Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Numerical Sourcing and Statistics - A Modest Proposal

Leafing through the copious and, I must admit, rather amusing talk archives that accompany this page (after all, seeing the intellectual battles of the Cold War recapitulated at lightning speed over the Internet is something that cannot fail to please some rather twisted people, such as myself), I notice the lede for this page remains controversial. It is indeed strange that this page opens with, effectively, a decontextualised quote from a book already rather NPOV on the subject of Communism. The figure cited is preceded by this qualification:

"Nonetheless, we have to start somewhere. The following rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates, gives some sense of the scale and gravity of these crimes: "

Black Book of Communism, Introduction

Those two qualifiers, "rough approximation", and "unofficial estimates" make this statement substantially less strong than the mere qualification of "estimated" that we find at the top of the page. We could just edit that to better reflect what the source actually says... and end up turning the lede into a block quote from Courtois's masterwork.

I propose something a little more radical, and a lot more sensible. There is a reason Courtois uses this extensive qualification before he lists these numbers. This particular section, unlike the rest of the book - and indeed the rest of the introduction - is entirely uncited. Describing it as a "rough approximation" from "unofficial estimates" gives him an extremely large amount of leeway in what this actually means. I believe this isn't the level of rigour that an encyclopaedic work such as Wikipedia requires.

As such, at the very least when it comes to matters of pure number, I believe it should be made a policy for this page to only quote and cite sources which themselves have some backing more substantial than the author's assurance - ideally to the level required of a peer-reviewed article or similar. This might not even mean changing the lede particularly, as many seem quite happy with the numbers as they are, and so I'm sure they can find alternative and more rigorous sources for them.

Oh, and in addition - the Black Book of Communism is freely available on Archive.org. It might be a good idea to change citation links to lead there.HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

agreed. good concise points.AnieHall (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Partly disagree. I am very uncomfortable enacting narrower standards for this article than what Wikipedia requires for all its articles. We could change the wording in that first sentence to better reflect the source (and certainly that estimate should be stated as the specific estimate of that person, rather than as a straight statement of fact), but I think you will find that all the numerical estimates out there are similarly rough, or more so. I think we must attribute every numerical estimate to being the particular opinion of its author, with the particular criteria used noted (such as inclusion of famine deaths, etc.), and avoid crowning any particualar estimate over the others. In fact, I think the article needs a section specifically devoted to the numerical estimates, but I don't see that happening under the current editing restrictions. The actual numbers are simply unknown, and this should be made clear. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a narrower standard than is required for all Wikipedia articles. WP:SOURCES states that sources should be "appropriate to the claims made". Given that statistical claims are quite clear-cut compared to other claims, particularly in the context of history, I don't see it as at all unreasonable that the source used to make such a claim is equally clear-cut. For a matter as grave as the possible deaths of millions of people, I'm not sure why standards shouldn't be closer to the level required for an article about a living person, rather than a Pokémon. If it is not clear-cut, then either make this obvious by giving due weight (WP:DUE) to other sources that make different claims, or remove that claim from the lede. Indeed, the former in itself would require removing this claim from the lede, as that is not the place to present competing claims of equal weight - it is the place to establish what an article is about. Hell, the very fact that all of this has been presented over hundreds of thousands of words of discussion in this talk page indicates that perhaps the controversy itself requires mention in the beginning of the article?HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the first sentence is not now appropriately written and should be changed. I also support adding other sources with different estimates (and I agree that this should be done in the body of the article, rather than in the lead). I only disagree insofar as you seem to be thinking that the issue with the numbers will merely be getting the best sources to back up a conclusive/consensus statement of fact. By contrast, I've seen the numerical issue as one of some inherent ambiguity, not only due to the limited availability of documentation, but also with the disputed reliablity of that documentation and the underlying value judgements involved in whether or not certain portions should be included (particularly regarding famine deaths). From this perspective, then, presenting the full range of ranges, along with the critiques of them, is the most appropriate way. Again, I agree this is not appropriate for the lead. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The figure of 100 million, which has no acceptance in peer-reviewed writing, is an article of faith in fringe anti-Communist sources. The main problem with this article is that there is no literature specifically devoted to the subject and it is basically a polemical rather than encyclopedic article. TFD (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The article does appear to be polemical in nature to me, as well. But there must be some sort of consensus otherwise, since the article continues to exist. So, I think, since this article is (or at least the figures are) largely based upon the Black Book of Communism, the language surrounding the "unofficial estimates" should be true to the source, and not make the figures appear to be sounder than intended by the original authors. Since this is a contentious article, it seems wise that the language used be carefully and accurately selected. Not doing so certainly lends credence to the position that this article may be polemical. I would think that any good, reasonable and accurate suggestion that moves this article away from perceived bias should be acted on.AnieHall (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In light of what I've said above, the further comments on the fact that these figures are all apparently "rough estimates" or indeed "unknown", and the existence of a fairly broad historical controversy on this matter that cuts right across the mainstream of history academia, perhaps we could come to some consensus on an alternative lede that makes all of this clear? Historical articles on Wikipedia have, I'm afraid to say, a pretty bad reputation, and the seeming distrust of just presenting things that are uncertain or controversial as such is pretty much why. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

