Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Afganistan Controversies

Soviet invasion, you mean intervention.

Notable executioners

Possibly add Che Guevara as some source put his personal execution count at thousands. http://www.reds-on.postalstamps.biz/Cuba/che.htm http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/01/25/che-guevara-the-barbarian-motivated-by-power-executioner-of-14000-boys-men-and-the-useful-idiots-who-worship-him-in-romanticism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.36 (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Che Guevara was basically a Nazi. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. I see no indication of Guevara's adherence to the ideas of National socialism. In addition, the article does not discuss Cuban mass killings (probably, because they never occurred).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. According to Objectivist Professor of Philosophy Stephen Hicks of Rockford College–quoting the part of this article in which he is quoted–
"in practice every liberal capitalist country has a solid record for being humane, for by and large respecting rights and freedoms, and for making it possible for people to put together fruitful and meaningful lives", in socialism "practice has time and again proved itself more brutal than the worst dictatorships prior to the twentieth century. Each socialist regime has collapsed into dictatorship and begun killing people on a huge scale."[39]
That means this article will not be complete until we discuss mass killings under each socialist regime. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Cuba is not listed among the countries where mass killings occurred.−

Regarding Hicks, it is just an opinion of one liberal author. Other authors, including Valentino, who argued that most Communist regimes had not been engaged in mass killings, directly disagrees with that your thesis.

In addition, Hicks' statement contains pure logical fallacy: whereas every liberal capitalist country has a solid record for being humane, almost every liberal capitalist country has an equally solid record for being barbaric, be it the US mass killing of native Americans, starvation of Indian or Irish population as a result of destruction of traditional economy by British administration, mass killings of African population by various European colonial regimes, etc. Similarly, many socialist states have a record of being human: thus, the dramatic and sharp increase of life expectancy in the USSR during XX century can be compared only with similar jump in Japan, and it had no other precedents in human history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To compare 20th Century communist practice with 18th/19th Century Western practice is to admit that modern Communism was no more advanced than Western society of over 100 years earlier, is a line of argument you really do not want to follow. The majority of American native Indians died through their lack of immunity to diseases imported from Europe rather than any active policy on the part of European settlers. Do you have a page reference to Valentino's argument that most Communist regimes had not been engaged in mass killings, I do not recall reading it. --Nug (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the topic of this discussion thread? TFD (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, you are right, all of that has no relation to this thread. However, the point raised by Nug has a direct relation to the article's subject, and this point is quite valid. As many authors noted, most Communist regimes came to power in less developed societies. Whereas most Western societies were less barbaric in XX century (although such incidents as man made famine in India or Africa under Western rule occurred in XX century too), most pre-Communist societies in China, Russia, Cambodia etc were pretty barbaric. That is a line of arguments that can be found in reliable sources, and this is a line we need to follow. Communist societies were not more advanced simply by virtue of poorer starting conditions than Western societies, so it is not correct to compare them directly.

Re "Do you have a page reference..." Not only I do, but I have already presented this quote on this talk page repeatedly. Look through archives, or open his chapter 4 and try to read.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You say this Communist societies were not more advanced simply by virtue of poorer starting conditions than Western societies, so it is not correct to compare them directly but what about north korea and south korea or china and taiwan or compare west and east germany. All the countries in these comparisons were at the same stage before one became communist but the non communist one developed and improved far more rapidlly than there communist counterpart.

Wikipedia and it's anti-communist bias

Funny thing, one can edit tha article related to the mass killings that occurred under anti-communist regimes, but no edits can be done here. Also, it should be noted that the above mentioned article has a neutrality tag, but this one does not (it's quite obvious why it happeens). As a fellow Wikipedian, I demand that the Wikipedia anti-communist administration put such tags here too, since it's heavily biased and counts only with anti-communist references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guto2003 (talk • ~~User:Guto2003 Talk to me

Agreed--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has a number of neutrality issues. Below is a brief list of some of them:

