Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Capitalist Mass Killings

I haven't read these sources (and don't have time to now), so in all likelihood I may be missing something important, but could I ask you to clarify: From what you write above, it seems (very simply put) that Valentino is stating that communist regimes are regimes which tend to attempt radical social transformations, which in turn can lead them to conduct mass killings. Whereas Wayman and Tago are saying that communist regimes are a particular kind of autocratic regimes, which due to their ideology and organization sometimes engage in mass killings. Sounds to me like two different attempts at explaining why communist regimes engage in mass killings. Why is the sub-category vs main category distinction crucial? Isn't there an argument to be made that if many other categories of mass killings are analyzed, then those could also be valid topics for their own wikipedia articles? The idea that one could create an article such as "mass killings under military regimes" doesn't seem to imply that "mass killings under communist regimes" is an unacceptable topic for an article. --Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Anderssl. Set A containing (C, D, E, F) causes mass killings because of B. This means the article is "Mass-killings in A. Lede: Mass killings in A happened because B." This article is currently "Mass-killings in C. Mass killings in C happened because of B." This is deceptive and misleading conduct: C is a case-study or example of the set of A. Escalating this article to "Comparative theories of Mass killing, Genocide, and Democide" and actually covering comparative horrorific social behaviour en mass studies would be the optimal outcome. This would be effectively a rewrite from scratch though. Neither Wayman and Tago nor Valentino address "Communist states / governments / etc" as an object of theoretical analysis, they address them as a case study within a set that is the object of theoretical analysis. This is the reasoning for why the article should be deleted: the object of this article is not an object of academic study. As should any other "Mass killings in [research object]". I'm aware of a few generalised claims for the causes of mass killing in capitalism, but these are a) primitive (alienation, commodification of the human being, extraction of labour power while enclosing common land) and b) not currently cited at the other pathetic article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, but what makes me wonder about this argument is that it seems to isolate every source. If you view it from a different perspective, we have: "A number of communist regimes have conducted mass killings. Source A claims this is because communist regimes belong to category X, which lead them to do mass killings. Source B claims it is because they belong to category Y, etc." So multiple sources offer different explanations of the phenomenon. I am not sure if this holds, but I am also not sure that it doesn't - there is the difference between being convinced that this is a sound theory, and being convinced that it deserves being mentioned in Wikipedia (as you probably can tell, I am an inclusionist). --Anderssl (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even for an inclusionist this is problematic way forward. A(b,c,d,e) caused by X ; F(b,g,h,i) caused by Y=> Article Mass-killings in b as part of A due to X; in b as part of F due to Y is synthesis, as b is never an object of study. The object of the article is simply not an object of study. The correct articles would be A and X; or F and Y. There is a place for scholarly thematic pieces; but, the place is defined by the literature available. The best way to present the possible thematic piece is by moving the substantive literature survey achieved here to a general comparative genocide/mass killing/population destruction piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that is a very good point. You may just have convinced me. --Anderssl (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization

I would like to suggest that we reorganize the article to start with historical examples and then causes. We should have two large headers: history and causes, or better yet, a discussion about the individual examples with causes in between. I'm going to try it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article is becoming excessively long, now standing at 61 KB. Any suggestions on what to do about this? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut out the historical details since it's supposed to be about theories as to causes? I could cut all that out right now and I don't think there would be an ounce of difference to the article. Examples should be coming from the scholarly work, not "here's a bunch of horrible things Communists did and here's what some scholars think" with no connection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, stop with the excessive quoting and actually start to think about the root causes the scholars are discussing. It's intellectually lazy just to put a bunch of quotes out and not even attempt to show similarities or differences in their views. That's difficult, I know, (especially with the god awful way citations are incompletely linked and separated all over the place) but that takes actual work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both. Cull the litany. Comparative discussions of views must be founded in and grounded in... Reliable Sources. There is no meta literature survey of attempts to classify the behaviour of the soviet-style states in mass abhorrence. Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Watson1998 is appropriately summarised and characterised, but overlength ("Watson was batshit insane and working outside of his field of academic competence" is an adequate summary). The Black book is adequately summarised and characterised. [was accidentally unsigned] Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, create a new section for each source and let's discuss whether or not it's reliable. Otherwise, yeah, doing some comparative work is synthesis but it's also WP:UNDUE. It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis here. Are you telling me the last featured article had an actual source that compared the interpretations like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis" -- please see WP:SYN. If you have identified synthesis in another article, remove it, rather than using that as a reason to add it here. csloat (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I culled the litany under COATRACK. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

