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)

Recent additions.

I removed a section recently added, as it breached WP:NPOV (claims that Stalin was extremely paranoid etc), and was based on a single (American) source which may not be reliable. Claritas § 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I don't understand your explanation. Why can't a scholar assert that Stalin was paranoid? Without bothering to adequately explain, you've simply gone on and removed an attributed piece of text that was a verbatim statement from the scholar in question, appropriately placed into a subsection titled "Personal responsibility" of a subsection titled "Proposed causes." Yes, there are other scholars, but it's nice to have a starting place, and I do beseech you to tell me where I've gone wrong in including the text. Surely you do realize that WP:NPOV means that relevant points of view can be included from any credible WP:RS - presumably, you don't find the view that Stalin's personality was a factor of some sort to be WP:FRINGE? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It is kind of sad that some one without even passing knowledge of Stalin can delete something that is so obvious that Stalin was paranoid. A GOOGLE search of the terms: "Stalin and paranoia" yields 3,130,000 hits. A lot more than single source. Please revert your uncalled for delete. Bobanni (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is believed (although no ultimate proof exists) that after meeting with Stalin, Bekhterev diagnosed him with paranoia. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/162/8/1506.pdf--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation is accurate. I think the text should be restored, unless Claritas can explain why the source itself is unreliable. Suspicion of unreliability is not enough. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can produce a pychiatrist's record saying that Stalin was diagnosed as "Paranoid", this isn't an acceptable neutral claim. Claritas § 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, your objections are starting to resemble the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument Wikipedia generally asks us to avoid, and so far it's just you holding that position alone. If you take the time to show me where on Wikipedia policies it states that "Unless you can produce a pychiatrist's record saying that Stalin was diagnosed as 'Paranoid', this isn't an acceptable neutral claim," I promise that I will gladly defer to your point of view. Until then, the cited material ought to stay per WP:RS and WP:V. If you do not believe that the author - a Columbia University Russian studies graduate and a professor of Russian history published by a respectable publisher - duly satisfies the criterion of WP:RS, please take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Capitalist regimes

There is a new article called Mass killings under Capitalist regimes which has been listed for deletion. Editors here may wish to comment on that article because many of the same arguments used here are being used in that article. TFD (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly WP:POINT and thus may end up being deleted. That is, moreover, irrelevant to the ongoing, repeated, iterated and redundant discussions here. Collect (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The result of the Mass killings under Capitalist regimes AfD was Delete. The record, including the fabulously straw-grasping, any-port-in-a-storm result summary"While this is quite obviously WP:POINT,...it is WP:SYNTH", can be found here or at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes.

Four editors: OpenFuture, Shadowjams, Teeninvestor and Torchiest, voted to Delete the Capitalism article while voting to Keep this Communism article in a partially concurrent AfD.
Anarchangel (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All of which is fully irrelevant to this article talk page. Collect (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Need verification that Rummel is not mainstream and possibly fringe

There is a lot of discussion suggesting that Rummel is not a mainstream scholar when it comes to genocide and mass killings. The research that I have done has not come up with anything significant to indicate that. I would appreciate any help so that I can verify these assertions. Also there are suggestions that Rummel's writings are "fringe theory". Where can I verify that? Thanks Bobanni (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Rummel is "Fringe" is baseless. This has also been discussed on WP:RSN already. We can see on Google Scholar that Rummel has thousands of citations [1]. He is not fringe. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No claim has been made that Rummel is fringe, because the term fringe applies to published works not to individuals. Articles written by Rummel that have appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals and books he has had published by academic publishers are mainstream, although they can be evaluated for their degree of acceptance. Books and articles of his published by non-academic publishers, for example Transaction Publishers, which publishes neoconservative polemical works, are fringe. Applied Factor Analysis and Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900 are reliable sources; Death by government is fringe. The same may be said for Isaac Newton: his writings on physics were mainstream while his writings on alchemy (e.g., turning lead into gold) were fringe. TFD (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does one go to verify that Death by Government is fringe? Bobanni (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here: [2] As you see it's been cited by hundreds of other publications. It's clearly *not* fringe. But really it's not the publication that is fringe, but the ideas and theories, but that's almost impossible to prove either way, because it's so fuzzy. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Go here.

See "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance.

Then notice that -- despite his many premature declarations of victory and endless handwaving, that OpenFuture has still failed to actually do as recommended by policy. (And that he persistently ignores this part of the policy ... as he will do again shortly, I'm sure.) BigK HeX (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please I need sources not opinions or conclusions of Wikipedian editors. RS publications or articles would be helpful in verifying these assertions. Bobanni (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is none. Rummel, his books and his theories are not fringe. You will not find any sources to tell you he is. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bobanni asks for WP:RS.

OpenFuture says, "There is none."

Policy says, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance."

Looks like you have your answer, Bobanni. BigK HeX (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Bobanni asked for reliable sources that he is fringe. There is none. There is plenty of proper attribution among reliable sources. You'll find the link above. Again. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So .. now your basis for ignoring the policy is that you've suddenly been stricken by a case of poor comprehension of straightforward English? You have provided ZERO sources regarding Rummel's theory that "document[s]...the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community". You can continue to refer to citation counts as a convenient distraction, but that certainly doesn't resemble following the Wikipedia directives pretty clearly described (and quoted for you many, many times).

Feel free to post an RS that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory". Of course, I expect another distraction from this. BigK HeX (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So .. now your basis for ignoring the policy - This is ad hominem, and clearly uncivil. Please retract. I do not ignore any policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's this? Now that there's a response containing no RS's, I've become a bit distracted from ... the FRINGE policy or whatever we were talking about. How unexpected... BigK HeX (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you find your own ad hominem arguments distracting, then maybe you should stop them? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's distracting is that this is possibly your ~20^th response to a thread where you've been called to post an RS that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory" as clearly and explicitly described in WP:FRINGE. Yet you haven't posted a single RS documenting the level of acceptance, and continue to make up your own criteria and substituting evidence of notability instead of academic acceptance, which does nothing but distract from the method prescribed by actual Wikipedia policy. I'm fairly sure that your 21^st response will similarly contain zero WP:RSs that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory", per policy. But since you "don't ignore policy," let's see if your next post lists an RS that contains such documentation or if there's yet another response that talks about anything except such an RS. BigK HeX (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been given to you multiple times. You just pretend you didn't see it. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy seems to think rummels ideas are mainstream and not fringe [3] mark nutley (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My ears and eyes are now WIDE OPEN. In your next post, quote and cite an RS that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory". Even more credit to you, if it's something you've posted to me already. BigK HeX (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK; first step, a clarification: The policy do *not* require a reliable tertiary source. This is because it would make it impossible to establish anything, since any source can be claimed to be fringe unless there is a tertiary source claiming it's not fringe. Hence, if we came up with a tertiary source, you would just again just claim it's fringe, and require a source to show that the tertiary source isn't fringe, etc, etc, forever. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow! Will you post the RS or just tell us you have none?!!

Let's get away from any nonsense referring to the posting of just any tertiary source --- obviously, we're talking about getting a RELIABLE source here, and not blogs or obscure publications unreviewed by the mainstream. We can worry about whatever source you post AFTER you actually post it for us. So, if you truly want to end the unproductive back-and-forth then post only ONE of the two, please --- a quote and citation for a reliable source that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory or a statement declaring you have none at this time. PLEASE. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "any" tertiary source. My point is that you require me to find a tertiary source. Policy does not require this. Why it doesn't require this I just explained above. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that only one of us is quoting policy. As a matter-of-fact, let me quote the WP:FRINGE page for you for the tenth time.

"Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community."

Let me guess... you didn't hear that...?

Feel free to reply with yet another post that lacks an RS of the type described very explicitly in Wikipedia directives and given in straightforward English, but an attempt on your part to filibuster would be rather transparent, though. So far the only question is how long you are going to do everything except provide a reliable source that documents the current level of acceptance for Rummel's theory, per policy. BigK HeX (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, once again then, with different emphasis for clarity: OK; first step, a clarification: The policy do not require a reliable tertiary source. This is because it would make it impossible to establish anything, since any source can be claimed to be fringe unless there is a tertiary source claiming it's not fringe. Hence, if we came up with a tertiary source, you would just again just claim it's fringe, and require a source to show that the tertiary source isn't fringe, etc, etc, forever. What in this is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that your post did not contain even one RS, there's a good bit that is unclear. Since you continue to assert that you've shown that Rummel's theory is not fringe, perhaps you have a superior understanding of the directives from the WP:FRINGE page. There's only one of us actually quoting policy, so I'll ask that you briefly explain what understanding you come to from your reading of WP:FRINGE, where it says:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

A good explanation of what the above passage (especially the part in bold) means to you might do much to make things much clearer. So, please enlighten me. BigK HeX (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Good, it's going forward, you stop requiring a tertiary source to show that something is not fringe.

2. The passage above refers to when reporting levels of acceptance. That is if you want to say in the article "theory X is generally accepted amongst scholars" you need to find a textbook or equivalent. As you have dutifully shown, there are none to be found on this topic, which, surprise surprise, is the reason this article does not claim any such thing. The passage also says that if you are mentioning a theory that is fringe, you must report this.

3. The relevant quotes from WP:FRINGE is: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. and Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence.

So the question the, what is the fringe theory here, which is the mainstream and which is the fringe. The theories in consideration here are two:

a. Did some communist regimes engage in mass killings?

b. Is the communist ideology somehow a part cause of these mass killings?

Roughly you can split possible answers into "yes" and "no" on both accounts. The deletionists here has after much ado accepted that some communist regimes *did* engage in mass killings, so point a is now finished. With regards to point b, of course a tertiary source would be good, but as shown above it's not required, because requiring it would lead to infinite regression of tertiary sources.

For the actual question of which standpoint that actually *is* fringe, take a look at section 3 of the article, and notice how after a year of debating you deletionists have failed to come up with any reliable source that says "No the ideology was not a cause" while Rummel, Rosefielde, Goldhagen, Conquest, Gray, Watson, Pipes, Hicks, Courtois, Hertzke and Johnson some all blame ideology in one way or another. Weitz, Valentino, Mann, Semelin, Thompson and Rappaport seem to neither blame nor exonerate ideology. Not one single reliable source have been found that says that ideology was blameless.