1. The lede starts with the statement taken from the highly controversial source, the Courtois' introduction to the Black Book of Communism. It should be moved to the article's body and supplemented with needed commentaries and explanations.
2. The "Terminology" section is highly biased: it contains the list of examples of application of one or another terms to MCuCR, but contains no discussion of the sources saying otherwise. Thus, a large amount of sources exists that say that the term "genocide" cannot, by and large, be applied to most MCuCR.
3. The discussion of famines, which are not seen as the instances of mass killings by majority sources, is also biased. The emphasis is made on the sources that describes them as mass killings, whereas the sources that describe them otherwise are lamost ignored.
4. The "Comparison with other mass killings" is terribly biased: it contains a discussion of the sources that equates Nazism and Communism and totally ignores the opposte viewpoint.
5. The discussion of the causes of mass killings totally ignores a historical context (thus, most Communist regimes that have been engaged in mass killings were preceded by long lasting brutal authoritarian regimes, and they emerged as a result of brutal and prolonged struggle, which lead to overall increase of cruelty of new societies), etc

To fix these and others issues would require enormous efforts and time (the problem with #1 took more than six months and is still unresolved). I plan to return to this activity, and, meanwhile, I request the neutrality tag to be restored per ##1-5.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC below) Pshaw! The Neutrality tag should not be used as a "badge of shame" rather it should be used to bring in new editors and new ideas. It was put on in December under that understanding and no new ideas were offered, no suggestions were put forward on this page to improve the article.

There is a very old idea at work here - that the article should be deleted. I believe that there have been 6 AfDs in less than 18 months - most of which failed spectacularly, plus a few renaming RfCs and the like. Give it up, there is consensus to keep the article.

You need to bring in reliable sources, propose changes here and we will make them. Trying to delete material, based on claims that the sources used are not reliable, is not believable after the sources have been approved several times at WP:RSN and other places. WP:NPOV requires that all major viewpoints be presented. I have not seen any of the viewpoints that you consider to be "mainstream" in this article because you have not given sources for them. Rather you just argue that sourced material be removed. Just get your sources, make your proposals to include new material, and we can procede. Smallbones (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not use it as a "badge of shame". This is an indication that the article has serious neutrality issues, and that I am going to start fixing them (and to draw attention of fresh editors to facilitate that process).

Re "You need to bring in reliable sources, propose changes here and we will make them." I brough an enormous number of reliable sources in the past, and you are perfectly aware of that. In connection to that, I do not think your post was made in a good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen you bring in reliable sources that say what you seem to want them to say. I have seen you bring in sources that say that they dislike some of the sources in this article, without saying much more, and then you using that to try to delete material. Regarding your " I do not think your post was made in a good faith" - shame on you. Please list your reliable sources and briefly state what material in them you wish to include here. Smallbones (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

N Edit request declined. Please establish consensus for proposed changes before requesting an administrator to make these changes.  Sandstein  17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I respectfully disagree. The instruction to the usage of the POV template says:

"Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies."

I identified the issues, which are serious. I demonstrated that at least some of them have long history and are still unresolved. I properly explained them on the article's talk page. All criteria are met, and I do not need consensus to introduce the tag that indicates that there is not consensus among the editors about the content of this article. Your sanctions regulate standard changes, and they neither espablish new rules for using neutrality tags nor they have precedence over our standard neutrality policy, so I expect you to reconsider your decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the article is biased because it incorporates material that is not taken from sources about the topic and are used to support the thesis that there is a connection between communism and mass killings. So for example mass killings by the Soviet government in Chechna are added to the scorecard, but may have more in common with mass killings by tsarist and post-Communist governments in Chechnya. So the article reads more like an anti-Communist tract than an encyclopedia article. TFD (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously some editors confuse their own political POV with what is actually published in reliable sources. It truly is incredulous that Paul claims this article is biased, given that he has such a big role in editing it with the second highest edit count (C.J. Griffin tops the list while Fifelfoo comes in third, and these editors are definitely not "anti-communist")[1]. I agree with Smallbones, give it up, tags shouldn't be used as a badge of shame because of six failed AfDs in 18 months. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If for example one were to write an article about "Economies under communist regimes", one could go to The socialist system: the political economy of communism.[2] The book examines the economies of 26 Communist countries, explains how they were influenced by Communist ideology, how they compared with and differed from one another, explains difference views of the subjects, and identifies the main literature discussing the topic. We could compare our theoretical article with this book to see that we have provided proper weight to different aspects of the subject. Now please provide the name of a book that explains MKUCR, and we can determine whether the article is neutral. TFD (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well...

Smallbones accused in presenting no sources or concrete edits, whereas Nug accused me in being one of the major contributors. And both of them ignore the obvious fact that the edits I propose are always suported by top quality reliable sources.