They are "reliably sourced" per Wikipedia policy, and the recap in the lede is pretty much the result of very lengthy discussions in the past. I oppose therefore any removal of the number range. Collect (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The estimates are sourced to the introduction to the Black Book and represent Courtois's personal estimate, which has no acceptance and was attacked by Werth, the major contributor to the book. Instead, we should use a source that explains the ranges estimated by scholars, rather than the range used by one. The range is probably wider than Courtois' estimate, and we should also emphasize which ones are most widely accepted. TFD (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You were here when the ranges were chosen - and they do not include the highest numbers at all -- perhaos you disremember the colloquy thereon? They are based on the multiple sources discussed at that discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence has a footnote which gives the Courtois's estimates in the introduction to the Black Book as a source. Should we keep the source and say that it is Courtois's estimate, or should be provide a source that explains what the estimates are? TFD (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We should all be able to agree if we just add a couple words to the sentence where it is. How about something like "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century, with the most widely known estimated death toll being Stéphane Courtois' approximation approaching 100 million worldwide." I would really love us to make some small progress on this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that I'm convinced that this article's topic doesn't exist per policy. However, using Courtois on this is abominable due to the deep criticism he's received, his absence of field specific experience, and the ludicrousness of his contribution (see the extensive reading regarding Courtois' hypothesised causation in the archives). Not Courtois by himself. If someone decent uses Courtois' number, then cite it to them (scholars can work around flaws in sources that we can't.) Surely that swede think tank or that mass killing guy has a high end figure. Citing Courtois for anything would be worse than citing Lemkin on methodology, at least in his era Lemkin behaved in a scholarly fashion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

When did you change your mind on the topic's existence, since the last time we spoke you seemed to think differently?[1] We are already using Courtois in the lead, as well we should since he is far and away the most famous of the sources and the one most likely to have prompted readers to the article in the first place. My proposed change waters the language down considerably. Rather than treating the 100 million figure as part of a statement of fact, it labels it merely widely known without taking a position on its accuracy at all. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(Regarding the topic, I reread the Swedish paper over 2011, 2012 in light of further analysis of its contents by other editors—I'm not hostile to scholarly analysis of a common cause of mortality in specific societies being actually-existing socialism or Marxist ideology, I just don't think that such an analysis has been put, as your diff shows I am open to change based on sources. I was disappointed in the result of the reading because a positive demonstration of the topic would immediately change the quality of this article for the better in weight, structure, coatrack, synth/or components (like lumping in single society studies unmentioned in comparative literature)) The problem is, that even were this article to exist, Courtois shouldn't be front and centre, but relegated to a FRINGE section. I think that the people who believe this article should currently exist agree that it should be primarily sourced out of scholarly literature, a literature that Courtois is not part of. The Swedes, the mass-killing chapters (dispossessive and the other one) front and centre; noting of the single society cases via discussion of the evidence in the previous section (undiscussed cases relegated to see also:); outdated studies in the middle when discussing the origin of the scholarly construct (Lemkin); scholarly studies that impinge upon the topic but aren't causative (the demographic stuff), including the FRINGE but notable components such as part of the democide series of studies; FRINGE stuff like Courtois' relatively hysteric suggestion of causation at the end, and only to the extent that they've received popular attention. An inverse pyramid of presence in the scholarly literature. (I actually quite regret/enjoy having become involved in editing this article because I now have a much better understanding of research projects in genocide studies) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) The problem is that there are no comparative studies, just studies of individual countries and the odd comment that Communists killed lots of people because they wanted to create a "Utopia". That comment itself seems odd, not only because of Communist views on utopian socialism, of which Courtois as an ex-Maoist would be aware, but because Stalin was hardly the most idealistic Communist leader. It becomes like the "Republican sex offenders" website, which lists everyone from Ted Bundy to elected officials having sex with other men in public toilets, but does not explain what connection may exist. It therefore is little more than opaque and ineffective advocacy. TFD (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There are multiple comparative studies (that is, studies which discuss the commonalities and differences between the killing by Communist regimes, rather than simply focusing on the killing by a single regime) and you have in fact seen some of them several times already, unless you did not completely read the deletion debates that you participated in[2][3], follow the link I provided specifically to you in discussion on this talk page[4], or bother to examine those such sources already cited in the article. Did you forget about these, or are you just dismissing them? AmateurEditor (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I remember discussing this and have looked at your sources again and none of them are comparative studies of mass killings under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What are they, then? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

