Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Name change: "Mass killings under communist regimes"

There is a lot of discussion about the name of this article, which is quite unproductive. We should search for a compromise so we can go on to improve the rest of the article. In two separate name discussions above, there seems to be a fragile consensus forming on to separate proposals:

1. Change the name from controversial concept ("Communist genocide") to descriptive phrase ("Genocide by communist regimes")

2. Exchange legal term 'genocide', which is controversial when applied to the events discussed in this article, with the more neutral 'mass killings'

I propose we combine these two, and change the name of the article to Mass killings under communist regimes, which seems to be the most neutral, descriptive phrase that everyone can agree to. There is nothing in this title that should stop us from using the terms 'genocide' and 'communist genocide' within the article, where supported by reliable sources. It is simply a minimal description of the events - no one disagrees that there were mass killings, and that they occurred under communist regimes.

Of course this does also not preclude any result to the merge debate, if suddenly an unlikely consensus were to appear there.

As for the fact that the term 'communist regime' is used by some sources, which may well count as reliable sources (I don't know, and don't want to prejudge), that should be given appropriate attention in the article. But as long as it is a term which is as controversial as it is, it seems inappropriate to use it in the title - that would prejudge a number of discussions that should take place in the article itself. See the above for examples...

How's this for a compromise? --Anderssl (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for an article like Mass killings under communist regimes? We already have articles which detail the killings under Stalin, Mao, and others. All that would be created by an article called Mass killings under communist regimes would be a POV fork. There is also a fragile consensus forming over moving this article's legitimate contents (as opposed to political speculating) to Genocides in history. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be an "umbrella article" which addresses the subject in general rather than individual examples, not a POV fork. But a better title would be Democide in communist countries. Biophys (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It does look like a reasonable suggestion, if one follows up with Democide in capitalist countries, of course. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - why do you think Mass killings under communist regimes would be a POV fork, and not Democide in communist countries? --Anderssl (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not leaning towards it, as it would still be a POV fork. But it's a more reasonable and specific title, if one accepts capitalist democide. Sources like the Black Book of Capitalism can be used for that. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand why this article would necessarily have to be a POV fork (see my remarks below). Can you please explain that a little clearer? --Anderssl (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this though I agree in principle with the argument that this is still a POV fork. But it's a hell of an improvement over the current page name. I think we will need a "mass killings under capitalist regimes" as well eventually if we go this route. This is part of the reason why original research is generally frowned upon in the encyclopedia. I don't understand the "democide" title suggestion at all -- I mean, I understand it, but we're going to have even more SYN problems with a term that's rarely used in the relevant literature. csloat (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm slow, but I don't quite understand this POV fork argument. If there is a theory out there that something useful can be learned from comparing the mass killings under different communist regimes, why would it be POV in itself to dedicate an article to this topic? It is common, and probably healthy, in the field of history to view the same events from a multitude of perspectives. This is reflected in Wikipedia where, for instance, there is an article on Democratic peace theory, and a separate article of possible counter-examples at List of wars between democracies. The main point is that this is very useful for the reader. I agree with everyone that say this article at the moment is not NPOV and probably has significant problems with OR and SYN, but none of that is sufficient to say that an article on this topic shouldn't exist. And since it has been established that there is no consensus to delete it, and probably none to merge it, shouldn't those of us who see problems in the article work towards a consensus to improve it? --Anderssl (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is, as you say, such a theory "out there," I'd be happy to support such a page that focused on the theory and made clear that it was describing a theory that some sources subscribed to and others don't. The problem is this is being presented as a collection of facts, not as a theory. Complicating the problem is that the "theory" isn't really "out there" (ie, published in some reliable sources), but is being created here by Wikipedia editors stringing sources together that aren't really in natural dialogue. But if there is a theory of "communist democide" or whatever somewhere that is notable enough to have an entry in, say, a political science textbook, I would totally agree with you that a page here would be appropriate. csloat (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

csloat and Password, which option do you prefer? Find a compromise, or keep the current name? I don't see any other options on the table. --Anderssl (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose merging this into Genocides in history, the third option, really. Doing so would take care of the POV and original research issues; focusing on killings by communists exclusively in an article ammassing all of that would only create an extra POV fork. I don't see a reason or creating another POV fork, so I don't support the rename. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a loud consensus that this article's title unacceptably breaches WP:NPOV, and the only dissent to renaming it Mass killings under communist regimes is from those who think the article should be deleted instead of renamed (but the AfD failed, so that won't happen). Therefore, I see no reason to not move forward and rename the article Mass killings under communist regimes immediately. Once the POV-slanted title is dispensed with, the real work of beginning to reorganize the article and deal with its obvious WP:SYNTH and NPOV problems can proceed. NickDupree (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also a good number of editors–and more than there are voting here–who are discussing a merger into Genocides in history, where cases of non-standard use of the term "genocide" are presented and explicated. Their votes there need to be taken into account here. So I don't really see a consensus emerging. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, consensus about a merge is even more elusive, and IMO, is unlikely to occur, especially since an editor on that talk page won't stop strikethroughing contributions he feels don't fit the discussion. I see no progress happening at all over there. Merge or not, Communist genocide's blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV problems have to be dealt with (we can't merge obvious issues into another article) and changing the POV-slanted name of the article is the logical first step in addressing the problems. I strongly supported a merge, but there's a wall of no consensus in the way right now, so I am going for the next best option, and a renamed and improved article can always be merged later if the consensus miraculously shifts. NickDupree (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick, while I think your suggestion is well-intentioned, I disagree as far as it definitely being impossible to get consensus for a merge, and don't like the idea of making yet another POV fork. (And I've unstricken what PBS has striken out.) The suggestion has only been up for a few days; plenty of people have not yet voted there. And moreover, as of now, at any rate, it seems that more editors do express interest in merging than in renaming. Some time isn't going to harm the project–and as we're both more interested in merging with Genocides in History instead, I prefer that we rather go slow and steady in deciding in which direction this really ought to go. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Password, it really sounds like you don't know how Wikipedia works. There is no vote. This is also not a discussion forum. Wikipedia is edited by consensus. It is abundantly clear that there is no consensus on a merge for the foreseeable future. And through your actions, you are blocking consensus on a name change. The end result is that the article stays under its current name. If that is not a result you are satisfied with, you need to modify your strategy and work towards consensus somewhere. That necessarily implies looking for compromise. If not, this article will be stuck with a name almost everyone agrees is inappropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge pro: The 'bad stuff' goes away. Genocide that clearly is not, Communist that clearly is not all the things implied by that word, lengthy quotes from partisan hacks...all goes away. Merge con: We never get an article that shows what killings happened under communist rule, explains what happened and why, and what if anything communism had to do with them. And the article can come back, worse than ever.