I presented exhaustive evidences that the Black Book (concretely, its introduction) is a controversial source, so it is hardly possible to use this source as a support for the first opening sentence of the article. Even this fact alone warrants a POV tag, and I need no consensus to add it per our policy, which says that the basic principles of neutrality policy cannot be superseded by local consensus.

However, I decided to wait with the POV tag for a while, and to try stepwise improvement of the article. For the beginning, I propose to replace the existing text form the "Terminology" section

Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.

with the following text:

The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular. This term had been formalized by the UN Genocide Convention, which defined it as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, etnical, racial or religious group; genocide defined in such a way is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments that destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that made it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events in XX century. These limitations are as follows:

1. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution, because many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal rebellions.
2. The highest level of specific intent needs to be established for conviction of genocide.
3. The intent to destroy some group in part may fit the genocide definition only if the perpetrators view the part of the group they wish to destroy as a distinct entity which must be eliminated as such.

As a result, most mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine).
Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely that would allow expansion of protection of Genocide Convention on political groups, inclusion of both specific and constructive intent (i.e., the cases when perpetrator should realise that his behaviour makes the harm likely), and bringing the term "in part" in accordance with lay people's understanding. If this definition will be commonly accepted, it can be applied to most cases of violence in Communist led countries. However, such an approach has been accepted with skepticism by other scholars, who argued that loose definition would make genocide not a uniquely horrible and rare event, and large number of cases, starting from colonization of America and ending with the economic sanctions against Iraq would fit such a definition.
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence, including the violence under Communist regimes. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms describing lethal forms of mass violence, which are being discussed below.

References

Nope. Your version sounds more like the opening arguments of a defence attorney rather than a reasoned exposition of the body of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have any concrete argument, please, share with us. However, from your responce I conclude that you simply don't like the text, but cannot clearly articulate why...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The terminology section should restrict itself to explaining how "mass killings under communist regimes" is commonly defined in the literature, and any academic dispute about it. For a source we need an article about "mass killings under communist regimes" that explains the terminology. Since no sources exist, we should delete the section. Collect, your comments are disruptive, please stop. TFD (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, you have made the precise same arguments at least ten times - without ever getting others to back you in a consensus. I suggest that WP:DEADHORSE has been reached for your iterations. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete arguments/sources, or you have nothing to present except your bare emotions?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not "bare emotions" it is noting that the precise same arguments have been presented here at l;east ten times - and if you did not get a consensus in the past for your position, you are unlikely (statistically speaking) to make converts using the exact same language as before. And wall of text methods do not work any better now than they did in the past. The lede of this article ought to reflect what is in the body of the article. That is the purpose of the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is disruptive. I proposed a totally new and well sourced text, which analyses the subject from different points of view. In response, I got a rude and arrogant general comment that contains no arguments except vague references to some unspecified old dispute. You should either elaborate on your objections or stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition, you should have noticed that currently we discuss not the lede but the "terminology" section...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out what WP:LEDE states is "disruptive"? Not. Nor is pointing out that precept either "rude" or "arrogant." Ledes should summarize the content of the article. Have a cup of tea. +

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the "terminology" section - the current one seems quite fine. Absent a consensus to change it, I suggest that it ought not be changed, noting the Sandstein rule. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, last time I observed the past XfD discussions, the matter was sent back here for resolution. And it hasn't been resolved. I don't think anyone has added anything productive in the last six months, I don't have anything new, so it remains, as it was, unresolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I never claimed the lede is "disruptive". The term "disruptive" refers to your post.