Then which opinion about point b is mainstream and which is fringe, really? Right. The idea that communism is at least partly to blame is clearly the mainstream, while the idea that it is not to blame at all is clearly fringe. Now obviously, the deletionists are going to continue to stick their heads in their walrus buckets, so what to do about that?

Well, we do this:

I. Not claim in the article that any theory is generally accepted. (check)

II. Not claim in the article that any theory is fringe. (check)

III. Present *all* scholars that have an opinion on the topic, and give each of them the same weight. (check)

This way we are not giving undue weight to anything outside reliable sources, and we are not giving undue weight to any particular opinion in the dispute. No OR, no SYN, no UNDUE and all RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Here is an assertion that Rummel relied on anti-semitic sources when estimating killings in Yugoslavia (Igny (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

The question if he is correct is another question than if he is fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When a respectable article says he relied on unreliable data, hearsay and biased sources, that is in plain English is equal to "fringe" (Igny (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

No, it is most definitely not. Please read WP:FRINGE to learn what the word means. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you questioning my learning capabilities here? (Igny (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Please stay on topic for this section. Please take this learning question elsewhere. Bobanni (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Rummel wrote two books based on the same data, Death by Government (1997) and Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900 (1999). The second book was published by the academic press and is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A "Google Book Search Case Study" published by Google about Transaction Publishers states in part that, Transaction Publishers is widely recognized as a major independent academic publisher of books, well-defined series, and serial publications in the social sciences.[4] Lt.Specht (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Leutnant, but independent means outside the mainstream academic community, in fact it is a euphemism for neoconservative. The pubishing company is run by Irving Horowitz. One neocon working in his basement does not an academic publisher make. (Hauptmann) TFD (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

on all of the claims above, TFD. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you need sources to show that a publisher uses peer-review. However, here is a link to their website. TFD (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No we don't, and anyway all of your claims above are incorrect, IMO. So , TFD. On all of it please. You are not a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

His book was published in the academic press and when he relates how the Black Book is seen by other writers, he is reporting on what the mainstream view is. He happens to share that view. The Foreward to the Black Book also refers to criticism the book received. And no I am not a reliable source (in fact people are not reliable sources, writings are), which is why I presented a reliable source. TFD (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

when he relates how the Black Book is seen by other writers, he is reporting on what the mainstream view is. - Says you. But you are not a reliable source, so your statements of who is mainstream and who is fringe, which so evidently is based solely on who you agree or disagree with, continue to be irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) WP:RS does not require that book publishers use peer-review. That is a non-starter as an issue. Collect (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Rummel is a well respected academic in the field of Genocide Studies - although there is little evidence presented that he is considered a "fringe" scholar. Bobanni (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have searched all over and plenty of support for this work, none which call him fringe. Do you have a source for that please? mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that supports his theories or at least treats it seriously? TFD (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a couple of hundred? [5] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that supports his theories or at least treats it seriously? TFD (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I follow the first link, I find, "In the statistical section, I have correlated the HERMES indices with three independent measures of domestic political violence across 37, 37, and 10 countries (Rummel, 1963....)"[6] This does not tell me anything about how the author of Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values responded to Rummel's views on communism. TFD (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Need verification that Black Book of Communism is a fringe publication not accepted in the mainstream

There is a lot of discussion suggesting that Black Book of Communism is fringe publication not accepted in the mainstream. This figures quite prominently in many editing decisions. I have done some quick search to explore this connection and have come up empty. Can anyone direct me to publications and reviews that can be used to verify these assertions? Bobanni (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't really verify that it is fringe (which is why the accusations are so problematic). You can however verify that something is *not* fringe. [7], [8]. Doesn't look fringe to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since fringe theories are by definition ignored by the academic community, one would not expect to see them analyzed in mainstream sources on the subject. However some academic writers have written about the theories advanced in the introduction to the Black Book. In French writers and the politics of complicity (JHU Press, 2006), Richard J. Golsan accuses Courtois of historical revisionism.[9] There are many other high quality sources that similarly dismiss Courtois' historical theories with similar criticisms, which I could list if required. Some have already been mentioned in past discussions. TFD (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, his numbers are probably inflated. So we don't use them. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we rationalize this with other sources that others that take a different view such as review in Canadian Journal of History August 1, 2001 by Jolanta T.Pekacz

"The Black Book of Communism, a collective work of a group of European scholars published first in French in 1997, is the first global balance sheet of crimes against humanity committed by communist regimes since the October Revolution in 1917 in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union's European satellites, and the Soviet-backed countries in Asia and the Third World. The authors amassed a huge amount of material from the best available sources, including newly opened Soviet archives, which reveal the unprecedented cruelty and scale of communist genocide. After eighty years of communism the cumulative total of its victims is estimated by the authors at between 85 and 100 million (by comparison, the Nazis were responsible for about 25 million deaths). This record makes communism responsible for the largest political carnage in history"

Bobanni (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Golsans book is an attempt to stamp Courtois as a fascist by guilt by association. It takes up complicity by French authors, which is definitely something that happened a lot, but ignores the fact that most of the French intellectuals who were aligned with anti-democrats were communists. There is a reason the book is about "the 1940's and 1990's", because in between the complicity was all communist. Which he just ignores. There is a reason it has 1 citation on Google Scholar. :-)

In short: The "deletionists" here has been looking for excuses to ignore these sources since the article was created last year. They have failed. Give up. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Pekacz's article is a book review.[10] It is not even an area that she writes about.[11][12] Many books are reviewed in peer-reviewed journals, but that does not elevate the books or the reviews to peer-reviewed literature. Also book reviews are written at the time of publication, and therefore do not incorporate academic criticism which of course would not yet have been published. (I can provide more information about this anomaly if you like.) She does say,

And yet the book was acclaimed a "highly controversial bestseller." How can an account of facts be controversial?

The controversy was partly sparked by Stephane Courtois, who in the introduction to the volume compared communism's "class genocide" with Nazism's "race genocide" and classified both as crimes against humanity. Such classification implies, of course, that communist crimes should be subject to moral condemnation and legal judgement the same way the Nazis' crimes have been. Yet, communism has never had its Nuremberg and it may never have. Debates as to what extent the comparison between communism and Nazism is legitimate divided their participants, including the authors of The Black Book.

Certainly Pekacz is correct in saying that the Black Book is the first book that attempts to catalog the crimes of Communism and that it has used sources not previously available. Later scholars have ignored the connections drawn in the introduction and rejected the conclusions reached on numbers, although they have accepted the validity of primary documents in the archives of Eastern Europe, which were first examined by the authors of the Black Book.

Golsan is a noted scholar on French intellectual history, and his view of the book is a mainstream view. See his cv. He correctly notes that the Black Book's introduction was based on the views of François Furet and Ernst Nolte, both of whom were highly controversial and whose views have received the same criticism that the Black Book did.

A clear distinction must be made however between attempts to deny or minimize crimes committed by Communist regimes (which scholars do not do) and acceptance of Courtois's opinions. Even if the Black Book had been highly regarded, we still would have to report that it is one of a range of opinions, rather than the authoritative interpretation.

TFD (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's also worth noting here that most of the scholarly disagreement of this topic is about how many died, not that communist regimes did a lot of mass killings. So in any case of where this article mentions numbers, it would be prudent to mention several sources and a "between X and Y", and not just one number. (That is, exactly when it comes to the Black Book, and not exactly at all when it comes to your comment about Golsan). --OpenFuture (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please explain your comment, "That is, exactly when it comes to the Black Book, and not exactly at all when it comes to your comment about Golsan". Exactly what? Also, while we could present a range, we should also point out which figures are more accepted, which can be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right. (And not exactly right, when it comes to Golsan). Sorry for being unclear. We should not present any numbers that can not be reliably sourced. All of the sources for numbers mentioned in this discussion are reliable (unless I've missed a mention of some obscure one) but Courtois numbers are not generally accepted. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still missing your point about Golsan. What is "exactly right"? TFD (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again: What you said about Golsan is *not* exactly right. In fact, it's wrong. The rest I agree with. Hence the "exactly" comment. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is not "exactly" right about what I said about him? TFD (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

and his view of the book is a mainstream view. - You have no sources to claim that. As usual you just, with no support or reason, proclaim those you agree with as "mainstream" and all though you disagree with as "fringe". You are not a reliable source, so you should stop that, but I have no hope that you will. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts...." By the way, why does this bother you? Must all your views be the same as those held by most social scientists? TFD (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not bother me, and no, in contrast to you I do not believe that anyone who does not agree with my automatically is fringe. Now please find a reference text on Mass killings under Communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the result of my Google scholar search. TFD (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You can not determine the majority viewpoint through commonly accepted reference texts, because there are no commonly accepted reference texts. BTW, could you explain that to Snoweded? I've tried, but failed. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded fully understands that, you need to understand that it means you can not assert the "inherent in communism" argument is the dominant one --Snowded ^TALK 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing the article doesn't assert any argument as dominant, then. What Snowded doesn't understand is that if you merge all those opinions in that section together, that's WP:SYN unless Snowded can find a reliable tertiary source that does so, And as we see, the lack of textbooks indicates that it may not be so easy. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is built around that theory very clearly suggesting it as dominant. BigK HeX (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, the structure and content are being used to make a political point without any supporting source to justify it. The fact that there are no tertiary sources means that we have to be very careful to avoid an implied POV, it might even question the existence of the article (the material belong elsewhere). There is no tertiary source to justify the subject headings of the section or their ordering. WP:QUOTE comes into play here as well, in particular "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." --Snowded ^TALK 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No it's not built around that theory. It's built around the "theory" that many communist regimes engaged in mass killings. This is so generally accepted it's even accepted by the deletionists in here, as shown by numerous discussions about that issue before. The argument now is about the theory that communist ideology is the cause. The article is *not* built around that theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Harvard University Press does not consider it fringe, look at their writeup [13] mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Balance

Having recently come to this article (and almost wishing I hadn't) it seems confused in purpose and deeply ideological in nature

• To list mass killings under communist regimes is obviously legitimate, some of the horror stories of the last Century are all there
• However there seems to be a strong editorial position in the article which seeks to argue that such horror is an inevitable consequence of Communism. Such a view is present in the literature, but there appears to be a desire to keep stacking in more and more quotes, when the point can be made once that such a position is held with some references.
• We have the frequent US confusion which equates anything left wing (by US standards) with communism, where the writing is in effect a polemic for a particular variety of capitalism
• In terms of balance capitalism has killed at least as many if not more people by neglect (and sometimes deliberately) and there are cases of near genocide (Australian Aboriginals for one) arising from indifference. I was always taught that a sin of omission is as great as a sin of commission.

