Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

1RR restriction

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new lede

Communist regimes have been accused of the largest mass killings in history, and the ideology has been described as capable of more violence than other regime type due to the changes they have attempted to bring about with the forceful mass dispossession of property from the population. Communism has been described as "the deadliest ideology in human history" and it has resulted in the murders of an estimated 100 million people. This article discusses mass killings under regimes that are commonly labeled Communist. It includes both intentional killings and those for which regime intent is disputed. Scholars place various level of blame for the deaths on the governments.

This proposal got lost in the chatter above so i am reposting it here. Lets hear your objections within policy please mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The "worst" mass killings? That's a pretty clear WP:NPOV violation. In addition, is the force of your evidence so strong that you can prove that they were the most "violent"? It seems more likely the sources available will only allow for conjecture (and disagreement), which should be clearly stated in the lede. How exactly do you define violence here, are we simply referring to death tolls? Also, levels of "blame" should be rephrased: try something like "The actual figures for killings attributed to communist regimes are subject to controversy". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The source says worst mass killings. The source says most violent. I`m not defining violence i am using what the sources say per wp:v If anyone has a source which says communism did not commit the worst mass killings in history lets see it mark nutley (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The source can claim that they are the "worst", but we have two issues with that: firstly, "worst" is subjective; use a more concrete, more factual, and more neutral term. Secondly, unless it has very concrete, uncontested evidence backing up these claims, the closest that can be said is that historians believe them to have the highest death tolls (or whatever standard we're using for "worst"). And with regards to the most violent; the source saying that they were the most violent is meaningless unless they explain what is meant by that, in which case it can be clarified in the article. We shouldn't use fuzzy terms like "violent" with regards to mass killings: are we quantifying this term, as a death toll, or qualifying it as how "violent" their deaths were? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Giftiger Wunsch. It's a lede littered with POV/OR. The article rightly contains mainstream material disputing the implications of your lede suggestion.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In connection to the proposed lede Giftiger wunsch and VsevolodKrolikov adequately express my thoughts. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed it a bit, there is no wp:or in the proposal btw mark nutley (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal seems to just be replacing a neutral, informative lead with an entirely negative one with WP:NPOV issues and WP:LABELs, and still some potential OR issues (and bad grammar, but that can be fixed). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We have three editors on here who keep saying the lede needs changing. I do not see how this is negative, we use what the sources say. I do not see any labels being chucked in either, please give an alternate wording for what you think is not NPOV mark nutley (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Characterising the deaths as "murders" is OR/POV. What marknutley seems not to grasp is that views such as communism is "the deadliest ideology in human history" are disputed by mainstream academics, and as such are not suitable for bald statement in a lede. It doesn't matter what any of us think, it's what the reliable literature says, and what it says without us manipulating or misrepresenting it. The old lede is much better than this proposal.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are clearly a large number of sources being used on this article, and the article is a decent length, overall making it difficult to adequately sum up the article in the lead. I haven't looked at the sources in any great detail and I take little or no interest in this subject, I am simply trying to aide in consensus building here. The lead is entirely negative, claiming that the communist regimes are the worst, using qualitative language and labelling them as the "worst" and selectively quoting material referring to them as "the deadliest ideology", taking no other material into account and inaccurately representing the collection of sources (I haven't read them myself, but looking at the discussion here, I can see that much) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This is really quite simple, show a source which says there were worse regime types who commited more murders. Until then we use what we have wp:v verifiability not truth. The sources used say exactly what is in the proposal there is not wp:or not does it breach wp:npov as it is widly accepted from the amount of sources that communism has killed more people than any other regime type mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly; verifiability: can you show how your sources are verifying these claims? All we can say for sure is that they're making the claims. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, comparing sources to decide which one is worse is original research. Perhaps wikipedia is not the venue for what you want to say about communism - you might want to get published in the literature instead.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Don`t be daft Giftiger, wiki does not work that way and you know it, i`m not going to second guess reliable sources and nor should you. All the sources used here are wp:rs and the most are academic sources, that`s what wp:v is we use a source which is verifiable, we do not look at how the source reached it`s conclusions as that would be OR mark nutley (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, that's exactly how wikipedia works. We can hardly call sources verifiable if we can't verify the claims they make. If they are reliable sources which we can verify, they will provide evidence, not just unsupported claims. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. A source is verifiable by going out and looking at a book or journal or newspaper. How am i meant to verify how a researcher comes to his conclusions? Or an author? We use as a source what they write, we don`t go through their work to look for mistakes. mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You verify it by looking at the evidence they've presented to make their conclusions, as I just explained. You also check other references to see if there is dispute in the field; you are clearly just selectively reading the sources which agree with your POV and using it to justify colouring the lede. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, we use what the sources say thats it. There is of course dispute within the field over the amount of dead, which is why my proposal says an estimated 100 million dead. It does not give an exact number does it. Sorry but the sources say what they say, and they say an estimated `100 million dead under communist regimes, and those are all reliable sources. mark nutley (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, since you've read my above comments, it's not the 100,000,000 figure that I'm disputing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favour and point out what you think is actually wrong with the proposal? I have already changed it and am quite willing to do so again, make a suggestion mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you should read what policy says about misrepresenting academic consensus. Individual reliable sources are not treated as gospel in wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The victims of Communism website used in the proposal is not a reliable source. Notice that their home page presents a documentary about Communism by Glenn Beck. The best approach is to read the mainstream literature and see what it says, rather than seek confirmation of ones opinions in sources. TFD (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I`m not misrepresenting anything.Removed accusation of personal attack which may itself be considered a personal attack. Comment on content, not other editors. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC) All the sources meet wp:rs if you don`t like it the RSN board is thataway mark nutley (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that all other editors have disagreed with your use of sources for your proposed lede, it would be up to you to appeal to RSN for extra input. The general consensus, such as it is, is that your proposal is inappropriate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, all the sources are fine as laid out in wp:rs if you think they are not take it to the rsn board. If all you are going to write is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not actually make any suggestions then why are you bothering to comment at all? mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly mark nutley, you're the only individual who has contributed to this thread without citing policy; everyone else has made policy-based arguments as to why your lede is inappropriate. Consensus is clearly against your proposal, thus far. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, our response is pretty clear - it's worse than the old lede and should not replace it. There is a difference between an RS and academic consensus - the latter is necessary for something to be stated so baldly in the lede. In addition, as TFD points out, the victims of communism website cannot be considered to be RS. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Indeed; you appear to be making these statements as facts, and they are by no means proven facts, nor do your references prove otherwise. Unless you can demonstrate that there is general academic consensus in favour of what you've written in the lede, we must give equal weight to all mainstream theories, and not bias the lede in such a way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy which says i need demonstrate that there is general academic consensus in favour of anything. Why not show me your academic consensus which says my sources are wrong? mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you're just repeating the same thing over and over and refusing to listen to policy-based arguments; please read up on the relevant policies already indicated here and on your talk page, and reconsider your proposal having understood those policies and our arguments. Bear in mind that "you're wrong" is not an argument, only policy-based arguments will be considered in determining consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am stating policy, the sources meet wp:rs and wp:v that is policy. You have asked me to demonstrate that there is general academic consensus in favour of what you've written there is nothing in policy which says i have to, if there is point it out. I would like to see your policy based argument against this, not that you know stuff. Show me were it is wrong, suggest an alternative wording not just i don`t like what you`ve written. mark nutley (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You've already been directed to WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia:RS/AC#Academic_consensus, and WP:UNDUE, and consensus is clearly rejecting your proposal. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the proposal is undue then? It certainly is not fringe, unless you have a source which says it is of course, and still waiting on your source which says there is an academic consensus which says communist regimes have not committed mass killings. As stated, there is nothing in policy which says i have to provide a source proving academic consensus on anything so drop that one please. Why not just suggest some alternative wording? mark nutley (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're completely mis-stating everything we've said to the point that your contributions to this discussion are becoming unconstructive. Please quote when anyone has claimed that communist regimes have not been involved in mass killings. We are saying, per WP:RS/AC, you cannot express the opinions of a few sources as fact unless there is general academic consensus to support that, and no opposing theories. All mainstream theories must be given equal weight per WP:UNDUE. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Were am i stating anything as fact? Or claiming there is a consensus for what the sources are saying? I`m not. I have asked you loads of times now, suggest alternate wording, why is that so difficult? It`s how were meant to do things mate. mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your lede is NOT NPOV. It does NOT take into account the mutliple academic disputes with the assertions your lede suggests to be factual. BigK HeX (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the current lede reads more like an editorial disclaimer rather than a summary of the article. It really should be rewritten. --Martin (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that any attempt to write something reasonable cause vehement objection of one or another party. If you believe you are able to propose something, please do that. Another option is to try to do that together: taking into account that you and I have quite opposite POVs, although are able to listen each other's arguments, that may lead to something useful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I don't think I can agree with the premise that we necessarily have "opposite POVs", but I do agree that we can work together. The following I propose as a summary of the article:

The killing of a large numbers of non-combatants has occurred in certain countries that have declared themselves to be communist states. A number of causes have been proposed by various scholars as to the causes for this phenomenon, ranging from direct linkage to ideology to failure of the rule of law, economic conditions or other factors. Countries where mass killings have been documented to have occurred are the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, Cambodia and others. A number of cases of mass killings have caused debate and dissent amongst academics. Some countries have legislated and prosecuted perpetrators of these mass killings.