None of them. TFD (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, and they clearly are. And you'll probably pick this one apart, but The Distinctive Features of Repression in Communist States have definitely been discussed by scholars.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you've all encouraged AnieHall to create a Mass killings under capitalist regimes article that accuses capitalism of killing 1.6 billion people based on message board postings and dead links to "The Maoist Rebels News".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a month ago they weren't dead links. at any rate, i've fixed it. hopefully. although there is ongoing deletion and rewriting, of course.AnieHall (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) Your link is to the introduction to a book written by Paul Hollander, an advisor to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. Notice that the topic of the article is "repression" in Communist states, not "mass killings". Obviously mass killings are an aspect of repression, but notice that even the most partisan authors writing outside the mainstream do not write articles specifically about "mass killings under Communist regimes". Hollander actually notes in his article that there are no comparative studies of mass killings under Communist regimes.

Also, please see WP:POINT. That some editors have chosen to invent an anti-Communist article does not mean that we should balance it with an anti-capitalist article. The correct approach is to ensure that all articles are based on sources, are not original research and are neutral. If there are scholarly sources that link the capitalist economic system to mass killings, then we can determine the degree of acceptance these views have and write a neutral article. We should not just put together a hodge-podge of mass killings carried out by what we determine to be capitalist regimes and create an article that implies that capitalism was the cause of these mass killings. TFD (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than vague mumbo-jumbo if you want to change the article, please just show what the changes should be. Show us the text with the sources. Folks who say that this article can't exist should read the six previous AfD's and then just get over it. Saying you don't like the current sources after all this time without offering your own sources, is just nonsense. New editors showing up and quoting policy on their second edits, after all the nonsense that has gone on here, makes me quite suspicious. In short, show us the text you want! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus for deletion because you and other editors claimed that there were sources. The result of the AfDs is not that people who claimed there were no sources must find them, and it seems more reasonable to expect those editors who claimed there were sources identify them. TFD (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of sources in the article right now. If there were sources that said Communist regimes did not kill masses of people or that this wasn't a "Communist phenomenon" you could put them in the article. The likely reason you haven't put them in the article is that they don't exist. You claim that the sources in the article are not reliable, but they've passed WP:RSN many times and clearly pass the WP:RS standards. You could put in sources that disagree with the sources in the article, but have failed to do so (do they exist?). It's time to go along with the obvious consensus that this article is allowed to be on Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason there are not sources saying it was not a "Communist phenomena" is that there are no sources that say it was. All we have are studies of individual countries that we have grouped together as an exercise in original research. TFD (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just look in the current article for the sources. Just because you don't like what they say, doesn't mean you can deny that they exist!. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mozambique and Angola

Could the the communist governments of Angola and Mozambique perhaps mentioned in this sentence. "Mass killings have also occurred in Vietnam,[135] North Korea[136] and Romania.[137]"

Here is the info regarding these countries alleged mass killings from other wiki pages: "Rudolph Rummel estimated the democide of the FRELIMO government between 1975 and 1987 to be in between 83,000 and 250,000 dead with a mid level estimate of 118,000. Most of deaths are from executions and re-education camps."

And for Angola:

"After Nito Alves's attempted coup in 1977, Agostinho Neto ordered the killing of suspected followers and sympathisers of "orthodox communism" inside and outside the party. Thousands of people were estimated to have been killed by Cuban and MPLA troops in the aftermath over a period that lasted up to two years, with some estimates claiming as high as 70,000 dead. "

"Human rights observers have accused the MPLA of "genocidal atrocities," "systematic extermination," "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity.""

What do you think? I think they could be mentioned.Stumink (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to explain howese killings were "communist" rather than typical of African tribal warfare. Do you have any sources that claim the MPLA became more humanitarian after they ceased being communist? TFD (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well regarding the MPLA the deaths listed are all relating to the murder after an attempted coup so this is an internal purge. I'm not sure that would count. And they also definitely involved in tribal atrocities. I think Mozambique would however definitely count. The deaths are listed as being mainly from "executions and re-education camps". Re-education camps is certainly a common future of communist regimes and many were killed in what you may term as "gulags". Regardless does it really matter if the killing were of a communist nature. I just wanted to add them to the sentence "Mass killings have also occurred in Vietnam,[135] North Korea[136] and Romania" so shouldn't it just be any "Mass killings under Communist regimes"?

