Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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", [3]. 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))

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)

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.[4] 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)

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)

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)

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)