--Martin (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I stressed the fact that we frequently have quite different POV, because that may help to rule out possible accusations in non-neutrality of jointly proposed text. Obviously, that does not mean our POVs are always opposite. For instance, our understanding of what the words "neutrality" or "reliable source" mean fully coincide.

One way or the another, I was right expecting that you will propose a very reasonable piece of text. Interestingly, the draft proposed by you closely resembles the text proposed by me earlier,[1]

"Intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants, as a rule, for belonging to a particular social group, occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries that declared adherence to a Communist doctrine. These killings, that took place mostly during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents, mass terror campaigns, or land reforms may fit a definition of mass murder, democide, politicide, "classicide", "crimes against humanity", or loosely defined genocide. Nevertheless, main causes of excess preventable deaths under Communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease. Although some scholars add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is not accepted by others."

and which has been reverted later.

May be we should try to think how to combine these two texts together?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Although Martintg's lead is written in less alarming language than other proposals, it still suffers from the same problems. It presupposes that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings (which it describes as a "phenomenon"), and then indicates that there is a debate about what the connection is, giving priority to a "direct linkage to ideology". A neutral lead would indicate who has made the connection and the degree of acceptance of their theories. Incidentally no country has ever declared itself to be a communist state. TFD (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You mix "declared itself to be a communist state" and "declared adherence to a Communist doctrine" (more precisely, "to one or another form of a Communist doctrine"). For example the USSR never declared itself to be Communist, however it was declared that building of Communism was its ultimate goal. Incidentally, "Communist state" is an oxymoron: according to Lenin (who saw state primarily as a tool helping a ruling class to oppress other classes), state will be abolished in the Communist society (as a result of formation of a classless society).

In any event, if you think Martintg's lead is written in less alarming language, you recognise it is a step forward. Please, explain what should be included/changed there. It would be good if you proposed some concrete text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Compare with similar articles about theories:

• The Protestant Work Ethic... is a concept... attributable to the work of Max Weber. It is based upon the notion....
• Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause...."

We do not see these articles begin:

• Sociologists disagree about why Protestant countries were so successful.
• Scientists argue about why living beings show evidence of design.

The lead should indicate who has made the connection, what connection they have made and the degree of acceptance of their theories. If we assume that there is a connecion which historians seek to explain then we are inserting a bias into the article.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not completely correct. The examples provided by you discuss some single concept. By contrast, mass killings by Communist is not a single concept. Rummel discusses democide in a context of totalitarianism, not only Communism (his obsession with Communism seems to stem from his wrong estimates of the number of victims, and is exacerbated by his libertarian political views), Lemkin tried to expand his concept of genocide, which was developed to describe Nazi crimes, on Communism, Harff, or Wayman and Tago discuss a connection between autoritarianism (not even totalitarianism) and mass killings, Watson sees genocidal roots in the very Marx's doctrine, whereas other scholars note intrinsically non-genocidal nature of Marxism. In addition, many scholars simply avoid any generalisations and theorising at all, preferring to focus of some particular regime separately (or group them according to some other traits, e.g. Cambodia + Indonesia, Cambodia + Warsaw ghetto, etc). Therefore, I simply don't understand how your proposal can be implemented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

break

The concepts of genocide, democide and mass killings by authoritarian regimes are not types of "mass killings under Communist regimes", but may occur under other types of regimes as well. There is only one major theory that sees Communist ideology as the cause of mass killings, and that is found in the writings of Furet, Courtois, Rummel and Nolte. Watson's theory has gained no following. TFD (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

...that is why I simply wrote "These killings, that took place mostly during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents, mass terror campaigns, or land reforms may fit a definition of mass murder, democide, politicide, "classicide", "crimes against humanity", or loosely defined genocide," thus leaving the question of connection between these events and the Communist doctrine beyond the scope.

In connection to that, did I understand you correct that the major your objection is caused by the words: "A number of causes have been proposed by various scholars as to the causes for this phenomenon"? If yes, I have to agree that that is the most questionable part of the Martin's text: by writing that he assumes that all these events are generally considered as a same phenomenon, or similar phenomena caused by the same reason/combination of reasons. I agree that that is hardly a majority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I did write "A number of causes have been proposed by various scholars as to the causes for this phenomenon", so I can't see why you would suggest that I assumed this "caused by the same reason/combination of reasons", and by "phenomenon" I meant "mass killings", which I would suggest is a term that spans mass murder, democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. But taking onboard your comments and merged some elements of your proposed lede:

The killing of a large numbers of non-combatants has occurred in certain states that have declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine. Mass killings have been documented to have occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. These killings, that took place during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents, mass terror campaigns, or land reforms may fit a definition of mass murder, democide, politicide, "classicide", "crimes against humanity", or loosely defined genocide. A number of causes for these killings have been proposed by various scholars, ranging from direct linkage to ideology to failure of the rule of law, economic conditions or other factors. A number of cases of mass killings have caused debate and dissent amongst academics. Some countries have legislated and prosecuted perpetrators of these mass killings.

