Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Deportations and famine are not mass killings

War-time deportations and famine are not mass killings, people--Dojarca (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Intentionally caused famines certainly are and deportations may involve mass killings. These are the accusations that come from reliable sources. The numerous AFDs have failed, please step out of the way - do not try to delete by sections. Let others edit the article without any nonsense please. Smallbones (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Famines are not killings at all, intentionally caused or not (and it is not proven the famines were intentionally caused). The deportations may indeed involve mass killings so please write about those killings (even if they were during deportations) rater than deportations themselves. Regarding your 100 million estimates, it is based on the Black Book of Communism which estimates number of "victims of communism", and includes not only victims of killings but also excess mortality and other factors not connected to any killings whatsoever.--Dojarca (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed, famine was one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Famines took the lives of perhaps seven million people in the Soviet Union, thirty million in China, and at least seven hundred thousand in Cambodia. Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state." [1]

"However, this argument highlights one particular feature of many Communist regimes - their systematic use of famine as a weapon. The regime aimed to control the total available food supply and, with immernse ingenuity, to distribute food purely on the basis of "merits" and "demerits" earned by individuals. This policy was a recipe for creating famine on a massive scale. Remember that in the period after 1918, only Communist countries experienced such famines, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people. And again in the 1980s, two African countries that claimed to be Marxist-Leninist, Ethiopia and Mozambique, were the only such countries to suffer these deadly famines." [2]

AmateurEditor (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow interesting invention - "non-intentional mass killing". Do you know that the rise of Lysenkoism was because he promised to quickly eliminate famine? --Dojarca (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can learn something everyday at Wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, your citations do not even accuse that the famines were intentional. The guilt of Communism according your sources was in that it distrubuted food according the merits before the state thus directing the worst excesses of the famine onto its enemies. So I am sure the use of the "mass killing" term by the first author was nothing more than a rhetoric hyperbola. Otherwise distribution of food according one's wealth in a supermarket is also a case of "mass killing"--Dojarca (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The famines do not have to be intentional for them to be used to target and kill a regime's enemies. The sources I cited state that famine was used as a weapon, regardless of how it originated. The use of "mass killing" in the first source is not hyperbolic, but carefully chosen. He uses a very specific definition for the term: 50,000 killed within 5 years. And the pricing of food in a market is not "distribution" in anything but the loosest definition of the word. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also compare an earlier statement in the lead with the more recent one:

• Among historians, estimates of the mass killings by communist regimes vary between 60 to 100 million people.Valentino, Benjamin (2005). Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 275. ISBN 0801472733. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• An estimate of 100 million deaths are commonly attributed to Communist mass killings.Fekeiki, Omar. "The Toll of Communism". The Washington Post. p. C01.

Where there is a range it is wrong to chose either the high or low range as fact.

It is also POV to imply that we cannot use the term "genocide" because of a Communist conspiracy.

The statement from Weitz's book, "Factions debate whether Communist ideology was the cause of these killings, rather than the difficult economic situations many of these regimes faced" does not appear to be supported by the source which is a chapter about the USSR. Please note too that in Western scholarship, groups of academics who hold differing views are not called "factions". The objective of Western historians is to understand events not to argue political grievances.

Whether or not this article exists, its contents must follow WP policy.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My point here is that the Black Book of Communism speaks about "victims of Communism" in the broadest possible sense including excess mortality compared to other countries, victims of wars (such as war in Vietnam) and victims of famines. Most of them cannot be refered to as "victims of mass killings" in any reasonable meaning.--Dojarca (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was previous discussion that in the article killings would mean intentional killing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Directing famine against ones enemies is intentional killing. That the Holodomor and Deportation sections have been in place for so long clearly indicates that they met the standard of previous discussion. I, however, did not restore the Deportation section because the issues raised about it now seemed to me to still be open, as I do not have the direct quotes from sources at the moment to prove it belongs. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only mass killing if food is deliberately withheld. Only if the famine was deliberately caused could it be mass killing. There are other views that the famine was caused by government incompetance or by external factors. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is not. A famine may be natural or caused by massive state incompetence, but directing the famine against enemies of the state is intentional killing. Other views in this instance can be included from reliable sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

R.J. Rummel on this issue: "democide through deportation is the killing of people during their forced mass transportation to distant regions and their death as a direct result, such as through starvation or exposure. Democidal famine is that which is purposely caused or aggravated by government or which is knowingly ignored and aid to its victims is withheld." www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

All the fatalities as a result of Stalinist mass deportations certainly qualify as democide, and many of the deaths from the Soviet famine of 1932-33 do as well. Regarding the famine, professor Ellman states:

Since the death of some of them was a natural consequence of turning back peasants fleeing from starvation and of exporting grain during a famine, the only way of defending Stalin from (mass) murder is to argue that he did not foresee that preventing peasants fleeing from the most severely affected regions and exporting grain would cause additional deaths. This is a distinctly odd argument to use about someone from a plebeian background ruling an overwhelmingly peasant country which regularly experienced famines. Stalin was undoubtedly ignorant about many things, but was he really that ignorant? http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1933.pdf

