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.

commentary

Davide King Since September you have effectively taken over this article and turned it into your private playground, which is now quite evident with edits such as this one[19] which is:

• biased and written from your personal point of view perspective, which ignores all the opposing views that were raised here before
• written entirely in WP:WEASEL language
• completely unsourced by any WP:RS

I found it impossible to have any reasonable fact-based debate with you and Paul Siebert since you're both not responding to any arguments, just flooding the discussion with largely unrelated opinions, as seen above. As result I have abandoned it and saw your outrageous edits only because someone had reverted it (and rightly so). I have therefore filed a dispute resolution process under Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes of which you will be surely notified individually. Cloud200 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Cloud200, can you please explain again your arguments (for the beginning, present just one), and I will try to address it as briefly as possible, and will do my best to stay focused.

Meanwhile, can you please respond to one my argument, namely that the "Causes" section is awful, it is desperately biased, and it contains direct and obvious misinterpretation of sources, or say something the sources do not say. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition, it looks like you accused me of article ownership. Such accusations require serious evidences, otherwise it may be considered a personal attack. I am not sure that approach is productive. However, I agree that David's language needs a significant improvement. It would be good if m=somebody joined this work. I am busy now, and I cannot do that alone, especially when I have a feeling my work may be contested/reverted. Therefore, I would prefer to achieve an agreement on the talk page first. In that situation, it would be highly desirable if you stopped throwing your (in my opinion, baseless) accusation and switched to a more productive regime. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

With regard to this, the statement " posit that most communist regimes did not engage in mass killings, and some in particular" was taken (to the best of my knowledge) from Valentino, so the only problem is that a citation is missing. Similarly, the second statement discusses a double genocide theory, which is considered to be linked with novel trends in Holocaust denial or trivialization. Thus, M Shafir (Revista de Istorie a Evreilor din Romania, 2020 - ceeol.com) discusses it in details, and, in particular, discusses Courtois introduction to the Black Book in that context (with references to Omer Bartov's opinion). Therefore, although the wording may be (and should be) improved, I see no significant factual problems with this text. Of course, I may be wrong, and if you find some concrete mistakes in this my post, I would be grateful. However, I respectfully request you to refrain from general accusations and personal attacks. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This is absurd. You have just stopped discussing, and my new edits have been pretty stable since then; previous lead did not have any source either and it is not necessary if everything is already in the body, of which I simply tried to summarize and actually introduce the topic. I wished Paul Siebert and others could have helped me to improve the wording and all the other work there is to do but perhaps it is about time to take you, not us, to a dispute resolution for having supported such outrageous policy and guideline violations (NPOV, OR/SYNTH, WEIGHT), as Siebert once suggested. See also this comment by Ivanvector that accurately summarizes the topic, of which you and many others users have a complete lack of knowledge because you actually believe in it, when it is OR/SYNTH. Davide King (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to note the lead reflects the issues of this article; if there is no consensus among scholars on so many things like definitions, terminology, causes ... of course the lead is going to be like that; there would be no need for all that if the article was actually neutrally written and not synthetized. But the solution is not a return to the status quo ... As written by Siebert in their summary there, we either fix the article, or it should be deleted as a POV content fork, among many other issues, with NPOV being non-negotiable according to our policies and guidelines. Any attempts by Siebert and I have been disrupted, though my latest work has been mostly accepted, especially in the body, but it is not acknowledged by you. Davide King (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Cloud200 I can't help but agree, Without naming individuals I find it extremely troubling that it is the same users attempting to AstroTurf left wing atrocities that are also the ones so concerned with maintaining similar pages for the right. It speaks to a coordinated if unconscious effort to apply bias with a broad-stroke brush. Until I came to Wikipedia for instance there was no redirect for extreme left-wing politics like there was for extreme far-right politics. Additionally far-left politics pales in comparison to the analogous page for the right and I specifically recall a user mentioned here attempting to unravel a lot of what I attempted to add to make the pages more symmetrical. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

These are not policy informed opinions. Please consider joining the community of editors and editorial standards. "Other shit exists" is not sufficient justification for a non-policy adhering page. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Read me

In regards to [20], I do not know how exactly that would work. It may sound elitist, and I am personally not one, but I am wary about a RfC or AfD in this specific case because

• so many users have shown a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the topic and Siebert's rational arguments backed by sources and policies
• one needs to have the context for this whole diatribe
• the mere existence of this article for well over a decade by now, despite none of the raised issues (POV FORK, NPOV, OR/SYNTH, WEIGHT) being fixed in the meantime, may wrongly lead some users, without having the adeguate context, to think Siebert and I are fringe, or simply assume that RS actually support the article as currently structured
• this is clearly a controversial topic and article, probably the most controversial one, and it is political, so there are political biases but also geographical ones too (do I need to remind of the Easter Europe ban stuff?), as I have wrote at [21], especially in the notes
  • political because, whatever the reason, many users who took it to this article believe in an equivalency between Communism and Nazism, perhaps even the double genocide theory (this also reflects a geographical bias), and are legitimized by political institutions like the European Union (for the record, I am not anti-EU) through the controversial Prague Declaration and resolutions equating not just Stalinism with Nazism, which is still debated even among scholars, but communism and Nazism.
  • problem is that academic discourse does not support the above, and we have been dismissed by Cloud200 as Soviet and Stalin apologists
    • even though we are simply explaining the academic discourse, which is much more nuanced and actually does not support such equivalence
  • see The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945 (2016), pp. 377–378
    • which is considered to be a revisionist view dating back to Nolte but has since been re-popularized by Courtois (who is controversial), and the double genocide theory being a fringe view but supported by state governments in Eastern Europe, amounting to Holocaust trivialization according to scholars

Nonetheless, I am a pragmatist, and I am not sure that is going to solve anything, but I am open and willing about it. What would the topic of the RfCs be about exactly? I just would prefer a rational analysis of arguments and sources, e.g. is Siebert's analysis correct about the summary of topic and the article's issues? Are they correct about how sources are used and synthesized, even not reflecting what they actually say? Or are sources presented by Cloud200 and others in support of their favoured structure correct and good enough? Sources must be scrupulously scrutinized and analyzed, especially in regards to due and weight, and whether they are subject-matter experts or contradict country experts and scholars of Communism.

Perhaps having a RfC about this? With one on more mediators further verifying our arguments and sources? Too complicated but desperate times needs desperate solution, and I am honestly tired of this diatribe. So even if "it is likely to break down either into one very large RFC or several relatively large RFCs", I am willing to try, and hopefully it will not break down but will reach a conclusion that either side must accept and move on. I do not know if Robert McClenon, or anyone else for that matter, are willing to do this but I feel like this is the only way to end it once and for all, so that we can all work together to reflect the result. Because all attempts by Siebert, including the use of country experts, have been rejected, and my attempts to improve the first few sections and the lead took us to dispute resolution, even though they have since been stable (apart from a few IPs who did not want any dialogue or provided no policy I have actually broken), especially my copy editing to the body, which has never been reverted, and accepted as you can see at [22]. Clearly, I am willing for a mediation and to solve this once and for all, I am just not sure about the best way to do it but rational analysis of sources and topic would be the best way, as that is the heart of the matter.

To summarize

I have some reservations about a RfC for this controversial topic and article per the outlined issues I have raised in  • above, but I accept Robert McClenon's offer to mediate. I also have a few questions on whether they already have in mind what would be the questions for a RfC, and I express my belief that it should be based on an analysis of sources, our policies, and whose's side reading is 'correct' on the topic, and those involved should have a broad context and understanding of both sides, and a summary of the dispute, which users like Siebert can concisely do. Davide King (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's "controversial" only because so many Wikipedia editors are at least Communist-adjacent. Nobody seriously debates the correlation between Naziism and the Holocaust. Caldodge (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

AFD it

If the last AFD was 11 years ago, it's time to review recent scholarship. I don't think it passes WP:N for largely the same reasons raised in the last AFD from 2010. I think it's a SYNTH POVFORK (same argument made in the AFDs), and I wonder if the community of today would look at it differently than the community did in 2010. Levivich 16:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that some of the editors are participating in. An Articles for Deletion nomination takes precedence over other content dispute mechanisms. If this article is nominated for deletion, I will put the DRN on hold until the AFD is resolved. Obviously, if the conclusion is to delete the article, the DRN will be closed as resolved by deleting the article. Otherwise the DRN may or may not resume, depending on what is found by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The material in here certainly needs to be covered but to me the compound qualifiers in the title looks a bit POV. But IMO this article certainly meets WP:Notability criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Certainly the material in here needs to be covered somewhere, but I'm not sure about it being covered on the same page like this. What are the WP:THREE that support the topic "Mass killing under communist regimes"? Valentino, Mann, and Chirot--mentioned in the most-recent AFD from July 2010--aren't about "communist regimes", but specifically about USSR, China, and Cambodia, which is a small subset of "communist regimes". "Mass killings by USSR, China, and Cambodia" seems like it should be three separate articles. Are there three good sources that talk about mass killings in "communist regimes" overall and together, beyond just USSR, China, and Cambodia? There are books about mass killings that mention some done by communist states, and books about communist states that mention some mass killings, and like maybe three or four works that talk about mass killings in three communist states together (USSR, China, Cambodia), but I'm not seeing SIGCOV of "mass killings by communist regimes" (as opposed to a topic like, war crimes by the soviet union, or by pol pot, etc.), and even the keep !voters seemed to acknowledge that in the last AFD (that "mass killings by communist regime" is not a phrase in use in the scholarship). It seems like for us to group mass killings by political ideology is WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure if this needs to be AFD'd so much as split/merged (so RFC, not AFD)., but then if this article becomes a redirect, what's the target? Levivich 19:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Update: just realized it could become a WP:DAB. Levivich 20:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously this article fails notability because there is not a body of literature about the topic. All we have are studies of individual countries or time periods and a few sources that attempt to connect mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who together account for the vast majority of numbers.Were it not for the topic, the article would have been deleted long ago.

Perhaps we could split the article in two: one about comparative studies of mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and one about the New Right project to prove that the Communists killed more people than the Nazis, both of which unlike this topic are documented in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you think the intersection of "mass killings under Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot" is notable? I'm having a hard time with this, because yeah, there's WP:GNG sourcing for it, but here are two books about home runs by Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron: [23] [24], but I'm not sure that means the topic, "Home runs by Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron" is notable, or at least should exist as an article. It's rare that something meets GNG and I think it's still not notable, but I guess this is what WP:PAGEDECIDE is all about. In any event, I would support splitting this article into two along the lines you suggest, my philosophizing about notability notwithstanding. Levivich 19:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is somewhat different. There are actually at least three separate questions:

• Is the view that mass killing under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot form a separate topic more notable that the view that those three topics are separate? That can be checked by a simple comparative analysis of country specific vs group literature: how many notable authors published books/articles about, e.g. only Cambodia or Great Purge, how many sources emphasize commonality, and how many sources say focus on difference between them. In addition, comparative studies, such as Harff's comparative study of "communist" (Cambodian) and "anticommunist" (Indonesian} genocides should also be taken into account. My impression from what I've read is that an overwhelming majority of sources do not emphasize commonality at all.
• The views that all excess deaths under Communists were mass killings. That can be checked by a simple comparison of the most commonly accepted description of major Communist famines like Great Chinese famine. If majority of country experts or famine experts describe them as "mass killing/democide etc", then ok, all excess deaths should be described as such. But, to the best of my knowledge, an overwhelming majority of sources does not describe Great Chinese of Volga famine as mass killing.
• And, finally, the question is if this grouping (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) is more frequent than others, e.g. genocides in Asia, comparison of Nazism and Stalinism (not "Communism"), etc. We cannot have separate articles about the same events if different sources group those events in a different way, that contradicts to WP:NPOV Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:Notability can be argued either way. Coverage doesn't need to be about the exact title of the article or grouping used to organized the material. But to me the two criteria title / grouping by the political system seems to be either the article trying to make a point (=POV) or about the real world process of people trying to make that point. My own opinion is that each mass killing of this scale should have it's own article rather than grouping them by political system. Conceivably there might be a field of study or movement regarding the proneness of communist regimes to do mass killings might get an article. But having the main coverage of these mass killings grouped by political system does not seem right. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

North8000, each of those events already has their own articles, and, importantly, some of those articles says totally different things. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Noting there is also Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, which I think is duplicative of this article (and probably also should be split, like this article). Levivich 20:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, those who, during the last AfD, argued that the topic is notable referred to the notability of each separate subtopics (e.g. Cambodian genocide or Great purge). That each subtopic is notable is an indisputable fact. The question is if the discussion and analysis of MKuCR as a single, well defined subject is a notable topic.

To answer this question, let's create a list of works that select MKuCR into a single topic.

• Courtois&Malia (but not other contributors to the Black Book) can be considered as the first source. The BB as whole cannot. The views of Malia/Courtois are described in details in The Black Book of Communism article, so the is no need to have this article for the same purpose..
• Benjamen Valentino is definitely not a source. Yes, one chapter of his book was devoted to "Communist mass killings", but his main idea was that mass killings, as he (and this article) define them, were not linked to some specific regime type. That is a core of his theory, so under "Communist mass killings" he meant "mass killings that happened in some communist regimes", and that are linked more to leader's personality than to regimes themselves. That is important, because the main practical conclusion of his theory is: mass killings can be prevented or stopped by eliminating concrete persons from power, without changing the regime type. That idea is carefully attenuated in this article.
• Steven Rosefielde is also not a source, because he wrote about the three concrete regimes (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), and, being an expert in Soviet history, focused mostly on Stalinism. Therefore, his views are more relevant to the Red Holocaust article.
• Rudolph Rummel was mostly focused on linkage between totalitarianism and democide, not on Communism specifically (and it seems to be outdated in light of the works of "second generation genocide scholars"). In addition, his views are duly represented in the Democide article, so, similar to Courtois, there is no need to duplicate them here.

(this list can be continued, feel free to add new items above this line)

If we will be able to create a list of sources that seriously discuss all MKuCR as a single topic, and not just apply the word "mass killing"/"democide"/etc to some unspecified set of crimes committed by Communists, we can speak about keeping this article. However, so far, the article seems to directly misinterpret the view of even the author whose book chapter gave the name to this article.

I also propose to estimate how much of information will be lost from Wikipedia if the article will be deleted. It seems most of this information is already available in other articles, but we need to make sure that is really the case. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the really notable topic is the discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation? And so on, and so forth.

This would be a really notable topic, and that can save the article from deletion. However, that will require almost complete rewrite of the article. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

AfD is a good place to discuss merge or redirect, but the page title itself is questionable. ~ cygnis insignis 13:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Next Steps on Mass killings under communist regimes

I think that at this point there is a rough consensus that this article needs something drastic done to it, but there is disagreement as to what. I don't think that a decision can be made by discussion here as to what that action should be, so I don't think that protracted discussion here at this time will be helpful. I think that we need to resort to some community process with formal closure, and that we should decide relatively quickly what process to use. That may be:

• Articles for Deletion.
• Requested Move to change the title of the article.
• Request for Comments.

I was working in the dispute resolution noticeboard case with some of the editors to develop one or more RFCs. As discussion progressed, the question of what type of sources to use affected how the article should be organized. The next step in DRN would have been, and still may be, an RFC on the organization of the article. A deletion discussion takes priority over other dispute resolution vehicles. I intend to remain as neutral as possible so as to be able to resume mediation if appropriate. I don't think that a lengthy pre-AFD discussion is necessary. I think that a formal process, either AFD or RFC, is in order as soon as possible. Either nominate the article for deletion, and any alternatives to deletion can be considered in the AFD, or don't nominate the article for deletion. If the article is nominated for deletion, I will put the DRN on hold. I don't see the need to put the DRN on hold while there is a lengthy pre-discussion of whether to have a deletion discussion. If the article is nominated for deletion, and is Kept, DRN will be resumed, and should then proceed to an RFC on the structure of the article.

That is my opinion, anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have long argued for an AFD to break the logjam on this page. I would have nominated it myself, but, as I would have been *voting keep, that would be inappropriately WP:POINTy. That was also before the wholesale changes to this article in the past few months, which have shifted the tone from being primarily about events (i.e. the facts about mass mortality in the USSR, PRC, Cambodia, etc) to that of an analysis of a "theory of mass killings under communist regimes", the tone of which is rather dismissive and non-neutral. There have been numerous RFC's before, very few of which have resulted in anything substantive. I'm not sure if it was a formal RFC, but the last proposal on this talk page regarding the lead showed consensus to leave the lead largely as it was before this edit, which began the wholesale changes to this page.

As such, if this goes to AFD, I think we need to figure out what goes to AFD. Is it the article as it stands now, or the article as it stood before the undiscussed changes on August 8 of this year? I think each article would get different results were it to go to AFD. As for an RFC, I think one phrased as "Is there consensus to support the recent changes to this article?" would be the most definitive, with some discussion needed to determine which revision should be considered as the last "stable" one before the wholesale changes. The above linked revision, I think, serves as a broad starting point. And changes in title have been frequently polled and frequently shot down - I don't see an RFC on the title being at all helpful until we know what the article is about. schetm (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the difference between the current and Aug 8 versions is minor, and, although the current version is an improvement, it is still awful. It managed to twist the main idea of even the author whose work gave the article its name (I mean B. Valentino).

Nevertheless, I am almost 100% sure AFD will be unsuccessful. The reason is simple: the statement "Communism killed 100 million people" (and variations thereof) can be frequently found in popular literature, various web sites and magazines. Although professional historians use different approaches and interpretations, that argument is sufficient to say the topic is notable.

Therefore, the realistic scenario is not AFD, but a complete rewrite. The current structure makes this article a single huge POV fork full of synthesis and direct misinterpretation of sources. However, it is possible to fix it by changing its structure and scope. THAT should be the subject of the discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that we first agree on which sources are appropriate, so as to avoid "per source" arguments, when they may still fail SYNTH/OR and WEIGHT. As for my recent edits, it is in line with WP:LEAD (It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.), as the previous failed this, especially the last point, and stated it as fact that all those events were mass killings, when that is a matter of disagreements. The new tone is in fact reflective of the cautious and controversial nature of the topic; there is no consensus on terminology, estimates, or even causes, and genocide scholars, apart from Rummel, actually say the cause was the leaders, not the ideology (Valentino). Despite it not being perfect, as noted by Siebert, it is factual.

In light of such misunderstanding about the topic (e.g. Schetm want it to be events-focused, even though we already have articles about each event, and the summaries do not reflect scholarly consensus, hence SYNTH and Siebert's proposal to rely on country experts and specialists to address NPOV), this should be clarified. Of the users who took it to this discussion, it appears to be that only Schetm want the article to be events-focused, while everyone else (excluding deletion) would prefer it to be theory-based (e.g. this, or comparative analysis and New Right project, which in my view would still fit the theory proposal), which is the direction I took. Davide King (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO this article is likely to survive an AFD. I think that any forward path forward needs to start by acknowledging / deciding what the topic of this article is. After taking only a slight deeper look and also learning from what was said on this talk page, it's become clear that this article isn't (the) coverage of those killings, and that those are covered elsewhere. It's really about things related to the juxtaposition of those two things. With perhaps that main question being whether or not communist regimes are more causal or prone to mass killings, and if / when so, why? (Not having taken a deep look here)if this article takes the normal track of a political where two sides from real-world contest (of ideas or..) are present as editors, even if they are polite and Wikipedian, you are doomed to an endless contest of each side working towards working to put in / maximize whatever best favors their side, and reduce keep out / minimize whatever does the opposite. And policies and guidelines are not (alone) going to provide a roadmap to a resolution. For your own sanity and enjoyment my advice would be for the editors to acknowledge what the actual topic is, pick sources that provide the most expert and informative analysis/ coverage of it and build a short article which covers what they say. And make making an informative article your only mission., I only plan to watch this for a few days.....after that please ping me if desired. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

North8000 I took the challenge of summarizing the purpose of this article in the ongoing Dispute Resolution comment here[25]: "The title of Mass killings under communist regimes is very straightforward: it describes events when large groups of people have been killed ("mass killing") in countries that described themselves as communist ("communist regimes"). The article is not called "genocide under..." or "politicide under...". It uses the most basic and widely understood term of "mass killing", and I don't think any of the parties disputes these killings actually happening." Alternative subtitles could be possibly "Marxism and violence" or "Mass killing as result of an actual Marxian class war" or "Literally interpreted eradication of bourgeois class" but the existing title is just as well as the others. Cloud200 (talk)

User:Cloud200 - As I said in the DRN, I disagree that the title of "mass killings" is straightforward. The examples given of mass killing include famines in the Soviet Union between 1931 and 1934, and in China between 1959 and 1962. There is controversy among scholars as to the extent to which starvation was an instrument of policy or the result of policy failure. We agree that most scholars agree that the deaths from starvation in Ukraine were mostly the result of a genocidal policy by Stalin, but that there is less support for the idea that the famine elsewhere in the Soviet Union was planned, or that the Chinese famine was planned. The number of deaths by country and year is a matter of more agreement than whether the deaths were mass killing, or policy failure. So there isn't a simple answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So what are the three best sources for this topic? Levivich 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There would be no problem to find a half dozen of sources, because, obviously mass killings did occur under Communist regimes, and some authors do such a generalisation. However, each of those sources defines "mass killings" differently, and includes a different set of events in that category, and the linkage (or the lack thereof) between those mass killings and Communism is described totally differently (sometimes, in a mutually contradicting way).

In that situation, how can these mutually contradicting narratives be combined together? Should we use logical AND, or logical OR? In other words, should we define a topic as "all excess/premature deaths under Communist regimes that were called "mass killing" by at least one source", or "all mass deaths that are described as "mass killing" (and similar terms) by all sources"?

The latter approach would be in agreement with our policy, but that limits the article's scope with Cambodian genocide, Stalin's purges/deportations/camps deaths, and Chinese "counterrevolutionary suppression campaign/Cultural revolution". Such an article would hardly be really valuable, because Wikipedia already has this information. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Not saying it is / I am right or wrong but that infers something very different from what my post observed / suggested. Your definition infers that this article does and should be coverage of the killings themselves. My post posits and suggests an actual current main and future topic of any relationship between having a communist regime and having mass killings. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Responding to all the above - it's not Boolean logic, it's a spectrum of events and spectrum of views, and yes, often contradictory, as we saw in coverage of Holodomor by Walter Duranty versus by Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge. The most fair way of describing them is to describe events ("per source X, 2 million people died in Y in 19NN, per source Z it was 5 million people" etc) and describe attribution ("execution order X signed by Y in order to achieve Z", "grain requisition order X signed by Y", "reports by residents who described practice X applied during enforcement of law Y", "Duranty said it's all OK"), possibly ordered by the level of consensus, from events where there's least doubt about their course and attribution, to poorly sourced events with contradictory reports even as to the number of victims (e.g. Khaibakh massacre). In this model there is a place for both respectful presentation of the views of witnesses of these events, and also all kind of dissenting opinions who disagree with numbers and/or causes. As to the "relationship between having a communist regime and having mass killings" topic, it is already part of the article Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Proposed_causes, and I think it's an important part of the article as it demonstrates how majority of the political movements that explicitly called for "violent revolution" and "class war" ended up doing exactly that. Cloud200 (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Updates and paths forward

AfD may still be worthwhile—if limited to us and those who know about it, and the mediator is willing to scrutinize and verify each argument and source Problems have been acknowledged by mediator, so they cannot be ignored forever ... we disagree on how to fix them Topic is the real issue — but this article should be theory-based, not events-based, the latter of which is problematic per arguments above There may be already some majority agreement—or at least the best arguments were—to have it theory-based, if such an article is to exist

I was sceptical about an AfD for exactly the same reasons (e.g. all those events indeed took place, which completely miss our arguments and point of the matter) but I believe it should still be attempted if all other attempts fail; it should be limited, however, to those who took part in this discussion and others who have some knowledge about the history of this dispute, etc. Then every argument must be carefully verified by the mediator (e.g. it is not sufficient to put a bunch of sources, you need to show those sources support your analysis, which is something that only Siebert has been able to do, such as when they proved Valentino's views have been completely misunderstood). North8000 is correct — it is OR/SYNTH to do such articles by ideology (it would actually need some clear agreement among scholars and all other issues, perfectly identified above, that remains—to not exist), and the fact we do this only for Communism is telling. The problem, again correctly highlighted by North8000 above, is that defenders of such article want it to focus on the events (hence POV fork and OR/SYNTH, as we already have such articles, which are discussed here with a particular bent and do not reflect consensus, or even majority view; one defender said those are all at best minority views, which they nonetheless deemed to be significant), while it appears there is now some rough consensus to have it theory-focused — and there is now an acknowledgement by the mediator that this article has indeed problems, which have been until now dismissed and saw us falsely accused of being "pro-Communists", but we disagree about how to fix it, though I think there is some agreement that, if there is to be an article, it should be rewritten and be theory-based. Davide King (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The "topic of any relationship between having a communist regime and having mass killings" would still be theory-based because it would discuss the interpretations and theories of such killings, not the events themselves, for which we already have all relevant articles, and not treating them all as mass killings and such link as fact. I think we should try to have an AfD and a RfC about the topic, which in my view should be the one proposed by Siebert, which is also what The Four Deuces and I meant by victims of communism narrative.

"In my opinion, the really notable topic is the discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation? And so on, and so forth. This would be a really notable topic, and that can save the article from deletion. However, that will require almost complete rewrite of the article."

I support the solutions proposed by McClenon, e.g. AfD, RfC, and name change/move. We should agree on which order, how to word it, and which topics and sources are to be accepted as possibile solutions. Because if we cannot find a solution, if we cannot write an encyclopedic article — the status quo is not keeping such a problematic article, which has been in fact more harmful than helpful and a source of citogenesis, but it not existing until such an encyclopedic article, in full respect of our policies and guidelines (NPOV is not negotiable), can be properly written. The only notable topic and solution to avoid this appears to be that individuated by Siebert. Davide King (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I agree that having various articles (mass killings in Asia, MKuCR, etc.), that contain the same material would be wrong. That's why, as I have always said, this article should not be a cut and paste of other article but should outline theories about how Stalin's firing squads, Mao's famine and Pol Pot's Killing Fields are connected. And if they are, what relevance do they have to Communism/communism. So far no editors have shown that this topic is notable. TFD (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Davide King wrote, in the visible header of a collapsed statement: "AfD may still be worthwhile—if limited to us and those who know about it, and the mediator is willing to scrutinize and verify each argument and source". No. Neither AFD nor RFC can be limited to a particular group of editors, and both AFD and RFC provide notice to all in the English Wikipedia. I am not sure what Davide King intends, but neither AFD nor RFC can be limited to any particular subgroup of editors. In fact, inviting other editors is one of the two advantages of a formal community process. (Formal closure is the other.) I submit that we should use a formal community process sooner rather than later, but I may be in a minority, because maybe other editors would prefer to try to "win" the dispute by talking at greater length. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Considering the canvassing that was done at DRN and the controversial nature of the article, forgive me if I am sceptical or 'elitist' about it and thinking it should be required to have a minimum of competence about the topic (e.g. events or theories question, and a set of sources agreed among us, as suggested here, which is something that events-based supporters have yet to address), and avoid personal insults and false accuses. If it can be guaranteed there will not be any such canvassing, that it will not be a vote, and instead be based on rational arguments in line with our policies and guidelines (NPOV is not negotiable) — that is what I meant.

But before of any of this, we actually have to agree on a set of topics and sources. Can you summarize that for us? — which was the purpose of this new section. Siebert already proposed one topic and analyzed several sources, to which no response has been given that addressed them, and Levivich's question about sources for the events-focused topic has not been answered. Davide King (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO you are headed into endless hopelessness with this article not because of editor issues, but because you have an article with a title that could cover so many different things and an article with no defined topic which is about many different topics, some of them being ethereal or subjective areas of opinion or study. It would probably survive AFD. So IMO your only hope is to clearly decide what the topic of the article is to be, then change the title (if necessary) to align with that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Why not a dab page ("Mass killings under communist regimes may refer to:") with a list of the various topics (New Right, killing fields, great famine, etc.)? Levivich 17:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I was concerned — it should not survive an AfD because of the many issues raised but it likely will anyway. As for the topic, it should be this, which also fits what you proposed, e.g. the relationship between the regimes and mass killings. I would just delete the MKuCR naming because it is only used here, and Communist mass killing(s) would be preferable as a DAB linking to Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's mass killing events; it is the term used by Valentino (it is a subcategory of dispossessive mass killing, not MKuCR, in relation to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, as explained here by Siebert). Davide King (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, to sort it out, there are two really core topic possibilities here:

1. Is having a communist regime a causal or key enabling factor for mass killings? I think that this part is inevitably a topic of this artice.
2. Some type of summary / condensed coverage of mass killings under communist regimes. (knowing that this is covered in a split up / more detailed fashion elsewhere). IMO whether or not to include this is a big decision you should make.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Brief answers to your questions are:

1. The claim that some communist regime was a causal or key enabling factor for mass killings is somewhat ambiguous. Thus, when some article claims that Stalin's regime was a cause of death of millions of people, that article may link the deaths to Stalin's personality, and that also may be interpreted as an accusation of that communist regime. However, if such an article makes a stress on the word "regime", not on the word "Communist", that source draws not more linkage between mass killings and Communism than, e.g. the articles about Bengal famine or Congo genocide draw a linkage between mass killings and capitalism/democracy. In both cases it would be original research to claim that type sources draw/discuss such linkages. IMO, all relevant sources about mass killings/mass mirtality in Communist countries may be subdivided on the following subcategories:

• The sources that directly link Communism and mass killings. Examples: Courtois, Malia.
• The sources that directly criticize that approach. Examples: a significant part of reviews on the BB (I discussed them previously on this talk page)
• The sources that discuss mass killings in Communist states (or in a subset thereof), but that discussion is general, and not directly linked to Communism. Examples: B. Valentino, whose main conclusion is that not the regime type, but leaders personality is a primary cause of mass killings, so by removal those leaders from power it is possible to prevent mass killings even without significant transformations of the regime type.
• The sources that discuss a single Communist state. Examples, the works by Wheatcroft, Ellman, Getty etc. They perform the analysis of historical realities that lead to mass killings, and usually Communism is beyond the scope of that analysis.
• The sources that perform a comparative analysis of mass killings in several states, some of them may be Communist. No specific attention to Communism is usually paid in those sources. Example: Barbara Harff: "Revolutionary and antiterrevolutionary genocides.

I think this (by no means a comprehensive) list demonstrates that if we will focus on the question about the linkage between Communism and mass killings, that will create a totally false impression that that topic is a focus of scholarly debates. However, similar to the question if intelligence is linked with one's skin colour, this issue is not the main topic of interest of majority historians.

2. Condensed figures are produced by a small group of authors who are, like Courtois, interested to demonstrate that Communism was a greater murdered than Nazism. Usually, they use obsolete data (like Rummel, who included a fantastic 60+ million number for the USSR, which blatantly contradicts to ALL modern data), and/or they include famine and disease deaths into that figure. Overwhelming majority of country experts (e.g. Ellman, Wheatcroft, Davis, Getty, Maksudov etc for USSR) or famine experts (O'Grada) produce more accurate and realistic figures, but, they do that for each country (or even for each event) separately, and they are absolutely disinterested in producing a "global Communist death toll" figures. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that, as Ellman correctly noted, the estimates of the number of victims depends on which category is considered as victims, and that decision is strongly politically motivated. Usually, famine is not considered as mass killing/genocide/politicide etc. by overwhelming majority of historians. However, since the former group is essentially ignored by mainstream historians, there is no direct discussion between the former and the latter, so I have no idea how the correct information can be presented without OR. I know no country expert or famine expert who openly criticized the claim that Communism killed 100+ million by means of deliberate starvation, shooting and death camps, and more than a half of those death were famine deaths. This view is not criticized by experts simply because it seems to be completely ignored. It is very hard to adequately describe all of that within the frames of WP:NOR. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

My point was that you need to start by deciding on the topic/scope of the article, and to make an attempt simplify the choice/ decision.North8000 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look through the talk page history, you will see that I and other users repeatedly raised that question, and the answer was: "The topic is mass killings in Communist states, and the article describes it quite adequately, so no significant changes are needed." Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Take a look at this title: "Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin". The title is perfectly neutral, and it covers everything. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. But how that relate to here? North8000 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The relation is quite direct: the Coirtois' "Communism death toll" is what country-specific sources call "excess mortality" (of scourse, such eventgs as Cambodian genocide or Great Purge are called differently, but their scale was small as compared with other cases). The number of excess deaths in Communist states is pretty well known from country-specific sources. The problem is that only in Cambodia they were a result of direct genocide. In other countries, an overwhelming majority of them were famine death. If we describe all of that, and explain that, some deaths were a result of shooting, camp mortality and deportation deaths, that would be absolutely neutral. At the end, we may add a chapter where we give an attributed opinion that all premature deaths under Communists are considered mass killings, and, based on that, some authors claim that, since Communism killed up to 85 million people, it should be considered more murderous than Nazism. We will also supplement that with due analysis and criticism, and all of that will be perfectly neutral. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Excess mortality" is really a different topic, as it can include the total population deficit as a result of anticipated births forestalled by the harsh conditions of the times. "Mass killings", on the other hand, implies a narrower more deliberative process. Otherwise, given what some people believe about the origins of Covid-19, do we really want to pin excess mortality during the Coronavirus pandemic on the Chinese communist regime? --Nug (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Total population deficit (including the deficit due to unborn infants and emigration) is called "population losses". Excess mortality is more narrow category, which includes only real deaths that would not normally happen.

"Excess mortality" is by no means a different topic: more than a half of "Communism death toll" is actually famine and disease deaths (Great Chinese famine, Volga famine, 1932-33 famine, WWII famine, post-WWII famine). Virtually ALL famine experts and historians who study those events do not apply the terms "genocide", "mass killings" etc (Holodomor is arguably the only exception), and they usually apply the terms "excess deaths" or "premature deaths" to those events. These works are underrepresented or misused in this article, despite the fact that they represent a majority viewpoint. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've checked myself, and you can do that too. I typed this, and took first three article relevant to the topic (Justin Yifu Lin and Dennis Tao Yang, "FOOD AVAILABILITY, ENTITLEMENTS AND THE CHINESE FAMINE OF 1959-61", The Economic Journal, 110(January), 136-158; Gene Hsin Chang and Guanzhong James Wen, "Communal Dining and the Chinese Famine of 1958–1961", Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 46, No. 1 (October 1997), pp. 1-34, and James Kai‐sing Kung and Justin Yifu Lin, "The Causes of China’s Great Leap Famine, 1959–1961", Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 52, No. 1 (October 2003), pp. 51-73; all works published by The University of Chicago Press). None of them contains the words "genocide", "democide" or "mass killing", but all of them use the term "excess deaths".

If you want, you may examine other works in that list, but I am sure the result will not be significantly different. Paul Siebert (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You may argue those sources are Chinese. I have no idea why Google Scholar put those sources on the top, I just tried to be totally neutral. When I scrolled a little bit down, the next relevant work is this (not Chinese at all). However, the overall language and terminology is the same, and it is totally different from the language of the sources that serve as a core sources in that article. The primary reason why the marginal POV is overrepresented in the article is a blatantly non-neutral title. Paul Siebert (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As noted by Siebert, "excess mortality" and this summary is simply the same topic as this but neutral. To not violate our policies, there must be a clear link (it is not sufficient that the regime was nominally Communist, because that can be done for every other regime type; as noted by Siebert, scholarly sources about Stalinist period refer to the regime, thus attributing events at the leader's personality, which is also the conclusion of Valentino, the main source for this article and the most misunderstood, not communism) — because you have such low standards that we could do this for every regime, and if it is enough to have a source, we may as well write an article about the 4 million excess deaths in 1990s Russia and capitalist regimes (10 million lives could be saved each year) because Rosefielde, the same scholar who wrote about excess death under Communism, also did the same for Russia.

Of course, I would not want to have such articles — I want higher standards which are in line with our policies but it just shows how much OR and SYNTH you are willing to go to defend such an article. As for COVID-19, none of them actually mention communism, and China is capitalist (economic growth) and Communist (human rights abuses) depending on what is more useful, and it would still be OR/SYNTH unless a majority of respected scholars in the field actually reach those same conclusions — unlike Siebert, who is backing their statement by neutral research and the best sources, all you are doing is your own OR. So far, that is done by the Victims of Communist Memorial Foundation and The Epoch Times — try again. Note that they would be attributed to the CCP, which again would be in line with Valentino's views of leadership, not ideology (ideology can be used to justify them, not to cause them), explaining the onset of mass killings.

Can anyone actually respond to Siebert's well-raised points? Do you understand that all those deaths simply cannot be categorized as mass killings (only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's can)? If you cannot do that or understand this, you are just wasting our time to find a solution in line with our policies and guidelines. Davide King (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul is incorrect, unborn children are absolutely included in "excess mortality". Steven Rosefielde explicitly includes unborn children in "excess mortality" figures:

"Western scholars have long known that the Soviet Union experienced an extraordinarily large number of excess deaths during the early phase of forced industrialisation. Excess mortality between the census dates 17 December 1926 and 17 January 1939 has been variously estimated to have been as few as 5.5 million and as many as 20.6 million people. The lower figure was thought to represent excess adult deaths, principally peasants who died as a result of the famine brought on by Stalin's collectivisation policies; the higher figure the total population deficit including anticipated births forestalled by the harsh conditions of the times."[26]

Rosefielde concludes:

"The forced industrialisation program adopted by Stalin culminated a demographic disaster of major proportions for the Soviet population. Collectivisation, Gulag forced labour and the terror apparatus that sustained the Stalinist system appear to have claimed the lives of 21.4 to 24.4 million adults and 7.2 to 8.0 million children. An additional 14.4 million unrealised births unrelated to the war may also be included in this inventory bringing the total poplulation deficit attributable to Stalin's forced industrialisation policies to 43.8 to 46 million people; figures more than double the 20 million civilian and military casualties incurred during the war."

If you think Excess mortality under communist regimes is a more neutral title, then we must include unborn children as well. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No. The author says that 14.4 million birth deficit must be included not into the "excess death" category, but into "poplulation deficit attributable to Stalin's forced industrialisation policies".

"Population deficit" is synonym for "population losses": demographers use them interchangeably. In general, if you demonstrate that population losses/deficit is generally considered as a synonym for "excess mortality" (for example, during a discussion of Bengal famine or Great depression), then I will agree with you. However, even the quote provided by you does not support this your assertion and rather demonstrates that I was right, and Rosefielde considers unborn infants as a part of "population losses/deficit", not "excess death" (which is, both from scientific and common sense point of view, a different category: you cannot kill a man who was never born and even concepted). Which is not a surprise, because he is a reasonable person and good scholar, despite his deep disagreements with Wheatcroft. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I don't mind to discuss birth deficit that was a result of Communist policy, but that would require us to discuss ALL demographic consequences of their policy. Including an unprecedented overall decline of mortality (and the growth of life expectancy) in the USSR. By the way, during the discussion with you I accidentally found one source (I already presented it, here is the link again). As you can see, I posted this source (which I found using a totally transparent search procedure, so you can see by yourself that I didn't cherry-picked it), and only after that I've read it. It says that significant decline of mortality was observed in China under Communists, and the Great Chinese famine was just a short interruption in that trend.

Maybe, if we discuss infants who had never been born due to Communists, maybe, intellectual honesty requires us to discuss already born infants and adults who didn't die due to the same evil Communists? I wouldn't mind to discuss that in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Rename (Excess mortality[...] (or split): Regardless of your standard of who to count the article body includes citations which count death by direct action( killing ), and death by negligence/incompetence (starvation). I have commented on splitting the article so I won't repeat that here, but if you want to first split the article on killing vs preventable deaths and cross-link them then that makes both topics searchable while not having a clinical title that nobody can agree on. The problem there is now I think editors are trying to seperate deaths into two camps where the source material probably would not. Because of this I support renaming to excess death, and just doing a disambiguation page if someone tries searching for death in general, and they actually wanted to know about like funeral rites or natural causes.Ethanpet113 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

And then people say Wikipedia isn't a left wing echo chamber. 93.141.205.124 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This AfD has to be a joke when articles like Anti Communist Mass Killings exist. What is next? An article called "Anti-fascist mass killings?" Skyrant (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that article, but one thing at a time. The 'anti-fascist mass killings' are also referred to as the premise for the 'second world war', arguably a euphemism, as "stoppin' communism" was for the extraordinary amount of ordnance dropped on North Korea a little later. ~ cygnis insignis 18:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Object Deletion (listify?): I fundamentally disagree with just deleting the body of this article, because for any other article on wikipedia we would apply the standard of seeing if anything is salvageable, even if editing has been protracted. It doesn't make any sense to delete this article in light of many other weaker politically charged articles which are kept. Afd mediation is usually required only if the community process failed, it has not, in fact this article has been not deleted 3 times now. There are also many social science articles just as old as this one of more dubious quality which are routinely kept. By the standard of any other article on wikipedia this article has a very strong keep article. The problem with this article is that it is bloated, not that it is unsalvageable. The article has been evaluated as a B-Class article which is much better than the vast majority of articles on WP. I agree that the article is unfocused, but it should just be edited down and its contents relocated to children as required. Worst case I would rename to List of mass killings under communist regimes and include a short heading to summarize and then offlinks. Alternatively several if there wouldn't be enough list items to make it a good list, or if more context is required, then several short summary sections sorted by year-regime with and a link with the {{main|main article}}. I think perhaps some conjectural scholarship should also be split out into sub articles, however any way you slice it you should be using the mark split-mark under construction-split-cleanup workflow to shrink the article, not doing wholesale deletion on established content, because you think it is an impossible task to make it succinct. As with any continuing social problem that humanity is tackling this article is always going to go interesting directions and some people will disagree. This is a common problem for political and sociological articles in general on WP, but we just keep iterating even if the amount of novel information on the matter seems galling.Ethanpet113 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I fundamentally agree that the core problem here is the article's title. It's not at all weird for Wikipedia to have a list page - it famously has list pages - but it's very weird for the word "list" not to appear in its name. And that's self-evidently what this page is - a list of mass killings under communist regimes, no stranger than List of serial killers in the United States. Quindraco (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose deleting this article. It is relevant and full of important information widely debated. There are plenty of sources that make direct links between communism and mass death Viktory02 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

My opinion is the page title shouldn't exist, therefore I have proposed the page be deleted and am assuming this is adequate notification, without individual pings, to those invested in its content. ~ cygnis insignis 15:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

May you expand the context of your opinion? WeiChengChao (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

How about no 2607:FEA8:F49A:F500:844B:8EE3:6322:1D9E (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Vincenty846 (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Oules (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting this article would be truly Orwellian. It’s very nomination for deletion is a political act attempting to whitewash Communism. There is absolutely no justification for deletion.

It should remain. Ashley Payne (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the article should not be deleted. Minimizing, mitigating, or downplaying any sort of historical atrocity is wrong, including ones that have occurred in the communist regimes of the 20th century. Furthermore, to state that only this article be deleted amidst the countless other articles of similar style of content that Wikipedia has is special pleading. GrammarGuy16 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any reason for deleting this article. It should stay.Horea Vêntilă (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

All, if you'd like to have your opinion on whether this article should be deleted noted, please refer to the AfD discussion. colejhudson (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I think the article should be deteled. It's such an absolute mess of outdated and disproven cold-war propaganda, made up death toles, and in some cases even labelling people who were killed by captialism as "victims of communism", that I don't see how this article can be fixed without demolishing it and starting from the beginning. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Generalized broadsides like the above are not useful to article improvement. Totally denying that there were tens of millions of excess deaths—admittedly most likely closer to 60 million rather than the 100 million figure popular in certain areas of the Internet—caused by self-described communist governments in the twentieth century is, in fact, a WP:FRINGE view in reliable academic sources, in many ways comparable to Holocaust denial, and any editor who espouses it is more likely to be topic banned or otherwise sanctioned, I believe, then the editors who advocated for keeping this article. In any case, you are not using the word "tole" correctly, and it is unclear what "even labelling people who were killed by captialism [sic] as 'victims of communism'" refers to. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OR - just going through the article

Ok, can someone show me where in the source is the part that supports this text:

“ As there are few or no comparative studies on communist regimes, it has not been possible to achieve an academic consensus on the causes and definition of such killings in more or less broad, general terms. ”

Source is this one [27]. Volunteer Marek 01:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I just read the source, and sure enough it does not contain any language even remotely close to what Davide King wrote in this edit. In fact, the review by Straus is about problems in comparative genocide studies, and only discusses communist regimes in passing. For example: "Some authors such as Valentino employ a concept that includes dozens of twentieth-century cases. Other authors, such as Midlarsky, use a narrower definition, with only three twentieth-century cases. 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. Some authors such as Mann, Levene, and Valentino include colonial cases; the other authors do not." (p. 496) The suggestion that "few or no comparative studies on communist regimes" exist is nowhere to be found in the source. Davide King's well-meaning incompetence when it comes to reading and understanding English-language sources has been a problem that I've noted before, as many of his edits either fail verification or contain liberal amounts of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Realistically, all of Davide King's recent edits are suspect due to lack of competence and this supports the need for a rollback to a more stable version of this article. Thanks for spotting this especially egregious WP:REDFLAG claim, Volunteer Marek.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That is bordering to well-meaning criticism to personal attacks. Contrary to what has been stated, I used Straus 2007 not for the quoted part but for the fact that genocide scholars have placed little emphasis on regime-type when engaging in comparative analysis. "few or no comparative studies on communist regimes" could be changed to "few or no comparative studies on communist regimes as a whole", or something like that, since comparative studies have been done for Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes, and Communist regimes have also been compared to non-Communist regimes, rather than among themselves as a whole. It would be better to tag that part as citation needed or clarification needed rather than attack me like that and act as though the source I used for that quoted part is Straus 2007 — indeed, Straus 2007 is placed after Genocide scholars have placed little emphasis on regime-type when engaging in comparative analysis,[4] Davide King (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, honestly I didn’t look at who put what in when, I just simply read the text of the article and this one was a red flag. Since it seems we all agree that this part is not in the source, can we remove it without controversy? Volunteer Marek 04:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer tagging it first, or reword it, before removing outright but I would avoid editing the article in general as long as the AfD is ongoing. For the same reason, you should revert yourself, as did Fifelfoo here for the same reason. If you are not aware, we did discuss a revert of two full months edits at DRN but there was disagreement — Robert McClenon may be helpful in regards to this issue and what can and/or should be done about it. Davide King (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Davide King, for the record, you have no source for the statement that "there are few or no comparative studies on communist regimes"? That sentence was pure original research, or so self-evident in your mind that no citation was required?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, removal of the red flag claim would be a good start, but probably not sufficient. "Genocide scholars have placed little emphasis on regime-type when engaging in comparative analysis" is not supported by the source either, and there is much in the source that suggests otherwise: "That said, three overlapping explanatory paradigms are evident in the books: idealism, political development, and state interest. The idealism framework roots genocide in specific extreme ideologies ... " (p. 489); "Recent literature on the Holocaust has found some middle ground between these two positions, recognizing both a strong element of contingency and the importance of top-level ideology." (p. 493) [emphasis added]. In sum: Straus 2007 says that the ideology of the governing regime is the major motivating factor considered by one of the three schools of thought in genocide studies that he is critiquing. Davide King summarized that as "Genocide scholars have placed little emphasis on regime-type when engaging in comparative analysis." Davide King's summary is inaccurate and misleading.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I should have made more clear I meant within the context of Communist regimes (e.g. genocide scholars may find ideology important in causing some genocides in non-Communist regimes — your quote seems to show they have reached a middle position, but that is of in genocides general, not necessarily of Communism, as assumed the wording in question is within the context of Communism, rather than generalize. I suggest you to discuss this with Paul Siebert (e.g. example of sourcing analysis performed by Siebert saying Valentino does not see regime type or ideology as important, and focus more on the leaders), as they can better answer your questions and fix the text and/or errors I may have made. I probably should not have generalize, I was mainly think of Valentino, who is a core source of this article — I will let Siebert explain you this better. Davide King (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, and Straus 2007 puts Valentino in the third school of thought mentioned above: "The third paradigm—what I label the 'state interest' framework—sees genocide as the product of leader-level planning, with Valentino and Midlarsky as the exemplars. ... For Valentino, the calculus appears to be a thought-through, rational response to particular conditions." (p. 491). However, strong competing views exist, and Straus states that all three approaches are flawed in terms of their predictive power and falsifiability.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I was trying to summary this — e.g. lack of consensus/disagreements among genocide scholars, and "all three approaches are flawed in terms of their predictive power and falsifiability." Is this correct then? If so, do you think something along those lines may be (re-)added? Thank you.-Davide King (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Same thing here — do you think you could reword it/better phrase it? Like that comparative analysis has been done mainly between Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (Jones discuss together only Stalin and Mao, and gives Pol Pot a separated chapter) rather than a broad comparative analysis between all or most Communist regimes, and the fact such regimes have also been compared with non-Communist regimes (e.g. Cambodia, the Holocaust, Rwanda), not necessarily between only Communist regimes? Also while the two sentences should be separated (e.g. Jones and Valentino are not mentioned in Karlsson 2008), on the basis that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot; in such cases, killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization is from Karlsson 2008, p. 8. Full quote:

Where and how did the historical process begin that was to lead to communist regimes committing crimes against humanity? Did it begin with Marx and Marxism, or when Marxism took root in Russian ground and was remoulded to conform to Russian political culture, or when Lenin and the Bolsheviks carried out their coup d’etat in Petrograd on 7 November 1917, or when Stalin began the major, radical Soviet revolution in the early 1920s? If these crimes are an integral part of the modern project, for which there is much evidence in modern research, what marked the beginning of the unbalanced Russian modernisation process that was to have such terrible consequences?