Regarding the terminology section, it is quite ok if you state the section is fine. What is not ok is your refusal to explain why the section in its present form is "fine", and what concretely is wrong with the version proposed by me. I expect you to explain that, otherwise your viewpoint has zero weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Read what I wrote before making aspersions claiming I wrote what I did not write! I find the current text reasonable, and your version a disimproivement. If you propose an actual improvement, I would live to see it. As for assigning "zero weight" to those who disagree with you -- that is not part of the Five Pillars that I can find -- perhaps you can show me where you find that rule? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I carefully re-read your posts and I found no concrete argument/fact/source that supports your statement that the existing version is fine and mine is not. You simply do not like my version and you seem to be unable to explain why. You are not the only person who disagrees with me, but, as you have probably noticed, I didn't claim that the last Nug's or Smallbones' posts have a zero weight: they contain concrete arguments, which I am trying to address. In contrast, your assertions contains nothing but your bare emotions, there is nothing there which deserves a discussion, and therefore your opinion (by contrast to the opinia of some other my opponents) has a zero weight. Please, stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop calling people disruptive. The proposed 22 line definition to replace the 3 line short version looks like complete overkill to me. I could see completely removing the terminology section, rather than making it into a 600 line polemic. Maybe just keep it short and put it at the bottom of the article? BTW, you should know that the first line is plain wrong "The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular." (with the 1947 reference!) I'm sure you've seen the sources that say he also intended to use the term genocide for the mass-killings going on in the Soviet Union. Please don't play games like that. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I never called anyone disruptive, I just characterised some posts as arrogant, rude and disruptive.

Re Lemkin, my text is absolutely correct. The term "genocide" was proposed by Lemkin in the book "Axis rule in occupied Europe" (this statement can be found in the source 1 cited by me) and initially was used to describe Nazi crimes. Later, Lemkin attempted to expand this term onto Soviet crimes, however, his politically motivated attempts were heavily criticised by many authors, including Anton Weiss-Wendt (cited by me). Therefore, by accusing me in playing some "game" you just demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the subject.

With regard to your proposal to remove the terminology section, I think, this idea deserves serious discussion. The problem with the current version is that this section is a collection of various instances of application of one or another term to one or another crime of one or several Communist regimes. However, this section does not include numerous sources that either dispute applicability of this terminology to MKuCR, or describe them otherwise. As a result, a neutral and balanced terminology section should be huge. In addition, such a section would create a completely false impression that the MKuCR terminology is a well developed subject, which obviously is not the case. Therefore, total removal of the "Terminology" section is a very reasonable idea, which I fully support.--Paul Siebert (talk)

I think the terminology section is useful, I dispute the first line of your intended change "The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular" citing a 1947 source as factually incorrect. Lemkin described Genocide in 1944 as:

"By ‘‘genocide’’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. . . .Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups......Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor. This imposition, in turn, may be made upon the oppressed population which is allowed to remain, or upon the territory alone, after removal of the population and the colonization of the area by the oppressor’s own nationals." Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Washington, D.C., 1944, p. 79.

So Lemkin's definition is quite broad. In any case I don't think we need a detailed discussion of the term "genocide" in this article when a link to the Genocide article would suffice. --Nug (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You claim my source is outdated and you are trying to refute it using an even earlier work of the same author. I don't think such an approach to have any merit.

Yes, Lemkin never defined "genocide" as the act committed by Nazi regime only. However, initially he applied this term primarily to the Nazi regime, and not to the USSR. The Lemkin's 1947 article (cited by me) and Wess-Wendt's article ("In fact, Lemkin spoke about Stalinist terror for the first time only in 1949." ) fully support this my statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the last paragraph of your post, whereas I agree that detailed discussion of the term "genocide" belongs to the Genocide article, the "genocide" paragraph in this article is totally unsatisfactory. In actualuty, it says that the term "genocide" is not applicable to MKuCR (although implies that it should), so we have a contradiction between this para and the opening sentence, which says that " The following (terms) have been used to describe killing by Communist governments". If "genocide" was used for MKuCK, we need to explain (i) who concretely used this term for MKuCR, (ii) whether the usage of this term is universally accepted or not, and if not (iii) who concretely is a proponent and an opponent of the application of this term to MKuCR, and (iv) what are the reasons for that. I think, the whole section should be built based on this scheme. The present scheme is biased and unsatisfactory, and, if we will not achieve consensus about its modification I will support the Smallbones' and TFD's idea to remove it completely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You mis-state my position, "I could see completely removing the terminology section, rather than making it into a 600 line polemic." I do not like polemics in an encyclopedia and wish you would stop it. Smallbones (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think we need to introduce unneeded polemics when the subject is not controversial. However, if different (opposite) viewpoints exist on a certain subject, all of them should be represented. That is our policy, and if you do not like it, you should try to change our policy first.--19:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest moving the terminology section into the main "Mass killings" article, unless someone can explain how these terms are used differently when applied to communist regimes. For example, do we use a different set of criteria to call something genocide if carried out by Communists then we would if carried out by Western Europeans? TFD (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, your proposed alteration adds more problems that the original 3 lines of text. I don't see any problem with the original text, so I don't know why you think it needs to be fixed, other than apparently some kind of reaction to your failed attempt to get a POV tag placed. Collect is right in observing that it reads like a defence attorney's opening argument because it is overly wordy and legalistic, and it actually confuses the legal definition of the term as defined by the UN and the original meaning of the term first coined by Lemkin. Thus the view you present, that Lemkin first coined "genocide" as narrowly defining Nazi crimes and formalised by the UN only to later expand that definition to include the Soviet crimes, is misleading, particularly when you cite Weiss-Wendt, who writes:

"Lemkin’s concept of genocide covered Stalinist deportations by default. That concept, as outlined in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, differed significantly from the wording of the UN Genocide Convention. Lemkin identified several forms of genocide: political, social, cultural, economic, biological, physical, religious, and moral…..Despite the fact that the UN Genocide Convention only deals with physical and biological destruction of life, Lemkin stuck to his original interpretation of genocide."

Which shows that Lemkin's original definition of "genocide" was always broad from the beginning but the legal UN definition was subsequently narrowed. So the original text is more accurate than your proposal. --Nug (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin, that is strange that you don't see the problems with original text. They are obvious. Thus,

1. Whereas the opening sentence says that "scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants. The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:", the "Genocide" paragraph says literally that "Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups" and explains the reason for that. If this term is not applicable, why it has been mentioned?
2. The section totally ignores the fact that the term "genocide" has quite different meanings: (i) the rare and outstanding crime defined by the UNO convention, and (ii) the allegoric term used to describe various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence against some groups of peoples. Many sources (e.g. Weitz) call the whole topic devoted to mass killings (broadly understood) "genocide studies", and the scholars working in this area "genocide scholars", although even those "genocide scholars" themselves frequently refuse to characterise many events they study as "genocide" senu stricto. The section does not explain that.
3. The problems with expansion of the defintion of genocide is also totally ignored in this section. Many authors point at the limitations of the UNO definition, however, most of them agree that Lemkin's approach would make the UNO convention useless, because "if everything is genocide, nothing is genocide". As Ellman correctly noted, any attempt to expand the definition to make possible to fit Communist crimes into it would have a severe side effect, namely, that many crimes of democratic regimes would also fit this definition.
4. And finally, as I already explained, when we deal with some term that is not universally accepted as a characteristics of some phenomenon X, we need to explain (i) who is using this term to describe X, and why; (ii) who disagrees with that;(iii) what are the reasons of such disagreement. The current version does not do that, which creates a severe neutrality problems.

Regarding Lemkin, you seem to misunderstand my point. I never claimed initial Lemkin's definition was not applicable to Stalinism. My point was that he developed this definition primarily to apply it to Nazi Germany, and he never tried to expand it onto Stalinism before 1949. The paragraph preceding your quote says:

"As the United Nations General Assembly was preparing to vote on the resolution against genocide, Lemkin approached the Soviet delegation through Jan Masaryk, the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister. Lemkin conveyed to the Soviets that the resolution was not a conspiracy against them. As a result, nobody in the Soviet bloc opposed the resolution, which was unanimously adopted on December 11, 1946. Five years later, however, Lemkin was claiming that the Soviet Union was the only country that could be indicted for genocide. How to explain such a dramatic transition? "

That is a direct confirmation of my point, and it is unclear for me why you, being quite familiar with this paragraph, still came out with your quote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, but you have not provided any evidence to support your assertion that Lemkin developed this definition primarily to apply it to Nazi Germany, as it is well known that the Armenian Genocide was one of the key events that contributed to Lemkin's formulation of the concept of "genocide". The passage you quote is primarily a rhetorical introduction and Weiss-Wendt goes on to partly answer his question "How to explain such a dramatic transition?": it was a) the need to get Soviet support for the UN vote and b) the fact of insufficient accurate information was coming out of the secretive Stalinist regime -

"In fact, Lemkin spoke about Stalinist terror for the first time only in 1949. That might have something to do with the quantity and quality of information coming from behind the iron curtain. Not even at the time of Lemkin’s death in 1959 did the western world have a clear picture of the extent of political purges and ethnic deportations carried out by the Stalin regime."