Rename pro: This starts with an "If". If editors stop pretending that they know the score (and the score is that, for example, communists perpetrated genocide and the UN is in a conspiracy to hide it). If they admit that historical scholars and the UN know more about genocide than the editors do, and start Googling 'deaths in the Ukraine' (83 hits) instead of assuming that the real action is at 'communist genocide in the Ukraine' (zero hits), then all the 'bad stuff' again goes away. Rename con: If it ever happens, we get a good article. And shortly thereafter, an article about how pigs fly now? Anarchangel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for having left the URL unmodified. I created a mess, which is fixed and now, a monster, which runs rampant; now everyone using URLs on this page seems to think that nude web addresses are the preferred form. The preferred form is in fact to use bracketed web addresses with a title, in the form [URL space title]. Anarchangel (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Oppose name change In the discussion about deleting this article the defenders argued that communist genocide was a valid concept supported by academic writing. My argument was that it was a fringe view undeserving of its own article and that the concept should be discussed under articles about the authors of these theories and their publications provided they were sufficiently notable to have their own articles. As the article develops it becomes apparent that communist genocide is a fringe view. Changing the name to "Mass killings..." will only turn the article in WP:SYN. You must first show that there is a recognized concept called Mass killings under communist regimes and explain how it differs from Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe no consensus is possible here. The discussion will continue to go around and around with nothing productive accomplished, and then next year another AfD will fail and the debate will be reignited. This is a great example of wikifail. NickDupree (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia - willful misrepresentation of sources

Password Username insists on putting "genocide of Nazi collaborators" into the lede and the section on Slovenia, basically, as I've said before to make POINT, which is seen as disruptive on Wikipedia. He doesn't believe that there is such a thing as communist genocide so he seems to be inserting the part about "genocide of Nazi collaborators" to ridicule the concept of this article. Of course, it's fine to think that this article should've been deleted - but it is not ok to engage in disruptive editing to make a POINT. In particular since the source is being misrepresented - the linked article [1] opens up with a description of one particular mass grave which likely contains the bodies of Nazi collaborators. But it then moves into a general discussion of the many mass graves that have been found in Slovenia, noting that so far 100,000 bodies have been unearthed - but it doesn't say at any point that these "100,000 bodies" are that of Nazi collaborators. In fact the article clearly states "Figures differ as well as the opinions on whose all these bodies could be." - so while SOME of those 100,000 are Domobranci, there is nothing in the article which suggests that all of them are - despite what Password is trying to imply here.radek (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I take "willful misrepresentation" as a personal attack, and your having already been warned as a result of WP:DIGWUREN, I'll note that if your level of civility does not rise a bit, you're going to be reported. I didn't say that all 100,000 were Nazi collaborators. I wrote

In Slovenia, where charges of genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators were brought up in legal prosecution of a former communist, mass graves of suspected Nazi collaborators massacred by communists continue to be unearthed.[6][7]

Source 1 says that a former communist official faced charges of genocide for executing suspected Nazi collaborators. Exactly that! Source 2 said that a mass grave, its bodies believed to be Nazi collaborators, had been uncovered and was being investigated.

Where - and exactly where - is my synthesis / OR? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's only one grave that may contain bodies of Nazi collaborators and there's nothing in the article which suggests that the other 100,000 victims that've been found are. Your edits definitely give that misleading impression, whether this is your intention or not.radek (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It says there may be up to 100,000 bodies. Other estimates are much lower. What does this have to do with genocide? The only time where the word "genocide" and "charges" occurs, it occurs either in relation to the Domobranci (ie, the collaborators) or in relation to Ribicic and his killings of Nazi collaborators, e.g., in the first of the two sources used: "Mitja Ribicic, a communist official in Tito's Yugoslavia, has been charged in Slovenia with genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators at the end of World War II." (This is the first reference in the section I added.) Why am I supposed to talk about 100,000 victims, which may or may not exist, when they are not connected to genocide? In fact, nobody even says that the 100,000 bodies that could be uncovered would be victims of communists, since you yourself note that their identities are not certain. All we have is that genocide charges were brought for the execution of suspected Nazi collaborators, and that a grave currently being ivestigated is believed to hold bodies of suspected Nazi collaborators killed by communists. Other bodies may exist, but no genocide charges were brought in connection with them. Who's doing the synth, then? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who added the text with what appears to be a purpose of making a POINT so you should really be the one to answer the question "what does this have to do with genocide"? Let me repeat: there's one grave which is believed to hold the bodies of Nazi collaborators. There's also many other mass graves, however, including the largest mass grave in Europe, but the article does not say these were Nazi collaborators. You're picking out the one grave of Nazi collaborators and leaving out the rest of the article - which is about executions by communists of their political opponents, including but not limited to Nazi collaborators. I don't think personally the entire section should be in the article, but if it stays here, it needs to be rewritten to actually reflect what the source says.

And please keep in mind that you've been warned on Digwuren as well. And while I'm mostly discussing issues here on talk you're reverting right left and center on this and numerous other articles.radek (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any connection in the sources between genocide and bodies that may exist, although the sources make a connection between genocide and suspected Nazi collaborators. That is why I have mentioned recently unearthed mass graves of suspected Nazi collaborators and charges of genocide against a man accused of this for allegedly playing a role summary executions of suspected Nazi collaborators in Slovenia. I can find "suspected Nazi collaborators" in the sources, but I do not see anything in the sources mentioning "political opponents." The article only talks about suspected collaborators: for all we know, most other opponents could have been ignored, disgraced, censored, jailed or converted rather than killed. So do me a favor and actually find this before coming up with the claim that I'm avoiding other political opponents–especially deliberately. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek seems unlikely to admit that genocide is not applicable to this. Radek evidences other misbehaviour, and as Password points out, can ill afford to. However, this does not prevent doing the decent thing, against the prevailing wind, and conceding that the victims are not adequately described as Nazi collaborators. 'Communist genocidists' are claiming victory no matter what happens, and half the time, do not even notice, or deign to answer, when a point is made. How is it a loss? Password's edits are distinguished from WP:POINT by not not being disruptive. Whether they are trying to prove a point is therefore irrelevant, and unproven. What is most notable about the addition of phrases such as "(162,000,000) -a number significantly greater than the entire population of the [[Russian Federation-" is not that they are footnotes that burst the preceding balloon, but that the balloonists' only comment on them is that they are POINTY. Anarchangel (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- I'm sorry Anarchangel, but can you explain what kind of "misbehaviour" am I exhibiting, rather than making empty accusations? You might want to check the history of the article page and see how many times I have made edits (not counting reverting what was an obvious sock puppet of Jacob Peters) and how many times you and Password have been reverting. And - LET ME EXPLAIN THIS ONE MORE TIME (hate to shout but I am repeating myself here for the fifth time) - the "number significantly greater" is illegitimate OR because 1) Russia and Soviet Union aren't the same thing and 2) you can't compare population at a point in time and the number of deaths strewn out over 30+ years. So my "only comment" is not that they are just pointy. And I take your calling me names here as a personal attack, in addition to the false accusation you've made and the inaccurate and false presentation of what I've said four or five times already.radek (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Password has made many edits to the page, but I have made five edits, three nonconsecutive, since the page began. I noticed the flaws you pointed out in 'significantly greater' when I read your exchange, so I freely concede that. However, the total population of pretty much anywhere will double in 30 years, if normal deaths are not counted against it, yes? So if the number of deaths attributed to genocide is more than the current population, then genocide must have wiped out more than half the population. Therefore, I still think that evidence is notable.