How could this be (re-)worded? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, Davide King, can you please provide a direct quotation supporting your statement that "Critics of communism define a 'generic communism' category as any political party movement lead by intellectuals," since I don't have access to your source? It would certainly help with verification!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

While I will try to check the source, I think it should be qualified as such as Martin Malia and Stéphane Courtois. Davide King (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The extended quote (to give you an impression of the context) is as follows:

"Malia flirts in the formulations cited above with the suggestion à la Courtois that communism was the greatest evildoer of them all. To his credit, however, in the bulk of the piece he is concerned with laying out a more rigorous set of desiderata that need to be addressed in any comparison between Nazism and communism. The implicit purpose of doing so is to address criticisms that have arisen over The Black Book, and chief among these was the objection that there existed vastly different kinds of communisms around the globe that cannot be treated as a single phenomenon. Malia thus counters by coining the category of “generic Communism,” defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot’s study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge’s murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia’s latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger. Paul Siebert (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: yes, you are right: these authors mentions Communism just in passing. Incidentally, the very same authors are used in the MKuCR article, which create an impression that Communist mass killings are the focus of their study. Do you have any fresh idea on how can we fix that blatant OR? Paul Siebert (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This hardly supports the sentence as written. For starters it takes on author and turn them into a generic “critics of communism”, falsely implying that this is some definition shared by all “critics of communism”. For starters… Volunteer Marek 07:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the relevant excerpt, Paul Siebert. I have taken a stab at modifying the text to avoid the implication that the definition provided by David-Fox 2004 is universal to critics of communism, as opposed to a scathing rebuke of Martin Malia's analysis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: if you believe that David'Fox's opinion needs specific attribution (which is not completely the case, for his article is not op-ed), why the rest of text is full with "several authors" or "scholars"? Actually, all those statements were made just by handful of authors, so you should either self-revert or bring the rest of the text into accordance with your edits. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary, Paul, the rest of the section is also attributed to specific authors (e.g., "According to historian Anton Weiss-Wendt"; "According to Professor of Economics Attiat Ott"; "Sociologist Michael Mann has proposed"; "As summarized by the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence"; "Professor of History Klas-Göran Karlsson uses"; "Mann and historian Jacques Sémelin believe"; "Political scientist Rudolph Rummel defined"; "Under the Genocide Convention"; "coined by the Munich Institut für Zeitgeschichte"; "has been used by Professor of Comparative Economic Systems Steven Rosefielde"; "According to historian Jörg Hackmann"; "Historian Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine writes"; "Political scientist Michael Shafir writes"; "George Voicu states that fellow historian Leon Volovici has"; "Professor of Psychology Ervin Staub defined"; "Professors Joan Esteban (Economic Analysis), Massimo Morelli (Political Science and Economics), and Dominic Rohner (Political and Institutional Economics) have defined"; "has been defined by political scientist Benjamin Valentino"; "Political scientist Jay Ulfelder has used"; "Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies Alex J. Bellamy states"; "Professor of International Relations Atsushi Tago and Professor of Political Science Frank Wayman use"; "According to Professor of Economics Attiat F. Ott and his postdoctoral associate Sang Hoo Bae"; "Associate Professor of Sociology Yang Su uses"; "genocide scholar Barbara Harff studies"; "Political scientist Manus I. Midlarsky uses"; "Soviet specialist Stephen Wheatcroft states"). The exceptions (e.g., "Critics of communism define a "generic communism" category as any political party movement lead by intellectuals"; "as there are few or no comparative studies on communist regimes"; "Genocide scholars have placed little emphasis on regime-type when engaging in comparative analysis"; etc.) were added by your ally Davide King ([28], [29], and elsewhere).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Really?

"Different general terms are used to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants." Don't see how that general statement is related to the topic of this article. One of the sources is Wheatcroft, who focuses on Russian history only. He never proposed anything of that kind.

"According to historian Anton Weiss-Wendt, the field of comparative genocide studies, which rarely appears in mainstream disciplinary journalsm, despite growth of research and interest, due to its humanities roots and reliance on methodological approaches that did not convince mainstream political science, has very "little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe." According to Professor of Economics Attiat Ott, mass killing has emerged as a "more straightforward" term." - That relates to Mass killing, as you perfectly know, that article barely mentions Communism.

"Several authors have attempted to propose a common terminology to describe the killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole, some of them believing that government policies, interests, neglect, and mismanagement contributed, directly or indirectly, to such killings, and evaluate different causes of death, which are defined with various terms." Who those "several authors" are? Are they really numerous?

"According to this view, which has been either ignored or criticized by other genocide scholars and scholars of communism, it is possible to have an estimated communist death toll based on a "generic communism" grouping." I saw not much critics by genocide scholars. This view is just ignored. that text gives a totally undeserved weight to it.

"For example, Michael David-Fox states that Martin Malia is able to link disparate regimes, from radical Soviet industrialists to the anti-urbanists of the Khmer Rouge, under the guise of a "generic communism" category "defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals."" Do you have other examples?

All of that is just an attempt to give an undue weight to a couple of sources. In reality, Malia made a claim, he was criticized by David-Fox (and some other authors), and THAT'S IT. The rest is a total bullshit: I saw no example of any real debates among "genocide scholars" about a proper terminology: everybody uses the terms they like, and nobody cares. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of the first sentence, which is a summary expounded on later in the article, most of the text above was added by your ally Davide King. Presumably that means you agree with Volunteer Marek that "the process here has been 'Step 1, make the article horrible by stuffing it full of bad writing and irrelevancies. Step 2, go running to AfD saying "look at how bad the article is!"'" and support the idea of a rollback?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. My point is that any person who edit this section is doomed to balance between Scylla of OR and Charybdis of POV-violation. The section discusses some minor issues that are beyond the scope of majority scholars. DK tried to avoid Charybdis, and accidentally moved closer to Scylla. Yes, he is not an Odyssey, but who can throw a stone to him? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This one is fantastic. I'm adding it to my long collection of quotes from Siebert and Kinge who run around teaching others about WP:NPOV while at the same time justifying ones between them. Cloud200 (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. I am saying that DK's edits are far from perfect, but he has a dilemma: to keep the terribly POV text or to try to partially fix it by introducing some OR. I think he recognizes the problems with his edits, and he will not object to its improvement. If I were you, I would propose some concrete ways to fix all of that (my own proposal is to delete the section completely). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, this paragraph?

"The arguments in the second-generation books have some obvious differences. Weitz turns on race and Utopia; Semelin on identity and purity; Valentino on leaders' strategic goals; Midlarsky on imprudent realpolitik and loss; Mann on democracy and ethnic nationalism; and on the rise of the West and nation-states. Valentino importance of perpetrator publics; Mann, Levene, and Semeline explicitly argue otherwise. Midlarsky and Levene reject a utilitarian to genocide; Weitz implies the same (with the emphasis contrast, Valentino argues that genocide is the instrumental leaders who want to achieve a certain goal. Mann and the longue duree of modern state formation and nationalism; sky and Valentino focus more on short-term conditions. significant conceptual differences (discussed in greater Some authors use a narrow definition of genocide; one. Some include communist and/or colonial cases; These conceptual differences and the concomitant lection limit comparability of different findings."

Clearly, the author says that Communism/communist regimes is not considered as an important parameter in comparative studies made by the second generation genocide scholars. That is the fact that is very hard to fit into the article with that structure. And that is an additional reason for at least its major rewrite if not deletion.

@Volunteer Marek: if you honestly want to go through the article, I suggest you to start with old text: it is much more problematic from the point of view of WP:V. Paul Siebert (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the author says that Communism/communist regimes is not considered as an important parameter in comparative studies I don’t think that’s “clearly” at all! In fact there’s nothing in there to draw the WP:SYNTH that is being presented. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to see where in the source this claim: which has been either ignored or criticized by other genocide scholars and scholars of communism is supported? Volunteer Marek 07:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Marek, frankly speaking, I think the whole paragraph is unsatisfactory. The problem is, however, that the article contains even worse SYNTH/POV, which this para is trying partially alleviate: It create an absolutely false impression that the issues discussed in this section is a part of a mainstream scholarly discourse, which is absolutely false. In a situation when the views expressed in that article are simply ignored by most historians, it is hard to expect a widespread criticism. Do you have any idea how to fix that problem without engaging in original research? Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just going through the article sequentially and this is the part I came to that had lots of red flags and just the wording suggested there was some non-sourced OR going on. Other parts of the article may very well also have problems but I haven’t gotten to these yet. Can we then remove this paragraph? Volunteer Marek 18:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul, Straus 2007 states that some comparative studies of genocide specifically exclude communist killings of political or class enemies, citing the UN definition, so it is not surprising that it mentions communism only in passing. However, Straus 2007 does not support the inference that mass killings under communist regimes did not occur in the twentieth-century or are not a notable topic. The specific use of this source by Davide King was WP:SYNTH and failed verification; while Straus is somewhat critical of the scholars in question (who include some of our key sources, especially Valentino), and of the field of comparative genocide studies in general, there is no indication that Straus's view is the more mainstream view in academia. To the contrary, Straus seems to make clear that academic discourse regarding the common causes of genocide has not yet achieved consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Genocide scholars" do not care too much about terminology, so they frequently use the term "genocide" in its broader meaning, i.e. it implicitly covers all other "-cides". In that sense, "genocide prevention" does not mean prevention genocides sensu stricto. You know that it was me who brought this source here, and I perfectly know what Straus says.

To prevent possible disruption of the discussion, let's agree that noone questions that mass killings never occurred in Communist states, or that Communist authority bear no responsibility for them. The points of disagreement are different: (i) what exactly fall into the category of "mass killings" (the answer strongly depends on one's political views), and (ii) if those mass killings have some significant common causes, and this cause was Communism. If you agree that that is the core issue, then let's continue our dialogue. If you can propose some better summary, please, do that. Otherwise, I have no desire to waste our time. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What you are trying to do here, is to push your WP:POV that there exists any single majority view on these two issues you correctly identified. By endlessly disputing this, you have effectively blocked any attempts to improve the article since at least August, and certainly wasted weeks of people's time.

As it was highlighted plenty of times, if there is a debate on a particular topic subject to interpretation, the point of WP:NPOV is not to "average" it by selecting any "majority" view, but to objectively present the debate itself, which the article does to some extent. What you have been pushing in the article since September however was to frame the debate through the lens of an actual fringe "double genocide theory", which is an extreme WP:POV.

You have been doing that by letting King push more blatant edits, which are or are not contested, but if they are, then King steps back and you step in to defend them by watering down the criticism with Gish gallop and gaslighting. This was exactly the case with mentions of "double genocide theory being mainstream in Eastern Europe", which were added by King, defended by you and King for over a month, and "magically" disappeared after I explicitly tagged each of them as unsourced and weasel - which they were from the very beginning. And yes, what I'm doing here is accusing you of WP:DE and I'm determine to take this further as I can clearly see you have now replicated the same tactics in the DRN and AfD. Cloud200 (talk) 09:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cloud200: That becomes annoying. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack. I respectfully request you to provide evidences, or I report you at AE. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Another solution is as follows: you withdraw all your insulting posts and switch to a more productive mode, which, among other things implies a respectful dialogue devoid of inflammatory language and logical answer to my arguments. Deal? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Marek, frankly speaking, the only solution is to remove the "Terminology" section. It is awful, and it contains a lot of POV/SYNTH. What is a purpose to have it if majority country-experts just ignore all that bullshit? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

If you really want to save this article, let's talk what we can do. I have some plan, which will allow us to write a totally neutral, well sources and notable story. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

misplaced comment sections

There are some comments in new sections above that seem to be misplaced !votes in the current AfD. Is moving them there appropriate? ~ cygnis insignis 16:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

None of the comments were policy-based, so they would be inappropriate at AFD. I've removed them per WP:NOTFORUM/WP:REFACTOR. Additionally, I've protected the page temporarily from further disruption from unregistered editors. This page is not for airing grievances regarding communism. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) is still open for editing, though everyone seems to be leaving comments on its talk page for some reason. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

They almost certainly due to a thread on conspiracy-clickbait website 4Chan, which entirely misrepresented what the AfD discussion is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This thread has clearly grown out of 4chan and into mainstream politics on platforms such as Reddit and Twitter. Nothing good will come out of it, and some conspiracy centered political leaders seems to have taken the fight. The current political situation isn't helping. Larrayal (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As I say, misplaced, but I was considering how to incorporate those comments into the AfD [in an increasingly desperate attempt at providing balance in my nom] There are keep !votes that are founded on similar points of view, although I would be hesitant to link the diff of reverted edits as an example. ~ cygnis insignis 17:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of the same arguments are being made at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), if you're looking to reference them. Taking some of those concerns into account might be worthwhile, particularly the complaint that Wikipedia is whitewashing communism entirely by deleting this one article. clpo13_(talk) 17:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, as pointed out at the AFD, the deletion discussion has been mentioned at https://notthebee.com/article/wikipedia-is-considering-the-deletion-of-the-page-titled-mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-. For context: The Babylon Bee#Not the Bee. clpo13_(talk) 17:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It was a reasonable action per NOTFORUM, I'm also comfortable with the last two sections being deleted as well if the line was drawn at established v. identifiable ip swarm. ~ cygnis insignis 17:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Clpo13: Incidentally, I was one out of few persons who bothered to go to a library and take a paper version of Rummel's database. That is awful: Rummel seriously cites Cold war era rough estimates of Soviet deaths, and his GULAG figures are totally inconsistent (more than 10 times greater) with all consensus figures. Rosefielde re-considered his estimates (significantly downward), Conquest did that too - everybody. Rummel is arguably the only person who refused to take a look at new data that became available after fall of the USSR. And those figures are seriously cited by that web site? Surely, that is an additional strong reason to delete the article. Rummel already has one page, and that is more than enough.

The very article's structure does not allow us to get rid of that trash, because serious scholars are not interested in compiling Guinness book type figures of a "global Communist death toll. As a result, we have a paradoxical situation: we have modern and trustworthy figures of human life loss for almost each event, but, instead of that, we put forward a lousy "Communist death toll" data from an outdated databases or from self-described anthropologist. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If Rummel's "Death by government" is trash, why is it cited 1573 times? Rummel's numbers seem good enough for this genocide site, or is that trash too? --Nug (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

'If Mein Kampf is cited 390,000 times [30], why doesn't Wikipedia use it as a source for articles? Proof by Google search results is a poor argument for anything... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol, never thought Godwin's law would be invoked. It was Paul's suggestion to select sources based upon Google scholar citation counts. --Nug (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of who's suggestion it is, trying to use Google search results as a means to assess the usefulness of sources is poor practice. And WP:OR, to use Wikipedia jargon. And methodologically flawed, for several obvious reasons. Though if it is being used in this discussion, I can't say I'm surprised, given the disregard for normal Wikipedia practice (and basic academic practice for that matter) evident from this talk page. If Rummel is being cited, what is he being cited for? And what do those who cite him have to say about it? That is what matters when assessing a source. That, and whether other independent sources come to similar conclusions. Because otherwise, this article isn't discussing 'Mass killings', it is discussing what Rummel had to say about them. And we appear to already have an article on that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. Rummel is being cited mainly for his works where he applied Factor analysis to social sciences, and for his democratic peace theory. That makes him prominent. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not a poor argument. Can you please tell me how many sources that cite Mein Kampf support it? Obviously, all of them cite it mostly for criticism.

Of course, the number of citations per se is not a sign of reliability, it is a sign of notability. However, usually, books or articles are sited not for criticism or debunking, but as a source of information. If the citing articles contain no serious criticism (and usually that is the case) then the numer of citation is a good measure of reliability.

I am a little bit disappointed that I need to explain you so trivial and obvious things. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Mein Kampf was probably not a good comparison, for a better one, The Bell Curve has been cited over 12,000 times, but I doubt the majority of the citers agree with the conclusions of the book. but it is no doubt well known and has received much commentary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

then it is by no means notable, but controversial. However, the situation described by you is hardly typical. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly describe Rummel or the Black Book as typical either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Scope

I was thinking after reading Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, that changing the title of this article to "Excess mortality under communist regimes" would probably be a better title if this article is to be kept, as this article covers more than simply intentional killings, like mass famines. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense. Dream Focus 22:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed that, and I think that may be one option. But the article needs a major rewrite anyway. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Theories about the excess mortality under communist regimes" would be more fit if the article is to be kept as it is. Sadly I doubt that a complete rewrite would be left alone by the mob ; too many political interests are at stake behind the apparent acknowledgment of the higher estimation by Wikipedia, and now that the political focus is on the article, it will probably be hard to modify anything about the fringe estimations without conflicts in the coming months. Larrayal (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

“Excess deaths” and “mass killings” aren’t the same thing. Volunteer Marek 23:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you define the Great Leap Forward and Soviet famine of 1932–1933, which are both covered in this article, as mass killings? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Some scholars define them as mass killings, others don't. That's why the article has the section Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Debate_over_famines. --Nug (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Minority of scholars define them as "mass killings", and there is no "debates" (except Holodomor). Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Minority of sources define them as "mass killings", majority sees them as excess deaths (or variation thereof). Taking into account that "mass killing" is a subset of "excess deaths", the latter may serve as an umbrella term for both. A part (a minor part) of "excess deaths" is universally seen as "mass killings" by all authors. Other "excess deaths" is seen as mass killings only by a minority. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Where is the proof? I'm seeing 1650 hits for "mass killings and only 145 hits for "excess deaths". --Nug (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

[31]&[32] vs [33] Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The argument made: "as this article covers more than simply intentional killings, like mass famines" implies that the mass famines were unintentional accidents by do-gooders such as good uncle Joe Stalin. The 3.5 million human beings killed by the man-made Holodomor may beg to differ. XavierItzm (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a surprising response here considering Xaviers long history of deliberately trolling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why the fuck would he do it on purpose, that makes no sense. Every historian who seriously studied the topic concluded that it wasn´t intentional. These famines were recurring events that affected Russia every few years since the tsarist times then there was one final food shortage under Stalin that was blamed on communism by the likes of you. Not only that but sufficient grain was distributed to end the famine within a year. You´re literally rephrasing nazi propaganda.

¨For two years farming was dislocated, not, as often claimed, by Moscow’s enforcement of collectivization but by the fact that local people eager to be first at the promised tractors, organized collective farms three times as fast as the plan called for, setting up large-scale farming without machines even without bookkeepers. In 1932-33 the whole land went hungry; all food everywhere was rigidly rationed. (It has been often called a famine which killed millions of people, but I visited the hungriest parts of the country and while I found a wide-spread suffering, I did not find, either in individual villages or in the total Soviet census, evidence of the serious depopulation which famine implies.)¨ -from The Soviets expected it 24.51.233.5 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the point made by @XavierItzm: is actually a historically sound one, in particular as it relates to the Holodomor and the clear intentionality with which certain mass death famines occurred. That said, I am open to continue to hear more points on the matter. I think as it stands regarding the article though that has been around since 2009 or earlier, I think the title is comprehensive for the subject as is. As for subject matter within the article, I am sure there is some cleaning up that could be done. When I have some time I'll investigate that end more as well, but I stand with "Oppose" at least for the suggestion to change the name of the article. Thanks all for listening! ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 19:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Even man-made famines like Holodomor in some cases are not entirely intentional, with economic goals being at the forefront. To describe the Great Leap Forward as purposeful killings would be very much misleading, since while elements of intent exists in some forms, the goal was ultimately to industrialise China and develop its economy. Likewise, the policy of collectivisation caused excess mortality but was their goal ever to remove large amounts of the population? Dark-World25 (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, this name would be a slightly more accurate description considering not only the famines but also other topics covered in the article like the deportations. 24.51.233.5 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, the topic and scope are something that we need to address if we want to move us forward and fix the article.1

Merging the fact that large-scale mass killings (50,000 dead within five years) indeed happened under Communist regimes (Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes plus the Red Terror) with a global Communist death toll, which makes no distinction between universally recognized mass killing events, excess deaths, and demographic losses, and is controversial and not done by majority of historians and scholars, and adding common causes for all events (something that is done only by a minority of scholars, several of whom have not even been represented correctly), and needing majority of sources making the connection (Chirot, Mann, and Valentino only discuss Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, do not provide any connection for all Communist regimes, and the "generic Communism" grouping as popularized by Courtois and Malia is controversial; it may be good as a general category but not when we are doing comparative analysis or finding commonalities, as this article is doing or attempts to do so), is not good — we are bordering on OR/SYNTH.

If we do not successfully identify majority, minority, and fringe views — most of the article is minority views, and we cannot write a NPOV article from this POV. If we actually had a tertiary source for this, we may write an NPOV article about it; on the other hand, there are tertiary sources about the narratives, theories, and criminalization of communism (2).

Davide King (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Obvious bias.

Wikipedia is protecting this section to allow obvious abuse and manipulation by a handful of partisans pushing to rewrite history to cover atrocities by citing other partisan academics. The effort to derail this into the realm of opinion, while calling those opinions fact, is as blatant as it is absurd. If this is allowed to continue, this entire project has failed, and Wikipedia should just close up shop. 2600:1700:1260:11E0:A5CF:E379:8577:8704 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Why isn’t there an article on mass killings under fascist regimes? 2001:569:BE89:B000:619A:78A7:10A9:88B3 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an article about mass killings under fascist regimes as well. X-Editor (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 23:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. --Nug (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. We really don't need more of these articles. Every item you could fit there already has it's own article, a brief search for sources on the topics of general fascist mass killings only reveals sources that talk about genocide/mass killings at large, or specific incidents such as the Holocaust or Indonesian genocide. BSMRD (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Valentino's work Final Solutions is about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century. We may want to describe all relevant events in such an article, rather than make controversial and/or inadeguate grouping by ideology or regime type. Davide King (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't be in denial. Valentino does in fact categorise mass killings as "communist" with a chapter called "Communist mass killings". The first sentence in 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.".

--Nug (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you read other chapters? How do you summarise the main concept of the Valentino's book? And hot his ostensible categorisation of "Communist mass killings" fits in hos major theoretical concept? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Do not be rude. That is a subcategory of "dispossessive mass killing", which also includes "ethnic mass killings" and "mass killing as leaders acquire and repopulate land." Neither of this explains why 'Communist mass killings' cannot be described within the context of genocides and mass killings in general article, which is exactly what scholars like Valentino did — their work was not focused on Communism but on genocide and mass killings, which is going to include also Communism and Communist regimes anyway, though mostly Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's.

You also ignore that Valentino says only Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (e.g. the most radical Communist regimes) certainly fit the Communist mass killings category, while other events may also fit it but cannot verify them, and that most Communist regimes did not, in fact, engage in mass killings, and that his purpose was to explain why — all of this is missing, and can be described much better within the context of genocide and mass killings in general, especially during the 20th century, which is what most scholars do, e.g. comparison between Communist and non-Communist regimes, such as Cambodia, Holocaust, Rwanda. If you want a specific article focused on Communism, we may have a Communist death toll article, or have a separated article about links between Communism and mass killing, while merging events into a general article summary of genocides and mass killings in the 20th century, exactly as Valentino did. Can you explain what would be wrong with this, and why we should not adopt Valentino's work structure?

Davide King (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(Mobile IP) Ya may wanna hold off on that idea & wait, until the AfD is closed on this article. GoodDay (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A whole week is 'enough'. Decide the article's fate & close down the AfD.

It's nearly a whole week since the AfD was opened. Recommend an administrator or somebody who's good at judging AfDs, close it. You've got only two options - Close as 'keep' or close as 'delete'. If anybody complains about which option is chosen? Let'em complain to me, since I'm recommending closure. GoodDay (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There is also the option of no consensus. X-Editor (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism

Evidently not a reliable academic source judging by how 3 of its main contributors rejected the conclusions synthesised by the editor, and two of them alleging that death tolls had been purposely inflated. If the AfD fails then content that relies on its conclusions and sources that draw on its conclusions should be removed per WP:QUESTIONABLE. Dark-World25 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism describes the work, and its criticism, which articles display a link to the work includes those featuring Template:Anti-communism in Europe since 1989. ~ cygnis insignis 12:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but it should not be used as a source for academic consensus. A significant portion of the conclusions drawn in the article derives from the Black Book and its derivative sources. Dark-World25 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The criticisms revolved around the comparison of communism and nazism, which the article MKuCR doesn’t do. The other criticism is that Courtois inflated the numbers killed as 100 million, okay, say he did and the real number is actually 50 million, does that really make a difference? — Nug (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

These are (weak) moral, political and ideological arguments on your part. They have nothing whatever to do with the extremely shaky factual basis for, or encyclopaedic nature of, this article. But they do reveal that your investment in its retention is, like the reason for the existence of the article itself, deeply and inherently political. DublinDilettante (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

PS, you should take it to WP:RSN rather than just tagging the article, that just seems lazy to me. —Nug (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The template "{unreliable sources}" loses all meaning when an article is so tagged because someone does not like Courtois. Dark-World25 ought to revert.XavierItzm (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, RSN is the appropriate place for this discussion. Would be good to get a formal consensus on the Black Book at least. Perhaps it may be best to wait a few days after the close of the AfD before asking for community input on anything related to this article, just to let the heat die down a little bit. BSMRD (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

All of that is superficial. "Reliable" for what? The Werth's chapter is definitely contains many reliable facts and conclusions. The problem is that the source is used mostly to advocate the most controversial and politicized statement it makes: that "a total number of victims" is a legitimate scholarly topic, that all victims should be ascribed to Communism, and that Communism (a "generic Communism") was the worst murdered of XX century, which implies it was worse than Nazism. All of that is heavily criticized, and, if that article will be kept, it should be moved to the bottom to a separate section that discusses various controversies. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A book published by Harvard University Press is not what the "unreliable sources" tag was created for.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It is reliable. But it is reliable primarily due to Werth&Margolin, but Wikipedia uses it to advocate the views of Courtois, whom Werth&Margolin openly disagree with. Werth traces the roots of Stalinist violence in Lenin, who according to him, was a successor of Nechaev, and he emphasises specific features of pre-revolutionary Russian society. Courtois sees the roots in Marx, and he stresses commonalities. Werth is praised by majority of authors, whereas Courtois is criticised. And guess, whom Wikipedia picks? That is not an ureliability issue, that is a misuse of a pretty reliable source, which is more a conduct issue than a content dispute. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not my intention to be offensive, but one possible reason is that Werth's chapter is long, it contains no simple thoughts and general facts that can be picked up and pasted to the article, and it requires some efforts to understand and summarise it. By the way, did anybody here read it in full? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The article does not use the BBoC to advocate anything, it just mentions Courtois' estimate of the death toll along with ten other estimates, along with his opinion about the linkage with communism along with the other author's opinions as to the causes, all attributed to him. Any challenge to his attributed viewpoint is either given immediately inline or as footnote anyway. So a separate section that discusses various controversies is redundant not only for that reason but also because nobody disputes that some specific mass killing did not occur under a specific communist regime, apart from certain famines for which there is a section on famine debates. --Nug (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Courtois sets the paradigm: to collect all deaths in one category. That creates a whole section, because is we remove this source, most of the rest is garbage. Courtois's idea to collect all deaths together was severely criticized by Werths and many other authors. That alone makes the existence of this section incompatible with NPOV. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No, Courtois didn't set any the paradigm in regard to the article. I'm sure Werth was well aware he was contributing to a book that grouped topics related to killings under communist regimes together, his issue wasn't related that grouping but to the introduction that compared communism and nazism and the claimed inflation of numbers. MKuCR does not do that comparison. As I said, even if we half the 100 million to 50 million, does it really make any difference? --Nug (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The introduction was not peer-reviewed, and the chapter themselves do not support the MKuCR narrative and structure, that was specifically Courtois and Malia's idea. By the way, why not citing scholars for what Courtois said? Why do we must rely on A said, and cite it to A rather than B? Davide King (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Before you claimed (or was it Paul?) that MKuCR narrative and structure was based on Valentino, now you are saying it is based on Courtois' introduction, make up your mind. --Nug (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. The MKuCR is the result of synthesis between core sources, which are misread (e.g. Courtois is about a Communist death toll, and equation between racial genocide/Nazism and class genocide/Communism, while Valentino is about Communist mass killing as a subcategory of dispossessive mass killing, alongside other mass killing categories and subcategories, and wrote about mass killings which happened to happen under some Communist regimes, and noting that most Communist regimes did not, in fact, engage in mass killings and shought to explain why, led him to believe that it was Communist leaders, not communist ideology, the cause and/or offset of such mass killings in such states, while many others — or "most" to use his own words — Communist regimes did not) and merged together to form MKuCR, taking the Communist grouping popularized by Courtois and the mass killing category from Valentino.

They are by no means the only ones — we have Mann, whose main point was that genocides, such as Rwanda, happened due to democratic transformation in the country; this is a problem of many sources, where we cherry pick any mention of Communist regimes, and ignore everything else and the context they are put in, e.g. broad genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (Mann, Valentino). Davide King (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Courtois indeed set that paradigm of Communist grouping, and in regards to Werth — considering their own reactions, it appears more plausible that they were not, in fact, aware of it. As noted by Paczkowski, the other sections of the book "are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations." So in fact even the Communist grouping itself is mainly Courtois' idea from the introduction. Davide King (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Undue. weight

I've noticed a lot of new sources have been introduced recently and it appears that many are given undue weight. For example why should we give any weight to Engel-Di Mauro when his paper is cited by nobody and his main area of expertise seems to be in the field of ecology? --Nug (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: That is a rational argument. I wish you will apply it uniformly to all sources.

Yes, we need a common approach to assess weight issues. I already proposed you to express your thoughts on that account, but you did not respond.

WRT this concrete source, it is ridiculous to expect that the article published in May 2021 may have a large number of citations. In that case, the approach would be:

• Evaluate a publisher: Taylor&Francis is a reputable publisher, but I don't know if this concrete journal is respectable. Try to find its impact-factor.
• Evaluate the author: what is his main works? How well are they cited? and so on. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed at RSN. As it was published this year, and is corroborated by other sources already cited there (Ghodsee 2014, Ghodsee & Sehon 2018), it seems premature to dismiss it like this. Apparently that is undue but Watson or Hicks (who is writing about criticism of postmodernism) are not? It is interesting how you find undue any form of controversy and criticism related to the topic, even if published in academic journals (e.g. you removed David-Fox too). Davide King (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Did Nug really remove David-Fox? If that is the case, he should self-revert, othervise he must be reported at AE for tendentious editing. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

They did here under the guise of "trim and tidy up", and here under the guise of "slim down and tidy up", and David-Fox has not been re-added since then. As you can see in both edits, they have also changed the heading sections to remove 'attempts' in regards to terminology and estimates. Davide King (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it seems you are right. It seems @Nug: removed this high quality and relevant source repeatedly, and under a false and misleading edit summary. It is premature to speak about that when the AfD procedure is in progress, but if the decision will be "keep", I'll ask admins at AE if these two edits are appropriate. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the author's CV It is up to you decide if he is an expert. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Another problem with that source is that it uses some figures from Wikipedia. We need to discuss how to use this source to minimise a risk of citogeneicity problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a distinction between new opinions expressed in articles and a recitation of facts. In this case, Engel-De Mauro is merely reciting facts: that the 100 million figure has no support in reliable sources and was chosen for its propaganda value. He is not providing his own opinion. The advantage of a recent source is that the author would be aware of any changes in the academic literature.

One of the many problems with this article is that it relies too much on original opinion rather than literature that explains their weight. Why for example do we mention George Watson at all, when no academic sources on the subject have cited him? His translation of Völkerabfälle as "racial trash" is misleading, since the modern concept of race had not been invented. The Germany word for racial trash incidentally is Rassenmüll.

The other source provided translates the expression as "residual fragments of peoples." Engels did not actually call them that, but said that Hegel did.

And here we have in Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 1 (over 12 years ago), Nug defending the translation. The discussion came up twice more, with AmateurEditor also defending it.

TFD (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that "Volk" wouldn't be translated as "race" before "Rasse" came into use. "Volk" was the word Hitler used in Mein Kampf to refer to the nationalities he would later exterminate. He also refers to "das deutsche Volk literally dozens of times, without referring to "die deutsche Rasse" a single time; history has shown he wasn't referring to people with German citizenship. So saying that it's invalid because the modern concept of race hadn't been invented doesn't track. The genocide of Roma and Sinti is still referred to as "Völkermord", so it really doesn't make any sense to nitpick that translation of Engels. Or would you argue that "Abfall" doesn't refer to waste or trash? AShalhoub (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Radonić in The Holocaust/Genocide Template in Eastern Europe says a closer translation of völkerabfälle is "refuse of nations". Google translates völkerabfälle to "national waste". The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination includes discrimination based upon "national origin". I guess we will get pages and pages of heated discussion over the difference between "waste", "refuse" and "trash". --Nug (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know about that, but I certainly can read a difference between “racial” and “national”. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 02:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, using "race" anywhere near völkerabfälle give a completely different idea from what is actually meant, and I would question both the translation ability and motives of anyone who translated it as "racial trash". Something like "national remains" or "fragments" would be more accurate IMO. "refuse" or "debris" could also be appropriate, though more negatively connotative than I would use. None of these are literal of course, but you shouldn't translate terms like this literally to begin with. BSMRD (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@BSMRD: Pardon the blunt question BSMRD, but are you a German speaker? The reason I ask is that I have never heard anyone translate the word Abfall as anything other than some version of trash or waste. The only way "fragments" could be used is in the sense of "fragments of trash" i.e. since Abfälle is the plural form of the word, though I would translate as pieces of trash. The semantic translation of Völkerabfälle in modern English is probably something along the lines of "garbage nationalities", but literally would be "pieces of national trash." AShalhoub (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Small 'degenerated' ethnic groups—'ruined fragments of peoples' such as Bretons, Basques, Scottish Gaelic speakers and most Slavs, were rightly 'destined to perish'." Tombs, Bobby. "Must Marx and Engels be cancelled?". History Reclaimed. three weeks ago ~ cygnis insignis 14:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Is the point of this quote to argue that Engels isn't racist, or that Abfall should be translated as fragments? AShalhoub (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What Tombs is arguing is up to the reader, what I am noting is they used the same point to discuss Engels "three weeks ago" on their History Reclaimed site. I was reading the site because Tombs commented on this article in the Daily Telegraph, leveling an accusation at those who thought it should be deleted. ~ cygnis insignis 23:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll tag on discussion of the site for those wondering about the redlink: Lester, Alan (15 September 2021). "History Reclaimed – But From What?". Snapshots of Empire [blog]. University of Sussex.. ~ cygnis insignis 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Directing hate against someone on the basis of national origin is still considered racist. —Nug (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Is it considered 'racist' by you? ~ cygnis insignis 03:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

By the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice: "Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, ethnic or national origin or religious intolerance motivated by racist considerations, which destroys or compromises the sovereign equality of States and the right of peoples to self-determination, or which limits in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner the right of every human being and group to full development is incompatible with the requirements of an international order which is just and guarantees respect for human rights;". So yes, by that standard Engels was a racist. --Nug (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

By that and many more modern standards, majority of 19th century people we know about were racists, and many 20th century leaders would be considered white supremacists, so I do not see why single out Engels for that, especially when both Marx and Engels still represented at least a moderately progressive stand by their standards, and why we should cite Watson, who not only had no expertise on Communism and/or Marxism but held the fringe view that Hitler was a Marxist and Marx invented genocide. It is also an example of false balance because while we cite criticism by Grant in his academic review, we cite Andrzej Walicki as if Watson's views are not as fringe as they are because they are supported by a single historian. Davide King (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• That is WP:SYNTH. What matters is the relative prominence and reputability of the sources; Watson is nether particularly reputable nor noteworthy, so his personal feelings about how it ought to be translated and what it means carry no weight and shouldn't be discussed, certainly not with an entire paragraph devoted to them. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well given that Watson’s book has 20 cites and has been subject of a review, it certainly is more prominent and notable than Engel-Di Mauro who is cited by nobody. -Nug (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that's your standard, then - anything relevant with ~20 citations and one review (which can be a critical review) ought to get a paragraph devoted to it in this article? I'm not sure it's viable to include everything at that standard, but it'll be useful to at least have a baseline in mind for inclusion at this level of detail. --Aquillion (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Actually, in this section, I already explained the flaw in this user's argumentation (just scroll a little bit up). However, instead of answering to my arguments, he decided to repeat this argument again.

I even may try to predict what the answer to your post will be. This user may argue that that is not his standard, but Paul Sibert's approach. Which would be totally wrong: according to my approach, citations count is just one factor out of many, and it should never be taken out of context. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of citations may be a sign of notability, not necessarily of reliability — e.g. it may also be cited in many sources that are unreliable. Holy moly, the chapter by Valentino deveoted to Communist regimes has been cited once (considering that the book is about genocides and mass killings in general during the 20th century, the number of citations for the book as a whole should not be seen as proof that Communist mass killing is widely cited). I guess we must remove Valentino now... Davide King (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, we are getting off topic here, the issue being WP:UNDUE with respect to some of these newer additions. The problem with this is: Author XXX publishes a paper on some aspect of MKuCR, which in turn is cited by 55 other scholars. Some editor finds one cite by author YYY that criticizes author XXX's paper and tells us this is proof that XXX is controversial and/or his paper is junk, but the editor ignores the fact that the other 54 scholars cite XXX's paper without criticism. What is happening here is that confirmation bias is leading to people giving more weight to some opinion than is warranted. --Nug (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I find it interesting you say that because confirmation bias applies to defenders of this article who are looking for sources about Communist regimes and mass killings, ignoring the fact that most of them are either passing mentions in a much broader work (Mann) or are within the context of general genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (Fein, Valentino), and where a single university syllabus, which may well be based off this article and is why this article should have been deleted long ago and recreated only when such issues were solved, by someone who has published nothing on Communism and is an expert on Putin's Russia, is seen as the smoking gun that all our assertions are false.

Again, if all those were majority views, it should be easy to prove (hell, even AmateurEditor admitted that most of them are minority views but deemed them significant and fine as long as they are attributed, but if we have to attribute everything and the article is a bunch of "He said, she said", what is the point and what does it add?) — we cannot write a NPOV article based on minority views, no matter how significant they are, and it also matters in which field they are because genocide studies does not hold the same weight as political science, historians of Communism, and country experts and specialists hold. Davide King (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• You cannot simply focus scrutiny on newer additions. Due weight is relative; therefore, if you are going to object to one source on an article, it is logical to compare and contrast it with the weight accorded to others on the same page - especially ones with opposing viewpoints. When you object to one source on WP:DUE grounds, any other sources that can reasonably be construed as having comparable or lesser weight need to be discussed as well. It's fine to say "ah, but this source has a bunch of people who treat them as reputable", but you need to actually be able to produce and discuss those (which leads to its own discussions of which secondary opinions are more weighty - not every dismissal or citation is equivalent.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The article didn’t appear like a mushroom over night, previous additions have been scrutinised, look at the pages of talk. So of course the focus is necessarily on new additions, obviously in context of what is already there. Other we run the risk of WP:COATRACKINGing. —Nug (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, this is largely untrue. The article was full-protected for six years (and the protection was introduced in the middle of a serious conflict when the entire article was unstable); this is part of the reason it's in such a sorry state, since Wikipedia's standards advanced over those years and this article didn't. As a result, many additions never received proper scrutiny. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The statement by Engels in "The Magyar Struggle" is:

"There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples [Völkerabfälle] always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution."

His first example was the Scots. As we all know, Scots were "suppressed and held in bondage" by the English, then became "fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution" of Bonnie Prince Charlie until his defeat at Culloden in 1746, after which the Jacobite uprising ended and Scots came to regard themselves as British. Subsequently Scots played leading roles in the British Empire.

TFD (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A quote from the opening remarks of the 1978 UN declaration, a translation of Völkerabfälle, "So yes, by that standard Engels was a racist" … @Nug: is that what happened? ~ cygnis insignis 14:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@TFD These völkerabfälle Scots are seeking independence from the UK at the last I heard. You know what “extirpation” means, right? And Engels called for the complete extirpation of these trash peoples because he saw them fanatical counter revolutionaries. In the light of current human rights practice how can anyone defend that today? —Nug (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, Scotland voted 55% to remain in the UK and 62% to remain in Europe. Whether or not the seceed from the UK, there is no indication that an independent Scotland would be governed according to the clan system. Engels' view was part of liberal ideology of the day. It is entirely disingenuous of Watson to see this view as something invented by socialists.

There is no indication either that these comments were repeated. Watson's thesis was that similar comments were deliberately hidden from the public (although the view on assimilation continued to be part of liberal ideology into the 1960s), but somehow guiding modern communists. Ironcially, the same people who bring this up also accuse the Left of supporting "multiculturalism." TFD (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that a part of what Marx and Engels wrote during that period was a description of bourgeois (nationalist) revolutionary processes in those times Europe that, according to them, were paving a way to a Communist revolution. I found no statements in Marx or Engels work where they said that some national or ethnic group must be destroyed by or during or after some Communist revolution, and that their destruction is something that a new Communist government is supposed to accomplish.

In contrast, from the context, it is clear that potential destruction of of some backward groups during or as a result of European nation building processes was seen favourably by Engels. However, and it must be clear from the context, these processes were expected to be accomplished before Communist revolution would occur in Europe, and that destruction was not the Communists's goal. That destruction, as well as many other brutal processes were seen by Engels as a manifestation of capitalism, and it would create prerequisites for Communist revolution. There would be no backward ethnic groups anymore that Communists would need to destroy.

If my understanding of Engels is correct (and I have a strong feeling it is), all attempts to sherry-pick some statements from Engels to demonstrate his racism or to make i=him a proponent of "Communist genocide" a pure manipulation. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. And it is ahistorical to assign modern concepts to his article. Engels for example referred to revolutionary Slavs and Germans as revolutionary peoples, and Slavs and Germans opposing them as counter-revolutionary peoples. Watson would translate people as race and say this is racism. By that logic, the allies were racists for wanting to defeat Germany and japan. TFD (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts about this? Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on 'Soviet Genocide'". Journal of Genocide Research. 7 (4): 551–559. doi:10.1080/14623520500350017. ISSN 1462-3528. Davide King (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

'Dispute resolution' is not a legitimate reason to remove content.

Per this edit summary, "If the article is kept, let’s leave this to the reactivated DR process where there will be a number of RFCs", [34] I'd like to remind people that there is nothing whatsoever in policy that says that people uninvolved in the DR discussion are in any shape or form obliged to wait for an undetermined length of time until particular contributors start as-yet-undefined RFCs. If, as seems likely, this article is kept, about the only positive thing likely to result from the trainwreck RfC discussion is that it has attracted a broader range of contributors to the article. Contributors who are fully entitled to edit the article, according to relevant policies, in any manner they see fit. 'Leave this' until a particular subset of contributors agree to something or other isn't remotely a legitimate reason to revert anything.