But Lemkin was not unaware of the barbarism of the Soviet regime:

"Raphael Lemkin had numerous encounters with Soviet power. In 1926 and 1928, Lemkin published two works in which he analysed the Soviet Penal Code. The Soviet and Nazi delegations walked away from the memorable 1933 Madrid conference when Lemkin’s proposal to ban what he then called the crimes of vandalism and barbarism was read."

--Nug (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot provide such evidence simply because I never made such a statement ("that Lemkin developed this definition primarily to apply it to Nazi Germany"). My statement was much less ambitious, namely, that the term initially was used to describe the Axis rule of occupied Europe and the Holocaust in particular. My assertion is based on the explanations of Lemkin himself, who described this story in his 1947 article. According to him, his major idea was not to propose some new term, but to define a new crime, and the reason for the was not theoretical, but fully practical: by making this crime internationally punishable, it would allow any country to catch and prosecute the culprit regardless of nationality. Obviously, Armenia genocide, which occurred in early XX century was not among the primary Lemkin's goals. Lemkin clearly writes that the term genocide was developed by him in the book Axis rule in Occupied Europe, and the initial goal was quite concrete: to make possible to punish major Nazi criminals. In his 1947 article Lemkin discusses the genocide primarily in a context of Nazi crimes and no examples of other similar crime were mentioned by him there.

Regarding your quotes, I cannot understand what point you want to demonstrate by presenting the first quote. Since I never claimed that the initial Lemkin's definition was not applicable to Stalinism, your quote just confirms my point: independently on applicability of this definition, Lemkin did not apply it to Stalinism before 1949.

Re your second quote, it was taken out of context. The end of the paragraph says:

"Raphael Lemkin had numerous encounters with Soviet power. In 1926 and 1928, Lemkin published two works in which he analysed the Soviet Penal Code. (...) It does not mean though that Lemkin had a grudge against Stalin regime or that he was watching closely the developments in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and early 1940s. In fact, Lemkin spoke about Stalinist terror for the first time only in 1949. That might have something to do with the quantity and quality of information coming from behind the iron curtain."

Again, that confirms my thesis that initially Lemkin did not try to apply his "genocide" to Stalinism.

And one more point. In contrast to democide, classicide or other "cides", "genocide" was conceived not as a scholarly term, but as a new internationally punishable crime. Therefore, we must distinguish between "genocide" as defined by UNO and various loose definitions of genocide used by various authors, including Lemkin. Lemkin himself was heavily criticised fo his later attempts to expand this term, and that fact should be clearly articulated in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I'm amazed that you persist with this misleading idea that genocide was originally narrowly defined, only to be broadened later by scholars, when the reverse is the case (The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies, Chalk, Jonassohn, p10):

"In this early resolution, the United Nations significantly narrowed Lemkin's definition of genocide by downplaying enthnocide and one of its components, but, at the same time, it broadened the definition by adding a new category of victims - "political and other groups" - to Lemkin's list. Soviet and Eastern bloc delegates protested against the inclusion of political groups. … The Great Powers seem to have made a behind-the-scenes compromise to preserve the remainder of the Genocide convention. Political groups were excluded from the definition of genocide by a vote of the delegates"[3]

I'm not sure why we need to change the original text to obfuscate this fact. --Nug (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I'm amazed that you continue to misinterpret me.

I never claimed that genocide was originally narrowly defined. Below is a summary of the issue as I see it. I tried to reflect it in the above version, although not all claims listed below are presented there explicitly:

1. That the term "genocide" was originally proposed by Lemkin in his book "Axis rule in occupied Europe";
2. That the Lemkin's definition was rather wide, and he tried to apply this term to such non-genocidal events as the Nazi policy in Luxembourg (the viewpoint that currently is not accepted by mainstream sources);
3. However, he didn't try to apply his definition to Stalinism until 1949;
4. That the definition of "genocide" as an internationally punishable crime, which was adopted by UNO, was narrower than the original Lemkin's definition;
5. That this narrow definition is not applicable to most Communist mass killings;
6. That some authors discuss a possibilities to expand the definition of genocide, whereas others see more drawbacks than advantages in such a step;
7. That many authors use this term allegorically, so the term (but not the strict legal definition) became almost a synonym for "mass murder".

In connection to that, can you explain me, do you see a difference between the following two statements?