61K is nowhere near a "long page" -- Number 1000 is over 120K in length. 61K is, in fact, under the median when stubs are excluded (stubs now being somewhere around 40% of all articles). Collect (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Article size: "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". It is a rule of thumb but the article continues to expand. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read it many times -- and note some editors have a propensity to cut articles they dislike by up to 75% -- from (say) 11K to 8K, or from 16K to 4K, or from 44K to 16K in one fell swoop. This article is not excessively long by any measure. Consider one article we have in common -- Sarah Palin currently at 144K. Or Fascism at 127K currently. This article is short considering its scope. Collect (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the consensus direction of the article from the archives? The bottom of the barrel has been scraped on theorised comparative studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "consensus direction" in the archives, and certainly not here just reading everyone's replies following the mass deletion. Please refrain from the mass deletion of sourced material on Wikipedia without consensus.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is below. Go back and read. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Ricky81682:Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Completely agree with this. I mean, I'm not sure if it is necessary SYNTHESIS and OR but the section reminds me of WP:NOT PAPER for sure. I have brought it up before [10] but it made no difference.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your position was explicitly rejected at the link you indicate. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Fifelfoo, that's why I left the diff here to show that the section considered SYNTHESIS and OR by Ricky81682, that similar position by me has been "explicitly rejected" by you and 2 other editors.--Termer (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reasonable way to make that interpretation from edits by User:Ricky81682, your poor conduct is continuing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Termer is referring to this unsigned edit by Fifelfoo. However, Termer's point - that we should cut out all the academic analysis and just leave in the sections on individual historic cases - doesn't seem to have much in common with Fifelfoo's, and seems to contradict his own statements. --Anderssl (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to apologise for the unsigned post, I've just signed it. I find it even more difficult to interepret my post as meaning the current academic approaches section is currently SYN/OR. Especially given the immediate context of User:Ricky81682 criticising the current "A says, B says" and arguing for a comparative approach. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive Deletes