It seems readily apparent from the behaviour of a few individuals, on both sides of this debate, that there are severe 'ownership' issues involved, adding more heat to the obviously-contentious nature of the topic itself. I see no reason why this sort of delaying tactic should be tolerated if it is going to prevent progress, and I suggest that anyone thinking about using such arguments in the future should avoid them, if they don't want to be seen as disrupting the process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

?? Delaying tactic? That is just bizarre. Let’s have an RFC over this clearly contentious section then. -Nug (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't explain how you consider it ok to remove a well sourced and supported section, especially the previous justification was "oh well it wasn't there before". Dark-World25 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If the objective of writing "let’s leave this" wasn't to delay it, why did you write it? As for RfC's, I have no objection to properly-formed and policy-compliant ones, provided they actually serve a purpose. Having 'an RFC' in the abstract may or may not be a good thing though. Hard to tell, without knowing what it is supposed to be about. Personally, I think that the fundamental issue to be resolved is what exactly the scope of this article is supposed to be, rather than one about a few specific phrases, or about the exact meaning of the word "Völkerabfälle" (see section above), and that needs to be discussed first. By everyone, not just a few contributors who have been arguing back and forth inconclusively for years on end. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess you believe a chaotic approach will help fix things. Rather than sit on the fence criticising everyone, why don’t you start by articulating here what you think the scope of the article should be. —Nug (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The scope of the article? For a start it absolutely, per WP::NPOV, must include scholarly debate over whether attempting to attribute 'mass killings' to something inherent in something as ill-defined as 'communist regimes' is fruitful, or even meaningful. It must also include scholarly debate over whether trying to compile a 'total' of 'mass killings' is an appropriate histographical process, given the obviously-problematic and inherently subjective inclusion criteria involved. And it must likewise, if such subjective 'totals' are to be included at all, note their historical context, and the (appropriately-sourced) later criticism of the validity of such 'totals'. What the article will not do, per WP:NPOV policy, is to define its scope is such a manner to precisely limit said scope to ensure that only one very limited perspective on the complex issues involved is covered. That, quite simply, is a violation of Wikipedia policy. And an insult to readers, who should be permitted to make up their own minds on such issues, rather than being spoon-fed simplistic one-dimensional rhetoric from the pop-up-book of Evil Empires. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The title is a descriptive, "Communist regimes" is a widely used term. The article makes no claim that "mass killings" is inherent in "communist regimes", no more than Valentino implies it, but he groups them together never the less. That these killings happened under communist regimes, that they were some of the worst episodes of the prior century, and that communist regimes have killed a massive number of people are mainstream and incontrovertible. That all communist regimes engaged in mass killing, that communism somehow inherently leads to such killings, that Communism is worse than Fascism aren't presented as fact in the article. In regards to your proposal for s section on the scholarly debate, does such a debate actually exist in the sources, all I see is a lot of criticism and polemic over Courtois's number (which is already covered in the article) which is then conflated to include the other dozen estimates in a WP:SYNTHy manner. Even if we halve Courtois' number by excluding famines, is 50 million killed somehow better than 100 million? --Nug (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to get engaged in a debate with you here. You asked me for my opinion on the appropriate scope of the article, and I gave it, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies. And if the article is kept, I shall endeavour to ensure that the article complies with such policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Pray tell why the first results I get under both communist mass killings and "communist mass killings" are related to Indonesia (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)? Davide King (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think I should search for "communist regimes" "mass killings", "communist regimes" mass killings, and communist regimes "mass killings", I get Rummel and Valentino but I also still get Indonesia ("Constructive Bloodbath" in Indonesia: The United States, Britain and the Mass Killings of 1965–66, mass killings in general, and mass killings in single Communist regime and/or "Asian Communist regimes" from Margolin (I stopped after a few pages because they were all like this) — so the issues remains, are Rummel and Valentino majority sources? We simply cannot write a NPOV article based on the views of a minority, no matter how significant. The structure must be reversed. Davide King (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Valentino's chapter about Communist mass killing has been cited once, it must be considered a not so significant minority view, while the book itself is certainly more significant for Mass killing in general, since that is his whole point and scope. Is this wrong and/or I missed something, Paul Siebert? Davide King (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No. You are wrong. Usually, a whole book is cited. And, by the way, that is a reason why Courtois is cited so broadly: when experts in Russia need to cite Werth, they inevitably cite the whole book. That is a standard practice.

It would be much productive to approach this problem totally differently, to answer the following questions:

• What is the main Valentino's contribution to science? Why he is notable?
• What in the Valentino's theory in general? How it describes and explains mass killings?
• What is the place of "communist mass killings" in the Valentino's theory? What causal linkage he sees and what he rejects?

By having answered these questions, we will better understand how exactly this source should be used in this article (if it will be kept) or in other articles. However, it is a little bit premature to speak about that. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we are going to get answers to that, since we are just going to be accused of misreading Tago & Wayman 2010.

I think that answers your questions — "Communist mass killings" is not what he is notable for, and most citations cite the whole book, but the whole book is about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century. I also have to agree with one comment that AndyTheGrump made in the AfD (As for Valentino and Rummel, these are the same authors that have been repeatedly cited for many years in discussions over the disputed article, and the fact that they are being cited yet again surely illustrates just how isolated from mainstream historiography they have become.), and even though it should not be up to us to prove whether they are majority and minority, I think we already did that. Valentino is not cited at all in Karlsson 2008, and Rummel is, well, dismissed to say the least; Courtois does not seem to represent a majority view either according to Karlsson 2008. What more 'proof' do we need?

Davide King (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

?? You clearly don't know what Tago & Wayman 2010 is about if you think it related to Valentino or Courtois. Paul's questions about Valentino's conclusions are irrelevant in terms of how this article is structured, the fact that he still grouped communist regimes together for the purpose of his analysis is the key point here. There is no synthesis in this grouping because that's what he and other authors like Bellamy have done. Nobody has claimed Valentino has inferred anything by that grouping because there is no issue with that grouping, and yet the delete !voters continue to claim this same structure infers something beyond what is clearly attributed to the various authors. --Nug (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: I am going to exhaustively address these your arguments in this my post. If there will be no response from you, I will assume you understood and accepted them. If you will not respond, but raise these arguments again, I am going to interpret it as stonewalling (and may use it in other platforms if I find that appropriate).

Three facts are important:

• Valentino's theory of mass killings states that regime type and ideology are not important predictor of mass killings onset (that is important, because his main goal was not to explain, but to predict and prevent mass killings);
• Valentino groups what he defines as "mass killings" under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot into one chapter of his book, which implies some degree of commonality;
• Valentino puts Afghanistan counter-guerilla warfare into a different chapter, which implies that the previous grouping was made according to some other criterion than Communism.

And now I am waiting for proposals from all of you guys how to correctly present Valentino's view in this article (of course, if it will not be deleted). I am not going to participate in this discussion until the admins's verdict. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing cause (as a predictor) (the substance of Valentino's conclusion), and topology (the six types defined by Valentino: communist, ethnic, territorial, counterguerilla, terrorist and imperialist), where the communist type comprises of agricultural collectivisation and political terror (which is unique to this regime type). --Nug (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It is — did you not say that we are misreading Tago & Wayman 2010 and that you think regime type is more important? Tago & Wayman 2010 say Valentino is just a bit closer to Rummel but also say that Valentino disagrees with Rummel's authoritarian and totalitarian conclusion, and that this is a complication of original theory his book is based on because regime type does not really matter. Valentino's Communist mass killing grouping is limited to Stalin's USSR, Mao's PRC, and Pol Pot's Kampuchea, while Afghanistan is grouped in counter-insurgency mass killing. It is Courtois and Malia who apply the Communist grouping to any nominal Communist regime ("generic Communism"), which is controversial and not supported by majority of scholars. We cannot write a NPOV article based on minority views — the article should be restructured from majority sources to present Courtois, Rummel, and other scholars' views, not vice versa.

The synthesis is not necessarily the grouping in itself, which is more a NPOV issue because it is not supported by majority of scholars who by and large discuss them individually, but taking chapters mentioning Communist regimes in works about mass killings in general to mean it is a separate category and treat it as such. A more accurate summary would be Mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and/or a comparative analysis between those three regimes, because that is what most sources say. Even Bellamy says that "Communist regimes massacred millions of civilians during the Cold War" but limit himself to the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, and says uncontroversial things like that Communist regimes committed atrocities but there were no mass killings (50,000 within five years) other than Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes. Again, what is the main topic of this article supposed to be? Any Communist atrocity? Communist mass killings (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot)? A Communist death toll (where the focus is not mass killing in its academic usage but (excess) mass deaths)?

You may think they are but those are not all the same things. Davide King (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"The Cold War Struggle (1): Capitalist Atrocities". There are no excuses for a similar article about capitalist regimes then. By the way, I am not wasting my time to discuss what sources says (I will let Siebert doing that) — can we write a NPOV article if majority of sources used are, in fact, minority? Alex J. Bellamy is an academic who directs the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and is a professor in the department of peace and conflict studies at University of Queensland. We should expect that if someone is going to write about Communism, they should have published works about Communism and/or being some specialists (e.g. Rosefielde or Wheatcroft) — we cannot write an article about Communism from the perspective of minority genocide scholars who have no relevant expertise about Communism. We would have no issues if scholars of Communism and genocide scholars actually relied on and cited each other but they do not, meaning that this article is always going to be from a minority POV of genocide scholars, who are criticized not only by mainstream political science (Verdeja 2012) and does not appear to have changed, which should be enough, but even among themselves (Weiss-Wendt 2008).

Davide King (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

An interesting source. That confirms an obvious notion that when some author group some fact into one book chapter, that does not implies a new topic is created. I expect to see @Nug:'s comments here. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Seumas Milne?

Why is Seumas Milne supposedly a reliable source for this article? He's a mediocre politician who did not exactly cover himself with glory in his most recent role as Jeremy Corbyn's enforcer for trying to deny the existence of antisemitism in the Labour Party. AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea that Seumas Milne was an "enforcer for trying to deny the existence of antisemitism in the Labour Party" is a deranged fantasy of the UK's far-right media (and also a pretty clear libel). I'd be embarrassed to put it forward as a topic for discussion at the Spectator cocktail party, let alone on Wikipedia, but I guess nothing embarrasses some people. DublinDilettante (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too interested in continuing this discussion (having made my point clearly), but for the record, I get the great majority of my UK news from the Guardian website, which has by no means followed a strict Corbynite party line, by the way: see 'Back in the bunker': Labour unease with Corbyn's cadre grows, as well as these: [35], [36]. (I'm not even sure what the "far-right media" are in the UK.) AnonMoos (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As you know, unless you're far too poorly informed to even be participating in this discussion, the Guardian has been the main organ of Blairite antipathy and resistance to Jeremy Corbyn and the strain of politics they believe he represents. If you don't know what the far-right media are in the UK, I look forward to you defending the Spectator's views on immigration, Muslims and the Wehrmacht. And that's before you get to the tabloids. And no, you haven't made your point clearly. You haven't made a point at all, just repeated a smear. DublinDilettante (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Umm, The Guardian is centre-left, the fact that you think it is far-right media somewhat invalidates your arguments I think. --Nug (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That is clearly not what they said — they said The Spectator's views on immigration, Muslims, and the Wehrmacht are far right, while The Guardian represents the right wing of the Labour Party, which is clearly not the same thing. Davide King (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, contributors personal opinions on the merits of politicians and other commentators aren't relevant to decisions as to their reliability as a source. If Wikipedia policy on this has actually changed, please indicate where exactly, as I'd like to be able to cite it while I rewrite half the content of the encyclopaedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Anything that Seumas Milne wrote on the subject of antisemitism in the Labour Party (the scope of his most recent employment) would be overwhelmingly likely to be filled with lies and personal vendettas, so I'm not sure why he's a trusted source on Communism and Colonialism... Is Hugh Trevor-Roper a reliable source? AnonMoos (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Milne is or isn't 'a trusted source on Communism and Colonialism'. I'm not even sure what a 'trusted source' means in the context of this article, given the self-evidently contentious nature of its topic. And WP:RS doesn't in any case require that sources be 'trusted' for their opinions. Whether such opinions are included in an article is of course subject to policies and guidelines, but again, not liking what they say about something isn't an appropriate reason to exclude them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Speaks volumes on the paucity of sources disputing mass killings that Seumas Milne is seen as reliable on this topic. --Nug (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you even pretending that your investment in retaining this page is not a political crusade at this point? Do you want to tell us what your issue with Seumas Milne is? This "contribution" alone invalidates all your arguments on this topic DublinDilettante (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that Milne is supported by historian Jon Weiner? Historian and journalists, such as Seumas Milne and Jon Wiener, have criticized the emphasis on communism when assigning blame for famines. In a 2002 article for The Guardian, Milne mentions "the moral blindness displayed towards the record of colonialism", and he writes: "If Lenin and Stalin are regarded as having killed those who died of hunger in the famines of the 1920s and 1930s, then Churchill is certainly responsible for the 4 million deaths in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943." Milne laments that while "there is a much-lauded Black Book of Communism, [there exists] no such comprehensive indictment of the colonial record."[267] Weiner makes a similar assertion while comparing the Holodomor and the Bengal famine of 1943, stating that Winston Churchill's role in the Bengal famine "seems similar to Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine." I fail to see what is so controversial about this, other than not simply liking any form of controversy and criticism, and the lack of same standard applied to colonialism. Davide King (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

More likely is that Milne read Weiner and is just repeating those same talking points, I doubt he did any independent research, so his inclusion doesn't add anything, it just looks ridiculous. --Nug (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If we are removing sources for looking ridiculous, may I suggest that we remove Victims of Communism first? I hardly think that counting deaths due to the pandemic, Nazis killed in World War 2, and potentially unborn, unconceived children as "victims of communism" is any less ridiculous. Dark-World25 (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that Milne (Milne 2002) was published in The Guardian (a reliable source) ten years before Weiner's reference (Weiner 2012), your allegation makes no sense. Davide King (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: On this talk page, I repeatedly mentioned the name of Cormac O'Grada, a renown famine expert. In one of his papers, he analyses Chinese and Bengal famines in much more neutral terms. Due to copyright reasons, I am not reproducing his conclusion in full, but one fragment is shown below.

"Not so the Bengal and Great Leap Famines, which tend to be blamed, not one conomic backwardness or harvest deficits, but on human agency. Malthus believed that the problems of corruption and poor governance were largely endogenous, and was sceptical of the power of public policy to mitigate famine. Most accounts, however, blame the Bengal famine of 1943–4 on a combination of market failure and public inaction rather than harvest failure, while the conventional wisdom on China sees the harvest failures that produced the famine as endogenous to the follies of the Great Leap. This paper attempts to add to our understanding in two respects. Firstly, in the case of China, it has been argued that more room should be made for the supply side factors stressed by Malthus. More historical context has been added by drawing attention to China’s relative poverty and the overlap between high excess mortality regions and those previously vulnerable to famine. The famine remains an outlier, but to an extent fits a pattern established by the mid-nineteenth century."

Since I pinged you, I assume you will see this text by the moment when you make your next edit. That article is one out of many articles that address and debunks your argument about a lack of independent comparative research of "communist" and "non-communist" famines. If this article will survive deletion, this, as many other discussions will be preserved. If you continue to put forward the same argument again (as if it has not been addressed), I may make some conclusion that I may share with admins. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD Header

While this AfD has not yet been formally closed, it is locked for editing. The AfD header invites people to "share (their) thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page." As this is not possible, should the header be removed? schetm (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the link could be piped to the AfD talk page? This is really an edge case, not a problem in 99% of AfDs. I don't think removing the header is the right move, considering it hasn't been decided yet. BSMRD (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It's possible. The AfD has a talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Russian philosopher Karl Marx

This made my day. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Doh! AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

LMAO. X-Editor (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

FAQ Q1

How should Q1 of the FAQ be rephrased, now that most recent consensus is no longer to keep? I was going to just rewrite it myself, but figured seeking community input first would be for the best. BSMRD (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

What revised text were you proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Something simple to the effect of:

A1: According to a weak consensus of Wikipedia editors, the topic is found in reliable secondary sources and meets Wikipedia policy requirements. This consensus was established by two deletion discussions in 2010

A part of me feels uncomfortable saying there is any consensus on keeping the article though, considering there are double the No Consensus closes to Keep closes. BSMRD (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

We can't say that there is currently 'a week consensus' for the article. That isn't what the AfD close says. it says no consensus. All we can really say is that we have repeatedly debated the subject, and have been unable to resolve the matter. And that per policy, 'no consensus' articles are kept, until a firm decision is made one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, in light of the last AfD, there only legitimate answer is "Because so far there was no consensus to delete it". I suggest to remove A1 altogether, because there is no consensus answer to this question. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think keeping the question is helpful, as it is obviously a topic which is regularly brought up - as evidenced by the AfD. It is also good context for editors wishing to edit the article. They can read previous discussions, or at the very least see that this is a controversial article. Until the DR is closed it could read something like 'This article was considered for deletion in November 2021 with no consensus achieved. The article is currently the subject of a DR that will determine its future'.

Having said that, I am not completely against the idea of removing the question if we can't find a decent solution. Vanteloop (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the DR isn't going to 'determine' anything. Per Wikipedia policy, it can't. DR is a mediation process between individuals, and nothing decided there is in any way binding on anyone else. If positive proposals result from the DR, they can of course be considered, but participants in that particular discussion have no more authority than anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, the RfCs that spin out of that will be semi-binding if they can achieve consensus. But as I said I have no problem deleting it if needs be. Vanteloop (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The question should obviously be deleted. Even the panel’s “ruling” more or less accepted that the article exists, at least partially, because some of the best-funded hard-right media organisations in the world have decreed that it should never be deleted. That’s a farcical situation, but at least we should be honest about it. DublinDilettante (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"No consensus" and preliminary conclusions

Here is my summary of the recent AfD.

• The AfD text was very poorly written.
• The discussion has drawn attention of many new users, who may join the work on this article and improve it.
• The verdict is "No consensus", which is not an endorsement of the current article's version by a community. That means this version cannot be seen as a stable one.
• The summary of the article's problems made by the panes was accurate. It says:

"To the extent there were substantive attempts to engage between the two sides, the discussion centered on whether the references given in support of the article actually represented a significant, mainstream view in reliable sources, or were 'cherry-picked' examples from a non-significant, 'fringe' minority. A subsidiary debate concerned whether the sources presented were correctly interpreted. In our analysis, these questions represent the core of the dispute, and are critical to deciding whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, we can find no consensus on them, and consider it unlikely that further discussion in this forum will produce one.

In connection to that, I am going to focus exclusively on those two issues, which I propose to fix. If that will not be done in one-two years, I am going to write a good AfD, which will correctly formulate all core problems and demonstrate its fundamental incompatibility with article's existence. As this AfD demonstrated, admin's panel will not count votes, so, if the article will not be fixed, the outcome of a well written AfD will easy to predict. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Even if there is a well-written AfD in the future, I fail to see how that would stop the same disagreement and lack of consensus that plagued the last deletion discussion. I don't think we will ever be able to get rid of this article, not that I want it to be deleted since I voted Strong Keep in the last discussion. X-Editor (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The panel did not make a summary of the article's problems as Paul suggests, they made a summary on what the discussion was centred on. --Nug (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The media organizations that reported the deletion discussion were Fox News, Not the Bee, Media Research Center, Breitbart News and the Telegraph. Since those sources tend to attract both misinformed and far right readers (there's a strong overlap there), that no doubt had an influence on the outcome. TFD (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yet another reason why there should not be a future deletion discussion anytime soon. It will inevitably be canvassed by these kinds of media organizations which will poison the well, or in this case, Wikipedia. X-Editor (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not seeing your logic here. Because dishonest extreme right-wing media organisations will distort the process by canvassing for the article to be kept, the article should be kept? If you have any regard for the integrity of Wikipedia, that’s an argument for deleting the article outright, not for retaining it! Bizarre reasoning. DublinDilettante (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I hardly think that The Daily Telegraph is "far right". Even if half the keep !votes were discarded as "canvassed", there are still double the keeps compared to deletes, so I think this canvassing issue is somewhat overblown. --Nug (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That you think an arbitrary hypothetical figure would be higher than another arbitrary hypothetical figure is not an argument for anything, but it’s pretty much been the standard of this debate, unfortunately. DublinDilettante (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug, that's the second time today you misrepresented someone who used the term far right, the other being at 02:56, 1 December 2021. IIRC you once accused me of calling you far right. The term seems to hit a raw nerve in you. FYI I did not say that the Telegraph is far right, which should be obvious to you, but that they attract far right readers. Here for example is a link to a picture of Steve Bannon, who has been described as far right, reading the Telegraph. Similarly, I have never called Fox News far right, but note that it is the go to network for U.S. right-wing extremists. Incidentally, the only other encyclopedia I could find with an article with this name was Metapedia. TFD (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd think that Newsmax might be the go-to network for those who are really on the fringe right, rather than Fox News... — Mhawk10 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@DublinDilettante: What I'm saying is that it is impossible to have an honest deletion discussion because outside right-wing canvassers will ruin any future deletion discussions. X-Editor (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is functionally the same thing as giving right-wing canvassers a veto over the content of Wikipedia. DublinDilettante (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no. This AfD demonstrated that admins do not count votes. If they did, the outcome would be "Keep". "No consensus" means the article barely survived deletion, and that "barely" is because the AfD text was very poorly written. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively it means that admins had no way of discerning consensus because of the disruptive canvassing. There's a big difference between a discussion that experiences canvassing disruption that makes things more uncertain and one that's really 50-50 either way without any disruption. To say that it barely survived deletion is the wrong conclusion in this case. — Mhawk10 (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The AfD said: "Even before examining the strength of arguments, and allowing for canvassing, this 4:1 ratio strongly suggests that there is no consensus to delete the article." Therefore, canvassing indeed played a big role in the result to not delete the article, so while barely survived deletion may still be a far stretch, I think Siebert still got the AfD's conclusion mostly right and is closer to reality than saying admins had no way of discerning consensus because of the disruptive canvassing — the fact they counted strength of arguments and not votes shows that they clearly had way of discerning consensus, but due to canvassing and a 4–1 ratio they could not establish that there was consensus to delete. Davide King (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: I can explain. AfD revealed all possible arguments in support of "keep", and they were not impressive. If I were an Wiki-LZW, I would archive them into just few sentences that express just a couple of thoughts. As we all know, LZW is a good measure of redundancy: if some massage significantly shrinks upon archivation, it is redundant. All "keep" votes shrinks into just a few, and I know how to address them. A new AfD will contain their refutation, and I have a strong doubt the "keep" proponents will be able to properly respond. The 4th AfD demonstrated that admins do not just count !votes, and that means a new AfD may have serious chances for success. That is not my goal, but we all should keep that in mind. And, since the admins havev demonstrated that they do not count !votes, the only problem with canvassing is that they put an additional psychological pressure on admins. Personally, I was satisfied to see that every canvassed voter just repeated the same superficial arguments.

@Nug: The panel summarized the votes, and the votes described all serious problems of this article. Therefore, the panel de facto summarized the problems that may lead to potential deletion of this article in future. If we don't want this article to be deleted, we must fix them.

@The Four Deuces: That far right (or rightist) mass media criticized this deletion does not mean the article is leftist. It means it is rightist. And our goal is to restore the balance. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This comment illustrates what hasn't been addressed about the whole AFD process. If you go through the discussion, it's all but impossible to come to the conclusion that several of the editors most engaged in the discussion view the article as an ideological battleground, which directly conflicts with the goal of providing neutral, informative content. In particular, I would ask those reading this if the following statement tracks: "That far right (or rightist) mass media criticized this deletion does not mean the article is leftist. It means it is rightist." Paul Siebert, can you explain how you came to this conclusion? AShalhoub (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Paul Siebert, so I ping them, but the fact that coverage came from right-leaning sources, most of them either unreliable or far right, shows that this topic is indeed a rightist one rather than mainstream scholarly discourse,1 and that if there is a battleground, it does not come from us or from the Left. If it truly was a mainstream scholarly discourse, as this article attempts to make it out to be, surely mainstream scholars of Communism would have expressed their thoughts and mainstream press would have reported it; even The Telegraph, the only reliable source to cover the story, cherry picked the opinion of a single 19th-century France specialist, who engaged in Holocaust trivialization and slippery slope that Wikipedia is going to delete genocides, when they could have asked prominent mainstreams scholars of Communism (Ellman, Getty, Fitzpatrick, Kotkin, Snyder, Suny, Wheatcroft) what they really thought, and chose Clifford May, of all people, saying that over 100 million have died under Communism, a claim not even supported by Courtois — it further proves mine and Siebert's point.

Here's the issue with that logic. This article is a long list of atrocities that everyone agrees took place. If it could be shown that the push for article deletion was promoted in leftist media, or that the people in support of deleting were leftist, would that prove that the atrocities were leftist atrocities? AShalhoub (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

1. Again, if it is not a mainstream scholarly discourse and/or does not even represent a majority view, then what is the point and why are we discussing it in the first place without secondary/tertiary coverage? We cannot write a NPOV article from the POV of a minority view and without tertiary sources that help us establish weight. Davide King (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied by the panel's closure, and I hope that now we will no longer be dismissed — there is no longer any consensus, and that is now 4–2. Personally, I think AfDs should be restructured because No consensus should not by default result in Keep — the onus should always be on those making a positive claim, not asking us to prove a negative. Because I simply see no way this article is going to be 'deleted' (content certainly will not, nor it should be, as it is already covered elsewhere and can be easily moved, and Siebert, The Four Deuces, and I have proposed the same topic but with a totally different and NPOV structure) other than a 'supervote', and I understand why no admin would want to take the burden considering the right-wing media shitstorm to follow. There are always going to be more users that vote to 'Keep' simply because the events indeed happened and are notable on their own, which add to those who think it meets notability as a grouping and has no significant NPOV/SYNTH/WEIGHT issues. Therefore, the only way I can see this article being deleted is through repeated 'No consensus', and that if we cannot achieve consensus in the next one, two years after over a decade by now, we should restart all over, which is not an outright deletion either, so it could be seen as a compromise. I agree that sources must be analyzed and scrutinized, and I hope that Siebert can do that at DRN — their source analysis has been published in an academic journal and they know better than me. Davide King (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps that should have been considered as one more reason to delete? The fact that this has attracted right-wing media, and apart from The Telegraph, most of it either unreliable or far right, should have showed that this article represents a very specific and minority POV view of Communism that not even Conquest made

• (at least in his academic published works that I have read — e.g. Conquest did not write about mass killings under Communist regimes, he wrote about the Red Terror, the Holodomor, and the Great Purge in the Soviet Union. He treated these as separate subjects and did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes)
• and that if it truly was a majority or even significant minority view that is part of mainstream scholarly discourse, surely a majority of academics and specialists, not a single historian whose main speciality is 19th-century France and who may have engaged in Holocaust obfuscation and slippery slope for saying we are going to delete the Holocaust next (which shows how laymen, no matter how educated, have not the faintest idea of how Wikipedia works), and non-rightist mainstream press, would have come out. Or are they all Communist puppets for not covering it? Certainly this means we are not crazy or Communist apologists, and any such false accuses should be seen as personal attacks.

Certainly it is also going to be a problem if the article is nominated again in the next years if we have failed to fix such issues, and I do not think there will ever be consensus for 'Delete' unless a panel of admins decide to summarize the dispute as unfixable, with no consensus, and that we should either start all over or give up trying until perhaps scholarly sources that treat it is a majority, mainstream scholarly discourse topic (again, what topic and context though? 20th century? Genocide? Human rights?) come out en masse. Davide King (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that right-leaning media report on a topic that right-leaning people are likely to click on doesn't really seem like as one more reason to delete, any more than left-leaning media reporting widely on a topic is a reason to delete. The fact that a Wikipedia article deletion discussion got media coverage while it was going on from a quality press outlet probably indicates that there's something that's a bit newsworthy and surprising about the fact that there was even a proposal to delete the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 09:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Which of the far-right media outlets which manipulated this debate is a "quality press outlet?" I've really got to hear this...DublinDilettante (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that it was not to be taken literally, it was more of an observation that I still maintain. The fact that this got media coverage by largely right-leaning and unreliable sources should be telling that this topic reflects a rightist POV and popular press rather than majority scholarly discourse. I fail to see how a single, mainstream right-leaning paper (The Telegraph, which we describe as "generally reliable" but also say that "[s]ome editors believe that The Daily Telegraph is biased or opinionated for politics", which showed in their coverage) gave coverage to it "indicates that there's something that's a bit newsworthy and surprising about the fact that there was even a proposal to delete the article." You may have had a point if it was also reported by other mainstream papers. That was my point, which I do not think you have rebuked.

P.S. As for Fox News and the radical right, check Google Scholar, which supports what The Four Deuces said, namely that it is not far right but it has certainly attracted the radical right. Davide King (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the coverage in these publications encouraged the participation in the AfD of a lot of uninformed extremists, which affected the outcome.

Fox News averages 2.5 million viewers. 18% of Fox News viewers believe the media and government are "controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles."[37] That means the Fox News story reached 450,000 viewers [18% times 2.5 million = 450,000]. The argument that because most Fox News viewers are not far right, that they did not reach any members of the far right because none of them watch Fox News is bogus. I understand that some editors may have difficulty with basic arithmatic (apparently Courtois does too.) Anyway, Fox News and The Telegraph were not the only media that have far right fans. Not the Bee, Media Research Center and Breitbart News also have far right fans.

TFD (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that the AfD said: "Even before examining the strength of arguments, and allowing for canvassing, this 4:1 ratio strongly suggests that there is no consensus to delete the article." Therefore, canvassing indeed played a big role in the result to not delete the article,1 and this article is never going to be deleted if we consider a ratio to be reflective of consensus on whether to delete the article because there are always going to more users that would !keep — this is a serious problem because it is going to happen again if we renominate it after attempts to fix it have failed, hence why I said the only way this article is going to be deleted is through a panel's decision and/or admins consider it that if there is no consensus to keep the article again, and we have indeed tried to fix the issues, we should restart all over — either through deletion and/or reduction to stub with name change.

Notes

1. The fact that it did not result in 'Keep' either shows that our arguments were either stronger, or strong enough to not consider it to be consensus to keep the article, so I consider that as a win — it is 4–2 now. Davide King (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Which quality press outlet? Levivich 02:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume they meant The Telegraph but even then their bias showed, e.g. mentioning Clifford May. Davide King (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant The Telegraph, which is indeed a quality press outlet. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's another article in a right-wing source: "Wikipedia continues to rewrite history, this time prepares to delete page on mass killings under communist regimes: Here are the reasons they gave" (Opindia, Nov. 28) This source is right-wing and has routinely published fabricated stories, according to their Wikipedia article. I cannot provide a link because the site is blacklisted. TFD (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Terminology from the sandbox

The terms section written on the sandbox seems ready to replace the terms section of this article. However, considering that it is a high trafic page, I would like to reach a consensus before applying the change. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a really old version of the article that hasn't been substantially edited for a long time. Feel free to blow it away and write something else. --Nug (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of the grammar needs be imoproved. Other than that, looks good to me. XavierItzm (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Prior to the changes just made by XavierItzm, substantial editing to the sandbox ceased in 2013, and the sandbox seems to have been almost entirely forgotten. It would be grossly inappropriate to add material in such a manner without clear prior consensus, even if we weren't already discussing whether we need a section on 'terms' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE. Arguments regarding date of contribution hold limited weight. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If the sandbox section is being proposed, and it is not obvious, launch an RfC and see what the community thinks about the new text. That seems to be the best way forward on heavily-contentious pages. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@New and old participants&DRN

I would love to resume my participation on the DRN, but I am a little bit concerned that the DRN may be seen by someone as insufficiently representative. Is anybody here who is skeptical about it (in terms of representation etc)? If yes,what solution can you propose? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternative wording for FAQ Q1

This is, I think, more than fair, given the acknowledged inadequacy of the "keep by default" convention in the case of the AfD debate we've just had.

The article exists because the most recent proposal to delete it resulted in no consensus to either keep or delete the article. In accordance with Wikipedia’s operative procedures as of December 2021, this lack of consensus to either keep or delete the article results in the article being retained.

Furthermore, it has been acknowledged that right-wing media organisations conducted significant canvassing in favour of the article’s retention, and that such canvassing is likely to be repeated upon any subsequent proposal to delete the aritcle. The extent to which this consideration should be permitted to influence the article’s content (or existence) is still being debated.

While many of the claims put forward in the article are adequately sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines, the accuracy and reliability of these sources remain heavily disputed.

DublinDilettante (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a fair summary, though I am not sure the accuracy and reliability of these sources remain heavily disputed is correct — what we dispute is that they do not represent a majority, mainstream view (Courtois, Rummel, and genocide scholars are either controversial or minority), and that sources that are claimed to support the grouping as a separate category is likewise controversial and/or in several cases not true, e.g. Fein has a chapter about Soviet and Communist genocide but she does not treat this as a separate category, and most academic books about the subject are about mass killings in general, which is how the topic is discussed, not as we do.

This is also because we still do not agree on the main topic and its structure — is it a mere list of Communist mass killings, in which case it clearly violates our policies because only Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's regimes engaged in the most commonly accepted academic definition of mass killing (50,000 within five years)? Is it about a link between communism and mass killings, in which case it still has problems because the discussion of the events only includes the minority views of those who may support the link? Is it about both, in which case there may be serious NPOV/SYNTH issues that have not been solved? Is it about a Communist death toll or literally any death, excess death, excess mortality, and mass deaths, under Communist regimes, and mass killings is used in this generic sense, in which case it contradicts Mass killing and still has the same problems?

By the way, "communist death toll" on Google Scholars results show either Rummel, mentions of The Black Book of Communism, or unrelated results (hell, at least one source mentions a post-Communist death toll!), which is yet another proof that body-counting is not a majority mainstream scholarly discourse and reflects a minority with a specific POV, and despite this article acting as a citogenesis for over a decade by now, it has not entered mainstream scholarly discourse as a majority view or separate subject.

Davide King (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally leave out the second and third paragraph. They don't seem to be a direct answer to the FAQ. And, such canvassing is likely to be repeated upon any subsequent proposal to delete... seems honestly to be WP:CRYSTAL. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph - or something like it, I think the wording could be improved - is all that is needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph alone is a good suggestion. It presents the findings of the panel in a straightforward and neutral way. That is all that is needed Vanteloop (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

I invite everybody to present arguments in a support of this section. Concretely, I would like to know an answer to the questions:

• What is the need to explain the terms "Genocide" etc in this article?

I am asking because I see no logic in explaining broad and general terms in a more special and narrow article. Thus, the terms Plank constant, Momentum, uncertainty, coordinate are quite relevant to the Uncertainty principle article, and are being widely used in it. However, that article has no "Terminology" section that describes those terms, for a blue link system makes it redundant. In addition, most terms mentioned in the "Terminology" section are not used in the article at all.

Furthermore, some "terms" are not terms at all. Thus, the "term" red holocaust has no definition (if someone knows it, feel free to post it here). In contrast, it is ambiguous (a German book with this title is devoted exclusively to criticism of the Black Book; the same term is being used by other authors for the Holocaust obfuscation).

Another term, "repressions" has simultaneously much more narrow and more broad meaning, because it describes non-lethal victims, but it was applied to Stalinism only.

In summary, this section is misleading, useless, and it created a false impression that majority of scholars really try to propose some specific terminology for mass killings specifically in Communist states.

The only exception may be Mann's neologism "classicide", but, ironically, he proposed it in the book about a linkage between Democracy and mass killings.

In summary, I propose to delete this section. Deletion of this section will not lead to a loss of any valuable information from Wikipedia, for similar section exists in the Mass killing article, of which this one is a daughter article. The deletion will be a big step towards neutrality of this article.

Any objections? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The Mass killing article, which was recently expanded into an article in 2018 has serious underlaying POV issues. Let's discuss this in the DR process. --Nug (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've got to agree that this section seems questionable. An attempt to gather together multiple sources describing several seemingly different concepts, in order perhaps to construct a synthesis around the idea that they are all synonyms for 'mass killing'. Some may be, but if they are, in the context of the specific subject of this article ('communist regimes'), they don't need to be defined, merely cited in any appropriate section for material they directly support. As for discussing it 'in the DR process', feel free to do so if you like, but meanwhile the rest of us (those not participating in DR) will continue the process of trying to resolve the obvious issues this article has. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, I think that Mass killing was the NPOV article of Mass killings under communist regimes, e.g. it reflects majority of sources which discuss the topic in general and do not make such grouping and/or treat it as a separate category, so MKuCR is a content POV fork of Mass killing — that you think the reverse is true is certainly interesting but also doubtful. I agree to discuss it at the DR process, though you could have replied us back at Talk:Mass killing. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a feeling all participant of this talk page discussion are interested in that DRN, and it is not binding. That is why I want to see an opinion of a broader audience. What kind of POV issues are you talking into account? What concrete POV is overrepresented or underrepresented there?

In addition, we are talking about this article, and you failed to provide any argument in support of this section. Please, do it, otherwise I delete it. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: I see no fresh comments from you. If you are still objecting, I don't mind to start the DRN. If you are still insisting on a mediated discussion, please, let me know. However, I don't see why cannot we try to resolve the dispute here. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

One more point. This section conflates legal terms (genocide and crime against humanity) with scholarly terms. The former belong to a totally different section. All of that is deeply misleading, confusing, and aims to push one specific POV. That is an additional argument for deletion. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the difference in regard to the Uncertainty principle article is that the vast majority of scholars use substantially identical definitions for those terms, which isn't the case in this area.

My personal opinion is that the section is useful to introduce the reader to these terms - and importantly to the idea that different scholars approach the concept in different ways. However I do think for example Professor Klas-Göran Karlsson uses crimes against humanity, which includes "the direct mass killings of politically undesirable elements, as well as forced deportations and forced labour." Karlsson acknowledges that the term may be misleading in the sense that the regimes targeted groups of their own citizens, but he considers it useful as a broad legal term which emphasizes attacks on civilian populations and because the offenses demean humanity as a whole.[5] Historian Jacques Sémelin and Professor Michael Mann[6] believe that crime against humanity is more appropriate than genocide or politicide when speaking of violence by communist regimes.[7] See also: Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. is overly-long for a definition and that the section should be cut down. Vanteloop (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Why it is useful in this concrete article? Most of those terms are not used in the article at all, and, importantly, they are not used by 99% of country experts. "Genocide" and "Crimes against humanity" are not scholarly terms, they are legal terms, and they should be discussed in other sections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Usually, when we need to introduce a reader to the term "democide", we just used brackets like this: "Democide". That was invented specially for that case. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed deletion. A list of terms is useful. If you feel the "Genocide" item can be trimmed down, boldly go ahead. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  @XavierItzm: If you believe it is useful, please, provide your rationale. In particular, please, explain how this list helps understand other sections if most "terms" listed there are not mentioned at all? And, please, demonstrate what is a purpose of usage of such terms? Why some many terms were proposed? If you provide no answer, your post is just a !vote, which is not a part of a consensus building process. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As a general rule, explanations of terms are extremely useful to define how certain terms, which may be controversial, are used in an article. Feel free to boldly remove any terms which are not used in the article, of course. Posts not in agreement with such generally self-evident principles of building an encyclopaedia may perhaps not be considered part of an encyclopaedic process. XavierItzm (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: What is the need to explain a term if a simple blue link automatically directs a reader to the article that explains it in details? In reality, an overwhelming majority of scholars and other authors absolute;y do not care about a specific terminology for the topic. The whole story is aimed just to mislead a reader and create an impression that they do.

In reality:

• "Genocide" (and "Crimes against humanity") is a legal term, and its discussion is more relevant to the "Legal status ..." section. In particular, it should be explained in a context of a discussion of some concrete case, in particular, Cambodian genocide.
• "Mass killings" is a Valentino's term proposed as an umbrella to discuss all XX century coercive deaths inflicted by governments and paramilitary organizations. It was proposed as a category for statistical analysis and general theorizing, and it has no special implication to Communism
• "Politicide" is the same type terms, but it includes a subset of mass killings.
• "Democide" is a Rummel's concept that was discussed in details in another article. For all three cases, a blue link to relevant articles is quite sufficient.
• "Red Holocaust" is not a term at all.
• "Repressions" are used by the scholars who study USSR, and they do not imply any broader generalization. Wheatcroft's opinion was directly misinterpreted here.

In summary, all those terms must be either moved to another section ("Legal status ..."), where the discussion of what mass killings are considered genocide and why, and what are not is quite relevant, or deleted completely as useless and confusing.

However, if there is a disagreement about that, I propose to make that a subject of the first new DRN. Does anybody wants to participate? @Robert McClenon: is a brilliant mediator, and I am sure discussion under his supervision will lead to some consensus. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you say "an overwhelming majority of scholars and other authors absolute;y do not care about a specific terminology for the topic". This is untrue. As you know, scholars do spill a lot of ink using and defining the highly specific terms they have chosen to use to cover this topic. You yourself mention Valentino and Wheatcroft; your internal inconsistency here is glaring. This is so blindingly obvious, I won't even bother citing further sources.XavierItzm (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: Can you please answer two questions:

1. What is the main reason why Valentino introduced his term "Mass killing"?

2. What exactly Wheatcroft writes about the term "Repressions", and in which context he is using it?

In general, I think we definitely need a well organized and mediated discussion. I propose DRN. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, it is interesting that 'Terminology' pushed the view of Soviet machination of opposition to inclusion of political genocide, when even Genocide tells a different story, and use the more cautious may wording, at 'International law.' Davide King (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This section hardly serves the reader in understanding the further content in the article. It looks more like an artifact of the talk page disputes rather than a genuine attempt to aid the reader. Besides the mentioned reasons for removing (which are not being addressed) it's just plain poor writing. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, I saw no reasonable arguments in support for keeping this section. In next few days, I am going to move "Genocide" and "Crimes against humanity" to the "Legal status ..." section, where this content is quite relevant, and to remove general terms, neologisms, non-terms, and country-specific terms. That will lead to a complete deletion of the section, which will be an important step that will make the article more neutral. If someone has reasonable arguments against this step, please, present them here. If someone plans to resits to that, please, identify yourself, and we will start a DRN right now. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal User:XavierItzm , User:Nug, and myself have all disagreed with this proposal. There is clearly no consensus. Sections of the article dont get removed if Paul isn't satisfied. They get removed according to consensus. To remove this section without further discussion leading to consensus would be a clear act of bad faith. Filibustering to the point of exhaustion does not mean you have 'won' Vanteloop (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to disagree, you need to make a rational analysis based on our policies and guidelines, and explain why we are wrong — consensus is based on respect for our policies and guidelines, not votes. All the terms are already linked in the lead and are blue, so what does it add? It would have made sense if the terminology was actually widespread used, or limited to Communist mass killings, but it is not — except perhaps for classicide. Davide King (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

...and the side that argues for mass deletion has not yet made arguments sufficient to generate a consensus for mass deletion of a section. Therefore, any hypothetical such mass deletion of a section would be subject to review and potential revert due to lack of TP consensus.XavierItzm (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Are we going around in circles here? This was already discussed a year ago in Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_44#Terminology_section. --Nug (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal - Wikipedia articles don't have glossaries. I don't think I've ever seen it in another article. It is so far afield from what an encyclopedia article is--a summary FFS--where as glossaries aren't even for in-depth articles, they're for books, FFS. Levivich 16:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  So long as we're going with the 'other stuff' argument... here are three pages that have sections for defining terms I found in literally 5 mintues. Ethics, Christian denomination, Religious experience. Vanteloop (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  No. Ethics doesn't have a glossary. Christian denomination has a section called "terminology" but that section is not a glossary, it's about the terminology of Christian denominations. Religious experience has a section called "definitions" but it's not a glossary, it's a comparison of various author's definitions. A glossary is a section of an work that defines terms used in the work to help the readers' understanding of the work. Levivich 17:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  The section isn't titled "Glossary", so why remove it if all it takes is an edit to make it more like a "Terminology" section it purports to be? --Nug (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly, this proposal is to remove a terminology section all together. De-listify the section by all means if that makes you more comfortable Vanteloop (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Still no. I'm using the word "glossary", which, ironically, I've defined for you, and what I support is the removal of the entire section because it is a glossary, and Wikipedia articles don't, and shouldn't, have glossaries. The title of the section, and its format as a list, are not the issue. Levivich 17:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Religious experience has a section called "definitions" but it's not a glossary, it's a comparison of various author's definitions. Have you actually read the section we're discussing? That's exactly what it does.

glossary is a section of an work that defines terms used in the work to help the readers' understanding of the work. That is exactly what Ethics does in its section "Defining ethics". Simply saying Ethics doesn't have a glossary. doesn't make it true. The ironic thing is that I agree the section needs to be improved considerably - but this idea that you can't define terms when discussing a contentious area in which there is significant disagreement between authors barely merits discussion. Why dont we work to formulate a RfC that can be used to improve the section? Vanteloop (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral - Delete it or Keep it. Not gonna stress over it. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• It seems we need a mediated discussion, because a further continuation of the discussion in this vein will hardly lead us to anything reasonable. I asked Robert if he thinks it makes sense to start the DRN process about that issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree approaching this in a different way could be useful, whether thats by agreeing a RfC or through some mediated discussion. I do believe there is a chance of consensus to improve this section - including signficantly changing it where necessary. I don't think that the solution is to remove it entirely, or to declare that those in opposition to deletion haven't satisifed some criteria so that means it will be done regardless of consensus, but don't mistake opposition to those things as a wholesale endoresement of the section as is. The reason I suggest we work to create a RfC is that other parts of WP are clearly wary of being dragged into discussion, so showing that disagreeing parties have agreed that some area needs improvement, and at least agreed on some of the possible ways forward (even if not endorsing them) they might be convinced that contributing will be worthwhile Vanteloop (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I explicitly object to RfC. That is not a substitute for a normal discussion. That is a misuse of the procedure, because Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. I see no evidences that you made any reasonable attempt to resolve this dispute. In that situation, resorting to de facto !vote would be a misuse of the RfC procedure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Just a couple of notes 1) RfC isn't a vote. 2)I see no evidences that you made any reasonable attempt to resolve this dispute I believe you are making the same mistake as when you took the other editor to WP:ANI for creating a RfC (for which you were rebuked) in that you think "reasonable attempt" means satisfying you personally. That being said if there are objections to even creating an RfC then that undermines my reasons for suggesting it. Vanteloop (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  1} Whereas RfC is formally not a vote, it is de facto a vote: outside users come, cast their ballot ("Support"/"Do not support"), and most of them disappear. There is usually no multi-round discussion, and, importantly, people change their opinion (vote) very rarely during RfCs. Therefore, RfC is a tool to figure out people's opinion, but it is not a tool to reach some consensus.

  2) I didn't take anyone to RfC, I called no names, I just wanted this RfC to be speedy closed, because, in my opinion, it is an attempt to bring democracy where it is not supposed to be.

  I hope you will accept my invitation to join the DRN, and I hope our discussion will be productive.

  Sincerely, Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Having looked at WP:DRNMKUCR I would be hesitant in using that as a method of moving forward on this. That DR has been open for more than 28 days and 14 rounds and what has actually been achieved? If editors go into a similar situation and after 3 months come out with a compromise we have already seen editors express that they dont think decisions made through that process carry any more weight than on the talk page. Vanteloop (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  It was devoted to a very global topic. In contrast, the DRN that I propose is much more narrow: it discusses just one section. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked Wheatcroft (1996), the source cited in this section, and the author says:

"The events we are discussing are sometimes referred to as 'the terror', 'the purges', repression, 'the holocaust', genocide and mass killings. The most neutral of these terms are repression and mass killings. 'Repression' is the broader concept, and although in common Russian usage will certainly include mass killings,4 in other languages and in reference to Hitler's Germany would not normally be assumed to cover mass killings. This is the main reason for the rather clumsy title of this article. The use of the word repression alone would imply that the events in the different countries at different times were uniform and in some aggregate sense comparable. I think that this would be mistaken. "

Note, the author discuss Stalin's USSR and Nazi Germany, and he explicitly objects to any attempt to describe the events as uniform and comparable in some aggregate terms. This source was directly misinterpreted in the MkuCR article, and I remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked through the source as well and I agree that Wheatcroft is not using the term 'repression' to refer to subject of this article, you were correct to remove it in my opinion Vanteloop (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I moved "Genocide" into the "Legal status" section. There is no need to mix legal terms with scholarly terms. Actually, a discussion of "genocide" in a context of MKuCR should focus on one question: why this term is generally NOT applicable to MKuCR. In reality, just few events (mostly Cambodian genocide) was recognized as such by majority of sources.

I removed "Crimes against humanity", because this term is much broader, and it includes non-lethal actions. And, similar to "Genocide", it is not a scholarly term. It is not used in the article except the "Legal status" section. A blue link is quite sufficient.

I am going to remove "Democide", because that is just a statistical category: that is literally a criterion for collection of data into the Rummel's database. It is equally applicable to all deaths that occurred as an act of omission or commission and perpetrated by a state against its citizen. There is nothing specific in application of this term to Communist mass killings.