I'd suggest that the "explanatory" sections need to be radically cut down and the reporting of events (which is anything should be expanded) have any ideological content removed. --Snowded ^TALK 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Many agree with your observations (especially #2). There is an small army of editors who rather prefer a presentation of the information that keeps the current blatant ideological writing. BigK HeX (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

However there seems to be a strong editorial position in the article which seeks to argue that such horror is an inevitable consequence of Communism. - Where does that seem to be such an editorial position? Can you point it out so it can be rectified?

In terms of balance capitalism has killed at least as many if not more people by neglect (and sometimes deliberately) and there are cases of near genocide (Australian Aboriginals for one) arising from indifference. - Then it's also the fault of trees, because they are also indifferent to the suffering of Aboriginals. And rocks. And Fishes. I look forward to "Mass killings caused by the indifference of Crustaceans". :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Section 3.1 needs to be cut back to a paragraph with citations, at the moment its a political list

At the risk of giving a 101 lecture in ethics, a tree can not be held responsible if someone is mugged under its boughs, but we would take a very different view of a human being simply stood there and watched it happen. As to crustaceans, well hiding in shells to escape reality comes to mind. --Snowded ^TALK 04:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Section 3.1 now outlines several different scholarly opinions on the subject. Cutting it down to one paragraph with citations is impossible while preserving NPOV and not giving one or a few particular scholars WP:UNDUE weight. Also I don't see what the problem is with that section from the issues you stated above. That section doesn't have any "editorial position". It just outlines available scholars view of things. If you think there is a scholar who is missing or shouldn't be in there, that would make sense, but this request doesn't. I thought your problem was with the article in general. Now it seems your problem with the article is that you don't like what it says. Well, that can't be helped.

And at the risk of giving a 101 lecture in economics, capitalism is not a person. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

They are all making very similar points, the long list is an attempt to give undue weight to a particular explanation amongst several

At the risk of a 101 lecture in systems and cognition (as well as ethics) the economic systems we adopt either as a result of upbringing or as a result of deliberate choice produce moral consequences --Snowded ^TALK 05:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although a couple of the ideas are the same, most of them are actually quite different. They don't contradict each other, so they could be merged, but we can't do that, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS if you can find one reliable source that takes a look at the other research and summarizes it, then that would solve the problem. Claiming that it gives undue weight to one view because it includes many is kinda strange. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The section concerned argues that it is the nature of communism which is the cause of the problem, it doesn't require every single variation of that to be listed with multiple quotes many (such as the Trotsky one) completely out of context. --Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

it doesn't require every single variation of that to be listed - Yes, it does, as there is no tertiary sources summarizing this and coming up with a consensus view on what in the communist ideology that causes mass killings. If we were to change that and say "Many scholars believe mass killings are caused by the nature of communist ideology", that would be WP:SYN.

You seem to be saying that by listing every scholars view, the view that communism was responsable gets undue weight. This is clearly not true, because each scholar is given about the same place. When doing that, the opinion that the ideology is to blame clearly has more weight, but it's also clearly not *undue* since this in fact is the most common view amongst scholars. The problem here is simply that you don't like it. But Wikipedia doesn't care what you, I or any one else here likes and doesn't like.

I do agree the Trotsky quote can go. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please try and address content issues. Its not just listing multiple authors, but its also extensive quotes. An encyclopedia summarises it does not list everything. There may be a few strands in the thought that can be summarised with references to the authors. Please advise your third party source which says this is the most common view --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

but its also extensive quotes. - So? They are all "extensively" quoted. That's not undue weight.

There may be a few strands in the thought that can be summarised with references to the authors. - That would be WP:SYN.

Please advise your third party source which says this is the most common view - Again: If there was a tertiary source, *then* we could summarize. There isn't and hence we can't. Your objections are invalid. You are welcome with new objections if you have any, but the claim of undue weight is clearly false. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK so your comment that this was the majority view is not supported? I think you are confused on WP:SYN but we are not going to get much further discussing it one to one here. If I get time in the next week I will draft a change. --Snowded ^TALK 09:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly the majority view, as you can see from the article. No, we don't have a tertiary source stating it. Is this somehow confusing for you? I think it's pointless to draft a change unless you understand why we are listing each scholar separately instead of making a WP:SYN out of it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right in a sense that article clearly presents it as the majority view. But Showded is right saying that the article is unbalanced by giving undue weight to a particular point of view. (Igny (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

That is neither what I said, nor correct. I did not say that the article presents it as the majority view. I said that it clearly *is* the majority view. The article however does not present it as such, and that's because it can not do that as that would be WP:SYN unless we have a tertiary source, which we don't. Your argumentless repetition is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have explained above why it presents *all* views of *all* notable scholars in the topic. This is obviously *not* giving undue weight to any view. If you still think giving equal weight to all scholars gives undue weight to any of them, please explain how. But stop just repeating that it's undue weight. You do need to explain *how*, otherwise your argumentation is just tendentious editing, with the intention of disrupting the constructive discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

if your argument was correct then every wikipedia article would be nothing but long lists of statements by different scholars. This is an encyclopedia not a list of references and as you have admitted you have no third party source to establish that the section concerned is a dominant source. The balance of the article presents it as dominant and has far too many direct quotations - you need to go read the manual of style. --Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

if your argument was correct then every wikipedia article would be nothing but long lists of statements by different scholars. - Why would that be? That doesn't follow.

as you have admitted you have no third party source to establish that the section concerned is a dominant source - That sentence makes no sense. An section is not a source. Of course the section is not a source.

The balance of the article presents it as dominant - What is "it"? It presents all views available from reliable sources. It never claims any of these views is a dominant view. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get the message, you are closed to argument on this one. I'll draft an alternative and check to policy then we can see where we go with it. --Snowded ^TALK 17:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why an argument is wrong is not being closed to argument. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the article implies that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings we should explain what connection is made by by Furet, Nolte and Courtois. The Communists killed over one hundred million people, more than the Nazis and were therefore a greater evil. The killing of kulaks and cossak was not different from killing Jews. The death of a Ukranian Kulak child deliberately starved by the policies of Stalinism is equal to the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto deliberately starved by Nazis. Under French law both crimes would have been treated the same. The international Jewish community bears responsibility for diminishing discussion of Communist murders while giving undue attention to the crimes of Nazis. Auschwitz was after all modelled on the gulags. Considering the severe threat posed by Communism, the actions of Nazi Germany at least had a rational basis. TFD (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Um -- the article states that mass killings have occurred under oommunist regimes. It makes no implications otherwise, except as stated in reliable sources. Discourses on other killings do not actually benefit this talk page one whit. As for your venture into what may be the issue of Holocaust denial - I find that quite regrettable. Collect (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am, as I stated, indicating the views of Furet, Nolte and Courtois. Neither I nor they said anything about Holocaust denial. My point is that if we are to use the Black Book as a source then the article should reflect what it says. TFD (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No we should not, it is being used as a source for communist atrocities, not nazi ones. There is no need at all to mention nazi`s in this article unless to say communists were worse of course mark nutley (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the point made, that Communism is worse than Nazism, that certain people including Communists, do not want us to know this, and if we use the Black Book as a reliable source, then we should include this. TFD (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious, not so long ago you were arguing against the BBOC as a source, now you want to use it? Why the change of heart? And what is the proposed text and were shall it be going? mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source. However as I have said before you decided to join this conversation, the views in the Black Book and similar sources could be presented provided reliable sources were used. TFD (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark: Do *not* chastise people for changing their mind when they are wrong. It's a good thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture: Do *not* put words into people's mouths about them people "changing their minds" in order to claim another one of your false "victories." It's a bad thing. BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing I didn't then. Maybe you should concentrate more on constructive debate relating to the article instead of discussing other editors? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

we should explain what connection is made by by Furet, Nolte and Courtois - Sure. Can you explain how this is NOT done today when it comes to Courtois? Do you have the sources you are referring to with Furet and Nolte? Can you maybe summarize their views as expressed in WP:RS? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtois is only briefly mentioned in the article. Despite numerous citations to the Black Book that he edited they are used to support facts from articles in the book rather than to support Courtois' views. TFD (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, the citations are used to support facts, and not opinions, except under Section 3, Proposed causes, which is the section that deals with scholars opinions on that subject. Can you now please explain exactly what you find is wrong with this? Do you have the sources you are referring to with Furet and Nolte? Can you maybe summarize their views as expressed in WP:RS? Can you please post here just what it is from the two sources (Brinks and Wheatcroft) that you want included in the article as you were asked earlier? --OpenFuture (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Numerous citations??? I count only 17 different citations (33abc, 34, 35, 55, 67, 75, 121abc, 125, 151ab) where the BBOC is the source out of over 165. Furet and Nolte are irrelevant as they aren't even cited in the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Take the BigK HeX Challenge(s)

I've pored through the first part of the article, and its problems seem about as big an atrocity as those the article covers. But anyways, per WP:PROVEIT, I am challenging editors to establish the basic utility of various parts of the material once and for all, as well as using this section to discern some of the purposes of this article. Over the course of the next few days or weeks, I hope that we'll get basic answers to burning questions. I guess, let's start with this:

One of the article's purposes

Clearly the article will describe some theories regarding possible links between communist ideology and mass killings. Does any editor here believe that this article should suggest a linkage as an idea of prominence in relevant academic circles? Alternatively, does any editor object to the notion that theories of a linkage are just not showing significant acceptance in the academic mainstream?

