Soviet totalitarian state was acknowledged, and (ii) Stalin was named as a person personally responsible for the massacre. In other words, you both decided to push a part of truth. I suggest you both to discuss that matter on a talk page and to come to an agreement. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No I didnt decide to pus the poart of the truth. I dont "push" anything. In my ext both state and stalin are present. Somebody else decided to push the idea that stalin was the only villain in sovjet union.

"sorry but that is pretentious, the Russian government is not a reliable source, while The New York Times is; we report what reliable sources do; you have been reverted twice now, please establish consensus for your edit before re-adding this; see also Siebert's comments"

you must be out of your mind. My reference was directly to the statement of Duma. russian govt it the best possible source for its own statemnts. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am no longer willing to cooperate in work on this article, where the page owners are ridiulous combination of russuophobic and pro-Soviet expressions. 16:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan, your edit says that Duma acknowledged responsibility of the totalitarian Soviet state. DK's edit says Duma blamed Stalin personaly. In reality, Duma adopted the document saying this:

"In the early 1990s, our country took important steps towards establishing the truth in the Katyn tragedy. It was recognized that the mass extermination of Polish citizens on the territory of the USSR during World War II was an act of arbitrariness by the totalitarian state, which also repressed hundreds of thousands of Soviet people for their political and religious beliefs, on social and other grounds. The published materials, kept in secret archives for many years, not only reveal the scale of this terrible tragedy, but also testify that the Katyn crime was committed on the direct orders of Stalin and other Soviet leaders. " (the above quote translated by Google)

In other words, Duma doesn't say just about Stalinist regime. It blamed the regime and then specifies the massacre was committed on direct order of Stalin (personally). Both your and DK's edit tell the part of truth, so you guys BOTH may be accused of cherry-picking at the same extent. Instead of acknowledging that fact and proposing some hybrid version like:

a declaration acknowledging responsibility of the Soviet totalitarian state and Stalin personally for the Katyn massacre, the execution of over 21,000 Polish POW's and intellectual leaders.

you decided to resort to personal insults (imo, totally unjustified). Do your really believe that is normal?

By the way, DK's edit summary was partially correct: Duma's official document is a primary source, and per our policy, secondary sources are preferable.

Please, take a break and, after that, join the discussion. Your participation may be very instrumental.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Eagerly waiting when we start quoting Walter Duranty reports in The New York Times on the subject of Holodomor as a WP:RS... Cloud200 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Deflecting. Go try changing the consensus that The New York Times is a generally reliable source. Scholarly sources interpretation, which is all that matters, is closer to the original wording, so I suggest that you self-revert. I already self-reverted here but the point I made is correct; you have not gained consensus, so it should be reverted back to the status quo. Davide King (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan, Davide King & Cloud200. I would like to show you how that kind disputes should be resolved. Instead of throwing accusations and/or edit warring, I did the following:

• Typed the words Katyn massacre Duma in google scholar.

• Selected top sources that were cited by others.

The first source in that list that have been cited (18 times) says:

In November 2010, the Russian Parliament (Duma) voted a declaration blaming Stalin and other Soviet officials for having personally ordered and approved the Katyn massacre

The next source that have been cited (5 times) says:

On November 26, 2010, the State Duma of the Russian Federation made its first public statement noting the personal responsibility of Stalin and his associates as the main perpetrators of Katyn Massacre.

Note, that I was using a totally neutral search procedure, and I didn't know the results in advance, so nobody can blame me of pushing of some concrete point of view. I just tried to figure out what reliable secondary peer-reviewed sources say about that matter. I believe we all must agree that Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law publishes the views of established experts, and their interpretation of Duma's documents is more trustworthy than the opinion of Wikipedians.

I suggest you to edit the article based on these two sources, or to find equally trustworthy secondary sources that you will find according to some neutral and transparent procedure (that rules out a possibility of cherry-picking).

Happy editing :)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Answering to ping. Sorry, in order my editing to be happy my policy is not to communicate with entrenched self-righteous page owners who first revert then talk. Your insistence on exclusively secondary sources is ridiculous. Just as wikipedians, secondary sources have a propensity to summarize primary sources to match their worldview. If a secondary source is in a direct, unambiguous contradiction with the primary source then the natural conclusion is that the secondary source is not as reliableas it may seem. Of course such conclusion must not be done lightly, but thinking otherwise is a huge trouble for reliability of Wikipedia. It is especially troublesome that you remover the reference to the original text of the declaration, where readers may see for themselves what was written, not just a hearsay. Anyway, I have enough trouble fighting polish wikipedians and polish "reliable" sources and I am not going to fight here as well. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan, you have a very unusual vision of our policy.

First, a revert is quite ok, see WP:BRD.

Second, per our policy, secondary sources are always preferable over primary ones, and our own interpretation of primary sources can be wrong. If some secondary source seemingly contradicts to what the primary source says, the most probable explanation is that your interpretation of that primary source is incorrect.

Third, if you doubt in reliability of some secondary source, read this. Publications in peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journals are among the top quality sources. If you disagree, you may discuss reliability of the sources found by me at WP:RSN, but that would be a waste of your time, because the answer will be "Reliable".