Massive deletes of sourced material without consensus is not the Wikipedia way. After three failed attempts at deleting the whole article, deleting massive parts of article could be perceived as an attempt to go against consensus. Please discuss first. Bobanni (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, if you would have cared to read the discussion. Single society instances are not "in Communist regimes" do you note the plural there? Have you observed that none of the single society exemplars theorise connections or fundamental causes? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no "agreed direction." Please do not engage in mass deletions of sourced material. Thanks.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you Read the archives Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read this very recent section of talk Bobanni? No? Thanks, but you haven't advanced anything, and you obviously haven't read the archives regarding what the current consensus on this article is. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Bobanni on that one. It would be nice if Fifelfoo could take a look at WP:PRESERVE, and in case anything is considered "COATRACK" [11] the article should give wikilinks to relevant articles where the matters are discussed in more depth. Simply removing sourced matreial from wikipedia can't be considered acceptable.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, when people read these articles they want to know what mainstream thought is about these issues. They are not interested in reading POV articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you do consider the material that has been removed a "POV"? So why does it get removed then? Please see WP:YESPOV: "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"". And again, in case you are aware of any conflictive perspectives to the things you consider "POV". alternative viewpoints should be added to the article instead of blanking out large junks of the article content.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well glory be that you are now admitting that it is POV. Note the keyword "solely". You are supposed to explain mainstream views before explaining minority views, which you did not do. And you are supposed to leave out crackpot ideas entirely. Please see WP:Weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know according to whom exactly you can make a difference between "mainstream views" and "crackpot ideas" respectively in the context? Is there published apaper anywhere perhaps that looks into those questions? I'd need to see it, otherwise there is no way for me to tell on what bases you consider anything a "mainstream view" vs "crackpot ideas".--Termer (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream views are those published in peer-reviewed academic journals, particulary when they are generally accepted. Crackpot ideas lack the intellectual vigor and consistency to be published in academic media and include conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You can read more about how Wikipedia recommends the reporting of crackpot theories in Fringe. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this text was perfectly sourced. These are mainstream books published by best experts in the field. Were these sources ever discounted as unreliable at WP:RS? No.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this article, as discussed and achieved consensus on, as noted above in labelled links, is multiple society theorised accounts of mass killing in Communist regimes. Not mass killing in a communist regime. Or a miscellaneous collection of horrors. The object of research is comparative mass killings. A list of occurances does not relate to the topic of this article. This is not "random list of horrors," but theorised accounts of multiple society horrors. The presentation of a miscellanary is COATRACKing. Conquest, for example, does not theorise about societies other than the Soviet Union. This means that Conquest's scholarship is off topic for this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous academic books written by the best historians, specifically on the crimes against humanity under the Communist regimes, for example Black book of Communism and others cited here, but there are others as well. Thus, the subject was not invented by anyone here. This is well established academic subject.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We have repeatedly discussed the black book. Have you bothered to read the archives or the black book? If you had you would know that the book comprises a collation of single society case studies with no cross social analysis or theorisation. That the Introduction and Conclusion provide six paragraphs in total on cross social analysis, none up to the standards of comparative genocide studies (such as Valentino). If you'd bothered to read the archives or the article, you'd be aware of the fact that Valentino does not present a catagory of analysis "Communist mass killing" he presents a superior catagory and discusses communism as a descriptive, or narrative, instance of his catagory: this is insufficient to sustain the case. More over, see the unwrapped discussion above on explaining set theory to editors and why the object of analysis of a theorist needs to be communism in general, or a specific grouping of communist societies, as an explicit explanatory catagory, not a subset. We have gone over the academic literature. What was discovered is already in the article. And a COATRACK of single society case studies is not appropriate as it is not the object of this article. Blue for example, will not contain a list of blue objects. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I read "Black Book" and a lot of other books on the subject, including books by Conquest (the best Western specialist on Russian history), books by Pipes, by Figes, and so on and so on. I am also well familiar with writings by Lenin, Marx. I passed serious Marxism-Leninism exams (do you want me to cite them right away - I remember some quotes). I also lived in the Soviet society as a practical matter. So, what's precisely your background then? Do you have a history PhD degree?Biophys (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that your field isn't the humanities though, is it? And that your familiarity with disciplinary practice in the humanities is minimal, your M-L course was a state requirement for enrolment in a soviet-style society. The generalist studies you've outlined are single society studies and do not theorise general causes: they are excellent sources for Rights abuses in the Soviet Union, or Mass killing in the Soviet Union, or Accusations of Genocide within the Soviet Union. I suggest that you do go and read the introduction to the Black Book and show me the theorisation of a common cause of barbarous actions across all soviet style societies, rather than just the Soviet Union as is Conquest's object. Perhaps the introduction to the French edition is superior in someway, if it is, please do quote from that with appropriate translation. My field is social history, and if you bothered to look at the article history I have made significant contributions outlining the theory relevant to this field. I would rather not out myself to the name level. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The object of research is comparative mass killings",according to Fifelfoo? Is it me again who is missing something but how would be "comparative mass killings" related to this article? In case you'd like Fifelfoo, you're more than welcome to start up an article about the subject you mentioned. This however is an article called Mass killings under Communist regimes, please limit your comments on this talk page to the current subject only. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:The Four Deuces, in case we're dealing with such a fringe theory in general, surely there should be some sources out there that mention it. I'm more than aware of your opinions that you have clearly spelled out. Please also provide any sources that look into this what you are talking about. In case it appears indeed that we're dealing with Fringe here, no problem, there is also Flat Earth article on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources normally do not analyze fringe theories, which is what makes them fringe, they are outside normal intellectual discussion. Since fringe theories are by nature irrational and have an irrational following it is pointless to analyze them. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

well, if you can't come up with academic sources showing that we're dealing with Fring here, there surely should be something out there saying so. You know, we'd need to get your claims veryfied, and then once its established that this is the case indeed, the article can exist happily next to other articles on wikipedia that are written on fringe theories. And all this still is not going to justify removing massive junks of material from this article.--Termer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

List article?