Feel free to respond in one of the areas below. BigK HeX (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This question has nothing to do with the articles purpose. Please change the heading. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the article's purpose? What change would you make to the article's heading? TFD (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Responses of editors amenable to the idea that the links are not significant mainstream views

• Its a linkage held by some significant academics, but there is no evidence that it is the dominant academic position and the section is excessive and too prominent in its position. The material and formatting are being used to suggest that this is the dominant view--Snowded ^TALK 05:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Responses of editors objecting to the idea that the links are not significant mainstream views

• We have at least ten academics supporting the idea of a linkage, and exactly ZERO academics opposing it. It's obviously mainstream. This has been shown multiple times above. This question is intentional disruption, and proof that BigK Hex is not interested in constructive debate, but just reiterating the same answered questions until he wears down resistance. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Plenty of sources linking the two, it is obviously mainstream. We even have an economist looking at it from an economic perspective saying communist ideology is the cause of mass killings mark nutley (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Clearly mainstream according to the sources cited. Maybe in China and Russia there are folks who say that Communism and mass killings under Communist regimes are not related? - if so it's up to editors who know about these folks to put in their views. We can't read minds and we can't say "Well all the evidence is on one side of the fence, but we sorta like the other side for some reason." In short this seems to be a restatement of the old saw that this article is just a synthesis of unrelated events - that argument has been rejected so many times and in so many places on Wikipedia that I consider it disruptive for anybody to try to bring it back. Smallbones (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

OpenFuture please deal with content issues not the contributor --Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The content issues have been dealt with. As in this case, his claimed issue simply does not exist. We have showed this to you and BigK Hex multiple times. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you have made arguments that other editors disagree with. Learn to live with that you do not own this article --Snowded ^TALK 06:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you disagree. Equally obvious is that you are incorrect. And that you continue to drag up the same answered questions over, and over, and over, and over. It's not constructive debate. See Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's illogically asanine and/or willfully blind to claim that "zero academic opposition" necessarily means that "something is mainstream" while overlooking the very real possibility that there's "zero academic opposition" exactly BECAUSE THE VIEWS HAVE GARNERED NO SIGNIFICANT MAINSTREAM ATTENTION. And that is, of course, why policy already explicitly makes the exact same point that I just have. BigK HeX (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We are talking here about ideas that has received hundreds of citations in other academic papers, by some of the leading scholars on the subject. They have clearly gathered significant mainstream attention, and claiming the opposite is simply absurd. You know this. You just refuse to accept it, which per definition is disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is quite plain, and it certainly isn't on this end. However, I'm not here to debate the issue, so you can continue prattling on about what *I* supposedly know without any further interruption from me. For now, I'm only interested in a clarification of people's stances and their WP:RS's. BigK HeX (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, you did not ask if it has gathered mainstream attention, but mainstream *acceptance* and that's what I answered. You are clearly conflating several things: 1. Mainstream attention. 2. Mainstream acceptance. 3. The articles purpose. Perhaps this conflating of several issues is what prevents you from see what is so blatantly obvious: That the position that communist ideology is a significant contributor to the cause of mass killings under communist regimes. It's also worth noting that even though this clearly is an idea that *has* a mainstream acceptance, the article never claims this because that would require a tertiary source. So not only is the question conflating three issues, it's basically irrelevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't conflate anything. I just pointed out the poor logic required by what was explicitly discussed in your first comment. You later added to the discussion a point about citations, which moved the question from attention to acceptance. In any case ... as I've said, I don't really care about debating the fact that you object (at this point, anyways) --- I'm only here for clarification of where people stand. BigK HeX (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, what? Citations does not move anything from attention to acceptance. You show mainstream *attention* by quotes and reviews. *Acceptance* is harder, and is best done with tertiary sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You have argued this case before and several of us disagree with you. BigK has attempted to get the discussion on to a less polemical base and your first response is to say that everyone else is wrong and you are right, change the title, tell other editors that they are obviously incorrect and accuse them of disruptive editing. I have only been involved in this page for a short time and I am very concerned about the WP:OWN issues. I suggest you allow this process to run and then lets review the position. Mediation and NPOV processes are also available and I suspect they will have to be activated. I have split this out as a sub-section to keep the responses easy to review. --Snowded ^TALK 07:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't agree. You have said so multiple times. I have answered all your questions, and showed that you are wrong. You still don't agree. Pointing out again that you don't agree is hardly constructive. Neither is posing the question again, for the umpteenth time. You aren't going to get a different answer. These views are mainstream. That you don't like it doesn't change it. Asking if they are mainstream is not going to change it. The answer will remain the same. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

re: "showed that you are wrong". It may comfort you to believe this, but I find that notion amusing (and patently false). BigK HeX (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, can you please cite one peer-reviewed academic article that supports the theories that you consider to be "mainstream". TFD (talk) 07:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you exclude all reliable sources except peer-reviewed articles? Should this article not have the same policies as the rest of Wikipedia? And also, why do you refuse to answer the questions posed to you? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The preeminence of peer reviewed material is Wikipedia policy. If your claim is a strong as you assert then you should be able to answer the question --Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but notice how he excludes peer-reviewed *books*. There are plenty of reliable sources answering his question. However, few of them are *articles*. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well in my experience in any field the absence of peer reviewed articles at best indicates a lack of interest. Are you saying you have none? --Snowded ^TALK 07:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowden ... but heck, I'll bite. Post a quote and page number from a book, if you would please. BigK HeX (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m a bit behind here, is it an article linking communists to mass killings that your after? mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, more one in a peer reviewed journal in the field as a whole --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we have Valentino communist mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia; ethnic killing in Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda; and counter-guerrilla killing in Guatemala and Afghanistan Rummel [14] Krain [15] All of these link communist ideology to mass killing Waller [16] Staub [17] from a psychological perspective on ideology and mass killings mark nutley (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - the one that is fully available on line is very useful for a project I am looking at in Germany. That one links "evil" to general ideological principles and includes Mi Lai and other the cases. The abstracts for the others seem to imply power etc. as motivations. I'm open to seeing something more specific. --Snowded ^TALK 12:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice that none of the editors here claim that communism is the *only* ideology that causes mass killings. No editor claims that the way it causes mass killings are different from any other totalitarian ideology. Perhaps the scholars that are cited claim that, I sure have not read all of them. But I don't claim that, and I haven't seen anyone else claim that either. So something more specific would indeed be interesting, but it's not relevant for this article. For this article, all we need is to find as many reliable sources as possible discussing the cause of these mass killings, and quoting each sources opinion of that issue in section 3. That's it. Then we fulfill all Wikipedia policies in this regard. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX: Post a quote and page number from a book, if you would please. - The whole section is full of links to reliable sources, that happen to be books. TFD's argument is that they aren't peer-reviewed *articles*. They are books. Books published by what is according to TFD, evil neoconservative non-scholarly publishing houses that publish books they know are full of pov falseness. The problem with this is that he simply is wrong. The sources are reliable sources according to normal Wikipedia policy. But since they are books, he require articles. When given articles, I have no doubt that he will claim these peer-reviewed journals are fringe neocons as well. He claims that of everyone that he does not agree with. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Snowded I think this is what your after, Communism has been such an ideology mark nutley (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, but I think what it shows is that there is a body of theory which shows that strong ideological positions can lead to mass killings, and that communism can (and has) been an example of that, along with the Nazis and in some literature the good old USA. They don't say that all strong ideological positions lead to mass killings. The (sic) ideological position of that first major section is written as if communism necessarily gave rise to .... Oh, and OpenFuture, these constant tirades are becoming very irritating and disruptive to making any progress. Please stop--Snowded ^TALK 15:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it says "Ideologies are almost always part of the genocidal process" and that "communism has been such an ideology" That certainly ties mass killing to communist ideology. Have i missed something here? Was not a link between the two what you were after? mark nutley (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand what the literature says about this. I am quite happy to accept the literature says that strong state backed ideology can lead to mass killings. I can find material on that on my own bookshelves. Ditto I am happy to accept that communism has been one of those ideologies. Those two statements also seem supported by the material you have helpfully provided. It doesn't follow from those statements that mass killing is an inherent consequence of communism (although I accept there are fringe theories that would argue that position). The material as provided seems to argue for a much more balanced (and shorter) section on causes. This article is after all really about documenting the killings. --Snowded ^TALK 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The point was that governments would kill people in order to impose an ideology, not that the ideology commanded they kill. For example in an attempt to impose liberal democracy on Vietnman, the U. S. government killed over one million people. No one would argue that democracy leads to mass killings. TFD (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok i see were this is at :), sorry i had it back to front. I thought the arguing was about weather or not communist regimes committed mass killings for ideological purposes, whic hwe all seem to agree that they have done, but not because of the ideology but because they are imposing it, is that what you guys are saying? mark nutley (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, or more precisely not necessarily as a result of the ideology but definately as a result of the imposition, further than its not a particular feature of communism but of all state imposed ideologies--Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But only communism and facisim have lead to such extremes of mass killing. The Khmer Rouge are a prime example of ideology gone to far. Can you consolidate your point for me please, what exactly is it are we discussing in regards to article content? mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Communism and facisim in the past century yes, but so as Colonialism and a few others. The point is that the early section gives the impression that communism by and of its nature produces mass killings. That is not supported by the bulk of the literature which is closer the position I think we have just agreed above. We need something more balanced --Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I suspect i have been corralled but lets see, i am now under the assumption you have a proposal for either the lede or the direction the articl should take, lets have your offer :) mark nutley (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not corralled, more like a real engagement and its appreciated. I will look to draft something but I have little time this week--Snowded ^TALK 17:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded: They don't say that all strong ideological positions lead to mass killings. - Eh.... obviously no. If you have a strong ideological standpoint against all forms of violence it's for example pretty hard to cause mass killings. :-) I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...

The (sic) ideological position of that first major section is written as if communism necessarily gave rise to - What "first major section"? The first major section is the terminology. It's clearly not written as such. Do you mean the intro? What in the intro do you think it written like that?

It doesn't follow from those statements that mass killing is an inherent consequence of communism - And neither does this article claim that it is.

The material as provided seems to argue for a much more balanced (and shorter) section on causes. - It is balanced, and it is balanced by giving equal weight to all reliable sources on the topic. It could be shortened, yes, but only by shortening the quotes from the scholars.