By the way, my approach when applied to Polish "reliable" sources allows elimination of 90% of them. Try it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I was disappointed by this edit. The cited source literally says:

The State Duma on Friday issued a declaration condemning the Katyn massacre and for the first time directly blamed Soviet leader Josef Stalin for the 1940 execution of more than 20,000 Polish officers

The main point this secondary source (The Moscow Times) makes is Stalin was personally responsible, and Duma acknowledged that. Why is that fact being attenuated, and our own vision of what is important is introduced instead? Sorry, but I am going to re-write this statement in accordance with what CWRJIL articles say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what exactly disappoints you in the quoted phrase "crime by the Stalinist regime and the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state"? The phrases you found in the Scholar articles do not in any way contradict The Moscow Time quote, as they all originate from the same primary source - Duma declaration. What I am disappointed is your attitude where Russian Duma issues an apologetic statement for mass executions performed by the state of Soviet Union, and you seem to be trying to argue with them and claiming "oh no, you can't apologize for Soviet Union, you can only apologize for Stalin". This particular statement "the Russian government is not a reliable source, while The New York Times is" is simply outrageous. Russian Duma (even in Russia it's law making body, not "government") is certainly the ultimate source on what Russian Duma said especially as it's quoted by WP:RS. If tomorrow Russian Duma declares that 2+2=5 it's not your job to come up and argue "hey, they couldn't have said that, it's incorrect". Cloud200 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this statement "Stalin was personally responsible, and Duma acknowledged that", I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here? Did anyone here argue otherwise? Did anyone reject the responsibility of Stalin? Of course not - your only problem seems to be, exactly as Lembit Staan pointed out, your preference to keep the state of Soviet Union out of the picture. Just to reiterate, this is precisely what Duma said, as quoted by WP:RS secondary source: "crime by the Stalinist regime and the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state". The articles from Scholar you linked do not in any way disprove that, as they base on exactly the same source document. I'm not even sure why I need to explain such basics to an apparently experienced Wikipedia editor, but I share Lembit Staan frustration. Cloud200 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I don't recall I edited this part of the text yet, so you can judge about my position only based on my (tentative) version, which I proposed in my 16:46, 7 September 2021 post. Please, re-read it and compare my view with your own (wrong) interpretation of it.

Second, instead of arguing how can we (Wikipedians) interpret the Duma's statement (a primary source), I did the following:

1. Using a totally neutral and unbiased procedure, I identified high quality reliable sources, where the authors (one source was authored by Alexandr Gurianov, PhD, the chief coordinator of the Polish Program of the Memorial Society and the official representative thereof in the Russian courts; another source was authored by Milena Sterio, Associate Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law) summarised and professionally interpreted that primary source. I believe noone can claim I picked those sources to support my view (if I had any), and noone can claim the sources found by me are not the best quality secondary sources.

2. In those sources, which were cited by other RS (that rules out a possibility they were fringe), I found how exactly the authors summarize the Duma's document.

3. Per WP:NOR, I proposed to use those two interpretation of the Duma's document (a primary source) instead of providing our own interpretation.

Now I am asking a simple question: is there anything in ##1-3 that is non-verifiable that is not 100% consistent with our core content policies? If the answer is "no" (and any good faith person familiar with our policy cannot give another answer), what is wrong with all what I say, and what is a reason for any disagreement?

Regarding yours "The articles from Scholar you linked do not in any way disprove that...". Correct. The main point is, however, that they more support the previous version, so if we follow them, the original text must be restored. They make a stress on acknowledgement of Stalin's personal responsibility by Duma, which is consistent with the original version. In connection to that, I am wondering why you decided your own interpretation of the Duma's document is more valid that the interpretation made by two renown scholars? If you take a look at the original text (which existed before the edit war started), it is closer to what these two RSs say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstanding, let me re-iterate. Your "This particular statement "the Russian government is not a reliable source, while The New York Times is" is simply outrageous" is outrageous, because our policy says secondary sources are preferable over primary ones.

Second. You write about my ostensible "preference to keep the state of Soviet Union out of the picture", however, upon having read the Duma's document, my proposal was to combine DK's and LS's versions, which I proposed to do as follows:

a declaration acknowledging responsibility of the Soviet totalitarian state and Stalin personally for the Katyn massacre, the execution of over 21,000 Polish POW's and intellectual leaders. (I am quoting my 16:46 post)

However, later I decided to check what RSs say about that, and, using a neutral and transparent procedure (which you may repeat with the same results) I found two top-quality sources that provide their own interpretation, which is closer to the initial version of the text.