The title of this section, your repetition of that thesis throughout it, 'insists', 'disruptive editing', 'who's doing the synth, then?'; these are all words and phrases and other behaviour to avoid in discussions. Note that one of my earlier comments in this section was in agreement with your assessment; there needs to be better wording for any inclusion of 'Nazi collaborators', to distinguish the fact that victims proven to be collaborators represent only a small part of the total victims. There are surely other statistics to be considered as well; ie, what percentage of those whose identities are proven do those proven to be collaborators represent? And what percentage of the total victims are those whose identities are proven? Anarchangel (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for turning down the heat, dropping the allegations of "misbehaviour" and actually addressing the issue. Your first paragraph above however is a classic example of what constitutes Original Research (and btw, for a population of "pretty much anywhere to double" in 30 years it has to grow at 2.3% per year - Russia's current pop growth rate is -.5% though that says nothing about what it was in the past. Anyway) We don't have a source which makes the comparison that Password Username is trying to make - and that's essentially because it's an invalid comparison. Note also please that it's wrong for two reasons - the other one being that the Soviet Union had a lot of non-Russian republics which meant, well, a lot more people that could be killed. That's why there's nothing really surprising about the number, despite what PU's OR is trying to imply. This edit simply just doesn't belong in the article.

For the other part - well, the sources don't state, probably because the sources don't know. It's probably just best to leave Slovenia out of it. Isn't that what the people who oppose this article keep claiming? That there's stuff in here that doesn't belong? Isn't this actually a clear cut of example?radek (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposal, to try to get this discussion back on track: The sources for the Slovenia section are very weak - a "terrorism news letter" (whatever that is) and a slovenian news website. It should be possible to find more authorative sources - for instance, the official charges in the court case. Probably some historians must have published articles about the case, or at least essays, op-eds etc. Go find those sources instead of discussing endlessly whether some random news article has been misrepresented! Just a friendly suggestion.

Besides that, I'd say this entire discussion has turned into a pretty unproductive quarrel. I suggest that everyone go away for a couple of weeks, cool the heads a little, and come back with a slightly lower level of adrenaline. At least that's what I'm gonna do. See you guys. --Anderssl (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators in Slovenia" nothing more or less than spamming the article with nonsense.--Termer (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC article: [2]. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, the key word there being "suspected". The communists often accused their political opponents of being Nazi collaborators (even, or especially when, those political opponents actually took an active part in fighting the Nazis, but weren't sufficiently leftist (yes they included many leftists too who didn't pass their ideological test or who were too independent thinking)) as an excuse in killing them. There's no reason we should give credence to absurd propaganda claims from the hey day of Stalinism.radek (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Considering that Communism is widely considered to be defeated, it could be much more rewarding to engage in propaganda from the hey day of McCarthyism. (Igny (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Nice non-sequitur. I think there's actually a Russian joke about this kind of stock response. Anyway, as despicable as McCarthyism was, it didn't kill thousands of people.radek (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source cast doubt that those were suspected Nazi collaborators. But for some reason, all of the sources describe them as such. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Communist mass killings"

In the various discussion above I see a good bit of support for moving the article to something like "Communist mass killings" (maybe with "regimes" added in there). I see only one objection by an editor who wishes to keep the article under the current title. So is it okay if the article is moved to "Communist mass killings"?radek (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose See: What Wikipedia is not: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, et cetera.[3] Since there is not general meaning of "Communist mass killings" the new article will be orginal research. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(I voted opposed earlier so please don't count me twice.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the argument was that this one was OR. And I don't know what you mean that there's no general meaning to "Communist mass killings".radek (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems you have ignored all the arguments about "communist genocide" as synth in coming up with this suggestion. There is already an RfC for a move above. Smallbones has already voted oppose once before, and you can count me voting opposed as well. And there are still more people who've voiced support for a merge instead. And TFD is on target with OR problems. There is no consensus. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The arguments about "communist genocide" is exactly why I'm proposing this merger. But apparently we're back to the fact that this article should not exist and so if we can't have it deleted it must be littered with all the "bad" tags we can find.radek (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Communist mass killings" would have the same tags–'specially as far as the synth (as I just 'specially pointed it out now). Thanks for assuming good faith! PasswordUsername (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this is only slightly better than the current OR term. What happened to Mass killings under Communist regimes which solves the OR problem and gives everybody a baseline agreement about what we're actually talking about? csloat (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Mass killings under Communist regimes (though I think it unnecessarily limits the scope - but, hey, compromise and all that). So would PU and Four Deuces support the move to that?radek (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Even Mass killings under totalitarian Communist regimes does not limit the scope in any way. Moreover, mass killings under totalitarian regimes would actually widen the scope. (Igny (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, you're right, since "totalitarian Communist regimes" is like a triple-redundancy. "Totalitarian regimes" would be broader - too broad in fact.radek (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see the connection now. In nearly all cases genocides required totalitarianism of some sort, lots of academic sources linked these two. Now some of the Communist regimes happened to be the totalitarian regimes which allegedly committed genocide. And based on this, you just attempt to skip a logical step and link the genocides to the communist ideology directly by synthesizing the sources. Don't you think that your view that Communism is totalitarian genocidal regime is in any way biased? (Igny (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Right. "Allegedly". And to answer your question, no.radek (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - nothing anybody says will please the genocide deniers - that's reason enough to oppose. Smallbones (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in Denial of communist genocide? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, no one wants to deny that genocide has occured in the modern world. The question is whether communist genocide should be a separate topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I see no reason to milquetoast a title to appease those who would rather just delete the entire article (my perception). With regards to usage of the term, that is, NOT perception, books.google.com returns 409 matches for "communist genocide" and 80 for "communist mass killing" (4) plus "communist mass killings" (10) plus "communist mass murder" (45) plus "communist mass murders" (21)--some of those including "anti-communist mass...". "Communist genocide" is clearly the preferred scholarly use. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was not a vote, just a discussion on a compromise to get rid of the SYNTH accusations/violations. But if you feel that it is beneficial for Wikipedia's credibility to have such POV/SYNTH/TROLL articles, that is fine by me, I am patient to wait until the next AfD. (Igny (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Other than the accusation itself, I see no evidence of WP:SYNTH. That would require, for starters, that "communist genocide", the term and the topic, not be already widely discussed in scholarly sources. That is completely not the case. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Communist mass killings" is a very vague title, and we will have a yet another article which is nothing but a collection of killings. I would rather suggest to create List of communist crimes against humanity or something, which would be a list of wikipedia articles, speaking for themselves, without unreferenced editorializing or repetitions what was already said in many other places. - Altenmann >t 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my cranky edit summary earlier. "Genocide" is a very specific title, used in scholarly sources, I see not reason to not use it. Also, jumbling genocide with "lists of bad things" is a bad editorial idea in general. We do not delete article on other genocides discussed in Wikipedia articles and subsume them into larger "lists of bad things." Why is communist genocide a special case meriting not being called exactly what it is and exactly how it is discussed in scholarly sources? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want be "very specific", the article has to stick to strict definition of "genocide. Unfortunately, many people use the term "communist genocide" in wider sense. So we have a dilemma here: on one hand wikipedia must reflect common usage, on the other hand you have yet to provide a scholar definition of "communist genocide". Please don't belittle my suggestion with the term "other bad things": "crimes against humanity" are not simply "bad things", they are "VERY bad things", and listing them in one place, with summaries is reasonable. We have varuious lists of catastrophes, natural disasters, etc. Communist ideologically-motivated crimes against humanity are notable catastrophes. - Altenmann >t 17:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the problem here comes also from the fact that the word "Communist" reads differently by people from different cultural backgrouns. While in the US it might be considered just a slur often also used by the right even against Obama or remind people the McCarthy witch hunt, in the Western Europe "Communist" can mean hash smoking Cafeteria Politicians, vs the East-Central Europe where the most common interpretation of "Communist" is equality with Fascism/Nazism. Since matching all those views together is impossible, and in order to be clear what this article is about, to get a compromise I'd still suggest Genocide by communist regimes or something similar.--Termer (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Mass killings can refer to many number of atrocities and killings, where as "genocide" is too specific and easily disputeable. Mass killings also offer a more broad and less POV term than "genocide", as this can solve the dispute on whether certain incidents constitute "genocide" or not.--PCPP (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Communist genocide?