--Martin (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I reckon Martins proposal is fine as is myself mark nutley (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Martintg, you assume that there is a phenomenon that scholars seek to explain. In fact few scholars see a phenomenon and therefore nothing to explain. In fact the literature drawing a connection has had little if any attention in mainstream scholarship. TFD (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This proposal suffers the same non-NPOV problems, in suggesting that there IS necessarily a [late-editcommon] cause, when these theories are not even generally accepted by academics. This is a minority POV article, yet people keep trying to write it as if we're discussing the Laws of Gravitation. BigK HeX (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, every mass killing had a cause. The question is if the cause was common.

Did I understand correct that the only major objections is again caused by the phrase: "A number of causes have been proposed by various scholars as to the causes for these killings..."? If yes, I again have to agree. This phrase still implies that all these events had some common cause (or their combination), and that majority of mainstream scholars try to find these causes. In actuality, only few scholars tried to find some commonality between different Communist mass killings, preferring to study some concrete case, or group these events according to other traits.

Regarding commonality, I think the words "as a rule, for belonging to some particular social group", which were present in my version, should be in the lede, because that reflects the position of arguably the only scholar (Semelin) whose concept of "classicide" directly links to Communist (and not to others) mass killings. The words about "war, famine and disease" should also be there, because the article discusses not only killings from the commonsensual point of view (executions, murders), but famine and deportation deaths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to a common cause, but, IMO, removing that line still does little to move towards writing the article explicitly from the minority POV perspective, as is required by the sourcing available on the topic. BigK HeX (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We should avoid collapsing the two issues of whether there is a recognised phenomenon - that there were large scale killings in leading communist states - with whether these killings are attributed in the literature to something in the logic of communism in principle or practice. The article seeks to cover both sides of that argument. TFD and BigHex also need to define who - for you - "mainstream scholars" are in reference to this subject. For example, few biologists - few cell biologists even - write directly on the evolution of mitochondria in cells. That doesn't make the subject of mitochondrial evolution or a theory thereof automatically "minority" ones. As it stands, there seem to be quite a few who raise the issue of the phenomenon of large scale killings in some communist societies - even if some of them seek to clearly dismiss theories that link it to communism per se, or who raise the connection with regard to any one particular country. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Naw ... I'd say it's not really necessary to define the mainstream, because of cell biologists. The huge difference likely comes down to serious academic dispute. As Paul Siebert would agree, there is substantial serious academic dispute with the theories that the article attempts to suggest as fact. It is a minority POV topic, and the continual efforts to write it without this explicitly recognized are all doomed to fail NPOV. BigK HeX (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

BigHex, first of all, it's just silly (or stretching AGF to its limit) refusing to say which scholars you are talking about when trying to determine notability. Is it all historians? All historians looking at genocide? All historians looking at any part of the history of any country when it had communist rule? I would understand "mainstream scholars" to be those people who one might expect to mention such a connection given the material they cover. Secondly, you misrepresent the article by saying it presents theories as facts when it doesn't (that's what the new lede proposal is directly addressing) - unless you mean there is no way it could ever do so, in which case your arguments are actually suited to an AFD, and not to a discussion about the lede.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