Yep, or more precisely not necessarily as a result of the ideology but definately as a result of the imposition, further than its not a particular feature of communism but of all state imposed ideologies -Absolutely. No ideology can lead to mass death unless it's imposed, because otherwise people would simply stop doing what the ideology says, way before any mass death happens. The point here, at least as my non-RS view is concerned, is that Marxism says is should be imposed by violence. Marxism says that capitalism will not go away except by violent and bloody revolution. So following the ideology dogmatically will indeed lead to mass killings. But therefore saying that mass killings *will* follow from the ideology is wrong, as most people will stop trying to impose a damaging ideology as soon as it shows itself to be damaging. This is why democratic socialism never caused any mass killings. You need the combination of the ideology and somebody willing to follow it, even if it means killing people.

but so as Colonialism and a few others - Just a small nag. ;) Colonialism isn't an ideology. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I do of course realise that you are right, your profound insight as to the inevitable link between adoption of communism and the subsequent mass genocide of innocent freedom loving folk is masterful. Declaring your position in the above edit is helpful in understanding the motivation for your position. On a more serious note, how does your particular Weltanschauung handle Ayn Rands vindication of the genocide of native americans and mass slaughter of Arabs on the grounds that they had failed to properly use their property rights? --Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, it's probably helpful if you don't assume a lot of things about other editors, especially since you evidently will assume the wrong things. Don't try to guess my political positions, my experience is that you will be completely and utterly wrong, as you are in this case. I despise Ayn Rand with all my heart. Although your comment was insulting, it is not as insulting as you think. It however insulting, but not for the reasons you thought. It doesn't help that you the also are incorrect about Ayn Rand. I expect an apology, and that you the re-respond to what I wrote above without insults, as nothing I said there is the least bit insulting. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to express a bit of zeal in feeling slighted by something in Snowded's post. However, if it about possibly being classified as a Randian of some sort, I'd say that Snowded doesn't actually suggest that you like (or dislike) Ayn Rand. Snowded merely mentions Rand as the attribution for other parts of the posted comments --- and it seems those other parts were the actual point of the post. It's possible that Snowded did actually intend to suggest you to be a Randian, though the words of the post above do not actually express such a classification, so if that's what you found insulting, an apology may not be forthcoming. BigK HeX (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you are just being silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No you are. My point was fairly simple - Rand has a distinct political ideology which allowed her to justify genocide, its another ideology and one which is capitalist in nature. So the question stands and if you want to condemn Rand in the process of answering then that is fine by me. Your misreading of that post is to my mind illustrative of your general inability to attend to points being made that you disagree with. So no apology I'm afraid, even for the sarcasm. --Snowded ^TALK 21:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how any of this have *anything* to do with this article, unless it was an attempt from you to smear me via guilt by association? So the question stands - No it doesn't. This is not "Mass killings under Randian regimes" and I have never said anything to defend Rand, neither has anyone here. It's just another silly disruptive tangent. Keep to the topic. You may wish to ignore my commend from 17:16 if you wish, but it would probably be more constructive if you answered it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you read that as "guilt by association"? The general point which is being made (although you may have missed it) is that mass killings may be linked to ideology rather than to a specific ideology. So I am afraid is is on topic and its not a disruptive tangent. You really need to stop delivering constant homilies to other editors and instead spend a little more time thinking about what is being said. --Snowded ^TALK 21:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How can I read it as anything else than guilt by association? Ayn Rand is completely irrelevant here, so I assumed your question was there under the assumption that I supported Ayn Rand. This apparently was a mistake, sorry about that.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be silly. I was trying to defuse tension over an "insult" which seemed to exist only in your mind. Apparently, trying to help you see an error in your understanding was pointless. BigK HeX (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. It would probably help if you used a less accusatory voice when "defusing" situations in the future. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, many slaughters are committed by civilian populations with no government direction. Where does "Marxism say that capitalism will not go away except by violent and bloody revolution"? Are you sure you do not mean anarcho-syndicalism? TFD (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does "Marxism say that capitalism will not go away except by violent and bloody revolution"? - Read some Marx. Start with the so called "Communist manifesto". Then continue with "Das Kapital". --OpenFuture (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And while you read that you could answer the questions posed to you earlier. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Communist Manifesto demands reforms, most of which have now been implimented. Das Kapital is an early analysis of capitalism. Neither calls for "violent and bloody revolution". Could you please provide a source for your opinions. TFD (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

Das Kapital makes it completely clear that peaceful revolution is impossible, the proletariat will be poorer and poorer until they rise up in revolution. Quoting it would require quoting the book in full, it's a complex work. And that's the end of *that* distraction. If you want to learn more we ca discuss this some other place.

I further note your continued refusal to answer the concrete questions posed to you. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Marx was describing historical events and projecting into the future. Revolutions, mostly led by classical liberals, were recurring events of the the 19th century. But whether or not they were violent depended on the reaction of the authorities. You might want to read these books and mainstream interpretations of them. TFD (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I already have. Maybe you should as well? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Next up, the challenge is to support the weight given to cover various topics. Policy advises that:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight".

Editors supporting material in the text will be challenged to provide evidence of its prominence or risk having the unsupported material deleted per policy with the presumption that it "does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not."

Please feel free to post your responses below. BigK HeX (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Provide evidence of prominence"? What does that mean, concretely? Are you confusing "prominence" with "notability"? Or do you simply want us to list the amount of quotes in RS the source has? That would be part evidence of what prominence each source has. Note that the policy says that they should be shown in proportion to the prominence, so even if you show that Pipes is not as prominent as Rummel, all that would happen is that Pipes quote gets smaller or Rummels gets bigger. Is that really an serious concrete issue you have with this article? That Pipes gets as much space as Rummel, even though Rummel is more prominent? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. BigK HeX (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So you ARE saying that the second biggest issue you have with this article is that Rummel should get twice as much space as Pipes? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure .... since, at this rate, Pipes is going to get zero  :-O

More seriously, what I'm saying seems to be pretty clear. I've said that I'm letting you guys provide evidence for the material you may support, at the moment. BigK HeX (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what you are saying is highly unclear, unless you are saying what I asked above. One problem is the "evidence of prominence". What exactly is that? And no, Pipes is not going to get zero. You can only remove him if he is not a reliable source, or not notable. But here you take up prominence, which is no reason to remove anything. So you continue to be unclear. This is shown by TFD's responses below, that clearly is no evidence of prominence at all. His calls of "fringe" has nothing to do with undue weight, which is the discussion here. So I'm at least not the only one confused, so you may want to clarify. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is quite clear; however, (and I mean no disrespect but) from what I've seen, you exhibit what seems to be a tendency to feign lack of understanding of policy when it demands RS's that you are unable to provide -- maybe I'm wrong. Anyways, POLICY is very explicit. Viewpoints get text proportional to their prominence --- it is extremely straightforward that if you can prove no actual prominence then the viewpoint will get no actual text in the Wiki article. So, if you really do support the inclusion of the challenged material, then you WILL have to take up the burden of proof. BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is *not* clear, and I have explained why, and TFD's edits show that he too does not understand what you say. Now you say "prove no actual prominence". That again makes no sense. Prominence in the usage in WP:NPOV is a relative term. There is no question of "no prominence". It's a reliable source, hence it has prominence. What you quote above has nothing to do with if the viewpoint gets listed or not, but how much weight it should be given. So I mean no disrespect, but I think it's fairly clear that you have misunderstood policy here. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to disagree with the notion that prominence problems can disqualify inclusion. Please see WP:NPOV, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not".

Also, one RS may be sufficient for WP:V. Unfortunately, you seem to be treating WP:V as a substitute for WP:NPOV, which certainly is not allowable. Material doesn't have to satisfy one policy or the other -- obviously, material must satisfy both. NPOV is being challenged. Are you going to step up and meet the challenge? BigK HeX (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is using anything for substitue here it's you. And you are trying to use NPOV as a substitute for RS.

Yes, you challenge NPOV. But then you ask for proof that it's a reliable source and can be used. Or possibly you are asking for proof that it's notable. But you are using the wording of undue weight, which is a different issue. Undue weight has nothing to do which sources gets listed. Only how much space is given to each viewpoint. So you are mixing up two separate issues. TFD is then adding to the confusion by mixing in another issue, namely his favourite; WP:FRINGE. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture says, "Undue weight has nothing to do which sources gets listed.".

Demonstrably false. To quote directly from WP:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight,

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not.

You don't have to like it, but it is written very explicitly right there in the policy. So, I see no further substantive objections from you and expect that I will have no further responses on this UNDUE issue, as policy is very clear. I expect that you will continue the attempted filibuster here, but please try to stick to just providing the evidence of prominence fro the viewpoints challenged here or just conceding the issue. Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that RJ Rummel and Pipes are opposing viewpoints, and that Pipes view is so unusual that it shouldn't be listed, and that the article therefore from there is undue weight?

please try to stick to just providing the evidence of prominence fro the viewpoints challenged here or just conceding the issue. - But you see "evidence of prominence" is a nonsense expression. We must be clear in what you want before we can provide evidence, and you are clearly confused on the issue of NPOV. You might as well ask us for evidence of jabberwocky. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not challenging NPOV for Rummel or Conquest at the moment ... so the first ones up will be:

Responses to prove prominence for the views of Worse than War -- Goldhagen

• Clearly a scholarly work - if you want to remove something because you think that it is not a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. I believe they've already weighed in on this, but if you want to get shot down again... Smallbones (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fringe Published by PublicAffairs, which "publishes mostly non-mainstream non-fiction books about politics and current affairs". Daniel Goldhagen's most notorious fringe book was Hitler's Willing Executioners, which "argued that ordinary Germans not only knew about, but actually supported the Holocaust". TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is fringe about this source? And what makes you think most germans did not know about the holocaust? Just saying it`s fringe does not make it so mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that the average person living in a country with press censorship and no freedom of speech would be aware of crimes committed by his government in Eastern Europe, when the average person in U. K. had no knowledge, and if he did know that there was anything he could do. But the point is Goldhagen's controversial views have never been published in academic journals and have been generally rejected. What do you think fringe means anyway? TFD (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What do i think fringe is? Fake moonlandings. However this guy is not as he has been published in academic journals[18] , why on earth would you say he has not? mark nutley (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

People are not reliable sources, writings are. Conspiracy theories are merely the most egregious example of fringe theories. TFD (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, "fringe" does not mean "controversial", anyhow. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD you said the guy had not been published in academia, yet he has. You say [[Hitler's Willing Executioners] was a fringe work but it is right there in that link i provided. Can you please respond to that, thanks mark nutley (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say he has "not been published in academia", I said, "Goldhagen's controversial views have never been published in academic journals". Do you understand the difference? TFD (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, i meant you said his views had not been published in acedemia, but they have. Please just look at the link i have provided mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Your link is to an interview. However, you are correct that Goldhagen has been published in academia. Here is a link to a description of an article he wrote that was included in a book published by Routledge. But that does not validate his writings published outside the academic mainstream. You can see the development of his thought. In the Routledge article he makes the valid point that there was no coercion on SS members and they were aware of and responsible for their actions. Later, he decides to include the entire German population, which is a fringe view. TFD (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is such a fringe view why are there so many hits on google scholar for it? [19] And if you think the german population did not know what was going on your naive mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Because so many people thought it was that bad? To quote from your search hits:

What makes the Goldhagen phenomenon so remarkable is that Hitler's Willing Executioners is not at all a learned inquiry. Replete with gross misrepresentations of the secondary literature and internal contradictions, Goldhagen's book is worthless as scholarship.