That is not a question of what is my or your POV, that is a question of what RS say. My recent (amended) position is in agreement with RS, whereas yours contradicts to them, and it is based on your own interpretation of the primary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That quoted part is only referenced in The Moscow Times, and not The New York Times. Why should we favour The Moscow Times over The New York Times, when scholarly sources give an interpretation which is closer to The New York Times and the original wording? Davide King (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. I recall we had a discussion on the WP:V talk page, where I asked a question what "mainstream newspapers" mean (according to the policy, only mainstream newspapers are RS. The opinia spectrum was very wide (starting from "all non-marginal newspapers" to "newspapers of record only"). In addition, op-ed materials are reliable for the author's opinion only, and should be used with attribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is why we should always use and favour scholarly sources, whenever possible, and only use the best news sources if scholarly sources are lacking, e.g. if the topic is recent, etc. If Valentino or any other relevant scholar have not mentioned the resolution within the context of this topic, then it is likely undue anyway. I also agree with the 2018 peer-review that the whole section can be reduced to a few sentences, and we should only use scholarly sources like Harff and not news sources which do not really address or discuss the topic. Relevant passage:

Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial

• Needs a bloody topic sentence.

1. "Former members of government have been convicted for their responsibility in mass killings. States have also sought to conceptually define Communist genocide. Cambodia and Ethiopia have tried and convicted former members of government for genocide, and Estonia's attempt to try Arnold Meri for genocide was halted by his death. The Czech Republic has made Communist genocide denial a criminal offence. The Polish government has sought the aid of Russia in defining a massacre of Poles by communists as genocide." 80 words versus 404. We've got hyperlinking, we can conceal the less relevant material behind them.
2. "However, no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide." I strongly suggest this is unlikely to be found in the source. See our article State crime for why. If it is found in the source, I suspect for similar reasons that its a quote taken badly out of context of a discussion of the possibility of criminal states.

Davide King (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I find all this absurd, when there are much bigger problems in the article to focus on this, which is just a distraction. By the way, I did not say that the Duma only blamed Stalin personally, I was simply saying that The New York Times only reported that fact, and there was no mention of totalitarian state or totalitarianism. How is wanting to reflect what the given source (The New York Times) actually said... pro-Soviet? Lembit Staan literally referenced pravo.gov.ru, and I am not Russophobic either, but Siebert is simply right that we should use secondary sources and that was an example of a primary source, and I do not see why we should favour The Moscow Times over The New York Times just because the former mentions 'totalitarian' while the latter did not (neither are really about the topic, they are mainly about the Katyn massacre). We must follow what secondary sources say, not what we think they say, and this is the problem of this article, which misinterprets primary sources about the authors' interpretation, like Valentino. That whole section is mainly referenced to news sources, and we should not use them, for such a controversial article we should only rely on scholarly section. As noted by Siebert, "the core idea of the Valentino's book ... is that mass killings ... are a result of strategic decisions made by a very small group of leaders." If we are to report the Duma's statement, and I am not sure why we should, unless it is found due by Valentino or other scholars when, and if, they discuss the massacre within the context of this topic, we should not reference this to pravo.gov.ru or The Moscow Times but to the scholarly sources provided by Siebert, who is correct on this. I am curious about what AmateurEditor think, since they thanked me for my first revert, and perhaps we may finally agree on something. Davide King (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is NOT absurd, we are actually trying to elaborate some common approach to source selection and their interpretation. That may save a lot of time in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I was mainly referring to the other two users, who do not seem to understand our policies in relation to sources, and the fact they blew this up in a much bigger problem than it actually is, and to the whole pro-Soviet, Russophobic accusations. As you noted, you found "two top-quality sources that provide their own interpretation, which is closer to the initial version of the text." I think it is hard to find some common approach when one can not even understand when a source is primary, or one dismisses secondary sources just because they like that the primary source said 'totalitarian' and want the Soviet Union to be described as 'totalitarian', even though that is mainly referred only to the Stalin era (by the late 1920s and not 1917 or 1924), not the whole state's history, and that totalitarianism, as the 1950s theory, is defunct among scholars. While you and I are arguing to reflect what sources say, they just want to add the 'totalitarian' part because that is what primary source said, and they like it, but is not how it was interpreted by scholarly secondary sources, which, again as you correctly noted, gave an interpretation closer to the original wording. Davide King (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, this may be similar to Valentino. AmateurEditor cherry picked quotes to show that Valentino supports MKuCR, while secondary sources did not find such quotes to be due or interpreted them differently and came to the conclusion that Valentino supports Communist mass killing and sees leaders, not ideology, as more important in explaining mass killings. Similarly, the Duma may have said 'totalitarian' but The New York Times did not find it due to mention, and the two scholarly sources are closer to the original wording. The Moscow Times was cherry picked because it contained the relevant quote, even though it was not mentioned in other sources, and thus is undue and the original wording better reflected sources. Davide King (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan, Davide King & Cloud200, upon reflection, I realise we need to restore the original version, which makes a stress on acknowledgement of Satlin's personal responsibility, because high-quality secondary sources identified by me using a neutral and transparent procedure say so. If you disagree with that, provide your own secondary sources of comparable quality, and prove that they represent majority view (and that you obtained them not via cherry-picking). I am going to replace themoscowtimes with the two sources found by me, because, irrespective to how reliable that newspaper is, the cited material is an op-ed, which represents the opinion of its author only, and should be used with attribution. Since the author is just a [Berlin based freelancer, I doubt his opinion to have a significant weight. I am not going to implement these changes right how. Take your time, find counter-arguments and sources if you disagree. If there will be no response from you in 3 days, I'll make the change. Ok?

Regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mengistu Haile Mariam 3.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)