The two sections in question should be restored.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the abstract Ellman wrote: "In particular, the question of whether or not in 1932 33 the Ukrainian people were victims of genocide, is analysed."[3] It is important to not report opinions as facts. There are academics who argue for calling this genocide and others who argue against it. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. (See WP:NPOV.) We cannot take sources we agree with and present them as fact while ignoring dissenting opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How does deleting sections of the article move us toward representing "all significant views"? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Was 1943-1944 famine in Bengal under British rule an example of mass killing (1.5-3 million dead)? Was 1907-1908 famine in India an example of mass killing?

Were famines in Russian Empire in 1901-1902, 1905-1906, 1908, 1911-1912 (with 8 million victims overall) an example of mass killing? Note that Tsar forbid the International Red Cross and Zemstva to help the victims, widows, orphans, those able to work and landless peasants were excluded from hunger aid, and the aid should be returned next year (many people dead in 1911-1912 because should return hunger aid received in previous years). At the same time grain was exported. Is it not a "mass killing"?

Is refusal to send food to starving Africa is mass killing?--Dojarca (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, regarding exports.

• 1930 - 4.8 million tons
• 1931 - 5.2 million tons
• 1932 - 1.8 million tons
• 1933 - 1.6 million tons
• Tsarist government before 1914 exported 10-15 million tons of grain every year even in 1911 when 1 million and 613 thouand people dead of hunger and 1900-1901 when 2 million and 813 thousand only Orthodox Christians dead of hunger.--Dojarca (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dojarca, I've given you quotes from reliable sources stating that famines were used as a weapon by communist regimes. If you don't like it, find a reliable source offering a counterpoint. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It is evident that the "mass killing" in you source is used in figurative meaning. And political weapon is not necessary a killing.

We probably should start Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. Noam Cholmsky, for example, estimated [4] that if to apply the Black Book of Communism's methodology the excess mortality in India alone compared to China since 1945, is responsible for more "victims of Capitalism" than the the Black Book attributes to Communism in total.

--Dojarca (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't "evident" until you present evidence. If you've reviewed the source and come to the conclusion that the mass killing referred to in the above quote is figurative, you should be able to give us a direct quote from the source to that effect. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heared about allegory [5] or catachresis [6] ? For example, use of word "weapon" in politics is the same as using phrase "ship of state".--Dojarca (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the sources you will understand what they mean. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read it. No source says there were killings in literal sense.--Dojarca (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the first quote I provided for you:

"Indeed, famine was one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Famines took the lives of perhaps seven million people in the Soviet Union, thirty million in China, and at least seven hundred thousand in Cambodia. Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state." [7]

It comes from the book Final Solutions, Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century by Benjamin Valentino. On page 6 of the book he writes "I introduce and define the term "mass killing," which includes most commonly accepted cases of genocide but also encompasses a broader range of events distinguished by the large scale, intentional killing of noncombatants." He is more specific elsewhere, defining "mass killing" as 50,000 such intentional killings within five years. Nowhere does he even imply that this is figurative killing. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Does he state the famine was intentional (asking just out of interest)? And also can you please tell me is bad medical treatment a murder, massive AIDS infection due to negligence is a massacre and so on?--Dojarca (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Global Museum External link

There has been discussion on whether the link to this website should be included. Please read the WP:ELNO to determine if the link is appropriate. I would suggest that (1) it does not provide any information that is not in the article and (2) the accuracy has not been established. Specifically its source for the claim that there were 100 million people killed by Communist regimes is the Black Book,[8]. But the article already references the Black Book and there are questions about its accuracy. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The site does provide info not in the article, or that would not be in the article upon reaching featured status. And what exactly are you looking for to establish its accuracy if you reject The Black Book of Communism? The writers of its articles would appear to have endorsed the site, and they are quite eminent. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Globalmuseumoncommunism lacks a named curator and a stated curatorial policy, it is functioning and presenting as an unedited blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be much better if you quit trying to delete things simply because you don't like what they say. Where is the requirement for "a named curator and a stated curatorial policy?" Poof. Smallbones (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The deleted website fails to meet Wikipedia policy criteria: one should avoid:

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research...

What specific information is available at the website that you think does not belong in the article? More importantly how do you know that the site does not mislead the reader? What third party review has been done on the site? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to show how the site fails this policy.

• As for the information not specific to mass killings, I'll quote the website:

"The museum features powerful images that our research partners have recently recovered, including photographs, propaganda posters, audio recordings and video footage that will move you and encourage hope. The Global Museum on Communism also serves academic communities by preserving a permanent record of the immense suffering inflicted on untold millions by communist regimes."

• As for misleading the reader, either give me one example from the website of factually inaccurate material, or drop that baseless charge.