Just a thought, would it be a viable compromise to create a list article called List of mass killings under communist regimes or something equivalent, with a brief description of each atrocity and links to main articles where they exist? And then the present article can be cut down to appropriate size or even deleted. --Anderssl (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind personally if this is going to bring an end to massive blanking and this discussion that isn't going anywhere and just keeps going in circles. I think it could be a solution.--Termer (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't think deleting it would be necessary, there is no good reason to get rid of the articles history, therefore a redirect would do just fine.--Termer (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists suggests not as, "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." [at ¶1]. The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious. A category hierarchy, "Abuse of rights in Soviet-style societies" followed by sub-cats "Abuse of rights in the Soviet Union"…etc. would be a viable category grouping. Categories do not appear to be covered by article obligations, unlike lists. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious." Wouldn't this be possible to fix with some appropriate qualifications in the article? Seems that some reasonable modifications would do. --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like hedging to me. The fundamental aim of a list like that is to associate a series of societies and to claim by association a common structure behind their behaviour. The theorisation simply isn't present for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See Tables of vampire traits for how problematic these list articles are, and for how association by proximity in a list produces a Synthesis. There are three good sentences in that article, and six screens of worthless cruft which has not been explicitly compared anywhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't find this argument particularly convincing. Obviously a list would need some sort of definition of "communist regime", but that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist". Such a list wouldn't have to omit the fact of large differences between such societies. It would be a list of facts, and that's it; theoretical discussion and interpretations could be dealt with elsewhere. --Anderssl (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist"" Some of these regimes called themselves "Democratic" or "Socialist" - is it a sufficient ground for creation list articles "Mass killing under democratic/socialist" regimes? (The question is rhetoric)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but I think the regimes calling themselves "socialist" could be included, depending on some consensus. I am not an expert on the subject matter. But I think it should be possible to make some reasonable clarifications of the terms, and then just make a list of the historical events that fit those terms. Btw it should probably be "Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes", not under - to limit the range a little. (And I definitely think a list of mass killings by democratic regimes would have substantial content - think of what the US did to its natives, or the Belgians, the British and the French to their colonies, etc.)

The point would be to get us out of the current impasse, in which one side is complaining (justifiably so) about the lack of theoretization, whereas the other seems to just want to create a list of events. I really don't see the problem with providing this kind of list - it is a useful way of collecting links to further information. This seems to be perfectly in line with the purpose of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. --Anderssl (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a little bit odd that you see no problem in such a name ("Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes"). Socialist regimes (e.g. Sweden or France) are very vegetarian forms of social organisation and very mentioning of them in a context of mass killing is not more justified than mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death of, e.g., American Indians. I believe the very idea to collect various bloody dictatorships into the single list and to connect them to some single word ("Communism" or "Socialism") is deeply ideologically motivated, and, therefore, unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Fredrik Reinfeldt would be quite surprised to find his country described as a "socialist regime". Sweden is a constitutional monarchy and has never described itself as socialist (surely you are aware that social democracy is a quite different ideology). As for my motivations, shouldn't you try to be open to the possibility that I just want to allow for the broadest possible presentation of knowledge, as an inclusionist Wikipedian? Have I said something earlier to disturb your assumption of good faith? It is a generally accepted fact that many communist regimes have committed these atrocities, why would it be POV to make a list of them? And why is the "mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death" so problematic? I will acknowledge one problem: It is hard to distinguish clearly between different types of regimes, so the precise classification needs to be discussed and qualified (i.e. communist vs socialist, socialist vs democratic etc). But that doesn't speak to the heart of the matter, which is whether such a list, with appropriate qualifications and definitions, would be appropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was coming here to ask the same thing - how about listyfing the article? I am afraid that at the current stage we - Wikipedia editors - are simply not ready to develop a reliable, high quality and stable article on this subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. Any list, with a reasonable working definition fitting Cold War OPFOR, will fail to mention "negative" cases, such as the failure of the HSWP to implement large scale starvation in Hungary. In effect, the production of a list is the production of an argument. In discursive fields, like history, political science, sociology of genocide, genocide studies, there are no "clear" facts separable from opinion, and most importantly, these fields demand the articulation of opinion by skilled academics. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(These restrictions *largely* flow from the fact that Lists are part of article space). As far as Categories go I couldn't find anything that says that Categories actually have to be legitimate etc. Perhaps someone can ask the Cat people. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo: The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. according to whom this is so?
There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. disagree, its pretty straight forward: Please see Communist mass killings by Benjamin A. Valentino, Published by Cornell University Press, 2005 FFI. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Miscellany in a thematic article dealing with cross cultural theorisation

Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After an AFD, and, as a result of a long discussion a consensus was developed on the way forward for this article being theorised accounts of mass killing across more than one society. Given that this article is about theorisation of multiple society incidents eg ("All communists do X due to Y") should a series of individual case studies be included. Relevant recent arguments include this example. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The wording of this Rfc does not match the scope of the article. Though there is nothing indicating it was not made in good faith, the text appears like a rather blunt attempt to receive the desired answer. For example, there is no "cross cultural theorisation" necessary in the article. It appears to be a rather straight up historical article discussing the oft-written about topic of large numbers of killings in communist regimes over the past century. If there is some confusion, maybe a simple renaming to "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes" would be in order, in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.

In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article. Not once, but four times in seven hours: here, here, here and here. After being reported for 3RR here, you then reverted and did not phrase the question as "should we delete the two thirds of the article discussing the history of mass killings in Communist regimes" but instead phrased the RfC as (not particularly relevant to this article) "Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies?" Mosedschurte (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the archives which were explicitly pointed out to you describing what the article is yet? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the link you posted earlier to your own "summary_of_the_consensus_editorial_direction", though doing so is certainly not worth wading into now. Suffice to say that the scope of the rather plainly worded article is what editors, including those in response to this or more appropriately worded RfC's, determine it to be. As mentioned, if there is some confusion, some attempt to delete the two thirds of the article discussing the actual history of such killings could be headed off by a simple renaming it to something like "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes", in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.

Re: "WP:AGF much?" I assumed nothing, though I just stumbled across this rather revealing rant you just posted about those who disagree with you titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes": "The differential in administrator willingness to let wild, grossly incivil, anti-encyclopedic editing run wild even when they have discretionary editing to hand; the habit of non-humanities twonks with a personal vendetta about their precious special "I experienced this" BITING humanities specialists; and, the inane repetition of cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education; all this has irritated me sufficiently to the point where I am not going to attend unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page." (Fifelfoo) I suggest cutting down on the bile a bit.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all the article doesn't and shouldn't discuss "the theoretical structures common across multiple societies", Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.etc.--Termer (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if you believed that, you would be pushing for AfD on this article. csloat (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not posed in a neutral manner. As such, this RfC may be quite useless. I suggest this one be clasoed forthwith, and a proper NPOV question be posed. Collect (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you think it should be phrased? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article

Neutral question: Is it proper to remove historical examples from an article which directly deals with material in those examples?

The material in those examples comprises approximately two-thirds of an article.

That is hardly neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't neutral, and I don't think it is worthy of an RfC, nor would it help to resolve any disagreement here. --FormerIP (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This question shows a lack of engagement with the article, its editorial history, and the consensuses developed here. It also demonstrates an almost perfect example of argument by tautology. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note your position that the entire article should be deleted. (stated below as a direct quote). Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you note the origin of the sections discussing academics dealing with multiple societies published in credible presses, and how myself, and a number of other editors on different sides of the AFD vote, systematically grappled with potential literature in order to improve the article quality. Or do you cherry pick? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November by The Four Deuces who wrote "This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. "

!votes included "Delete: COATRACK, SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object. I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these. The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing). On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite. (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing"). Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause. George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson." There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality. The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in [State x]". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "

There is a possibility that these positions relate to the removal of two thirds of this article. Neutrality of any edotor is an exercise left to the reader. Collect (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They relate to the topic of this section, as stated. Is any of the material false? Any fabrication of a quote or the like? I would gladly correct any misquote, to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect. You are incapable of editing in a discursive field because of your stated opinion regarding the validity of opinions and the universality of facts. Also, at the time of your edits to fascism which won you a barnstar, the article was, at the time of the award, for the purposes of literature survey (ie: weight) sourced through a single literature review from Transaction publishers, who have a number of questionable features. The article also omitted mention of the major publishers on Fascism Trotsky, Gramsci, Benjamin. Do you have a secret capacity to engage in discursive fields which you haven't revealed, or are you limited to launching argumentum ad hominems and failing to read article archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:NPA and WP:AGF to start. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to state what the personal attack above amounted to? My good faith towards you evaporated when you engaged in attacking the person. Are you capable of reconciling AGF with this statement "Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, please be more specific. I asked "What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC?" You replied: "They relate to the topic of this section, as stated." How does it relate to the topic of the section? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article" is the title of this section. Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are simply limited to argumentum ad hominem, and failing to read archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, it is only the title of this section because you named it that. Whether or not Fifelfoo voted to delete this article is irrelevant and you should assume good faith. Although the outcome of the discussion was "no consensus", it is still possible to present the arguments for the theories concerning mass killings. It is unneccessary to add countless examples which have already swelled the article well above the suggested size and certainly examples that cannot be connected to the concept of mass killings should not be included. Incidentally all the examples mentioned are discussed in detail in other articles. It would be helpful if before commenting further you read the discussion threads so that you could provide informed comment on this issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) I would surely gladly remove any inaccurate quotes from anyone. As I started this section, the title is what I named the title. BTW, I read all the AfD discussions, and most of the article talk archives. Thank you most kindly, but your point may be taken amiss. Collect (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone placed a notice that "article is in need of attention from an expert", and here I am. Perhaps some of that belongs to article Communism. But one needs good secondary sources to do it well. Great place to start would be the book "Communism" by Richard Pipes.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, the Cold War is over and you should really read books by respected historians, not neoconservative polemicists. The findings of Team B were absolutely inaccurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, are you an expert in Communism, the History of Communism, or the institutional "Marxist Leninism" and history of Marxist Leninism of a limited geographic area in a certain time period. This is fairly important. The best expert for this article would be someone from genocide studies. The reason being that I could, with about forty minutes, COATRACK Krondstat, GULAG, the execution of the Vietnamese Trotskyites, and Hungary 1956 into a claim that "Communist regimes engage in a kind of mass killing to eliminate opponents from their own sector of the ideological spectrum, and to thereby ensure their hegemony over left wing discourses and their justification for rule as the agents of social liberation in history." Actually going out and finding these generalised accusations in credible (probably) Trotskyist academic writing would take a fair bit longer. Even worse, shoe horning this in is extremely problematic, as it only explains one kind of mass killing, its a non-viable theoretical contribution because it fails to explain population dislocations of ethnic groups and death by starvation (for example). This kind of generalised theory of all causes of mass killing, across a number of "communist" societies is what's asked for here. Not the history of a particular "communist" state or its ideological motivations. If you've got recent ready access to this kind of work, please bring it forward. I'm stalled in a number of generalised survey texts on Genocide, looking for survey reviews of the change in the field since the Democide-type people began publishing. So far we've exhausted Valentino's existing work, and the work around Lemkin's initial work has demonstrated Lemkin's a dead end (he stopped acting credibly as an academic, in attempts to garner support for his general convention). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

In my opinion, the lede section is an example of unjustified generalisation. The first sentence:

"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. "

seems odd. Khmer Rouge regime had collapsed as a result of the actions of Communist Vietnam, so it was not a typical example of Communists' rule. Maoist China can hardly be considered a pure example of a Communist state, especially taking into account that the periods of the Great Leap forward and cultural revolution was the time of the most severe opposition (especially ideological one) between the USSR and PRC. In the USSR during a Stalin's rule most Communist ideas were quietly dropped (and their carriers were eliminated). Therefore, we can speak only about some Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. Otherwise I see no reason for not writing the article named Mass killings under Capitalist regimes that would include genocide of native Americans, famines in India, Ireland, extermination of Australian aborigines etc (of course, it is just a reductio ad absurdum).