Just because something is discussed among scholars, does NOT mean that scholars accept the views. BigK HeX (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The next complete article from mark nutley's search says, "Goldhagen's approach becomes and eery mirror-image of how anti-Semites write about Jews". TFD (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Responses to prove prominence for the views of section within Totalitarianism at the crossroads. -- John Gray

• If you want to remove something because you think that it is not a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. They are probably tired of this type of thing coming from here, but if you want to get shot down again... Smallbones (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fringe Published by Irving Louis Horowitz' Transaction Publishers. John N. Gray actually wrote an article in the book, not the book itself. TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Gray is responsible for only a "section within" the book. (Although I see little evidence of academic prominence for the entire book itself ... but, nevermind what I don't see. Editors are being given the chance to show otherwise, if they care to keep the material.) BigK HeX (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gray is clearly a notable intellectual, so I think quotes attributable to him should not be treated as fringe. He does have idiosynchratic (that is not to say invalid) views on some subjects, so his POV might need to be handled with caution. I know nothing about this book, so I am talking in ignorance of what the consequences of my comment might be.--FormerIP (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While Gray is a notable academic, that does not validate his writings outside academic publishing. For example, his contributions in The Guardian, the New Statesman, and The Times Literary Supplement do not become elevated to high quality reliable sources just because he wrote them, but should be seen as having the same status of reliablity as any other column published in those papers. TFD (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: TFD will call everyone he doesn't agree with "neocon" and "fringe". You can ignore it, he has no basis for any of his claims. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes and no. I think very notable intellectuals (I'm talking about quite a restricted group of people) are unlikely ever to be fringe per se. Something by Gray in the New Statesman may be an RS for the attributed views of Gray which may be notable in and of themselves (not the same for factual information, of course). There may be other reasons to exclude this material, but I don't think fringe would be the right one. Do we know how well-cited the material in question is? --FormerIP (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

8 citations, IIRC. Though the cites are for the entire book, and not necessarily Gray's article. That pretty much translates to zero prominence in my reading of the issue, but editors supporting the material may have better evidence, which is why this talk page section exists. BigK HeX (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry, that was lazy of me. 8 is the answer from Google, which maybe indicates that this is not his most widely-appreciated of Gray's writings. But, all the same, I don't think we can say that where something is published is on its own indicative of fringe in the case of this type of author. --FormerIP (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine, if you felt like being a bit "lazy". (My dirty little secret is that I've already done the quick investigation, and these sources have been challenged here precisely because their prominence is nil, so far as I can tell. But, out of fairness, editors are being given the chance to provide better evidence than what I was able to find.) BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, Could you please avoid personal attacks. Theories that are only published outside academic publishers are by definition fringe. Can you please provide any peer-reviewed papers published in academic journals that support your opinions. It has nothing to do with my personal opinions, and everything to do with WP:RS. I have referred to writers by their ideological orientation, but I have always done it accurately. TFD (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. I have just, as a matter of recommendation to FormerIP, told him that he can ignore your statements that X is "fringe" or "neocon", as this is something you will label everyone you don't agree with without any basis. That is not a personal attack, that is a factually correct description of your behavior, something that you yourself through WQA and an ANI has clearly showed is perfectly permissible at Wikipedia. So stop accusing me of making personal attacks, when I don't. It could be seen as a personal attack. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, I disagree with that. Prominent academics often hold political views and involve themselves in the political arena, where their writings are not subject to the same scrutiny. Canada's Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff is a noted human rights expert, but that does not mean everything he posts to his party's website is reliable. Newton's theories of physics are taught in schools, but not his theories of alchemy. An example I came across was Arthur C. Brooks who is a noted expert on charitable giving. He published two books based on the same data. Compare the graphs he uses in the books.[20][21] Notice how in the first graph he omits Canada, Australia and N. Z. from the comparison in order to advance a theory about U. S. generosity. TFD (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, that is factually incorrect, and FormerIP is perfectly capable of making his own conclusions. Attacking an argument on the basis of your opinion of another editor is an argumentum ad hominem, a classical logical fallacy that someone of FormerIP's intellect and education would ignore. TFD (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Responses to prove prominence for the views of Communism: A History -- Richard Pipes

• • Clearly a scholarly work - if you want to remove something because you think that it is not a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. I believe they've already weighed in on this, but if you want to get shot down again... Smallbones (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fringe Published by Modern Library, a non-academic publishing house. The author, Richard Pipes, has extremely controversial views. TFD (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, why do you say that just because a book was not published by an academic house makes it fringe? And from what i see his views are only controversial to revisionist historians and those on the far left. mark nutley (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, what do you think that "fringe means"? Pipes views are certainly controversial among all mainstream historians. TFD (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source which says that please mark nutley (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not, you will have to determine for yourself whether Pipes' views are mainstream. TFD (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m afraid you shall have to, you are making a claim, either back it with a source or retract the claim mate mark nutley (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

He has his own entry in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia, published by Franz Steiner Verlag (2006),on the same page as David Icke![22]

Responses to prove prominence for the views of section within From the Gulag to the Killing Fields -- Applebaum

• Clearly a respected non-scholarly work - if you want to remove something because you think that it is not a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. Note that there is no requirement in WP:RS that every source has to be scholarly. I believe they've already weighed in on this, but if you want to get shot down again... Smallbones (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Fringe The book is published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a group "known for having distinctly American Conservative views". It was founded by Frank Chodorov and William F. Buckley. Also, the articles in the book, which are personal accounts, are primary sources. TFD (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that this is relevant, as you are neither answering what is asked for, nor is the question even sensible, but just out of interest: Why on earth do you think something is fringe just because it's conservative? Isn't this just proof of what I said earlier, that you call everything fringe when you don't agree with it? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I do not think something is fringe because it is conservative, communist, liberal or whatever. However it must be peer-reviewed and enter academic discourse. All the conservative and liberal academics mentioned here have published within the academic world and I have no objection about any of those sources being used. But common sense tells us that books published by a house that is openly critical of the academic world and has a political agenda are not mainstream. TFD (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Written by Paul Hollander who has has a Ph.D in Sociology from Princeton University, 1963 and a B.A. from the London School of Economics the publisher is not known for having distinctly American Conservative views they say they wish to promote a better understanding of the values and institutions that sustain a free and humane society and i see nothing wrong with either. Please retain a NPOV when looking at sources and keep your politics out of it mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)per WP:FRINGE Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence. ISI makes no pretense to be neutral. Also as stated the articles are personal accounts. --Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm .. no. Not written by Paul Hollander. He's the editor, but the accounts are primary sources. BigK HeX (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources published by anyone in a book become "secondary sources" - that is, the book is thus a secondary source by WP definition. And WP does not bar primary sources per se. Collect (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The words of primary sources magically become secondary sources? Err.. what??! BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 No secondary as they are in print and no longer verbal. And i can see no better source than peoples accounts of what happened, it is how we know about the likes of Josef Mengele are you saying the accounts on him are primary sources and unreliable? mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. Primary sources magically become secondary sources when the first-hand account is written. Ohhh....

I mean ... err WHATT??! BigK HeX (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I do not think something is fringe because it is conservative, communist, liberal or whatever. However it must be peer-reviewed and enter academic discourse. All the conservative and liberal academics mentioned here have published within the academic world and I have no objection about any of those sources being used. But common sense tells us that books published by a house that is openly critical of the academic world and has a political agenda are not mainstream. TFD (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not all sources need to be peer reviewed, please get over that. And this book has entered the mainstream [23] mark nutley (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed?? What in the world are you talking about? I was only questioning the "Primary to secondary Magical Transformation" theory.

But, since you bring it up .... how exactly is that link proving that it's "entered the mainstream" ... the ONE single citation (to a non-journal source) is supposed to be proving that? BigK HeX (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

From the ISI website: "The Intercollegiate Studies Institute works to instill an understanding and appreciation for America’s founding principles. These six values represent the core beliefs inherent in ISI’s mission and its activity. Limited Government. Individual Liberty. Personal Responsibility. The Rule of Law. Free Market Economy. Moral Norms of Western Civilization."[24] That is not consistent with academic publishing. TFD (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again. we have no policy which says a source must come from an academic source. It is reliable for the authors opinion and can be used with attribution mark nutley (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We do no service to readers by building articles from fringe sources. That is what the alternative media is for. TFD (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry TFD your saying it is fringe does not make it so, wp:rs this source can be used if attributed mark nutley (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do the same conclusions apply to Anne Applebaum’s Gulag: A History ? Bobanni (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Clearly a respected non-scholarly work - if you want to remove something because you think that it is not a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. Note that there is no requirement in WP:RS that every source has to be scholarly. I believe they've already weighed in on this, but if you want to get shot down again... Smallbones (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Published by Random House and with 61 "Anne Applebaum Gulag A History" hits on google scholar then i believe that this meets the wp:rs criteria mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It has the same issues. It is a book written by a journalist for the popular press. We have no way of knowing the acceptance of the views found in the book, or of finding errors. If the views presented in the book have any academic acceptance then we would be able to find them in academic journals and also find the degree of acceptance of her journalistic research. By the way, despite OpenFuture's continual mention of my supposed political point of view, I have also objected to the use of popular books by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Paul Krugman as sources. And despite his claim that I call everyone with whom I disagree a "neoconservative", it says right on Anne Applebaum's WP article the she "was also an adjunct fellow at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank" and married to Radosław Sikorski. None of that of course on its own is a disqualification. TFD (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don`t believe all you read in wikipedia :) As said, she is reliable for her opinions, her book can of course be used mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No ... unless you satisfy WP:NPOV as requested in this thread section, it very well may not be used. BigK HeX (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? under what criteria does a notable persons views which are published in a reliable source suddenly breach wp:npov? How does NPOV even come into the usage of this source in this article? mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any "sudden" reasons. The long-standing reasons have already been pointed out. It's fairly baffling that you've responded so much in this section, if you're clueless as to its purpose. BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No reasons have been pointed out, the section header asks for prominence as to the source, i have shown the source is prominent, can you quote the NPOV part which makes you think this book can`t be used per wp:rs so long as it is attributed? mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a Poisoned Work Environment?