During the AfD the people arguing to keep this article claimed that there was a specific concept of "communist genocide" that was sufficiently notable to have its own article. The theory was that certain genocides occured as a result of Communist ideology. But there is no mention of this theory in the article and it should be in the lead. Now we have a claim that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was genocide, but no connection with Marxism. We cannot synthesize the allegation of genocide with the fact the the Soviet government was Communist. (Note that Imperial Russia also invaded Afghanistan and post-Communist Russia is engaged in the current war in Afghanistan.)

Normally I would tag or delete any text that was off topic, but unfortunately that relates to the whole article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article has the section on the Definition. Yet for some unknown to me reason this section also lacks the definition of the "communist genocide". (Igny (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

The term is in use since at least 1958: "Genocide in the USSR: studies in group destruction", [4]. The "unknown to you reason" is very simple: it is very easy to pile up a collection of examples from internet, but it requires a certain effort to go to library and browse scholar books and journals for definition. - Altenmann >t 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As the process of Russification started long before Communism, we probably need Tsarist genocide to describe that phenomenon. (Igny (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Let's stick to the topic at hand and what sources refer to when speaking of "communist genocide." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So, basically your way of avoiding the question about the definition of the term is "let us continue to pile up the synthesis of whatever we can dig up on Google on this topic" (Igny (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

external links

Colleagues, There are thousands of various websites, books, and artcles which talk about communist atrocities. Therefore there is nothing "dishonest" in calling only five of them as "random". If they contain important info, please use it in the article and make a reference. If it is a website of a notable organization or scholar, please write a wikipedia article and make a wikilink in "See also" section or in text. Wikipedia is not web directory of internet. It is encyclopedia. A collection of links does not replace a good article. It is already reasonably big. No reason to throw in arbitary external links without explanation what they add to this article. I am surprized I have to explain such basic convetions of wikipedia to long-time contributors. - Altenmann >t 16:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename?

This is an acceptable subject for an article, but the name - 'Communist genocide' - is both rather vague (it could refer to genocides committed by communists or genocides against communists) and ungrammatical (it should be 'communist genocides' - there was more than one). Given that WP:MOSNAME advises us to make our titles as clear as possible, I'd suggest this one be renamed to Genocides in communist countries, Genocides by communist regimes, or something similar. Robofish (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The people defending this article assert that there is a theory that genocide is inherent in Marxist ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is such a theory. In addition there is a theory that the Soviet Union is the corruption of the "true Marxism", and quite a few other theories. - Altenmann >t 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the circus, Robofish. Do not expect much support here as most of the reasonable editors gave up on this, and will ignore this article for a while. Prepare for an onslaught of the oppose votes however. (Igny (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Please discuss the article text, not the editors. Venting your frustration will not help in improving the article. - Altenmann >t 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, there is no mention of any such theory in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

List of countries in the intro

As the article grows, the growing list of "genocidal states" becomes unnecessary in the intro: is prominently seen in the table of contents. Therefore I suggest to remove it from the intro, since the intro is should be a succinct definition of the subject. - Altenmann >t 16:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is POV pushing

This article violates the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN and looks like a propagandic battleground. First of all the term "genocide" should only be used when it is actually officially referred as such eg in Cambodia. There are fine lines between actual genocide vs political purges and mass killings vs man-made famines. The article should be named Communist mass killings so it can incorporate other atrocities committed by communist governments without actually constituting "genocide".--PCPP (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you can refer to any secondary published sources saying that there never has been any genocide in Tibet nor a cultural genocide conducted by the communist China, why don't you just add thse facts to the article pr WP:YESPOV instead of doing nothing about it and just complaining about the WP:NPOV issues? In order to rename the article according to your pleasing, please voice your opinion at Talk:Communist_genocide#Move_to_.22Communist_mass_killings.22. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable sources

In China, it is alleged that Mao Tse-tung's policies and political purges, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and Zhen Fan, brought about the deaths of some 40 to 70 million people. According to The Black Book of Communism, the Chinese Communists carried out a cultural genocide against the Tibetans. Jean-Louis Margolin states that the killings were proportionally larger in Tibet than China proper, and that "one can legitimately speak of genocidal massacres because of the numbers involved." According to the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration, "Tibetans were not only shot, but also were beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned, mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive, drawn and quartered, and beheaded."

This clearly contain neutrality problems. These killings are not widely regarded as genocide, and cultural genocide is a different issue altogther. The Black Book of Communism is certainly not an objective sources and several of its authors had disputes, while the Dalai Lama mentioned nothing of genocide, simply methods of torture. This violates WP:SYN since it makes up the conclusion for the reader when in fact there is none.

Worth noting that in the introduction, the source accusing the PRC of genocide links to [5], a book called Advanced Iron Palm by a Kung Fu master. I doubt that he qualifies as a historian or an expert on Tibet and what constitutes as genocide.--PCPP (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Communists have been accused of orchestrating a genocide after World War II, where mummified remains and massacre sites of are still being discovered to this day. A Slovene historian, commenting when 540 such sites had been located throughout Slovenia, has said that communist executions have made Srebrenica look like "an innocent case" by comparison – although those executed were mostly soldiers.