???? Nothing in my comments above mentioned notability -- I've said the article is built on a minority POV. To my knowledge, there has never been any evidence posted on this talk page, that any theories on common causal links have any substantial academic acceptance. There has been posted on the talk page, plenty of evidence of serious academic dispute with many of the theories, on which this article rests. BigK HeX (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I had understood that your agreement with TFD's statement about few scholars recognising the phenomenon was an agreement that the topic per se was not notable - I apologise if you meant something different. I agree with what you say - that there has been plenty of academic dispute - and that this is something the article rests on. The article should deal with the nature of the disputes, given that they are plenty. (I ask precisely for what "mainstream" means, and for the topic and theories of the topic not to be collapsed, because the question of whether it was something inherent in communism in some respect is raised rather frequently when scholars try to look for explanations either within or across regimes.) Is this not a version of the article you can work towards?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article topic is notable or not ... it seems to generally rely on two major authors (Conquest and Rummel), with a smattering of a few other lesser works (Valentino, Black Book). Each of these works may be notable enough for an individual article, but tying them together has always seemed dicey to me. It brings us to having an article which is based on only a small handful of heavily disputed sources --- the result being an article of such minority POV as to be arguably a fringe topic. Certainly, it is plausible that there is a significant causal link between mass killings and communism, but it has almost always been unclear in this article that these theories are a minority viewpoint. BigK HeX (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for what can be worked towards with the article, I'm not really sure what that article would look like, but surely a reader quickly would have an understanding that the article relates two topics ("mass killings" and "Communist regimes") for which academic theories on the relationship are disputed. BigK HeX (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, we have to discriminate between two things: (i) notability of the events which are being discussed in the article, and (ii) notability of the POV according to which these events had some common cause (e.g. Communist ideology). Whereas the former is notable, the latter is hardly notable enough to present it as a mainstream POV. I think this confusion was a reason why the article survived four AfD's ("since (i) is notable, the article should be kept"). And, simultaneously, this is a reason of the article's non-neutrality: the proponents of (ii) cite notability of (i) to present (ii) as a mainstream POV (which is obviously incorrect).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm glad you've got the point I was making about distinguishing between the two. However, I disagree with you and BigHex over the notability of those on that side of the debate - who, after all, would count as a major author in this field? Martin Malia also considered communism itself a factor, for example (and the Black Book, for all its many faults, is not minor). John Gray is not a minor writer either. And Benjamin Valentino has been cited many, many times. In addition to that we can't ignore major writers who accept the validity of the question, even if they reject the answer. My whole view of (and interest in) this article is that should a user plug in something like "Communist genocide", they are directed to a page that details the dispute amongst scholars, rather than finding what you fear could happen, which is one that confirms their POV. I'm not here to have a go at communism - but to find a way of providing information on the scholarly discourse. That's how we keep it encyclopedic. And as you say yourself, there is plenty of discourse, although I disagree with you that there are very few notable scholars or publications that do make a link to something within communism itself.

As an aside, although an important one, I do think there is a content fork with Criticisms of Communist party rule. Where the two articles overlap, this one seems to be in a better state than that one in terms of POV balance. We might want to look at how the articles fit together. And some editors might have a go at re-balancing that article, although I don't mean that as a request to edit something else instead ;-).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say it is not notable because we cannot find any article or book that is exclusively about this subject. TFD (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The main fault with the Black Book is of course the introduction, which is the only place that draws a connection between Communism and mass killings. Courtois actually restates a theory of Furet, who himself was restating his theory about the French Revolution. Essentially both revolutions led to worse regimes that used mass killings and there is a direct line from the Great Terror to the Red Terror. Watson, who was a Liberal, of course rejected this. Communism derived from conservatism, which is why his theories have not proved popular with the Right. Also he wrote outside the academic mainstream and outside his topic of interest. I would love to see a debate between Watson and Courtois. TFD (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're putting forward arguments for AFD, not for how to improve the lede. Could you perhaps be more constructive?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How is explaining what the literature says an argument for deletion? I think the lead should mention the literature and what it says, and I have just explained what it says. Please do not assume that people who disagree with you are not constructive. TFD (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The lede is meant to be an intro to the article, not a discussion of the literature mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how describing rationale for a legitimate AfD would not be constructive..... BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, those two are not mutually exclusive, in fact sometimes they may be the same thing. TFD (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "For example, few biologists - few cell biologists even - write directly on the evolution of mitochondria in cells. That doesn't make the subject of mitochondrial evolution or a theory thereof automatically "minority" ones." Correct. However, the analogy is not good. The evolution of the mitochondrial DNA is a subject of study, not a concept. The closest its analogue in our case are mass killings in some countries. Obviously, neither former nor later cannot be neither minority nor majority POV, no matter how many scholars study that, simply because it is something objective. By contrast the concept is, e.g., the idea that accumulation of mutations in mitochondrial DNA leads to ageing and death. This is a theory, which is not shared by all scholars working in this field, and which can be considered minority or majority views. By analogy, in our case such a hypothesis is that Communist mass killings had common cause and were directly linked to the Communist ideology. That is what we can call either majority or minority views, no matter how many scholars work in this field.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: BigK HeX's "Certainly, it is plausible that there is a significant causal link between mass killings and communism..." Not necessarily. Consider the following:

1. Communist revolutions as a rule, are victorious in poor agrarian countries with weak democratic traditions, whose population is prone to violence;
2. These revolutions, as a rule, occur during the periods of political and economical catastrophes, which exacerbate people's tendency to resort to violence as a tool to resolve all problems;
3. As a result, the social and economic background for all social transformations required by Communist doctrine is very unfavourable, which inevitably leads to the outburst of violence. (I do not pretend to put forward any new theories, however, before thinking about some plausible connections it would be useful, per Okkam's razor, to exclude any post hoc ergo propter hoc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion about the role of the social, economic background and agrarian countries with weak democratic tradition being the primary cause of mass killings can be countered with the analogy of the fire triangle, where each of the three components are equally likely to cause a fire in the presence of the other two. Pour the fuel of communist ideology on the smouldering discontent of such societies, and mass killing is likely to occur. But I think we are getting off topic in regard to the issue of the lede. VsevolodKrolikov makes a valid point here, the fact that there are a number of eminent scholars in the field who believe there is a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing cannot be ignored, and that this article serves as a road map to those opinions for and against that link. --Martin (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Fire triangle is not a good analogy, because its all three components are independent. By contrast, in the case we discuss, there is a positive correlation both between poverty and a victory of Communists, and between poverty and lack of democratic traditions (which leads to violence).

In other words, strong correlation between Communism and democide, observed by Rummel, could be just a correlation, not a casual linkage. Interestingly, Rummel, whose approach is based on pure math and produces only correlations, not explanations, easily switches to conclusions about casual linkages, whereas other scholars speak just about "statistically significant correlations", leaving theoretical speculations beyond the scope. How do you propose to reflect that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The way to prove the triangle theory is see whether mass killings in occurred in countries where Communism was defeated. But in fascist Europe, Indonesia, Latin America and other places where this happened the Right seemed just as likely to engage in mass killings. In fact in Russia and China, where the Communists ultimately triumphed, the Right were also ruthless. In any case we need a source that presents this theory - we cannot create one on our own. TFD (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

General comments: This latest discussion is inappropriate - it's editors' own POVs and OR, and only illustrates agendas - on both sides. As for continually putting forward arguments for deletion such that it frustrates attempts to build consensus on how to improve the article (which has been through several AFDs now), it's against how wikipedia should work (calling an AFD is the honest thing to do). And as for refusing to define terms cited continually in such arguments - it speaks volumes. I'm off to help build an encyclopedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

break 2

The arguments are not about whether the article should be deleted but about how to present it. Right now the lead is question-begging - it presupposes that there is a connection between communist regimes and mass killings, which scientists are trying to explain. In fact there is no obvious connection and therefore no academic debate about what the connection is. TFD (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Eminent scholars like Martin Malia, John N. Gray and Benjamin Valentino have made such a connection, and if this isn't an instance of "academic debate", I don't know what is. In any case my proposed lede makes no assumptions. What assumption does "A number of causes for these killings have been proposed by various scholar, ranging from direct linkage to ideology to failure of the rule of law, economic conditions or other factors" make? And what is wrong with "A number of cases of mass killings have caused debate and dissent amongst academics"? --Martin (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Points regarding "academic debate" notwithstanding, I think TFD is correct in that most iterations of this article have been question begging. BigK HeX (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin. The Wayman&Tago's article discusses correlation between various factors and the onset of mass killings. It is a methodological article, which, importantly, does not discuss a dispute over Communism and mass killings. Instead, it discusses a methods to establish statistically significant linkage between various factors (Communist ideology being just one of them) and the onset of mass killings, leaving a casual linkage mostly beyond the scope. In other words, the article (which is, in my opinion, a very good work) is a directly demonstration of my point, namely, that the connection between Communism and mass killings is not a major subject of interest of majority scholars working in the area of mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That broader issue is somewhat off-topic, the issue at hand in this section is to formulate a lede which is a fair summary of the current article, can we focus on that? --Martin (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

To summarize the objection to your proposed lead: We cannot assume that the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes is a fact that must be explained, rather we should state that some writers have drawn a connection. Also, we should not present alternative explanations except where they are in reply to that thesis. The lead should state who is making the connection, what connection they make and the degree of acceptance of their theories. TFD (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what assumptions is being made by the line "A number of causes for these killings have been proposed by various scholars, ranging from direct linkage to ideology to failure of the rule of law, economic conditions or other factors", it is simply a very basic summary of the section Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Proposed_causes, which already discusses who is making the connection, what connection they make and the degree of acceptance of their theories. Do we really need to copy that section into the lede verbatim? --Martin (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying, "A number of causes for these killings have been proposed by various scholars" implies that there is a phenomenon that social scientists seek to explain. This may be apophenia: finding a pattern in unrelated events. TFD (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Concur. In addition, let me quote the Wayman&Tago's article:

"Consistently with this, we expect mass killings by military regimes to be frequent and rapid in onset, but to kill thousands rather than millions per episode. An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings. But communist regimes, especially in Eastern Europe in the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras, frequently went decades without such ‘mega-murdering.’ So, communist regimes can mobilize the society and, usually on the way to fortifying their regime, the government is more likely to commit large-scale political purges (Valentino, 2004: 99-100). While communist regimes seem to kill large numbers (Rummel, 1994), we predict that military regimes engage in the most frequent mass killing and hence have the shortest time to onset."