I also plan to remove "Red Holocaust" as useless (it explains nothing, is not used in this article, and it is highly provocative).

If somebody disagrees, or if my edits will be reverting, I propose to continue at DRN. If you believe this issue is relatively minor, and there is no need to involve Robert McClenon, let's resolve all possible disagreement here, in this section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• In general, the whole "Terminology" section looks like a collection of individual examples of usage of some epithets by some authors. That looks more like trivia: for example, does a reader really need to know that some author called some mass killing "the Holocaust"? How does it help a reader to understand the rest of the article? All of that is especially ridiculous keeping in mind that an overwhelming majority of authors do not use those terms at all, or apply them to "communist mass killings" in the same manner as they apply them to other mass killings. Thus, Barbara Harff applies "genocide" to Cambodia and Indonesia, and there is nothing in her usage of this term that needs a separate explanation.

Furthermore, can anybody explain me a reason for invention of the neologism "classicide"? Actually, I know the answer, because I read Mann (and that is why I understand that text is irrelevant to the article, and I am going to remove it). However, I am wondering if those who objected to its removal realise the actual context. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I hoping the answer is in the article: classicide. ~ cygnis insignis 03:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No. That is not an answer. How Mann itself explained the need to introduce the term "classicide", and why it was introduced? Again, I know the answer, but I would like some proponent of this term to explain that. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Terminology Section

User:Vanteloop has stated that they are interested in an RFC on the Terminology section. The development of the RFC can be done here (the article talk page), although it is "noisy", or in some quieter corner, such as the DRNMKUCR subpage. The RFC will run on this article talk page when it is ready to run. I will add User:Vanteloop to the list of participants in the DRN subpage, but the list is unimportant because all editors are welcome to participate as long as they agree to moderation. Alternatively, if User:Vanteloop wants to moderate the development of an RFC, I will create another subpage where they can moderate. Where do we want to discuss the Terminology, with the objective of developing another RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In short, yes I am interested for the rationale I gave above. If you are willing I would prefer you to moderate. You are vastly more experienced than me and I believe I am too involved in the discussion. In regards to where to have the discussion I have no strong preference. I want to work with as many editors as possible to create a RfC that fairly represents the disagreements and proposed solutions of this section - I honestly believe this is possible. My only concern is if other editors refuse to even entertain the idea of a RfC and then don't accept the outcome. In that case we have wasted everyones time. Finally, I just want to note I am also willing to work in whatever way on other topics, not just the 'terminology' section. Whatever will do the most to actually achieve some meaningful progress. Vanteloop (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I strongly object to this RfC. First, I have no idea how the question can be formulated. Any short question would be totally misleading, and it is tantamount to manipulation. We need not an RfC, but a discussion. Before starting an RfC, editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues. Have those reasonable attempts been made? I saw no such attempts. In that situation, any discussion of an RfC can hardly be seen as a demonstration of genuine efforts to resolve the dispute.

Another reason why this RfC is a bad idea is that we still have no agreement on the article's topic. We must decide what this article is about, and our answers to more local questions will depend on the answer to that (main) question. The text of the prospective RfC about this section strongly depend on whether the community votes for A or for B. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's up to Vanteloop. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I remind all participants to stay polite and assume good faith. This edit summary is a clear and unprovoked personal attack. I removed this text, and supplemented it with a quite adequate edit summary. That was a legitimate BOLD edit, and it was aimed to initiate a discussion. I did that after I got no objections to my last arguments on the talk page. I don't need an explicit permission to make edits. If a user abstains from further participation in a discussion, that means they either accepted the arguments, or they lost interest to the discussion. Anticipating possible disagreement, I proposed a DRN, but there was no response. Accusations of bad faith without providing strong evidences is a personal attack, and it may be reported. If you believe removal of that text was unjustified, please, explain that on the talk page, otherwise, do not prevent others from editing. I am waiting for your counter-arguments, or for your agreement to participate in the DRN. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors already presented our counter arguments. You ignored and said you were going to delete anyway. I and two other editors explicitly stated that you should not do so as there was clearly no consensus. I also told you that to do so would be in bad faith. You then did so, as mentioned by User:‎Robert McClenon your actions are bordering on WP:CPP and without a hefty amount of good faith would be seen as disruptive. I will remind you once again of WP:FILIBUSTER which states repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. Can we spend less time playing games and work on improving the article. If you continue with this behaviour it may be seen as evidence of a pattern of disruptive behaviour Vanteloop (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore please read WP:SATISFY Vanteloop (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vanteloop: Well, let me explain you something.

• "Yes, I object. The Mass killing article, which was recently expanded into an article in 2018 has serious underlaying POV issues. Let's discuss this in the DR process. --Nug (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)" Is not a counter-argument. That is just an objection. The only positive information here is the idea to take the dispute to DRN. However, that post was made on 2 December, and Nug didn't respond to my invitation to join a DRN that I made on 03:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC). From that, I conclude they changed their mind.
• "Oppose removal User:XavierItzm , User:Nug, and myself have all disagreed with this proposal. There is clearly no consensus. Sections of the article dont get removed if Paul isn't satisfied. They get removed according to consensus. To remove this section without further discussion leading to consensus would be a clear act of bad faith. Filibustering to the point of exhaustion does not mean you have 'won' Vanteloop (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)" is not an argument at all. There is nothing to address here; all of that can be summarised as "I object"
• "Are we going around in circles here? This was already discussed a year ago in Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_44#Terminology_section. --Nug (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)" It is not an argument either, for there may be some fresh arguments, which the user does not want to hear.

Who else objected? Meanwhile, there were some users who supported removal. I fully realise that vote count is not a good approach, but you should keep in mind that you even cannot pretend you are speaking on behalf of majority of users.

I raised a legitimate concern about this section, and I expect this my concern to be properly addressed. By the way, do you know that the process marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors is called "consensus building"? And your "I object" is by no means an attempt to address my legitimate concern.

I placed a DS template on your talk page, which means you have been duly warned. Any personal attack from your side may be reported now at WP:AE. You already made this attack: you accused me of filibustering, and you claimed I am "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution". I have strong reasons to believe that that claim is false: first, the number of users who objected to my proposal is not bigger than the number of those who supported it, so there is no reason to speak about any consensus. Second, I repeatedly propose DRN, and I have no response. In that situation, your accusation, which lack a strong support, is an obvious personal attack. Please, remove this statement.

I am not going to participate in that discussion until the new RfC, which I am going to initiate, will lead to some concrete outcome. However, if you will make another personal attack, I'll report you.

P.S. It would be very helpful if you confirm that the edit summary, where you accused me of bad faith was your error, and you regret about that. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Paul Siebert Be aware yoour report may WP:BOOMERANG like your previous report to ANI. I see the neutral moderator Robert McClenon has already placed a DS template on your talk page so I wont bother repeating it, but be duly warned. I also note that you are again exhibiting in the behaviour that neutral moderator Robert McClenon described as civil POV pushing, which is disruptive. If you classify all our objections as simple statements then I'm not convinced you've read the section you're talking about. Have you read WP:SATISFY as I suggested? As I have said before, please spend less time engaging in unproductive disputes and more time in helping to improve the article. With regard to this argument first, the number of users who objected to my proposal is not bigger than the number of those who supported it, so there is no reason to speak about any consensus. You should note WP:VOTE which i have tried to explain to you previously when you objected to any RfCs on this page. Vanteloop (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Leave in Black Book

@Elishop: just removed all references to the Black Book of Communism in the text. I have reveerted him. If anybody wants to say that the Black Book is an unreliable source please just take it to WP:RSN (I believe it's been tried before and the issue has been talked to death here). The "let's delete all the sources we don't like" folks lost the AfD, so are now just going back tp deleting sources. Shame on you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF and to avoid framing things as a WP:BATTLEGROUND; if you remember those previous discussions, you know how firmly split they were - I would not at all characterize them as producing a consensus supporting that source's reliability, so it's not that unremarkable that there continue to be people questioning the heavy way we're leaning on it. In any case, looking over this, we're citing the book an awful lot of times for a source that is unquestionably controversial. I don't think it would hurt to pare it down a bit, if nothing else - the extensive way we're sourcing it gives the impression that it is a mainstream survey of the topic, which it really, really is not. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As a notice for everyone here who is interested, it has been taken to WP:RSN. BSMRD (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones. We should use this source, and make a stress on his best part (the Werth's chapter), whereas the Courtois's opinion should be put into a proper context, supplemented with a due criticism this list of sources may be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And, when Courtois's opinion is presented, it is always necessary to present Werth's opinion on what Courtois says.

By the way: how many people here have read the BB in full (not just the introduction)? Who can tell me what Werth says about the roots of Stalinism? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice to DRN Participants

@Paul Siebert, Cloud200, Nug, and Davide King:

In case you haven't noticed, the DRN has been resumed. Now that the DRN has been formally closed, you are invited to make the statements that I described.

Maybe you don't remember that DRN Rule 5 says: "It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress, because discussion elsewhere than here may be overlooked or ignored." If all of you would rather discuss here, then I can close the DRN as abandoned by the participants, perhaps because you think that discussion without a moderator will be more productive, or because you will be more likely to "win" the discussion (which doesn't mean that you will "win" any content disputes). The discussion of the FAQ can reasonably be here, because it isn't about article content, but some of the discussion that just restarted is about article content.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I asked you a question on your talk page. I am not sure DRN can continue in the old format. There are two reasons. First, many other users has come to the page, they do not seem to be interested in participating, and they do not feel the DRN decision has any binding effect. Second, as we can conclude from the message on the DRN page, it is "an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution." The dispute about this article is by no means small. Thus, the dispute must include a comprehensive analysis of a representative sample of sources, which by no means fits into a current format, which was specifically designed for minor disputes.

Nevertheless, I would love to continue to work with you as a mediator. I propose to switch to another format: to discuss more local issues, step by step. That will allow us to be more focused and that gives us a hope to find a way out of an impasse.

I have some concrete plan, but I would like to hear your opinion first. Also, I have a feeling that some participants quit the DR (@AmateurEditor: does not seem to be active, @Cloud200: did not respond to my invitation to join the DR.

In connection to that, the best approach would be to let the talk discussion to proceed for several days, to find the most important local points of disagreement and to, probably, include new participants into the DR.

I anticipate there will be a series of RDs about more local aspects.

What is your opinion on all of that? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Going Forward with Dispute Resolution

I am ready to restart moderated dispute resolution at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I will first reply to a few comments. Two of the principals in the suspended discussion say that the AFD has rendered the previous dispute resolution moot. I am not sure why that would be. In particular, an RFC on the overall structure of the article still seems to be a good idea. It is not clear to me such an RFC has been overtaken or superseded. If there are issues with the article overall, then they are likely to complicate or even corrupt efforts at local dispute resolution. If the principal editors in the DRN think that the previous dispute resolution process is moot, I can close the dispute resolution, but I think that then the overall neutrality and verifiability issues will bog down any local dispute resolution.

A suggestion was made to focus on what sources to use. Questions about the reliability of sources should be addressed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, and can be discussed there without suspending DRN. Other questions about sources have to do with what classes of sources to use, which are questions of overall structure.

User:Paul Siebert correctly quotes the DRN page as saying that DRN is intended for small content disputes. It is also true that the English Wikipedia no longer has a formal procedure for the resolution of large content disputes, and how to handle such disputes was the topic of one of my questions to the ArbCom candidates. However, I was deliberately ignoring the restriction to small content disputes when I opened this case. This was not the first time that I have accepted a DRN case knowing that it could last for months because of its size.

If any editors have any specific ideas for how to direct the dispute resolution, they may post them either here or at the dispute resolution page.

I will comment further within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone wants to start an (appropriate and relevant) RfC, they are of course welcome to do so. If some of the contributors to this article want to use the existing DR thread to decide on wording for such an RfC, they can do likewise. However, it has to be made clear that absolutely nothing decided during DR is in any shape or form binding on anyone not participating, and that none of those participating in that discussion - including the moderator Robert McClenon - have any special authority over this article. My personal advice to participants in that process would be to shut it down, before the obvious issues of ownership that were apparent during the AfD come to a head once more. Issues which involved, amongst other things, citing DR as a reason not to edit the article, or even discuss potential edits: a clear attempt to stall progress. This is a divisive and complex issue, and it isn't going to be resolved by splitting contributors into two different groups discussing the same topics in two different places. Or by giving, intentionally or otherwise, the impression that one group has more say regarding the process than the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Follow-Up on Going Forward

There have been what may be two different ideas on the next steps for dispute resolution. First, User:Paul Siebert has said that they will propose a plan for how to continue the dispute resolution, and that they will describe it in more detail shortly. Second, User:AndyTheGrump has said that, with the large number of editors who have come to this article talk page during the AFD, the DRN should be shut down.

My opinion is that, due to the large number of editors who are now involved in editing the article, it is very unlikely that any progress can be made other by RFC. If Paul Siebert or anyone else has a proposal for moderated discussion, I will be glad to read it and comment on it. If any editor wants assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC, I will provide that assistance either at DRN or on this article talk page. I would prefer to provide the assistance at DRN simply as a "quiet corner" in a noisy talk page. I will cancel the rule against editing the article and the advice against discussing anywhere else, and will allow any editor to take part in DRNMKUCR, regardless of whether they are one of the listed editors.

So, for now, DRNMKUCR is open for the development of RFCs. I will consider the proposal to shut it down, and any proposal for any other sort of moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be good to do a source analysis of the currently in-use references and to summarise what they say on the topic. It doesn't necessarily need to cover every reference, but just the ones being used for the content disputes (i.e. is there a tie between communism and mass killings). Dark-World25 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dark-World25: that would be a quite reasonable approach, except the sources this article is currently using do not fully represent scholarly views on that subject. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Currently, a possible way to start the DRN is as follows. In text few days, I am going to propose some local but significant change. Most likely, that will be a removal of the "Terminology" section. If there will be no serious explicit objections, I am going to implement these changes. Most likely, those changes will face a serious opposition and support. In that case, I propose to start a new DRN devoted to this specific issue, and include all parties into it. Do you think that may work? Paul Siebert (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert - What would you expect to be the result of the DRN? Would you expect it to result in approval of your idea, compromise, an RFC, what? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: sorry, but your question doesn't look serious. If I wanted just an approval of my idea, it would be senseless to resort to DRN.

My proposalis as follows: I outline a problem, and I propose a possible solution. If this solution is supported by others, there will be no need in DRN. If this solution faces a serious opposition, that means we have a disagreement, which I propose to decide via DRN (which consists of several rounds of a mediated discussion), where will lead either to approval of my solution (which is unlikely), or to development of some other mutually acceptable solution (which is what DRN is needed for).

Actually, the first part of my plan has already been implemented. We already have a point of disagreement, where I propose to remove the "Terminology" section by rearrangement or removal its content. @Nug:, @XavierItzm:, and @Vanteloop: disagreed with that, although their rationale seems unclear. @Levivich:, @Fiveby:, @Davide King:, @AndyTheGrump: (and I) believe the section have serious problems, and its removal is one of possible solution.

A course of the recent discussion demonstrated that we need a mediated discussion to achieve some consensus. IMO, DRN would be the best platform for that.

Can you please suspend the current DRN and start a new one (or, maybe, I should do that? I am not completely familiar with the procedure)? IMO that issue is much more local than the discussion about the article as a whole, and, therefore, it has much more chances for a quick success. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Neutrality tag

In September, a {{POV}} tag was added atop the article. Is it still the case that the tag should be in the lead of the article?

• Option A No, the {{POV}} tag is not necessary atop the article, nor in any section.
• Option B The tag should be moved to particular sections where neutrality is contested, using {{POV section}}.
• Option C Yes, the {{POV}} tag should be placed atop top of the article.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Neutrality tag

• Option B. It does not seem to be the case that the neutrality of the entire article is meaningfully contested in a way that warrants a tag on top of the article. I've yet to see any meaningful objections that characterize the terminology section as being non-neutral. The same goes for the sections on Cambodia, Legal status and prosecutions, and Memorials and museums. I'm seeing some opposition to the inclusion of particular Soviet content, as well as particular PRC content, but it makes more sense to me to actually tag the appropriate sections rather than to lump the whole article together as non-neutral. Section-level tagging would also serve to focus on content discussions within particular sections, which would seem to be more helpful than the current system of going back-and-forth and getting nowhere over the article more broadly. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: As long as we are relying on genocide scholars, who are a minority, and only one side of historiography, we are always going to have NPOV issues for the whole article. "Terminology" should go as SYNTH, not as NPOV, because the first three sentences are about Mass killing in general, and because there is no consensus even among genocide scholars, as we already acknowledges; as has been noted, it also mixes scholarly terminology with legal one. Davide King (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A minority among whom? Ecologists are a minority among scientists, but they seem to be the relevant people in the field of ecology. Genocide scholars seem to be the relevant people to look towards to analyze genocides from a scholarly perspective. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • We would have no problem if genocide scholars and mainstream historians supported and relied on each other, but that is not the case. Genocide studies is a relatively new field, have had issues with mainstream political science, and they are not bent on Communism as this article appears them to me. As noted by Siebert, "when some author group some fact into one book chapter, that does not implies a new topic is created." This is why need to drop them off and focus the article on Courtois et al. theories about Communism being the greatest murderer of the 20th century from a mainstream scholarly POV, that is the notable topic. You mention genocide but Communist/Soviet genocide is even more controversial — see Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on 'Soviet Genocide'". Journal of Genocide Research. 7 (4): 551–559. doi:10.1080/14623520500350017. ISSN 1462-3528. Davide King (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but are you supporting your argument that these scholars should be ignored due to POV issues with a reference to the Journal of Genocide Research, which is run by... the International Association of Genocide Scholars? If there's disagreement within the field, that's fine—there often is. But to dismiss the field wholesale because of the concept of Commmunist Genocide being messy (with the exception of the particular Cambodian genocide) doesn't do service to WP:NPOV, which would compel us to include all the significant views published by RS on a topic in a manner consistent with the principle of due weight. What articles like that one show is that genocide scholars do serious work and, while they disagree with each other at times, they're more than well-equipped to engage in scholarly inquiry in this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
        • No, what I am saying is that we cannot have an NPOV article if we do not identify majority, minority, and fringe views, and genocide scholars are clearly a minority for not being relied by country experts when discussing the events. As was admitted by major contributor AmateurEditor, the article is based on minority views, especially in regards to proposed causes; how can we write an article from a minority POV? We got the whole structure wrong — it is those who we currently dismiss as controversy and criticism that are majority views, and genocide scholars and all others that represent a minority view. Academic fields are also not all the same and do not hold the same weight, and you seem to overlook all their problems, especially in comparative analysis, which is what this article tries to do by creating a commonality between all those events — contrary to what we do here, majority of genocide scholars do not treat this topic as a separate topic but write in general terms; it is for the same reason I do not support similar articles categorized by other ideologies and system like capitalism or fascism — "when some author group some fact into one book chapter, that does not implies a new topic is created." I think Paul Siebert can explain you this better than I did. Davide King (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C, given that my addition of an unreliable sources tag was removed with the reasoning that it was covered under {{POV}}, the large amount of content dispute occurring in the article as well as the continued use of...dubious...sources throughout the article, it should be clear that the tag should remain where it is. Dark-World25 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. We've just had an AfD discussion, where it was quite obvious that neutrality of the article was disputed by a significant proportion of participants (or at least, a significant proportion of those who actually understood what the RfC was about). I really don't understand why this even needs to be discussed, under such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• This needs DR or other collaborative approach, not a contentious RFC immediately following a contentious AFD, but if I had to pick it would be "A" (invited by the bot, plus I was already here.) Most bias claims seem to be about the mere existence of this article, and we just went through and AFD on that. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree in a collaborative approach, but that is clearly not the reasoning being the NPOV tag — the reason is that is not only selectively about sources but they represent a minority view, no matter how significant, and that there is a contradiction between historians and scholars of Communism, and country experts and specialists in general, and genocide scholars, whose comparative approach, which is what we are trying to do here by positing a commonality, has failed and/or is rifled with problems. We simply cannot write a NPOV article from the POV of a minority, and/or if everything has to be attributed and cited to A rather than B or C. Davide King (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Trout the nom for a waste of time RFC, on the heels of our biggest AFD ever, and while here is an open DRN and an open RSN. No RFCBEFORE? No discussion about what is necessary to clear the tag? I don't think I've even seen an RfC over a tag before. Levivich 13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C since we're voting, because the NPOV problems haven't been cleared yet (and they apply to the whole article, including but not limited to the title and the lead). Levivich 16:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Talk:Socialism#RfC about the POV tag in the article, if you really want to see one. While I'm here, procedural close. At the very least, the RSN needs to be concluded before we can determine if the tag is appropriate or not. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That RFC hasn't been properly closed. Someone should make the request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close. Per North8000 and Levivich. This RfC should not have been started. ––FormalDude ^talk 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Option C Since the purpose of the article is to present evidence to prove that genocide is a core component of communist ideology, rather than reporting sources that make this conclusion, it is POV. TFD (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. Other people have detailed the specific reasons, but all else aside there have been long-running POV disputes over essentially the entire article (not just one or two parts of it) for years, none of which have come anywhere close to resolution. Obviously it needs the article-level tag to indicate that fact and to encourage new people to enter the discussion in hopes that it will eventually go somewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• C I don't really care where the POV tag ends up, but considering the entire article has been called POV repeatedly in the AfD that just closed, a global tag seems warranted. Definitely Not A. BSMRD (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• C Should be procedurally closed but otherwise Status Quo until actual effort is made to resolve the decade long concerns of editors. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - Heck knows, it's close to impossible to get 100% neutrality in these types of articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Multi-Whack! If we can't stop arguing about arguing, maybe an RfC to RfC the RfC is in order. And then we can dispute the closure of the RfC of the RfC. It'll be Turtles all the way down. MarshallKe (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - we need focus here, and methodically sort out the specific issues. Indiscriminate WP:TAGBOMBING is disruptive. --Nug (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C many long standing unresolved issues, so no need to change anything. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C - The tag should be at the top of the article. The title of the article is itself problematic, as has been mentioned. The AFD closers did not state that the article is neutral or partly neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C although I admit to giving it no more consideration than I already have, being a nice day to go out. ~ cygnis insignis 08:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C and procedural close — I agree that the title is itself problematic, and thus the main topic and its structure as a result. As long as we are relying on genocide scholars, who are not relied on by historians and country experts, cherry pick and misrepresent sources (e.g. works about genocide and mass killings in general, authors like Mann whose main thesis is that many genocides, such as Rwandian genocide, were a result of democratic transformations in those countries, hence the book's title Dark Side of Democracy, but we cherry pick his mention of classicide and Communist regimes,1 Kotkin, who does not support the view that the Holodomor was a genocide/mass killing and is talking about demographic losses, not mass killings, and many other examples), and only push the view of the most extreme one-sided, Cold War-like of Communist historiography, we are going to have NPOV issues for the whole article. Mention of WP:TAGBOMBING, which says is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages, is clearly contradicted by the AfD and not tag bombing. Wanting to remove them in light of this, and lack of consensus, is disruptive.

Notes

1. What we need to do to fix NPOV issues is to look at secondary/tertiary coverage — is there any credible academic source that emphasizes classicide and Communist regimes in Mann's work? If there is not, they are likely undue and/or cherry picked; if there is, in what context is it cited and what is its status — majority, minority, fringe? Is it part of scholarly literature and discourse, or is it in isolation and limited to genocide studies? We need to ask the same questions about Valentino and any author that we discuss here. Rather than write "A says B", and cite it to A itself, we need to find if there is C, and whether C is quoting A in the context of Communist mass killings, e.g. this topic, or not (e.g. it could be about mass killings in general or criticism of Communism, or a totally different topic). Davide King (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• A or B We should not tag the article as a whole. There is simply no doubt that there were mass killings under communist regimes, and we should not do anything that makes this appear dubious. Section tags can be decided on a case-by-case basis, but tags should be used with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, POV pushing by removing the {{POV}} tag I see. I suggest reading through the AfD and especially both the nomination and the deletion votes by Paul Siebert and Davide King to understand why the topic is problematic. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good lord, how are people still saying this. IT IS NOT IN CONTENTION THAT MASS KILLINGS OCCURRED UNDER COMMUNISTS. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN IN CONTENTION. No one here thinks that Communists didn't kill anybody, and no one here wants to "hide" killings by Communists. It's just tiresome at this point. BSMRD (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Bold capitalised printing isn't required. AFAIK, nobody here has optical difficulties. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• A or B, the whole article doesn't have neutrality issues. If a section is not deemed neutral, then that section should be tagged and worked on.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Cloud200 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B Maybe certain sections have such problems, but certainly not the whole article. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C The primary sources grouping all of these together are either highly politicized and unreliable (Rummel/Courtois) or non-experts (Valentino).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You cannot say Rummel's data is unreliable in light of Wayman and Tago's analysis of his dataset in 2010. Also Harff has grown more critical of country experts who challenge these systematic empirical studies. --Nug (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• C Disputes obviously persist, so removing the notice altogether is wrong; bikeshedding over details of tag placement isn't going to solve content problems, so let's leave the tag as it is and move on. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• C It´s not only specific sections with a disputed validity, the existance of the article itself is not even something we have consensus on. The issues with this article are still far from being resolved. 24.51.233.5 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Neutrality tag

Mere hours after the AfD was closed? Ok. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So much for the DR lol. BSMRD (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC on where maintenance tags should be placed precludes a DRN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I know, it's just amusing. I have no real opinion on this so I probably won't vote. I do think the Dispute Resolution has become... less efficacious, considering the vastly increased activity and attention on the article. BSMRD (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Admins panel recognosed that there is a major disagreement about neutrality of this article, and this disagreement must be resolved via dispute resolution tool. The tag cannot be removed until that disagreement is resolved. By starting this RfC you literally propose a community to overrule this decision by merely !voting. This is a disruption of a normal process, and if I were you I would withdraw this RfC ASAP. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This is an RfC on where the dispute tags should be placed. I take the view that it should be section-by-section. You may not. But, admins did not close the AfD with instructions in this regard; to imply that they made such a statement is simply wrong. And, even if such a statement were to be made, the proper place to resolve issues with the placement of maintenance tags is surely the article talk page, rather than a discussion that is centered around the question over whether or not to delete the article.
2. Admins did not conclude that DR was the only pathway forward for resolving the dispute. I have actually only encountered the article and all of the related walls of DR text after !voting to the AfD. I am not a party to the DR and I take the view that the DR is at a point where we need to fire off RfCs to start to actually move anywhere—especially since the DR has achieved very little in terms of approaching a consensus among those involved. I am not the only one who thinks this, nor am I bound to enter into a months-long DR that is running into the same exact issues that killed the WP:Mediation Cabal. On top of that, the DR is not about answering the philosophical question whether to place a maintenance tag on top of the article or only in the specific sections to which it applies.

Your aspersion that this is somehow disruptive to the normal process is unfounded, and I kindly suggest that you strike it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The neutrality tag is just an indication of a major disagreement over an article's neutrality. It is removed only after the disagreement is resolved. I put this tag because I see serious and fundamental problems with the article's neutrality, and I provided quite convincing arguments in support of this my actions. By starting this RfC you invite other users just put my arguments into a trash and to !vote for removal of this tag without analysing if neutrality issues have been resolved. This is an utter disrespect and a misuse of the AfD procedure. I don't find my statement an aspersion.

A more correct AfD question would be: "Do you think that the neutrality issues that lead to the NPOV placement have been resolved, so the tag may be removed or placed to some individual sections?" That question would be more in agreement with a procedure, but it would be still illegitimate in light of the conclusion of the admins panel, which explicitly recognised that there IS a major neutrality dispute, which is still unresolved.

Therefore, I don't find your arguments convincing. If this AfDRFC will not be speedy closed or withdrawn, I may ask admins if it is in accordance with our rules. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, I am not proposing another AfD, nor do you have to find my argument convincing for an RfC to be held on an article talk page. If you don’t like the proposal to move the neutrality tag into article sections, you can simply !vote and make your arguments. I think that this is a fine RfC to place, so I see no need to withdraw it. Especially considering the exact locations of the neutrality dispute seem to be unclear and not strictly defined in the admin close of the omnibus AfD, I think this is appropriate. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: I fixed the typo. Of course, I meant RfC.

With regards to the rest, if one user placed a NPOV template and provided a reason for that, you should discuss a reason first, and only if the reason will be found frivolous or already resolved, a discussion of the tag removal may start (or it may be removed automatically). The opposite is a disruption. Do you want me to discuss this question at ANI? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, with due respect, if you are going to take me to ANI over my decision to launch an RfC over whether it is better to include the tag in particular sections or if it is better atop the page, I cannot stop you. That being said, I don’t think that a discussion over where is the best place to apply maintenance tags in this article is disruptive. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The option A says: No, the "POV" tag is not necessary atop the article, nor in any section. That needs no comments.

And, discussion of the tag's placement without discussing an original reason for that is inappropriate.

Furthermore, the question " Is it still the case that the tag should be in the lead of the article?" implies that some significant changes happened in the article that resolved the problems. That question if misleading, because NO significant changes has been made.

It could be quite correct to start this RfC after some work has been done to resolve the problems with NPOV-violations. However, no such work have been done yet, and the attempt to resort to voting is a misuse of the procedure. Actually, that RfC is a direct attempt to undermine the results of the recent AfD, which confirmed that the article has severe problems. Although they are insufficient for article's deletion, they are quite sufficient to keep this tag. If the RfC will not be withdrawn, I'll put this text to ANI. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a policy-based reason against A (I !voted for B but included A for completeness) then you can make the case against A. If your implication is that I am trying to remove all mention of the neutrality issue from the article (which I agree would not be appropriate) then the implication is wrong. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"A" directly means that you are trying to remove all mention of the neutrality issue from the article.

Discussion of the tag placement without discussing the reasons is hardly appropriate. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks premature and uncalled for (there are more pertinent and important RfCs that we should be doing, like the main topic, its structure, its core sources), and the issues have already been confirmed by both AfD1 and DRN. But by all means, go ahead. If this lead us to a discussion about sources' majority, minority,2 fringe status — it may move us forward.

Notes

1. As noted by the AfD closure, 'Keep' side's main argument was not that the article was neutral and/or there were no issues but that it was a notable topic and issues could be fixed. Having the first RfC to be about whether or not we should have tags until such issues are fixed is disingenuous to say the least.

2. The China section relies on Dikötter, Valentino, and the Newsweek rather than country and famine specialists. Majority of sections do not accurately summarize majority views on each event but present a minority POV within the context of genocide and mass killings,3 e.g. the section about the Red Terror does not really explain the context and background of the Russian Civil War and White Terror, which is how majority scholarly sources treat the topic, and/or present popular history sources like Figes and Pipes, or outdated sources pre-1991, and even one from 1927 (!). It certainly is not a summary of the events but a presents specific POV within the context of a Communist death toll, hence why most 'summary style' events are more about how many people died, or how the main cause was communism, rather than fairly summarize the events according to majority scholarly sources. Paul Siebert can explain this better than I did, and I would love to see their take on each sources by sections, and how it would look like if we relied on majority sources, e.g. Ó Gráda for the Great Chinese Famine, or Ellman and Wheatcroft, who ignore the global Communist grouping and/or death toll and focus on the Soviet Union, especially the Stalin era.

3. Just look at how many of the sources' titles are general topics about mass killings to see how majority of events are discussed separately, not together, and so are Communist states — even those who discuss together Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (three leaders of three specific periods of three different Communist regimes), some like Jones separates Stalin and Mao from Pol Pot, and Fein sees Pol Pot more in line with fascism than Marxism. Davide King (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, I don't understand the reasoning in your vote. Neutrality means fairly representing the facts and opinions with the weight they have in reliable sources. We can do this among other ways by seeing how a topic is treated in tertiary sources such as reputable encyclopedias and academic textbooks. Just as sources may disagree on their analysis, so can editors. But which facts and views have greatest weight should never be a matter of disagreement, since we have a clear policy to determine it. TFD (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think every section in the article has NPOV problems. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We cannot tell that until the issue of the article's overall neutrality is addressed. The section on Romania for example could be neutral for an article on mass killings under romanian communist regimes, but be undue for inclusion as a separate section of this article. TFD (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll accept whatever the decision/result of this RFC turns out to be. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I’m seeing some mentions that the title is contested. Does anyone plan to open a move request to try to get the community to resolve that dispute? — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• First, I propose that Robert McClenon open and neutrally write any RfC, if they want. Second, even before discussing the title, we need to agree on what exactly is the main topic and how it should be structured — I do not know whether this can be done in a single RfC or in two separated ones but we clearly need to agree on what the main topic is, and which sources support it, and analyze them, as suggested by Dark-World25. Davide King (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with Siebert and those at ANI that Mhawk10 was not a behavioral issue and that they simply put 'Option A' for completeness, even though I think Robert should have started the first RfC and that this was premature and useless, the fact that several users have supported 'Option A', even though the AfD's conclusion is 'Option C' (not every single section may have the same NPOV issues but many sections would have to be tagged, and considering the controversy and dispute it just makes more sense to place it at the top), is telling and may be disrupting, not least because we simply cannot fix the article if there are users who still think it is either perfectly fine or has no NPOV issues. Davide King (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Davide King - What RFC are you saying I should have been allowed to start before we were distracted by this tagging dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, essentially about what you have outlined so far and below too. We need one or more RfCs about:

1. What is the main topic, and its structure and core sources

• (majority, minority, fringe — is majority discussing Communism as a separate or special topic, or simply as part of genocide and mass killings discourse in general?)

2. Theory-based and focused

• (e.g. Courtois' thesis and link between Communist states and mass killings, and whether the link can be extended to communism itself)

OR

3. Events-focused and based

• (e.g. summary of events according to majority scholarly sources and country experts, not genocide scholars, so rather than discuss them as death toll events, we simply say what happened and summarize majority views, in which case the article must be refocused away from mass killings1 and Communist regimes, and focused on Communist leaders (e.g. Valentino's thesis) and limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, plus the Red Terror within the context of Russian Civil War and White Terror)

WHETHER

4. It is part of scholarly mainstream literature and discourse, or is in isolation with one-sided historians like Courtois and/or a minority of genocide scholars.

5. If it is more of an anti-communist propaganda topic in the (right-wing) popular press (100 million, oversimplifications and generalizations about the causes) that is used to dismiss left-wing politics in general as part of an anti-communist/totalitarian field of memory to criminalize communism as a whole, not just Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism.

6. If it is part of Holocaust obfuscation (double genocide) and trivialization in equations with Nazism, and politicization of Holocaust memories.

I think I have already provided sources in support of this (e.g. Neumayer 2018 and others), but if you feel the need, I can provide them for each claim, and I am sure Siebert can also provide more. Some of the same points may be discussed in the same RfC, so we may not need literally six RfCs — I hope you can organize and summarize those disputes in one or more RfC, and add anything I may have missed. Davide King (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

1. I found this comment by Siebert about terminology particularly revealing and helpful, and why we need to drop it and move away from mass killings, which is a proposed umbrella term, including Valentino (who gave this article the current name), "to discuss all XX century coercive deaths inflicted by governments and paramilitary organizations. It was proposed as a category for statistical analysis and general theorizing, and it has no special implication to Communism [emphasis mine]."

Davide King (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, any tagging dispute is a distraction from resolving a content issue. This is different from other article tagging disputes only in that the underlying content dispute is larger, and so the tagging issue is potentially a larger distraction from a larger issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that we can remove the top-level tag and work on the sections, because that is based on the assumption that the section organization of the article is correct. It only makes sense to work on the article section-by-section if the sections are correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, we should only remove the top-level tag after we have resolved any disputes about the meaning of the title of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am still willing to work with any editors at DRNMKUCR on any other RFCs that can run while this tagging RFC is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

An RFC & DRN occurring at the same time, about the same article. Rather confusing. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Foundation

While the BBoC discussion is underway on RSN, I propose that all references to the Victims of Communism to be stripped in the meantime. The last RSN discussion [38] concluded with all participants voting unreliable, so the fact that it still remains in the article (and other articles) is a mistake that ought to be rectified. As I have pointed out elsewhere on this page, the foundation inflates the deaths count even beyond the BBoC, including deaths of Nazi belligerents in WW2, deaths due to the covid pandemic as well as potentially unborn, unconceived children that could have been born. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one example where it was used as a source. My understanding is that the Foundation does not conduct its own research and therefore even if it were reliable, which it obviously isn't, it would be better to use those sources directly. However, the Foundation should be mentioned in this article. TFD (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep the source as appropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Who exactly are you agreeing with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As a general rule, indentation denotes which post is being replied to. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

While I recognise that it is used with attrition, I would still argue against the inclusion as an estimate given the reasons I have named above. Perhaps in this case we could add a sentence following it to the effect of "this figure is generally disputed by academics" or noting its staunchly conservative, anti-communist leaning? Dark-World25 (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the Foundation is used as one of three sources for the following sentence: "Holocaust – communist holocaust has been used by some state officials and non-governmental organizations." The whole sentence should be deleted. We are not supposed to compare and contrast what sources say, per no original research. Only if a source does this can we can report what they say. Furthermore, "some" is a weasel-word, that cannot be used if it is in the source. TFD (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is appropriate and should be kept as per its sources. If you feel a need to attribute in main text, boldly go ahead.XavierItzm (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

But with attribution it would be WP:UNDUE - why is it so important what this one particular organization has said? If we're going to rely on primary usages of the term to cite that sentence, we need to attribute who is specifically using the term in each case, we can't just vaguely say "people use it" - that's WP:SYNTH. And none of them are individually that noteworthy. If we're going to mention it we should find secondary coverage instead. Compare / contrast to the much better sourcing we have discussing the use of red holocaust (which, based on the sourcing, ought to be the main focus of the paragraph.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, this is essentially the problem with the whole article, as it is not only a bunch of "he said, she said" but apart from few exceptions (e.g. Rummel quoted through Totten & Jacobs) we all cite it to A rather than C. If we cannot find secondary/tertiary coverage for that, it means they are either undue or we cherry picked quotes in support, e.g. majority of works are about genocide and/or mass killings in general, so it looks like we just cherry picked mentions of communism and attributed to sources a separate grouping or speciality to communism — Mann's main thesis is, in fact, that many genocides, such as Rwandian genocide, were a result of democratic transformations in those countries (hence the book's title Dark Side of Democracy, but we cherry pick his mention of classicide and Communist regimes. Davide King (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not properly attributed because none of the sources say, "communist holocaust has been used by some state officials and non-governmental organizations." Instead, it is an anaylsis, which is not permissable per no synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with the VoCMF being mentioned in this article, so long as an efn is included to inform readers the Foundation is controversial, has strong links to the neoliberal think tank The Heritage Foundation, and its blog has published provocative and disputed material (like blaming Covid deaths on communism, and the CCP in particular [39]).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• At the very least we should not be citing it their blog the Estimates section. That section says that it covers notable estimates, but the cite is to their blog, which is obviously WP:UNDUE in this context - if it is a notable summary, it ought to have secondary coverage. Summarizing their view, with attribution, in sections more specifically devoted to opinions and advocacy surrounding the topic makes sense, though I would prefer to use secondary sources; citing a blog as if it is a usable source for a notable summary of estimates is absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

'Many commentators on the political right ...' better citation requested

Many commentators on the political right state that the mass killings under communist regimes are an indictment of communism

The citations given for this are examples, rather than references that posit this view. Does anyone have a better source for this (which shows that the statement is correct)? As is, it seems like WP:OR with the citations used as evidence for an argument. Vanteloop (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Forgot to mention the first source. This states These right- and left-wing attacks on communism nourish a return to anti-communism in the legal frameworks of liberal democracies and threaten the political prospects and personal safety of socialists of any stripe. Anti-communism should be as unacceptable and as vigorously challenged as the ignorant equation of anarchism with chaos and terrorism.. The article seems like more of an attack on anti-communism than a reliable source desribing a phenomenon among many right-wing political commentators. I understand this might be bordering on WP:BLUE but I believe it should have at least one reference considering the contentious nature of the article Vanteloop (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A representative sample of sources assembled by me, as well as the sources presented by other users, suggest that we should not use that type language.

Instead, I propose the following.

1. Completely rewrite and rename the "Estimates" section.

2. From this section, the sources that are recognized as unreliable for figures should be removed. That include, first of all, Rummel and White.

3. Other sources should be presented as follows:

• Some authors (Courtois and few others; name them explicitly) argued that a total amount of premature deaths, including the deaths caused by mass shooting and executions, and the deaths as a result of harsh living conditions (famine) that occurred under Communist regimes should be combined in a single category and directly linked to Communism and Marxism in particular.
• The main aspects of that approach have been criticized by other authors, who (i) point that that approach is intrinsically politicized and serves some concrete ideological goals; (ii) find the very idea to combine poorly related events into a single category; (iii) see no direct linkage between these events and Marxism; (iv) find the figures unreliable and inflated.

I also noted that some sources in this section are directly misinterpreted. Thus, Kotkin is used as a source for this statement:

"communist regimes killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017, commenting: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering."" In reality he says:

"In the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America—communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers."

which means he speaks about demographic losses, which is not the same as "mass killings". "Demographic losses" is a much broader category, and it refers to those 65 million, not to "even more", as a reader may conclude from the article.

In summary, the section must be rewritten. I propose to start collecting sources, quotes, arguments, and if there will be any disagreement, I propose to try DRN. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• The entire section is a mess, and I'm not sure it's really useful to have a section labeled "controversies" in the first place when the entire article is a giant controversy. What it seems to cover, instead, is discussion of whether mass killings under communist regimes are an indictment of communism and whether they are a phenomenon unique to communist governments, or ideologically inherent within them. It should be rewritten and retitled to cover that aspect of the debate; it should probably be expanded, but right now most of the sources are terrible; "talking heads at the WSJ and random websites say this" isn't a particularly useful thing to build a section around. But it's also possible it's redundant with the "proposed causes" section and should just be merged into that - what it's really discussing is "is communism the cause?", which we cover better elsewhere. Perhaps it could be turned into a subsection there; but, again, most of the sources are so weak that I'm not sure what we'd be preserving. --Aquillion (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  "To expand" by adding new sources and to get rid of garbage sources (as you propose) means "to re-write. It is ok to have a "controvercy" section on teh top in the article that discusses the intrinsically controversial subject.

  "Proposed causes" is just a fake. Even the sources it cites do not support what it says.

  However, I propose to stay focused. Do you agree "Estimates" must be rewritten? Can you propose another plan (instead of mine)? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I moved all the info in the controversy section to the ideology section, which is more fitting. X-Editor (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This, which I support and I thanked you for it, is in fact a call to a rewrite and restructuring, which is what Siebert and I advocate to fix the issues — if the concept is disputed, it must be rewritten to reflect majority views (i.e. those who dispute the concept), and rely on Ghodsee 2014, Neumayer 2018, and others to summarize for us this anti-communist1 phenomenon that criminalizes communism by positing an inherency or link, rather than be like "A said B, and cite it to A rather than C."

I think Siebert, or it may be someone else, were onto something when they said this article essentially attempts to prove the Black Book thesis, and presents it as a majority view or significant part of mainstream scholarly discourse, hence the cherry picking of works about genocide and mass killings in general, the misreading of sources that do not make or discuss a Communist grouping (Courtois and Rummel are prominent exceptions) as a separate topic, and many other errors which Siebert may describe in detail. I may add that it uses the discussion of the events, which indeed happened and Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's (plus the Red Terror) regimes indeed engaged in mass killings, not as a summary of majority sources, which do not rely on genocide scholars or the terminology that we synthesize as common, but to further legitimize and hide this fact.

[EtA] By this, I mean that the discussion of the events as grouping is not notable and/or is clearly a minority views even among genocide scholars, who compare and group Communist and non-Communist regime types, showing that communism is not the common link. The real notable topic is this link, and the attempt to criminalize communism as a whole, which is presented by a minority of one side of historiography but is more mainstream in the (right-wing) popular press and political institutions (e.g. Prague Declaration, equations between Communism and Nazism, etc.), based on the assumation that it was the greatest murderer of the 20th century (c. 100 million) and that deaths and killings under Communist states were linked to communism as main cause, is rejected by most scholars, and how it fits in the Holocaust memories and politicization.

Rather than prove the Black Book thesis, this is a NPOV version of the same topic. If you want to group the events, we can listify them and/or have a disambiguation page. As it stands, we cannot mix the two without violating NPOV, e.g. 'Proposed causes' only discussing those who see a link, and events being described as death toll events rather than summarize according to majority scholarly views and country experts. Without adding such majority sources, we are violating NPOV but if we add them we may engage in OR/SYNTH because by and large those sources do not rely on genocide scholars, their terminology, and do not link communism as main cause for the mass killings.

Notes

1. Even scholars that may be considered "anti-communist", and/or "orthodox", do not usually go that far in criminalizing communism as a whole. "Revisionist" scholars who are now mainstream, such as Michael Ellman, Sheila Fitzpatrick, J. Arch Getty, Ian Kershaw, Moshe Lewin, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and many other well-respected scholars in the field, can only be described as anti-communists by Communist apologists, and as pro-Communists by anti-communists and now revisionist scholars who are still struck in the Cold War era and the discredited 1950s totalitarian model.2

2. Doumanis, Nicholas, ed. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945 (E-book ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 377–378. ISBN 9780191017759. Retrieved 2 December 2021 – via Google Books. At first sight, accusations that Hitler and Stalin mirrored each other as they 'conducted wars of annihilation against internal and external enemeis ... of class, race, and nation,' seem plausible. But such a perspective, in reality a recapitulation of the long-discredited totalitarian perspective equating Stalin's Soviet Union with Hitler's National Socialist Germany, is not tenable. It betrays a profound misunderstanding of the distinct natures of the Stalinist and Nazi regimes, which made them mortal enemies. Stalin's primary objective was to forge an autarkic, industrialized, multinational state, under the rubric of 'socialism in one country'. Nationalism and nation-building were on Stalin's agenda, not genocide; nor was it inherent in the construction of a non-capitalist, non-expansionary state—however draconian. Davide King (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We may simply change it to anti-communist per sources — as noted many times by The Four Deuces, anti-communism, by which we mean the movement and not any criticism (ironically, this is very Soviet-like), which is common even on the Left (e.g. about Communist states), is largely a right-wing phenomenon. We already have secondary and tertiary sources for this, so there is no need to put primary sources. Davide King (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

DRN participants

Should users who are active in editing this article be involved in the resurrected dispute resolution? The baton seems to be passed to others in disputing this territory, whereas previous participants may be constrained once more, after the temporary lifting of a moratorium on editing, arising from the AfD, is presumed to be active again. I don't intend to edit the article myself, excepting perhaps removing the worst examples of coatracking, my concern is bringing the previous discussion, well moderated, to bear on active participants. ~ cygnis insignis 06:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

An increasingly drawn-out farce

It's clear that, having failed to make any plausible case for retaining this article (even with the organised support of far-right media outlets), the Keepist camp is attempting to "win the peace" by locking in a hard-line, POV intepretation of history through a series of bureaucratic manoeuvres and "sandbagging" of those they see as their opponents. There is no good faith being exercised, and none is possible in these conditions.