Who is making the accusations? And keep in mind these are simply accusations and the sources mentioned nothing of genocide, simply executions. We need hard facts or reputable sources stating that it is actually a genocide. The source acually mentioned that charges of genocide were dropped due to the lack of evidence.--PCPP (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

on Slovenia issue many editors here including me agree with you, please see Talk:Communist_genocide#Slovenia_-_willful_misrepresentation_of_sources FFI. On the issue of genocide, you're referring to the Crime of genocide according to the UN convention, not the word genocide, that is also covered up here. I personally have no preference, the article can be called "mass killings"...just that my attempt to rename the article was instantly reverted [6] and currently there is an ongoing move discussion above.--Termer (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reordering the contents

I have reordered the cases into "convicted cases of genocide" eg Cambodia and such that has been recognized as such by the UN or other national or legal authorities, and "accused cases of genocide" in which the leaders were accused by third parties, historians etc of committing genocide, but never formally charged.--PCPP (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

I removed this section. There was no indication in the section that genocide in Ethiopia was "Communist genocide" as opposed to genocide committed by a Communist regime. Note that the Derg replaced a regime that also committed genocide and Ethiopia was engaged in a civil war both before and after the Derg came to power. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:C.J. Griffin re-inserted the section with the comment He was a communist ruler actually convicted of the crime. Please not that this argument is synthesis and not contrary to WP policy. See WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is nothing in the sources that connects genocide in Ethiopia to communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When Mengistu Haile Mariam officially calls his policy "the Red Terror" and is convicted of genocide, it does not look like synthesis to me to call it "Communist genocide." True, he did not did not call it "Red Genocide," but he wouldn't would he? Nobody would say such a thing about themselves. Is the supposed synthesis the use of "Red" instead of "Communist"? Please don't try to pull something like that. He called himself a Communist and used he word "Red" to signify Communism, was supported by the Soviet union, actively engaged in what he called Red Terror, and was convicted of genocide. The obvious fact is that this was a Communist genocide. I've removed the synthesis template. Smallbones (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of problems I thought this article would raise when I suggested it be renamed above. Since it is about the theory of 'communist genocide', every proposed example must be assessed to see whether it is covered by that theory; technically, if 'communist genocide' has not been mentioned in relation to an event, then it would be WP:SYN for us to include it here. Whereas if we simply renamed the article to Genocides in communist countries, we wouldn't have that problem - all we'd need is a reliable source saying (a) that an event was genocide, and (b) that it occurred in a communist country. It wouldn't be necessary to determine whether the specific phenomenon of 'communist genocide' applies. Maybe there's no support for that move, but doesn't it seem like a more sensible approach? Robofish (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no concept of Communist genocide then there is no reason for the article at all. Genocides in communist countries would be as invalid an article as Genocides in countries that begin with the letter "A". The justification for not deleting this article was that there was a concept of Communist genocide. Yet this article is not about that subject at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, please don't split the hair between "communist genocide" vs. "genocide committed by a Communist regime". Once again, various sources, including numerous books use the term "communist genocide". It is absolutely correct that both words are used against any intentions of the original meanings. "Communism" in Cambodia has nothing to do with noble, utopian ideas of "communism" as equality and fraternity of people. Still, we use the term "communist state" in very ugly meaning. The same with "genocide": As somebody mentioned it, there is a difference between legal abd common usage of the word (and this happens for many other words). Concluding, wikipedia's job to report how the term "communist genocide" is used, not to prove that it is used in wrong way.

Now, about "mass killings" title. There were plenty of mass killings under communist regimes, which are not called "genocide" even by fierce opponents. The term "genocide" is used to describe mass killings of categories of people, for lack of better term; the term "politicide" somehow did not catch up yet. This is article is not about arbitrary mass killings. If one wishes to really be pinpointing and nailing it down, I may suggest the title Communist genocide and politicide. Indeed, I have seen quite a few texts which do use the "and", including the most recent article I wrote, Law on Communist Genocide, on a particular subject I ran across while browsing sources related to this one. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, you say I am splitting hairs and then say numerous books use the term "communist genocide". They do indeed but they do not use it to mean genocide in Communist countries, they use it to refer to genocide committed as a result of Communist ideology. That excludes genocide with motivations other than Communist ideology. Also genocide committed by White Russians and Nazis within Communist Russia or the the Soviet Union were Genocides in Communist countries, although they were not Communist genocide. Incidentally why do you use the lower case "c" in "communist"? Do you want to expand the article to include genocide by communists who were not Communists? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not addressing the title suggestion "genocide in communist countries". As for the usage of the term "CG": there is no common agreement of the purposes of killing termed "CG": it may be either ideologically or politically motivated. And politicians was twist ideology to their favor. As for communists which are not Communists, well, Trotskyites say they are the majority of them. So let's not go into this. Let's not turn this into a "true Scotsman" joke/fallacy. - Altenmann >t 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

People who use the term "CG" claim that it is ideologically motivated by Marxist theory, which is why this article exists. Communists did not commit genocide against minorities out of prejudice or jealousy of their property but because they were barriers to the achievement of Marxist ideology, and the writings of Karl Marx advocated this. BTW I think you may have the Communist/communist difference mixed. Big "C" Communism refers to parties that were members of the Communist International, its successor organizations and successor parties. Small "c" communism is a wider concept and includes Trotskyists. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You write: People who use the term "CG" claim that it is ideologically motivated by Marxist theory, which is why this article exists. I don't see this written in our article. Please let us limit the discussion to article content. - Altenmann >t 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Discussion of article content may include both what is in and what should be in the article. The majority of people who defended this article claimed that "CG" was ideologically motivated by Marxist theory, which is why the article exists. See the AfD discussion: [7]. A typical comment was Keep, "communist genocide" is a specific concept, for example Rebecca Knuth treats it as such in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial --Martintg (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) So I am asking that either the article actually contain information about Communist genocide or that it be merged with other genocide article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the lead says "no communist country or communist individual has ever been charged with or convicted of genocide" right after "Ethiopia has been convicted" and "the highest ranking surviving member of the Khmer Rouge has been charged". What is this, an ouroboros tail swallowing? Also, the fact is that the very first charge of genocide in history submitted to the UN in November 1947 was against Soviet Union. [8] Well, another fact is that since Soviet Union was a member of the security council, such charges never made it to the UN's open agenda.--Termer (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No one gets convicted of genocide. The criteria are much too strict. Ethiopia was convicted of Crimes against humanity and war crimes. Individuals and countries get charged and even convicted of those all the time. Thank you for spotting the '47 charge. Once you learn to appreciate the magnitude of the distinction between WC and CAH and genocide, and between charges and convictions, you will see that the '47 charge, which even the source article points out was overreaching, is effectively trivia that does not really belong in the lede with the rest of what I wrote, but for now it can stay. Anarchangel (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"overreaching" is an opinion of the author in the context. Unlike for example a fact that about 50 years later , on the same basis as the 1947 charge made by the Baltic states, a former head of the KGB was found guilty of genocide and sentenced for life in Latvia where he died in prison.--Termer (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Communist genocide not genocide in Communist countries. Please improve the article by adding information about Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide not genocide in Communist countries? Please read the article and the sources that speak about the subject: Communist genocide = mass killings by communist regimes etc. FYI such regimes only have occurred in what you have called "Communist countries". there have been charges of genocide against Communist regimes/countries and anything saying differently that is not even referenced like your edit [9], can be removed by anybody at any time. Please refer to a source that says so, until then, no source -nothing to talk about.--Termer (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again..."no communist country or communist individual has ever been convicted of genocide"? Opening up the first book on the subject speaks about exact opposite: for example Alfons Noviks, a former head of the KGB On 13 December he was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to life. More about communists sentenced for the crime of genocide available for example McCormack, T. "Soviet genocide trials in the Baltic states, the relevance of international law". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2004. pp. 388–409. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)--Termer (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I concede the 'individual'. I am content with "no communist country or government has ever been convicted of genocide"