A poisoned work environment refers to a workplace in which comments or behaviours create a hostile or offensive environment for individuals or groups and negatively affects communication and productivity. Does this apply here? Bobanni (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Very doubtful. Editing this page is action of one's own volition. What a strange question ..... BigK HeX (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who desires to edit controversial articles should at least expect to perceive some form of backlash. For example, that very question, Bobanni, could be perceived as very offensive by some. (Igny (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

No idea, but I would comment that participation may become progressively less that strictly voluntary for some editors. --FormerIP (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Do readers need to be told what this article does or does not suggest?

do wp articles actually suggest anything? imho, wp merely presents the facts that have been published and peer-reviewed. is there support for removing the guidance offered to readers warning them the article is not making suggestions? "This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist, though this is not to suggest communist ideology as a principal cause in these events (nor does this article discuss academic acceptance of theories about such causation)." Darkstar1st (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not create articles with a random collection of facts. TFD (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

correct, what is your point? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That if there is no connection between any of the events described in the article then it is a random collection of facts. TFD (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And there are issues of WP:WEIGHT, just listing every quote than can be found to support a particular position is not objective. In fact the whole section which suggests causes has no third party references to justify its structure or implications --Snowded ^TALK 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

connection: 1) mass killings. 2) by communist governments. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

but this section is not debating whether the article should exist, rather as long as it does exist, should readers be instructed as to what is, or is not suggested? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, how are these connected any more than say mass killings and capitalist governments? Of course if there is no connection the article should not exist. Are you proposing to delete the article? TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD there is no such thing as a capitalist government mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to Margaret Thatcher --Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did, she hit me with her handbag :) mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a very interesting observation, mark nutley. Is it a personal observation, or do you have a source for it? TFD (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass Killings under Capitalist Regimes mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, maybe what is needed is a list of Government initiated mass killings which links to more substantial articles. --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We've tried that suggestion. Some have stated interest in implementing it, though success in finding a consensus to accept the end-result is uncertain (and ... IMO, unlikely). BigK HeX (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, mark nutley, but the fact an article about mass killings under capitalist regimes was deleted is not a evidence that capitalist regimes do not exists, only that that article does not exist. As I understand it the article was deleted because no connection could be found in reliable sources between capitalism and mass killings. Do you have a reliable source for your assertion that there are no capitalist governments, or is that merely your opinion? TFD (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the very reason you don't see "Mass Killing under capitalist regimes" is that Capitalism removes singular agency from mass killing and spreads culpability across the entire marketplace. So, when you see massive poverty in places where de Beers sticks their hands, or impoverished tribes slaughtering each other after corporations take control of their natural resources (and thus livelihood) there is no single person or entity to point to. Looking for a "Capitalist Regime" committing mass killings is likely pointless, because the deaths that occur as a result of Capitalism generally take place because of negligence or a lack of a regime to regulate and punish exploiters. It isn't a regime that points to a region and says "Deprive this land of all it's natural resources, give next to nothing to its inhabitants, employ them briefly in the mining operations and then leave them for dead once their economy is dependent on us and we've exhausted their usefulness", the market drives the behavior and so culpability is distributed.

It's like trying to point the finger at someone for air pollution. It's a deterritorialized medium and so the actions of many, many forces converge to create a problem. In short, there's no comparison between the deaths under Communist regimes and the deaths that occur as a result of Capitalism, because the two of them cause death in extremely different ways.

128.2.51.144 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, Snowded. Your comments echo concerns I had when I came across this article as an uninvolved editor in April. Back then I said that "The article body itself currently reads like a mishmash of POV from a small handful of scholars who it seems deviate from the majority view. If no unifying academic framework exists to tie together the entire article, it should either be deleted or rewritten as a simpler list of attributions. Given your comments, it doesn't seem that much has substantially improved since then. BigK HeX (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD: how are these connected any more than say mass killings and capitalist governments? - Did anyone say they were? Do you have any specific issue with the article related to this, or is this just yet another disruptive tangent? And can you now please explain exactly what you find is wrong with section 3 per the discussion we had above? Do you have the sources you are referring to with Furet and Nolte? Can you maybe summarize their views as expressed in WP:RS as asked above? Can you please post here just what it is from Brinks and Wheatcroft that you want included in the article as you were asked earlier? Are you in fact ever gonna answer any constructive question at all? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, please avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no personal attacks in there at all. Only questions to you, which you as usual did not answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do readers need to be told what this article does or does not suggest? part 2

please restrict your comments in this section to the removal of the word "suggest" which i suggest is not the role of an article to suggest or not suggest anything. the reader is allowed to draw whatever conclusion they may. if you wish to discuss whether the article should be deleted, please do elsewhere. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This article must clearly explain the connection that some scholars (e.g., Furet, Nolte, Courtois and Rummel) have made between Communism and mass killings. Sources that support or criticise their conclusions should be included; sources that ignore their conclusions should not. TFD (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

sources that ignore their conclusions should not. - Huh? What do you refer to here? I don't understand that comment. The rest I agree with.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• No - The article should not "suggest" anything, and readers should not be told what it suggests. The scholars who thing there is a connection should be presented with their views, and the scholars who claim there is no connection should also be presented with their views. Roughly equal space should be given to each scholar. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure whether or not you are correct, Darkstar1st. Plenty of WP articles "suggest" things. I would agree that there is a general problem with this article that it appears to suggest connections between events where some editors dispute that it is valid to present such connections. The wording in the lead does not seem to me to be ideal, but it is obviously part of an awkward compromise in a difficult article.

To put it another way, I think the comment by TFD explains the more fundamental problem with the article as it stands. If that were addressed then the issue would evaporate.

BTW by removing the word "suggest", we would be left with an ungrammatical sentence, so perhaps you should suggest alternative wording. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some editors dispute that it is valid to display such connections. And plenty of WP:RS say it is. That's what WP:V is for. Should we follow it or not? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct to say that the editors who disagree with you about this article are ignoring policy. I find it unlikely that any RS would directly tell us what it is valid to include in a WP article (as opposed to simply containing facts which you would like to see presented in one way and other editors would like to see presented differently). --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP, i have made an edit which was reverted, and was accompanied by a warning on my talk about revert warning even though it was the only edit i have made here in a week. The sentence should be shortened, if even included at all as it appears to be redundant given the article name. "This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist". Darkstar1st (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do readers need to be told here? Short answer: Yes. The entire purpose of the lead is to inform readers as to the purpose of the article. Here, the problem arises because -- quite obviously -- numerous uninvolved editors have taken a look at the article and have noted on these talk pages that it strongly suggests certain ideas. Moreover, even one of the editors who believes the assertions being suggested still has, nonetheless, stated that the article does not endeavor to make such suggestions. So, the real question is: if laymen readers are apt to take away from the article an understanding which neither "camp" here endeavors to create, then how does it hurt to be explicit? BigK HeX (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. There is no problem with being explicit, but "suggesting", that *is* a problem. The article should not suggest anything. However, many scholars to *claim* explicitly, that there is a connection between communist ideology and the mass killings. The lead may very well mention that. This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist. Some scholars claim that communist ideology is a principal cause in these events. That would be explicit. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about sourcing in the article

OpenFuture, I agree that the scholars who think there is a connection should be presented with their views, and also their detractors. What I have trouble with is including the views of writers who neither make nor deny a connection. TFD (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly do we require people who make a connection, if the article is about mass killings under communism then we just require sources which state that mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IOW sources that make a connection. TFD (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What I have trouble with is including the views of writers who neither make nor deny a connection. - Why? When mentioning a particular event, should we not be able to use a scholar unless he make a connection between the type of regime and the event? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would say that would be appropriate. Content in this article about the Holdomor, for example, should be about the Holdomor as it is viewed by proponents of the "caused by the ideology of Communism" thesis and their detractors. Sources that merely note that the Soviet Union was communist at the time don't add to quality of the article.