In connection to that, I would like to point your attention at the following:

1. Wayman & Tago, as well as Valentino (explicitly) as well as many other scholars (implicitly) note that many Communist regimes were not involved in mass killings. This fact is reflected neither in the lede not in the article as whole; however, the fact that many regimes were not involved, implies that the connection between mass killings and Communism is not as direct as someone tries to present;
2. Wayman & Tago build their conclusions based on the Rummel's figures (that does not mean that they agree or disagree with Rummel, they clearly write that the question of validity of the numbers is left beyond the scope). However, since Rummel's numbers (at least in regard to Yugoslavia and the USSR) are shown to be a gross exaggeration, the statement about high mortality of Communist regimes also should be re-considered.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"A phenomenon" is singular. "These killings" is plural. However, perhaps the distinction between individual and common causes should be more explicit in the lede. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The sentence can be understood as "A number of causes for these killings [which are considered a part of the same phenomenon (otherwise it is not clear why they have been combined in one article)] have been proposed by various scholars" It should also be stressed that many scholars do not study Communist mass killings per se, they study them in a broader context (see, e.g. Valentino), or, conversely, they study separate cases avoiding any generalisations (see, e.g. Ellman).--Paul Siebert (talk)

I am well aware that the word phenomenon is singular, which is why I used the singular conjugation of the verb to be. My objection is to using a lead that presupposes that various phenomena together are part of a single phenomenon, which I described as apophenia. TFD (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet ironically not only does Wayman & Tago, which Paul kindly cites, treat communist mass killing as a phenomenon, they also compare and contrast it to mass killings by military regimes, i.e. communist mass killings are larger but less frequent while those perpetrated by military regimes tend to be smaller but more frequent. --Martin (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Waqyman & Tago do not state that "communist mass killings were larger but less frequent". They just cite Rummel's conclusion (which, as other authors demonstrated) were based on grossly exaggerated figures.

Again, Waqyman & Tago's article is not an instance of "academic debate" over Communist mass killing. It is a debates over the causes of mass killings in general, so to it would be against a WP policy to use this, as well as many other sources as a proof of the existence of some debates specifically aimed to establish a connection between mass killings and Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Social sciences have the same standards as natural sciences. We cannot assume that connections exist unless they are accepted by scientific consensus. Individuals may draw connections between unconnected events, but we cannot do that. TFD (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"...This proposal got lost in the chatter above so i am reposting it here..."

I don't think this trick is completely legitimate, because this chatter was a series of arguments MarkNutley failed to address[2]. By calling all of that "chatter" MarkNutley demonstrated the lack of respect to the arguments of the others.
In my opinion, any discussion of his draft should be suspended until he addressed earlier criticism.
In particular, despite multiple explanations of what the source tell about the number of victims, he continued to cherry-pick sources which support his figure of 100 million and ignores the explanations that this figure comes from earlier estimates.
This approach (to look sources that support your POV, instead of attempting to find out what reliable source say and write the article accordingly) is deeply flawed and is a major breach of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to comments which will improve the article, rather than criticising the legitimacy of mark nutley's thread and his comments therein; the correct venue for such complaints is WP:WQA or WP:ANI. I think it's become clear that consensus is against nutley's proposal, and would suggest it, and this off-shoot section, be archived by an editor previously uninvolved in the discussion; it's no longer a constructive discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account that the same issues are being raised again and again on this talk page, this discussion is constructive. The attention mush be drawn to previous criticism (and failure to address it) to prevent re-appearance of the same flawed arguments again and again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Within this discussion, the same arguments, unfounded or illfounded in policy, are being repeated; I don't think that's constructive. In addition, consensus seems clear IMO, so I don't see any further reason to continue the discussion of this proposal. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Inline tags in the lede