"The term "genocide" defined by Lemkin was initially applied mostly to the Nazi crimes."

and

"The term "genocide" defined by Lemkin was initially applicable to the Nazi crimes only."

I cannot believe you really do not see the difference.

And, finally, I refuse to understand how can a good faith user resist to addition of this detailed and well sourced explanations to the article under a pretext that "it is not an improvement". --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the individual points are valid, except for your assertion "That this narrow definition is not applicable to most Communist mass killings" is unsourced. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia is currently prosecuting communists for the crime of genocide, Also Ethiopian communists like Mengistu Haile Mariam were also convicted of the crime of Genocide. Both countries are mentioned in this article. --Nug (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Cambodian genocide is quite atypical case, according to many authors. Secondly, whereas many authors agree that it was genocide, many scholars, including those specialised in Cambodia refuse to call it genocide. Thirdly, I wrote "most", not "any". If few mass killings were recognised as genocide, that changes nothing: every rule has exceptions. And, lastly, Mengistu became a "Communist" by pure coincidence: during the conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia both states tried to get a support from the USSR. The Soviet leadership, for unclear reason decided to support Ethiopia - and this barbaric regime suddenly became Communist whereas another one became anti-Communist. In actuality, I doubt any serious studies can confirm that that sudden conversion of Mengistu into Communism caused any increase of mass killings (and, similarly, I doubt Somalia without Communists immediately became a democratic and humanistic state: as you see, this state is even more barbaric that Ethiopia). --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just making a mountain out of a molehill. A 3 line piece of text that is a side-issue! PS wants to replace it with 25 or so lines that are likely to cause more problems. And it's just not an improvement in terms of explaining what the article is about. I suggest you select something reasonably important to change. Smallbones (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The only idea a reader can draw from those 3 line text is that the term "genocide" is not applicable to MKuCR. If that text satisfies you then I seriously doubt if your goal is to improve the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe I addressed all legitimate concerns raised here. Does anyone have any fresh comments/objections/arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that at least three editors are against this being included - and it doesn't help that you've been questioning their good-faith and just pushing your POV without listening to theirs. Please don't try to manufacture a "consensus" out of this - it's just not there. Smallbones (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It is pretty clear that (i) one editors does not like the proposed text, although he seems to be unable to provide any resonable explanations and sources in support of his opinion; (ii) the second user (you) expressed a legitimate concern about the length of the proposed text; however, I believe that your concern has been successfully addressed; (iii) the third user, Nug, focus his objection at one concrete phrase only, and I think my explanations seem to satisfy him. Therefore, since all legitimate concern seem to to have been addressed, I think we can speak about some preliminary consensus about possuble inclusion of this text (unless someone will not come out with fresh arguments).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that several editors demur on a change, thus you do not have a consensus for any such change. Thus no consensus to include any of your proposal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the same behavioural pattern that is being discussed there. What legitimate concern has been raised in your last posts that have not been addressed by me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The "specific concern" is that WP:CONSENSUS is clear, and the notice at the top of this page is extremely clear. Unless and until you gain consensus for an edit, it is barred by the clear notice above. Note on the policy that "wide agreement" is necessary. Cheers. And your aside about the WQA complaint about The Four Deuces is hardly needed here,. Collect (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The WP:CONSENSUS tells about legitimate concern. What is you legitimate concern? That you don't like the proposed text? --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that the proposed edit does not in any way improve the article. Edits which do not improve an article can and should be declined. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

During the above discussion, I demonstrated several major weaknesses of the existing text, and explained, why concretely my proposal is an improvement. In contrast, you restricted yourself with just a general statement. If you think that by reproducing it in bold you made it more concrete, you err. Please, show respect to your opponents if you want to be treated with respect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC on proposed edit of term "Genocide"

The current article has a short description of "Genocide." An editor has proposed a substantially longer exposition. Is the proposed edit superior to the existing wording? 21:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Current wording:

Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances.

Proposed wording:

The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin in the work "Axis rule of occupied Europe". This term had been formalized by the UN Genocide Convention, which defined it as an act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, etnical, racial or religious group; genocide defined in such a way is a crime punishable according to international laws, thus applying limitations on the sovereignty of governments that destroy their own peoples. The legal definition of genocide has several limitations that made it inapplicable to many mass killing and mass mortality events in XX century. These limitations are as follows:

1. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution, because many Eastern Bloc, Latin American, and some other governments anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal rebellions.
2. The highest level of specific intent needs to be established for conviction of genocide.
3. The intent to destroy some group in part may fit the genocide definition only if the perpetrators view the part of the group they wish to destroy as a distinct entity which must be eliminated as such.

As a result, most some the most deadly instances of mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (such as Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine).
Some modern scholars proposed that the term "genocide" should be defined more widely that would allow expansion of protection of Genocide Convention on political groups, inclusion of both specific and constructive intent (i.e., the cases when perpetrator should realise that his behaviour makes the harm likely), and bringing the term "in part" in accordance with lay people's understanding. If this definition will be commonly accepted, it can be applied to most cases of violence in Communist led countries. However, such an approach has been accepted with skepticism by other scholars, who argued that loose definition would make genocide not a uniquely horrible and rare event, and large number of cases, starting from colonization of America and ending with the economic sanctions against Iraq would fit such a definition.
Nevertheless, many authors use the term "genocide" as metaphors for various forms of lethal and non-lethal violence, including the violence under Communist regimes. Limitations of the term "genocide" prompted scholars to propose alternative terms describing lethal forms of mass violence, which are being discussed below.

Note: The "proposed wording" has been altered since the RfC was started. See [4] for version at start. The term Genocide had been initially coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe Nazi policy in occupied Europe, and The Holocaust in particular. Collect (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, please stop this ridiculous wikilawyering. You took my version (with which you strongly disagree) and started the RfC without attempting to discuss it with me. Of course, I have a right, as a proposer of this text, to modify it to take into account some reasonable concerns that have been raised during the previous discussion. If you want others to assume your good faith, please, behave accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I used the version existing at the time the RfC was started - well after you posted at the Consensus talk page positing a hypothetical edit of:

I propose to add the following sentence to the article:

"The rain in Spain stays only in the plains"

Which I considered as being a teensy bit far from the actual edit you sought. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

???--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This new text presents more problems than it solves, for example this statement "As a result, most mass killing and mass mortality cases in Communist led countries do not fit the legal definition of genocide as the acts against political groups (Great Purge, Cultural Revolution), or the cases with not established intentionality, or as the acts affecting just small part of some group (Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Leap Forward famine)." appears to be pure synthesis not attributable to any source. --Nug (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to correctly identify one more issue. Whereas many sources state that the term is not applicable to separate major instances of MKuCR, it would be not correct to make a general claim. I changed the text accordingly to take into account your second concrete objection. What other concrete issues do you see with the text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The edit is not an improvement. It is lengthy, makes legal arguments, and is not a furtherance of the topic of the article. It may also contain OR/SYNTH, and evince a POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

References

comments

I consider the new 22 line section not to be an improvement over the current section. It inserts arguments into the edit which do not belong in a "terminology" section. It also promotes a "legalese" defense for what has become a term in common usage, even when applied to cases the edit asserts are not "legally" genocide. We can let readers ascertain what is, and is not, "genocide" without giving "legal loopholes" for it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The existing 3 line text is not a description of the term "genocide", as Collect asserted, but an explanation that the term is not applicable to MKuCR. Therefore, the current text is totally unsatisfactory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

More countries.

You have sections on the likes of mongolia and east germany, so maybe more counties would improve the page like possibly adding something about the mass executions that happened in cuba in the follow up of the revolution or a section on tito's Yugoslavia who's regime may be responsible for up to a million deaths or on laos who are said to have massacred countless Hmong after taking other. Other communist countries like angola and poland or any other communist country known to have commited mass killings would be good to add to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.116.77 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Just bring in reliable sources that describe these as mass killings or something similar (e.g. "mass executions" should do), write up a short paragraph or two and place it here, and we'll take a look at them. Smallbones (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In the news

[5] Washington Post:

The European Court of Human Rights said Monday it cannot rule on whether or not Russia properly investigated a World War II massacre of thousands of Polish officers because it has not received vital documents from Moscow to properly judge the case. The court found Russia in violation of its commitments to the European Convention on Human Rights.Fifteen Poles have complained that Russia failed to hold a proper investigation into the 1940 killing by the Soviet secret police of some 22,000 Polish officers and intellectuals in the Katyn forest and other places.

Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you think we should put in? The Katyn massacre is already in the article and Russia is not a Communist regime. TFD (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)