The article should never have been retained. Someone really needs to take this in hand, because it's clearly not going to stop. DublinDilettante (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If you think a user is engaging in disruptive editing, take them to ANI and provide specific evidence. Vague statements alleging that a keepist camp is engaging fully in bad faith is not something generally fit for an article talk page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You know what's going on here is way beyond bad or disruptive behaviour by individual editors. Let's not pretend, after everything that's happened on and off Wikipedia over the past week, that this is a simple edit dispute which can have a negotiated outcome. No-one here is that naive. DublinDilettante (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think anybody thinks that this is a simple edit dispute—the series of disputes on this article is complex—but I don’t think that a lack of simplicity implies bad faith behavior by editors. If DR processes (mediated outcomes) don’t work, that’s the whole point of launching requests for comment to bring the whole community to work on an issue. I think this is what the mediator is saying anyway at this point, though obviously Robert McClenon can speak for himself in that regard. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Mhawk10, User:DublinDilettante - I am not the mediator here. I am only in the role of mediator at DNRMKUCR, and I was not really trying to mediate there either, but to formulate one or more RFCs, so I am really a facilitator there. If anyone wants to come there and talk about RFCs, they are welcome. We have one RFC in progress here, but it is a tagging dispute, and it is my opinion that tagging disputes are a useless distraction; and one or more substantive RFCs can run while the tagging dispute is also argued. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:DRNMKUCR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@DublinDilettante: To add on to my first-indent comment above, I would kindly ask you to strike this comment and to close this section. If there is a legitimate complaint you have about long-term behavioral issues, then it should be handled respectfully at the relevant editors' talk pages or at AN(I). An article talk page is not the right place for a discussion primarily on user conduct. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:DublinDilettante, User:Mhawk10 - I would advise that complaints about user conduct are more likely to be dealt with more effectively at Arbitration Enforcement than at WP:ANI. Dealing with conduct in areas covered by discretionary sanctions is what Arbitration Enforcement is for. But that is the call of a filer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@DublinDilettante: If you want to improve the article, the best way would be to completely abandon the manner to discuss another party's intentions (and to stop discussing any behevioural issues). If you see that some user is engaged in disruptive editing, POV-pushing and misinterpretation of sources, report them at AE. You may warn them once at their talk page. The users who were sanctioned previously per ARBEE do not need even a DS warning. If you are ready to blame them of misbehaviour, go to AE. If you are not ready, please, focus on the content issues exclusively, and do not discuss their behaviour here. In general, this talk page is a bad place for discussion of such topics as "attempting to "win the peace" by locking in a hard-line, POV interpretation... etc". This may result in your own topic ban, which will eliminate you from this dispute. I am not sure that is an outcome you want to achieve. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@DublinDilettante: I am not gonna sugarcoat it for you, but your entire comment smells of hypocrisy. With that aside however, although I am not gonna reiterate what I have said previously at the AfD which I am fairly certain you remember, there is the matter of fact that your display of maturity confirmed both my comment's assertion, and my own suspicion that you do not care about the article's quality, and only wishes it gone because you do not like it. Checking your talk page makes it evident that you are politically motivated to edit on Wikipedia since 2021 and will actively push unsourced POV until you get blocked following multiple warnings, all the while going as far as to accuse other editors of pushing their political agendas; quite as exactly as you did right here by implying motives with your comment about the keepist camp, a rhetorical word salad that definitely gives off the impression that you only view your own opinions as correct.

Think about my comment strongly before you say another word, please. I know you can be better than this. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we're all probably a bit embarrassed for you after that puerile little outburst, so I'll simply remind you that you always have the option of deleting it, and of thinking about what you're doing with your life, and your time on Wikipedia. DublinDilettante (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So you seriously think he's wasting his life time because he didn't vote to delete or disagrees with you? --TheImaCow (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has been retained. Complaining about it is a waste of time, unless you're planning a fifth AfD. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

lol "keepist" camp. This is beyond parody. I recommend closing this talk section. WeifengYang (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@WeifengYang: Agreed. Opinionated screeds do not belong here. X-Editor (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Name change

I suggest we change the name to "Victims of Communism" which is a term used in reliable sources. While it lacks neutral tone, so do all the other alternatives. While it also lacks precision, since victims could include people who suffered in any way from Communism, the term is defined to refer to deaths.

There is recent literature that addresses the debate over whether Communism should be blamed for crimes that occured in Communist states. For example:

• "Their reading of the past led to criminalising communism by making criminality the essence of the communist ideology and of the regimes that claimed it across all national contexts and historical periods." (Neumayer, Laure. "Introduction."The criminalisation of communism in the European political space after the Cold War. Routledge, 2018.)
• "One way of dealing with the Nazism-Communism comparison is to adopt the idea of totalitarianism, stating that there is a straight line between ideological intention and repression." p. 73 (Adler, Nanci, et al. Perspectives on the Entangled History of Communism and Nazism: A Comnaz Analysis. Lexington Books, 2015. P. 73[40])

The reason this article attracted controversy is that it begins with an assumption that socialism (at least in its Marxist form) is homicidal and sets out to prove it through a body count. The criticism of this approach is that it could be applied to any ideological or other grouping. A neutral approach would be to explain the arguments connecting communism ideology and mass killings carried out by Communists. TFD (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, the title implies mass killings occurred under governments that attempted to implement their vision of communism. --Nug (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I like that idea. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason this article attracted controversy is that it begins with an assumption that socialism (at least in its Marxist form) is homicidal and sets out to prove it through a body count. And the title "Victims of Communism" doesn't do this... how, exactly? BSMRD (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I was writing about the article not the title. The current first sentence is not neutral: "Mass killings under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century." Compare this with the following: "Many murders have been committed by men with the surname of Smith." In both cases there is an implied connection.

Titles are not required to be neutral, per Non-neutral but common names. Elsewhere the policy says that "Boston massacre" is an acceptable title, because that is its common name, even though it probably was not a massacre but was described that way in order to advance political agenda. We don't for example call it "1770 Boston shooting incident."

The title Jewish Bolshevism is also non-neutral but preferable to "Allegation of undue influence of Jewish people under communist regimes."

TFD (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see your point. Not 100% sure that's the best name, but it's not the worst I guess. BSMRD (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The heading of your discussion is confusing. It appears at first glance, as though you are suggesting an RM. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• This proposal for a name change to VoC was discussed a year ago (see Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_44#Deletion/renaming) and there was opposition to it back then and I don't think that has changed. --Nug (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn’t “Victims of Communism” significantly broaden the scope of the article? I don’t think that this is a WP:COMMONNAME and I’m not convinced that it is better than the current name (or something very similar, like “Mass killings by Communist regimes”). Jewish Bolshevism is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT-like article title to describe the particular idea that was influential in the rise of Nazism. Untermensch is similar in this regard—the term has no value in terms of academic merit in its own right, but it has received significant coverage owing to the influence of that particular term in Nazi ideology. But, this article isn’t a word-is-subject sort of article. I do not think the point of the article is to describe the term “victims of communism”, but instead to be a summary style article on mass killings committed by communist regimes. As a result, I am inclined against the name change. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but the problems with "Victims of Communism" as a title don't solve the (similar) problems with the current title. Since this was discussed in 2020, the conclusion from that earlier discussion should be summarized here, as the counterargument to renaming in this discussion has been weak. Boston Massacre is a widely recognized term of art. "Mass killings under communist regimes" doesn't roll off enough tongues to meet the WP:NPOV threshold: An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use. The common name. --Wragge (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The current article title is no less neutral than say, Domestic violence in the United States. That article isn't making an implicit claim that the USA is a nation of wife beaters. --Nug (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is an important point. The idea that mass killings are somehow inherent to communism is clearly very contentious - but the title is referring to that contentious claim, not asserting it is true. For example, Creation science doesn't need to be changed to 'Pseudoscience of Creationism' because the article is about the concept of 'Creation science' and the validity of the concept is discussed in the article. I think once we can improve the article to include a more clear description of the criticisms and academic consensus on the subject of MKUCR the name issue will become moot. Vanteloop (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Creation science is a good example, the title doesn't imply that creation science is a real science. Also note title is referring to the regime type, not the ideology. --Nug (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. All nations have at least some domestic violence; not all nations have mass killing. Furthermore, the "communist" grouping implies that there is something special or unique about mass killings under individual communist governments that makes it worthy to collect them all and discuss them as a single topic. The comparable title would be if we had an article named eg. Domestic violence under Capitalist regimes - something there actually are some sources for[41]. But that'd obviously be a non-neutral way to approach that topic. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We have Communist terrorism, all communists certainly did not engage in terrorism or that communism is intrinsically terroristic, but terrorism was certainly carried out by groups who claim to adhere to it, in the advancement of it. Similarly, this title is careful to include "regime", to indicate it is about the governments actions rather than the ideology --Nug (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, Communist terrorism is in even worse shape than this article? A big chunk of the history section describes the term as political propaganda created by Nazis. The background section contains a small paragraph mostly consisting of passing mentions from timelines of terrorism that, again, don't really establish that there's a unified topic there, then a single paragraph containing back-and-forth between a handful of scholars over whether Lenin supported terrorism. And the bulk of the article (both in the history section and the examples section) is a list of random examples from sources that largely don't treat it as a unified topic - essentially editors trying to argue the topic of that brief paragraph in the history section via WP:SYNTH. That's certainly not an article I would use as an example for anything - at the very least, I'm glad you brought it to people's attention here, given that most of the problems on this article are even worse there due to it not having really attracted enough attention in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Michael Ellman, which specifically discusses this issue in a context of Staliniam:

"Estimates of the total number of Soviet repression victims depend both on accurate estimates of the numbers in particular sub-categories and on judgement of which sub-categories should be included in the category ‘repression victims’. The former is a matter of statistics on which we are better informed today than previously but on which the Ž gures are still surrounded by a signiŽ cant margin of uncertainty. The latter is a matter of theoretical, political and historical judgement. " EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 54, No. 7, 2002, 1151–1172

The title "Victims of Communism" opens a can of worms, because a whole population of Communist states may be formally seen as a "victim of Communism". Can a person who was deported be considered a victim? It is quite possible to find sources that say so. Can children of a repression victim, who lost their apartment in Moscow and have to live in a remote place be considered a victim? Can the victims of WWII time famine (which had probably never happened without Nazi invasion) be considered as the victims of Communism? Yes, some sources say so. And so on, and so forth. This title would be much worse than the current one, in particular because nothing will prevent addition of non-lethal events into this article. The title is terribly bad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So you don't think this title has opened a can of worms?

That's the etymological fallacy - that the meaning of an expression must reflect the original meaning of its words. It is permissable for example to have an article called anti-Semtism because it is a recognized expression that refers to prejudice against Jews even though the literal meaning is opposition to Jews and Arabs, who together are Semites. In this case victims refers to people who died as a result of Communism.

The advantage of using a term that has been reported in academic writing, rather than a term invented by Wikipedia editors, is that it is a concept defined in reliable sources.

With a new title, the scope of the article then becomes the extent to which Communism is responsbile for these deaths, according to experts.

Nug's comparison of the current title with "Domestic violence in the U.S." isn't valid as we discussed many times. The equivalent would be "Mass killings in the Soviet Union." If we had an article called "Domestic violence in Nug's family," he might complain.

TFD (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"victims of Communism" "chinese famine"&"victims of Communism" "Soviet famine" vs "Chinese famine" victims&"Soviet famine" victims Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Paul Siebert on "Victims of Communism". Given the rhetoric over Captive Nations, it could be argued that the entire populations of all communist countries were victims, and that would number into the billions of people. --Nug (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It could be argued. The reality is that the term normally refers to people killed by Communists. For example, this article says, "In Hungary, the Gloria Victis Memorial to honor "the 100 million victims of communism" was erected in 2006 on the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution." An article in the Heritage Foundation is called "We Must Never Forget the 100 Million Victims of Communism." The Vicims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) is dedicated to "the more than 100 million victims of communism around the world and to pursuing the freedom of those still living under totalitarian regimes."[42] As you repeatedly mention, the VOC was sponsored by the U.S. government. The U.S. Dept. of State has an article called "America honors 100 million victims of communism."

I notice it doesn't bother you that there were no "communist regimes" because communism means the state has withered away. You voted against capitalizing Communist even though it would remove ambiguity.

The VOC incidentally was set up by the National Captive Nations Committee.

TFD (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Did I? I can't find the associated discussion related to this move in June 2018, only this failed move request during that period. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Mass killings under Communist party rule" might be a more accurate title because this article is more about the actions of communist parties and their leaders than the ideology of Communism itself. X-Editor (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are we giving “regimes” a pass, if the article must be retained? “Regime” is a term most commonly used by Western states and their media to describe governments ("democratic", dictatorial or otherwise) with whom they find themselves in dispute. It’s a loaded and inherently ideological term. It is not within the gift of Wikipedia editors to determine what is and is not a legitimate government.

Given that many of the governments alleged to have committed the crimes listed in this article enjoy (or enjoyed) popular legitimacy within their own states, why not simply refer to them as “governments?” If alleged mass killings make a government a “regime”, then the term must be applied to the United States and most of its allies. DublinDilettante (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Regime is often used to refer to governments that are dictatorships or authoritarian, which an accurate description of the governments mentioned in the article. X-Editor (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am once again reminding you that assertions do not become facts because you happen to believe in them. DublinDilettante (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Says the person who went on an opinionated screed about the so-called "keepist" camp for the article. X-Editor (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, these governments were all a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" after all. In any case "Communist regime" has higher usage than "Communist government". --Nug (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug, since you don't believe they were dictatorships "of the proletariat," and that is merely how they described themselves, I take your comments as sarcasism rather than legitimate argument. It's best to leave comments like that out of these discussions. TFD (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a diff to support your assertion? I was reading Bellamy the other day. What struck me was apart from the number of victims which distinguishes communist from non-communist mass killings, another key distinction is the fact that communist perpetrators and their supporters exhibit very little recognition that their ideology of selective extermination of large numbers of people (presumably the Völkerabfälle) might be morally problematic. Apparently Stalin and his clique remained proud of the mass killings they had sanctioned to the very end of their lives. Towards the end of the Cold War some communist regimes, notably the Soviet Union, shifted from openly espousing selective extermination to strategies of denial according to Bellamy. And this denial seems to be intensifying, as historian Professor Robert Tombs said, it is "at least as bad as Holocaust denial". --Nug (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s the Robert Tombs who credits England, the country with the longest record of imperialist genocide in history (continuing well into the 20th century in Kenya, India and elswhere) with “their long pioneering of the rule of law, of accountability and representation in government, of religious toleration and of civil institutions; and for their determined role in the defeat of modern tyrannies”? DublinDilettante (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

A contributor to the SignPost quoted it slightly differently in the section "User talk:Cygnis insignis#"As bad as Holocaust denial", I feel a little better now. ~ cygnis insignis 09:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dictatorship of the proletariat means, according to its entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, "rule by the proletariat—the economic and social class consisting of industrial workers who derive income solely from their labour—during the transitional phase between the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of communism."[43] You obviously do not believe that the Soviet Union was ruled by its working class.

I don't know what you were reading, but will instead reply to you. Why do you think it is necessary to compare Communist and non-Communist mass killings? Also, why would you think that other editors are not aware that such comparisons have been made, especially when the talk pages are filled with such discussions?

This article is not the place to advance personal beliefs, no matter how valid. The best we can do is to present the various views with the weight they are accorded in reliable sources. That means incidentally that view you are railing against would not receive much credit in this article. But as is obvious from the discussions, none of the editors see it as a valid view either. There are more constructive ways to advance your views than to post them here.

TFD (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the Soviet Union ruled by a "Vanguard party" that claimed to represent the working class? At least the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany gained 33% of the vote in the last free elections before they seized power, who voted for the Bolsheviks? And no, not my personal thoughts, just relaying what Bellamy wrote in the Human Rights Quarterly[44]. --Nug (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment was edited to explain Nazi. ~ cygnis insignis 06:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow! You caught me out editing my own comment! --Nug (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you genuinely saying the Nazis were better than the Soviets because people voted for them??? BSMRD (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nazis are the scum of the earth. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Just not as bas as the people they were specifically sworn to destroy, and who ultimately defeated them at the cost of tens of millions of lives? DublinDilettante (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug -- they apparently got around 24% of the vote in the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay, that's interesting, thanks. --Nug (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug, I did not ask you if the Communists claimed to represent the working class. I asked if you believed the Soviet Union was ruled by the working class. TFD (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't I just ask you if the Soviet Union was ruled by a "Vanguard party" that claimed to represent the working class? --Nug (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You: "Indeed, these governments were all a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" after all. [00:08, 5 December 2021]

Me: "Nug, since you don't believe they were dictatorships "of the proletariat," and that is merely how they described themselves, I take your comments as sarcasism rather than legitimate argument" [00:19, 5 December 2021]

You: "Do you have a diff to support your assertion?" [05:05, 5 December 2021]

Me: "You obviously do not believe that the Soviet Union was ruled by its working class." [05:41, 5 December 2021]

You: "Wasn't the Soviet Union ruled by a "Vanguard party" that claimed to represent the working class?" [06:11, 5 December 2021]

Me: "Nug, I did not ask you if the Communists claimed to represent the working class. I asked if you believed the Soviet Union was ruled by the working class. [07:42, 5 December 2021]

I do not understand why you cannot answer the question. I hope you appreciate the difference between someone making a claim and its actually being true.

TFD (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And you explicit question was where in that exchange? All I see are claims of "since you don't believe ..." and "You obviously do not believe that ..."--Nug (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug, do you believe the Soviet Union was ruled by its ruling Class? TFD (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Jumping in—why does the electoral success of the NSDAP or the Bolsheviks actually matter for purposes of this article? It seems like this is getting far in the weeds to such an extent that it’s diverging from the goal to discuss rationales regarding a potential change in article title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It could be that Nug understand "dictatorship of the proletariat" only in Soviet terms, e.g. vanguard party ruling in representation of the working class rather than "dictatorship of the proletariat" in academic/Marxist terms, e.g. the working class itself as the ruling class. All Communist states were dictatorships in the first term, not the second. Davide King (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming a huge mess. Paul Siebert, as far as I see it, "Victims of Communism" is the common name of the topic you outlined here:

"In my opinion, the really notable topic is the discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation? And so on, and so forth. This would be a really notable topic, and that can save the article from deletion. However, that will require almost complete rewrite of the article."

This is clearly the notable topic, and we can write a NPOV article without engaging in OR/SYNTH, since as has been noted by The Four Deuces there is, in fact, a literature about this. We need not to worry about any can of worms because the article will be theory-focused and based, and any significant event will simply be linked, thus avoiding coatracks and forks of describing events according to genocide scholars rather than summary style that fails NPOV without the majority sources which do not describe an event as mass killing, or any other term we list at 'Terminology', discuss events separately, and do not make any Communist grouping as we do here. Davide King (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that the notable article topic is the one that serves as a summary style piece covering mass killings committed by communist regimes. The topic you are proposing might be part of a section in that summary style article (or a sub-article thereof), but I do not see that as being the main focus of this sort of page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Then this article is unfixable because, as noted by the AfD and Robert McClenon in particular, the name is the problem. I do not understand why you are so fixed on mass killings — if you truly want a summary style about mass killings, it must be refocused on Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (three Communist leaders, not Communist regimes), plus the Red Terror, as those are the only events that majority sources describe as mass killing events. Those are also two different topics, except one has scholarly literature and does not fail NPOV/OR/SYNTH (Siebert, TFD, and mine), the other is unfixable — you also have no excuse not supporting similar articles about capitalist and fascist regimes. We have a chapter about capitalist atrocities during the Cold War, and The Black Book of Capitalism as well. I do not think engaging in such grouping is fruitful but at least we are consistent in violating policies all around, and not just for Communism ... You have repeatedly failed in providing the Communist grouping and genocide scholars as majority sources, and as something that is part of mainstream scholarly discourse rather than in isolation. Davide King (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mhawk10. The very first sentence in Valentino's chapter on Communist Mass Killings is "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century’s most deadly episodes of mass killing." That is just a plain fact. As to why that is the case Valentino has his conclusions, which are mentioned in Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Proposed_causes, along with the other proposed causes. --Nug (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Just like Bellamy, they say Communist regimes but in practice what they mean and discuss is Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Why we should give so much weight to those two authors, even though Valentino is about mass killings in general, and Bellamy also discusses capitalist regimes is something that none of you has answered — a chapter in a book does not mean a new topic has been created. We also still disagree about Valentino. Davide King (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Adam Jones also discusses Stalin and Mao together, and Pol Pot in a separated chapter. We never doubted that there are sources, what we doubt is whether they represent a mainstream, majority view and/or new topic; the fact that they are mostly chapters about general mass killings show that we need not to discuss this in a separate article but simply expand Mass killing discussing their theories of the events, not the events themselves. Davide King (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you think of Valentino, is there a source that disputes his claim that "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century’s most deadly episodes of mass killing"? What is this so called "mainstream view" that communist mass killings did not occur during the 20th Century? --Nug (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you returning to strawman us as denying the events? In fact, that quoted part is perfectly in line with my proposed topic. For a "mainstream view", take a look at Ellman, and note that he is referring only to Stalinism because most historians and scholars and Communism do not support such broad Communist grouping or death toll for the same reasons. Davide King (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I just read the Ellman paper, there is nothing in there to support your claim, you are just making it up. --Nug (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, be more specific and to what exactly claim you are referring to. That the paper is not focused on Stalinism? That the "victims of Stalinism/Soviet power" is itself not problematic or confusing (so imagine how problematic and confusing it must be to do this for Communism as a whole)? That it is not a "mainstream view"? Davide King (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That is why I provided Ellman, not because "communist mass killings did not occur during the 20th Century", which is a strawman on your part and no one is denying this, but because of the body counting itself and the whole grouping categorization, which serious historians like Ellman do not do for Communism as a whole. Davide King (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are so fixed on mass killings… if you are arguing that I have a personal fixation with mass killings, then I would remind you that the start of my involvement in this article was when it got nominated for deletion. The reason I am arguing this is (a) the sources I’m this article and those presented in the AfD clearly establish that this is a grouping used by scholars and that (b) attempts to transform the article to cover some other topic entirely really does not cover “mass killings under communist regimes”. Is an article on mass killings under communist regimes primarily supposed to be about the historical methods that different people use to come to various different estimates for death tolls? No; it’s supposed to be about describing the actual killings primarily. Additionally, the repeated assertion that genocide scholars are somehow a fringe minority group on the topic of… mass killings… really seems to be an extraordinary claim. But, of course, feel free to take it to FTN if you think genocide scholars are a fringe group in this regard. Regarding I do not think engaging in such grouping is fruitful, perhaps you do not, but that does not change the fact that your original research on the supposed lack of usefulness of the grouping has no bearing on notability when in-depth reliable sources exist that argue against that point. Fortunately, we do not have to relitigate that AfD on this page, but rejecting sources offhand because they find the grouping to be useful (or, alternatively, they discuss different views on how useful the grouping is) really does not seem to be consistent with WP:NPOV. And appeals to other pages feel entirely spurious; if you want to go make a page on all the mass killings conducted by fascist regimes and you have enough reliable sources that discuss the killings as a group to attain notability, then go for it and make the page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

About mass killing fixation, I was talking in general — it is precisely because mass killing is an academic term with certain criteria that we should drop it if we want to discuss all Communist regimes. As noted by Valentino, only Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot engaged in mass killings under the most accepted definition; of course, people died under many other Communist regimes but they do not fit this mass killing categorization, which is why I propose that we drop this, e.g. we should re-focus to death tolls rather than mass killings, hence "Victims of Communism" renaming. the sources I’m this article and those presented in the AfD clearly establish that this is a grouping used by scholars Let me stop you right here — by scholars is not sufficient, it is either majority or minority of scholars, and which ones?

Also, we have disputed some sources that you and others say they support Communism as a special grouping, when I and others say they do not (e.g. Fein and Valentino), so there is a dispute about sources, and I think Paul Siebert is better at explaining this and go down on each source. I never said genocide scholars are fringe, I always said they represent a minority, and that is because if they are going to discuss Communism, they should not contradict what historians and country specialists say, and that their attempts at comparative analysis have had many problems. Again, it appears that you are denying the NPOV probelms repeatedly outlined at both the AfD and by DRN moderator, so I kindly ask Robert McClenon to weight in and comment to help us on this — because we obviously disagree, and unless we engage in an analysis of sources to compare whose reading is correct, we are not going to move forward. Davide King (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Welcome logo VOC Logo Words Navy copy.png

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation logo

The title Victims of Communism currently redirects to Soviet and Communist studies#Victims of Communism, not sure if that has been pointed out. ~ cygnis insignis 08:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC) & note the website of another VOC is victimsofcommunism.org ~ cygnis insignis 09:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC) The site includes current successful programs like VOC Spurs Uruguay’s Elimination of Cuban Medical Brigades Program"We found that Cuba’s communist medical brigades in Uruguay have been penetrating Uruguay since 2005 … " ~ cygnis insignis 09:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That could be the lead of a separated article, e.g. a rewrite/move of this. Davide King (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Excuse the post scripts after replies, unhelpful really. ~ cygnis insignis 09:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also compare "victims of communism" (first results shows literature) vs. "communist mass killings" (first results show the mass killings of communists in Indonesia). Davide King (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem with this proposal is that this article was originally Communist Genocide; its proponents seek to claim that the article ought to speak about a real phenomena of preventable, intentional, mass killings, due to an ideology, which certain states possessed. Sadly the categories or real, preventable, intentional, mass, ideological and trans-state have all been demonstrated as faulty, or non-scholarly. As a result the article genuinely belongs at hysteric titles: about a fabulist conspiracy theory. State specific crimes against humanity are sufficient articles: go forth and edit famine as politics in the soviet union. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The degree of acceptance of a theory does not determine whether or not there can be an article about it. So for example, there are articles about evolution and creation science. We can for example have an article about the theory an hysterical conspiracy theory. In fact the article Jewish Bolshevism already exists. Some editors thought that article should list the numbers of Jews in the Soviet Communist Party and explain their "disproportionate" influence. TFD (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I have my own title proposal, since "mass killings" implies that the communist regimes actively pushed people to die and is, therefore, why it is SYNTH, I propose that we instead rename this article to "Deaths under communist regimes" which is exactly the premise of the article, especially since it includes deaths from famines, and not exclusively politicides. Additionally, I would propose to drop the term "regime" to shorten the title of the article, so it should read "Deaths under communism". MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

People are always dying, so your proposal is too broad and ambiguous. Scholars have more correct terms: "excess mortality" or "excess deaths". That would be a solution, and I proposed that earlier. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo: Actually, you are not completely right. Thus, Valentino discusses the "mass killing" category as real, preventable, intentional, but he explicitly excludes ideology, and do not discuss it as a trans-state phenomenon. That is sufficient to discuss those events in one article, but insufficient to link them to Communism (which is the main goal of this article, according to the most numerous party) Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITERIA my proposal is fine and acceptable, however, I do not object your idea. Simply put: Anything would be better than the current title. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Victims" is incredibly vague. If we're talking about deaths, we should say "deaths". For example, "Death toll of the X, Y, and Z regimes" would be more specific, although regime is a loaded term; to avoid it, we might go with "Excess deaths under the X, Y, and Z governments". Specifically naming the regimes/dictatorships/governments involved would also curtail the risk of WP:SYNTH. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

But "Victims of Communism" is incredibilty not vague, since it is a term defined in reliable sources. Similar arguments to yours have been made for changing the names of Anti-semitism, Homophobia, Islamophobia, etc. We could even change the term "communist regime," since communism literally means no regime. Maybe we should not call it the West Indies, since it is nowhere near India. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to correct or reinvent terms defined in reliable source. TFD (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Your title is bad, because it is blatantly non-neutral. If we are not going to narrow the article's scope, we cannot use the title derived from the term that is used by a tiny fraction of sources.

• How many sources describe the victims of the Great Purge as "Victims of Communism"? (a hint: majority of sources that I saw do not discuss them in that context: they were the victims of Stalin's campaign directed against his political opponents, real or perceived);
• How many sources describe the victims of Cambodian Genocide as "Victims of Communism"? (a hint, read, e.g. Kiernan)
• I can analyse each category of deaths described in this article, but I see no need in that. Everyone can do that, and for almost every category the conclusion will be the same: those deaths are described as VoC only by a minor part of sources.

In addition, there are sources (quite reliable sources) that openly criticize the idea to ascribe all those deaths to some "generic Communism". I already cited those sources, on this talk page and elsewhere. Thus, one of the authors who objects to that approach is Nicolas Werth. Therefore, by proposing this term, you present the views expressed by Courtois or Malia (which have been extensively criticised) as majority views, and imply that the views expressed by such authors as David-Fox or Werth are a minority views.

It is your real intention? I don't think so. Please, stop pushing this absolutely biased title. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources that connect the Great Purge, Khmer Rouge mass murder and other mass killings to the communist ideology, or movement use the term "Victims of Communism." That should be the topic of the article: the theory that these events are connected and how accepted that view is in reliable sources. That can be neutral in the same way the articles on evolution and creation science are neutral. The fact that we are using the term created by people who draw a connection should not be a problem: people who see no connection have not invented a term to describe the connection because they don't see one.

Both the title and the first line of this article make an implicit connection between Communism and mas killings: "Mass killings under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century." It then goes for a body count and provides a number of authors who explain what the connection is. No Wikipedia article should ever make an implicit connection.

You say that neutrality can be achieved by saying that many if no most scholars draw no connection. But the whole structure of the article, beginning with the title, prevents this.

We could begin this article by saying, "Vicims of Communism" is a term used by some writers to attribute mass killings in various Communist led countries to the international Communist movement or ideology."

TFD (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you propose to rename it to "Victims of Communism", and not to Victims of Communism. In other words, it is supposed to discuss the narrative rather than the actual events. However, by doing that, you put a cart before the horse: renaming does not reflect the content of this article, in contrast, it reflects your vision of its future scope.

If the article's topic will be changed as you proposed (actually, I myself, as well as @North8000: also proposed something of that kind), then this title would be ok. However, currently it is absolutely premature to speak about that, because majority of users will interpret this title as a story of all (real or perceived, lethal and non-lethal) victims of some "generic Communism". I propose you to drop this idea, at least for a while, and to focus on more realistic and local things. One of the most obvious article's problems is its "Terminology" section, which creates an absolutely false impression that the topic ("Mass killings under Communist regimes") is a focus of research interest of a scholarly community, which is trying to develop some common terminology. That is obviously wrong, and this section must be deleted. It would be great if you helped us to resolve this dispute. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, even if "Victims of Communism" were a solidly established term of art within a narrow field, there would still be a good argument not to use it as a title for an article that will be read widely outside that field. Second, the claim that it is an established term of art is in dispute. Third, WP:NOTDICT: we generally write about what things are, not what they're called. Why would an article about a term used by some writers be called for? Surely the priority ought to be on the historical events themselves. Fourth, the term "victims of communism" is used in other meanings, including those imprisoned or displaced but not killed (e.g., [45][46]). XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia articles use words or phrases for their titles, that doesn't mean they are dictionary entries. In the example provided, a definition of an octopus would tell you what the word means and so would a dictionary. The difference is that an encyclopedia would provide empirical information about the animals. The fact that a word or term may have different meanings does not mean that it should not be used as an article title. Octopus has different meanings which is why there is a page called Octopus (disambiguation). TFD (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking about octopuses, but wanted to note another article title resulting from expertly crafted propaganda, The Jewish question, and I believe race and intelligence has been mentioned before, neither of these necessarily imply they are 'mainstream' scholarly fields. The proposal would align the content to what is discussed, such as who, why and where these questionable propositions, 100 million victims of communism are being expounded. ~ cygnis insignis 02:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter, that is the problem — this article should not be events-focused but theory-focused. The events are notable on their own, not as a grouping, which is at best a minority view. The topic of this article should be about the theory that those events are connected, 100 million is the number of victims (while victims of communism may be used to include non-deaths, it is commonly used to mean the 100 million dead), and that communism is the main cause.

Paul Siebert, what TFD proposed is what I propose too, and what you, TFD, North8000, I, and others support is indeed that — the only disagreement is how to arrive that, hence why your suggestion to TFD, which I can understand and is why I support your latest edits. I would, however, propose that we seriously start thinking about having a sandbox about it, especially because many users may better understand how it would look like and change their mind to support it, and another sandbox from the current version that you can work on (e.g. as you did for World War II), where you may make more extensive edits that may be reverted here, and also to better show and explain the problems, the why, and the how to fix them. Because I really want to have a NPOV article about it but I would not know how to start without some help or clear structure, e.g. some of my edits were reverted as OR/SYNTH but that is because the current article is OR/SYNTH, and saying that the concept is disputed or ignored, while true, it is OR/SYNTH with the current structure because we got the structure wrong.

As an example, we have citation needed tags for this: The concept of mass killing as a phenomenon unique to communist governments,[citation needed] or ideologically inherent within them,[citation needed] is heavily disputed.[59][61] This is totally backwards. Davide King (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Victims of Communism" is a bad name for the theory, not least because people who didn't die are called "victims of Communism". If the page is supposed to be about a theory, we ought to call it something like Attribution of excess deaths to communism. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Open an RM on this proposal

• Support opening a requested move to Victims of Communism [large C, maybe]. ~ cygnis insignis 03:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad title, for all the reasons given above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Can't tell foxes from rabbits, but it sure looks like a briar patch. fiveby(zero) 16:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Before starting any RM, we must resolve the main issue: "What this article is about?" In a situation when users disagree even about that, how can you seriously discuss anything?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral - It's entirely up to you. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Why are we bold !voting on this? Opening a formal move request doesn’t require consensus; if any single editor supports a name change, then they are generally free to open a move request unless there is a move moratorium or unless a very similar move request just failed. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Abysmally terrible sources and citations

Just one peak at this wiki and I see why so many people were calling for its deletion. Death toles are cited using works by people such as Robert Conquest, a former propagandist for the British government's secret Information Research Department, and whose works have been beaten into the dirt by history professors such as Wheatcroft, Suny, Davies and Manning.

Within several areas of the wiki the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is used as a source, despite the fact the organisation has such a terrible history of fudging numbers to make higher death toles that it counts every single death of every person (edited: during the Covid pandemic), no matter which country they are from as a "victim of communism". They're so desperate to artificially inflate deaths that they count people who died in capitalist regimes because they could not afford privatised healthcare as victims of communism. Again a look at their funding shows them to be a propaganda front for the US government and their board has included former war criminals such as George W Bush.

As if the sources couldn't get even worse, the infamous The Black Book of Communism is used as a source, a work so terribly researched that many of its own contributors denounced it, and its own wiki page includes an eight paragraph long list of professional historians attacking the book for its oversimplifications, sloppy research, and quest to achieve as higher and higher death toll numbers.

This is just what I've spotted in an hour but I'm sure it will get worse the closer I look at the citations. I could be wrong but I think we should also take a closer look at the sources for some of the photographs cited. A brief look at the source for one of them, the "Ukrainian American Youth Association", appears to have some dodgy links with the one-time Nazi collaborators of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, nad includes some glorification of fascists like Stepan Bandera.

This is just terrible, I've rarely seen wiki pages which are this much of a mess. I don't know how we can possibly fix all this because anytime somebody tries you get an activist who just undoes everything. BulgeUwU (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSE. Those sources are deemed by the community at large reliable and presumably appear on other Wikipedia articles talking about Communism. If you remove a source that is deemed reliable of course you will be reverted that is why I have not done it myself. The first paragraph must include the title written in bold, and currently, there is a debate ongoing to rename the article to something more appropriate. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You might want to make your case over WP:RSN to get those sources removed. That was suggested to another editor a week ago. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Books published by Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press are considered reliable, gold-standard sources on Wikipedia. The misleading presentation above has no basis in Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the Black Book of Communism a reliable, gold-standard source, yes or no? Yes or no? That specific book. Yes or no? DublinDilettante (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Conquest's The Great Terror is certainly a gold-standard reliable source, and, yes, at least Werth's and Margolin's contributions to The Black Book of Communism without question meet that standard as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

There’s a very old joke about a diffident curate who gets served a rotten egg at the vicar’s table, and when the vicar points it out, the curate says, “oh no, sir, I assure you, parts of it are excellent!” It’s meant to be a joke and not a guide for editing Wikipedia. A crank publication edited by a crank for the purposes of right-wing crankery is still that, even if it came ex libris God himself. DublinDilettante (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the RSN discussion about the Black Book. There is no binary answer to your question. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Books by acclaimed university presses are generally reliable, but no publisher is perfect. Even Homer nods; I can think of at least one philosophy book from Oxford UP that is absolute dreck. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

In response to a recent edit by BulgeUwU, I have reverted the change partially removing the reference to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. I think there's might be enough disagreement here that we could have a discussion about that source alone. IDontHaveAnAccountYet (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I note that user BulgeUwU, who instigated this valuable section and accurately characterised the nature of this article, has now been blocked from editing, apparently due to concerns over their user name (which means nothing to me). My own account was blocked for 31 hours due to a user following me from this page to edit war on another. There is absolutely no way any progress can be made, or any credible RfC undertaken, in this total absence of good faith and with this rampant degree of disruption. DublinDilettante (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I used to be "BulgeUwU, and I frequently edited on wikipedia for over a year with no problem. Then the very moment I made edits to this wikipedia page somebody falsly flagged my username as being inappropriate, which then led to me being blocked and forced to change it, and even continued to block me even days after I requested a change in username. I'm certain somebody who didn't like my perspective on this wiki page (which I believe should be deleted) decided a quick way to shut me up for a week would be to falsly flag my account. All it's really done is make me more determined to fix the countless problems this article faces. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Tombs

Just so people know, this is the historian being relied upon as the moral authority for the retention of this article, and who was permitted to influence the AfD (and is even mentioned on the Ideological Bias article itself!)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9543161/PROFESSOR-ROBERT-TOMBS-daftest-lecture-wokery-yet.html

He’s writing in the Daily Mail, a far-right tabloid deprecated as a source on Wikipedia, decrying the Liverpool Guild of Students’ decision to rename an accommodation block after Dorothy Kuya. The previous title, Gladstone Hall, has been changed because (he says) "...in the eyes of the woke brigade, Gladstone committed the mortal sin of having a family connection to slavery".

Needless to say, one of his issues with the mixed-race female anti-racism campaigner Kuya is that she was a member of the Communist Party. If this doesn’t make it clear where Tombs’s anticommunist perspectives come from, nothing will.

The anticommunist sources being relied on in this article are absolute garbage.

DublinDilettante (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is conservative, not far-right. There's no need to continue to complain about the AfD. That's over now and our main focus should be on fixing this article instead. X-Editor (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: regarding your revert, my backdating the article tag, do you now recognise where WP:Synthesis links to? ~ cygnis insignis 02:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I don't really care that deeply about what date the tag is, so I wouldn't mind if it goes back to 2009. X-Editor (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Ta. I restored it, but self-reverted because it was 3rr, apologies for that. @Nug: was rolling back a bunch of my edits without edit summaries, so if someone could restore my edit I would appreciate it. ~ cygnis insignis 02:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh good, what I have noted above is buried and I aint done with responding to his assertions. I found another blog comment on Tomb's History Reclaimed site, explained at Why We Are Reclaiming History, which notes "Despite the facile narrative that defines this type of media, the claim is not without merit when noting that most endorsers are of emeritus status. The advancement of their own academic careers is evidently no longer central to their practice. Self-censorship is likely to operate amongst younger scholars of a similar persuasion in departments where mainstream narratives may apply suffocating pressure to conform with anti-imperial and decolonising programmes". Solares, Carlos Conde (14 October 2021). "Reclaiming an imperial history of the (white, Anglo-Saxon) West (that excludes Spain)". North East Bylines. ~ cygnis insignis 02:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Another source express.co.uk/news/ Woke fightback: Academics launch plan to take on 'blatantly false' reading of history. ~ cygnis insignis 02:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tombs argues in his article that Gladstone's name was removed from a building because his father once owned slaves. In fact, it was removed because Gladstone himself supported slavery and as an MP voted against the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.[47] His maiden speech in parliament was a defense of slavery and the plantation system, his father being one of the largest slave owners in the British Empire, according to his Wikipedia article. Whether or not this is sufficient reason to remove Gladstone, Tombs' account of the facts is false. TFD (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

So what? This whole section is pointless and does not contribute to improving the article per WP:NOTFORUM. --Nug (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You wrote at the AfD, "Tombs says the article is careful and balanced. What makes you better qualified than Tombs to judge?" [14:25, 28 November 2021][48] Peronally, I would say "who cares?" if a person who falsified facts in order to push a political views said this article was "careful and balanced." While this may not matter to you, it does to other editors who are more concerned with accuracy than supporting a political position. TFD (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Is this accurate, Nug? Did you brush off revelations about Tombs’s academic and political background after previously asserting that he was a better source than the participants in the AfD? Genuinely, and in all fairness, you should remove yourself from this discussion if so. I think there’s a strong case for re-running the AfD in the light of this revelation. DublinDilettante (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

100 million figure in the lead

The claim that the 100 million figure is the most common-cited number has been reverted back into the lead, even though there is no support whatsoever for that wording in the body. The closest things in the body are a cite to the blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation - an obviously WP:BIASED source funded by a think tank - and a quote by Engel-Di Mauro that that is the most common figure used by a specific, narrow surge of anti-communists in that particular time period, which is devoted to exhaustively debunking it. Neither of these are anywhere near sufficient to support the argument that that is the most common figure in general, which is what the proposed text implies. I feel it's undue for the lead in any form, but it is flatly factually inaccurate and unsupported by both the article and its sources in the version people keep attempting to add. In fact, the one source that was being used for anything remotely resembling it in the text specifically did not support the idea that it was a common claim in general - it specifically said that it was an opinion that originated solely in the introduction to The Black Book of Communism and was otherwise unsupported. The lead rewrite is already WP:BOLD; this addition is clearly contentious and needs discussion per WP:BRD (though I see absolutely no possibility that it could be supported in its current form - it is a misreading of the article, nothing more.) The only sources in the article that actually endorse it (as opposed to bringing it up to criticize it) are the intro from The Black Book of Communism and the blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which are some of the lowest-quality and most WP:BIASED sources in the article and which certainly cannot be used to define the lead. This is a highly-controversial article; when an WP:EXCEPTIONAL new addition to the lead is disputed, discuss it, don't just put it back with an edit summary saying it's fine. Do not restore it without consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been strongly suggested, or I am now (again), that is the synthetic topic the article is based on. I'm starting to favour the title change to "Victims of Communism", the canard that mention 100 million. ~ cygnis insignis 03:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: that is in my to-do list. However, first, I would prefer to focus on the Terminology section, which creates an absolutely false impression that MKuCR is some well defined scholarly topic. After we resolve this problem, I propose to totally rewrite the "Estimate" section: in reality, not only the figure by itself, but even the very idea to come up with some single figure and link it to Communism is seen as deeply politicised and controversial idea. That means the discussion of any global estimates must be done only in a context of political implications of that figure. It is deeply incorrect to use a pseudo-neutral scholarly tone for that description. Instead, we must explain why the idea to combine all figures into a singe aggregate figure was proposed, who links it with Communism, what are political purposes, who supports this approach, who criticises, etc. After all of that will be done, the lead will be updated.

I propose you to join my work on "Terminology", and after that we will jointly work with "Estimates". I have a plan, I have a lot of sources, and we will be able to convert the section into a nice and neutral story. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That is fine, but this is a new addition to the lead. It's easier to object when it is first added, especially given that I feel that the body simply doesn't support it; the article has gone without this line for years, it can go without it for a while longer until / unless we reach a consensus on some alternative version. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Usually, the lead is supposed to reflect what the article's body says, so the best way is to start from the article's body. Since the latter says "100 million", there is no strong reason not to include it into the lede. It may be reasonable to remove it, but that is not a urgent need. And keep in mind that the article is under 1RR, so you may be reported for technically exceeding the 1RR limit. I am warning you, because the only block that I got during my Wikilife was exactly for that reason and when I was editing this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As soon as we started talking about estimates, take a look at this:

"In 2017, historian Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that communist regimes killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017, commenting: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering."

From this quote, a reader may conclude that Communists killed 65 million, and even more died from starvation. That is a direct lie. Kotkin said that 65 million deaths is the demographic estimated. ...in the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America—communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers. That means, (i) Kotkinn cites someone other's figures (not his own data), (ii) he speaks about demographic losses. The current text of this "well written and well sourced" article contains tons of misinterpretations or a direct lies. It need a thorough analysis and, probably, major rewrite. However, let's finish with Terminology first. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, with respect, you are not parsing Kotkin's statement accurately, probably because English is not your first language. Kotkin's statement means that, while communists did in fact kill people deliberately, the majority of the 65 million+ deaths they caused were the result of unintended famines. There is no other way to parse Kotkin's statement that would be internally consistent or logical. When Kotkin states that there were at least 65 million victims of communism, some of whom were purposefully killed, and that "even more of its victims have died from starvation," [emphasis added] the reference to "victims" refers back to the larger whole of 65 million. In English, "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its [65 million] victims have died from starvation" does not mean that "communism has killed 65 million people intentionally, and even more victims have died from starvation," nor could anyone fluent in the language reasonably construe it to mean such a thing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems you parse my own statement incorrectly, for I am saying exactly what you say.

The full paragraph says:

"But a century of communism in power—with holdouts even now in Cuba, North Korea and China—has made clear the human cost of a political program bent on overthrowing capitalism. Again and again, the effort to eliminate markets and private property has brought about the deaths of an astounding number of people. Since 1917—in the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America—communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers.

Communism’s tools of destruction have included mass deportations, forced labor camps and police-state terror—a model established by Lenin and especially by his successor Joseph Stalin. It has been widely imitated. Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering"

This paragraph does not allow double interpretation: Kotkin says that, (i) according to demographers, at least 65 million people died prematurely, and (ii) these deaths included such categories as mass deportations, state terror, starvation etc.

Demography is intrinsically incapable of separating death by categories. It is a pure statistical discipline that deals with deaths (from all causes), births, migration etc. The figure of 65 million may mean either "excess mortality" (all premature deaths) or "population losses" (unborn infants, emigration AND premature deaths). Period. I totally rule out an possibility that Kotkin, a professor in Princeton, use "population losses" figures (that would be ridiculous), so he definitely means "excess mortality". And, obviously, he is too educated to refer to demographic data as an estimate for the number of execution deportation etc. Demography cannot provide such information. To claim the opposite would be as ridiculous as to claim that by using a multi-meter it is possible to tell if the electricity in your home was produced at nuclear or gas power plant.

That means, Kotkin's statement is in agreement with other sources: yes, "excess mortality" (all premature deaths) in Communist states (excluding WWII deaths in teh USSR) amounted to 65 million at least, and lion's share of those deaths were Great Chinese famine deaths. That is what he says.

And what we see in the MKuCR article?

• It falsely ascribe to Kotkin a claim that Communists killed 65 million (that is a double lie: that figure was obtained not by Kotkin, but by unnamed demographers, and Kotkin never said 65 million were killed by Communists)
• It claims that famine deaths and other categories are not included in those 65 million (that is a direct lie, for Kotkin says that, according to demographers, Communist rule lead to a loss of 65 million, and that included executions, deportations, starvation etc).

Just an example of one (out of many) falsifications that I found in this "pretty well sourced and well written article". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How does one deal with such a proliferation of misstatements as that uttered by Paul Siebert above?

• "It seems you parse my own statement incorrectly, for I am saying exactly what you say." Right, which is that our text (consisting almost entirely of a direct quote from Kotkin) is very clear and cannot reasonably be misunderstood as double-counting the 65 million excess deaths that were caused by communist governments in the twentieth century.
• "It claims that famine deaths and other categories are not included in those 65 million (that is a direct lie ... " Our Wikipedia article, which includes a footnote with the entire excerpt for readers to examine for themselves, very obviously says nothing of the kind (nor has any other editor supported your peculiar interpretation), so your statement could indeed be considered a "direct lie."
• "It falsely ascribe to Kotkin a claim that Communists killed ... " To the contrary, our article merely quotes Kotkin accurately as stating that "communism has claimed at least 65 million lives ... Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering." [emphasis added] Note that Kotkin's use of "intentionally" implies that communist governments also unintentionally killed people.
• "And, obviously, [Kotkin] is too educated to refer to demographic data as an estimate for the number of execution deportation etc." Based on this comment, it seems like you are suggesting that even though the source (Kotkin) uses demographic data to estimate excess deaths, which he himself refers to as both intentional and unintentional "killings," the source is wrong and should know better (based on his education) that only direct executions (which demography cannot separate from other causes of death) qualify as "killings" (or "mass killings"). If your original research were accepted, this would set a drastic precedent for the rest of the article, but, alas, we cannot use Paul Siebert as a reliable source. We have to stick to what the source says, and cannot change it based on editor opinion alone.
• "It falsely ascribe to Kotkin ... that figure was obtained not by Kotkin, but by unnamed demographers ... " For the record, the current version of the article states: "In 2017, historian Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that ... 'communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers.'" Paul Siebert's suggestion that we are somehow misrepresenting or distorting Kotkin, in some way, or that "wrote" isn't the correct form of attribution, and hence that the only solution is to remove Kotkin entirely as a source, seems like an astonishing (and disappointing) case study in bad-faith wikilawyering.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The body certainly does not say, in the article voice, that the most common estimate overall is 100 million (that was my specific objection.) It doesn't say anything remotely close to that. It only mentions it a handful of times, most of them criticizing the number or attributing that view specifically to a handful of fierce anti-Communists. I assume you are not going to argue that we can use the blog of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation unattributed in the lead; and even attributed I would argue it is undue for the lead (there is currently a reasonable argument above over whether they should even be used in the body, but citing their blog in particular seems dubious even in the body - personally I would never support putting them in the lead. Their blog could only be cited as WP:RSOPINION at best and they're just not noteworthy enough for their opinion to be leadworthy. "Think tank / advocacy group believes thing in line with their views", with no secondary sources treating it seriously, isn't really noteworthy.) Even before I changed it, the bit cited to Engel-Di Mauro still (accurately) stated that the figure is used only by anti-communist scholars, making it misleading for the lead to state that the figure is common overall. If we mention it in the lead at all, we would have to word it very differently - one thing the WP:RSN seems to be leaning towards is that we definitely cannot use Courtois without attribution, which this would be doing (since the sources near-universally agree that that number originates exclusively from him.) Regarding the 1RR, my last edit was two days ago - unless you meant my two recent edits; the second one wasn't a revert, but even if it were, multiple consecutive edits with no intervening edits are counted as one for 3RR / 1RR purposes. --Aquillion (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The 100 Million claim is obviously very contentious, and as far as I can tell only used by the fiercest partisans of this topic, i.e. Courtois, the VOCMF etc. To say that it is the most common number is not supported by the body or the sources provided, and if it is presented in the lead or even really the article at all it must be presented as what it is, a (WP:FRINGE at worst, minority at best) view held by people who have demonstrated clear ideological bias with regards to this topic. BSMRD (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, go to the AfD talk page and read the quotes collected by me. That representative sample of sources gives an impression of how this approach is treated by scholars. It is especially interesting to read Werth's opinion. IMO, all those sources must be used in the re-written "Estimates" section to provide a proper context. And the section should be renamed to something like "Attempts to propose global estimates of Communist death toll and its political implications". Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Howdy hello folks. I added the 100 million figure based on my reading of the article. I have no connection to the article, I just like writing leads a lot (its my favorite part of Wikipedia). When I saw this article only had like three sentences for a lead, that felt just criminal! So I spruced it up a bit from what I got out of the article. The 100 million figure stood out because it was mentioned repeatedly. If it isn't reliable, that should probably be made more clear in the body. Or perhaps there could be a note in the lead saying something like "100 million is mentioned commonly in the popular press, but is likely inaccurate as well." But I think some number should exist in the lead. Folks don't want to sift through 20 different estimates. That's why I included the high and low values, and what appeared to be the mode (100 million). I have no attachment to that number, aside from that some numbers should be mentioned in the lead. Remember, the majority of readers don't ever make it past the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• CaptainEek, this goes back to what is the main topic supposed to be — Communist mass killings, in which case the events and what happened is more important (e.g. we would say what happened according to majority scholarly sources, and limit ourselves to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Red Terror with the Russian Civil War and White Terror in mind, e.g. mass killing events according to the most accepted definition of 50,000 within five years, which makes it pointless to mention death tolls, as that is out of the scope), or Communist death toll, in which case the events are to be seen as death toll events (e.g. we would say number of people died under event A, and we may mention all Communist regimes, in which the case the scope is much broader). The problem of the article is that it attempts to do both things, and treat all events as generic mass killings, plus ascribing a number of causes that are too ideologically-centered and not as nuanced and context-minded as majority scholarly sources and country experts do.
• Until we actually agree on the main topic, its structure, and core sources, we are always going to have this problem. I would not have a problem mentioning estimates, perhaps just changing the wording that lower estimates are more reliable, higher estimates are from the popular press and/or include famines and other events which scholarly sources say should not be counted, and of course the criticism of the body-counting itself as a useless exercise to score a political point and push the view that Communism was worse than Nazism because it killed 100 million, or more people in general. Davide King (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• CaptainEek is obviously correct in that the lead needs some sort of summary. I agree with Davide King: I would not have a problem mentioning estimates.XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be pointed that Valentino (Cornell University Press, 2005) says: "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." This puts the lie to the canard that only Courtois (Harvard University Press, 1999) or Dissident (2016) have arrived at 100 million.XavierItzm (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can’t believe I have to point this out, but saying “estimates include” does not constitute making an estimate. If you want examples of people quoting the 100m figure, any fascist meme page on Facebook will have plenty. The issue is where the estimate comes from. DublinDilettante (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, it does not support your contention that someone other than Courtois reached 100 million - note, the blog you mentioned as your other source was vague as to who it was summarizing, which is to be expected for a mere blog post, but, as far as I can tell, was merely referencing Courtois as well. "Estimates include" means it surveyed all other estimates and that, presumably, Courtois was one of the ones they included (obviously, it doesn't support saying that it was the most common estimate, but I think we're past that particular dispute - I don't see anyone still arguing that 100 million is the most common or that we can say that in the article voice.) If you want to show that someone other than Courtois reached that figure, you need to show another source reaching the figure, or saying that someone other than Courtois reached the figure, not a source vaguely acknowledging that that is a figure that has been reached (we know it has been reached, by Courtois.) Also, could you stop referencing the blog as Dissident (2016) as if it were some sort of academic source? It's a blog; we cannot use it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Dissident (2016) is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation putting out its own number. What you are trying to say is that a Tweet by The Coca-Cola Company is not a tweet by Coca-Cola Company because obviously Coca-Cola Company has no fingers so it can't type a tweet. Duh! Obviously the person who writes Coca-Cola tweets is an employee of the company and whatever is published by the official tweet account is considered as spoken by the company. Ergo, what Dissident put out in 2016 is evidently what the Memorial Foundation is saying. XavierItzm (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If you believe that someone's opinions or speculation on a random blog is an appropriate cite for a figure in this article, you're free to take it to WP:RSN (though the last discussion near-unanimously found this exact source unreliable for this exact statement; I'm baffled as to how it somehow creeped back in.) But I think your time and energy would be better spent finding better sources - if, as you say, this figure is actually significant, then it should be easy to find actual high-quality WP:RSes covering it, with a weight comparable to the other sources in the section, rather than being reduced to arguing that we can include random opinions from blogs. You might feel that it makes no difference where an opinion is published, but WP:BLOGS and WP:RSOPINION disagree - RSOPINION covers only some sources; it does not simply allow us to use any source we please as long as we have an in-text citation, while BLOGS flat-out says such sources are largely not acceptable. Again, seriously - you are arguing that this is a vital figure of paramount importance that belongs in the lead, and you are citing this to a rando think-tank blog! Come on. If you're convinced its so central to the topic, just find a better source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: let's be realists. For many years various users were trying to fill the "Estimates" section with reliable data, and that lead to the current (quite a pathetic) state. Just in case if you haven't seen it, take a look at my post that I made in the "Blog..." section. It seems there lousy sources are the only sources on this topic. The section must be completely rewritten (followed by the lede). Taking into account, that the DRN is going to be very slow, I have a feeling I should not wait for its end. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@XavierItzm:

Valentino cites Rummel, who is recognised as an unreliable source for figures (see RSN). Dulic provided a nice analysis of all flaws in Rummel's approach, and, according to Harff, Rummel's response to Dulich's criticism didn't satisfy Dulich.

Valentino's own study do not involve any analysis of figures. He just cited this figure without any critical analysis. He is neither demographer, nor historian, he is a genocide scholar, and his expertise is not figures. The main goal of his study was to identify causes of mass killings and find the methods for their prevention. By the way, do you know what is his main conclusion? A conclusion is: regime type does not matter (and that is equally applicable to Communism too). In connection to that, don't you find it amazing that those users who extensively cite Valentino, simultaneously resist to bringing the article into accordance with his main conclusion? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, stop repeating this canard that Rummel's data unreliable. Wayman and Tago did a comprehensive analysis of his data and found Rummel numbers are consistent and his database is a good framework for studying mass killings during the 1900-1987 period. --Nug (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: Thanks. I saved this diff.

Please, explain (with quotes) what concrete analysis of Rummel's figures was performed by Wayman&Tago.

Assuming that your assertion is correct (in reality, it is not), explain, how this W&T's assertion can be reconciled with the outcome of Rummel vs Dilic discussion, and with Harff's summary of it?

Assuming that your assertion is correct, how it can be reconciled with Karlsson's conclusion?

Assuming that this your assertion is correct, how can it be interpreted in a context of the recent RSN discussion of Rummel

Please, explain that, otherwise I have a serious reason to accuse you of personal attacks (accusation in repeating a "canard") and cherry-picking. In addition, repetition of already debunked arguments may be considered as a sign of WP:IDHT. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've explained this to you previously. Dulić's analysis was criticised for extrapolating his findings on Yugoslavia to Rummel's complete dataset, moreover his analysis only covered a portion of the time period covered by Rummel (Rummel, RJ One-thirteenth of a data point does not a generalization make: A Response to Dulić. Journal of Peace Research 41(1): 103–104.). Secondly, Karlsson's conclusions on Rummel is grossly WP:UNDUE and is not cited by anyone apart from you here on Wikipedia, it is confined to a couple of sentences in his paper with no further elaboration, whereas Wayman&Tago devote an entire 11 page paper showing that after examining the 18 consensus cases of communist regimes, Rummel's identification that 72% of communist regimes have engaged in mass killings compared to Harff's identification of only 22% is due to the fact that Harff's dataset is a narrower dataset strictly confined to geno-politicide and excludes other mass killings outside of that definition. Thus Wayman&Tago state: Most communist regimes, one can say, based upon the literature as we have reviewed it, are 'guilty' of democide but not of geno-politicide. --Nug (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: sometimes, I have a feeling that you are acting in bad faith, and all what you write is a pure demagogy. However, your other posts (including your last post) create an impression that you are a quite reasonable person, who sincerely wants to achieve consensus. I sincerely want to resolve this puzzle. Let's agree about the following: I answer to your arguments in full, and I will try to address all your major points. If you disagree, in your responce, please explain me why exactly you find my arguments unconvincing. If you don't answer, I will conclude that my arguments satisfied you. In the latter case, please, do not raise the same arguments again, neither during a discussion with me, not in your responses to other users; if you do that, I will conclude you are acting in a bad faith, and will act accordingly. The same is equally applicable to me: if you demonstrate that my arguments are flawed, I will never repeat them at any Wikipedia page. Deal?

If you agree, please, let me know, and I will provide a detailed responce about Rummel, Dulic, Karlssen, Harff etc. It is a really interesting issue, which I will gladly discuss with you. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

First I'd like your input on what you think Wayman&Tago2010 is discussing and what you believe their conclusions are with respect to Rummel. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok.

First, you must understand that the author's goal was to demonstrate "that differences in the two major datasets can significantly affect the results of predictions of mass political killing". They do not examine validity of datasets. They just assume that both Rummel and Harff use reliable data, and W&T do not question their validity.

They acknowledge that Rummel's figures and Harff's figures are different, but W&T attribute this difference to different inclusion criteria used by these two authors. In other words, if Rummel's "democide" in, some state was 40 million, and Harff's "politicide" was 2 million, that is not because Rummel's or Harff's data are wrong, but because these two authors include different categories of deaths into their database.

However, they noted that

• "...most scholars except Rummel have worked with Harffs data." (W&T, page 7). That directly contradicts to your previous assertion that Rummel's database is at least as popular as Harff's. In connection, your allegation about my ostensible POV-pushing in Mass killing look somewhat groundless. I am waiting for your comments on that. What about some form of apology?
• that Harff's data are systematically lower (more than an order of magnitude for most periods) (ibid)
• that application of a lower threshold eliminates a large case of democides from the analysis, but it does not eliminate or even significantly reduce the basic difference between the Rummel's and Harff's data. (W&T, p 10)
• the only plausible explanation is that Rummel includes non-targeted (a.k.a unintentional) mass killings, whereas Harff doesn't (famine, the most deadly events, are not included into politicide database).

However, I haven't seen any indication of even a minimal attempt to verify validity of raw data in Rummel's and Harff's database.

W&T just say: "Ok, these two authors, using two different approaches and two different data sets, came to different conclusions. Leaving the question of validity of their datasets beyond the scope, what may be a reason of such a discrepancy?

Since W&T do not conclude that Rummel'd data are correct, but they assume that (and leave that beyond the scope of their analysis), this article cannot serve neither as an evidence of validity of Rummel's figures nor as a demonstration of its non-validity.

Do you have any objections to this my interpretation? If you do, please, explain. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said "Rummel's database is at least as popular as Harff's", I pointed out that it is at least as significant as Harff's (PITF), as demonstrated by its inclusion on Oxford University affiliated website[49] If Rummel's dataset was such trash as you claim it to be, why would W&T even bother in writing a 12 page paper on comparing the two datasets? Clearly in the minds of W&T the validity of Rummel's database is taken as granted, and they do say it is a good framework for studying mass killings during the 1900-1987 period. --Nug (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ahoy hoy cap'n! We should all try to remember that, thanks for getting that lead reader ready. /s ~ cygnis insignis 15:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: What is a measure of significance? That it was included in a list of four datasets? What if they just listed all available datasets (which is highly likely)?

W&T do not focus on comparison of datasets, they are trying to understand the difference between conclusions made by Harff and Rummel. And they note that their datasets were dramatically different. They do not say whose dataset is correct, they leave that question beyond the scope.

In connection to that, I do not understand why you are carefully ignoring Dulic, who devoted two articles specifically to the analysis of Rummel's data. He clearly says:

"In any case, it seems the discrepancy between Rummel's figures and what can be reasonably be estimated is simply much too high to be taken lightly. However, these deficiencies cannot be eliminated by mere adjustments if Rummel uses similar sources in other case studies. On the contrary, I argue that the problematic presuppositions regarding the variation principle warrant a thorough revision of the method. Whether such a revision would change Rummel's overall results, particularly when it comes to the ranking of 'democidal' regimes, remains undecided."

This is a clear and severe criticism, which, according to Gleditsch, Rummel failed to adequately address. Why are you ignoring it? And why the opinion of Karlsson, who is notable enough to use his article as a core article for CAHuCR, but who is not notable for his opinion about Rummel? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The claim genocide it is not a scholarly, but a legal term

Surely this claim in the edit comment appears somewhat disingenuous, the most basic Google scholar search shows it to be a topic of much scholarly study. Unfortunately Paul's edit has made the section Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Terminology_and_usage a POV fork of linked article Genocide definitions. --Nug (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"Genocide" has two meanings: it is a legal term, and it is used as a synonym of "mass killing". Thus, a scholarly discipline called "genocide studies" does not study only genocides, and "genocide scholars" (like Valentinio) do not study genocide exclusively. It is not our goal to explain colloquial meaning of each term. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I am in a progress now, thank you for pointing at a redundant link. I think, it is better to remove it. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess you think The International Association of Genocide Scholars is an organisation of legal professionals. Unfortunately Paul's edits are a POV fork of Genocide studies. --Nug (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Genocide is not merely an international legal term; if there were, there'd be no a reason that the page listing various genocide definitions would be a notable list. If we're considering whether or not to use "genocide" in Wikivoice, it's probably best to use the genocide convention definition, but to say that it's merely a legal term is simply not correct when there is so much scholarly study on the topic of genocide. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DRN and RFCs

This is another follow-up about the possibility of facilitation and the (non)possibility of mediation.

I said, above, that DRNMKUCR was available for the development of one or more RFCs. That is what I said. I didn't say that was offering to conduct mediation on any limited topics.

• User:Paul Siebert wrote: "In that case [described above], I propose to start a new DRN devoted to this specific issue, and include all parties into it. Do you think that may work?"
• I wrote: "What would you expect to be the result of the DRN? Would you expect it to result in approval of your idea, compromise, an RFC, what?"
• User:Paul Siebert wrote: "sorry, but your question doesn't look serious. If I wanted just an approval of my idea, it would be senseless to resort to DRN."
• The question was completely serious. Would you be expecting compromise, or an RFC? I could instead have gone ahead to answer your question of whether it may work with "Probably not", but I had thought that maybe your objective was an RFC. Mediation does not work well with a large number of participants. That is one of the reasons that I was offering to facilitate RFCs, and not to mediate, or to conduct moderated discussion.
• However, in the discussion of Terminology, User:Vanteloop proposed discussion leading to an RFC.
• But User:Paul Siebert wrote: "I explicitly object to RfC. That is not a substitute for a normal discussion. That is a misuse of the procedure, because 'Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others.' I see no evidences that you made any reasonable attempt to resolve this dispute. In that situation, resorting to de facto !vote would be a misuse of the RfC procedure."
• When there are a large number of editors, it is unlikely that discussion will resolve a dispute or result in agreement. Editors who object to an RFC may do so because they would prefer to stonewall, or because they are unduly optimistic about their own power to persuade other editors. The good-faith assumption in this case is that an editor who objects to an RFC overestimates their own power of persuasion.
• I personally consider explicitly objecting to an RFC to be a form of civil POV pushing, which is disruptive. I do not plan to take part in discussion in which editors have the right to refuse to take part in RFC.

I am still willing to facilitate one or more RFCs. I do not plan to lead moderated discussion with some other objective. I find the objection to RFC troubling.

I will likely comment on some specific issues in the next 24 hours, but I will clarify that I do not intend to try to mediate in any way other than facilitating RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, I have a few questions that I hope you can address in your next comments. Have you checked my series of questions that one or more RfCs should address to find a way forward? If so, are they good, did I miss anything? Would it be possible to also have an RfC about analysis of sources? If not, what is the best way to perform a (moderated or not) analysis of sources? I mention sources because the AfD said it is the core issue of the dispute. Davide King (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm somewhat surprised Paul has basically ignored your efforts at DR post AfD. Maybe he is worried about any potential RFC's not going his way, I don't know. Paul flagged his removal of the terminology section in Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Terminology, several editors objected and I suggested this could be something for DR. Many articles have a "definitions" or "terminology" section to help the reader, so this could have been a candidate for an RFC. But Paul has just ignored everyone who doesn't agree with him and has started removing text anyway. --Nug (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

diddums, but Robert has just stated, more or less, they are not here to mediate individual grievances eg. sentences beginning with 'But UserName has … ~ cygnis insignis 06:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I would like to put forward my willingness to work to create a RfC regarding the terminology section. I initially was willing to go some other route in the spirit of building consensus. At this point however, I am inclined to agree with your assessment of users who blanket object to any RfC. Let me also say it may well be the case the RfCs results in a consensus to remove the terminology section or make the changes Paul and others have suggested. I may even support some of those options. What I have objected to is the stonewalling of any chance of consensus, and pushing edits through over the explicit objections of multiple editors. Vanteloop (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally consider explicitly objecting to an RFC to be a form of civil POV pushing, which is disruptive. As a follow up can you confirm what the consequences will be for editors who continue in this disruptive behaviour (ie. refuse to work to build consensus and instead edit without regard to this discussion)? I don't think its a worthwhile use of time to engage in good faith attempts to build consensus in the face of such behaviour. Vanteloop (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is under a discretionary sanctions regime, so any admin is empowered to issue topic bans or blocks at their discretion for such disruptive behaviour. --Nug (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"under a discretionary sanctions regime" ~ cygnis insignis 15:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vanteloop: is that summary of what is arguably most of the contributions to the article's long history a withdrawal of the offer to create that RfC? ~ cygnis insignis 14:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is all deeply undignified. Surely there should be sanctions applied for canvassing to get users with opposing views topic-locked during an edit dispute? This is not good faith. The circumstances for an RfC clearly don’t exist. DublinDilettante (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This you? It's clear that, having failed to make any plausible case for retaining this article (even with the organised support of far-right media outlets), the Keepist camp is attempting to "win the peace" by locking in a hard-line, POV intepretation of history through a series of bureaucratic manoeuvres and "sandbagging" of those they see as their opponents. There is no good faith being exercised, and none is possible in these conditions. Vanteloop (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing your point? Have I tried to get anyone topic-locked? DublinDilettante (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

One assumes it was, I remind myself that a lot of comments expressing astonishment at deletion have expressed deep concern based on humanistic sentiments, censorship, and historical revisionism, and that is done in 'good faith' when the title is an 'article of faith'. ~ cygnis insignis 16:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I believe I already answered your question about DRN. However, to avoid misunderstanding, let me do that again. Your question " Would you expect it to result in approval of your idea ... ?" implies that you see me as a person who is not prone to arguments and who does not respect other's opinion. Of course, I, as well as any reasonable person, am ready to all scenarios: that the RDN discussion will result in approval of my idea, OR compromise, OR even in a complete rejection of my idea, etc. Every outcome is possible, and I would be a dishonest person if joined a DRN discussion without being ready to accept all possible outcomes.

I am sure that was not your intention, but your question sounded somewhat provocative and insulting (it implied that I may be an intellectually dishonest person). Therefore, my reaction was quite understandable. I believe, we may consider this incident resolved, and there will be no misunderstanding between us in future.

WRT my objections to RfCs. Obviously, I objected not to RfCs in general, but to a misuse of the RfC procedure. An example of such a misuse is the RfC that is currently open, and, by the way, I am by no means the only person who says that (just read comments).

Sometimes, an RfC may be a very bad idea. Sometimes, it is absolutely necessary. Thus, we absolutely need an RfC that will answer a question about the article's topic. The article's topic can be either the events (mass killings etc) (an option A), or it can be the narrative (that Communism killed 100+ million)(an option B). The core problem of this article is that it a hybrid: it is a story about the events, which is embedded into some narrative (and that narrative expresses the views of a minority of scholars). I repeated, for many times, that we need to choose between A and B (btw, I myself is absolutely neutral in that aspect, I accept any decision), and that problem can be resolved only via a carefully written RfC. Note, this question is intrinsically impossible to resolve at the DRN, it can be resolved only via an RfC.

However, there are some questions that cannot and should not be discussed during RfCs. Consider this example: If I start the following RfC: Do you think that the article is well sourced?", an overwhelming majority of users would answer "Yes". And I perfectly understand them, for I myself thought the article was well sourced. However, when I started to check sources, one by one, I found that many of them are twisted, misinterpreted of just do not tell anything about the topic. That means, such an RfC would lead to totally misleading and harmful outcome, because majority of users are not deeply familiar with the topic and do not analyse sources. That would be a pure manipulation.

Therefore, there are some questions that can be resolved only in a multiround mediated discussions (such as DRN), which requires participants to deeply dive into the topic and respond to each other's arguments, and there are questions that require an RfC, and cannot be resolved at the DRN. It is also possible that a DRN discussion may lead to an RfC, but I am not sure it is really necessary in every case.

I believe the misunderstanding between us may be considered resolved now. If you still disagree, please, let me know. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

And, by the way, I agree that DRN is not a good for resolving a dispute among a large number of users. That is why I attempted to split a "big" DRN on smaller subtopics, which are more suitable for the DRN format. I asked your opinion about that, but there was no answer from you. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Let the related-DRN run its course. Before, continuing anything else here. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional Comments on Analysis of Sources

I was asked whether I will facilitate an RFC for the analysis of sources. The answer is "It all depends", for at least three reasons. First, questions about the reliability of sources should be addressed at the reliable source noticeboard rather than here.

Second, in my opinion, much of the discussion about the analysis of sources reflects a misconception about what can be accomplished by the analysis of sources. An analysis of sources can have either or both of at least two objectives, analysis of verifiability and analysis of reliability. The first objective is to compare the source to a section or statement in the article and see if the source supports the statement. The second objective is to assess the source to decide how reliable it is. The first is relatively easy, and the second is likely to be contentious. However, most of the questions about sources are not really about whether they are reliable but whether they are neutral or biased, and how to present an overview of what different sources and types of sources say. (The idea that an analysis of sources will decide that some sources should be accepted and others rejected, and that that will resolve the questions about the article, is a distraction.)

Third, there have been questions identified, since the start of this discussion, about types of sources, including journalistic and historical sources on specific events, genocide scholars, and critics of Marxism-Leninism. In my opinion, the issue (as noted above) is not what sources to exclude, but how to organize an article that refers to multiple types of sources.

If an editor has a specific idea for an RFC on how to organize the article in order to reflect the different sources, I will work with them to facilitate the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

We could start with these sources:

• Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press: 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." ..."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." ..."I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments.

• Michael Mann, UCLA sociologist, in a chapter called "Communist Cleansing: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot" from his book "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" published by Cambridge University Press: All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." ..."Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven, believing that in order to create a new socialist society, they must lead in socialist zeal. Killings were often popular, tha rank-and-file as keen to exceed killing quotas as production quotas. The pervasive role of the party inside the state also meant that authority structures were not fully institutionalized but factionalized, even chaotic, as revisionists studying the Societ Union have argued. Both centralized control and mass party factionalism were involved in the killings." ..."This also made for Plans nurtured by these regimes that differed from those envisioned in my sixth thesis. Much of the Communist organization of killing was more orderly than that of the ethnonationalists. Communists were more statist. But only the Plans that killed the fewest people were fully intended and occurred at early stages of the process. There is no equivalent of the final solution, and the last desperate attempt to achieve goals by mass murder after all other Plans have failed. The greatest Communist death rates were not intended but resulted from gigantic policy mistakes worsened by factionalism, and also somewhat by callous or revengeful views of the victims. But - with the Khmer Rouge as a borderline case - no Communist regime contemplated genocide. This is the biggest difference between Communist and ethnic killers: Communists caused mass deaths mainly through disastrous policy mistakes; ethnonationalists killed more deliberately.

• Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press: Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they 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." ..."'Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of 'politicide', which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann.

• Daniel Chirot, Professor of International Studies and Sociology at the University of Washington, and Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College and Director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, in the chapter "Why Genocides? Are they different now than in the past?: The four main motives leading to mass political murder" in their book "Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder", published by Princeton University Press: The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The revolutionary thinkers who formed and led communist regimes were not just ordinary intellectuals. They had to be fanatics in the true sense of that word. They were so certain of their ideas that no evidence to the contrary could change their minds. Those who came to doubt the rightness of their ways were eliminated, or never achieved power. The element of religious certitude found in prophetic movements was as important as their Marxist science in sustaining the notion that their vision of socialism could be made to work. This justified the ruthless dehumanization of their enemies, who could be suppressed because they were 'objectively' and 'historically' wrong. Furthermore, if events did not work out as they were supposed to, then that was because class enemies, foreign spies and saboteurs, or worst of all, internal traitors were wrecking the plan. Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction. The logic of the situation in times of crisis then demanded that these 'bad elements' (as they were called in Maoist China) be killed, deported, or relegated to a permanently inferior status. That is very close to saying that the community of God, or the racially pure volksgemeinschaft could only be guaranteed if the corrupting elements within it were eliminated (Courtois et al. 1999).

• David Bellamy, Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at The University of Queensland, Australia and Director of the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, in the chapter "The Cold War Struggle (2): Communist Atrocities" in his book "Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity", published by Oxford University Press: Communist regimes massacred millions of civilians during the Cold War. Governments in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia initiated programs of radical social transformation and killed, tortured or allowed to starve whole groups thought hostile to change or simply unworthy of life. But it is not simply the number of victims that distinguishes communist from non-communist atrocities in the Cold War. guided by ideologies of selective extermination, communist perpetrators rarely even acknowledged the moral questions raised by their policies of sometimes systematic extermination. Ideological solidarity prompted communist governments to support one another, often enabling communist perpetrators of mass killing to secure sufficient legitimacy.

Feel free to add others. --Nug (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Nug - Thank you. Am I correct in inferring that those sources are not currently used in the article? If so, I see no reason that they cannot be added to the appropriate sections of the article, but the structure of the article is being discussed and they might be moved. However, I had been discussing analysis of sources, which is a different matter than adding sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, as far as I understand it, those sources are all used at least once already in the article, and they are better considered to be the core sources of MKuCR — indeed, those sources were the reason why the article resulted in 'Keep' for the first time but that is no longer the case, as there is no consensus.

By the way, have you noticed that all those sources are about genocide and/or mass killing in general (as was noted by AndyTheGrump in the AfD), and while they discuss Communism (some of them give them chapters, but they also give them for capitalism and other regime types, while others are more in passing), I am not sure that supports Communism as a separate and/or special category by majority sources.

As noted by Paul Siebert, they do not necessarily entails that a new topic is created; as they are works about mass killings in general, and discuss all sort of regime types, it looks cherry picked in single outing Communism as a special and/or separate category; in other words, all those sources are good ones to actually expand Mass killing, not creating a new topic and article about Communism as if it was a separate category, hence the POV forking; we also still disagree about Valentino. It could be a different thing if they were focused solely on Communism (note that they say Communist regimes but in practice they mean Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot because those are the Communist regimes under which mass killings happened, so those sources are still misread1 to imply Communism as a whole, which can be done only if we, ironically, move away from mass killings and focus on excess deaths) and represented a majority view. Davide King (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

1. Mann's main thesis, as shown by the book's title, is that democratic transformation can result in genocides, as it has happened in Rwanda. Yet, we treat him as if he was writing about Communism in a special or separate category when they are passing mentions, and he is proposing the concept of Classicide. Davide King (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment About Source Analysis

The closing administrators wrote, in closing the RFC with No Consensus: "We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock." I wish that I could be as optimistic as the closers about the ability to break the deadlock by source analysis. However, I am willing to facilitate an RFC to the effect as noted above. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

As I explained in my previous post, the core issue, which had been recognised many years ago, but which is still unresolved, is the article's topic. Actually, many discussions, for example, a recent discussion about the new title, lead us to thin core issue. If we resolve this issue (I always maintained that I am totally neutral about that), that would be a huge step forward. That has a direct relationship to the your question about the best way to reflect sources. If that linkage is not obvious, ask me, and I'll explain.

It can be resolved only via an RfC. However, the RfC question must be very well written, because (i) users must clearly understand what they are voting for (that should be a real vote, because, from the point of view of our policy, both options are acceptable, so the answer to that question is a matter of taste), and (ii) there should be no ambiguity in its implementation (if a majority of users vote for "B", then it should be clear what concrete consequences it has).

I propose to start writing this RfC. It is much more realistic goal, it does not require a deep knowledge of sources, and there should be no fundamental disagreement among users. If you agree, what platform is more suitable for that? This talk page or DRN? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A new RfC about the article's topic.

As it was noted earlier, there is no agreement among users about the article's scope and topic. This is a core problem, which leads to numerous conflicts, edit warring, and that is a main reason why the article has huge neutrality problems. I propose to resolve this problem by starting an RfC. As I, as well as many other users, noted that this article can either describe all mass killings and mass mortality events in Communist states (so it must be a Summary style article for such articles as Cambodian genocide, Great Chinese famine, Great Purge, etc (an option A), or it can be a discussion of a narrative about a possible linkage between all premature and coercive deaths under Communist rule and Communism (as some single phenomenon) (an option B). This two options are intrinsically incompatible, so we must select only one. In this discussion, I am neutral (I equally like both approaches), but I believe it is absolutely necessary to pick one, and to rewrite the article accordingly. I propose to jointly start writing a correct text of the RfC, which must give as an answer that will rule out a possibility of double interpretation. Who wants to participate? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There's still a DRN occurring on this article & an RM is being proposed. Anyways, it's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A draft of the RfC:

What is the topic of this article?

• A The topic is all mass killings and all mass mortality events in Communist states. The article should be a summary style article of such articles as Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Great Chinese famine, Cambodian genocide, Katyn massacre and similar articles, and it should provide a neutral description of those events according to the views expressed by majority of RS.
• B The topic is a discussion of a linkage between Communism and various lethal events that took place in Communist states. This includes the views expressed in the sources that see such a linkage and the sources either openly disagree with that, or that say otherwise.

This is a preliminary version of the RfC that I am going to initiate in a couple of weeks or earlier, depending on your comments. I especially invite @Nug:, @North8000:, @The Four Deuces:, @Davide King:, and @Robert McClenon: to comment on that, but comments from other users are warmly welcome too.

Since the article's topic is a core issue, I am going to focus on it exclusively, and I am suspending my participation on all other disputes. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am gonna vote ahead of time: B. Additionally, I would like to add that the main subject of contention is not the topic, but rather the title which is completely different from the given premise of the article. Title claims A, whereas, main topic of focus is B. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: Please, don't. This is not an RfC, that is just a discussion of its possible text. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd add:

• C The topic about the phenomena of mass killings by Communist states with a discussion of the possible causes, of which ideology is one of many proposed. I don't see why it has to be binary choice between A or B. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No. This is inconsistent with NPOV. That makes this article a POV-fork, for it discusses the events from a perspective of just one (minority) school of thought. If you disagree with that, and if you are not going to withdraw your "C", I will start a DRN, where I am going to name you as a party. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, with due respect, excluding options that multiple editors have expressed a preference for renders the RfC to be non-neutral. Threatening(?) to take a single user to DRN is not actually a way to solve this content dispute; the point of the RfC would be to make arguments for and against the ideal article topic. There is not a community consensus that Nug’s suggestion is incompatible with NPOV—the AfD certainly did not establish it and I am unable to find any affirmative consensus elsewhere that supports your claim. And, even if there were, consensus can change. I think Nug’s wording can be tweaked, but I don’t think that rejecting something similar to Nug’s proposal offhand is going to make this Draft RFC better. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Paul has also in the past few minutes threatened to report me if I do not go along with his demands. Vanteloop (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: It seems you misunderstand something. We don't need a consensus that someone's suggestion is incompatible with NPOV. The policy works in an opposite way: there should be a consensus that it IS compatible. I raised a concern that that suggestion is incompatible with NPOV, and this my legitimate concern must be properly addressed. Unless that has been done, we cannot claim this suggestion is compatible with NPOV.

I believe you understand this point. If we use your approach, any edit that violates some policy may be removed only if there is an explicit consensus about that. That approach directly contradicts to the fact that NPOV is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by (...) editor consensus.

If you believe C is in agreement with NPOV, prove it. And if your arguments will be supported by consensus, I will accept your arguments.

With regards to "threatening(?) to take a single user to DRN ", I cannot believe you are serious. DRN is not ANI or AE, it is not a place where people can be taken. That was just a proposal to continue this discussion at DRN, and I named Nug because he was the only person who presented some arguments. If you want, I may invite you, or anybody else. I am open to any suggestions, unless they are not violating our content policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

POV fork of what exactly? Nobody disputes that mass killings did occur under communist regimes. Grouping them together is topological, they all share the fact that the killings occurred during agricultural collectivization and political terror, a combination unique to communist regimes. That topology isn't disputed by any source. What is subject to differing academic POVs are the various proposed causes of the mass killings, the article presents them, whether it was ideology or personalities of the leadership, etc, in a NPOV way. --Nug (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding, If you believe C is in agreement with NPOV, prove it. And if your arguments will be supported by consensus, I will accept your arguments, why is the RfC an inappropriate place to discuss that option? It’s certainly gotten a good bit of discussion in the AfD, and I see no reason why we should exclude it as a mere option in a request for comment.

Regarding the straw man raised in the second paragraph, I am not arguing that we could, by local consensus, choose to deliberately ignore the principle of neutral point of view. What I am arguing here is that discussion on the extent to which a particular option is consistent with those principles is both necessary and proper in any RfC on the article topic. If the argument is that a particular editor (or even a small group of editors) can somehow veto mere discussion a particular option due their own interpretation of NPOV that is not clearly shared by the rest of the community, that would simply enable ownership of articles and would render RfCs largely toothless.

And regarding my characterization of your threatening(?) Nug, that is how I read your statement that if you are not going to withdraw your "C", I will start a DRN, where I am going to name you as a party. I do not quite know a better word to otherwise characterize a statement indicating your intent to unilaterally drag someone to a dispute board unless they take a specific action. The reason for the question mark is that I find the concept of threatening to drag someone to such a board as rather odd, since that board is something that ordinarily is agreed to by mutual consent, but I cannot think of any better word to use there. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I explained that many times. Just read talk page archives. Briefly, WP:SS requites a direct correspondence between a "summary style" and "daughter articles", and they must be even synchronised. That is not what we are having in this case.

"why is the RfC an inappropriate place to discuss that option?" Because we already have serious reasons to believe that it violates our policy. We cannot start an RfC if some of us expressed a legitimate concern about possible policy violations, and that concern was not addressed properly. How can we propose a community to vote if we are not sure our proposal is in agreement with policy?

I am only superficially familiar with DRN, but I know that nobody can force you to join a DRN discussion if you disagree. If someone names you as a party, that is just an invitation, which you may accept or reject. Neither I nor ArbCom members nor even Jimbo Wales can force Nug to participate in DRN. You are free to interpret me as you want, but my words are just an information about my desire to move the dispute to another platform. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, there is an excluded middle here—supporting option A requires supporting all “mass killings and all mass mortality events” in an article titled “mass killings under communist regimes”. A good RfC would also include an option that says that the topic is a summary style article of “mass killings committed by communist regimes”. It seems like this would be worthwhile to include as an option—I also think that it is what people who have been arguing for summary style are generally arguing for. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Benefits/downsides of mobile comments is that you don’t always get to see edit conflicts. I think Nug’s proposal above partly gets this, but I also do think that a summary style article focused on mass killings would inherently have to discuss causes as well and, like Holodomor, it would have to describe how different academics classify different actions as killings or not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The article cannot be a description of, e.g. Great Chinese famine embedded into the Black Book narrative. The reason is simple: an overwhelming majority of sources do not describe it as a mass killing of politicide. Even "genocide scholars" do not do that. Thus, it is not included even into Harff's database. Majority of sources describe it in the same neutral terms as, e.g. Bengal famine. Just read all "daughter articles" and compare them with what this article says. A "summary style" article must say the same story as daughter articles. Anything else is a POV-fork. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: just to make sure that we are speaking about the same things: have you read WP:SS? Do you understand all criteria a summary style article should meet. There is no sarcasm in my question: I have a feeling you genuinely don't understand what WP:SS is. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Paul, I understand what a summary style article is about. If the reason that you do not think I understand the text of WP:SS is that we do not agree on how to apply the guideline to this article, then I would kindly ask you to understand that I am analyzing and applying the guideline in good faith. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:, since February this article has been a child of the Communism article with, in my opinion, some very poor content percolating up from here. I think that adds weight to your arguments but cuts both ways. If the anti and anti-anti narratives are put in their proper place, what content goes in Communism? Back to the pre-February sterile version? fiveby(zero) 21:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fiveby, that is the problem. This article should not be the child of Communism but rather of Communist state and Mass killing. Davide King (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the first transclusions to this article is Template:communism sidebar, which states it is part of a series of articles on Communism. What is a 'child' of what is tends to OR in my view. ~ cygnis insignis 06:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. What I linked there transcludes content at Template:Communism, found that out when I removed some other related topics. ~ cygnis insignis 07:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, Communism does claim a history section doesn't it? When you raise questions about summary style i look at Communism#History, History of communism, etc. Concerns about this article which should be addressed look much less concerning in comparison. Oh and i think you were looking for the three "misunderstandings" (but "roots of Stalinism" is really too much of a burden to put on Werth) to show that i'm not just drive by commenting and put at least a minimal effort in here.fiveby(zero) 11:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly agree with Nug. This RfC is very poorly formed, and is presenting an overly restrictive binary interpretation of problem. Even if an editor disagrees with Nug's suggestion it shouldn't be banned from the RfC. It's worth noting that this user has been rebuked by a neutral moderator for what could be considered 'to be a form of civil POV pushing, which is disruptive.' when they outright refused to entertain the possibility of any RfCs on this topic not long ago. Although now they are writing one - and deciding what options are allowed in it their opinion may have changed (I hope)? Vanteloop (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The wording of any third option can be worked out, it was to illustrate that Paul's two options are a classic false choice. --Nug (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on the title, I would expect to see A. An article about "Earthquakes under communist regimes" would list major earthquakes, tell us how many earthquakes there were etc. Of course we have no such articles because most people believe that earthquakes are a function of natural rather than political geography, although some people see natural disasters as collective punishment for turning away from God.

The reason why many editors object to this article is that it makes an implicit connection between communism and mass killings. That's why we don't have articles such as "Black sex offenders" or "Jewish Communists." We can however have articles about how and why some people connect blacks and sex crimes or Jews and Communism and they are discussed in Race and crime and Jewish Bolshevism. So we could have neutral articles called "Ideology and mass killings" or "Victims of Communism."

TFD (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The idea that mass killings are somehow inherent to communism is clearly very contentious - but the title is referring to that contentious claim, not asserting it is true. For example, Creation science doesn't need to be changed to 'Pseudoscience of Creationism' because the article is about the concept of 'Creation science' and the validity of the concept is discussed in the article. I think once we can improve the article to include a more clear description of the criticisms and academic consensus on the subject of MKUCR the name issue will become moot. As Nug says The current article title is no less neutral than say, Domestic violence in the United States. That article isn't making an implicit claim that the USA is a nation of wife beaters. Vanteloop (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not clear from the wording that it is about a contentious claim. An article called "Mass killings in the Soviet Union" for example would not be about a contentious claim, because it is not contentious that the Soviet Union carried out mass killings. And while some people question the term creation science on the basis that it is unscientific, we use that term because it is the recognizable term used by its proponents. But mass killings under communists regimes is not a term used by people who connect the two. TFD (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Option

• C The topic about the phenomena of mass killings by Communist states with a discussion of the possible causes, of which ideology is one of many proposed needs be added. Choice is always better. Attempts to reduce choice in an attempt to force Wiki editors down one pre-determined path might appear unseemly to some.XavierItzm (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternative Proposals

As the talk page can get quite noisy it is worthwhile having a section for alternative proposals, so as to keep it seperate from the debate about Paul's draft proposal I have created a sub-heading. These proposals could be alternate wordings of a RfC on this topic, or ideas about how best to approach this problem. Hopefully we can work towards a RfC that is acceptable to all so that any consensus the wider community comes to is less disputed. Vanteloop (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 1:Split the article

I list a rough first draft of a RfC below, are there any objections to something along these lines? Again just to be clear, this is a working draft on what may eventually be put to editors. Do not vote on this. I believe splitting the article could be useful because then a seperate AfD discussion could be had on the first article without confusing with the legitimate discussion and critique of linking communism and mass killings in such a way.

Should this article be split?

• Yes The article should be split into 2. The first should be a summary style article and it should provide a neutral description of those events according to the views expressed by majority of RS. The second is a discussion of the linkage between Communism and various lethal events, including critiques of this view.
• No The article should not be split.

Vanteloop (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not alternative proposal, it is complementary one. That would be a good option "C". Paul Siebert (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a possibility yes, although judging by discussion above we would also need "D" "The topic about the phenomena of mass killings by Communist states with a discussion of the possible causes, of which ideology is one of many proposed". to cover the opinions expressed so far Vanteloop (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No. That does not work. A neutral article written in that way would be a combination of two totally different parts. It will be literally the option C, where two totally different articles were forcibly and artificially connected together.

My rationale is as follows: if you look at the sources that discuss, for example, Great Chinese famine or Cambodian genocide specifically, you will see that they form a compact domain where each source is connected by a network of cross-references. These domains are totally separated from the sources that discuss "generic Communism" and its linkage to mass killings (GCF sources even do not use the term "mass killings"). In other words, they form different and totally unconnected realms, each of which tells different stories, and, especially, provide different interpretations.

That means, if we start to write a truly neutral article, 95% of space must be devoted to the country-specific sources (and their narrative), and the rest will be a totally different story told by "generic Communism" sources and its critics. And, these two stories will be totally unconnected to each other, so the split will be the only possibility. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That argument seems more like an argument against the option, rather than an argument against its inclusion in the RfC. Am i correct in that you have no objection to Alternative Proposal 1 as written? Vanteloop (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I object to the very idea of alternative proposal. I presented a draft, which means it can be amended, expanded etc. Why cannot you just add your "Yes" as option "C" into the original draft? I believe Nug does not insist on his "C" anymore. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you object to any RfC not written by you? Several commentators have rejected your draft outright as a false choice, if we are going to make progress I believe we should float several ideas and see what sinks if you will. Do you have any objection to the alternative proposal 1 as written? Vanteloop (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would say the same in somewhat different way: I proposed a draft and invited everybody to jointly write some text. You proposed your own text in a separate section. And who is refusing to collaborate, you or I?