As for your standard of "third party review," this isn't an academic journal. In this case, oversight is provided by the Board of Directors, who are " charged with the overall administrative and policy oversight of the Global Virtual Museum on Communism."[9] AmateurEditor (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors cannot conduct due diligence on external websites, that would be original research. I have made no charge, only stated the obvious: that there is no way of knowing whether the source is misleading. If in doubt, leave it out. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You have made a charge: that the site misleads the reader. And you have nothing to back it up. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my words, which you have now done twice. I said "how do you know that the site does not mislead the reader? What third party review has been done on the site?... Editors cannot conduct due diligence on external websites, that would be original research. I have made no charge, only stated the obvious: that there is no way of knowing whether the source is misleading. If in doubt, leave it out." The Four Deuces (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You cited two reasons why this site fails Wikipedia policy criteria of sites to avoid, one of which was "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research...". You then ask us to prove a negative, that the site doesn't mislead. Obviously, it is impossible to prove a negative. You must show, then, that it does mislead, or else drop the issue. Your "third party review" requirement is not a criteria on that list. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You've quoted it a sufficient times yourself, "unverifiable research". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an example of this unverifiable research? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As the museum lacks a named, trained, curator; and lacks a collections policy which meets expected standards for a museum, its publications (ie: exhibits, collections) are unverifiable. I have noticed that they recently corrected their blog software to actually have a contacts page, and have expanded the information about themselves since the AfD on the Foundation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Unverifiable" does not mean "lacking a curator." AmateurEditor (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please propose a verification standard for Museums. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another example of folks trying to remove information that they don't like. Get an unbiased editor to confirm your "judgement" or leave it in. I'm frankly sick and tired of folks who push their POVs by removing material. Can you suggest a forum where you would accept the (to me) obvious judgement that you've got to stop this nonsense? Smallbones (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it to WP:RS/N at [this section]. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And gotten nowhere. I'll put the link back. If you ever find an unbiased forum that says it is a bad link, feel free to remove it. Smallbones (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you should not oppose adding some links to Stalinist sites, would you?--Dojarca (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize it before, but there is a Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. If editors are still interested in disputing this, I think we should make our cases there. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really insist on this link? In fact its existence compromises the article's image in my view. Anyway if you want the article to not look like a piece of propaganda, attribute the link as "anti-Communist".--Dojarca (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. The website documents the events, atrocities, and victims of communist regimes and is maintained by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. What could be more appropriate? "Anti-communist" is a loaded term. Any description for the link should stick to facts. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent readers of history are interested in sources that provide a variety of views, get their facts right, and are consistent with academic rigor. They are not interested in one-sided articles that provide no sources and present estimates as facts. Furthermore the scholarship on the site is so poor that it leads to serious doubts about their claims. It has even been suggested that extreme anti-communism actually promotes Communism by making their critics look disingenuous and intellectually shallow. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why speak in generalities? Present specific examples so that we can actually make progress in this discussion. If the website gets its facts wrong, give an example. The scholars who contribute to it are numerous and respected.[10][11][12][13][14] If you have legitimate doubts, they must be based upon something concrete that you can share with the rest of us. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a fact. They call themselves anti-Communists.--Dojarca (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Google "Lee Edwards" "anti-Communist" and see that the founder of the "museum" proudly calls himself an anti-Communist. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This looks a bit more interesting than I'd thought. But before pursuing this, we need to ask "Just because somebody may have described himself as anti-Communist, should we exclude his views and the information offered by an organization he is affiliated with?" Wouldn't that mean that we would also have to purge any information or views offered by Communists and Socialists? My view of NPOV is that both anti-Communist and Communist views should be presented. Now please quit your partisan deletions, or get them checked out at WP:ELN. I'll put the link back in until then. Smallbones (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a biased source is not "partisan". And I disagree that "anti-Communist and Communist views should be presented". The only sites that should be listed are those with a [WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]. The world is not divided into fanatical anti-Communists and Stalinists. Mainstream thinking rejects both views. I would put this up on the board and suggest wording it in a neutral way. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV requires requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. --Martintg (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the Museum hardly fits that criterion. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, please provide a link to the particular page where Lee Edwards proudly calls himself an anti-communist, because it isn't any of the first ten search results. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

From the museum's own site: Joining the growing desire for permanent places of reflection and research, The Global Museum on Communism provides a bulwark against recurrent communist sympathies wherever they appear.--Dojarca (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Independent source calling them anti-Communists: [15]--Dojarca (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lee Edwards is also the founder [16] of the World League for Freedom and Democracy (WLFD, formerly the World Anti-Communist League, WACL). This organization is regarded as extremist, racist and anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League--Dojarca (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article? Here is just part of it. Unbelievable:

The founders of APACL were agents of the governments of Taiwan and Korea, including Park Chung Hee who later bacame president of Korea; Yoshio Kodama, a member of organized crime in Japan; Ryiochi Sasakawa, a gangster and Japanese billionaire jailed as a war criminal after World War II; and Osami Kuboki and other followers of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification Church.... In 1975, Moon denounced WACL as being too facist, and claimed to sever connections between it and the UC. Reports in the New York Times, Searchlight and elsewhere, however, indicate the separation is nominal only.... From 1978 to 1980 Roger Pearson, well known for his theory of white supremacy and his fascist sympathies, was chairman of WACL. Pearson concentrated his efforts in Europe and attracted more radical fascist elements to WACL. For a time WACL appeared to be more anti-semitic than anticommunist....In 1984, columnist Jack Anderson wrote a series of exposes on WACL connecting the group with death squads operating in Latin America, and once again linking them with fascists, this time in Latin America.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also: The memorial is largely the fruit of the labors of Lee Edwards, a writer and a fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation. Long known for his opposition to communism -- in his well-regarded book, The Conservative Revolution, Edwards proposed the notion that “communism should be defeated, not simply contained”[17]

Also: [18]

Also: "The World Anti-Communist League," Stewart-Smith now says in retrospect, "is largely a collection of Nazis, Fascists, anti-Semites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racialists, and corrupt self-seekers. It has evolved into an anti-Semitic international.... The very existence of this organization is a total disgrace to the Free World." (...) Stewart-Smith wrote Lee Edwards in June 1973, "could destroy WACL. [If they are not expelled] the organization will remain a collection of fringe ultra-rightists, religious nuts, aging ex-Nazis, emigres and cranks."[19]--Dojarca (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere on that page does Lee Edwards "proudly call himself an anti-communist." And if he had, that would be evidence to support labeling the external link as anti-communist, not for deleting it, as The Four Deuces did. Regardless, I believe that the Lee Edwards mentioned on that page is either a different person or that the page is mistaken, as that group was founded in Taiwan and there is no mention of any of this on the bio page for the Lee Edwards we are talking about at Heritage.org.[20] The wiki page you linked to also says that the American branch was founded by John K. Singlaub, not Lee Edwards. Lets get to the bottom of this. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Lee and his wife also founded YAF. Its story by Lee and Anne Edwards [21]. YAF has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center [22]. Well not only their names, but also names of their wives coincide. --Dojarca (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article says:

The first WACL chapter in the U.S. was the American Council for World Freedom (ACWF) founded in 1970 by Lee Edwards.... The second U.S. chapter of WACL (1975-1980), the Council on American Affairs, was headed by noted racialist Roger Pearson.... In 1980 John Singlaub went to Australia to speak to the Asian branch of WACL.... Shortly thereafter he was approached to begin a new U.S. chapter of the organization. The U.S. Council for World Freedom (USCWF) was started by the retired General in 1981 with a loan from WACL in Taiwan and local funding from beer magnate, Joseph Coors.

Same Lee Edwards. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I now think that is the same Lee Edwards. But there seems to be a lot of confusion here, and we are getting off track, so let me clarify what these links do and do not say regarding Lee Edwards, having now read them myself.

First, Edwards is not the founder of the World League for Freedom and Democracy (WLFD, formerly the World Anti-Communist League, WACL) as stated above by Dojarca. That group was founded in 1966 in Taiwan. The link Dojarca provided states that Lee Edwards founded a group in the US called the American Council for World Freedom (ACWF), which joined the league as the American chapter in 1970. The link then states "In 1973, the ACWF, at the urging of board member Stefan Possony, complained to WACL about the fascist members from Latin America. The report was discredited, but in 1975, ACWF left WACL and its members drifted off to other groups in the New Right."[23]

Dojarca then says that "this organization [meaning the WLFD, which Edwards did not found] is regarded as extremist, racist and anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League." In fact, that assessment dates from 1981, six years after Edwards' group left, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) revised it's opinion just a few years later in 1985.[24] That statement by the ADL is obviously not a reflection on Edwards or the group he founded.

Dojarca then says that Edwards and his wife founded YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) and that YAF has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In fact, according to the link, Edwards, who was not married at the time, was invited "to attend a meeting of young conservatives who wanted to form a national organization." He arrived on Saturday; the meeting had started the previous evening. About 90 people attended and it wasn't his idea to begin with, so it's a great exaggeration to say that he is the founder. He was elected to the first board of directors (along with 20 others) so I suppose one could argue that he is "one of" the founders. (His future wife is not mentioned at all in the context of that meeting.)

The YAF today has branches across the country, and it is one of these branches, the Michigan State University branch, rather than the whole organization, which was so designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Edwards was with the group at its founding in 1960. The Southern Poverty Law Center took issue with the Michigan State University chapter of the group in 2006. This also is obviously not a reflection on Edwards.