Given that the lede is meant to be a summary of an amply cited text, are they really needed here? --Martin (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No they weren't needed, IMO. I don't really see much justification for them. BigK HeX (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I also am not a supporter of the idea to have references in the lede. The lede is just a summary of what the article says, and all needed references can be found there. It seems to me (although I may be wrong) that the tags were added by someone who was not satisfied with some lede's statements, and that has been done just as a first step of the process aimed to delete these statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's my feeling exactly, Paul. Thanks for saying it. BigK HeX (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for references in the lead; as stated, it's simply a summary of the article, which should be well-sourced. Providing there's no material in the lede which isn't in the article (which shouldn't be the case anyway), inline citations in the bulk of article should be sufficient. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep While they may not be required, they are helpful when new editors arrive and wish to change the lead. If there are no sources for it then it is hard to defend. If one enjoys long debates with newly arriving editors then not using sources is the way to go. TFD (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If a lede is good (i.e. it correctly summarises the article), the refs plays only auxiliary role in the lede: every one can add them, but noone can request them. In other words, the refs are acceptable, but {cn} tags are not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags are perfectly acceptable in the lead, as they are anywhere else; but if the same statement has been referenced elsewhere in the article, they are unnecessary. Per WP:Lead section#Citations, consensus should decide whether or not references are appropriate in the lead. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I noticed that the POV tag was removed although most editors agreed that this article is biased and I restored it. However User:Darkstar1st has removed it. Could Darkstar1st please explain why he has done this. TFD (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he just failed to notice Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. in the tag message. (Igny (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC))

That said we do need to try and resolve it. The issue was also discussed before, and its the argument about whether mass killings is an essential feature of communism, or something that takes place there. Its also an issue of balance. Mass deaths that arise from capitalism (Irish Famine etc.) as a result of things it doesn't do but that does not absolve guilt. Military Juntas often right wing have also been responsible for many deaths. Personally I think the article should go, with any relevant material appearing elsewhere. Another option is to have a Mass killings under political regimes article listing the ideology of the regimes. --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should go, with the content integrated into the appropriate articles (i.e. killings under Stalin go in Stalin article, under Mao with Mao, etc.). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus shown in the last two AfD nominations that this article will be kept on Wikipedia. Discussion of POV in the article must therefore be focused on how to bring the article in line with a neutral point of view. Dismissing the article as irreparably POV is not constructive and does not justify keeping the POV tag. The template usage notes for the tag makes this point explicitly. I'll copy them here for everyone's convenience:

I would love to actually have a productive discussion of specific POV issues in the body of the article or the title of the article. But refusing to engage in such discussion does not mean that the POV tag should stay indefinitely as a "badge of shame" for the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide us with an article or book published by a university or academic press that discusses the topic which we could use as a model for the article. TFD (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I could. But, since that was one of the first things done for the article, I have a better idea: why don't you specify exactly what you believe is biased in the article so that we can discuss it. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The SYNTH issue with the single society case study sections, which don't speak to Communism in general, but to the CP PRC, CP USSR, the unique Kampuchean party mentality. The sections on academic debate need to be rewritten. Last time I was here and read Valentino he only mentioned specifically communist causes for mass killing as a separate category in one text, in the other it was an example of his type "dispossessive mass killing". There's also a great deal of SYNTH/OR from inappropriately terse and biased explanations of academic's positions in a very confused literature, past editors had the habit of deep text searching for any mention of communist rather than actually reading sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please point to something specific within the article, all you have done above is make vague suggestions about all manner of things mark nutley (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For one, "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute;[21] this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories." Fifelfoo (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it meant to? mark nutley (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

All POVs that can be documented in reliable sources and are not fringe should be represented. If your favorite POV is not represented - please add it, with proper citations. If you think that there are WP:Fringe POVs in here or that there is WP:SYNTH please take those discussions to the proper places, e.g. Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard Smallbones (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede revert

It was requested that I explain why I reverted "worst mass killings", etc out of the lede. For starters, "worst" looked like superlative that needed far more explanation than the lede should afford, and even outside of the lede it seems a disputed assertion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I've mentioned before, "worst" is subjective and against NPOV. Do we really need to keep having these same discussions? "Worst" is not an appropriate measure of mass murders. "Highest death tolls", providing the evidence for such a statement is strong, is much more suitable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i asked you to as it is one of the restrictions on this article, i thought you knew about it? The source used says worst, why is valention`s book now suddenly not wp:rs? But i`m happy to use highest death tolls as Giftiger says mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial or not, we're really missing something here.

Germany, circa WWII (remember that?), the holocaust. People try to argue otherwise, but the NAZIs were and did declare themselves to be socialist. Rarely mentioned is the point Hitler himself declared there to be no difference between National Socialism and Communism.

Would someone who thinks they are a truly liberal thinker and fair expositor of TRUTH like to add the missing data?

Thank you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well i know that but you require a source which discuss`s it mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So all that Brownshirt violence against the communist party was just a love fest was it? --Snowded ^TALK 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, just two ideology's slugging it out, but there is bugger all difference between them is there? Well apart from the body count i suppose mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, if you had lived during the Weimar Republic, what party would you have supported? I already know, but would like to hear from you. TFD (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)