Your "No" is de facto an endorsement of the current version, which is a POV-fork. It is unacceptable. Your "Yes" implements Nug's proposal. Therefore, I am asking again" why you refuse to collaborate and reject all what was proposed in the above section? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Your "No" is de facto an endorsement of the current version, which is a POV-fork. It is unacceptable. That may very well be the case, and that argument should be made at a RfC, but as North says below that option has to be included in some form - otherwise we are relitigating the AfD. You propose a "draft" and invited "everybody" to jointly write some text. As well as expressing my opinion on that draft, I noted that several of the objections were to the fundamental framing of your draft and I accepted your invitation to write some text. I did this by re-framing the proposal and presenting it as an alternative. Are you refusing to even accept the possibility people work on a RfC other than the one you proposed? Please work with me here. I am not saying your RfC draft is wrong, I am merely floating an alternative I think may have wider acceptance. If that is not the case we have lost nothing. Vanteloop (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For reference of other users, the quote I mention by North is I still disagree that #1 & #2 can't coexist. And add to that, that coexistence is what the current article is.....arguments that policy says that the current article shouldn't exist are arguments of the AFD's. I'm not arguing for "both", but am observing that it's not possible to exclude that choice. Vanteloop (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

To start an RfC with a question "Is this article a POV-fork?" means to restart the AfD, for if the RfC comes to a conclusion that it is a POV-fork, that means the article must be deleted. Do you really want to pave a way to a an AfD#5? I don't, because my plan is to spend at least one year in attempt to save this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The options in AltProp1 are 'split' and 'don't split'. POV fork isn't mentioned. That is you projecting your view that the article cannot be kept in its current form (for the record I actually agree with you here) but note that the outcome of the last AfD was 'no consensus' so if it is decided to not split the article we are in no different position than we are now. Vanteloop (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I proposed a draft that discuss the article's topic. You propose "alternative" draft about the article's split. Don't you find that these are two different RfCs? The RfC proposed by me is if the article can be converted in either SS or the article about "generic Communism" (let's use this term for brevity). I agree that some third option is desirable, and your (actually, Nug's) proposal (which I personally like) is a good alternative. However, that is not a reason to exclude first two options.

We don't want to keep this article in its present form (if nothing will change in one year or so, I'll start a new AfD, which will be properly written, and which will take into account all previous AfD; I want to avoid this scenario, so if your RfC will result in "No", that means we inevitably start "my" RfC (I call it "my" conditionally). Then why cannot we just combine them? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Because the foundation of the original proposal is This two options are intrinsically incompatible, so we must select only one. In this discussion, I am neutral (I equally like both approaches), but I believe it is absolutely necessary to pick one, and to rewrite the article accordingly. which has been rejected as a sound foundation by multiple users. None more eloquently than North :I still disagree that #1 & #2 can't coexist. And add to that, that coexistence is what the current article is.....arguments that policy says that the current article shouldn't exist are arguments of the AFD's. I'm not arguing for "both", but am observing that it's not possible to exclude that choice..

if your RfC will result in "No" and if it results in yes the issue is solved.

I'll start a new AfD The results of an AfD a year from now are not my concern, I want to improve this article as soon as possible. Vanteloop (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

When I wrote that #1 and #2 are incompatible, that didn't imply no other options can exist. Whan I say that #1 cannot be combined with #2, I never said it precludes existence of some #3 or #4. Actually, Nug's idea to split the article is better than #1 and #2. I didn't plan to vote for #1 or #2, but I will definitely vote for #3 (if Nug will approve its inclusion). Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So it seems we are approaching common ground. #1, #2 being 'pick one or the other', #3 being 'split' and #4 being The topic about the phenomena of mass killings by Communist states with a discussion of the possible causes, of which ideology is one of many proposed is a proposal i can see gaining some consensus Vanteloop (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Note, the last AfD's outcome was not "keep", it was "no consensus", which means the panel acknowledged the article has some severe problems, which are not sufficient for immediate article's deletion, but may be a reason for its serious rewrite. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. Per NPOV, we cannot discuss mass killings (as events) only in a context of one theory (or one school of thought), we must add a summary, fairly, proportionally and without a bias of ALL majority and significant minority views. In the next section, I described what will happen: the theories that links Communism and mass killing will sink in an ocean of good country-specific studies. That means, your #4 does not work. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I see so you still don't accept North's view? "I still disagree that #1 & #2 can't coexist. And add to that, that coexistence is what the current article is.....arguments that policy says that the current article shouldn't exist are arguments of the AFD's. I'm not arguing for "both", but am observing that it's not possible to exclude that choice.". I think this is the main sticking point in finding consensus , and I have yet to hear you refute that view as positied by North, Nug, and others Vanteloop (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

North8000 is knowledgeable in our policy (more knowledgeable than I), but I am more familiar with sources. North8000 is right that theoretically we can combine everything in a single article, but that will require us to re-write it from perspective of majority point of view. In contrast to most of you, I know what it means: if we write it "fairly and proportionally", there will be literally no space for theories that link Communism and mass killings (even Valentino, whose "mass killings" concept gave the article its name, didn't see a significant linkage). And that is why I repeat my question: is it the outcome that you really want to achieve? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

theoretically we can combine everything in a single article Thank you for this, I genuinely believe we can reach consensus now we accept all these outcomes are possible - however unlikely or however much we disagree with them. Vanteloop (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If I'll start to describe, even very briefly, all significant causes of Red Terror, Great Purge, Afghan War, Chinese famine, Cambodian genocide, etc, there will be virtually no room for Courtois or Rummel's "theorising".

By the way, I've just realised, what is a different between your #4 and my #1? I don't see any significant difference. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the proposal. I agree that the options should be presented more distinctly. Since no comments had been left on the proposal I have updated the options Vanteloop (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you incorrectly summarised #4: our policy does not allow us to discuss mass killings in Communist states in a context of just one school of thought. Your #4 would be correct only in one case: if some theories existed that discuss MKuCR in a context of Communism, and other authors either supported or criticised them. In that case, your #4 could be quite legitimate. However, the situation is quite different: we have, e.g. 10 sources that discuss MKuCR in a context of Communism, 11 (or 9) sources that criticise these views, and 990 sources that tell a totally different story. (Of course, I do not pretend these numbers to be exact). Your #4 leaves the third category (the most numerous one) beyond the scope, which is absolutely unacceptable per NPOV. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2: One, both, or split

Please find below a second proposal. My reasoning for including option 3 is it has been suggested by several editors as a possible middle ground. I include option 4 so as to represent users such as Nug and North8000 who says "I still disagree that #1 & #2 can't coexist. And add to that, that coexistence is what the current article is.....arguments that policy says that the current article shouldn't exist are arguments of the AFD's. I'm not arguing for "both", but am observing that it's not possible to exclude that choice." I agree with this assessment. I welcome input on this potential RfC.

• 1 The article should be a summary style article , providing an overview of mass killing events under communist governments
• 2 The article should be a discussion of the linkage between Communism and various lethal events, including critiques of this view
• 2 The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept
• 3 The article should be split, one for each of the above
• 4 The article should be both 1 and 2 together

Vanteloop (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have updated the options following input from Paul Siebert. No comments had been left at time of update. Vanteloop (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Note 2: I have updated option 2 following input from Nug. The original option is left strucken through. Further input and critique is always welcome. Vanteloop (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the wording of the second option, because it seems focused on a single viewpoint as it rules out other causes beyond ideology, like leadership for example. Perhaps: "The article should be a discussion of the potential causes that have led to the apparent correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including critiques of the various views" --Nug (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point. The wording is probably overly-simplistic, however I also think the wording you propose could be clearer. What are your thoughts on: The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept. Of course the usual guidelines regarding due weight and NPOV would apply to this article. Vanteloop (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is better. I've read one source that suggests over zealous lower level bureaucrats may have been a possible cause, so we don't want to rule anything out. --Nug (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug and Vanteloop:, by commenting here, are you declining the invitation to participate in the formulation of these proposals at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Mass killings under communist regimes ~ cygnis insignis 10:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No Vanteloop (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You said you hadn't read preceding discussion there, but note the comment above your own section for proposals and comments, "The purpose of resuming this dispute resolution is to formulate any Requests for Comments that will resolve any of the issues about this article." ~ cygnis insignis 10:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling to intepret this comment. Is the point that I should not try to seek input here if I am also willing to work at the DRN? That process hasn't even started yet. As Robert Mclenon says Multiple RFCs can be developed both at the DRN subpage and on this article talk page, but the editors developing the RFCs should take reasonable care to avoid having conflicting RFCs. That is what I am trying to do here by 'reading the room' on what RfC structure seems the most accepted. If I have misintepreted your comment I apologise. (and while I have you, do you have any input or crtique on this or any other RfC proposal?) Vanteloop (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to Vanteloop (talk · contribs) that is better done at the DRN subpage, and noting the supposedly contrary advice states "reasonable care to avoid having conflicting RFCs" in a new section titled "Alternative proposal 2: One, both, or split". ~ cygnis insignis 12:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

better done at the DRN subpage that's a fair opinion, I have already explained why I disagree - I will do so again, but I don't think its productive to continue going round in circles. "reasonable care to avoid having conflicting RFCs" Gathering input about what potential RfCs have the greatest consensus before moving forward is doing exactly that. This is not a RfC, it is a proposal up for input.

Do you have any input on the proposal as currently stated? Vanteloop (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. ~ cygnis insignis 12:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:XavierItzm Pinging you because you expressed a desire for a proposal with all options considered. This proposal has received input from multiple editors already but I am still seeking more before deciding whether to move forward. Do you have any opinions on this proposal? Vanteloop (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Option 2 as suggested by Nug seems reasonable. XavierItzm (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Structural analysis and recommendation

Thanks for the ping. I agree that the future of this article will be an eternal mess unless editors START by deciding what it's scope and subject will be. And I agree that the two big potential "content blocks" possibilities are:

1. A discussion of a possible linkage between Communist rule and mass killings (or possibly include mass excess deaths)
2. An overview of mass killings and mass mortality events in Communist states. This could be simply a higher level summary of of those, or it could be a distillation with emphasis on the aspects that related to communist rule.

I don't agree that they can't exist in the same article. In fact inclusion of both may be inevitable, but it's important that the editors decide and then record that decision for posterity (since the title does not define it and probably can't be modified to define it) #1 contains the material that is unique to this article. IMO it's the main thing that this article has to offer readers that is not elsewhere. But the summary or "distillation with emphasis" aspect of #2 also has some value to readers. Also, #2 might help cover #1.

At the beginning of the above process, maybe the main editors could come to a "meeting of the minds". There is probably a real world contest blended into this whole process. This could be between people who tend to want to make communist look as good or bad as possible, or concern that the "other" group of editors is trying to do that. Possibly the main editors could agree to set this aside for at least this first decision. Whether that be for a higher purpose (to make a good, informative article, which is also more fun) or a pragmatic one of avoiding the Mutually Assured Destruction of eternal pain here for the editors.

So there are three choices: #1, #2 or both. To avoid math problems, rather than a three way choice, I would recommend 2 separate decisions: Whether or not to include #1, and whether or not to include #2. And maybe these decisions could be made in a friendly discussion between the active editors. Maybe these questions could be raised or decided at DRN. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A would not discuss whether there is a connection between communism and mass killings but why there is one. TFD (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That is true but I thought that wording that pre-supposes that there is one would turn some people off or sound POV.North8000 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

An alternative question may be: should the current article be split into two articles #1 and #2. --Nug (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but that would chart a pretty complex and difficult course in several respects.North8000 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is also an option. That could be an option C. It is totally consistent with our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000.

I agree with almost everything except one thing: #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive, so your "both" is not an option. WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF apply severe restrictions on that. How can you imagine a "summary style" article that discusses both #1 and #2, especially if #2 is not just briefly discussed at the very bottom?

The reason is simple. Most "daughter articles" explain each specific mass killings/mass mortality case by a number of factors, and Communism is usually not the only, and even not the major one. If we combine a neutral summary of those events with a discussion of a role of Communism, this discussion should inevitably split onto many country-specific sections, because in each case the role of Communism as a factor was totally different. However, if we try to discuss a role of some "generic Communism", we will give an undue weight to that highly questionable theory. In my opinion, Nug's proposal is much better: "Both #1 & #2" means that we need two different articles.Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I was just giving my assessment, and my only opinion is to do my best at that. I hate to go into the weeds here but it might be useful. It's likely that some things that go along with actual communist regimes are enablers of mass killings: totalitarian government, a course that calls for major (=forceful) re-indoctrination of the residents, or the latter providing cover for some bad person who wants to do really bad stuff. All these are not inherently a part of a communist philosophy. And per TFD (who I highly respect) possibly a correlation existing is widely accepted as a given. I still disagree that #1 & #2 can't coexist. And add to that, that coexistence is what the current article is.....arguments that policy says that the current article shouldn't exist are arguments of the AFD's. I'm not arguing for "both", but am observing that it's not possible to exclude that choice. Regarding splitting, that possibility should also be offered, possibly as step #2 after a decision that both should be covered. IMO the execution of that approach would be near-impossible, but it should be offered. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to collect a representative sample of sources, and I found that the idea of a strong causal linkage between Communism and mass killings may have more critics than supporters among scholars.

With regard to "correlation", it is tricky. Thus, the black people are overrepresented among the US prisoner population, so there is a strong reason to speak about some correlation here. However, I have a strong doubt a linkage between the race and criminal intents has been convincingly demonstrated in something like randomised double blind studies. Correlation does not implies causation, and majority of authors, unlike Rummel, prefer to discuss causes, not to look for correlations. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we already have an article about correlations. This article is Democide. We don't need another one (per policy). If this article will be devoted to some generalisations, it should discuss causation, not correlation. And this discussion must include three aspects: who sees Communism as a promary cause and why, who disagrees and why, and what majority of authors think about causes of those events (a spoiler: they explain that mostly by country-specific factors, and some of them, like Valentino, attribute them to other non-country-specific factors than Communism). Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Democide is about an academic concept. MKuCR is more similar to Aboriginal deaths in custody, that article title doesn't suggest a causal link between jail and aboriginal deaths, neither does MKuCR suggest a causal link between mass killings and communist regimes, but the correlation exists and is undisputed. Any causal link that may or may not exist is explored within the appropriate sections of the respective articles. --Nug (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your argument does not look really convincing. If the article implies no significant causal link, then the "Causes" section must be removed. "Terminology" section must be removed too. And "Estimates" must be significantly modified. Who is resisting to that: I (who agrees that the article should not stress causal linkage), or you (who proclaims that it doesn't, but whose edits contradict to those proclamations)? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

But investigating causal links is a legitimate field of study as acknowledged by you by your statement that #1 is a legitimate topic. You also say that #2 is also a legitimate topic. Since #1 is a discussion of #2, surely they both better together in the one article as it give the reader greater context, as we currently have it. Aboriginal deaths in custody also has a section on definitions and death totals. --Nug (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I already explained, the sources that discuss a casual link (or a lack thereof) between Communism and mass killing is a separate domain of sources that exist in isolation from the sources that discuss country-specific causes, or discuss other casual linkages. These are different domains, which even do not cite each other. They tell totally different stories, and they discuss totally different concepts.

Ok, I can give you an example:

There are tons of sources that discuss Great Chinese famine, either taken separately, or in context of other Chinese famines (which were pretty regular in history of China), or in a context of Bengal or Irish famine, etc. And there are few sources that link it to Communism (not to the Communist party of China, which is just a reincarnation of previous Chinese ruling elite, but to some abstract "Communism" as a universal phenomenon). if we decide to tell a full story, fairly and proportionally, without a bias, how this story will look like? It will be a story of a desperately poor China, which was regularly suffering from deadly famine, a China with almost no statistical apparatus, a story of "communal dining rooms" (a purely Chinese innovation), a story about a weird sparrow extermination campaign, etc. How much space will be left to Courtois's speculations? A couple of sentences in a "Controversy" section. And the same will happen with other subtopics. That is what may happen if we combine these different topics in one article: the sources this article currently rest upon will sink in an ocean of high quality country-specific sources, and they will be ghettoised in a "Controversy" section at the very bottom. Is it a result you want to achieve? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that scholars who don't see Communist ideology as a driving factor are not likely to say that or to explain why it was not. But it's OR to use sources that do not directly address the connection. We can't say for example that since A attributes mass killings in Kampuchea to the psychopatholgy of its leader that A concludes that the killings were unconnected to killings in other Communist states. Why for example would the Khmer Rouge chose to be led by a homocidal psychopath?

In the example of black criminality, your example is about for one state, which would be part of mainstream study. But mainstream scholars don't study criminality among black people in general.

TFD (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As I explained, neutrality requires that the article about the events (mass killings and mass mortality) to be written based on majority views. Majority sources are the scholars who don't see Communist ideology as an important driving factor. That means, Courtois, Malia, Rummel and few others will be barely visible in the ocean of country specific sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a whole ocean of fish species specific sources that make no mention of the impact of volcanos on the excess mortality of fishes. That doesn't mean that studies into that aspect of fish mortality is some how a minority view compared to the rest of the field of marine science, it is just a different topical aspect. Even Harff has grown more critical of country experts who challenge systematic empirical studies, who often think they know better what happened in one particular country but are not focused on global data. --Nug (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Space for Siebert and TFD's response.

In regards to Nug's latest comment above, to which I will let The Four Deuces and Paul Siebert address, I want to focus on their comment that "Harff has grown more critical of country experts who challenge systematic empirical studies, who often think they know better what happened in one particular country but are not focused on global data" — I would like to see a source for this claim, and the presumably academic journal in which it has been published. Ironically, I do not think that this is a good thing for those supporting genocide scholars as core sources of this article, giving that if this were to be true, it would just show how isolated they are, considering that country experts represent majority views, and how we simply cannot write a NPOV article with that structure and core sources. Davide King (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I can understand Harff's point, single country experts are focused on single countries, how can they see the trends in the global data. They can't see the forest for the trees. --Nug (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I can understand that too, but it does not change the fact that country experts are majority sources and genocide scholars represent a minority. You have completely ignored the fact that genocide scholarship has been criticized and has problems, especially in regards to comparative analysis (which is important considering that we are grouping together many different Communist states), which is why it did not appear in mainstream political science journal and behave in isolation. If this appears to be changed, Paul Siebert must be more aware of it than me. That does not mean they are fringe, that they cannot be relied on at all, or any strawman you may make out of this comment, it just means that they do not represent a majority or mainstream view, are not relied by historians and country experts (they may complain about this but it does not change this fact), and we cannot write articles from the POV of a minority. Davide King (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is classic fallacy of composition, just because individual country experts believe something with respect to that one country, it doesn't follow it continues to hold true when looking at a global grouping of countries. This whole argument of "single country experts are majority view while genocide scholars are minority view" is complete nonsense. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It does indeed follow when genocide scholars are not relied when discussing the events, e.g. Werth does not rely on Rummel's works about Communism, how do you explain that? Since this topic is about Communism and Communist regimes, if genocide scholars are not cited by scholars of Communism and/or do not have publications about Communism, and are not experts on Communism, we have a NPOV problem and they represent a minority POV in that regards. What you fail to realize is that not all academic fields are the same or in equal standing; if you think genocide studies, which is a relatively new field and appears to be and work in isolatation, is on equal standing with that of history, I do not know what to tell you. Davide King (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to provide a structural perspective and and propose a roadmap for editor input and choices to begin navigating out of the morass that this article is currently in. Paul, maybe you are making arguments that conflict with yourself. You offered that possible-correlation-causation field of inquiry as a possible topic of an article, and now IMO you appear to be saying that the field of inquiry is not legit / should not be an option because the causality or correlation has not been proven prior to the inquiry. In any event, I was not attempting to mediate the many debates involved, I was just trying to offer a way to navigate out of the morass.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, North8000.

First of all, correlation should not be mixed with causation. Usually, these are different types of studies, and they are performed by different authors. Studies that identify correlations are usually done by means of factor analysis (one of pioneers of application of factor analysis was Rummel), and many independent variable are used (Communism is just one out of many. A full (very long) list of variables can be found, e.g. in R. J. Rummel. Democracy, Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Mar., 1995, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 3-26. Stable URL), and I see no reason for arbitrarily selecting Communism as one variable. We already have articles (for example, Democide or Democratic peace theory) that are supposed to cover the correlations issue. Importantly, my analysis of that type sources demonstrates that no (or very little) sources study correlations between mass killings and specifically Communism.

Therefore, in our case, a discussion of correlations should not be considered as an option.

Causation is a totally different topic, and the sources that discuss Communism and mass killings approach to that issue in rather philosophical way. Yes, they can, and they should be discussed, but they must be an object of the discussion. I believe you perfectly understand that, so I apologise in advance for repeating that, but let me do that one more time (Consider this also as a response @Nug:):

Imagine we have some phenomenon X and three theories that explain it (theories A, B, and C). Can we write an article that discusses only the theory A and the phenomenon X? Obviously no. That is explicitly prohibited by our policy,which says All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. The theories B and C are "significant points of view on a subject X", therefore, we either include ALL theories, or discuss only A, but it should be the object of the discussion. That can be achieved only in one way: if a discussion of X is removed from the article (it must be only briefly mentioned to explain the context).

I believe I explained my view, and, as you can see, there is no contradiction here. If possible, I would prefer to accept Robert's proposal and continue the discussion at DRN. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My opinion and suggestion is at the beginning of this subsection. I plan to un-watch this. @Robert McClenon:, as someone with the skills, interest, objectivity, temperament, and willingness to invest significant time here is the rock star of the chances for resolving this, and DRN is their main venue on this. IMO they will need to start with orchestrating a decision on the scope and content of this article. Ping me if you think I can help. Wish you all the best! North8000 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go, I hope you didn't feel WP:BLUDGEONed, your input has been valuable here. --Nug (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: Thanks. Although the article and situation may be seeing some of that, nothing I received chased me away. It's simply that this situation is so huge and complicated and entangled that I don't think it is possible for any advice to be followed or for me to be helpful here at this time. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Structural analysis of each main topic and its core sources

Disclaimer — I believe that the only NPOV article that can be written without violating our policies and guidelines is theory-based and focused on the link and the "victims of communism" narrative, which is nothing more than the same topic as this one but written and structured neutrally according to majority and scholarly sources. Any of the other proposed topic fails NPOV because majority of historians and scholars simply ignore the topic and/or do not do such Communist grouping (hence why it was and remains so hard to improve and fix the article in this current structure),1 which is done by some genocide scholars and a few others who adopt the "generic communism" grouping — we simply cannot write a NPOV article from the POV of a minority. For Creationism, we do not use sources from the proponents but rely on secondary and tertiary scholarly sources that do it for us.

It is also why I think that Paul Siebert's compromise proposal fails (excess mortality and mass killings) for the same reasons — most scholars (e.g. Soviet specialists, Chinese specialists, in other words country experts) either discuss each event separately or limit themselves to the country or particular era (Stalinism, Maoisim), so even if we rely on country experts, and each section is a summary of Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, and do the same for each Communist state, we are bordering in OR/SYNTH by grouping them together2 for the simply fact that majority of country specialists do not group them together like this and the controversy regarding "generic communism", which would be undue — I think this was also The Four Deuces's criticism, and is why AmateurEditor thought it was OR/SYNTH, probably the only disagreement I may have with Siebert.

Said this, I may change my mind if I could see a sandbox of each possible topic and core sources, so as to check whether writing a NPOV article is possible for each proposed main topic, or if some main topics fail our basic policies and guidelines. If we can identify core sources for each proposed topic (Nug did this, and I cannot wait for Siebert to analyze them), it could be helpful in moving us forward. Because it is not sufficient that we identify a possible main topic, it must be supported by majority of reliable sources, with a preference for scholarly ones both to avoid controversy and because they are the best possible sources. Davide King (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason country specialists don't group them together is because country experts are focused on one single country, obviously. Grouping them together is not OR/SYNTH because many scholars have already done the grouping per RS. So please stop repeating this nonsense. --Nug (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

See Notes below — if you were right, the AfD would have resulted in 'Keep' but it went from 'Keep' to 'No consensus' (the Wikipedia editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic), therefore I would kindly ask you to refrain yourself from such patronizing comment and nonsense wording, when the AfD said otherwise and took it seriously. Davide King (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

1. "The problem is that scholars who don't see Communist ideology as a driving factor are not likely to say that or to explain why it was not. But it's OR to use sources that do not directly address the connection. We can't say for example that since A attributes mass killings in Kampuchea to the psychopatholgy of its leader that A concludes that the killings were unconnected to killings in other Communist states. Why for example would the Khmer Rouge chose to be led by a homocidal psychopath?" —The Four Deuces

Davide King (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

TFD's argument is a straw man. The article makes no claim that Communist ideology as a driving factor, it discusses many possible factors in the section Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Proposed_causes. --Nug (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have often wondered if the carpet bombing of countries under communist régimes has been proposed for inclusion, not that I am, the response might be they are collateral damage in the war on communism. ~ cygnis insignis 09:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably would be included in Anti-communist_mass_killings#Vietnam. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, stop expressing your clear views on this as facts, when other users have expressed disagreement. Even if you disagree, respect those views, as I respect yours. Davide King (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As you can see here, there are clearly users who either believe the article already does that or that it should, so please avoid saying that it does not do that or that there are no users who think it does or should do it. Davide King (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

2. As noted by the AfD:3 "The principal argument for deletion is that the article collects together incidents of mass killing by communist regimes that reliable sources normally treat individually, not together under the umbrella of 'communist mass killings'. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to 'synthesize' disparate bodies of information in this way, because it is considered original research that violates our commitment to verifiability and a neutral point of view."

3. Of course, the AfD also noted the counterpoint: "The principal argument for keeping the article is that the topic meets the 'general notability guideline', our basic criteria for including a topic in Wikipedia as a standalone article. They contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight." Considering that the result was 'No consensus', and not 'Keep', this remains a serious issue and a valid argument unless we are shown that majority and scholarly sources do this grouping.4

4. It is interesting that the closure used 'Communist mass killings', perhaps aware that MKuCR for short results in mirrors and citogenesis, because Google Scholar results on 'Communist mass killings' show no such literature,5 as proposed by in the counterpoint, and mixes it with anti-communist mass killing (Indonesia).

5. I get Rummel and Valentino, and general works about genocide and mass killing, so there is, in fact, no literature — just several sources that either mentions Communist regimes, or devote chapters to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, but which in my view do not present it as a separate or new topic.

Davide King (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Nug, making a list of "mass killings under communist regimes" implies there is a connection, otherwise why make a list? It's like saying, "I'm not saying there is a link between vaccination and autism nudge nudge wink wink but here's a list of cases of people who were vaccinated and developed autism." Both cases use anecdotal evidence to prove a theory, whether that is done implicitly or explicitly. TFD (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Whereas in Communism#History we can omit mention of deaths and state plainly Stalinism...was intrinsically non-genocidal, and Marxist communism was a restraining factor that did not allow Stalin to unleash a true genocide. fiveby(zero) 16:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

IOW, two wrongs make a right. That text you cited is sourced to Stephen G. Wheatcroft, an expert on the Soviet Union. It's probably not clearly phrased. Wheatcroft's point was that mass killing in the Soviet Union were not based on ethnicity. Indeed we are allowed to report all kinds of opinions so long as they are sourced and we explain their weight in reliable sources. We cannot use Wikipedia articles to present our own opinions, whether implicitly or explicitly. TFD (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Davide King: is that a quote from Wheatcroft you added here or your own summary? I don't find any support for it in the given citation. fiveby(zero) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see that too many people quote these my words, so some explanations are needed. I quoted, from memory, the article by Eric D. Weitz (Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Spring, 2002, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29. Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: [50])

Actually, I forgot the name of the article, but now I found it again. Weitz says:

"Yet it is important still to distinguish between states that commit genocide and genocidal regimes. The latter are, thankfully, relatively rare. They are the systems in which genocide moves to the core of state practices to such an extent that one can see the entire system revolving centrally around human destruction. The Third Reich constitutes the supreme example, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge a second one. The regimes that commit genocidal actions are many and include western colonial states going back to the fifteenth century as well as particular cases in the Soviet Union under Stalin. But it is at this precise juncture that the absence of an explicit racial ideology in the Soviet Union becomes so critical. Racial ideology, when adopted and practiced by a state, necessarily entails the subordination of defined population groups and includes impulses toward ethnic cleansings and genocides. The absence of such an ideology acted as a brake on the Soviet regime's population politics, preventing the unfolding of a full-scale genocidal program along the lines of Nazi Germany"

A comparison of my words with this source shows that I didn't quoted it completely correctly. Instead of "intrinsically non-genocidal", it would be more correct to say "non-intrinsically genocidal" (i.e. in genocidal in the same way as many other regimes). However, the main idea, namely that Soviet official ideology served as a brake that prevented Stalin from unleashing a full scale genocide was correct (thus, he was contemplating a genocide of Jews by the end of his life, but the only thing he could do was their deportation, which never happened). I believe the incident is resolved. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So who is responsible for that content, you or Davide King? The content in this edit? From a source which states ...particular cases in the Soviet Union under Stalin. the added content is intrinsically non-genocidal? Combined with the suspicious Wheatcroft bit this looks very bad. Whoever added that content and is also adding pages and pages of NPOV, OR, and SYNTH concerns on this article and the AfD has a lot of fucking gall. fiveby(zero) 02:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That page is not even in my whatchlist. I recognise some fragments of text, which almost verbatim reproduce Wheatcroft's article, but some statements are, to some degree, suspicious. This article is not in my immediate to do list, but I can join a discussion on its talk page if you initiate it and ping me. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha and sorry for the tone of my comment. Thought you were referring to the edit with "my words". Thanks for the source and quote. fiveby(zero) 03:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Actually, I thought you quoted one my talk page post, because I recall I wrote something of that kind. My point was (I took this idea from Weitz and from some other source, which I cannot find again) that, since the core of Marxism is the idea that biological nature of any person is much less important factor than economic relationships this person is involved in, that makes Marxism intrinsically incompatible with any type of genocide. As a result, Marxist legacy was like handcuffs on Stalin's hands, who, despite his obvious predisposition to genocide, could not unleash a real genocide, because it would be very difficult to justify by Marxist phraseology. That what I meant under "intrinsically non-genocidal". Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

However Marxism proved not to be brake but in fact an accelerator pedal on the extermination of class enemies or counter-revolutionary völkerabfälle. --Nug (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:. Yeah, i would point to "particular cases" and ask to what extent Stalin was ever handcuffed by Marxism (but note you said legacy and phraseology while the source gave "absence of such an ideology" and now what a mess we are in.) I think that highlights some of the points you have been trying to make here. On the other hand, if this article is an implied proposition, argument, or conclusion, therefore concerning under WP's policies, then taking the counter-arguments to such a proposition and throwing them naked into the Communism article is even more concerning. Those aren't your edits, but i think you should be aware how the dispute in this article is playing out elsewhere. It might also help inform those writing future RfCs concerning the approach to take here. fiveby(zero) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Leave space for Paul Siebert's reply.

Did you guys miss The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945?

• Doumanis, Nicholas, ed. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945 (E-book ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 377–378. ISBN 9780191017759. Retrieved 8 December 2021 – via Google Books. At first sight, accusations that Hitler and Stalin mirrored each other as they 'conducted wars of annihilation against internal and external enemeis ... of class, race, and nation,' seem plausible. But such a perspective, in reality a recapitulation of the long-discredited totalitarian perspective equating Stalin's Soviet Union with Hitler's National Socialist Germany, is not tenable. It betrays a profound misunderstanding of the distinct natures of the Stalinist and Nazi regimes, which made them mortal enemies. Stalin's primary objective was to forge an autarkic, industrialized, multinational state, under the rubric of 'socialism in one country'. Nationalism and nation-building were on Stalin's agenda, not genocide; nor was it inherent in the construction of a non-capitalist, non-expansionary state—however draconian.
• Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on 'Soviet Genocide'". Journal of Genocide Research. 7 (4). Routledge: 551–559. doi:10.1080/14623520500350017. ISSN 1462-3528. S2CID 144612446.

Presenting Soviet genocide by giving it equal weight, when that is an example of double genocide theory or is politicised and controversial/debated, is an example of false balance. Davide King (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Leave that for Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism article. What is in scope of this article is that the communist ideology in self-declared communist countries justified mass-scale extermination of people in these countries. No comparisons against political systems X, Y, Z are neither necessary nor proposed here, dead people are dead in the same way under any regime. Cloud200 (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Let the DRN play out

Recommend ya'll put the RFC preparations on hold, until the related-DRN is resolved. One thing at a time. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Template removals

Obvious sock puppet accounts (IP only, no edits before today) are removing the templates from the page, for which there is obviously no consensus. Edit summaries make clear this is being done on an ideological basis. Can someone keep an eye on it and revert when necessary? I presume this is an attempt to sucker editors into falling foul of the revert sanctions, so if whoever is doing that happens to be reading this, please grow up and stop. Thanks. DublinDilettante (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes these edits are clearly vandalism. I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that editors undoing them are breaking the revert sanctions. Vanteloop (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@DublinDilettante: Per WP:NOT3RR (which also applies to 1RR), obvious vandalism (which undiscussed template removal is) is free to revert as many times as needed without fear of reprisal. BSMRD (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@DublinDilettante and Vanteloop: - There were no IP edits for a week or so until today because it was semi-protected. The semi-protection has expired, and I have requested that it be restored for a month or so. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems sensible Vanteloop (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

DRN Status (yet again)

I have posted another moderator's statement at the DRN subpage, and am ready to resume discussion at DRN for the purpose of developing RFCs. As I have already said, there are too many editors for moderated discussion to be able to arrive at any compromise that all of the editors will accept.

I think that I saw a reference to the moratorium on editing the article while DRN is in progress. I have deleted the rule that says not to edit the article while discussion is in progress. Editing the article is limited by the 1RR rule, except for the reversion of disruptive edits. Edits to the article may be rolled back by any RFCs that are closed, but you knew that.

I will point out that one advantage and one disadvantage of using DRN to develop RFCs are both that it is a slower, more deliberate process than development here on the article talk page. An advantage of using DRN is that the DRN subpage is a "quiet room", while this article talk page is a "noisy room", like drafting a work document at a cocktail party. Multiple RFCs can be developed both at the DRN subpage and on this article talk page, but the editors developing the RFCs should take reasonable care to avoid having conflicting RFCs.

I have identified two possible topics for RFCs at the DRN subpage, one of which may also be being worked on here. Anyone is welcome to propose another RFC subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

We've got an DRN ongoing & a RFC being prepared separate from that DRN. Too much traffic, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert, I accept your invitation, and I am going to continue the discussion at DRN. If a significant number of users will ignore your proposal, and the work on this RfC will continue on this talk page, I will have no choice but to come back and to suspend my participation in the DRN discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments to One Editor

Comment acknowledged, let's focus on content. Individual concerns are better addressed on user talk pages. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Paul Siebert – I am aware that you are acting in good faith and are trying to improve an article that needs improvement. However, you should be aware that it looks to other editors as if you are attempting to exercise ownership in improving the article. You proposed that the AFD be suspended so that you could work on an analysis of sources. That idea was ignored, but you were trying, in good faith, to bypass normal process. You then went to WP:ANI concerning what I thought was a mistaken RFC, rather than simply !voting, or ignoring it. The appearance was that you had to be in charge. You then strongly objected to an RFC on Terminology as bypassing normal discussion. That was two RFCs that you objected to, maybe because you want your own approach to be the approach that is taken/. You then have proposed that you will draft another RFC. It looks as if you are trying to control the improvement of the article. I am sure that you have had your reasons each time, but the impression adds up. If you want to regain the trust of the community, it might be a good idea not to try to lead the development of an RFC, but to let it be developed at DRN. But that is up to you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC) I am less interested in discussing editor's behaviour than I am in trying to move forward on improving this page, however it is important that when behaviour becomes disruptive it is called out. I have mentioned to User:Paul Siebert multiple times that their behaviour requires a heavy dose of good faith to intepret as constructive. I have twice (or more?) asked this user to read WP:SATISFY to correct their behaviour, because of their reasoning such as this If a user abstains from further participation in a discussion, that means they either accepted the arguments, or they lost interest to the discussion. For example, this user proposed a removal of the terminology section. Multiple editors presented counter arguments. The user ignored these and said they were going to delete anyway. I and two other editors explicitly stated that they should not do so as there was clearly no consensus. I also told them that to do so would be in bad faith. They then did so anyway. And when I reverted the changes they threatened to report me. That is just one example of the behaviour I have warned them for. The user is clearly knowledgeable and committed on this subject, so I warmly hope they correct their behaviour and join us in trying to work constructively to create a RfC or other consensus building process. Vanteloop (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC) I do not get the impression that Paul Siebert (unlike other editors) is attempting to control the improvement of the article, and nor do I feel that Paul Siebert has lost the trust of the community. I would strongly question your entitlement to make that assertion, and consider it wildly inappropriate. It should be withdrawn. DublinDilettante (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I see how some of those actions here could also disrupt discussions, but is this the best place for a personalized section on user behaviour? ~ cygnis insignis 12:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: For more than a decade I've stalked this page on off, and in all that time, I think (I can't remember!) but I'm fairly sure I have never commented here nor edited the article. I am literally *loathe* to participate; I !voted delete at the recent AfD. Further, I've interacted with Paul Siebert for more than a decade; I'm well aware of his practices and efforts. My perspective on his effort during the AfD was a genuine attempt at compromise (I disagreed, but did not regard his effort as problematic); perhaps witnessing the coordinated subversion of the AfD process, he sought to propose a good-faith alternative for those committed to the project, no matter what their perspective on MKuCR. He has shown a decade-long commitment to seeking the highest possible professional standards with this article. So, I simply will not accept a statement which indicates that Paul Siebert has lost the trust of the community. Please withdraw this. He may have frustrated you, he may have engaged in a practice you disagree with, but the community is not defined by a group of editors in dispute over a single article. For the record, I have never communicated with Paul Siebert in any other form than on his talk page or article talk pages. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Thank you for your comment on me. That was useful, it helped me to understand your vision of the issue. Let me, in responce, made some comments on you. Robert, I have a feeling that you are a very good moderator. I would love to resolve all article's problems at the DRN, and I would like to see you as a moderator. However, First, I disagree with your description of the RfCs issue. As I already explained, I objected not to any RFCs, but to those RfCs that bypass a normal process {Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others.) I already explained that, and I am not sure why you returned to that issue. Yes, I proposed a draft of a new RfC, but that was in a full accordance with a standard procedure. The reason is simple: "mine" RfC was not a freshly invented RfC. This RfC was a result of a several years long discussion on this talk page, and I, along with several other users, have made all reasonable attempts to resolve this problem, and now it is a time for the RfC. Therefore, your conclusion about my ostensible attempts to control the talk page process may be just a result of your unfamiliarity with the talk page history. I would be grateful if you refrained from unjustified generalisations. Second, I respect your ability to mediate disputes, but I doubt that gives you a right to speak on behalf of the community. Your words "If you want to regain the trust of the community..." addressed to me, do not seem appropriate. You imply that (i) you know what the community thinks about me, and (ii) you know that the community doesn't trust me, and (iii) you know what should I do to regain this trust. Even if we leave the factual accuracy of your words beyond the scope (in reality, my views are supported by many users on this talk page, and this support is mutual, so by no means I need to regain anything), these your words sound somewhat not modest. Third, during past few days, I asked you, repeatedly, how can we resume the DRN process, but your responces were scarce and not enthusiastic. In that situation, I decided to take initiative, so your accusations should be partially directed to you. In summary, you are a reasonable person, and I am a reasonable persons. Reasonable persons can make awkward statements, but they learn from their mistakes. You pointed at some aspects in my behaviour that, in your opinion, are problematic, and I also explained some problems in your manner to express yourself. I believe we will take these comments into account, and there will be no misunderstanding between us in future. I would like to continue to work with you as a Moderator, and I would like to resolve as many problem as possible at the DRN. I will try to minimize my activity here during the DRN, however, if other users will ignore it, I will have to return (reluctantly) here, on this talk page. Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Blog source in the estimates section

I mentioned this above, but since it keeps getting brought up in other contexts I feel it deserves its own section. The paragraph I tagged here is cited solely to a blog; that is obviously not an WP:RS or an acceptable source on an article of this nature, especially given the wide range of academic sources available. It needs to be removed entirely - if people think the figure is important, perhaps a better source can be found to replace it (though of course we would have to adjust the wording to whatever the new source said), but obviously someone's personal opinions and speculations on a blog, with no indication of any process to ensure fact-checking and accuracy, don't qualify as meaningful estimates or as a valid way to assess the literature. --Aquillion (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the whole section must be rewritten. It contains several sources that were found unreliable during previous RSN discussions, it misinterpets other sources, it takes the data out of context, etc. However, since I resumed my participation in the DRN discussion, I am not going to edit the article for a while. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It does, but this one seems like low-hanging fruit to me. Determining the best academic sources to use and how to use them is difficult and will require a lot of time and discussion; determining that we should not use a blog seems like it ought to be easy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I recall there was a discussion about White at RSN, and a consensus was "not reliable" I am not sure why it is still in the article. The same story is Rummel. If I remember correctly, WOC was also discussed at RSN a couple of years ago. Yes, it makes sense to start purging it, but I am not ready for that work. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the current state of the Estimate section is a brilliant demonstration of a desperate lack of good sources for this topic... Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A couple of cites in a section are dubious, hence the whole section is bad and therefore demonstrates the whole topic lacks good sources. Nice fallacy of composition argument Paul. --Nug (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: As I already explained elsewhere, the section is bad not because a couple cites are dubious. It is bad because (i) ALL sources are either dubious (like Rummel) or misinterpreted (like Kotkin), and (ii) the very concept of "estimates of a global death toll of Communism" is highly poloticised, and it cannot be represented as a neutral scholarly topic: it should be discussed only in a context of its meaning, support and criticism. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Look at This and that, it may be helpful. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd agree entirely with Aquillon; that paragraph needs to go. It's a serious due weight problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not exactly. The figure of 100+ million can be frequently found in many popular web sites. We should not remove it, we should explain who made these estimates, what these estimates mean, what concrete political idea is conveyed by the author(s), who agrees with that, who ctiticises that concept, and why. If we just remove the whole section, Wikipedia may be accused of a "leftist bias" (we have seen it during the recent AfD). Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And? The claim that Jews run the world or that the earth is flat can be found on "many websites". Let people accuse us of "leftist bias", the info is undue and the article isn't about these claims. If the scope changes we can discuss them properly, but right now there is no need. BSMRD (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Your analogy is wrong. A Jewish conspiracy is not discussed at WSJ or NYT, and is not published by Harvard University Press. The information that Communists killed 100+ is unreliable, but the claim is very popular. Therefore, instead of just deleting it, we need to discuss it, and to explain why Courtois made this claim, how this figure was obtained (including explanations of all manipulations), is this very popular claim supported by other authors, and who criticises it and why, and who supports it. I think that would be a nice and detailed story that will explain all nuances of that minority viewpoint. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert is quite correct in all respects and we should keep the section and keep the various claims (including the one made by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation) and explain the various claims and their origins exactly as Paul Siebert rather cogently explains.XavierItzm (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That risks inserting a WP:SYNTHy POV narrative as to the origin of the 100+ million claim. The mind boggles at how upset some people get over this, even if the WP:True number was half or even a quarter of 100 million, does it really put communist regimes in a better light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nug (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think whether a claim is merely detached from reality or detached so far from reality as to belong to another universe is an important consideration for something that aspires to be an encyclopaedia (and sign your edits, we all know who this is). DublinDilettante (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

XavierItzm totally misinterpreted my words. I didn't mean to keep all those ridiculous figures. In particular, WOC Memorial is unreliable source per RSN, and should be removed without any reservations. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you truly saying that the article shouldn't cite a source because the source might be biased? Consider the following case: the current Wikipedia article on the Lebensraum extensively quotes the Zweites Buch (i.e., Mein Kampf part II); will people come out of the woodwork to say it should not be cited, because it is evidently biased because it was penned by Adolf himself?
Not to mention that by definition all sources contain their own biases; this is why we survey, present them, and attribute them as required. Apologies for the reductio ad hitlerium.XavierItzm (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but how did you come to the conclusion that Siebert said that? Siebert has not mentioned biased at all but rather unreliable, which is a different thing — a biased source can still be generally reliable. The issue is of weight — if there is no secondary coverage in reliable sources citing, discussing, or mentioning the Dissident article, it is undue. That is a problem with the whole article because it is a bunch of "he said, she said", and rather than cite it to secondary sources, which may contextualize what the authors said (e.g. if they are writing within the context of general mass killings or if they are discussing Communism as a separate or special category that warrants a new topic, which is the point of our dispute), we cite them to the author themselves; this is not necessarily an issue because we are not disputing their reliability (e.g. they are academics) but whether they are correctly paraphrased and contextualized. If we cannot distinguish from majority, minority, and fringe views, how can we write a NPOV article, which explicitily requires that we give weight to each views proportionally to their representation in reliable sources? Davide King (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is clearly a reliable source for its own views. Certainly the data point presented by such a prominent organisation merits inclusion, with proper attribution and contextualization, of course. So, fear not your ability to distinguish majority and minority views: let policy be your guide.XavierItzm (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, your comment can be summed up as a meaningless word salad that does not disprove any of the points made here, nor does this rebuke the over all belief that the source is partisan. Secondly, the consensus is very clearly tipping in your defavor. In the page linked above, not a single person marked this source as being reliable, and nobody, besides you, supports the inclusion of this source on this talkpage right here. Additionally, I would suggest not to speak in such a snobbish condescending tone, this does nothing to help your argument. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: You misinterpreted my words twice. I think, the best apology would be if you carefully read the text below, and answer if you agree or disagree. If you disagree, then provide a detailed answer. If you agree, please, do not repeat your arguments again in any discussion with me or other users.

I never said biased sources could not be used. That can, and they should be used if their bias is properly explained. However, these sources must be reliable. Second, as Rummel correctly noted (that is a part of his approach, and, in that aspect, he is totally right), the sources must be independent on each other. That means, each of them must present figures that were obtained independently: if a source "A" says that 100 million were killed, and the source "B" says 100 million were killed, we must be sure "A" does not just cite "B", otherwise, only "A" or "B" should be used. Third, all sources are supposed to discuss the same topic, and that topic must be well defined and non-controversial. If it is poorly defined and/or controversial, all of that must be clearly and exhaustively explained.

I can give you an example of a good presentation of that type data, the GULAG article: some modern consensus figures of GULAG mortality are presented, and historical estimates are given in a separate section to show how human knowledge of the scale of that tragedy was developing (actually, the "Historical estimates.." table was written mostly by me). As a result, a reader can clearly see, what was a GULAG death toll according to modern consensus figures, and, simultaneously, they can understand why other figures frequently appear in mass-media (usually, they come from sole old source).

Note, almost every source cited in this and that sections is a research article or a book that is specifically devoted to the same, well defined topic (i.e. a number of people who died in camps or few years after their release). Each source provides independently obtained data, and this is not just a repetition of the same information taken elsewhere (actually, not every source, I've just noticed some fresh additions, so the article may need some cleanup, but it will not lead to any significant changes of the main idea).

And what do we have here?

• Old and new data are mixed together. That confuses a reader, who wants to know real facts, not a history of the topic.
• Most sources are not peer-reviewed publications or university level books, but blogs, newspaper op-eds, or self-published sources
• It is almost no evidence that these sources are independent (i.e., they do not provide figures taken from each other or from other sources)
• The very topic is poorly defined, and it is not clear what some concrete author means (most importantly, some authors speak about executions and similar coercive deaths, other authors include famine, others speak about "demographic losses" or "excess mortality"). All of that are different categories and different topics.
• And, finally, the most important thing: this section totally ignores the fact that the very idea to come up with some aggregate estimate of "Communusm death toll" is extremely controversial, and majority of authors either ignore it or openly criticize. That means, that the sources presented in this section is an extremely biased sample that expresses a minority POV.

I remind you (and all other users), that a discussion of those problems cannot be superficial. Keep in mind that WP:CIR, so superficial objections and unsubstantiated refusal to accept facts and sources may elevate to conduct issues. Please, approach this discussion seriously.

Now let's take a look at concrete sources:

• Culbertson. A desperately outdated source that was not cited and has no review on Jstor.org. What is the reason to add this garbage?
• Lenczowski. The article by John Lenczowski in The Christian Science Monitor about the events in Nicaragua. Just think: a US Department of State person, a professional propagandist, published an op-ed in a conservative newspaper 36 years ago, were he wrote about the events in Nicaragua. What is a probability that this article presents his own data? What is a reason to believe a reader may be interested to know an opinion of the US propagandist about the events that he mentions just in passing? I see no idea who added this ideologically motivated and outdated garbage, which cites some figures from unknown sources>
• Brzezinski. Another former US official and propagandist. In contrast to the two previous sources, his book is well cited, but the death toll is not a focus of his study, for the book discusses a totally different subject. A snippet view provided as a reference does not allow us to understand the context, and we even don't know whom Brzezinski cites. However, it is obvious that 60,000,000 is not his own figure, he took it from other sources, and those sources are "desperately outdated", and we even don't know what category of deaths they discuss. Conclusion: remove this garbage.
• US Congress. I do not understand why US official document is used as a source of data. Maybe I missed something, and Wikipedia is now affiliated with US government?
• Rummel. As I explained elsewhere, Rummel did no his own research. His approach is as follows: to collect ALL publications that discuss all cases of mass killings and obtain an average. As Dulich noted, Rummel was not doing any source criticism, so he treated all sources as equally trustworthy. Furthermore, his statistical approach (when higher figure have no upper limit, whereas lower figure have a natural limit, a zero) inevitably leaded to inflated figures, because too high data points are not compensated by too low ones. That was recognized by Harff and by Karlsson. Obviously, Rummel's estimates work fine when high quality data sets with a normal distribution are available, and that is why he provided pretty good figures for Cambodia. However, the major part of his global Communist figure is USSR, and the data in his "Lethal politics" are awful. He uses mostly indirect estimates obtained in the West by the end of 1970s, and he even never tried to update his data set. Currently, much better data are available, thus, Gulag mortality is, according to scholarly consensus, c 1.5 million, whereas Rummel says it was tens of million. Rummel sources for USSR are worse than the historical sources cited here. All other scholars, even Conquest, even Rosefielde, recognised their earlier errors and reconsidered their estimates, but Rummel refused to do so. That his mistake undermines any credibility of his figure of total deaths Rummel total figures are garbage, and they represent only historical interest.
• Courtois. I (and many other users) already explained that numerous sources criticize Courtois for the very idea to combine all deaths and attribute them to Communism. We already had several RSN discussion, and this source was not recognised as reliable for this concrete figure. Why Courtois is still here?
• Valentino. If you read his book (I did), you know that the total figure is not a focus of his study. He just cited data presented by others (mostly by Rummel). He is not an expert in that, and he never pretended to be an expert. Incidentally, the core conclusion of his work is that there is no significant connection between a regime type and mass killings. He never did any research of that type, and these data do not belong to him. Valentino was taken out of context, he is not an independent source, there is absolutely no need to present the figure from his book, which discussed a totally different aspect of mass killings
• Matthew White. Who he is? Why he is here? Maybe, the next step would be to use Guiness book as a source? This is obviously a tertiary source of a questionable quality. By using White, we discredit this article and demonstrate a desperate lack of good sources on that topic.
• Bellamy. I looked through this essay, it is a well written and a serious source with a large number of inline citations. The problem is that the figure of 6.7 and 15.5 million has no inline citation. It is clear from the context that Bellamy took it from some other source (the essay's topic is not figures), but, due to the lack of inline citation, we cannot figure out the source. Bellamy, although it is a high quality source in general, cannot be seen as an independent source for those figures, because the author does not explain where he took those numbers.
• Julia Strauss. Not bad. The problem is, however, that Strauss provides no total figures. She gave two figures for two countries. If we want to include data by country experts, what is a reason to include only Strauss, why tens of other authors are ignored? But, if we include other authors, that may be SYNTH, because most country experts do not support the very idea that different events in different Communist states had significant similarities, and importantly, they even do not consider most of them as "mass killings". We should either include all most important country experts (which requires a total rewrite), or remove Strauss.
• VOC is considered unreliable per a recent RSN discussion (I already provided a link in this section). Why it is still here?
• Kotkin. As I already explained above, we have a direct falsification here. Kotkin never wrote that Communists killed 65 million, he said that, according to some (unnamed) demographers, population losses (or excess deaths from all causes, it is not completely clear: his words allow a double interpretation) in Communist states amounted to 65 million. And they included, among other categories, execution, famine, etc. In contrast, the Wikipedia article falsely says that, per Kotkin (a first lie: that is not Kotkin's figure, he obtained it from some unknown source), Communists killed 65 million, and even more were starved to death (a second lie: a figure of 65 million includes all categories, maybe, even a birth deficit)

In summary, I don't know who wrote that (I've just finished my analysis, I didn't look at that section before), we are dealing either with a direct attempt to introduce a false information (a conduct issue), or there is a WP:CIR problem. There is no sources in this section that are both of a reasonable quality and are used in a correct way. That demonstrates a desperate lack of high quality sources for this topic.

Believe me, I know what I am talking about, because I am speaking based on my experience that I obtained during my work with GULAG article, which now has (partially due to my efforts) a large number of high quality sources.

I propose to delete this piece of ****. Currently, I am participating in the DRN, and I am not going to edit the article until the discussion ends. However, this section is a shame, it needs a complete rewrite (which may depend in the result of the discussion about the article's topic). In any event, it cannot exist in this form, that discredits Wikipedia. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed a blatantly false statement, I am not going to edit the rest for a while.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll review each of your points and respond in due course. This fixation on numerical precision is misplaced, as Harff writes: "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. ... Over time I have become more critical of country experts who challenge systematic empirical studies. Case studies are scarce, of dubious accuracy, or non-existent for some episodes of mass death, and estimates vary greatly.". --Nug (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting the source that I quoted on this talk page for the first time several years ago (and which is being cited by others since then). However, that demonstrates my point: what is the reason to cite a scholar who had never been interested in obtaining precise numbers, and who is known to provide inflated figures? And, whose estimates for the USSR (61,911,000 million) is totally inconsistent with modern data? By the way, when I was a student, my professors told me that a too large amount of significant figures is the first sign of a poor education. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WRT "Over time I have become more critical of country experts who challenge systematic empirical studies", the problem is not only in what Harff think about country experts, but what country experts think about her. And guess what they think? Nothing. They just ignore her "theorising". Paul Siebert (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the discussion has gone on long enough, I'm taking the initiative of removing the controversial text from the article and its associated citations. Just in case, I will not be touching the museum and memorial section of the article, I will exclusively change the contentious information marked as WP:UNDUE. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that a discussion is ongoing and that you have jumped the gun. XavierItzm (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: It seems you have a time to comment on another user under a pretext that "a discussion is ongoing", but you ignore my responce to you, where I explain what is fundamentally wrong with all sources. In connection to that, your reference to some "ongoing discussion" looks somewhat odd.

In addition, what "ongoing discussion" is possible about the source that was recognized unreliable at RSN? I saw no fresh arguments, except "It is reliable for VOC position". However, that is not an argument, because it is equally applicable to almost every source. I am still waiting for your comments on my post. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:, please observe WP:NODEADLINE. All good things come to those who wait. On the other hand, due to some people jumping the gun, it was important to highlight that the discussion is ongoing and that MarioSuperstar77 had no right to delete the ref being discussed here on TP. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I reviewed the RSN dicussion regarding the source and it seems the main reason for saying it is unreliable is due to the source's bias, but per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, that isn't a valid reason. Clearly they are a reliable source for their own opinion, regardless of how biased some may think it is, and given that their opinion is clearly attributed to them I see not issue here. --Nug (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the RSN discussion, which is near-unanimously unreliable. Most of the people there are questioning its reliability (it's a blog, after all), not its bias; but more generally it's a clear consensus of unreliable. If you disagree, feel free to re-open the discussion there, but I'm skeptical you'll convince anyone you can cite a blog. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

WRT "they are a reliable source for their own opinion" - that is unbeatable argument, which is applicable to almost every source. The question is what makes WoC blog notable enough to include it in this section? Are they a scientific or scholarly institution? Do they have some broadly recognised expertise that make their opinion notable? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

victimsofcommunism.org is a bit more than a blog, it is a website of a educational and research foundation with an academic council with a program of research. Just because people think it is anti-communist isn't a valid reason to exclude it per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. --Nug (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This deserves a serious analysis. I will think about that, and I expect that meanwhile you will respond to my analysis of W&T. The ball is on your side. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" should be avoided at all costs. Firstly they were founded and funded by the US government so they're far from neutral. Secondly their staff includes a slew of war criminals including George W. Bush, and a bunch of politicians who supported the Contras. Thirdly they are so desperate to boost the number of people killed by communism that they claim that every single global death from Covid-19 as victims of communism. So even people who live under capitalism and died because they could not afford healthcare under a privatised medical system, are counted by the Foundation as killed by communists. It's very simply a government funded propaganda outlet. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Just because you think someone is a "war criminal" doesn't mean they are. Whether they were founded by US Gov or not is irrelevant. It's not at all surprising that it includes some people who supported opponents of a communist government. I have no idea what Covid has to do with any of this. Volunteer Marek 21:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: From one hand, VoC really looks like a serious organisation, and your argument sounds seriously. However, there is another aspect. If read Rummel, one aspect of his estimates (which is methodologically correct) is that each source must be independent: if two articles or books take their data from the same source, only one should be used. Currently, we have data from (i) VoC (founded by the US Congress and supervised by Brzezinski), (ii) Lenczowski (a US official), (iii) Brzezinski again, and all those sources are affiliated with the federal US authorities. Don't you find that the point of view of one singe state is overestimated in the article? And is Wikipedia supposed to represent an opinion of any state at all? In addition, I have a strong reason to suspect these sources are not independent, because it is not clear where they took their data. I think, we should combine these three references together, and to say that US officials and some institutions affiliated with the US federal authorities maintain that the number of victims of Communism amounts to 100 million. This short statement should replace the existing text, and it should be supplemented by these three references (VoC should be re-added to the article). If there will be no reasonable criticism, I am going to do that in next few days. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Rudolph Rummel was one of the members of the VoC advisory council. Therefore, it is quite likely that the number of 100 million may reflect Rummel's views. How many sources that cite Rummel's figures are we going to cite as ostensibly "independent" sources? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

First you say nobody uses Rummel's data, now you say everyone is using Rummel's data. Nice try, but no, the VoC only cites Rummel for Vietnam and North Korea (and the lower estimate for North Korea at that), they cite other scholars for the other communist regimes. --Nug (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. The claim that Rummel data are not used by other scholars belongs not to me, but to W&T, and you are perfectly aware of that. And, I don't say everyone uses Rummel's data: I says that many sources affiliated with US federal administration use Rummel. And, you haven't checked the data: thus, Panin's figures (57,000,000 to 69,500,000) are cited by Rummel's "Lethal politics", and Rummel's own estimate (61,911,000) is close to the average of Panin's high and low estimate. Clearly, Rummel's opinion is overrepresented in the VoC data. Anyway, VoC cites the Blacl Book, Rummel, and a couple of similar questionable sources, which makes it non-independent: we de facto cite the same figures twice, thereby giving an undue weight to highly questionable, politicised and outdated sources, and to the position of the US government.

I am going to rewrite this section, leaving these sources in, but combining them together (for they are by no means independent) and explaining their affiliation, as well as political implications of those statements and those figures. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No, your conclusions are pure synthesis, you have no evidence that these other authors have used Rummel's numbers and they are not independent and combining them together would be considered disruptive. --Nug (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: My conclusion is a pure analysis (not a synthesis). I can give a more detailed responce, but I would prefer to do that after you review and answer to my previous posts (to which you promised to give a detailed responce). Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed VoC became a subject of an edit war. That is fruitless, and we need to stop it.

Let me explain what, imho, we should do:

• VoC, Rummel, Brzezinsky etc should stay (I mean the reference stay).
• They should be combined together, and its affiliation with the US government should be explained. Something like that Starting from 1980s US state officials and institutions affiliated with the US administration maintain that Communism killed XX to YY people(ref to VoC and other sources).
• With regard to other sources, some of them should be removed (e.g., an obscure 1970s source, teh first line) and a collection of figures made by an amateur scientist);
• A proper context should be provided for Courtois's estimate (I already presented sources, other users also provided several excellent sources that are relevant to that topic).
• A discussion of demography (Kotkin) should be moved to a separate section, for which I can find modern sources of high quality.

If someone disagrees, please, provide rational arguments. If someone wants to join this work, please, let me know. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no basis for combining VoC, Rummel, Brzezinsky etc together, you have no evidence they are not independent, only you conjecture which isn't RS but in fact SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: You promised to review my analysis of the sources, but you still haven't done so. It seems you even haven't started, because that is an only possible explanation of this your statement (leaving a bad faith action as a less realistic possibility)

• John Lenczowski was a US Department of State employee;
• Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Advisor (US government employee)
• Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was established by the Act of Congress, and is currently lead by Andrew Bremberg, a former director of the Domestic Policy Council in the Trump's administration.
• Rudolph Rummel was a member of the advisory council of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

Of course, all those sources are totally independent on each other, and they are not affiliated with any concrete state.

Or, maybe, I am wrong?

Please, don't forget to ping me if you respond, otherwise I may not notice your post. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Further nomination should be considered disruptive behavior

I saw the media coverage of this article's deletion discussion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-wikipedia-page-being-considered-deletion

https://www.rebelnews.com/wikipedia_wants_to_delete_its_mass_killings_under_communist_regimes_article

Hungarian- https://precedens.mandiner.hu/cikk/20211130_wikipedia_kommunizmus_cenzura_cancel

Slovak- https://www.postoj.sk/93610/wikipedia-chce-vymazat-stranku-o-vrazdach-spachanych-komunistickymi-rezimami

With time, an article's notability is likely to increase, not decrease. If anyone makes another fifth nomination, it should be closed as speedy keep. And if the nominator includes anyone from the past nominators or past delete voters in the last four discussions, then he should be blocked for one month. Knight Skywalker (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know you think extremist right-wing media should have a veto over Wikipedia content. This is obvious trolling from the user above, but if one thing has been made clear in the “debate”, it’s that a future AfD is inevitable, and should happen sooner rather than later. DublinDilettante (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who is an extreme wing of right or left. I know only about Fox News. And I did a google news search of, Mass killings under communist regimes. These websites showed in search results. If you have doubt, then search recent media coverage.

Adding :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/07/lessons-from-a-century-of-communism/

https://www.levandehistoria.se/sites/default/files/wysiwyg_media/crimes-against-humanity-under-communist-regimes-research-review.pdf

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7591/9780801467172-006/html

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=86279

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/dark-side-of-democracy/communist-cleansing-stalin-mao-pol-pot/5BC0D5F39EF9C5A1F6BA171572F419E9

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25654524

Knight Skywalker (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The AfD's media coverage listed is all from one side (several of which even very far to the right), and only The Telegraph can be considered generally reliable. The closure was very clear that this was not an issue of notability but of NPOV/OR/SYNTH. If you were right, it would have resulted in a speedy 'Keep' closure already but it did not.

Google is not a good way to make such a research (WP:GSNR), Google Scholar is much better for this, especially because "Mass killings under communist regimes" is considered to be a descriptive title. You should be searching "communist mass killings" (the name also used in the AfD closure) on Google Scholar, and the painted picture is not as clear, with many sources being about mass killings of communists (Indonesia). By the way, have you noticed that two scholarly sources you linked are about genocide and mass killings in general? Of course, Communist regimes are discussed because the events indeed did happen and many, many people have died — but does that warrant Communism as a separate category or new topic, rather than expansion of Mass killing? Mann's main thesis is that democratic transformation can result in genocide, as it has happened in Rwanda, hence the title, and many similar general works have chapters for capitalist regimes and other regime types, but that by itself does not mean that a new topic is created or it is to be considered a separate or special category by majority of scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to copy edit and fix typos] Davide King (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding to Davide King's comment. The result of the AfD was 'no consensus to delete'. That is a significant distinction to 'keep' that should be noted. Of course using common sense we should not re-nominate this for a while following that exhausting AfD but renomination is not off the table in the future if editors feel the issues with the article have not been resolved Vanteloop (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A newb mistake dear, the spectrum is Consensus => delete -> keep => No Consensus. ~ cygnis insignis 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Knight Skywalker: The Empire did nothing wrong, how dare you name check that murderous rebel! ~ cygnis insignis 13:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Media coverage was not about the subject of this article (whatever that might be), media coverage was about the AfD process, two different things. FWIW, no consensus = status quo ante. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Fox News needs no introduction and "rebel media" is infamous for giving fascist activists a voice and a paycheck. No wonder you're so deep into anti-communist propaganda if this is where you get your news. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. In fact a study showed that people who watch Fox News are less informed than people who read or watch no news at all. TFD (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Just change it.

Simply remove the word ‘communist’.

These regimes weren’t communist. If somewhere has a regime / dictator, it’s not communist by any stretch of the imagination - how did workers own the means of production and make decisions collectively in Stalin or Pol Pot’s dictatorships? In no way at all. 82.11.45.175 (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• support move to mass killings under régimes ~ cygnis insignis 13:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• ? The word "regime", in a political context, pretty much means "system of government", right? Democratic regime, socialist regime, etc.[51][52] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  elective oligarchies, populist fascism, national socialism, coke v. pepsi, military industrial complex, yes, systems of governance … don't forget to vote. ~ cygnis insignis 14:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Trump regime, Biden regime, BoJo regime... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Amateurs! where are the body counts that consolidate their place in history? Stalin, Hitler, Leopold, these inscribed names are the only ones likely to survive the extinction our modern leaders are navigating toward. ~ cygnis insignis 15:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Communist states are called "communist" due to their self-declaration of allegiance with the communist ideology, as in Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Chinese Communist Party etc. That's pretty widespread political denomination that is discussed in detail in communist state article. Cloud200 (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bad idea for two reasons. Firstly, this article only cites regimes that call themselves Communist, and makes no mention of the Fascist regimes. Therefore, it would be out of scope unless you are willing to put in the time to expand the article with other regimes unrelated to Totalitarian/Statist Communism (Stalinism, Maoism, etc). Secondly, if you were to focus on all regimes as mentioned above, that article would become longer than it is as of right now, and eventually, the article would be split up, causing it to revert back to Mass killings under Communist regimes, see WP:LENGTH. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What a brilliant idea, surely no one has thought of "just changing" the article before. What does "Mass killings under regimes" even mean? At that point just make List of mass killings. BSMRD (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

C should be captialized to avoid confusion. Small c communism means a post socialist society where the state no longer exists. TFD (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you lie that I "voted against capitalizing Communist even though it would remove ambiguity" when you know very well that MOS:ISMCAPS is reason for not capitalizing per the discussion you participated in at Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_39#Capitalization_of_"Communist". --Nug (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The word itself, communism, is not derived from a personal name or any other kind of proper noun. It's derived from French communisme, whence Marx's kommunismus. From Latin root communis. Every step of the way it has been a common noun. Humorously, it literally meant "common"-ism at the time. The only reason to elevate a common noun denoting a philosophy/ideology to a proper noun is ideological. And as Nug noted, the MOS is very clear on that. Also, it does not enhance clarity. Some especially educated individuals might interpret small-c communism to mean a free post-state society. But many of the same individuals will interpret big-C Communism to mean the same thing. Simply, most people familiar with modern Russian and Slavic literature will only interpret capitalized Communism or Kommunismus or Коммунизм as an indication of the sociopolitical leanings of the author and perhaps their sympathy towards communism. It would not help elucidate the specific formulation of communism they reference. Nor would it help to illustrate whether they mean state communism or post-state communism, since in Russian sources (from which most modern communist theory operative in real world regimes was gleaned) those were either purposefully conflated or referred to by entirely different words. Aminomancer (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Except that in that case Communism is considered to be a proper noun because Communist party is a proper noun, and is why many scholars make such distinction, which is helpful to distinguish a post-socialist society and a state ruled by a Communist party. The Black Book of Communism did the same thing, I do not see why we should not be doing the same both for clarity (this is the English Wikipedia, so Russian and Slavic literature is irrelevant) and because it is indeed used as a proper noun, thus capitalization is in full respect of our policies. Capitalized Communism is clearly not referring to an ideology but to a sovereign state ruled by a Communist party — it is for the same reason we capitalize Nazism and Italian Fascism. Davide King (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Make the section "Proposed Causes" its own article

Per WP:LENGTH and WP:SYNTH, this article is too long and for an article this controversial any theory and gossip should be avoided, which this entire section focuses about. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with this section in itself as it is properly cited, etc, but its inclusion in this specific article is a tad bit problematic for the reasons cited earlier. If not moving this section into its own article, removing it entirely will, at the very least, weed out some subjectivity from this contentious article.

If it was to be made, this new article should be titled something along the lines of "Proposed causes for the democides within Communist regimes", though this title is a bit long. So, any suggestion for a shorter title is welcome. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, won’t do that. What it would do is allow the implicit connection between communism and mass killing to stand unchallenged within the article itself, particularly as it’s implied by many of the (ludicrously tendentious) sources quoted. DublinDilettante (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Either the section is moved into its own article or the section in question should be removed per WP:LENGTH. Note that you can challenge the content on the newer article if you believe there is something objectionable. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and bog down the debate across two articles. Come on, let’s be serious with one another here. If only the western allies had been so keen to give the Soviets the second front they were begging for in WWII, a lot of mass killing might have been avoided. DublinDilettante (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Proposed causes for mass killings under communist regimes" would be a better title. X-Editor (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• If length is a concern, I think the "Terminology and usage" section should probably go first, or at least be cut down. I think the "proposed causes" section is much more interesting and relevant to readers. They aren't looking for a semantics debate about what "killing" really means, they're looking for an explanation of these killings. Personally, I skimmed right over the terminology section on my first read, because it just doesn't seem super relevant. I could also see cutting down the proposed causes section a bit, but I think it should stay. Also, the article isn't exceptionally long, 65k is fairly short compared to most controversial articles. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  @CaptainEek: Regarding "Causes", take a look at this Majority of sources that are cited in this section either are taken from context or just tell something else. Some sources that say that Marxism supported violence (which, by the way, was not unique in XIX century, a century of national revolutions), are used to imply that Pol Pot's genocide directly followed from Marx (although they do not say that). This is a pure WP:SYNTH.

  Valentino's main idea was that regime type and ideology are not important factors - and the section selectively cites Valentino as a source for a directly opposite claim. And so on, and so forth.

  A huge number of authors stress uniqueness of each case (Nicolas Werth is among them) - their opinion is totally ignored. This section is a pure POV-fork, and it is one of the major reasons why this article is a POV-fork. We need not to put it forward, but delete, and replace with the explanation of uniqueness of each case, and add that some (minority or) authors believe in commonality, but that view is not supported by a majority of authors. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  WRT "Terminology and usage", there is NO common terminology, these terms are used by a tiny minority of authors. Actually, I don't want to repeat myself, I already presented these arguments a couple of weeks ago.

  By the way, the only term that may be considered as specifically proposed for the topic, "classicide", was coined by Mann in his very famous book "The Dark Side of Democracy", where he argued that democracy is the main cause for mass killings, and, importantly, leftist (he prefers to use this term) mass killings ("classicide") and rightist mass killings had much more in common than many people think. It is very interesting how literally each source in this article is twisted, cherry-picked and misinterpeted. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing phenomenon with causal factors. Valentino does in fact group communist mass killings together as a factual phenomenon (as this article does), while his conclusion as to the causal factors are reported in the "proposed causes" section. And the fact that Mann even proposed a new term for this phenomenon as "classicide" shows that the grouping isn't synthesis per RS. You made all the same arguments of SYNTH and POVFORK during the AfD, but the closing panel remained unconvinced, otherwise the article would have been deleted. --Nug (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Valentino in fact group three communist mass killing together, but his point is that many more communist regimes committed mass killings. That is his point: to prevent mass killings, there is no need to change the regime, it is sufficient to eliminate several persons from power.

WRT Mann, may I ask you a question: did you read him? I did.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Leave space for Nug's response to Siebert.

The closing panel also remained unconvinced that there is consensus that this article is encyclopedic, so you may have had a point if the panel explicitily said they did not find our arguments convincing and the result was 'Keep' but they did not do that — therefore, please stop acting as though our arguments hold no weight or have been discredited, the mere fact it went from 'Keep' to 'No consensus' should tell you otherwise... Davide King (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If the sources are bad, then the section should be fixed, not removed. I don't see how making the section its own article will solve its POV problems. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources are not bad, they just do not support what the article says. That means, they must be removed and replaced with "citation needed" tags (followed by rfemoval of the text after some time)

Making this section a separate article is impossible, because All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article, and the most sigificant point of view on this subject is that each mass killing had its own cause, and there were more differences than commonalities.

And for the same reason we cannot have this section in this article: each subsection links to other "daughter articles" that says virtually nothing about ideology or other "common causes". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, you would prefer to integrate the section into the article, and just have sections for each country, and include the individualized reasons for each? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: That is one option. Currently, a DRN discussion is in progress where we are trying to write a text of the RfC about the article's topic. Depending on the results of this DRN (and a subsequent RfC), different modifications may be proposed. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not argue that it is POV, only it is subjective as it focuses on debates and arguments from historians and scholars which effectively introduces unassuming subjectivity inside an otherwise objective-focused article due to their opinions. Normally, I would not suggest this to be removed/moved in spite of its subjectivity, but the article is both controversial and has SYNTH issues partially due to this section as that is given as much weight as the remainder of the article which is meant to be fully objective instead of subjective. If it was given its own article, readers would know that it is a fully subjective article that discusses the opinion/s of historians and scholars on the potential causality of democides within Communist regimes which would be more appropriate than what we do have there. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings

Stop trying to change or cover up history!! It’s history. Learn from it!! Just because you don’t like it don’t make it untrue. This stuff happened!! Teach history as it was. There are still people around that can verify all of it. 2600:1006:B1E1:FC8B:E102:AFB4:AF7B:4013 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stick to your main account, my dude. DublinDilettante (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They probably don't have an account. Media is running stories on this controversy. Concerned individuals are trying to stop the page from being deleted, for obvious reasons. Aminomancer (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The obvious reason being the right-wing media’s habitual desire to falsify history. DublinDilettante (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing that mass killings did not occur under communist regimes? I think the general concern from randos is that people think that the information was under threat of being wiped from Wikipedia, which they see as a threat to the ability to easily access information that summarizes these sorts of mass killings. And that are some who would try to continue to deny the scope of the Katyn Massacre despite the Soviets literally confessing to it in the early 90's, for example, doesn't exactly help in convincing random people on the internet that Wikipedia is free of ideological censorship. Not that this has any bearing on Wikipedia policy, but it's worth considering. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Link fix "there are some" ~ cygnis insignis 06:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Kotkin

Paul Siebert, please respond in this newly-created thread in order to help make this talk page easier to navigate, as we have moved on to a distinct topic with our discussion of Kotkin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

As soon as we started talking about estimates, take a look at this:

"In 2017, historian Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that communist regimes killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017, commenting: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering."

From this quote, a reader may conclude that Communists killed 65 million, and even more died from starvation. That is a direct lie. Kotkin said that 65 million deaths is the demographic estimated. ...in the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America—communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers. That means, (i) Kotkinn cites someone other's figures (not his own data), (ii) he speaks about demographic losses. The current text of this "well written and well sourced" article contains tons of misinterpretations or a direct lies. It need a thorough analysis and, probably, major rewrite. However, let's finish with Terminology first. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, with respect, you are not parsing Kotkin's statement accurately, probably because English is not your first language. Kotkin's statement means that, while communists did in fact kill people deliberately, the majority of the 65 million+ deaths they caused were the result of unintended famines. There is no other way to parse Kotkin's statement that would be internally consistent or logical. When Kotkin states that there were at least 65 million victims of communism, some of whom were purposefully killed, and that "even more of its victims have died from starvation," [emphasis added] the reference to "victims" refers back to the larger whole of 65 million. In English, "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its [65 million] victims have died from starvation" does not mean that "communism has killed 65 million people intentionally, and even more victims have died from starvation," nor could anyone fluent in the language reasonably construe it to mean such a thing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems you parse my own statement incorrectly, for I am saying exactly what you say.

The full paragraph says:

"But a century of communism in power—with holdouts even now in Cuba, North Korea and China—has made clear the human cost of a political program bent on overthrowing capitalism. Again and again, the effort to eliminate markets and private property has brought about the deaths of an astounding number of people. Since 1917—in the Soviet Union, China, Mongolia, Eastern Europe, Indochina, Africa, Afghanistan and parts of Latin America—communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers.

Communism’s tools of destruction have included mass deportations, forced labor camps and police-state terror—a model established by Lenin and especially by his successor Joseph Stalin. It has been widely imitated. Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering"

This paragraph does not allow double interpretation: Kotkin says that, (i) according to demographers, at least 65 million people died prematurely, and (ii) these deaths included such categories as mass deportations, state terror, starvation etc.

Demography is intrinsically incapable of separating death by categories. It is a pure statistical discipline that deals with deaths (from all causes), births, migration etc. The figure of 65 million may mean either "excess mortality" (all premature deaths) or "population losses" (unborn infants, emigration AND premature deaths). Period. I totally rule out an possibility that Kotkin, a professor in Princeton, use "population losses" figures (that would be ridiculous), so he definitely means "excess mortality". And, obviously, he is too educated to refer to demographic data as an estimate for the number of execution deportation etc. Demography cannot provide such information. To claim the opposite would be as ridiculous as to claim that by using a multi-meter it is possible to tell if the electricity in your home was produced at nuclear or gas power plant.

That means, Kotkin's statement is in agreement with other sources: yes, "excess mortality" (all premature deaths) in Communist states (excluding WWII deaths in teh USSR) amounted to 65 million at least, and lion's share of those deaths were Great Chinese famine deaths. That is what he says.

And what we see in the MKuCR article?

• It falsely ascribe to Kotkin a claim that Communists killed 65 million (that is a double lie: that figure was obtained not by Kotkin, but by unnamed demographers, and Kotkin never said 65 million were killed by Communists)
• It claims that famine deaths and other categories are not included in those 65 million (that is a direct lie, for Kotkin says that, according to demographers, Communist rule lead to a loss of 65 million, and that included executions, deportations, starvation etc).

Just an example of one (out of many) falsifications that I found in this "pretty well sourced and well written article". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How does one deal with such a proliferation of misstatements as that uttered by Paul Siebert above?

• "It seems you parse my own statement incorrectly, for I am saying exactly what you say." Right, which is that our text (consisting almost entirely of a direct quote from Kotkin) is very clear and cannot reasonably be misunderstood as double-counting the 65 million excess deaths that were caused by communist governments in the twentieth century.
• "It claims that famine deaths and other categories are not included in those 65 million (that is a direct lie ... " Our Wikipedia article, which includes a footnote with the entire excerpt for readers to examine for themselves, very obviously says nothing of the kind (nor has any other editor supported your peculiar interpretation), so your statement could indeed be considered a "direct lie."
• "It falsely ascribe to Kotkin a claim that Communists killed ... " To the contrary, our article merely quotes Kotkin accurately as stating that "communism has claimed at least 65 million lives ... Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering." [emphasis added] Note that Kotkin's use of "intentionally" implies that communist governments also unintentionally killed people.
• "And, obviously, [Kotkin] is too educated to refer to demographic data as an estimate for the number of execution deportation etc." Based on this comment, it seems like you are suggesting that even though the source (Kotkin) uses demographic data to estimate excess deaths, which he himself refers to as both intentional and unintentional "killings," the source is wrong and should know better (based on his education) that only direct executions (which demography cannot separate from other causes of death) qualify as "killings" (or "mass killings"). If your original research were accepted, this would set a drastic precedent for the rest of the article, but, alas, we cannot use Paul Siebert as a reliable source. We have to stick to what the source says, and cannot change it based on editor opinion alone.
• "It falsely ascribe to Kotkin ... that figure was obtained not by Kotkin, but by unnamed demographers ... " For the record, the current version of the article states: "In 2017, historian Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that ... 'communism has claimed at least 65 million lives, according to the painstaking research of demographers.'" Paul Siebert's suggestion that we are somehow misrepresenting or distorting Kotkin, in some way, or that "wrote" isn't the correct form of attribution, and hence that the only solution is to remove Kotkin entirely as a source, seems like an astonishing (and disappointing) case study in bad-faith wikilawyering.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  The source says that according to demographers, 65 million died prematurely. That is what Kotkin says when he cites demographers. He cannot say that Communism killed 65 million, according to demographers, because demographic figures contain no information about causes of deaths. Therefore, there is no other way to interpret Kotkin: 65 million, or maybe more, died prematurely under Communists.

  He continues, that those deaths may be a result of " mass deportations, forced labor camps and police-state terror", but also "even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering".

  In other words Kotkin says that, according to demographers, 65 million people died prematurely, and those deaths were a result of " mass deportations, forced labor camps and police-state terror" but mostly "from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering". All those categories are included in 65 million.

  The article says a quite different thing. It says that communist killed 65 million, and even more were starved to deaths. That is a lie, and I cannot understand why you are defending that.

  And, finally, citing op-ed by Kotkin as a source is hardly an indication of a good job. If he cites demographers, find them. But demographic figures are hardly relevant to this section, for demographic consequences of the Communist rule is a separate topic (the main consequences was not "excess deaths", but "excess lives": both in USSR and PRC, Communist rule lead to an explosive growth of life expectancy, and, as soon as demography is concerned, that also must be discussed.

  One way or the another, you failed to address my arguments. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"He cannot say that Communism killed 65 million, according to demographers ... " Unfortunately for you, Kotkin does use the word "killed," including in reference to those who were unintentionally killed in famines. WP:V and WP:TRUTH apply here. "The article says a quite different thing. It says that communist killed 65 million, and even more were starved to deaths." No, our article does not say that, at all, but if you think that our summary is unclear or misrepresents Kotkin in some way, then you are free to propose drafting improvements to make Kotkin's intended meaning clearer for readers, rather than deleting this sourced content wholesale. "And, finally, citing op-ed by Kotkin as a source is hardly an indication of a good job." This is a new argument that you have not made previously. Yes, op-eds can never be used for factual claims, but they can be used for attributed opinions from subject matter experts. This is partially a matter of editor discretion, but Stephen Kotkin is an academic expert on Soviet communism, so I don't think that the source is obviously WP:UNDUE. Either way, the long-standing content should remain in place until there is a consensus to remove it. I'm not going to engage with you any further on this matter as I feel that you are bludgeoning the discussion (and, no, silence does not mean that I am conceding you are correct, as you've suggested previously), but I certainly welcome other editor's views on our use of Kotkin as a source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not care what exact word he use, but the source of his information is demographic data. Demographic data are the source for "excess deaths" or "population losses", not for "killings", and if Kotkin is inaccurate in terminology (which is normal for non-peer-reviewed publications), that is not an excuse for us. Kotkin may use the word "killed", but you must understand that he meant "excess deaths from all causes", and if you don't understand that, keep in mind WP:CIR. Kotkin cannot cite demographic data in a context of deaths from some specific cause, he definitely meant deaths from all causes.

The article says:

In 2017, historian Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that communist regimes killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017, commenting: "Though communism has killed huge numbers of people intentionally, even more of its victims have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering." The words in quotation marks may be understood as a comment on the figure of 65 million, but they can also be understood as an additional remark implying that "even more of its victims" are those who were not included in the number of "65 million killed", "have died from starvation as a result of its cruel projects of social engineering." The latter is the most plausible interpretation of this text. That is a problem, amd this problem is not only my concern. You re-added this ambiguous text, and I expect you to propose an idea how to fix this problem.

I am supporting the idea to discuss demographic consequences of the Communist rule, but Kotkin's op-ed is not the best source for that. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"The words in quotation marks may be understood as a comment on the figure of 65 million, but they can also be understood as an additional remark implying that 'even more of its victims' are those who were not included ... " I don't think that interpretation is even remotely plausible, but, if it will resolve your concern, I would support changing the text to: "In 2017, historian Stephen Kotkin wrote in The Wall Street Journal that communist regimes killed at least 65 million people between 1917 and 2017, primarily by starvation."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand what the words "demographers data" mean? Kotkin's words actually mean: "(i) I claim that Communists killed many people, and many more died from starvation, and (ii) according to demographers data, there were at least 65 million excess deaths in Communist states". That is a precise meaning of their words. Do you understand the difference? Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the field of demography and that demographers calculate excess deaths. But I'm trying to stay focused on specific article text improvements, so I really don't have time for lengthy metaphysical digressions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

If we limited ourselves to the most accepted definition of 50,000 killings within five years and discussion of Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes (while noting that other Communist regimes killed people on a smaller threshold but not discussing them as we do because they are out of scope, unless we finally move on from mass killings), which is, ironically enough, exactly what core sources do (Chirot, Jones, Mann, and Valentino), we would not have such issues about terminology and global death tolls. If this article uses mass killings but then in practice uses it in a very liberal way, with no defined criteria, conflating universally recognized mass killing events for excess deaths and demographic losses, or direct killings not fitting the most accepted criteria, merging mass killings with a global Communist death toll (much broader than mass killing), acting as though there is a common terminology, then we are bordering OR/SYNTH and have no clear topic, or it is problematic. Davide King (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Davide King's re-write of the section is a good compromise which represents the source well. The only change I would suggest is re-adding 'at least' before 65 million. Either way, the full quote is there for readers to assess themselves. Vanteloop (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The source used is "Editorial: The legacy of 100 years of communism: 65 million deaths." See what News organizations says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." That means we cannot use this article to report what Kotkin said. We can't use Kotkin's article either, because he is not an expert on mass killings. TFD (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I already said, Kotkin's opinion is that "Communists killed many people" (which is non-controversial, but trivial), and that "some demographers calculated the number of excess deaths under Communists, and it is 65 million (which is hardly controversial, because the Great Chinese famine alone caused nearly 40 million deaths). The first part of this statement hardly belongs to the "Estimates" section. The second part refers to a totally different category, namely, "excess deaths". Again, if we decide to discuss demographic consequences of the Communist rule, I can provide many interesting sources, but that is a totally different topic. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And, if we want to discuss demographic data, maybe, it would be better to look for demographic sources, not their summary in some op-ed? I am not sure Kotkin is a big expert in demography. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You sure you want to go down TFD's suggested path? I suspect that most of the sources you suggest that do not discuss those mass killings in a context of Communism are not experts on mass killings or experts in demography either. --Nug (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a circular reasoning. You arbitrary select one term, and you declare that the authors who use this term are experts in the subject, whereas the authors who use other terms are not. However, the subject is not "mass killing", but some concrete event that lead to a loss of human lives (no matter how different authors call that). If Valentino call Great Purge "mass killing", and Mann "classicide", who is a better expert in Great Purge? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Playing terminology games again? So a "classicide" isn't a "mass killing" according to you? --Nug (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: First, in contrast to you, I've read The Dark Side of Democracy by Mann, and I know what exactly he means under "classicide" (a spoiler: Mann's "classicide" is just a small subset of Valentino's "mass killing", and it is a "dark side of democracy" rather than a product of a murderous ideology). Second, I find your habit to stop responding to arguments in one section, and then starting a dispute in another section somewhat suspicious. I am getting impression that your goal is not to find some productive solution, but to filibuster the process of the article's improvement.

By the way, if you are going to respond to my previous arguments (and it would be impolite not do do so), please, ping me, because the talk page becomes so long that it is becoming increasingly difficult to see new posts in the middle of the page. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that you totally misunderstood my argument. It does not matter if "classicide" and "mass killing" are the same (a spoiler: they aren't, but that is not important in this context). Let's assume they are totally the same thing. However, if you read Mann, you probably noticed that he discusses "classicide" mostly not in a context of Communism. Actually, Valentino also discussed his "mass killings" not in a context of Communism. That does not necessarily make them non-experts. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mann, Marx and "classicide"

I am currently reading reviews on Mann's "The Dark Side of Democracy", and several reviewers mention Mann's name in a context of "the work of the great comparativists of classic sociology - Karl Marx and Max Weber." It is interesting to see how the MKuCR article uses Mann as a reliable source and simultaneously describes another great comparativist, Karl Marx, as a founder of a murderous ideology. What sources are you reading, colleagues? Paul Siebert (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It is possible to believe both that 1) Marx was an influential and incisive thinker 2) the views of historians who criticise his writings as legitimising violence should be included in this article. Vanteloop (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, this is a prime example of VERIFY vs. NPOV/WEIGHT. That there are some historians who say that (VERIFY) is not sufficient if they fail WEIGHT; it is the same thing for the VoC estimate — if they do not get secondary coverage, they fail WEIGHT, and if they do not get significant scholarly coverage, they fail NPOV. Without a tertiary source, we must assume that all those views are minority — but are they significant enough? They all appear either one-sided or decontextualized, and generalizations which lacks the full, necessary context (hence POV forks accuses), and fails NPOV in presenting all significant views in proportion to their weight in the literature. Simply asking us to add stuff is not a good approach either, if those sources do not write within the context and structure of the current article. If we cannot identify majority views, and if this article is a collection of minority views, some of which significant, some of it not, some of it fringe, then what is the point? Davide King (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vanteloop: Marx, without any doubts, legitimised violence of a certain kind. However, there is a big difference between the statement: "Marx ligitimised violence" and "Marx's theory was a justification of mass killings".

Legitimisation of violence was a mainstream trend during XIX and early XX century, for revolutions (note, mostly bourgeois revolutions and national revolutions, which is essentially the same) created at least a half of all currently existing states in Europe, including Italy, France, Germany, Hungary, etc. Are you going to seriously claim they were not violent? A revolutionary leader or activist was one of role models. Moreover, violence is justified by, e.g. US constitution: its Second Amendment stipulates the right of people to bear arm, for organised militia serves as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power. The very spirit of the Second Amendment is to keep people prepared for violent actions when it is needed.

Therefore, the question is not if Marx justified violence (he obviously did), but if he stayed apart from a mainstream trend (which is highly unlikely, for violence was universally seen as a quite acceptable tool both in a political struggle and for solving territorial disputes between states).

The transition between "he theoretically justified violence" and "his theory justified mass killings" is something that does not follow from the sources cited in this article. It is (i) a piece of original research, and (ii) an obvious minor POV-pushing, for I provided several mainstream peer-reviewed publications that clearly say otherwise. They can be found on this talk page and the AfD's talk page. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, there is clearly a dispute between WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT in this article, where that the events indeed happened, that events under Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes universally fit the category of mass killings, that there are sources that mentions Communist regimes (by which they really mean Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot — that is what Chirot, Jones, Mann, and Valentino really discuss), and that this is sufficient to have an article about it but it is not, in fact, sufficient due to NPOV and WEIGHT concerns. I would say that also in light of the AfD's closure, this is no longer sufficient because, to quote from the closure, the Wikipedia editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic.

The current structure simply cannot be improved or fixed to no longer have NPOW and WEIGHT issues because the only possible tertiary source (Karlsson) is dismissive towards Courtois and Rummel, does not mention Valentino at all, etc. and the article is a collection of minority views, and we cannot add more sources because majority of sources do not write within the context of this article, do not write in a commonality Communist grouping, and do not engage in a global Communist death toll. By attempting to fix NPOV and WEIGHT, we too engage in OR/SYNTH because the article's structure is reversed and wrong — it is, in itself, OR/SYNTH; if it was not, the result would have been 'Keep.'

As noted by the AfD, sources are the main issues, and their issues are in regards to both WEIGHT and VERIFY (e.g. Chirot, Mann, and Valentino are clearly respected academics but are they discussed fairly and correctly in the article or are they misrepresented? — since we are not citing them to secondary coverage but to their own works, I am not surprised that this is the case. Do they separate Communism in a special category as a new topic? If so, how accepted this approach is and do they represent majority or minority views?). The simplest way to fix this article is to find a topic for which we have tertiary sources (Neumayer et al.), and that is what TFD, others, and I propose. If you want to discuss Communist mass killings, we have Mass killing for that, if you want to have its own article it must only discuss Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes, as Chirot, Jones, Mann, and Valentino do, or we may have a disambiguation page linking to events themselves. Anything would be better than merging events with theories, merging Communist mass killings with global Communist death toll and theories by non-experts on Communism. In fact, doing so may be disruptive and it amounts to ignoring both the closure and moderator acknowledgment of issues, which are the result of this merging approach, hence no consensus as to whether MKuCR is a suitable encyclopedic topic.

Davide King (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Source Analysis?

I think that I respectfully disagree in detail with a statement by the AFD closers, when they wrote: "We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock." I do not understand how source analysis will break any deadlock, and in fact this recommendation by the closers seems to contradict their conclusion: "Unfortunately, we can find no consensus on them [the debate about whether sources were interpreted correctly], and consider it unlikely that further discussion in this forum will produce one." It is clear to me that source analysis isn't going to resolve the dispute, because there are a multitude of good-quality sources supporting different viewpoints.

If someone has an alternate approach for source analysis, please describe it. There are reliable sources to support multiple viewpoints and approaches, and enough of them so that looking for what is the "majority" viewpoint probably will not be helpful.

I agree with the statement that verifiability is not the key policy here. It is an important, non-negotiable policy, but there are sources that support multiple viewpoints. So the question is one of balance and due weight, which are aspects of neutral point of view.

Discussion on how to focus the topic of this article is in progress at DRNMKUCR. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that verifiability problem is not a key problem. The key problem here is neutrality. All verifiability issues of this article are a result of its non-neutrality: the sources "resist" to their usage in a non-neutral way, and significant distortion, cherry-picking or direct falsifications are needed to write this non-neutral content using these sources. It is not possible to fit the whole body of sources into this totally non-neutral format without cherry-picking, falsifications and misinterpretations.

An example that demonstrate my point is "Causes" section (I already wrote about that, so I will not repeat myself). A fresh example is "Estimates" section: it uses four sources closely affiliated with the US government (and which cite essentially the same obsolete data), one desperately outdated source, of source authored by an amateur scientist, one source that cites demographic data (which is intrinsically incapable of identifying causes of deaths), one highly controversial source, which was severely criticized for its figures, and a couple of sources authored by country experts (and leaves beyond the scope tons of good quality modern sources authored by excellent country experts). Some of those sources were already recognised as lousy at RSN. Why better sources cannot be used? The reason is that the sources used in this section are the only sources that tell about "Communist mass killings" in general, and they are the best available sources about the topic defined as "Communist mass killings". However, if we start to talk about each of those events separately from each other, we immediately find tons of good, modern, high quality sources. The only problem is that they do not tell about Communism as a single phenomenon, they discuss each country and each event in their own historical context and separately from each other. Clearly, this section has severe verifiability problems, but the key issue is its non-neutrality. By choosing a totally non-neutral topic and non-neutral structure, the article leaves beyond the scope tons of good sources and distorts those sources that are already being used in it.

Again, the reason is non-neutrality, and Robert absolutely correctly identifies it. I see only two solutions, and I already presented them in my version of AfD. A third solution is Nug's proposal (split). I propose to move this discussion to the less noisy platform. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)