The Four Deuces links to a Google search that he says shows Lee Edwards "proudly calls himself an anti-Communist" but won't link the page on which that happens. I believe that Edwards is opposed to communism; he probably considers himself an anti-communist, but we shouldn't label him ourselves. People tend to define themselves by what they are for. We don't label pro-lifers on wikipedia as anti-choice, even if that is how we see them. And even if he were so labeled, that wouldn't necessarily extend to the Global Museum on Communism website, which is the actual issue.

Dojarca linked to one source that calls the group creating the museum anti-communist, rather than the museum itself. I don't think we should use a label to describe the website that they do not use themselves, or that is not widely used about them in more mainstream sources. If we must add additional information to the external link, why not just present it this way: Global Museum on Communism - a product of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Or use their own descriptions: Global Museum on Communism - a virtual museum whose mission is "to educate this generation and future generations about the history, philosophy and legacy of communism." Or: Global Museum on Communism - "an international portal created to honor the more than 100 million victims of communist tyranny and educate future generations about past and present communist atrocities." AmateurEditor (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is too long and does not reflect the essence. The essence is that the museum is anti-Communist and the readers should know it. We have a reliable source that calls them anti-Communists.--Dojarca (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, however your opinion is not a reliable source and we should refrain for inserting personal political commentary into the article. --Martin (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For the source see above. Did you read the thread, Martintg?--Dojarca (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read AmateurEditor comments? Evidently not, as you think it is "too long". Let me summarise: all your sources state is that Lee Edwards is anti-communist, but then claiming that the museum is "anti-communist" on that basis is purely WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you follow the link [25], Martintg? It says nothing about Lee Edwards, I says about the museum.--Dojarca (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I followed the link just now to see, and what it says is that the museum was founded by an anti-communist organisation. --Anderssl (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal here, an organization that is dedicated to the victims of communism is definitely not a pro-communist organization.--Termer (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Termer, as explained above these articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is no place to play out the ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe. Rather, the articles should describe mainstream academic views. Unfortunately this article contains a lot of extremist and fringe viewpoints and could be improved by following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

neutral point of view? Completly agree: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly."

Regarding "the ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe", what has that do do with anything here? And which "ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe" you exactly are talking about, and how is that related to the article? --Termer (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel

I have tagged this article for weasel words and identified some of the more obvious examples of weasel words used in the article. Please re-write the article to remove weasel words. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalist Mass Killings

Sorry but if you're going to write an article called mass killings under communist regimes, it is biased not to write one called mass killings under capitalist regimes, and there were / are plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.216.157 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep wondering from where this logic comes from that the opposite of Communism would be Capitalism? As in essence economicaly communist countries were/are not anything more or less than State capitalism where the state had a total monopoly and acted as a giant Corporation. And nowdays if we're talking about Communist China than economicaly it's flat out capitalist system. So what exactly are you talking about with this "mass killings under capitalist regimes"? There are totalitarian regimes like Commnism and Nazism and then there are democratic societies. If anybody really wants to make a point in connection with this article here, please suggest a title like "mass killings under democratic societies" instead perhaps.--Termer (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So should this article be moved to Mass killings under State Capitalist regimes? csloat (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

why? the economic system like state capitalism has not been the reason for those mass killings but political ideology called communism.--Termer (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to you the communists did not follow communist ideology at all. Which of course supports my point below that brutality was inherent in Eastern European politics, whether under the tsar, Germany or the Soviets. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not really a place to discuss such things but once you asked, as far as I can tell the communists followed the communist ideology just fine. After all, one of the agendas the communists had since Marx spelled it out, take away the means of production from private hands and put it under the control of the state -meaning the communist elite. So instead of the free market economy it became a state/communist party operated monopoly. And unlike you keep insisting, communist mass killings haven't occurred only in the EE, but around the world, please read any of the books in the article reference section FFI. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You just said these regimes were not communist but state capitalist. You do realize you're not making sense, right? csloat (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What has it to do with me? Please red any books on the subject or the article State_capitalist, especially chapters under State_capitalist#Use_by_Marxists that should explain the connection between Communist regimes and state capitalism. Also, there is a difference between a political regime, lest say communist and an economical system. Capitalism is an economical system, it can bee a free market economy in one end and state capitalism as a total monopoly on another. Communist regime however is a political regime based on the communist ideology, it's a form of a totalitarian state vs. Democracy&civil society. therefore what doesn't make any sense is to go and say "Communist regime vs capitalst regime mass killings" etc. Hope that it helps.--Termer (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you're saying is that this article should be called Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. csloat (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