(Of course there will be exceptions where sources are used for simple facts such as dates etc). --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously, if the source is used for other things than "simple facts", iow, if the text discusses the connection, then the source must discuss the connection. And otherwise it doesn't have to. But that's just saying that the source should support what it is used to source. WP:V, iow. The question is why TFD wants also simple facts sources to discuss the connection (if that is indeed what he wants). --OpenFuture (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but I'm not sure that this is what he wants. I think the distinction to be made is between "simple facts" and "information not relevant to the article". --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Information not relevant to the article should not be in the article, so that comment did not clarify anything for me. Quite the opposite, in fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not our role as editors to promote or detract from the subject by introducing additional sources, which would be original research. I cannot imagine why we would need to look to addional sources. If an event is not mentioned by Courtois, Rummel, etc. then it is not relevant. If we require sources that show their estimates were over-stated then we use sources that claim exactly that. We do not look for sources that provide lower estimates and add them. TFD (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me. How is it original research to source statements? ia gree that having neutral sources may not be *needed* but that's a very different statement from saying they should not be *allowed*. I think the problem with comments is that you are talking about things from a principal perspective with a lot of assumptions you don't make clear (I would assume I do that mistake to a lot). Please be concrete instead. Is there some special source you are thinking about? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section "Great purge (Yezhovshchina)", for example, there do not appear to be any sources linking this to the Rummel-type thesis (if I'm wrong, correct me and I'll look for another example). So, as things stand, I can't see why this section is in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be linked to a Rummel-type thesis? This article is not about a Rummel-type thesis. It's about mass killings under communist regimes. Does the source state that it is a mass killing under a communist regime? Then it's OK. It might be decided that it's not notable enough of a mass killing to be included here but that's quote a different issue, that the source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the consensus/uneasy compromise that this article is allowed to exist because there is a thesis genuinely held by a number of writers that ther is a causal link between Communist ideology and murder. Without that, it seems to be agreed, the article would be a COATRACK or something similar and would be suitable for deletion. It would make sense, then, that the article should focus around this thesis. So material not linked to the thesis does not belong in the article, I would say. --FormerIP (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With a rename and by making it clear that it is a thesis held by a number of writers, but not a universal truth, that could make sense. --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not getting it, again why exactly is a thesis required for an article about mass killings under communist regimes? It is not a theory that it happened, it is a fact right? I think you guys are looking for the wrong thing. Ask yourselves, what is this article about, then ask yourselves, why is a thesis required to list these atrocity's? No theory is required, just reliable sources saying X government calling themselves communist killed X amount of people via direct or indirect means. Why is that so difficult? mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the deletion discussion, it's notability seems to rest on the fact that there are sources linking Communist ideology to murder. Without that, the article would only be as valid as the Mass Killings Under Capitalism article that was deleted. It is not a threory that the events in question happened, but it is a theory that they can be approporately grouped as a phenomenon. --FormerIP (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that`s not required either, above myself and snowed were discussing came to agree that communist governments commit mass killings imposing the ideology, which we have sources for. Their economic policy's lead to famine`s (collective farms), their removal of state enemys (anyone who questions the ideology) lead to the gulags, we have sources for that. Surly that covers all the bases here? mark nutley (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about whether those things are true or false though (do I need to remind you about OR?), it's about what information falls within the remit of the article and is most helpful to the reader. The purpose of the article is not simply to collect information about historical events that happened under a particular socio-economic system (if this were appropriate, then the Killings Under Capitalism article would have survived), it is to reflect the scholarly stance taken by reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) So we have plenty of sources which discuss it, what i mean is do said sources need to actually be saying these deaths were caused by the ideology? Or due to it? We have sources which say this as well of course but why the need for a theory? I`ll knock something up in my userspace over the next few days and present it here for evaluation mark nutley (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's it. I think the article ought to be generally limited (but with common sense exceptions) to material sourced from RSs which speak to the connection between the ideology and the crimes and tragedies in question. So a lot of detail about the unfolding of specific events about which the sources do not directly talk is unnecessary. --FormerIP (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That would make the article into "Mass killings caused by communist ideology" and would necessitate a rename to not be a coatrack. Although I personally do not mind, I think most people here who has fought against this article would explode. Feel free to try. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: I don't get it, why would an article on Mass killings under communist regimes be a coatrack if it talks about mass killings under communist regimes, but not the ideological involvment? A coat-rack is when the title says one thing and the content is something else. So if the article is about mass killings under communist regimes, that's what it should be called, and that would not be coatracking at all. Per the deletion discussion, it's notability seems to rest on the fact that there are sources linking Communist ideology to murder. - That's not what I got out of it at all. Notability rests on the fact that there are sources linking communist regimes to the mass killings. Which is not coatrack. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you could create two coatracks: A list of quotes from authors who think that communism necessarily leads to violence and another list of atrocities. In effect that is what the article is about. A rename to "Theories that communism leads to mass killings" would at least be an honest title --Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw arguments do not work at XfD nor in article talk pages. Collect (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you could create two coatracks - Yes you could. But I don't see why. Wouldn't it be better to not have a coatrack at all? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture: Let's pause a moment. You are saying you do not mind this idea, and Mark appears to be willing to give the idea serious consideration. You say that deletionists would "explode", but Snowded's comments seem to indicate that he is also open to the idea. Plus I !voted delete in the last AfD, and now here I am suggesting that the article could be kept. So that's a sample of two editors from each "side" here and some sort of agreement that there might be something worth talking about. It's tentative, I would agree, and there may well be snags in the detail which mean compromise is not achievable. But what say we open a section and see what comes of it? Even though you have said you are open to the idea, you're still arguing with bits and pieces of what I said that you don't agree with. Not criticising you for this, but isn't there a danger that this talkpage will never get anywhere because arguing has become too much of a habit? Wouldn't it be good to have a discussion to try to establish points of agreement, rather than highlight disagreements about WP:COATRACK or whatever, which are not the main issue in any case? --FormerIP (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

what did we decide about whether readers need to be told what the article does or does not suggest? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look as if we have reached a clear conclusion, but my view is that the issue is connected to other things (I think this part of the lead is not good, but I can understand the history of how it came to be there) and there is little chance in reaching agreement about it without looking at some of the other issues at the same time. I've put a section break above to split off the runaway discussion. I think the fact that what you raised is connected to other things is demonstrated by the way the discussion veered off at a tangent.--FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm what FormerIP is suggesting. It is clear there is a body of theory (lets ignore the source for the moment) which suggests that communism leads to mass killing. An article about that theory is a valid article as long as it doesn't claim to be truth per se, but reporting that theory. --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Think it would be good to have as few red lines (pardon the expression) as possible, but if you're saying we should follow what the sources say and strive for NPOV (AFAICT that's what this amounts to), then that goes without saying. --FormerIP (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But what say we open a section and see what comes of it? - Section? I think we aren't really on the same track on what was suggested here... :-) What I talked about was your suggestion to delete everything that isn't directly related to an author claiming that ideology was behind the mass killings, and then (as I pointed out would be necessary) rename it to "Mass killings caused by communism". No new section was involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds promising, OpenFuture, but you've confused me a little bit. Are you saying you do think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had but no need for a new section? Unless it turns out that there is insufficient interest, I am thinking of trying to formulate a proposal (in terms of what it is we are talking about, rather than content) which editors can critique. A new section would seem appropriate. Do I have your go-ahead or do you not think it is worth it? --FormerIP (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where any sections comes into it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being intentionally cryptic, but I don't know what you mean, OpenFuture. --FormerIP (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about two different proposals at one time. One involving creating a section, the other not. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I am not talking about creating any section in the article, but about creating a section on the talk-page below to express more clearly exactly what I mean and see if other editors approve of it. I was asking you if you think this would be worthwhile. As an active editor on the page, your view would be an indication of whether I would be wasting my time or not. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, by all means, go ahead. As mentioned, I don't think it's worthwhile, because I think that having an article called "Mass killings caused by communism" is never gonna be accepted, as the title is so obviously provocative and will fall to POV concerns. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have to say that I have no strong opinion either way about whether the page should be renamed (I think this was Snowded's suggestion - it may or may not be a good one, I don't know). My proposal is more that the article should be refocussed (not necessarily radically) and follow more of a logical thread centering on the sources that have been discussed so much. This might involve some give and take, inlcuding a fair amount of give on the part of deletionists, but I reckon it could end with something that gets more "bipartisan" support. I'll start a new section sometime soon, but I don't see the point if certain editors already know they will not want to engage with it, so let me know if this describes you and I'll not bother. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be more specific. For example, do you intend to enumerate all people who died when a Communist government happened to be in power? TFD (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Going no where

I've come across articles with editors taking fixed positions before but this one is one of the worst. Any attempt to make progress is just subject to assertions and homilies. How about we take it to mediation? --Snowded ^TALK 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tried that, one of the guys refused it :) I think you and i may make progress, and perhaps the others will tag along, you never know till you try :) mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My position here is very fixed: We should follow Wikipedia policies. I actually don't think I'm likely to change my opinion on that anytime soon. If I come off as brusque, it's because the other camp simply refuse to get the point, and this is getting tiring and taking a lot of time I don't really have. We aren't going to go forward as long as people aren't willing to listen *on both sides*. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence and you last sentence contradict each other don't they? Also your interpretation of Wikipedia policies (list everything however long) is dubious to say the least. Hence the need for some third party involvement --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I could be funny and say something sarcastic as "Think you for confirming that you are trying to violate Wikipedia policy", but I won't. :-) Opps I did, but I didn't mean it, because clearly that's not what you are trying to say (even if that is the consequence of what you are saying). To be serious:

No, they don't contradict each other. I *am* listening to you, and TFD, and BigK Hex and everyone else here. However, I have one fixed point on which I'm not budging: We are NOT going to violate Wikipedia policy.

Also your interpretation of Wikipedia policies (list everything however long) is dubious to say the least. - Then we can discuss that, but funnily enough, no-one ever does. They just claim I'm wrong, but never explain why. You are welcome to explain what you find dubious. If we can't agree on something, there are forums to solve such disputes. But somehow, only me seems to be interested in that (for example when it was repeatedly claimed that Rummel was not RS, I took that to RS/N, learned a lot about that process, and in the end it was clearly shown that Rummel was a reliable source, and the claim went away. As all other *concrete* claims of problems with this article tend to do. Which is why there are so few concrete claims, just a lot of waffle and tangents and irrelevant stuff.

I do agree that mediation is a good idea. One editor opposed this, but he also seems to have stopped both editing and discussing so maybe we can ignore him now. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You know OpenFuture, I think you are one of those editors for whom RfC was invented. --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Try making comments which actually can move the article forward. This is neither the time nor place to make coments about editors. Collect (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but given the various statements above I doubt the article can move forward and saying that a RfC may be needed is valid. Editors who say things like "My position here is very fixed" in response to a suggest for mediation invite such a response. I do think that there is a genuine behaviour issue here, and I note that OpenFuture is familiar with the RfC process --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that an RfC should be opened against me, because I refuse to break Wikipedia policy? Well, go ahead. Make my day. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think your editing style is aggressive, non collegial and that you claims to have WIkipedia policy behind you are dubious. However attempts to engage you in any argument just result in a flat refusal on your part to countenance any opinion other than your own. Without any change to that style progress will be difficult or impossible and raising the behaviour for wider comments form the community as a whole may be the only way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again read WP:NPA. This discussion is quite out of bounds at this point. Collect (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture has already set up an RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson, although it has not been certified. You are welcome to post any comments there. Although the RfC was set up about another editor, the conduct of all involved editors may be examined. TFD (talk)

Snoweded, I think the main problem here is that you didn't read what I wrote very closely. I pointed out that I want Wikipedia policy to be followed, and I'm not budging on that. All you read is that "I'm not budging" and then you didn't read the rest. The rest of this absurd discussion seems to come out of that. If you find any problems in my behavior, please go the normal route of dispute resolution. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)