And regarding Angola being more violent when it was communist or after I'm sure it wasn't when you consider the Halloween massacre. However I'm not sure why this would matter.Stumink (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As you are no doubt aware, these groups embraced communism, but embraced neoliberalism after Communist rule ended in the USSR. Did their respect for human rights improve when they became liberals? Also, how did their respect for human rights compare with their "liberal" opponents, UNITA and the FNLA?

Well the UNITA and the FNLA are hardly "liberal and im sure they comitted human rights abuses. However know estimates and this is hardly the place to discuss them. However why it does matter. We are merely discussing "Mass killings under Communist regimes". Therefore since "mass killings" occurred under communist Mozambique and Angola I think that is all that matters. Why should matter their behavior was under socialism or why should we care what the FLN or UNITA did. I do not see why it matters. Also the killings listed for Mozambique are like many same methods used by countries like North Korea and Vietnam(Gulags and Re-education). Considering these are similar methods and the countries mention communist, isn't this enough?Stumink (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The rationale for this article is that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings, otherwise it would be original research. We would not have for example articles about mass killings in countries whose names' begin with an "A". So you need to explain what these mass killings had to do with the ideologies of the regimes. TFD (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the sources indicate Mozambique committed mass killings through re-education camps similar to place like Vietnam, North Korea, China etc. Would mass killings through re-education count? Stumink (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Do the sources specifically make that claim? It would be helpful if you could be specific about the source. TFD (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This source specifically mention they committed mass killings through re-education: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB14.1C.GIF. Surely this is good enough.Stumink (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a personal web site of Rummel. It is not reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you can source straight from the books, if that is somehow more reliable than the website as the info from the book is the same as on the website and is written by exactly the same author. Stumink (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

BAD misnomer (this and a lot of other pages/articles/arguments/lectures,etc.)

this is not a forum, even for ridiculously wrong arguments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
} The editors of this article (and most others, including my bull session friends in Berkeley) have something seriously wrong. I suppose it is a misnomer, but it's actually a BIG mistake of concept(what would be the word for a "misnomer" of concept?)). Communism is not the opposite of Capitalism. Marx expressed it as Labor vs Capital and Communism (a word he never used) was the proposed cure for the evils of Capitalism. Rarely noticed by ANYONE is: Labor = opposite of Capital Communism (socialism) = opposite of Free Market. Hope this helps.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Misconception would be the word you are after. I find it hard to believe that Marx never used the word communism, since he is one of the authors of The Communist Manifesto... unless communist has been mistranslated from German to English consistently throughout the last century and a half... I'm also not sure how you come to the conclusion that capitalism and communism are not at odds, since under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, whereas under communism they are owned by the public... I could go on, but I'm not sure of the purpose of this post, do you have a suggestion for improvement to this article and others? or is this just going to be another never ending thread of definitions and pseudo-definitions?AnieHall (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The way forward

TFD's deliberate failure to understand my question to him above (see here), his acknowledgement-by-deletion of my notice to him about it on his talk page here, and his decision not to change his response is blatant disruption, as defined by WP:DISRUPT ("refusal to 'get the point'" and "failure to understand the point" are both rightly considered disruptive). Also a problem is his mischaraterization of a source two days ago.[5] He has a very long history with this article, and has been warned about his disruptive editing before, the earliest I recall being when he tried to extend a resolving (and nearly unanimous) article name change discussion by opening a separate Request-for-Comment on the issue in a new talk page section while the Requested-Move discussion was wrapping up.[6][7] He has established a pattern of disruption over a long period of time, including a period in which he insinuated that pro-article editors were fascist and anti-semitic, but in his defense it was a very heated time and there was no consensus for this article's right to exist prior to the first "Keep" AfD decision on April 22, 2010.

In fact, I'm inclined to think that everyone's behavior prior to that point should simply be forgiven. There was blame to be had on all sides.