csloat -please read the article totalitarian regimes, that would cover much wider scope and include National Socialist Germany etc--Termer (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the point. If you want an article that isn't full of WP:SYN violations you can't just pick out the countries you don't like on the basis of a connection that you manufacture with the help of a few sources strung together. There actually is a connection between totalitarian regimes and mass killing that is well established in reliable sources. The same cannot be said of the material in this article. csloat (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no Syn here. majority of the sources given in the article speak about the mass killings committed by the communist regimes. FFI please see Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ISBN 0801472733. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is nothing but SYN. You are well aware that we've already discussed the problems with the Valentino piece ad nauseum, so we're not going to rehash that again. If you're insistent though you should start an article on Valentino's theory alone so it can be discussed rationally rather than positing it in an article like this as some kind of absolute truth. In either case, it's pretty clear that this article is at best about Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, but you have (unwittingly, perhaps) made some persuasive arguments for a name like Mass killings under totalitarian regimes; in either case, perhaps a simple name change will solve these otherwise crippling problems with the page. csloat (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard all this the first time you brought it up about 3 months ago, and I hope I've made myself clear from the beginning that I can see the sources provided in the article discussing the subject directly under appropriate chapters that define the Communist mass killings. So I can't see any reasons to keep repeating ourselves over and over again. thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is one way to completely avoid addressing the issue when you find you are unable to respond to the arguments. csloat (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The left communists claimed that communists abandoned communism and became capitalists. So was the mass killing part of the original communist ideology or was it a function of the capitalism of the degenerated workers' state that was later adopted when the revolution was betrayed (to paraphrase Trotsky)? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's a common pattern to all religions. (yes commnism is often considered to be just another religion [26]) For example many Christians claim that some other Christians have abandoned Christianity and became...So do the communists claim over who is the true communist and who's not. And the so called 'left communists' or Trotskyists were expelled by the various Communist Parties from their ranks throughout the world. So the bottom line, the internal disputes of communists are a bit out of the scope of this article. But in case there are any sourced opinions out there what was the position of sc. left communists regarding the mass killigs committed by the communist regimes, those statements would be most relevant to the article.--Termer (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So your logic is that because of the mass killings by crusaders and the inquisition that this somehow reflects on the teachings of the New Testament. Incredible. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

my logic has nothing to do with anything here, it's the followers of religions/totalitarian political ideologies who interpret the teachings, either its the New or Old testament, Koran, the communist manifest or mein kampf etc. they follow.--Termer (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are now arguing that communist mass killings had nothing to do with communist ideology but rather with the actions taken by some of their followers. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling the Soviet Union and Communist China, 2 mayor Communist powers in the world history just "some followers of communist ideology" is quite a stretch of imagination I think. So you're saying basically that those communist countries were not in fact following the communist ideology? A little like Inquisition didn't have anything much to do with Christianity? I guess its a valid POV like any other. Why don't you come up with some sources that discuss such matters and simply add it to the article.--Termer (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You should not write an article without a basis in academic theory. There are no respected theories that connect mass killings with economic or political theory except in specific circumstances like Nazi Germany. Most historians attribute mass killings to the nature of the individual countries rather than temporal political or economic theory. For example Eastern Europe had a history of brutality and extemely backward government which continues until today. No one connects the brutality in Eastern Europe with their tsarist, communist, or capitalist governments but rather see it as a function of the backward nature of those states. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"...a function of the backward nature of those states"? That was interesting! are you The Four Deuces suggesting a new title to this article, perhaps something like Mass killings in the backward states? I wouldn't arque against the communist states being backwards, just that I'm not aware of any WP:RS calling it this way. All we have is the sources speaking of the Communist political killings that the article is based on. But I'm open minded, in case you have any sources that spell out this backwardness you brought up, feel free to list it here.--Termer (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have provided a novel explanation of communism and I would appreciate your further comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"You should not write an article without a basis in academic theory. There are no respected theories that connect mass killings with economic or political theory except in specific circumstances like Nazi Germany": have you ever heard of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, ...? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed. Do you know what a "respected theory" is? In this case it would be a theory published in reputable academic literature that argues that communist ideology caused the killings in those countries. Do you think that Stalin killed Trotsky because of the writings of Marx and Engels? If you do then kindly find a reliable source that explains this line of reasoning. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be 'moved to' Mass killings under authoritarian regimes. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Or different parts could be merged, respectively with Human rights in the Soviet Union, Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Human rights in Cambodia. --FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