The last sentence:

"One common factor posited in Communist mass killings is the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation of society resulting in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people."

is hardly correct, because the main reason for Stalin to start his Great purge was just to seize a power in the USSR, to eliminate his major political opponents and to establish a regime where no opposition to existing authorities was able to develop. I believe, the same is true for most Communist genocides.
This odd statement can be partially explained by the fact that the article artificially mix real example of mass killing (e.g. Great Purge, Khmer atrocities) with examples of excessive mortality due to poor management (e.g. Soviet famine in 1932-33). Although the latter can be explained by "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes", it can be better explained as a result of inadequate management and criminal neglect. Famines, as well as all similar events must be removed from the article, because they simply do not fit the definition of mass killing ("the act of murdering a large number of people").--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not our task to "know" anything - rather it is WP policy that material found in any reliable source may be, and should be, used in articles. See WP:RS and WP:V. Collect (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...provided that it is (i) relevant, and (ii) reflects majority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly show me anywhere that WP policies or guidelines make that sort of statement. The aim is NPOV, not to make articles conform to any specific POV <g>. Relevance is, indeed, part of ongoing consensus. As this is not a BLP, it is difficult to see what in this article, precisely, is "irrelevant" to the topic. Collect (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First, WP policy encourages editors to use common sense. That means that only relevant information should be used in articles. Obviously, population losses cannot be combined with mass murders in the article named "Mass killing".
Second, WP:NPOV requires "that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly". I don't think the idea of "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation" is a majority POV, however, such an interpretation is presented as the sole and well known driving force behind Communist mass murders.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to assert specialist knowledge here. The mass removals and famines appear to be removable, but I daresay reliable sources disagree with what you "know." If a reliable source makes a claim, it can be in an article. Clearly if you have RS cites that the population losses were not caused by any deliberate acts, those cites should also be in the article. That is how NPOV is reached. Not by requiring that "majority POV" be the determining factor. Collect (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. " (Weathcroft The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353)
From the article's title I conclude that the article's subject is just purposive killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article was titled Mass murder under Communist regimes, then I would agree that it should only be about purposive killings. But "killings" is a broader term which also includes those perpetrated via criminal neglect, which Weathcroft argues caused the excess deaths. Hence I think your removal of the text is not justified. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say, you interpret it as a broader term. Mass killing is "the act of murdering a large number of people". "Murder" is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought). What relation does it have to "criminal neglect"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Mass killing is merely a re-direct to Mass murder. Intent or malice aforethought are synonyms for "purposeful". People are killed every day, accidently and through neglect, they are not necessarily murdered, i.e purposely killed. Criminal neglect is the failure to use reasonable care to avoid the consequences of their actions. However this failure to use reasonable care could be purposeful, which many authors like James Mace, Michael Ellman and Robert Davies argue in the case of the famines. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this issue previously. The term "killing" does not imply human agency or intention. If we want to use the term killing in its widest sense then all nature events must be included, such as earthquakes, not to mention wars, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is an example of single society case studies, and wikipedians generating arguments from their personal analysis thereof. We use "Mass Killings" because, at the time of the name change, the only theorist with credibility discussing the points of commonality across multiple societies then discovered was Valentino, who described them as "Mass Killings." This is why the article cannot move forward as a result of wikipedian's synthesis of single society case studies: when we are editing wikipedia we lose any offline capacity we have as experts to generate new and original analyses from interpretations of evidence—and, it goes around in the same tired circle. Our task is to honestly and faithfully record relevant theorisations of general causes (ie: causes pertinent to more than one society) of mass killings or other similar "mass" actions as reported by Reliable Sources, and as balanced by WEIGHT. If you discover excellent single society theorisations, why then take Robert Conquest and go to Human Rights abuses in the Soviet Union and describe that there. Or take it to the Great Purge. Given that this article discusses general causes "under Communist regimes" society specific theorisations are off topic. And of course as this is an academic object of study, the RS which ought to be used are high quality reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to sign this statement [12] by Collect with my 2 hands.--Termer (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert when he says that :"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. " seems odd. Its because its not what Valentino in his Communist mass killings says. He says that he focuses on "histories most murderous communist states, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia" but he also refers to mass killings by communist regimes elsewhere -North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa. So the article lede currently clearly misleads the reader.--Termer (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you please define mass killing. If it does not have any special meaning then we should start to include information about killings from natural disasters, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not what Termer defines as mass killing, it is what Valentino defines it as. --Martin (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)