As I see it, the only relevant issue now is how best to proceed at present. Deliberate talk page disruption is harmful under normal circumstances, but because of the particular editing restrictions on this article which depend upon productive talk page discussion in order for any article changes at all to occur, disruption on this talk page is even more problematic. However, every article needs critics, if only to cancel out the over-enthusiastic. TFD is capable of constructive criticism and it would be best if he continued to participate here without being disruptive. However, it is important that he stop being disruptive, and since he won't discuss this on his talk page, I think it is best to give him what I consider his first warning notice here. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think you are qualified to be handing out 'first warnings'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply any kind of official action, I've changed it to "notice". AmateurEditor (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd like to note that many of TFD's comments tend to be, well, astute. As well, s/he tends to avoid wasting time on ridiculous disputes on definitions which should be obvious and/or easily accessible, which seems wise to me, but is kind of unrelated to this, maybe. I'm also not convinced that this is the proper place to be reprimanding others??????? But I'm not an expert in the details of how Wikipedia talk pages operate. I also think maybe certain people should relax if a person one time misses your point, as absurd amounts of dialogue get thrown down on this page, which for a person with a life, can be quite a bit to chew through (and sections of talk like this do not help the volume of blah blah blah). At any rate, this section of talk seems like a good candidate for deletion if there ever was one.AnieHall (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, in your weltanschaung, Communists kill people because that is what Communists do. You may be right. However in order to present a neutral article you need to present a source that claims that, then we can search the literature and determine the extent of agreement with that belief. TFD (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the original title of this section, "TFDs disruptive behavior and the way forward", was inappropriate ("Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception..."), but if it bothers you enough to change it then I am not going to change it back. I have never taken a position on why these killings occurred, and your assumption about my thoughts is offensively wrong. It is another example of disruptive editing on your part: please direct your comments at "content and actions rather than people". It is not too late for you to prove AnieHall right that you had just misunderstood our previous discussion: please answer why you think the comparative sources presented to you were not comparative. Or just admit that they are and we can move forward. It's an important point. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TALKNEW: "Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious...." If you do not see any connection between these killings then there is no reason for the article. In order to save me the time of commenting on each and every "ccomparative" source you linked too, could you please provide one and I will explain. TFD (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of the section you just linked to said, and I quoted it above, "Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception...". I have also never said that I "do not see any connection between these killings". I have never offered my opinion on this at all, because our personal opinions do not matter when the issue is what reliable sources say. I linked to excerpts from 4 sources. Here is the link again. Unfortunately, because you said none were comparative, you are going to have to comment on each one to demonstrate that. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, since they all supposedly are comparative studies, I will comment on the first, Valentino's "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". As the title implies the comparison is restricted to three countries and in fact three leaders - Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Far from seeing these mass killings as an essential aspect of Communism, Valentino writes, "most regimes that have described themselves as communist or been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killings" (p. 91). Also Valentino does not describe all killings by the Soviet Union as communist in nature and in fact groups their mass killings in Afghanistan with "Counterguerrilla mass killings". Curiously, most of these mass killings were carried out by capitalist countries (US, Nationalist China, France, etc.), yet you object to having an article called "mass killings under capitalist regimes". Your exception btw is not a license to attack other editors, rather it allows one to use such headings as "User:A reported by User:B" at the edit-warring noticeboard. And note that the wording still must be neutral and not express your personal opinion. TFD (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree a comparison between the killings of Communist regimes does exist in that source. Do you agree that a source does not have to "see mass killings as an essential aspect" of Communism or "describe all killings by the Soviet Union as communist in nature" in order to be a source on this topic? You are either confusing me with someone else or just making a faulty assumption when you say that I "object to having an article called "mass killings under capitalist regimes"". I have done no such thing. You are right that the "exception" is not a license to attack other editors, and that it allows one to use such headings as "User:A reported by User:B" at the edit-warring noticeboard. You are wrong that I had attacked you with my headline. I accurately, and with diffs, called specific behavior on your part disruptive (which does not necessarily mean acting in bad faith, disruptive behavior can be in good faith as well). It is important to understand that using an editor's name in a noticeboard heading is "especially" allowed, not exclusively allowed. I take your admission of the comparative nature of the first of the four sources to mean you will not be commenting on the others. Fair enough. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't work for you mate, and have no obligation to comment at length on all your sources. I picked the first one because you said they are all the same. By your logic if someone compares mass killings by France and the US, then we can have mass killings under capitalist regimes. Unless we are tendentious, we would title such an article Comparison of French and American mass killings or something similar. TFD (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My point was that you commenting on the others would be redundant at this point because you had said that "none" were comparative. But I did not say they were all the same, I said they were all comparative. I agree that if multiple reliable sources discuss mass killings by capitalist regimes, in those terms or in functionally equivalent terms (say, "Capitalist mass killing" or "mass murder by capitalist countries" or "Blue holocaust", to imagine a few), then yes, there can be such a Wikipedia article. This is Wikipedia's logic, not just mine.[8] And if there was no commonly accepted term for the topic, we would title such an article descriptively, based upon editor consensus.[9] AmateurEditor (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging just from these recent interactions, User:AmateurEditor does not seem to be in a mindframe to effectively facilitate a productive Way Forward. BigK HeX(talk) 12:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)