As for the rest of the changes: you really ought to include some of the sentences from the source nearby the ones you cherrypicked, such as, "In the majority of the Estonian cases the charges of genocide have been connected with the preparation and carrying out of deportations.", which comes right before the one you put in the article, "In 1999 Vassilli Beshkv was convicted for an 'intent to destroy in part a national group offering resitance (sic) to the occupation regime which was also a social group declared "kulaks"'"

It is a rather novel approach to law, would you not say, to accuse a person of genocide for deporting someone? Estonians died of the cold, on long train journeys in railway freight cars. But a Russian commissar who signs a deportation order is not genocidal because of what happened to the people he deported, any more than the customs officials who deport someone would be, should they put someone aboard a plane that crashed. If they knew it would crash, it might be manslaughter, it might even be murder, and if you could prove it was politically motivated it might be politicide, but it is not genocide. So take a care what you dig up, and how you present it. The Estonians are quite clearly subverting the definition of genocide to suit their political agenda. It would behoove you not to repeat their mistakes. Anarchangel (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Anarchangel do not use wikipedia talk pages for publishing essays on the subject. If you do have problems with the facts cited by the sources, please take it to the relevant addressees.--Termer (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Viet Nam

Question (answer probably "no"). Would any of the communist massacres of the Viet Nam war count? There were times (especially during the Tet Offensive when they thought they were about to win) when they went through entire cities and killed "catholics", "nuns", "bureacrats", "gays" or some other "deviant" group by the thousands. Technically not "genocide", but what do you call an attempt to exterminate a category of human being?Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Split this article

Many editors have requested that the name of this article be changed to "Genocide in Communist countries". My reaction has been that the term "Communist genocide" has a specific meaning, even though it is not mentioned in the lead to this article, and has a different meaning from "Genocide in Communist countries". Therefore I suggest that the article be split into two articles: "Communist genocide in Communist countries" and "Non-Communist genocide in Communist countries". The first article would describe genocide committed by Communist regimes as part of Communist ideology while the second article would describe genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a rather odd concept: "genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology". --Martintg (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Martintg defended this article at the AfD claiming that there was a concept of "Communist genocide"/"communist genocide" (he never explained which it was). However, no one has explained the concept of Communist genocide in this article. I ask Martintg why after valiantly defending this article he does not edit the article in order to explain his theory of Communist genocide that he defended in the AfD. This is surprising becaue Martintg discussed his theories extensively. In case they are forgotten, allow me to quote Martintg's reasons for keeping this article. If Martintg has now abandoned his previous beliefs about "Communist genocide" then the article should be deleted. I will now list Martintg's reasons for keeping this article and note that the article in no way reflects any of the reasons he gave.