These are both excellent suggestions. An article on authoritarian regimes could include such mass killings as this one, for example, which otherwise don't fit here but are obviously connected in substantive ways. The problem with this page is that the arguments people are making supposedly identifying "communism" as the main reason for mass killings are really saying that totalitarianism or authoritarianism is the issue. That is a specific political system and set of institutions that these societies have in common. But for various political reasons people want to identify "communism" as the root commonality even though they cannot point to such mass killings under Castro's Cuba or Ortega's Nicaragua, for example. I would also support the merging of relevant content to other articles that aren't SYN, as suggested by FormerIP. csloat (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this present discussion, and with this article in general, is that people are not advancing arguments discovered in high quality reliable secondary sources authored by historians, politicial scientists, sociologists or anthropologists; and, that when these arguments are raised they are selectively distorted, for instance, the shoe horning of Valentino into claiming communist mass killings are an explicit catagory rather than a convenience device to structure the discussion of a subset of one of his real categories. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think its going to be a problem. In case needed the politically motivated mass executions by the Communists in Cuba [27] [28] [29] etc. and in Nicaragua [30] [31] [32] [33] etc. can be also added to this article. And widening the scope of this article from Communist regimes to all totalitarian and even authoritarian regimes wouldn't be necessary, there already is a list of Genocides in history that covers such a broader scope.--Termer (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you please pre-screen the sources you provide for your arguments. I clicked on a couple of them and several are sourced to the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which was supported by the Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, and another was an article in Human Events. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But "authoritarian mass killings" is not broader in scope; the only things connecting these events are their authoritarianism, as we can see from your own faltering attempts to defend this concept of "communist mass killings." And if we're talking about genocides, I don't see how you can compare the events you link in Cuba and Nicaragua, leaving aside the rather dubious nature of many of the claims supported in those links. If this article includes every killing of more than 30 people or so, often during a war, then there really is no basis for connecting any of it and we should just call it Mass killings and be done with it. csloat (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo really? How about Frank W. Wayman from The University of Michigan and Atsushi Tago from University of Tokyo who in their Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing: Democide and Politicide categorize mass killings by 4 different regimes : Democratic Regime, Autocratic Regime, Communist Regime and Military Regime (see Table II). So only according to this work there could be easily be 4 separate articles on Wikipedia: Mass killings under communist regimes, Mass killings under democratic regimes, Mass killings under autocratic regimes and Mass killings under military regimes.

And a citation perhaps from the work on the current subject: mass killings by Communist regimes: An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings."--Termer (talk) 01:04, 7

December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, far from underming Fifeloo's point, your sources do seem sort of barrel-scraping. They also seem to underscore the amibuity/menainlgessness of the article title. I don't support the deaths of 95 people ordered by Che Guavara (even if the source is self-published) or the deaths of 500-1000 people as a result of the Sandanista revolution in Nicaragua. But the deaths of 152 people were ordered by George W Bush as Governor of Texas and the US-backed Contras in Nicaragua killed about 70,000 30,000. I'm not making a point about political equivalence, but how is the case made for an article focusing on "communist" killings? --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the deaths of 152 people etc. you FormerIP mentioned would most likely belong to any of the articles that could be started up according to Wayman&Tago categorizations of mass killings.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But does an obscure, apparently unpublished, university thesis necessitate the creation of four hightly contestable wikipedia articles? The categorisations are rubbish anyway. The Sandanista regime belongs, arguably, in all four categories, for example. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, thanks for bringing up the democide school. Tabulation of concepts is notoriously a poor form of presentation of social theory. Can you find within the work where the authors structure their categories for analysis? Do they nominate a specific cause that sets out communist mass killings from other mass killings, or is it just a thematic grouping, "these states were communist within our schema." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo says who? In case you really missed the quotation on a specific cause from the last source, no problem, here it is again:

An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings.

And in case you forgot about the one by Valentino, no problem again: here it is once more:

The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies.

Now, in case you're aware of any alternative viewpoints of the subject as evident by published sources, why don't you just add it to the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Valentino quote is deliberately deceptive because he is describing a sub-set of his actual category; which isn't "communist" at all, his category is states mobilising for radical social transformations, as you would well know. Wayman and Tago is also deceptive

Additionally, we create military regime and communist regime variables. Mostly, both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes, but we consider it is very important to set such variables to separate different types of autocratic countries. Military regime and communist regimes, in theory, create very different conditions vis-à-vis initiation of mass murder. A military regime, by its definition, is more likely to have stronger armed forces and a lower threshold for using them (Wayman, 1975). Any regime has policies that affect society, and the regime, if it wishes to carry out these policies, needs to find a way to get its way and impose its acts on society. [Wayman and Tago 14]

Part of the very paragraph you quoted. Termer, your mischaracterisation of sources has reached a level that indicates your conduct is an issue. Please read your sources in full and adequately characterise their findings rather than cherry picking. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it is self evident that communist regimes can and always have been subcategorized under totalitarian and/or autocratic regimes. So are the mass killings under communist regimes subcategorized accordingly and that's what this article is all about. Just that you keep ignoring the sources on the subject written by numerous authors is not going to make it go away, I'm sorry. But there is always an option to take it to another AfD in case you feel so strongly that an article about the mass killings committed by communist totalitarian regimes is WP:UNDUE and it doesn't deserve a separate article on Wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly you are welcome to your opinion that these things are "self-evident," but if the reliable sources don't indicate that they are self evident we cannot assume they are. It is telling that you quote a source identifying "mass killings under communist regimes" as a category alongside mass killings in "democratic" "autocratic" and "military" regimes, yet you don't seem eager to start articles on any of those topics. Ultimately can you even begin to address the question, what makes "communist mass killings" fundamentally different from "totalitarian mass killings" or some similar category? csloat (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument - is Termer under an obligation to create all these other articles because he is also working on this article? He has already acknowledged that his arguments imply that those could be appropriate topics for articles, but that doesn't mean he has to go and write them to prove his point.--Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is I think this "point" is disingenuous. He's already been caught mischaracterizing the sources in terms of what they actually say. If this was truly a parallel taxonomy accepted in the literature he would be defending an article that clearly put these categories alongside each other, whether or not he focused on creating the other three articles. But he's only defending the claim provisionally as a way of winning an argument here. Or, at least, that's what it seems -- I don't mean to speculate on his motives but it is hard to see how he is doing anything else. csloat (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that hard to see - most likely it is a matter of people not understanding each other. It is not entirely uncommon. You say you don't mean to speculate on Termer's motives, and yet you just did. --Anderssl (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Sloat is challenging whether Termer is really serious about his line of argument or whether he's just grabbing at something that may help him achieve a narrower objective. By convention, you couch that sort of challenge by acknowledging your own impoliteness ("I don't mean to be rude, but..."). But only Termer can know the reality behind that, so we might as well move on. Termer isn't obliged to create the other articles (although it would only be proper for him to support anyone else who did). But the point is, surely, that all four of the proposed articles are appropriate, or else none of them is. --FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all it wasn't me who suggested this Mass killings under capitalist regimes at this talk page. I just explained how "communist" vs "capitalist" regime doesn't make sense first of all because one refers to a political regime and another speaks about an economical system, and further on the communist regimes were/are in fact state capitalist. So what I also did, suggested some alternatives according to published sources but in the end if someone really likes to create this Mass killings under capitalist regimes, what do I care, go ahead.--Termer (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As you should be aware, no academic consensus exists on the specific nature of the Soviet-style societies. Please stop mischaracterising the nature of scholarly opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From where did you get an idea that every article on wikipedia needs to be based on academic consensus Fifelfoo? It that was the case, most of Wikipedia should be deleted. Articles on wikipedia need to be based on WP:Verify, WP:RS and written according to WP:NPOV&WP:YESPOV. In case you're aware of any other perspectives on the subject as evident by WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, please help yourself, add those opposing opinions to the article that contradict the sources that the article is based on. There is no other way to improve the artcile.--Termer (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WEIGHT. While consensus is out, as it is, could you refrain from pushing a particular POV up hill about the composition of the Soviet Union, for instance, that it was state capitalist rather than any of the other 34 flavours of analysis present in the academic literature in high quality reliable sources? I'd like to invite you to stop disrupting the encyclopedia at this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your beliefs I only edit articles on wikipedia according to the published sources that I'm aware of. And again, in case you're aware of any conflicting perspectives and respective sources on the subjcet, why don't you just improve the article accordingly. I'd love to help you out with this but unfortunately I'm not aware of any sources that question the ideological pattern in Communist mass killings.--Termer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Also contrary to your beliefs there has been a strong consensus here, which was renaming this article from Communist genocide to Mass killings under Communist regimes. As clearly "Communist genocide" could imply that all communists have something to do with a genocide, vs Mass killings under communist regimes]] clearly refers to totalitarian communist regimes that have comitted mass killings in history. And do I need to mention that I still support this achieved consensus on the subject.--Termer (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, that is a misrepresentation of the consensus that led to the name change, and besides I think you are misunderstanding what Fifelfoo is trying to say: That you shouldn't state as a fact that the economic system in the Soviet Union was "state capitalist", given that there is no academic consensus on that point. It might be a good idea to slow down a little and make sure you are understanding the comments made here before answering. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Denial of mass killings under communist regimes

I don't get it. Is anybody denying that they occurred? If so, put them on the same bench as Holocaust deniers. If not, what's the hubba hubba on this article? PS. For the record, I am all for creating parent article on Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

its a 'list of blue things.' None of the genocide studies people theorise communism as a category in the cause of killing. Cross cultural genocide studies deals with societies on the basis of broad organisational structures, or comparative two society case studies. Lacking a basis in academic literature this article is SYNTHESIS and OR. That's the only problem. The individual social instances are theorised and well documented and belong in their own articles as they currently do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, you are missing the point. Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers. No one is in denial about that. However that does not mean that there is a category called "Mass killings by Eastern Europeans". We need a theory that connects being Eastern European with being a mass murderer. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far s I'm aware of it an "Eastern European" is not a political ideology that needs to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies by the use of something that has been referred to as Communist mass killings, also known as Communist genocide or -politicide, or -democide.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Another question is how come this Theodore Kaczynski was according to The Four Deuces "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"? It says the guys is an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois. Is that a slight mistake in geography perhaps. In case I'm not mistaken Eastern Europe and Illinois are about 9000 miles apart and on different continents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, The Four Deuces.--Termer (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)