Explanation of the theory of Communist genocide, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"communist genocide" is a specific concept, for example Rebecca Knuth treats it as such in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial The Holocaust is also a "democide" according to Rummel's definition, by your reasoning the Holocaust was not genocide? Quite a number of authors such as Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth have made the connection between mass killing in a number of communist regimes, the connection being that communist ideology was used as the justification for the killing See the works by Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. Actually the concept is not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray publisged the concept of "Communist genocide" here. The concept of "Communist genocide", linking the genocides committed by various communist governments and attributing the phenomenon as a feature of Communist policy is published here. Communists certainly intended to destroy national groups, hence they committed genocide, as the literature shows This is simply not true. Many books do make a link between communist ideology and genocide, see Eric D. Weitz's book A century of genocide for example Indeed if you read further the paragraph states it was a combination of reactions similar to what moved the Nazi system from discrimination to genocide, so the author seems to be implying that Nazi ideology alone is an insufficient explanation too. Either way, ideology is a factor, the question is to what degree. Communist ideology promotes the destruction of national groups, no question about that, and destruction of national groups is genocide according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is well known that Karl Marx was a racist. In "On the Jewish Question" Marx spoke of the Jews as a nationality in highly abusive and venomous language, heaping abuse on their religion, calling the Jews a "chimerical nationality" which he saw destined to disappear as a spiritual and cultural entity. Marx was against the Czechs and Southern Slaves too, stating:"Because the Czechs and the Southern Slavs were then 'reactionary nations', 'Russian outposts' in Europe, outposts of absolutism … to give support to the national movements of the Czechs and Southern Slavs at that time would have been to give indirect support to Tsarism, a most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe." Not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. Comment - Ellen Frankel Paul in the book Totalitarianism at the crossroads discusses the general concept of "communist genocide":"Again, it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life" There is nothing in John N. Gray's bio that suggests that this British political philosopher and former Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics is a fringe theorist. He appears to have published extensively and in fact there is a book written about him: The Political Theory of John Gray, which states "He is much cited and discussed within political and social theory, but he also has a much wider audience, being one of those quite rare creatures in British academic life, a public intellectual, writing regularly for the quality press and appearing on both radio and TV". So I don't see where you get the idea his views are "largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles". What ever your personal view is of John Gray, it cannot now be said that the concept of "Communist genocide" is WP:SYNTH Genocides have particular characteristics, Nazi genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for Jewish people, while Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples. How so? The line "Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples" is from a published source, the comparison to Nazi genocide is not made in the article, but merely a response to User:Multixfer. I'm not sure what you are exactly arguing for here, when you state "should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed", this article does the opposite and aggregates a number of genocides into one article, an aggregation that is supported in the literature because of its particular features related to Communist ideology that makes it stand apart from regular genocide. This has already been mentioned several times above. However the article has since been significantly expanded by several other editors of good standing. So what? "Communist mass killing" [16] also gets tons of hits. This is a naming issue which is a content issue that should properly be discussed on the article talk page rather than here. "Zionist mass murder" only gives me 1,060 hits. Indeed Google searches throw up some strange results, and only covers stuff that is online in any case. I think we are straying off topic here, what we name a topic is a content issue, to be discussed else where, we don't go deleting an article because we don't like the name Claiming "A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work" mis-interprets of the previous discussion, please provide a published source that contends John Gray's chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" published in the book "Totalitarianism at the crossroads" is in any way "controversial". There is nothing in John N. Gray bio that suggests that he is a fringe theorist or controversial, yet we have Wikipedians here who have asserted that without providing any evidence what so ever. It is the quality of sources, not quantity, that determines reliability, and by all accounts John Gray is a scholar of the highest order. Now you are engaging in WP:SYNTH, taking the comments from a publisher about an unrelated book written by somebody else and applying it to John Gray's particular chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" in "Totalitarianism at the crossroads". You really need to find a published scholarly review on John Gray's specific views about "Communist genocide" before you can claim it is "controversial", without it no controversy exists. As for this claim of "POV fork", what is the name of the article that this is supposedly a fork of Again, this is just a naming issue which should be addressed as a content issue on the talk page, some names are used more often than others in various contexts, but they all point to the same underlying topic, the mass killing of people by totalitarian communist regimes around the world. What is "inherently POV" about this topic? What is the alternate POV this article is suppose to fork, that communist regimes didn't kill anyone? Has anyone provided any sources that articulate the claim that no one was killed? "Communist genocide" is a specific term discussed in books, memorial days proclaimed for and courts prosecuting alleged perpetrators because of it. It is a notable and worthy topic no matter how you want to name it. Probably more likely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITitis. We have people here asserting it is "inherently POV", but seem unable to articulate what the actual POV issue is. I don't see anywhere in the article that makes the judgment that Communism is "something totally evil", it is for the reader to judge. Is it a fact that these regimes engaged in mass killing, many eminent scholars contend in published sources that these mass killings were genocidal and a common feature of totalitarian communist policy in multiple regimes, and discuss it in terms of "communist genocide". Would you be comfortable if the article was renamed to Communist mass killings, or would you also contend that was POV too, disputing even that fact? *Sorry, but this comes across as personal opinion, you need to find published sources that make these claims and add it to the article per WP:YESPOV. Plenty of published sources associate mass killings with Communism have been provided, you need to find reliable sources that assert there is no connection between mass killing and totalitarian Communism. Easy, see the book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, chapter 4. Some seem to hold the view that there is no causal link between communist ideology and mass killings. The view seems to be that the mass killings in the former USSR, the Democratic Kampuchea, in the People's Republic of China and Ethiopia were all independent events where the ideology of government was just co-incidental, not a root cause. The problem is that no evidence is presented from published sources that supports the case that this view of no causal link is held by any significant author, we are just left with the unqualified opinion of some Wikipedians that this is the case. When presented with books that make that causal link, like Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, the author who has published extensively in academia is immediately dismissed as a crazy fringe theorist by the AfD nominator. So have you published your theory of no causal link between totalitarian communism and mass killing in some journal? One eminent scholar (fringe theorist according to our AfD nominator) has stated "it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life". How about you provide evidence for your assertion "As far as I can tell his theory has received no recognition either from the academic community" by providing a published paper that refutes the causal link between the communism and mass killing. Seems all you can offer is "common sense", i.e. OR, and a personal attack. How about trying to contribute to the debate by supplying a peer-reviewed paper that claims that ideology was not a factor in mass killings in the various Communist regimes. With regard to the POV fork argument, the nominator seems the believe this article is a direct POV fork of the article Communism, when in fact is is simply a valid sub article of a notable topic in need of coverage (and there is a vast range of sub topics in this space, see Template:Communism), (I note also that Wikipedia does not have an article Totalitarian communism either). Whether we call it Communist genocide, Communist mass killing, Totalitarian Communist mass killing, Communist inspired mass murder or something else is really just a naming issue, but the underlying topic is a valid one and is covered extensively in the literature [24] There is no escaping the fact that there is a significant body of literature that does discus and make the link between mass killing and the implementation of communist ideology, no matter how much we would want to paint prominent scholars and authors that hold that view as "fringe theorists" The argument "Communist" and "genocide" is not a meaningful intersection of topics" is as meaningless as the argument "Islam" and "terrorism" is not a meaningful intersection of topics", yet we have the article Islamic terrorism precisely because it is a meaningful intersection. You argument appears to be equivalent to claiming that since there is nothing inherently "evil" or inhuman in the Koran, the article Islamic terrorism should be deleted. It the issue is one of labeling the entire theory as genocidal, why would you object to renaming to Totalitarian Communist genocide? Would you consider Totalitarian Communist mass killing? Surely nobody here disputes that mass killing was a defining feature of Totalitarian Communist regimes, even if some of us claim the mass killing wasn't genocide. How can you claim it is SYNTH, then acknowledge "that there is a historic linkage between events, roughly along the arguments of the Black Book". If the author of the Black Book, Stéphane Courtois, writes about this linkage in his book, as Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth also do in their respective books, then it is no longer SYNTH. No body has provided authors that have contended that there is no linkage, so how can you speak of a "wider historical debate" Synthesis is advancing a new position, how is what is in the lead new from what has already been published by Peter A. Zuckerman, Benjamin Valentino and Benjamin Wiker, who are essentially saying the same thing? In fact, the Black Book appears to be only cited within the body in regard to numbers of deaths, So I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "Copypasting a summary of a highly politicized document like the Black Book". "even though there are plenty of sources claiming the link is merely coincidental at best", care to post these sources that claim that Communist ideology was not a factor in mass killing in these regimes? Indeed, not withstanding the question whether or not the mass killing was genocide, the fact that mass killing was inspired by Communist ideology is not in question. It is interesting to note that the Dictionary of Genocide has an entry for "Communism", characterizing it as an intolerant, repressive and genocidal political force in the modern world. In fact in the same book states that mass killings along the lines of genocide are often motivated doctrinally. Genocide scholar Helen Fein contends such genocides are justified by an articulated social goal that enjoins the destruction of the victims. It goes on to state that the notion of "class struggle" was used as a guideline for aggressive policies that has led to regimes using genocidal means to destroy the "enemies of the working class", leading to the destruction of millions of lives. So Communist mass killing is certainly a valid topic. Please don't get personal, I wasn't alone in supporting keeping this article. Evidently you still seem to be a bit upset that the article was not deleted, given your lengthy response. You want the article split yet you haven't supplied on single source that supports the notion of "genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology". --Martintg (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New lead

I propose putting User:Martintg's ideas into the lead. However they appear to be too long. Perhaps Martintg could summarize them. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well ofcourse the article lead has been significantly changed since the AfD, if you want to revert it back, be my guest. BTW, it is not "my idea" that genocide in Communist countries was driven by communist ideology, but the idea of Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. --Martintg (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your whole justification for this article was that that genocide in Communist countries was driven by communist ideology. If you no longer believe this, then the article should be deleted. If you now want to delete the article then I will support you new view. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What an odd discussion, as if articles are kept or deleted upon the basis of my personal opinion. If you are still unhappy about the result of the AfD, don't take it out on me. As I recall, many people argued that this article should be kept, and many published authors continue believe that Communism is a misanthropic ideology that has an innate tendency to be genocidal. You may disagree with their viewpoint, but WP:RS requires us to acknowledge it regardless of whether we like it or not. --Martintg (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether genocide is driven by ideology or ideology is quoted as a justification for genocide, it's a dance of ideology and genocide. I wouldn't expect the article to be deleted any time soon. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggested lead for the article, please comment:

Communist genocide is a fringe theory developed during the cold war, that mass killing was inspired by Communist ideology. The theory was written about in the Black Book of Communism, and popularized by the John Birch Society and other radical right-wing American groups. However since the end of Communism the theory has gone into decline, and has been replaced by other conspiracy theories, such as the New World Order.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh no. Now THAT is complete OR and SYNTH, as well as complete nonsense.radek (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some cite tags to your proposed lead. Do you have a source, or is it your own original research? --Martintg (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Italy and Japan (who were vicious, but possibly NOT genocidal) the major genocides of the 20th century were primarily committed by regimes at least CLAIMING to be communist.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice you left out Germany, I guess you think they got a bad rap. Turkey too. Then there are numerous recent examples. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You made the same mistake the media, hollywood, the socialists have been quietly ignoring for 70 years. The NAZIS (a term they rarely used themselves) were socialist almost indistinguishable from communists. Hitler stated it in his speeches and the only difference between the two I've ever seen in print is the Russian communists thought lumpenman had to give up his individuality to achieve perfection while the NAZIS thought he could keep it. Where do you think the term NAZI comes from? An acronym of the german words for National Socialism aka the National Workers (arbeite) Society - - - -

As for Turkey, you've got me. Unless . . . . anyone know what the Turkish government claimed to be?Aaaronsmith (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard that theory before. The fringe theory promoted by Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism was that both Nazis and Italian Fascists were socilialists. ("Fascists" in France, Spain and other countries were however right-wing.) But he never claimed that Nazis were Communists and drew no distinction between Nazis and Italian Fascists. I would be most appreciative if you could provide a source for your theory. Also, do you believe that genocide occured in Nazi Germany or was this just left-wing propaganda? Incidentally Turkey was right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not heard of A. James Gregor's book The Faces of Janus or the recent OSCE resolution equating Communism with Nazism? we all know that Fascism had its origins in communism, and communism exhibited facets of fascism from its inception. --Martintg (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)He did not say that Nazis were Communists. He said "The fact is that the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin was more like fascism than intellectuals throughout the decades from the 1930s to the 1980s seemed prepared to allow." (I don't have a copy of the book and there is no JBS bookstore where I live.) Anyway Aaaronsmith draws a distinction between Nazis, who he says were "Communist" and Italian Fascists. Do you know of any theory that considers Nazis to be Communists or socialists but puts Italian Fascists in a different category? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry The Four Deuces for lecturing but, the political spectrum does not follow a straight line but forms a circle. on one edge of the circle there are people who believe in democracy and on the opposite side of the circle, right next to each other sit the extremist right and left wings. You're acting like you're surprised that "nazi" means national socialism? National socialism is an extremist right wing ideology and communism the extreme "left wing". And on the political scale, on the circle those stand right next to each-other. At the same time the national socialism doesn't have anything to do with for example the modern Scandinavian style social democratic welfare states that run on the Social democratic ideology. And that might be the best candidate for the opposing force in the political scale, meaning n the circle to the extreme lefts&rights, "nazis and commies".--Termer (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, that is only one conception of the political spectrum. Here's a link to the seating plan of the the European parliament. Ex-Communists sit on the far left and neo-fascists are on the far right. (Of course the fascists sit as independents but they occupied the far right when they had party status, as fascist always have.)[10] But Aaaaronsmith's theory is that while Nazis were communists (which they circle theory does not say) the Italisn Fascists were not. I just have not come across this theory before. Btw I have met people from across the political spectrum and Communists and fascists seem to express different views. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources

I wonder what you think of this piece.

Also this book might be of interest. (Igny (talk))

One more holodomor denial (quote:The myth of the Ukrainian famine was created by the most reactionary sections of American society) (Igny (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Considering that WP has an extensive article on the black book of communism and other anti communist books, articles and opinions, I think it is time to create an article about the article "Democratic Genocide" by Curtis. It is a widely cited piece, see here for an interesting opinion about that article and the events which were the reason for the article. (Igny (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Just some interesting quotes from here (Igny (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

the Cold War liberals championed the Genocide Convention as a weapon in the anti-Communist arsenal,

James J. Martin concludes perceptively: "... over 40 years after Raphael Lemkin invented the word 'genocide,' most people who have heard it think they know what it means. The overwhelming majority of them are mistaken; they do not."

I would really like to know why Indonesian killings of 1965–66 and the Operation Condor are not mentioned in this article. (Igny (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't have time to read the references right now (gotta go) but I will note we are beginning to make a semantic mistake in our politics. This article may be an obvious attempt to trash communism. The suggestions to respond by having a new article to show the other side are reasonable. HOWEVER, both of the suggestions I have read have been just plain wrong. One suggested capitalism - which is NOT the opposite of Communism (I don't care how ofter the radicals in my classes at Berkeley misused the term). The other suggests democracy - a complete misunderstanding of the lexicography. Most of the communist regimes claimed to be "democracratic", some were legally if de facto something else, and some really were democracies (let us remember Hitler was legally elected).

I'll come back and follow your links to inform myself, but for the moment, we will keep this thread a whole lot cleaner if we remember that to show the opposite of "communist genocides" the opposing article should be named "free market genocide" (or something pretty close). This will avoid a LOT of misunderstanding and arguing over nothing.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Igny, Communist genocide should include genocide against suspected Communists. This happened in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Congo, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and many other countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What next, will you be advocating for an article about genocide against suspected Nazis? --Martintg (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Free market genocide"? To avoid confusion?? That seems nuts to me. "Genocide" literally means killing a people or a race, not a belief system or economic arrangement. If genocides were committed in the name of stamping out "communism" then sure it could be included here, but the idea of "genocide against Communists" is not a real concept, since Communists are not a race or culture. csloat (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment (I'm not back). You're catching on to the problems. Communism is an economic system, and the opposite is free market (and Yes, it does sound dumb). On the other hand communISTS are a culture. A cross ethnic, cross cultural, etc. sub culture, just like Christianity.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you can say that only if you're using a definition of culture that is, well, entirely bogus. North Korean communists, Cuban communists, and American communists in no way share "cultural" ties. So, no, there is no genocide against "communists" and there is no genocide against "free marketeers", and, in fact, there really is no Communist genocide, ultimately, which is the problem with this whole thing. csloat (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We are wasting everyone's time talking about topics other than the article, for example, what is the theoretical opposite of "communist" so we can have equal time on genocide articles. Please feel free to start a genocide task force or go to already established articles such as United States and state terrorism and take those conversations elsewhere and not muddy the waters here. Thank you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: We have already wasted so much time about the trollish synthesis, now we are discussing the ways to improve the article. So please stop stalling the discussion. (Igny (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Vecrumba, this discussion is getting off topic, which is genocide by communists, not against them (I agree with Commodore Sloat here, the idea of "genocide against Communists" is not a real concept). --Martintg (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why as you hopefully noticed I did not suggest an article on anti-communist genocide. Also since the communist genocide is clearly is not a real concept, why were you against merging this article to genocides in history?(Igny (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC))