Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a sub-page has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.

RfC: Neutrality tag

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus against removing the WP:NPOV maintenance tag from the article, and on top of that, an agreement that there is still a lot of work to do here, and the tag should remain on the top of the article for now. Editors in favor of keeping the tag relied on two main points: the recently closed AfD, which participants used to show there is an overall issue with the neutrality in this article; and the usual procedure for removing maintenance tags, which recommends that a tag should only be removed after the initial issues are resolved. While some participants believe the tag would be more useful if used in the specific sections where issues might be present, a discussion has shown that the overall article needs attention (which might include its title and structure). (non-admin closure) Isabelle ^🔔 22:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

---

In September, a {{POV}} tag was added atop the article. Is it still the case that the tag should be in the lead of the article?

• Option A No, the {{POV}} tag is not necessary atop the article, nor in any section.
• Option B The tag should be moved to particular sections where neutrality is contested, using {{POV section}}.
• Option C Yes, the {{POV}} tag should be placed atop top of the article.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey: Neutrality tag

• Option B. It does not seem to be the case that the neutrality of the entire article is meaningfully contested in a way that warrants a tag on top of the article. I've yet to see any meaningful objections that characterize the terminology section as being non-neutral. The same goes for the sections on Cambodia, Legal status and prosecutions, and Memorials and museums. I'm seeing some opposition to the inclusion of particular Soviet content, as well as particular PRC content, but it makes more sense to me to actually tag the appropriate sections rather than to lump the whole article together as non-neutral. Section-level tagging would also serve to focus on content discussions within particular sections, which would seem to be more helpful than the current system of going back-and-forth and getting nowhere over the article more broadly. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: As long as we are relying on genocide scholars, who are a minority, and only one side of historiography, we are always going to have NPOV issues for the whole article. "Terminology" should go as SYNTH, not as NPOV, because the first three sentences are about Mass killing in general, and because there is no consensus even among genocide scholars, as we already acknowledges; as has been noted, it also mixes scholarly terminology with legal one. Davide King (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A minority among whom? Ecologists are a minority among scientists, but they seem to be the relevant people in the field of ecology. Genocide scholars seem to be the relevant people to look towards to analyze genocides from a scholarly perspective. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • We would have no problem if genocide scholars and mainstream historians supported and relied on each other, but that is not the case. Genocide studies is a relatively new field, have had issues with mainstream political science, and they are not bent on Communism as this article appears them to me. As noted by Siebert, "when some author group some fact into one book chapter, that does not implies a new topic is created." This is why need to drop them off and focus the article on Courtois et al. theories about Communism being the greatest murderer of the 20th century from a mainstream scholarly POV, that is the notable topic. You mention genocide but Communist/Soviet genocide is even more controversial — see Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics: Raphael Lemkin on 'Soviet Genocide'". Journal of Genocide Research. 7 (4): 551–559. doi:10.1080/14623520500350017. ISSN 1462-3528. Davide King (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but are you supporting your argument that these scholars should be ignored due to POV issues with a reference to the Journal of Genocide Research, which is run by... the International Association of Genocide Scholars? If there's disagreement within the field, that's fine—there often is. But to dismiss the field wholesale because of the concept of Commmunist Genocide being messy (with the exception of the particular Cambodian genocide) doesn't do service to WP:NPOV, which would compel us to include all the significant views published by RS on a topic in a manner consistent with the principle of due weight. What articles like that one show is that genocide scholars do serious work and, while they disagree with each other at times, they're more than well-equipped to engage in scholarly inquiry in this area. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
        • No, what I am saying is that we cannot have an NPOV article if we do not identify majority, minority, and fringe views, and genocide scholars are clearly a minority for not being relied by country experts when discussing the events. As was admitted by major contributor AmateurEditor, the article is based on minority views, especially in regards to proposed causes; how can we write an article from a minority POV? We got the whole structure wrong — it is those who we currently dismiss as controversy and criticism that are majority views, and genocide scholars and all others that represent a minority view. Academic fields are also not all the same and do not hold the same weight, and you seem to overlook all their problems, especially in comparative analysis, which is what this article tries to do by creating a commonality between all those events — contrary to what we do here, majority of genocide scholars do not treat this topic as a separate topic but write in general terms; it is for the same reason I do not support similar articles categorized by other ideologies and system like capitalism or fascism — "when some author group some fact into one book chapter, that does not implies a new topic is created." I think Paul Siebert can explain you this better than I did. Davide King (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C, given that my addition of an unreliable sources tag was removed with the reasoning that it was covered under {{POV}}, the large amount of content dispute occurring in the article as well as the continued use of...dubious...sources throughout the article, it should be clear that the tag should remain where it is. Dark-World25 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. We've just had an AfD discussion, where it was quite obvious that neutrality of the article was disputed by a significant proportion of participants (or at least, a significant proportion of those who actually understood what the RfC was about). I really don't understand why this even needs to be discussed, under such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• This needs DR or other collaborative approach, not a contentious RFC immediately following a contentious AFD, but if I had to pick it would be "A" (invited by the bot, plus I was already here.) Most bias claims seem to be about the mere existence of this article, and we just went through and AFD on that. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree in a collaborative approach, but that is clearly not the reasoning being the NPOV tag — the reason is that is not only selectively about sources but they represent a minority view, no matter how significant, and that there is a contradiction between historians and scholars of Communism, and country experts and specialists in general, and genocide scholars, whose comparative approach, which is what we are trying to do here by positing a commonality, has failed and/or is rifled with problems. We simply cannot write a NPOV article from the POV of a minority, and/or if everything has to be attributed and cited to A rather than B or C. Davide King (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Trout the nom for a waste of time RFC, on the heels of our biggest AFD ever, and while here is an open DRN and an open RSN. No RFCBEFORE? No discussion about what is necessary to clear the tag? I don't think I've even seen an RfC over a tag before. Levivich 13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C since we're voting, because the NPOV problems haven't been cleared yet (and they apply to the whole article, including but not limited to the title and the lead). Levivich 16:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Talk:Socialism#RfC about the POV tag in the article, if you really want to see one. While I'm here, procedural close. At the very least, the RSN needs to be concluded before we can determine if the tag is appropriate or not. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    That RFC hasn't been properly closed. Someone should make the request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close. Per North8000 and Levivich. This RfC should not have been started. ––FormalDude ^talk 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• Option C Since the purpose of the article is to present evidence to prove that genocide is a core component of communist ideology, rather than reporting sources that make this conclusion, it is POV. TFD (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. Other people have detailed the specific reasons, but all else aside there have been long-running POV disputes over essentially the entire article (not just one or two parts of it) for years, none of which have come anywhere close to resolution. Obviously it needs the article-level tag to indicate that fact and to encourage new people to enter the discussion in hopes that it will eventually go somewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• C I don't really care where the POV tag ends up, but considering the entire article has been called POV repeatedly in the AfD that just closed, a global tag seems warranted. Definitely Not A. BSMRD (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• C Should be procedurally closed but otherwise Status Quo until actual effort is made to resolve the decade long concerns of editors. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - Heck knows, it's close to impossible to get 100% neutrality in these types of articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Multi-Whack! If we can't stop arguing about arguing, maybe an RfC to RfC the RfC is in order. And then we can dispute the closure of the RfC of the RfC. It'll be Turtles all the way down. MarshallKe (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - we need focus here, and methodically sort out the specific issues. Indiscriminate WP:TAGBOMBING is disruptive. --Nug (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C many long standing unresolved issues, so no need to change anything. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C - The tag should be at the top of the article. The title of the article is itself problematic, as has been mentioned. The AFD closers did not state that the article is neutral or partly neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C although I admit to giving it no more consideration than I already have, being a nice day to go out. ~ cygnis insignis 08:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• C and procedural close — I agree that the title is itself problematic, and thus the main topic and its structure as a result. As long as we are relying on genocide scholars, who are not relied on by historians and country experts, cherry pick and misrepresent sources (e.g. works about genocide and mass killings in general, authors like Mann whose main thesis is that many genocides, such as Rwandian genocide, were a result of democratic transformations in those countries, hence the book's title Dark Side of Democracy, but we cherry pick his mention of classicide and Communist regimes,1 Kotkin, who does not support the view that the Holodomor was a genocide/mass killing and is talking about demographic losses, not mass killings, and many other examples), and only push the view of the most extreme one-sided, Cold War-like of Communist historiography, we are going to have NPOV issues for the whole article. Mention of WP:TAGBOMBING, which says is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages, is clearly contradicted by the AfD and not tag bombing. Wanting to remove them in light of this, and lack of consensus, is disruptive.

Notes

1. What we need to do to fix NPOV issues is to look at secondary/tertiary coverage — is there any credible academic source that emphasizes classicide and Communist regimes in Mann's work? If there is not, they are likely undue and/or cherry picked; if there is, in what context is it cited and what is its status — majority, minority, fringe? Is it part of scholarly literature and discourse, or is it in isolation and limited to genocide studies? We need to ask the same questions about Valentino and any author that we discuss here. Rather than write "A says B", and cite it to A itself, we need to find if there is C, and whether C is quoting A in the context of Communist mass killings, e.g. this topic, or not (e.g. it could be about mass killings in general or criticism of Communism, or a totally different topic). Davide King (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• A or B We should not tag the article as a whole. There is simply no doubt that there were mass killings under communist regimes, and we should not do anything that makes this appear dubious. Section tags can be decided on a case-by-case basis, but tags should be used with caution. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, POV pushing by removing the {{POV}} tag I see. I suggest reading through the AfD and especially both the nomination and the deletion votes by Paul Siebert and Davide King to understand why the topic is problematic. Dark-World25 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Good lord, how are people still saying this. IT IS NOT IN CONTENTION THAT MASS KILLINGS OCCURRED UNDER COMMUNISTS. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN IN CONTENTION. No one here thinks that Communists didn't kill anybody, and no one here wants to "hide" killings by Communists. It's just tiresome at this point. BSMRD (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Bold capitalised printing isn't required. AFAIK, nobody here has optical difficulties. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• A or B, the whole article doesn't have neutrality issues. If a section is not deemed neutral, then that section should be tagged and worked on.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A Cloud200 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option B Maybe certain sections have such problems, but certainly not the whole article. --TheImaCow (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option C The primary sources grouping all of these together are either highly politicized and unreliable (Rummel/Courtois) or non-experts (Valentino).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  You cannot say Rummel's data is unreliable in light of Wayman and Tago's analysis of his dataset in 2010. Also Harff has grown more critical of country experts who challenge these systematic empirical studies. --Nug (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• C Disputes obviously persist, so removing the notice altogether is wrong; bikeshedding over details of tag placement isn't going to solve content problems, so let's leave the tag as it is and move on. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• C It´s not only specific sections with a disputed validity, the existance of the article itself is not even something we have consensus on. The issues with this article are still far from being resolved. 24.51.233.5 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• B Tag the section so the problem areas can be identified and solved. Tagging the whole article is not helping identify the issues so they can be rectififed and the article can be improved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• C – I haven't reviewed the article, so I have no opinion about whether it is neutral, but from this talk page and the DRN discussions, it seems that major neutrality-related concerns affecting the article as a whole are still being discussed and are not remotely resolved. Therefore the tag should remain for the time being. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• C Judging by the recent AfD and the talk page here, the neutrality of this article seems to be disputed by many editors and should remain for now. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Option A. Such tag does not serve any good purpose here because this article has already attracted a lot of contributors who are in the state of constant dispute. Tag bombing only creates unnecessary tensions here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree that procedural closure with no action is the only option, per Levivich, FormalDude, North8000, MarshallKe, Davide King and others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Neutrality tag

Mere hours after the AfD was closed? Ok. GoodDay (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So much for the DR lol. BSMRD (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC on where maintenance tags should be placed precludes a DRN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I know, it's just amusing. I have no real opinion on this so I probably won't vote. I do think the Dispute Resolution has become... less efficacious, considering the vastly increased activity and attention on the article. BSMRD (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: Admins panel recognosed that there is a major disagreement about neutrality of this article, and this disagreement must be resolved via dispute resolution tool. The tag cannot be removed until that disagreement is resolved. By starting this RfC you literally propose a community to overrule this decision by merely !voting. This is a disruption of a normal process, and if I were you I would withdraw this RfC ASAP. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This is an RfC on where the dispute tags should be placed. I take the view that it should be section-by-section. You may not. But, admins did not close the AfD with instructions in this regard; to imply that they made such a statement is simply wrong. And, even if such a statement were to be made, the proper place to resolve issues with the placement of maintenance tags is surely the article talk page, rather than a discussion that is centered around the question over whether or not to delete the article.
2. Admins did not conclude that DR was the only pathway forward for resolving the dispute. I have actually only encountered the article and all of the related walls of DR text after !voting to the AfD. I am not a party to the DR and I take the view that the DR is at a point where we need to fire off RfCs to start to actually move anywhere—especially since the DR has achieved very little in terms of approaching a consensus among those involved. I am not the only one who thinks this, nor am I bound to enter into a months-long DR that is running into the same exact issues that killed the WP:Mediation Cabal. On top of that, the DR is not about answering the philosophical question whether to place a maintenance tag on top of the article or only in the specific sections to which it applies.

Your aspersion that this is somehow disruptive to the normal process is unfounded, and I kindly suggest that you strike it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: The neutrality tag is just an indication of a major disagreement over an article's neutrality. It is removed only after the disagreement is resolved. I put this tag because I see serious and fundamental problems with the article's neutrality, and I provided quite convincing arguments in support of this my actions. By starting this RfC you invite other users just put my arguments into a trash and to !vote for removal of this tag without analysing if neutrality issues have been resolved. This is an utter disrespect and a misuse of the AfD procedure. I don't find my statement an aspersion.

A more correct AfD question would be: "Do you think that the neutrality issues that lead to the NPOV placement have been resolved, so the tag may be removed or placed to some individual sections?" That question would be more in agreement with a procedure, but it would be still illegitimate in light of the conclusion of the admins panel, which explicitly recognised that there IS a major neutrality dispute, which is still unresolved.

Therefore, I don't find your arguments convincing. If this AfDRFC will not be speedy closed or withdrawn, I may ask admins if it is in accordance with our rules. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, I am not proposing another AfD, nor do you have to find my argument convincing for an RfC to be held on an article talk page. If you don’t like the proposal to move the neutrality tag into article sections, you can simply !vote and make your arguments. I think that this is a fine RfC to place, so I see no need to withdraw it. Especially considering the exact locations of the neutrality dispute seem to be unclear and not strictly defined in the admin close of the omnibus AfD, I think this is appropriate. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mhawk10: I fixed the typo. Of course, I meant RfC.

With regards to the rest, if one user placed a NPOV template and provided a reason for that, you should discuss a reason first, and only if the reason will be found frivolous or already resolved, a discussion of the tag removal may start (or it may be removed automatically). The opposite is a disruption. Do you want me to discuss this question at ANI? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, with due respect, if you are going to take me to ANI over my decision to launch an RfC over whether it is better to include the tag in particular sections or if it is better atop the page, I cannot stop you. That being said, I don’t think that a discussion over where is the best place to apply maintenance tags in this article is disruptive. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The option A says: No, the "POV" tag is not necessary atop the article, nor in any section. That needs no comments.

And, discussion of the tag's placement without discussing an original reason for that is inappropriate.

Furthermore, the question " Is it still the case that the tag should be in the lead of the article?" implies that some significant changes happened in the article that resolved the problems. That question if misleading, because NO significant changes has been made.

It could be quite correct to start this RfC after some work has been done to resolve the problems with NPOV-violations. However, no such work have been done yet, and the attempt to resort to voting is a misuse of the procedure. Actually, that RfC is a direct attempt to undermine the results of the recent AfD, which confirmed that the article has severe problems. Although they are insufficient for article's deletion, they are quite sufficient to keep this tag. If the RfC will not be withdrawn, I'll put this text to ANI. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a policy-based reason against A (I !voted for B but included A for completeness) then you can make the case against A. If your implication is that I am trying to remove all mention of the neutrality issue from the article (which I agree would not be appropriate) then the implication is wrong. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"A" directly means that you are trying to remove all mention of the neutrality issue from the article.

Discussion of the tag placement without discussing the reasons is hardly appropriate. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks premature and uncalled for (there are more pertinent and important RfCs that we should be doing, like the main topic, its structure, its core sources), and the issues have already been confirmed by both AfD1 and DRN. But by all means, go ahead. If this lead us to a discussion about sources' majority, minority,2 fringe status — it may move us forward.

Notes

1. As noted by the AfD closure, 'Keep' side's main argument was not that the article was neutral and/or there were no issues but that it was a notable topic and issues could be fixed. Having the first RfC to be about whether or not we should have tags until such issues are fixed is disingenuous to say the least.

2. The China section relies on Dikötter, Valentino, and the Newsweek rather than country and famine specialists. Majority of sections do not accurately summarize majority views on each event but present a minority POV within the context of genocide and mass killings,3 e.g. the section about the Red Terror does not really explain the context and background of the Russian Civil War and White Terror, which is how majority scholarly sources treat the topic, and/or present popular history sources like Figes and Pipes, or outdated sources pre-1991, and even one from 1927 (!). It certainly is not a summary of the events but a presents specific POV within the context of a Communist death toll, hence why most 'summary style' events are more about how many people died, or how the main cause was communism, rather than fairly summarize the events according to majority scholarly sources. Paul Siebert can explain this better than I did, and I would love to see their take on each sources by sections, and how it would look like if we relied on majority sources, e.g. Ó Gráda for the Great Chinese Famine, or Ellman and Wheatcroft, who ignore the global Communist grouping and/or death toll and focus on the Soviet Union, especially the Stalin era.

3. Just look at how many of the sources' titles are general topics about mass killings to see how majority of events are discussed separately, not together, and so are Communist states — even those who discuss together Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (three leaders of three specific periods of three different Communist regimes), some like Jones separates Stalin and Mao from Pol Pot, and Fein sees Pol Pot more in line with fascism than Marxism. Davide King (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, I don't understand the reasoning in your vote. Neutrality means fairly representing the facts and opinions with the weight they have in reliable sources. We can do this among other ways by seeing how a topic is treated in tertiary sources such as reputable encyclopedias and academic textbooks. Just as sources may disagree on their analysis, so can editors. But which facts and views have greatest weight should never be a matter of disagreement, since we have a clear policy to determine it. TFD (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think every section in the article has NPOV problems. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We cannot tell that until the issue of the article's overall neutrality is addressed. The section on Romania for example could be neutral for an article on mass killings under romanian communist regimes, but be undue for inclusion as a separate section of this article. TFD (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll accept whatever the decision/result of this RFC turns out to be. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I’m seeing some mentions that the title is contested. Does anyone plan to open a move request to try to get the community to resolve that dispute? — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • First, I propose that Robert McClenon open and neutrally write any RfC, if they want. Second, even before discussing the title, we need to agree on what exactly is the main topic and how it should be structured — I do not know whether this can be done in a single RfC or in two separated ones but we clearly need to agree on what the main topic is, and which sources support it, and analyze them, as suggested by Dark-World25. Davide King (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with Siebert and those at ANI that Mhawk10 was not a behavioral issue and that they simply put 'Option A' for completeness, even though I think Robert should have started the first RfC and that this was premature and useless, the fact that several users have supported 'Option A', even though the AfD's conclusion is 'Option C' (not every single section may have the same NPOV issues but many sections would have to be tagged, and considering the controversy and dispute it just makes more sense to place it at the top), is telling and may be disrupting, not least because we simply cannot fix the article if there are users who still think it is either perfectly fine or has no NPOV issues. Davide King (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Davide King - What RFC are you saying I should have been allowed to start before we were distracted by this tagging dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, essentially about what you have outlined so far and below too. We need one or more RfCs about:

1. What is the main topic, and its structure and core sources

• (majority, minority, fringe — is majority discussing Communism as a separate or special topic, or simply as part of genocide and mass killings discourse in general?)

2. Theory-based and focused

• (e.g. Courtois' thesis and link between Communist states and mass killings, and whether the link can be extended to communism itself)

OR

3. Events-focused and based

• (e.g. summary of events according to majority scholarly sources and country experts, not genocide scholars, so rather than discuss them as death toll events, we simply say what happened and summarize majority views, in which case the article must be refocused away from mass killings1 and Communist regimes, and focused on Communist leaders (e.g. Valentino's thesis) and limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, plus the Red Terror within the context of Russian Civil War and White Terror)

WHETHER

4. It is part of scholarly mainstream literature and discourse, or is in isolation with one-sided historians like Courtois and/or a minority of genocide scholars.

5. If it is more of an anti-communist propaganda topic in the (right-wing) popular press (100 million, oversimplifications and generalizations about the causes) that is used to dismiss left-wing politics in general as part of an anti-communist/totalitarian field of memory to criminalize communism as a whole, not just Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism.

6. If it is part of Holocaust obfuscation (double genocide) and trivialization in equations with Nazism, and politicization of Holocaust memories.

I think I have already provided sources in support of this (e.g. Neumayer 2018 and others), but if you feel the need, I can provide them for each claim, and I am sure Siebert can also provide more. Some of the same points may be discussed in the same RfC, so we may not need literally six RfCs — I hope you can organize and summarize those disputes in one or more RfC, and add anything I may have missed. Davide King (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes

1. I found this comment by Siebert about terminology particularly revealing and helpful, and why we need to drop it and move away from mass killings, which is a proposed umbrella term, including Valentino (who gave this article the current name), "to discuss all XX century coercive deaths inflicted by governments and paramilitary organizations. It was proposed as a category for statistical analysis and general theorizing, and it has no special implication to Communism [emphasis mine]."

Davide King (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, any tagging dispute is a distraction from resolving a content issue. This is different from other article tagging disputes only in that the underlying content dispute is larger, and so the tagging issue is potentially a larger distraction from a larger issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that we can remove the top-level tag and work on the sections, because that is based on the assumption that the section organization of the article is correct. It only makes sense to work on the article section-by-section if the sections are correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, we should only remove the top-level tag after we have resolved any disputes about the meaning of the title of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am still willing to work with any editors at DRNMKUCR on any other RFCs that can run while this tagging RFC is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

An RFC & DRN occurring at the same time, about the same article. Rather confusing. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Closure

I've put in a request for closure of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: Structure of Mass killings under communist regimes

Which of the following approaches should be used as the overall structure for the article on Mass killings under communist regimes? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The four approaches that are being considered are listed below. Please reply as to each approach, indicating whether it is acceptable, with a brief explanation.

A. The article should be reorganized as a summary style article, providing an overview of mass killing events under communist governments, and linking to articles on each of the mass killing events.

B. The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept

C. The article should be an amalgamation of A and of B.

D. The article should be split into two articles, as described above.

Instructions to Editors: Please enter your approval or disapproval of each approach in the Survey subsection for that approach, by entering Yes or No with a brief statement. That means that you are requested to enter four statements, one in each lettered Survey. You may reply to the statements by others in the Threaded Discussion section. Note that this RFC, and the article, are subject to Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions for disruptive editing of this RFC or this talk page or article. (You don't need to worry about discretionary sanctions if you observe Wikipedia policies and guidelines.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Closer: Please determine what approach is most strongly supported by strength of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey on A

• Yes - An overview of the major events seems appropriate for wikipedia. Option B, while interesting, it would make the article very lengthy, and may give ground for important major events to be excluded from the article where there is no RS to explain the connection between the event and the government. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - Would effectively remove important information from Wikipedia rather than reforming it or adequately presenting it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC) This is by far and large the worst option on the list due to how contentious the estimate section is compared to the remainder of the information within the article. This option serves no purpose other than that it will make the SYNTH problem tenfold more apparent, all the while erasing useful information from Wikipedia. Of course, the "Estimates" section could be fixed, but in that case you might as well vote yes for C or D. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No if discussing all Communist regimes but if limited to its proper scope, it would be an improvement — if we limit it to proper universally recognized mass killings, i.e. to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (three Communist leaders), and the only debate about famines is limited to the Holodomor, as I noted in my addendum.
  • It also depends on whether it is to be treated as a single phenomenon or not; most of the events are treated individually, and as noted by The Four Deuces, "[a] list of MKuCR implicitly says they are is a consensus that the events are connected", which is the biggest issue and is the reason why we do not have any other Mass killings under ... regimes article. If we are going to use country experts, we can achieve NPOV but may violate OR/SYNTH because they do not discuss them within such a global or single phenomenon context (e.g. Soviet specialists about the Great Purge); if we are going to use genocide scholars, the grouping may be justified as a generalization but we cannot achieve NPOV because we would have to rely on non-experts when describing the events; hence, while this approach may easily improve issues, I am not sure all NPOV and OR/SYNTH issues would be solved — certainly, it is better than the status quo or C. In conclusion I would prefer that we expand Mass killing and/or create Mass killings in history (akin to Genocides in history), irrespective of regime types, as the simplest way to avoid NPOV and OR/SYNTH issues and still discuss Communist regimes.
  • Notes — I do not know why but I thought the topic also included excess deaths and mortality, which is why I mentioned it; instead, it appears to be exactly what I proposed (e.g. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot), and may be fine if we highlight both similarities and diversities [Added Davide King (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)]
  • This is in line from the genocide and mass killing literature I have read. Communism is placed within the context of genocides (basically Cambodia, which is compared to the non-Communist Holocaust and Rwanda) and mass killings in general, and mainly limited to Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes (I do not think chapters about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, with passing mentions about the obvious facts that people were also killed in other Communist regimes, make this particularly topic, as proposed, stand out on its own — the only reason is due to space, but we should at least attempt to expand Mass killing first rather than assume a priori it will be necessary; as there is literature that summarizes that for us, and that events can simply be linked without wasting space to describe each one by one as we do here, it can be done in short paragraphs). This will also likely solve any content forks issues between Mass killing and this article, as this approach will allow us to remove any inconsistency between the two articles.
  • Another thing to consider is that such scholars focus on universally recognized mass killing events, not excess mortality; it is country experts who focus on the latter, and it is only a minority of scholars (Courtois and Rummel) who mix the too, further adding demographic losses, to create a global Communist death toll. Again, I do not exclude that this topic, as proposed here, is not possible or will not be possible in the future (I would like to see a draft and a list of sources first) but I do not think this is a good choice that would help us fixing the article, it is likely the hardest because I still see many disagreement among us. Davide King (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Addendum — another possibility is taking the Communist mass killing(s) name from Valentino but limiting the scope only to mass killings under Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes (e.g. as I discussed in my comment about D). Excess mortality is better discussed in separate articles by each state (e.g. Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin) because having a general article focused on all deaths under Communism would be too close to OR/SYNTH, for (1) country experts do it for each country, and do not engage in a global Communist death toll, and (2) the latter of which has been controversially done by Courtois. As currently worded, A is too close to OR/SYNTH.
  • Either this, or a disambiguation page as another alternative. Davide King (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited] Davide King (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Besides that, I would like to make an important note to participants. During the preparation of this RfC, there was a disagreement among DRN participants about a description of A and C. I, and DK insisted that it was necessary explain that WP:SS must include all important aspects, and if the source analysis demonstrates that the linkage between Communism and mass killings is seen as important by at least significant minority sources, the discussion of this linkage will be added to A-style article per WP:NPOV. This reservation was removed from the final version, but I (and, I assume, DK too) believe it was implied by default. Therefore, posts made by North8000, @ModernDayTrilobite: and @Cloud200: and some other may be partially a result of misunderstanding of our proposal. I apologise for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• No A list of MKuCR implicitly says they are is a consensus that the events are connected, which is POV OR. TFD (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This seems fine. A listing of all qualifying events with short summaries culled from the ledes of their primary pages seems straightforward and useful. There are enough sources tying the events together such that the page itself needs little justification for its existence. 73.152.116.51 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - Best not to make into a summary. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe This one really depends on how strictly we curate entries, which is a debate that I can already see never ending. If we can find a reasonably strict list that actually relies on widely recognized mass killings, this could be good, but I can see it becoming a quagmire very quickly. BSMRD (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Preferable to C / current or to D, but not ideal (ie. prefer B). It'd be better than the current version by reducing the directness of the synthesis the list is presented to support, and clear inclusion criteria would certainly reduce the problems it causes somewhat, but it would be a backwards way to solve the underlying dispute in that we'd be omitting any discussion of the underlying controversy that gives the list meaning and context while retaining a list whose meaning is still mostly synthy. --Aquillion (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Since we all accept Valentino’s definition of mass killings as “50,000 killed within five years”, we should also accept Valentino’s topology of mass killings too, where he groups communist governments together because they share the common mass killing scenario of collectivisation and political terror that is unique to them. Valentino groups USSR, PRC and Cambodia together as confirmed mass killers, and adds Bulgaria, East Germany, Romania, North Korea and Vietnam as possible mass killers. So can we stop with this "the grouping is WP:SYNTH", Valentino has published such a grouping. --Nug (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but I don't know how feasible it is. There would have to be an inclusion criteria, and that criteria would have to be defined in prose. There would also probably have to be some definition of terms. However, I think that this would be the most NPOV, and therefore the best, version possible, as there wouldn't be any fiddling with motives and critiques of one scholar verses another. Grouped together, the events would pass WP:NLIST, and that may just be the best way to go. schetm (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No as it will result in significant loss of well-sourced content mentioned in "B". Cloud200 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No the current page should not be reorganized this way. Instead, if needed, one could create a supplementary list of such events, as common for many other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• No - Discussion of individual mass killing events, without a discussion of the underlying academic views on their relationship, would constitute WP:SYNTH. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• No This option as a stand-alone (i.e. not as a part of "D") would eliminate coverage of a possible cause-effect relationship. IMO, the possible cause-effect relationship should be covered somewhere, and such is the main thing that is uniquely covered in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - This would eliminate the core debate of the topic, which is definitely notable. Fieari (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, hard to see how this could follow NPOV and NOR. An article like this would implicitly endorse the claim that there's a connection between communism and mass killings, but apparently without explaining the analysis behind that claim or describing opposing views. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• No: we need to have sources that analyse a topic as a whole to host an article/list on that topic, something I'm constantly declining drafts at AFC on the basis of. We need to see that there is a shared historical connection between all events considered by mainstream historians to be "mass killings under communist regimes"—non-obvious as there are primitive communisms, communisms that predate Marx and communist regimes across at least four different continents that I'm aware of; and because the mass killings could have completely unrelated causes. Consider what separates this topic from Mass killings in countries beginning with "E" in English. It is that there are sources describing the group as a whole (otherwise we need another AFD). — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• No A 'summary' or 'overview' cannot comply with WP:NPOV, since it would necessarily involve Wikipedia contributors deciding for themselves which events constituted 'mass killing events under communist regimes'. There is a clear disagreement between sources regarding this, and Wikipedia should document the disagreement, not decide the result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• No The discussion and debate around the possible relationship between communist states and acts of mass killings is the notable topic here. When lists of mass killings under communist regimes specifically are given, they are usually done so in the context of this discussion. Furthermore, excluding debate over the validity of such groupings would introduce a bias into the article. Vanteloop (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• No Editors more eloquent than myself have outlined why they see this a failing NPOV and NOR, and I agree. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• No As above, OR and NPOV w/o analysis. fiveby(zero) 13:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - list of events without discussion about proposed causes would give an incomplete view about topic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• No for the same reason as the other no voters above. Levivich 00:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey on B

• Yes Providing a list of killings implies that there is a connection, which is implicit synthesis and contrary to neutrality. TFD (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - Would effectively remove important information from Wikipedia rather than reforming it or adequately presenting it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC) It will not solve SYNTH issues as that spares the sections "Proposed causes" and "Debates over famines" which are overtly opinionated and up to interpretation. Therefore, once the RfC concludes, editors should have to edit both sections of the article repeatedly until the issue is resolved which admittedly is very unlikely as this article just brings about dispute after dispute about the content therein. The least that could be done and should be done is to add a paragraph that states that they are entirely subjective and the opinions of experts in that field of research. Additionally, particularly since the article is 290 thousand bytes in size, it won't fix the LENGTH problem : They would have to be removed outright and I feel that this would effectively remove information from Wikipedia. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • B will still run the issue of synthesis since it still gives opinionated sources weight and will still very much lead to the article being highly controversial. B includes "Proposed causes" and "Debate over famines" which are both highly subjective and up to interpretation. Some will choose to believe what the scholars and specialists say are entirely true, others will be more skeptic - ultimately leading back to the issue that was originally posed by the "Estimates" section. That was why I proposed what tantamounts to D since we could have a fully fact-based article (Example: Adolf Hitler) and a fully theory-based article (Example: Principle of relativity) which would include the estimates, the proposed causes and the debates, mainly my concern was about the proposed causes section originally. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes — this is the best approach to fix the article, and does not necessarily exclude any of the other option. By choosing this topic, we will commit to source analysis to weight scholarly sources and individuate majority, minority, and fringe views. If Courtois and Rummel are majority views, there would be no problem in following their approach.
  • If there is no universal agreement among scholars on the link, other options (e.g. the events themselves, or "providing a list of killings implies that there is a connection, which is implicit synthesis and contrary to neutrality") may violate NPOV and SYNTH. Again, compare the Soviet Union with Cambodia, the former used forceful collectivization of peasantry to accelerate urbanization, while the latter used revolutionary peasants to suppress and destroy urban population. An events-based-and-focused article, by the mere fact of grouping them together, implies that there is a clear connection but that is not there, and scholarly sources also emphasize their differences, and more importantly give each event and country separate causes; it is only a minority of sources, some of it significant, some of it fringe, that gives general causes for mass killings; even genocide scholars, who give generalizations and correlations, do not say communist ideology was the main cause as Courtois and Malia claim — Mann says they were a perversion of both democratic (Rwanda) and socialist ideals (Communism), and Valentino (who writes within the context of mass killings in general) is more concerned about leadership than ideology, and concludes that by removing leaders who engaged in genocides or mass killings, that can stop them from happening, which is based on reality.
  • Valentino's work is Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, not Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide under Communist Regimes. Mann's work is The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, not The Dark Side of Communism: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. I could go on and on, but there is cherry picking in treating Communism as a single or special phenomenon when that is not what scholarly sources do. Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide is about "demonstrat[ing] that it is indeed possible to compare the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina while respecting the specificities of each appalling phenomenon." No emphasis or mention of Communism. We can only discuss the theories and link about the events, not the grouped events themselves as a single, special phenomenon, as is done by Courtois and Malia in The Black Book of Communism. Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder is not Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Communist Mass Murders. Both of those sources may be used for this topic but they are clearly misunderstood to imply they discuss Communism as a separate or special new topic on its own; rather, they place it in the proper context of a general topic. In regards to events, they can simply be linked when mentioned or discussed, or through 'See also' links, where they are discussed in context; there is no need to coatrack them here too.
  • [As I wrote here, no information is going to be lost and should not be.] See also proposed topic and non-primary literature. Davide King (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC) I do share Levivich's views here. As I wrote here, I think that this, plus this, is a good structure and how I understand a possible Communist-focused B structure article to be. If we cannot write a NPOV article about it, I do support Levivich's proposal to make it general, rather than narrow focused on Communism, the former actually being the way it is done by majority of scholars. Davide King (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This seems fine. There is a clearly an ongoing debate on the effect communist founding principles had on the actions chosen by the resultant governments. There are enough sources to justify the existence of this page, though I expect it will be a battleground for years. 73.152.116.51 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - as this could invite disputes over the topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is the actual topic here. Simply listing Communist deaths is something only done by some proponents of the idea that mass killings are inherent to Communism, but that question, whether or not they are inherent, has a much larger body of scholarship and will lead to a much more neutral and informative article. This won't remove any information from WP, all the articles on the individual events are still right there and will be linked when discussed. This version of the article would in fact add information to Wikipedia, as an analysis of this debate does not exist elsewhere on WP. BSMRD (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, an article cannot discuss any debate on the correlations or causes without mentioning the government actions that has led to that debate in the first place. It would be like discussing Causes of World War II without having the article World War II. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, with the caveat that individual killings can be mentioned when referenced by specific authors, in the context of describing their views and how they believe they are connected - ie. we can say "author X has thesis and Y says that this and this and this support their thesis", if we have appropriate cites. What we can't do is perform WP:OR to argue their thesis for them - we ought to be reporting notable research that others have done (and any notable debates over that research), not doing our own. --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - I can't see a faster way to get this page permalocked again than by going down this route. There are very strong willed individuals with strong POV's on both sides of this issue active in the article/on this talk page, and I'm not sure that those POV's can be set aside to create an NPOV article. I'm also not sure as Option B would even pass the GNG or could avoid being entirely SYNTH. If someone wants to go this route, they should draft Option B first so that the community could see if it is at all encyclopedic - I'm unsure it ever could be. Nonetheless, if Option B is chosen, individual killings/historical events must be at least mentioned to give the reader context. schetm (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No as it will result in significant loss of well-sourced content mentioned in "A". Cloud200 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, as framed, that would be a separate sub-page of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - This is the best option, in my opinion. There are certain prominent scholars who draw a correlation between Communism and mass killing – enough to make a discussion of the concept notable, even if it is not a majority viewpoint. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I consider B,C & D to all be fine, and in an ideal world "C" would be best (see my notes there), but if you include being pragmatic, this is the one I most recommend. This would be trickier to write (it would need to refer to mass killings without actually covering them) but much better in the long run because it is the one most likely to avoid the eternal unsolvable debates of which should be covered under killings and what to call them. It sticks to the thing that covered only in this article vs. a summary or condensed version of what is covered in other articles. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - I also support option C, as I think including the data under scrutiny is important from the sources, but I do believe more weight of the article should be focused on the meta-discussion of cataloguing these lists. Fieari (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes – seems like the best option. I understand this option to mean that specific historical events would be mentioned and explained in context where relevant and discussed by sources, but they would not each have their own section with a standalone summary like they do now. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes per my rationale under A. — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is the only option compatible with Wikipedia policy. As has been amply demonstrated through endless discussions over this article, sources disagree over what constitutes 'mass killing', what constitutes 'communist regimes', and whether it is even useful to engage in creating generalising hypotheses around any causative linkage between the two. What the article needs to do, is to discuss the debate as a debate, rather than building itself around one particular perspective - that of the 'generalisers': a few, largely polemical and frequently dated, sources that have presented themselves as 'specialists' in a subject, while ignoring the far larger body of academic work that treats individual events in context, largely refrains from polemic, and questions the validity of the all-encompassing approach taken by the self-appointed 'specialists'. When discussing a particular source, it is of course entirely appropriate to report what they say regarding 'mass killings' as a topic, which events they consider as examples of 'mass killings' and to report any conclusions they arrive at, in regard to casual linkage etc. Report as the opinion of the author. And then report any critiques of their conclusions. Including critiques that question the validity of their entire premises. This is how you write about a debate. As a debate. Not as an article built around one perspective, taking its conclusions as read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, 2nd Choice Objections to this option because of feeling it would artificially limit the scope of the article are valid, however with this option there will still be references made to killings commonly cited as examples and used by scholars. So lists of mass killings under communist regimes will be included, just not in 'wikivoice' and attributed, which I think would still be consistent with policy. The article can then properly examine the proposed causes , as well as critiques, reflecting the ongoing academic debate. I also should point out the academic debate is not what is exclusively important here. If there is a widespread belief that these mass killings were the responsibility of communism, and that phenomenon is notable ( I believe it is easy to evidence it is) , a discussion of that and potential reasons would also be in the scope of this article. Vanteloop (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes I find myself strongly in agreement with BSMRD and Aquillion's reasonings above. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, although not disagreeing with BSMRD or Aquillion
  • State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Some consideration should be given to the reader arriving on this page with a limited knowledge and background. Not at all well done in the current article, but i think the B option might exclude more basic information required by some readers. I see the difficulties, but i think the RfC is forgetting readers need some grounding in A, and that finding the individual articles through links from here might be a burden to understanding for some readers.
  • I don't think the A content is well done in Communism or History of Communism, and seeing the recent edits to Communism i'm wary of what some here consider the B option content to be.
  • I think many of the "revisionist" sources are country specific, will the article end up excluding these sources? (i'd ask for @Paul Siebert:'s input on this) With a natural presentation of those by country, aren't we just back to a country list? Presenting a "revisionist" source we have to say what they are "revising" (tho i hate to put things in those terms). The Gulag numbers revised lower than the earlier "totalitarian sources". Isn't a natural organization of such material by country?
  • A positive of this option might be an increased presentation of the historiography, maybe helpful for such disputed history. But likewise that might at times be country specific.
  • Anyway, NO, but i may be misreading what the B content would actually look like when all is said and done fiveby(zero) 14:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - discussion about proposed causes alone doesn't give a comprehensive overview if information about events themselves is excluded.--Staberinde (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, 1st choice because I don't think the sources are there to justify the scope of mass killings under communist regimes, as opposed to mass killings overall or mass killings under other types of regimes (e.g., totalitarian v. democratic, secular v. religious, but not capitalist v. communist, or communist alone). I would be an unreserved "yes" if the scope was "the study of the connection between mass killings and political ideology", "the connection between systems of government and state violence", but I think the framing of the article as limited to "under communist regimes" is presenting a non-mainstream view as a mainstream view. The theory that mass killings and communism are inherently linked should be covered in a section in articles about communism and mass killings, but not in an article of its own. However, voting "no" on this would lead me to the position of having voted "no" on every option in this RFC, and I am very grateful to the dogged work by Robert and others to try and push towards consensus, so in the interests of picking one from among these four, Yes, 2nd choice because as between the four options, this is the one that is most neutral and the most faithful presentation of the sources. I think there are more sources written about the controversy regarding mass killings and communism than there are about mass killings under communist regimes; there's more historiography than history here. Levivich 00:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey on C

• No - The current article is not presented correctly and that is why the article got a hefty amount of criticism. Additionally, I can see the length of the article being a problem as it is fairly difficult to read through. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - to clarify, this option represents the current status quo with respect to scope, which should include the events, discussion about possible causes of those events, as well as the current reactions in terms of memory politics, etc —-Nug (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Further, imagine we have some phenomenon X and several theories that explain it. Can we write an article that discusses only the theories without mentioning the phenomenon X? Obviously not. That is explicitly prohibited by our policy, which says all facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article. The phenomenon X here is the mass killings that have occurred under communist governments (option A), and the possible causes/linkages are discussed are in an appropriate section (option B). --Nug (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with B is that it has a narrow focus on Communism as a causative factor. Everyone agrees that mass killings did occur under several communist regimes, so as a reader I want to find out which regimes and what the other causative factors or enablers were. Scholarship does exist that looks at common causes and there is also scholarship that looks at country specific causes. Hence a C type article would best fulfill that goal, with a section on common enabling factors and country specific factors under the respective regime sections. --Nug (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• No — as noted by Nug, this is essentially the current version, on which the the latest AfD (2021) ruled that "the Wikipedia editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether 'mass killings under communist regimes' is a suitable encyclopaedic topic." It is not a good approach either to fix the article because it is too close to OR/SYNTH, and a split would be better. We tried this approach for over a decade by now, it is time to change it. We also cannot synthetize those writing within a broad context of genocide/mass killings and totalitarianism (Chirot, Jones, Mann, Valentino), and those discussing 18 cases but still finding only the "Big Three" of engaging in mass killings in the most accepted definition and criteria (Valentino), with those discussing Communism as a whole and with a much broader methodology (Courtois, Rummel), which is controversial.
  • Again, this does not exclude it cannot be written but I do not think that this is the good approach to fix it. B is the best one because if we find scholarly sources saying there is a universal link, and this is a majority view, then the automatic results will be this. The only possibility could be to rely on country experts and specialists for A and genocide scholars and other mainstream scholars for B; however, this is still too close to OR/SYNTH, as A scholars do not write within the context of Communism as a single phenomenon and give different causes or interpretations from B scholars, who write within the context of finding generalizations and correlations, which may be at odds with each other. Nonetheless, this approach would be the easiest way to fix the article in the now but I do not think it is going to fix the greater OR/SYNTH issues later on.
  • Addendum — Even if we may not have given the exact same '!comments', I appreciate and share ModernDayTrilobite, North8000, and Fieari's comments and think all of them gave very good arguments, and I feel myself closer to them than my mere 'Yes' or 'No' difference may say. Thanks to everyone else too for participation and civility.
  • Davide King (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • See also this as my short summary of the grouping issue based on source analysis and comparison. [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral (Actually, a neutrally written A and neutrally written C are the same articles. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It seems there is a misunderstanding of what people are voting for. The @Nug:@Aquillion: posts are a good example. They both are right, but they focus on different aspects. Nug is right that a discussion of a theory that explains X should include a description of X, provided, but only provided, that this theory is a majority view. In the context of the option C, the opposite question is legitimate: should the theory that describes X be presented in the article about X? The answer is obvious: "Yes, but it must be presented along with all other voewpoints, fairly, proportionally, and without editorial bias. That inevitably makes C and A the two identical options: if we describe mass killings in Communist states, we must discuss all important theories that explain them, as a group and/or as separate events. If the concept that Communism was a primary factor in mass killings is a majority or a significant minority view, this topic will be discussed in the A-type and C-type articles, and it will be discussed at the same level of detailisation. Our policy simply does not allow anything else.
  • Therefore, "A" and "C" is intrinsically the same, and "C" is not necessarily the status quo. It may be the status quo, if our prospective analysis of sources will demonstrate that "Communism as a primary reason of mass killings" is a mainstream view shared by majority of genocide scholars and country experts. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No for the same reasons I opposed A. Having a list of incidents implies there is consensus that they are connected, which is POV OR. TFD (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No I do not think these topics can coexist and produce a useful article. 73.152.116.51 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - as that's basically what we've already got. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No All this debate and consternation is happening because the status quo is obviously not satisfactory. If we want to improve this article in any way, it needs structural change. BSMRD (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, such an amalgamation (as we have currently) effectively uses the list from A as synthesis to support the arguments presented in B; it's an inherently non-neutral article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - this is what we have, and it's fine. Not super (that would be Option A), but fine. The historical events are treated with accuracy and, most helpfully, there are wikilinks to the main articles of each of these events. Theories about those mass killings, their connection to communism/their connection to communist regimes are dealt with, and a coherent, albeit lengthy, article is the result, to the benefit of our readers. schetm (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Cloud200 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The purpose for including this option is because the community did not reach a consensus to delete the article as it is (nor to keep) in the AfD. Therefore to not include an option to represent the article as it currently is would be controversial and could be seen as a way to 'backdoor' a deletion of the article following the unsuccesful AfD. In this sense Nug, Davide King, and others' interpretation of this option reflecting the current version are correct. Also a reminder to please use the section below for replying to other people's comments, or for multiple paragraphs of statements if possible. Ta Vanteloop (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, 1st choice Having waited to read the entirety of the RFC (so far) I share the sentiment that if done well, this is the ideal option. It doesn't limit the article too much nor invite POV forks. This, and option B (see my comments there) are similar. Ideally this article would reflect on the academic disucssion surrounding mass killings under communist regimes, giving a summary of the killings that are commonly used by groups as evidence for this. Vanteloop (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes because this is status quo version according to the person who started this RFC [19]. Based on my knowledge and understanding of this subject, the current version of this page is pretty good, as also follows from numerous RS currently cited on the page. I do not understand why some contributors dislike this page so much. Of course every version is wrong version, but this page is in a much better shape than many others in WP (it would probably fall into 30% of best pages in WP). My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• No - Although the discussion of the underlying concept makes this option preferable to A, it still retains Option A's OR/SYNTH issues. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but my #2 choice Ideally, this could make the best article. Coverage of possible correlation, and a short summary of key killings which would support and optimize that coverage. But this is basically the status quo, which under current realities and current wiki policies and guidelines has been an eternal painful unsolvable situation. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• 'Yes - But to be clear, I'm not necessarily voting for "the status quo". I feel that both the data/list and a discussion of the list is important, but I feel that the discussion of the list should take precedence over the list itself... and I don't think that is how the article is currently. Fieari (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe, but probably not ideal. The current state of the article makes it look like Wikipedia is endorsing the claim that all of these events were killings and that all were due to communism (both controversial in some cases). It would be better to explain individual events as needed to support explanation and analysis of the overall topic, not to give each one its own section. If we do go with this option, I agree with User:Fieari that the focus should be on the discussion rather than the list. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. An article that discusses "Mass killings under communist regimes" should be summary style on that topic: it should include a summary of the killings, a summary of the debates regarding proposed causes, a summary of reactions to the killings outside of the academic world, etc. The whole point of WP:Summary Style is that we should be trying to create a summary of the topic that exists. And the topic of mass killings is exactly at the intersection of these sorts of things. I disagree with those above that write that doing this is novel synthesis when there are a plethora of sources that already do so and treat them as unique from other sorts of mass killings. Aside from Rummel and Valentino, who have been discussed to death on this page, these sources include: Bellamy, who distinguishes communist from non-communist mass killings both in scope and in the differences in moral ideologies between Communist and non-Communist states and Wayman & Tago, who open by reviewing differences between the conclusions in Rummel's work and those of (for example) Valentino and then goes on to predict the probability that at least one mass killing event will occur in a communist regime by year. There are also many mainstream Cold War historians, like Miscamble, who write that the reality that every Marxist regime that existed proved to be an experiment in mass murder or even genocide as well as the location for political repression on a vast scale. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe, per my rationale under A. So long as sources tie the events together, I don't see the harm in a bit of context for some of the most major mass killings under communist regimes. — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• No This is essentially the status quo, and simply cannot work in a manner compliant with Wikipedia policies. One cannot both properly report on a debate and 'summarise' the conclusions it has arrived at, because the debate is unresolved. The mess we are in now is the consequence of trying to do the impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as to the RfC question, No as to this being an endorsement of the current structure. I think the structurally problem is just poor organization and presentation in general, and inclusion or exclusion of a summary-style country list may solve one issue but not solve other issues. fiveby(zero) 14:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)~
• Yes - the relevant events, modern reactions to those events in form of prosecutions and memorials, and discussion about possible causes of those events, are all important to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - exactly what Aquillion said. Because 'no' to A on essentially OR/SYNTH grounds, 'no' to A+anything else on the same OR/SYNTH grounds (methinks combining A with anything else would be even more SYNTH than A alone). Levivich 00:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey on D

• Yes - Per proposal. The article, as it, does not give proper weight to the facts while it focuses too much on the opinions of academics. Hence, it is partially the causality for WP:SYNTH, and the article itself, as mentioned earlier, is already very lengthy. However, I should add that I am completely opposed to A and B and would prefer status quo over the previous two options as that information could still be used either separetely (The preferable option) or mutually to teach people about the horrors of auth-left Communism that plagued the Earth for decades and continues to do such in present day. With all due respect, Deathlibertarian you could have picked option D, so that this article is not so lengthy. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I do note that I changed my mind from my original proposal on the prospect of possibly removing entirely a section of the article, I do not think that will do much good in the long run since it can, at any time, be reintroduced accidentally or intentionally. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - When I originally voted for this, I was not aware of an article with my expressed idea above already existing (Thanks @Davide King:), that article is Criticism of communist party rule which is a noncontroversial opinion-focused article that repeats verbatim several paragraphs from Mass killings under communist regimes. I do not know which article plagiarized the other, but one fact I know for sure is that several opinion pieces within MKUCR are very ill-fitted to be here, whereas they belong in that other article as highlighted previously. My new proposal would be to just nuke the estimates section, the proposed causes section and the debate section off MKUCR since they already exist elsewhere, and due to how the other article is much better presented in contrast to this one (MKUCR) which has a heavy focus on facts, therefore, partly the cause for the SYNTH issues within MKUCR with its improper synthesis of textual content + the sources implying something that isn't necessarily true. I am not voting in support of A or B as they still spare those sections and instead will propose a procedural close for status quo, afterward those sections should be removed, and I wish to hear no "but" nor "wait", just nuke them off MKUCR please. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To quote Davide King: No information is actually going to be lost, as we already discuss all the events either indivdiually or by each Communist state as is done by majority of scholarly sources, and the current "Proposed cause" section as well as "Estimates" are already at Criticism of communist party rule, and estimates are further discussed at Democide, which is a more accurate category, since it is very broad. I am gonna ping other people who had similar concerns to mine about information erasure, so to make sure that they are aware that removing information from here will not completely remove said information off Wikipedia since it already exists elsewhere: @Cloud200: @Schetm: @My very best wishes: @X-Editor: MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @MarioSuperstar77: We can absolutely move the "Causes" discussion into that Criticism of communist party rule article. In such case this article could just contain a link or excerpt template. Cloud200 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I definitely agree on that idea, someone else already attempted to scavenge some parts of this section for the other article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes | No — only if | unless they are general articles and not limited to Communism
  • As I showed in my comments, genocide scholars write general works about genocide and mass killings, they do not limit themselves to Communism or treat it as a special category that represents a separate or new topic. Causes of genocide and/or Causes of mass killing would be more in line with genocide scholarship, majority of which does not necessarily emphasizes regime types or treat them as separate categories, and those who do can easily be discussed in an appropriate section, including one about correlations in general and correlations by regime type or other characteristics that scholarly sources analyze or compare, which should make everyone happy.
  • If there were mainstream academic books fully dedicated to Communist Mass Killings rather than chapters about it, like is done for any other regime type, and most of them limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (three Communist leaders rather than Communist regimes), establishing this as a separate and new topic, I can accept such possibility. As things stand, I can only propose a separate article about Mass killings under Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. Davide King (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - The article is a bit long, so splitting it in two as proposed would make reading more comfortable for the reader. I also think it would be counterproductive to remove information about either topic, as both the mass killings and the causes of them are notable topics. The two articles, in my opinion, should be named Mass killings under communist states and Proposed causes of mass killings under communist states. There should also be a third article named Terminology of mass killings under communist states and a fourth article named Estimates of the death toll for mass killings under communist states. The sections "Debate over famines", "Legal status and prosecutions", and "Memorials and museums" should be kept in the Mass killings under communist states article as they relate most to the killings themselves. If the terminology section is too problematic to be split into a separate article as suggested below by Paul Siebert, then the section and its information should be removed entirely, as terminology is the least important factor of Communist mass killings. Any information in the Mass killings under communist states article that cannot be backed up by sources calling them Communist mass killings should be removed, as that would be original research and synthesis. As for the concern that calling these mass killings "communist" is not neutral, calling them communist states would create a distinction between the ideology itself and the execution of the ideology in real life as a form of state. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we would also have no choice but to use the term communist, since it is the most common term used to refer to these mass killings. This is my proposal for dealing with this topic. X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• I'm honestly not sure what should be done about this article. MarioSuperstar77's proposal sounds interesting, but I'm still not so sure about it, as it wouldn't make sense to have an article discussing these mass killings without also explaining their causes and the debates surrounding them. As for the Criticism of communist party rule article containing better information about the estimates and debate over famines, why can't that information just be added to this article instead of removing the information in this article entirely? X-Editor (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No per POVFORK. We would then have one article that implcitly states the events were connected and another that examines whether or not they were. TFD (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes The only real solution here, to my mind, is to segregate the "article about the bodies" from the "article about the debate." This isn't because the two topics are disjoint; this is a practical matter as I do not believe editors drawn to the first topic can coexist with editors invested in the second. Perhaps in some decades these two subjects can come together again, but for now we should split the baby and take advantage of the notability of the resultant parts. 73.152.116.51 (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - as we can't deny that Communist regimes were destructive to humans, who dared to oppose them. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No This really is just asking to become a WP:POVFORK issue. These articles will inevitably diverge from each other despite theoretically very similar content, which is explicitly not allowed by WP. Keeping it all one article is the best way to avoid these issues. BSMRD (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, too likely to result in a WP:POVFORK. Arguments that tie together individual mass killings should be presented (with appropriate attribution and discussion) in a central article; a laundry-list of mass killings without that key secondary framing is going to turn into editors using their own WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to argue the point of the main article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, as I'm not sure Option B could stand on its own - see my comments above. schetm (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes for the sake of making the article more readable in editorial sense. Cloud200 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, please keep status quo. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but B would be preferable. This solution would create one article about the concept of communism/mass-killing linkages, which would be a useful encyclopedic article in line with other articles on historical theories. The other, summary-style, article would likely be problematic under WP:SYNTH or WP:POVFORK; however, splitting it off could be a first step toward the establishment of a more balanced summary article on mass killing events. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes but my #3 choice It includes coverage of the possible correlation which is essential. And the "possible correlation" article is less likely to have the huge unsolvable questions that have kept this article in pain for over a decade. It would be a bit tricky to write the "possible correlation" article without covering the killings themselves, but that is likely to get solved. Those "huge unsolvable questions that have kept this article in pain for over a decade." would likely remain with the "cover the killings" article. Also, without the purpose of supporting the "possible correlation" coverage, the criteria is a bit POV'ish. So this would be my #3 choice of the 4. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - WP:POVFORK. Let's not do this. Very bad idea. Fieari (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Probably not – I agree with those above who say it's likely to lead to some kind of POVFORK. Seems like asking for trouble. But I'm open to being convinced if someone has an argument for this being workable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• No per my rationale under A (we can't have an article solely with the scope of A). — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. Hell no. Even ignoring my comments on the validity of A above, this is a proposal to create POV forks. Wikipedia doesn't do that. Or shouldn't. Not over a topic as significant as this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• No This was option was included for completeness, however I believe that this is not the answer for this article. I agree that the only outcome I can see arising from this is a POV fork. Furthermore, my objection to A would apply to the standalone list as well. Vanteloop (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• No I agree completely with the POV fork concerns outlined above. I think the list has significant potential to also become a source of wp:battleground drama in the future as well, per the whole "how do we define a Communist regime" issue. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• No - I agree, this would be creating a POVFORK, plus it would be creating an "A" article, so per my "no" to "A". Levivich 00:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

As I explained during the DRN discussion, if we stick with NPOV, the options "A" and "C" must be the same, so addition of "C" just dilutes the voices, and "A"/"C" option may not win. Just think: the article of the type "A" tells a story about mass killings in Communist states, and if Communism, according to majority RS, was an important factor, then its discussion must be added to the "type "A"" article. As an example, take a look at the World War II article: it includes such general sections as "Background" or "Aftermath", and, similarly, if we choose SS AND Communism is seen as a significant factor by majority RS, we will inevitably have the section about the role of Communism in the SS (type A) article. It would be against NPOV to do otherwise. Similarly, the "Type "C"" article is a combination of the story of mass killings and their linkage with Communism, which is described "fairly, proportionally, and without editorial bias". Actually, these two options are the same, and that if why I initially proposed to remove "C" as redundant. However, since other DRN participants didn't support removal, I agreed on "C". I am neutral about the outcome of this RfC, and I am pretty comfortable with any result. Happy voting :)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: "Terminology" section is a pure original research and minority POV-pushing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Are anonymous users usually allowed to comment on a RfC? Especially on an article that they cannot edit as it is semi-protected? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

MarioSuperstar77, WP:RFC says: "All editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC." I am also not concerned, since RfCs are not a vote and Robert McClenon has made it clear that the closer has to "determine what approach is most strongly supported by strength of arguments." Davide King (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Davide King - The statement that the RFC is not a simple vote is always the policy. I didn't make it as a special rule.

User:MarioSuperstar77 - The closer can decide how much credence to give to any editor including unregistered editors.

Any editor is welcome to invite the unregistered editors to create accounts. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I have clarified that RfC is not a vote not per you but per policy. I am fully aware of it, I just wanted it to be clear for IPs and users who did not take part to any RfC before. Davide King (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that giving extra emphasis on strength of arguments in the close as Robert McClenon did is a good idea and serves many purposes. One of them is that it provides emphasized notice that canvassed votes will not count for much thus discouraging that activity. Also I think that it is fine for the person who has moderated parts of this to suggest extra emphasis on that from the closer. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: That is a rare case when I think that strength of arguments doesn't matter. I see several reasons for that.

• First, I have no idea who will analyse strength of arguments, and how deep this analysis will be. I suspect that a uninvolved user will hardly be capable of diving into all details of what was discussed here, and, therefore, the analysis will almost inevitably be superficial.By "will hardly be capable", I mean not intellectual capabilities, but readiness to invest a significant amount of time for analysis of all aspects of this (very complex) issue. It would be unfair to expect that from an uninvolved user.
• Second, this is a rare case when rational arguments do not matter. We pro;posed an RfC that is fully consistent with our policy, and implementation of each of those options will not result in a loss of any information from Wikipedia. Thus:

- If the community chooses "A", it will be a summary style article about all significant facts and opinia on this topic. Therefore, if a subsequent source analysis will demonstrate that Communism was a significant common cause, the section about Communism as a common cause will be added in the "A-style" article. If teh source analysis will show that that issue is a subject of controversy, the section about that controversy will be added to the "A-style" article. We just have to do that, for NPOV leaves us no choice.

- If "B-style" will be implemented, the story about each individual mass killings/mass mortality events still can be found in other article, and that was a main reason for the last AfD: this article (in its present form) tells a different story about the facts and events that are already described in other Wikipedia articles.

-If "C-style" will be selected, the result will be essentially the same as "A": if source analysis demonstrate that Communism is a significant causative factor and is extensively discussed by country experts, then a big section will be added to the article as a part of the rest summary-style narrative. If the source analysis does not confirm that, and Communism is not seen as a significant factor, then that section will be very small. Again, everything depends in the results of the future source analysis (which we have already started). NPOV does not give us much freedom of maneuver in this aspect, and I sincerely don't understand why some people who vote for "C" believe this option reflects the status quo". It doesn't.

-And, if the community votes for "D", no important information will be deleted either: we create two articles, and one of them (the role of Communism as a causative factor) will be a spinoff article of the SS-article in the same sense as Race and crime in the United States is a daughter article of the Crime in the United States article.

• Therefore, all four options comply with our policy, and the choice of one of those options will not remove any significant information from Wikipedia. Therefore, I don't see how any rational argument can be proposed in support or against each of those option. All of that is just a matter of the community's taste, and the most important factor here is the vote count. In that sense, I see absolutely no problem with canvassing: the more votes, the better.

All of that is a reason why I am absolutely neutral in my choice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I don't agree with various things there, but feel no need to pursue here. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Frankly, I would be grateful if you explained what you disagree with. I am not sure that will lead to a real dispute, but it would be very useful for me to know your opinion on what I wrote. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that you are being too optimistic. I also disagree that all options are in line with our policies, and I am not the only one to think so, e.g. TFD's comment that "[a] list of MKuCR implicitly says they are is a consensus that the events are connected, which is POV OR", Aquillion's comment that "such an amalgamation (as we have currently) effectively uses the list from A as synthesis to support the arguments presented in B; it's an inherently non-neutral article", and Aquillion's, BSMRD's, Fieari's, and ModernDayTrilobite's comments about content POV forks. You would be right if there were academic books fully devoted to Communist Mass Killings rather than chapters in works about Genocide and Mass Killing in the 20th Century and in general; as things stand, the only structure in line with sources and full respect of our policies is B and the strength of arguments so far reflect this. Davide King (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

If they were not in agreement with policy, I would vetoed the DRN, and this RfC never started. Of course, they are. As I already demonstrated, each of those choices perfectly allow us to write an article that complains with all policies. Therefore, the concrete outcome of this RfC absolutely does not matter: any choice is good.

The main obstacle that prevented improvement of this article was ambiguity of its topic. Different users interpreted it differently, and that almost totally prevented its improvement. After this RfC will lead to come definite outcome, everything will be much easier. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that is the main obstacle and we are making progress; whether they are not violating them will greately depend on source anslysis. For me A, means discussion of universally recognized mass killings (no famines) under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (the Red Terror is also a mass killing event but I have not seen it discussed within this context because it was within the context of the Russian Civil War), and that would be fine by me, yet as you noted once, we already have articles for each event and very little comparative analysis, so what does it add? C (status quo) obviously violates our policies, but as you should know by now and as I wrote in my comment, C in general may also violate NPOV and OR/SYNTH because the only way to write it is to merge country specialists (A) with genocide scholars (B), which may constitute OR/SYNTH because country specialists do no write within the context of Communist mass killings or Communism in general, and may not be SYNTH/OR only if they actually relied on each other but they seem to mostly act in isolation from each other; in this sense, I think AmeteruEditor, Nug, and TFD were right (it is not your fault though, it is the structure that is totally wrong), but you and TFD are obviously right about the article's problems. Without source analysis, D likely violates content POV fork but may be a good means to fix the article in the end. I do not disagree that a NPOV article may be written for each option, without also engaging in OR/SYNTH, but I am very skeptical of it and preliminary source analysis leads me to see B as the only solution and really notable topic, and thus the only option that does not violate our polices and guidelines (e.g. the only option for which an NPOV article can be written about it). Davide King (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll add myself to the list of users who also disagree with your post, but I am comforted by the fact you have previously committed to respect the outcome of the RfC. That includes if you misinterpret the stated options , as this is a community consensus that is not required to satisfy one user. Vanteloop (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I am responding to your ping. You write: "I think many of the "revisionist" sources are country specific, will the article end up excluding these sources? (i'd ask for @Paul Siebert:'s input on this)" Actually, not only "revisionist" sources are country-specific. Generally speaking all sources that are relevant to MKuCR can be subdivided on the following categories:

• 1. Country-specific/event-specific sources. Contrary to what you say, not only "revisionist" sources, but majority (or an overwhelming majority) of all sources are country-specific. They explain each event mostly based on its own historical context.
• 2. Books and articles authored by "genocide scholars". These scholars try to identify some commonalities between different events, and most of them group each mass killing according to different criteria: genocides in Asia", "revolutionary vs counterrevolutionary genocides", "politicides", "democide" etc. They are not about Communist mass killings sensu stricto: usually they study either some subset or a bigger set of events, and sometimes the set of events that they study just partially intersect with what this article calls "Communist mass killings": "democide" is broader, "politicide" is in some aspect broader (it covers not only Communist politicide, but not all "MKuCR" events fall under a category of "politicide", "classicide" is a narrow concept that is applicable only to Cambodia, and, to much smaller extent, to USSR and China, etc. These sources (sometimes) make some general conclusion about the role of Communism (or its ideology, or similar factors), but that is, as a rule, not their central point.
• 3. Few sources, such as Courtois introduction to the Black Book, that directly link some "generic Communism" and killing of 100+ people.
• 4. Some sources that directly and openly criticise these views.

It is easy to see that if we include all there categories of sources, we inevitably get an "A-type" narrative that must be dominated by the first type (counrty-specific) sources, simply because they are more numerous, more informative, and contain more factual details and more recent facts. The type 2-4 sources must be moved down, to the very end, and combined in a section devoted to various generalisations and criticism thereof. And, as you can easily see, per our policy, the "A-typ" and "C-type" articles must converge: we cannot have a "summary-style" article (A-type) without a discussion of some commonalities, but the discussion of commonalities and the linkage of Communism (in a "C-type" article) cannot be big (because the majority of sources are the type 1 sources). That means it does not matter if we select "A" or "C": if we observe NPOV, both articles will be essentially the same.

Therefore, "B-type" article is not a discussion of events (each of which already has their own articles), but a discussion of attempts to make generalisations, including a discussion of the historical context of these generalisation attempts, their political implications, strengths, weaknesses and criticism of these theories etc. In addition, that partially addresses Staberinde's argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Siebert (talk • contribs) 21:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Note that the above user has on multiple occasions misrepresented the arguments of others, and when asked for explanation just ignored the comments . For any uninvolved editors it is worth taking his 'analysis' with a pinch of salt, considering the misrepresentations and refusal to acknowledge them seem to be a theme. Vanteloop (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, stop doing this, which may be considered a form of badging and a personal attack, especially when Fiveby have not complained about it, and I am interested in their discussion, which may be helpful in improving the article, and better understand both sources and our own understanding of them and the topic. Both Siebert and I have been misinterpreted too by, but we are not going to put a note, it is just disrupting and does not help in solving any genuine misunderstanding there may have been. Their source analysis has been positively reviewed in an academic journal (here you complained that they have not published it, I think getting secondary coverage like this is better, so perhaps it is time you and Nug get your review of Siebert's source analysis published in an equally reliable academic journal?) also did not ignore comments, they have made it clear that they are only going to discuss source selection.12 Please, reply to me on my talk page or on yours, and let us leave space for Fiveby to answer. Davide King (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a note that provides context for an uninvolved editor. More recently, this user has been publicly rebuked for their behaviour which could be interpreted as Civil POV pushing. Not by me, but by an uninvolved moderator of the dispute resolution. So I suggest it is time they stick to WP policies. They have also been criticised for acting as if they WP:OWN the page by that same neutral moderator. Part of our role in ensuring that doesn't happen is ensuring arguments are properly vetted. Discussing on user talk pages doesn't accomplish this. If you would like to increase the readability of the talk page I suggest you reduce the verbosity of your comments. Vanteloop (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That is false or a clear oversimplification — it was due to a real misunderstaning (that I thought we all solved?) because Robert McClenon thought that Siebert was vetoing at the DRN, and you too thought the same, but it was a misunderstanding, as the moderator themselves wrote here. I have been less verbose, now drop this. Davide King (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• That was actually not the time Paul Siebert was rebuked by the neutral moderator for his behaviour that I was referring to, but the fact there are enough instances to get confused proves my point. Yes lets drop this and hopefully Paul will now clarify his continued misinterpretation of sources Vanteloop (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

C

_{note:these comments were originally left in the main section of the RfC, but were later moved here for clarity Vanteloop (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)}

This option does NOT present the status quo: the current article does not present all significant point of view fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, and its current structure may create some apparent hierarchy. Therefore, voting for C is not an endorsement of the correct topic/structure. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

_{Responding to this comment by Nug. Note added by Davide King (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)}

...and we should accept the main conclusion made by Valentino: that regime type is not an important factor that explains mass killings. You may speculate about the meaning of each of his phrases, but that does not change the fact that the core if his theory is: "leader's personality is the main factor, so removal of few persons from power eliminates a risk of mass killings even without political transformations of the regime." Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, you confuse his grouping of the phenomena into a communist type with his conclusions as to the causes of the phenomena. I've told you this multiple times, yet you seem to instantly forget. I'm starting to think this may be some kind WP:NOTGETTINGIT. --Nug (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I think there is some confusion here: it was me who says that Valentino's grouping does not imply he saw Communism as a significant cause. The current version of this article carefully attenuates this fact. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The purpose for including this option is because the community did not reach a consensus to delete the article as it is (nor to keep) in the AfD. Therefore to not include an option to represent the article as it currently is would be controversial and could be seen as a way to 'backdoor' a deletion of the article following the unsuccesful AfD. In this sense Nug, Davide King, and others' interpretation of this option reflecting the current version are correct. Also a reminder to please use the section below for replying to other people's comments, or for multiple paragraphs of statements if possible. Ta Vanteloop (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And that is why I was insisting on clear and detailed explanation of "A-D". You disagreed, and as a result, different people understand each of four options differently. I am afraid after closure of this RfC we may have another RfC to resolve a dispute on how exactly the results of this RfC should be interpreted. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Please move your reply and my response to the section below, to avoid clutter - and do the same for your other replies in the wrong section. So far you are the only one who has failed to understand the instructions of the RfC not to reply to other's top level comments (and the only one who has misunderstood the meaning of C). Vanteloop (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I referred to "C" as essentially the status quo only with respect to scope (which is the core topic of this RFC), not as a statement that the current article has achieved the goal of "C" aspires to be. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding to my comment, regarding whether or no "summary style" represents the status quo regarding scope, I think that the status quo regarding scope definition inevitably includes summary style to some extent. Many of the killings that are a whole article elsewhere (necessarily) have only a much shorter section in this article. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

B and D

MarioSuperstar77 say B is still synthesis like C but what do they respond from both BSMRD and The Four Deuces that D is a content fork? "[With D,] [w]e would then have one article [A] that implcit[i]ly states the events were connected and another [B] that examines whether or not they were." If they think B is SYNTH, how can they support D, which is essentially A and B as separate articles? What did I miss in their arguments? I invite them to clarify and discuss this. Davide King (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I had stated it in several different ways, but apparently I am not able to make myself clear. I checked on the net for something that I'd like to call "Interpreting an opinion as fact" since I am certain that I have not invented this, but the best citation I could find relating to my point is from the philosopher's mag.^<1> Any way, I will attempt to reiterate what I have said above one more time; my idea is to split the article into two articles: one that is based in facts with all the data and statistics fact-checked several times and the other based in theories, hypotheses, and debates. My proposal intends to clearly highlight that one of the articles is fully objective and factual and must be read as such, and the other is fully subjective and the opinion of academics, scholars, researchers and specialists, and therefore, must be read as such, therefore, no synthesis because the reader knows what to expect from both articles. Option B does not fix the synthesis issue that plagues the article, to fix the synthesis issue, first you would have to remove the Proposed causes section which heavily implies that the motives of Communism are always going to cause massive democides. The paragraphs that start in "The concept of mass killing as a phenomenon unique to communist governments-" and "Many commentators on the political right state that the mass killings-" were added to the article solely as a means to add balance to the section, not because of POV mind you, but because the section implies something that none of the sources attested for. If you go to any major article relating to politics on Wikipedia such as Donald Trump, Conservative, Liberal, Adolf Hitler, etc, none of them have any major focus on opinions from experts that can are implied to be true and, therefore, misinterpreted for facts; whereas, this article has multiple. B only removes the estimates which, for all intent and purpose, are one of such implications, "Proposed causes" and "Debates on famines" are the other two, and there are a few paragraphs across the article with similar synthesis. If B or A do pass, I can stipulate that we will continue to hear about this article for weeks on end because as I said multiple times now, this does not fix the synthesis problem from the article. At the very least, there ought to have been an option E that proposes to remove everything that I previously mentioned above and more to make the article fully objective. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure it still clear what you are saying, and I think you may get a better response from Aquillion, BSMRD, The Four Deuces, Siebert, and other users in this regards, and indeed I may update this comment to give you a better reply and better address your points. For now, let me tell you that you seem to assume B must imply "Proposed causes" and "Debates on famines" as currently written rather than completely changed; B will require significant rewrite, so any issues you may have about SYNTH can be solved and I hope that this is clear (indeed, both sections as currently written are SYNTH but I am not advocating for them, I am advocating for rewrite, which will solve major issues), if you did not take in consideration that B would require significant rewrite. Secondly, the topic will be about theories and narratives, and it will be made clear, so I do not get your point about presenting opinions as facts and vice versa. If I get you right, pretty much any A and B article (e.g. Race and intelligence), which is how I imagine B to be similarly named, is SYNTH to you because you think it presents opinions as facts but that is not the case, and will not be the case for B. To conclude, it appears that your issues are mainly with the article's current structure, and because of this it is hard to check sources, and you are indeed correct "the article is so bloated in size that nobody would bother to properly check the information on the article and simply assumed that the article had no issue." We both want the same thing — a NPOV article without any SYNTH issue; I see B as the only possibility to achieve that, and I am skeptical about D because I am afraid it may give defenders of the current structure yet another excuse to not improve the article because we can simply create a separate article, so we need not to worry about this article. Davide King (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Race and intelligence's opinions are presented as being unreliable, yet historically relevant. Again, the presentation is one important thing that makes D a proper option as all the elements that cause synthesis will no longer do so if they are written on the prospect that they are hypotheses, all the while keeping all the information intact. I have read WP:SYNTH page 5 times now because I don't think we're on the same line, so to make sure, we define synthesis as An implication which results into an incorrect conclusion that was never attested by the sources themselves. With this definition in mind, assuming we both agree that this is the correct definition in other words, an article on the subject of "Possible explanation for the democides within Communist regimes" would very clearly highlight that the article is entirely focused on opinionated theories such as Principle of relativity and Obesity paradox rather than hard facts like other pre-existing articles, and that distinction would prevent synthesis as the conclusion is never reached, there is a difference between "This person is probably evil" and "I think this person is probably evil", the former reaches a conclusion thanks to its implication, the latter does not and specifies that the person is thinking about it. Now, one valid concern here is POVFORK and I admit that I did not think about that, though if both articles are monitored frequently that issue should not occur, if it does occur an AfD could be created for the offending article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked at my sandbox possibility? Change Race and intelligence's opinions are presented as being unreliable, yet historically relevant to [B]'s opinions are presented as being disputed, yet historically notable, and there should be no issue; there are indeed authors who see a link between race and intelligence, or between Communism and mass killings, that is indeed their conclusions but the article does not, and will not, treat it as a fact or even a mainstream position that is uncontroversial or not disputed; both articles are about notable yet controversial discussions. Again, see Race and crime in the United States. A really SYNTH article is Communism and Jews — that is truly SYNTH and even antisemitic, which is why it has been deleted. B does not even come close to it, and would be perfectly in line with all others and articles we already have discussion correlations and links, whether they are supported or not, whether they are controversial or not, all of which is to be made clear per NPOV and WEIGHT; what matters is whether they are notable and B clearly is — again, look at non-primary literature I proposed at sandbox.

You do not seem to understand SYNTH — it is grouping events without a clear connection (e.g. they happened in Asia, were Communists, their common language is Indo-European, therefore we must have an article about mass killings in Asia or mass killings under Indo-European languages — this is SYNTH), not B. If the issue is you think an article discussing Communist regimes and mass killings, and that this implies all communists support mass killings or something like that — well, I do not know what to tell you because by this standard every options, from A to D, is SYNTH and you should have supported 'Deletion' in the AfD. As for POV forks, the problem is that both articles will be seen as POV forks of each other and thus both should be deleted. Davide King (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your sandbox would definitely improve the article by a margin, but that is assuming that all the offending sources within the article are removed, but from your previous comments I learned that you intended to remove them anyway, so it would be a step toward the right direction. Comparing option B to an article that was deleted ensuing an AfD is not a good look, I trust that you will clean up the article proper once this RfC concludes, regardless of which option passes, but if that is not done well the article will continue to draw ire from other Wikipedians.

You do not seem to understand SYNTH — it is grouping events without a clear connection Here comes what is written on WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.-. I think this is clear and concise to me, so I have to return the favor that I believe that you may not understand WP:SYNTH, although you have been on Wikipedia for much longer than I, so perhaps I am missing something from the page in spite of reading it 6 times now. DublinDilettante actually thinks that this article was synthesis on the premise of it being about Communist mass killings; however, the information can be presented in such a way that only data and facts are present on the article which would void the synthesis. First off, the article should not be called "Mass killings under Communist regimes" which is a clear implication that mass killings would occur majoritarily within Communist regimes and that was what the AfD mainly focused on. Then, it should be void of any opinion piece, regardless of the expertise of the person who writes said opinion, so to make this article not-synthesis, Kotkin, Rummel, etc should be removed entirely, or per my proposal moved into its own article focusing on the theories of what led to Communist mass killings in the first place. I had opposed the AfD because I was afraid that extremists were attempting to whitewash the bloodstains of statist Communism. Additionally, although that was fairly paranoid on my part, I was afraid that would give the green light to Fascists to remove articles critical of Fascism. I genuinely do not understand why you bring up my vote on the AfD as that is completely unrelated to the current RfC. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in here, there is no implication in article title that communist regimes are more prone to mass killings, any more than the title War crimes of the United States implies that the USA is more prone to committing war crimes than any other country. --Nug (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No, that is cheating. The "War crimes of the United States" is a quite legitimate title simply because "the US" is a quite concrete single entity. In contrast, there is no consensus among scholars that such an entity as "Communist regimes" or "generic Communism" exists. Many authors discuss, e.g. genocides in Cambodia, China and Indonesia, or discuss Stalin and Hitler. A similar situation is impossible for the US, for, e.g. "War crimes in California and Baja California" is hard to imagine. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet, only Communism is discussed as a separate topic, users make 2+2, do it too. Just like Crimes against humanity under communist regimes is a POV fork of Crimes against humanity because (1) it implies Communism is a special phenomenon (we do it only for it; if the scope is simply to list crimes against humanity under Communist regimes, that can be done for any other regime type and category) and (b) Crimes against humanity only discuss Cambodia and Yugoslavia, not China, North Korea, and other states discussed there. That is why I think Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes are also both content POV fork of Crimes against humanity and Mass killing, which are simply NPOV version of the topic; neither of them discuss Communism in a way that warrants a separate article. If you think that a chapter is enough to justifify a new topic, I suggest you to start creating Mass killings under capitalist regimes, Mass killings under fascist regimes, etc. I would not do that myself because it may appear as WP:POINT and I think they are going to have the same problems as this one. If we do not do this for other regime types, you should stop being surprised when users take it for granted that is indeed the implication if we do this only for Communism. Davide King (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your kind words and for engaging with me, it is really interesting, which is why this reply is going longer than usual and I hope to you can forgive me for that. The problem is that it has been a decade that we have tried to cleanup the article, and any major attempt to fix it, including removing stuff or adding stuff, has been reverted and is opposed by those who were for 'Keep' and denied that the article had not even issues in the first place; indeed, my comment in the AfD was for 'Delete' but it essentially was for 'Rewrite' because I saw that, and I still saw it, as the only way to fix issues once and for all. I also did not compare B but a delete article (Jews and Communism), if that is what you think; Jews and Communism was an article that was indeed SYNTH, while B is not, just like Race and intelligence, and like-minded article, are not SYNTH either. Speaking of which, do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? If some authors say there is a causal connection, whereas other say there is not, it should be not "Proposed causes", but "Discussion of possible causal linkage between mass killings and Communism", or "Communist states and mass killing" for short. If B (again, keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation) and SYNTH, then Race and intelligence, Race and crime in the United States, and a majority of article structured as B are SYNTH. If B is SYNTH, so is D, which includes B, and would also be content POV fork; nonetheless, I myself can support D as a means to improve things, but I think that you are being contradictory if you think B is SYNTH, since D entails that A and B are discussed separately rather than together like in C — it appears to be that A is the option that would fit better what you actually put forward, if you think B is still SYNTH, or I persuaded you that is not the case.

I will try to explain this better — if there was agreement among scholars that communism caused mass killings in those states, it is not SYNTH to treat them as a single group; indeed, for A not to be SYNTH, that communism caused mass killings, or was the major cause, and that this represent the mainstream and majority view among scholars, this would have to be true. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. It means that we cannot combine country-specific sources about mass killings about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (e.g. taking one book about mass killings under Stalin, another book about them under Mao, and so on, and us concluding that since they happened under three or more Communist regimes, we can write Mass killings under communist regimes, if that is not what the sources also conclude or make) to imply there is a MKuCR grouping, or that sources that do discuss Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot together to imply it is a MKuCR, which means a much broader discussion, rather than Stalin–Mao–Pol Pot grouping, which is a much more narrow scope and is how I understand A to be. In addition, sources that discuss together Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's mass killings are a minority, while the overwhelming majority of them discuss them separately and individually, or are country-specific, and thus the former would be a content POV fork of the latter and NPOV violation. NPOV requires that all majority and minority views are discussed but that cannot be done if only a few sources group Stalin–Mao–Pol Pot together, and even then they disagree (Jones discusses Stalin–Mao together and Pol Pot separately).

I agree that there should be a name change, though that mass killings would occur majoritarily within Communist regimes and that was what the AfD mainly focused on is an oversimplification, since the main reason for delete was that while all events indeed happened, majority of sources discuss them individually or by country, and only a minority of them discuss them together — again, there is no Communism Mass Killings scholarly book, only chapters in general works about mass killings, and they are limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, even thought the name may imply they are talking about every nominally Communist regime. I do not know why I brought up your AfD comment, but I think that since you are critical of the article perhaps you should have considered 'Delete' as a bigger possibility than you thought, especially since 'Delete' can also result in reducing the article to a stub or totally rewrite, rather than total removal of information, which seems to be one of the reasons you did not consider it as a serious possibility. In this regards, I suggest you to reconsider this. No information is actually going to be lost, as we already discuss all the events either indivdiually or by each Communist state as is done by majority of scholarly sources, and the current "Proposed cause" section as well as "Estimates" are already at Criticism of communist party rule, and estimates are further discussed at Democide, which is a more accurate category, since it is very broad. Finally, that the AfD was the result of extremists ... attempting to whitewash the bloodstains of statist Communism is part of right-wing misinformation, as has been noted in the closure, since the overwhelming majority of 'Delete' comments had a totally different reasoning. Again, that we are going to remove the Holocaust next is an absurd strawman, as noted by several users.

"We have a lot of books and monographs that provide a neutral and balanced description of WWII as a topic. However, we have virtually no such books about MKuCR: a couple of sources that discuss this topic are highly controversial, and other works do not discuss the topic as a whole, and they focus on subtopics (or more global topics) instead." —Paul Siebert

"WWII is also a single unified topic with no serious (overarching) dispute over what falls under it, or over if and how the things that fall under it are connected. None of this is true here, which means that collecting events, framing them as mass killings, and lumping them together into a single unified topic becomes WP:SYNTHESIS unless the discussion is informed by, structured according to, and attributed to secondary sources, with appropriate text in each case being devoted to underlying academic disputes." —Aquillion

"The reason there is an article on WWII is that there is academic consensus that the various wars were part of a larger war, viz, WWII. There is no consensus that killings in Stalin's Soviet Union, etc., are part of a pattern of MKuCR." —The Four Deuces

This also perfectly applies to World War II, so you have nothing to be afraid of. Compare the Google Scholar results of "the Holocaust" and "World War II with "communist mass killings" and "mass killings under communist regimes". Davide King (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And because of WP:LENGTH, because you can theoretically go for C and fix the synthesis. But, what is the point when the article is so long that it is difficult to read? This makes editing the article take more time, this makes checking the citations and the text take more time, and this is what introduced the synthesis because the article is so bloated in size that nobody would bother to properly check the information on the article and simply assumed that the article had no issue. This is one thing that I am thankful for the AfD as that brought so much attention to the article. Finally, we are now trying to fix it after years! The least that could be done is to make the article shorter. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This is because Mass killings under communist regimes was created many years before Mass killing, which is the NPOV article. Before rasining any issue about length, we should at least first attempt to expand Mass killing in the first place. Finally, have you considered a Mass killings in history, akin to Genocides in history, as an alternative? I do not understand this obsession for Communism as a separate topic when there is not a non-controversial academic work (apart from The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust) that treats it as a single phenomenon, so why should we too? Chirot, Jones, Mann, Valentino, and others all place Communist mass killings within the context of mass killings in general, and this can be easily done at either Mass killing and/or Mass killings in history. Again, this article may be justified only if we first attempted to do this. Davide King (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand this obsession for Communism as a separate topic when there is not a non-controversial academic work (apart from The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust) that treats it as a single phenomenon I like when things are properly categorized, it makes it easier to research a certain topic. I should note that I am also supportive of a mass killings under Capitalist regimes article and a mass killings under Fascist regimes article. As for the mass killings article, it should be improved, but not everybody is necessarily enticed to overlook it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe The Four Deuces can explain you this in a simpler way but that is why we have policies about SYNTH; for a grouping, there must be a connection, it is not sufficient that something was nominally capitalist, Communist, or fascist. It is the reason why we only have Mass killings under communist regimes and not for any other regime type; it is SYNTH without majority of scholarly sources making a clear connection, and your proposal is simply a recipe for further OR/SYNTH. Indeed, that was one scholarly criticism of The Black Book of Communism, see below. Why must we give so much weight to such a controversial work and discuss Communism as a separate and single phenomenon, rather than how majority of genocide scholars treat it (e.g. chapters in works about general mass killings book)?

• Dallin, Alexander (Winter 2000). "Review. Reviewed Work: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy, Mark Kramer". Slavic Review. 59 (4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 883. doi:10.2307/2697429. JSTOR 2697429. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss.
• David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavic: 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. S2CID 159716738. Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger.

Do you still think this is a good idea? Have you considered my Mass killing expansion and Mass killings in history spinoff (general article about mass killings irrespective of regime type) proposals? Concerns about length are not legitimate if we do not even try first. Davide King (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The only issue from my proposal is POVFORK and that is assuming the article will not be monitored enough to keep it fresh and encyclopedic, therefore, I still do not think my idea is a bad one, only that it would require effort to manage both articles. As for your idea - yeah, it is a decent idea. You could and should expand on that. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you are being too optimistic about it; we discussed this over the last year and nothing has actually been truly changed or improved. I do think that D may be a way to actually incentivize improvement and a means to that end, but I also ask you to seriously consider some of my arguments, and if you think they are wrong, I am missing something, please let me know and rebuke them; in particular, I would like to see you discussing sources and your thoughts about my sources research and analysis; again, if I missed anything or you disagree about something, feel free to tell me.

• (e.g. to actually discuss Communist mass killings together, there must be a correlation; since there is not but some authors have proposed correlations, we cannot discuss them together or separately but only the discussion of correlations put forward)

notes about sources

• (there are no Communist Mass Killings books that would establish it as a separate topic, only "Communist Mass Killings — Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot" chapters within the context of mass killings in general, which is how I propose to have them discussed — cft. Google Scholar results for "communist mass killings" and "mass killings under communist regimes" — do you see the difference?)

and information

• (no information is actually going to be lost ("Terminology" is discussed at Mass killing, "Estimates" are discussed at both Criticism of communist party rule and Democide, "Proposed cause" is discussed at Criticism of communist party rule, all events have their own articles and are discussed in each state's history, "Debate over famines" is also already at Criticism of communist party rule when discussing loss of life, and "Memorials and museums" are discussed at Communist state; we also already have Communist crimes (Polish legal concept), Lustration, and other articles for "Legal status" — I think Criticism of communist party rule is the more appropriate article for that, or did I miss your point?

so nothing is going to be lost, only the SYNTH of it. Davide King (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

B and C

Nug say "an article cannot discuss any debate on the correlations or causes without mentioning the government actions that has led to that debate in the first place. It would be like discussing Causes of World War II without having the article World War II." The problem is that there is no academic work fully dedicated to mass killings under Communist regimes,1 or Communist mass killings — they are mostly chapters of works about the general topic and are limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot; indeed, there are a bunch of books about World War II as a whole, there are no academic books about Communist mass killings as a whole (again, they are mainly chapters limited about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot — Chirot, Jones, Mann, and Valentino, all of which are within the context of mass killings in general). I can accept an article limited to those three Communist leaders, but I do not accept Nug's premise if by A they mean Communism as a single phenomenon and exclude country experts by default, and broad it to include any other Communist regime.

Notes

1. The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust (limited to Stalin, Mao, Kim, Ho Chi Min, and Pol Pot) appear to be the exceptions, and it is those kind of works that we need, e.g. works fully devoted to Communism as a special phenomenon rather than chapters in books about mass killings in general. The Red Holocaust's "[s]ubsequent chapters make comparisons with Germany and Japan under Hitler and Hirohito, respectively. Although several topics are raised, the book's message can be easily summarized. Totalitarian ideologies have taken different forms in the twentieth century (communism, Nazism, and fascism), but they have all produced similar results: mass terror and crimes against humanity. Some distinction are also made." In light of this, we may have an article focused on totalitarian crimes and mass killings, and discuss their similarities and differences.

Davide King (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• WRT @Nug:'s It would be like discussing Causes of World War II without having the article World War II. We have a lot of books and monographs that provide a neutral and balanced description of WWII as a topic. However, we have virtually no such books about MKuCR: a couple of sources that discuss this topic are highly controversial, and other works do not discuss the topic as a whole, and they focus on subtopics (or more global topics) instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WWII is also a single unified topic with no serious (overarching) dispute over what falls under it, or over if and how the things that fall under it are connected. None of this is true here, which means that collecting events, framing them as mass killings, and lumping them together into a single unified topic becomes WP:SYNTHESIS unless the discussion is informed by, structured according to, and attributed to secondary sources, with appropriate text in each case being devoted to underlying academic disputes. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Except that it isn't WP:SYNTHESIS, otherwise why would some authors be disputing the grouping of events as communist mass killings if that grouping didn't exist in published sources, are they hallucinating? Can we finally stop this "it's WP:SYNTH" bs? --Nug (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Ok, by combining Valentino (who considered Stalin's mass killings as "Communist mass killings", but Afghan mass killings as non-Communist) with Courtois, who considered Afghan victims as vicrims of Communism, but didn't use Valentino's term "Communist mass killings", the article is doing no synthesis?
      • Actually, the article is a collection of events that were called as "mass killings"/"genocide"/"politicide" etc by at least one author. If that is not synthesis, then what is? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Valentino did mention "Communist" as an "additional motive" for the killings in Afghanistan in his typology table on page 83. --Nug (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
          • "Communist" is, to some degree, an additional motive in all events that we discuss. But the claim that it was a main motive in all cases is a minority POV, as my analysis of sources demonstrates. Grouping some events together based on some minor trait is a clear and unequivocal POV-pushing.
          • So far, you provided no such analysis, and I have no reason to believe you are expressing a majority POV. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Again you are trying to conflate Valentino's mass killing types with his mass killing causes. --Nug (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

              Actually, it seems you described your own point of view. In contrast, I am objecting your attempts to conflate grouping with causation, which you do for Valentino, Bellamy and some other authors. Yes, Valentino put some mass killings in Communist states in one group, which called "dispossessive a.k.a. Communist mass killings". However, from that, it does not follow that he saw Communism as a cause. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

      • Well, if we have authors making the connection, we can rely on those (as I specified in my comments above.) But it isn't enough just to vaguely say they exist; we actually have to cite them, and rely on them, and use them to determine how we structure and discuss the events in question, without relying on any sources that don't make that broad topical connection. Put simply, it's WP:SYNTH / WP:OR to make or imply a connection that the sources we're using don't. Obviously this is a sweeping RFC so it's hard to drill down into the individual examples, but if you're confident that you can write a version that carefully documents and attributes each example in the context of an author connecting it to the concept of mass killings as a specifically Communist thing, then doing so should make a lot of the objections go away and will, basically, be B - a focused, specific article that reflects actual arguments people make. You can't, though, just point to a source that said "this mass killing occurred in this communist regime" because building a list out of that to imply that the commonality is significant, using sources that don't say or discuss things like "this mass-killing happened because Communism", is synthesis and means you're making the argument yourself as an editor - you need to rely on the sources that specifically discuss that commonality. --Aquillion (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Let's put this in perspective for the closer, shall we? One user is relying on their personal reading of Valentino (Nug), while another is relying on academic secondary coverage of Valentino (Siebert); if Nug's reading is correct, surely it would be reflected in academic secondary coverage already? But those sources, in fact, give a more nuanced picture that is closer to what Siebert is summarizing for us, and I do not have no reason to believe Siebert got this one wrong. So please, I ask that everyone rely on secondary coverage rather than cherry picking from Valentino. Again, surely if you are right and what you are citing or quoting from Valentino is due, it has been reported and mentioned in academic secondary coverage of him, and should be easy to provide, don't you think? Davide King (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
      • What the heck? Priselac's review of Valentio's book explicitly mentions the three mass killing types: communist, ethnic and counter-guerrilla and takes no issue with it while praising the book as excellent. I don't to see how Paul Siebert's view is "a more nuanced picture", given he seems to not understand the basic difference between case study type and conclusion. --Nug (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
        • And? No one is denying that Valentino outlines such mass killing types; however, as noted by Straus, Communist mass killing is a subtype, not a major type, which means it can be discussed at Mass killing, not as a separate topic. To quote Straus:

          "Valentino identifies two major types, each with three subtypes. The first major type is 'dispossessive mass killing,' which includes (1) 'communist mass killings' in which leaders seek to transform societies according to communist principles; (2) 'ethnic mass killings,' in which leaders forcibly remove an ethnic population; and (3) mass killing as leaders acquire and repopulate land. The second major type of mass killing is 'coercive mass killing,' which includes (1) killing in wars when leaders cannot defeat opponents using conventional means; (2) 'terrorist' mass killing when leaders use violence to force an opposing side to surrender; and (3) killing during the creation of empires when conquering leaders try to defeat resistance and intimidate future resistance."

        • "One of Valentino's central arguments is that 'characteristics of society at large, such as pre-existing cleaves, hatred and discrimination between groups and non-democratic forms of government, are of limited utility in distinguishing societies at high risk for mass killing. Valentino's strongest arguments in support of this statement are his comparative studies of regimes that committed mass killing with similar regimes that did not." Did you also miss this from Prisalec? This is literally what Siebert have been saying the whole time. Davide King (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
          • No, it can't be discussed in Mass killing because the article would be absolutely huge if it discusses all the types, this communist type is already almost 300kB, so it would have to be split up anyway. You also don't understand the difference between type topology and conclusion, or are you purposely confusing them? And coming back to my original point, it proves that grouping mass killings based on communist type is not WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
            • You ignore that much of the space is occupied by non-free, lengthy quotes, and that even if we have space issues, we can have a Mass killings in history article; you also act as if this article is the be-all and end-all, and cannot be rewritten or restructured to make it much more concise and space-saving. As I said, Valentino's Communist mass killing is not even a major type but a subtype, which makes it undue as a separate topic. Even if you are right, such category must be the mainstream, majority view and not be disputed or controversial; Aquillion gave a good summary and criteria. None of Valentino's scholarly publications emphasize Communism or are publications about Communism. Chapters or passing mentions are not good enough to establish it as a separate topic, and they are placed within the context of mass killings in general, therefore they must be discussed together generally; they can be grouped together as part of the structure but it must be a general article.1 This is what genocide scholars do, and their main concerns are correlations and generalizations, which fits B; they rely on country experts and specialists to summarize the events. Davide King (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

              Notes

            • 1. If it is not so clear, by this I mean that the article's grouping will be irrespective of regime type (it will be a general article about mass killing events irrespective of categories) but we can have a section categorized by Communist regimes, if not geographically or other fitting categorizations used to have a well-organized table of contents. What I oppose is having separate articles about the events for each regime type, whether it is capitalist, Communist, fascist, or whatever, when we already discuss them individually. There are simply no sufficient scholarly sources that treat them as separate topics, and it is better to discuss them in short paragraphs together (e.g. no need to say what happened in great details, just mention and link the events themselves, there is no need to provide a coatracked summary there too). Davide King (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
              • WP:GNG is the criterion by which we determine if a standalone article is warranted, it states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The fact we have a chapter in Valentino (and in Bellamy and others) meets the requirement. --Nug (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
                • I am curious to see Aquillion's response to this, since you did mention at least two sources now and your back-and-forth discussion was interesting and useful, so I hope that you can discuss that further; however, Bellamy and Valentino fit B more than anything, and is fine by me because that is what I support — my issue is how such sources are used to support A or C rather than the more proper B.
                • I do not think that excludes my proposal of general mass killings either; in addition, Bellamy puts Communism within the context of the Cold War, while Valentino puts it within that of mass killings in general and as a subtype of dispossessive mass killings. If there is consistency, then a similar article about capitalism must be created due to Bellamy's chapter about "Capitalist Atrocities" — I do not think A-style articles for both are good, but at least there would be consistency. I also do not think this solves NPOV and WEIGHT issues, and the contradictions between country experts and historians, and genocide scholars and their weight (majority, minority, fringe), which is necessary to have for an NPOV article.
                • Bellamy has the chapter "Totalitarian Mass Killing", so I do not see why we should not go for a general article, with Communist regimes being a section, or a general mass killings article divided into Capitalist, Communist, and Totalitarian as Bellamy does. Indeed, now that I think about it, Bellamy's work is perfect for my proposal of Mass killings in history. It may well be such article's table of content.
                • 2. State Terror in the Long Nineteenth Century
                • 3. Totalitarian Mass Killing
                • 4. Terror Bombing in the Second World War
                • 5. The Cold War Struggle (1): Capitalist Atrocities
                • 6. The Cold War Struggle (2): Communist Atrocities
                • 7. Atrocities and the 'Golden Age' of Humanitarianism
                • 8. Radical Islamism and the War on Terror
                • I fail to see how you can read Bellamy and come to the conclusion that Communism is a single phenomenon and must be discussed as a new topic. Davide King (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
                  • The chapter The Cold War Struggle (2): Communist Atrocities also discusses communist mass killings. --Nug (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
                    • And? I already acknowledged it when I said the book places it within the context of the Cold War. My issue has never been if we can discuss mass killings that happened under Communist regimes, my issue has always been how to do that and make it encyclopedic, which is what the AfD tried to rule and said there is no consensus among us. If Bellamy and Valentino are perfectly acceptable sources for the topic of mass killings, can you explain why they cannot be used for Mass killings in history (or a general article about mass killings, a spin off of Mass killing that analyzes the concept in greater details, using summary style for each event, etc.)? Why must we cherry pick chapters about Communism only, and ignore all the others? You said a chapter is sufficient to establish a topic, I have at least two full books about mass killings in history, why is not this proposal preferable? You simply cannot assume space or length a priori, so that is not a good rebuttal, find a better one. Davide King (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

                    @Nug: I think a symmetry in the Bellamy's book is clearly seen: he groups Cold war perpetrators by camps, and he analyzed atrocities committed by both camps. It should be clear to any good faith logical thinker that Bellamy does not connect Communism with atrocities: he forms two groups of perpetrators, each of which belong to one of opposing camps. Therefore, a proper context here is not Communism, but Cold war.

                    In general, I find your position non-constructive and disruptive. It is absolutely clear to any good faith user that picking one more source and claiming "My source says this" is totally senseless. As I (and admins panel) noted, we need a detailed source analysis. I already proposed to establish the majority viewpoint by collecting a representative sample of sources and analyzing them. I am expecting to see your thoughts on what other users have already posted at WP:DRNMKUCR, as well as your own ideas. If you will not do that in next few days, I will not consider you as a party of the DRN process, and my voluntary obligation not to take any actions against you will not be in effect any more. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Re Nug's comment: "an article cannot discuss any debate on the correlations or causes without mentioning the government actions that has led to that debate in the first place. It would be like discussing Causes of World War II without having the article World War II."

The reason there is an article on WWII is that there is academic consensus that the various wars were part of a larger war, viz, WWII. There is no consensus that killings in Stalin's Soviet Union, etc., are part of a pattern of MKuCR.

There was a similar discussion about Jewish Bolshevism, aka Jewish Communism. Some editors argued that the article explained one theory connecting Jews and Communism but there should be an article about the facts behind the theory. Therefore, Jews and Communism was created as a fork. At AfD, I argued that although there was literature about Jewish involvement in Communist movements in different times and places, there was none about the topic as a whole. The article was therefore a POVFORK which implied that Jews had a propensity to become Communists or had a "disproportionate" influence on it.

Nug's reasoning is circular because he begins with the assumption that there is a correlation or causal connection. But there is no consensus for that view in reliable sources, just as there is none for Jews and Communism. This could be an example of apophenia, "the tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things." Or it could be because the theory precedes the evidence, which is collected to support a predetermined theory.

TFD (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I never said there was a causal connection. Some authors say there is, other say there isn't, that why there is a Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Proposed_causes section. But then again you said I "voted against capitalizing Communist even though it would remove ambiguity" when you know very well I never did such a thing and that MOS:ISMCAPS was the reason for not capitalizing per the discussion you participated in at Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_39#Capitalization_of_"Communist". --Nug (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I said "correlation or causal connection." Do you not beleive there is a correlation? TFD (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nug: Do you realise that if some authors say there is a causal connection, whereas other say there isn't, the section's title should be not "Proposed causes", but "Discussion of possible causal linkage between mass killings and Communism"?

And, in reality, your description is still desperately incomplete: in reality, some authors see a strong connection between mass killings and Communism, other authors disagree, and another group of authors just ignore this dispute, and prefers to discuss mass killings not in a context of Communism. My preliminary source analysis demonstrates that the last group is an overwhelming majority. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, by your logic if source analysis reveals that the majority of sources do not discuss the education system in communist countries, we can conclude that the overwhelming majority view is that no education system existed in these countries. That's basically your argument about the "third group" in a nutshell. --Nug (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No. If according to my logic, majority of sources discuss education system in each communist country taken separately, then we can write an article that discuss each country separately, and discuss commonalities in a small section at the very bottom. And that would be pretty much ok, keeping in mind that e.g. Vygotsky's works are discussed in almost all sources not is a context of Mao's China, and not in a context of Marxism. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No. Your logic is if we have 10 sources that discuss the education system of a group of communist states, and 40 sources that discuss education system in each communist country separately, then the argument is that commonalities discussed in the 10 sources are a minority viewpoint because the 40 sources that discuss the individual countries make no mention of any commonalities with other communist states. --Nug (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not that simple. Let's make a situation even more extreme: we have 5 sources that discuss the education system of a group of communist states, and 500 sources that discuss education system in each communist country separately. However, if majority (or a significant fraction) of those 500 sources cite those 5 sources, we still can speak about some significant commonality or a linkage. If the same were true for mass killings, then the current article (in it's current shape) would be Ok. The problem is that so far my analysis does not confirm that. "Genocide scholars" work in separation from country experts, the latter cite the works of genocide scholars very rarely. And even genocide scholars themselves (e.g. Harff) do not see Communism as an important factor affecting mass killings.

One way of the other, this is becoming fruitless. I propose to switch to a real source analysis at DRNMKUCR and to let this RfC come to some logical end. We have done our part of the job. We could have done that better, but now it is too late. Let's wait for results.

I am expecting to see your posts at DRNMKUCR. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, list these 500 sources at DRNMKUCR so that we can analyze them. --Nug (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In the example, we would have an article that compares and contrasts education in communist countries. East Germany for example inherited a well developed education system onto which they imposed their own ideology. Someone reading a brief article does not want to read how East German universities developed in the Middle Ages or how Prussia developed a system that was later imposed on the states of East Germany. If they did, they can go to "Education in Germany" or "Education in East Germany." Basically it would be filled by cut and paste information rather than what the reader wanted to know. TFD (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Consider the article Education in the United States. (Education is a state matter in the U.S.) It doesn't have separate sections for each state. It merely points out the commonality and differences between states. TFD (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC process discussion

We want to have plenty of time for feedback and discussion. But also to eventually move forward because IMO this is the necessary next step on this article. May I suggest that if input from new folks has slowed down a lot by then to close for closing 2 weeks after it's December 19th inception date which would be January 2nd? Also that once it is "closed for closing" that new comments be firmly excluded and put elsewhere? North8000 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until the RFC tag expires, which occurs after a month. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no point waiting if no further comments are made, we just keep arguing with each other and create new threads every day. North8000, I say let's have one or more admins close it, and see the results, which hopefully will make follow-up discussions much more clear and focused. Davide King (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

My idea was 2 weeks if input from new folks has died down by then. But if people object and say we should go 30 days, then we probably need to to be safe. Regarding the close, I'd be more concerned about getting a very thorough admin than trying to get two or more. Having everyone comment on every idea (to avoid math problems) doing a thorough closing job bigger.North8000 (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like zero new posts for 5 days. @GoodDay: and any others who might advocate longer, what do you think about closing at 3 weeks which would be January 10th? The whole article and situation is sort of "frozen" until then. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the article is "frozen". We are currently working on the sections that must be cleaned anyway, independently on the RfC's outcome. The DRN discussion of sources is also hardly affected by the RfC decision. Keeping in mind that this article was a subject of the longest AfD, which was accompanied by an enormous canvassing and comments in a blogosphere, it would be highly desirable to observe our standard procedure. Let's wait for one month, and then ask some uninvolved admin to formally close it. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why the repeated insistence on an admin closure? Is there any particular reason this RfC needs admin tools to close, as opposed to being closed by any non-involved wikipedian with experience and understanding of the relevant policies? It's established convention that RfCs with non-admin closures are not any less reliable than those with admin closures, and there's even a dispute process in case there's disagreement (which to my understanding rarely ever happens, even with contentious RfCs, as the more contentious, the more thorough the closure tends to be). Fieari (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think the admin closure is absolutely required here because the subject is highly contentious, because this page was previously locked by admins for a long time, and because this RfC was posted by admin who anticipates WP:AE sanctions related to this closure [20]. This is not about tools. This is about authority and experience. On the other hand, the closing does not look very difficult. Clearly, there is no consensus (at best) for A, B and D. As about C - yes, maybe, this is judgement call (I would say no consensus as well). My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

For clarification, the RFC opener isn't an admin. I don't understand the meaning of his comment you linked above, that he will take people who !voted C to WP:AE if option C becomes the consensus? --Nug (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I was misled by Category:Administrators without tools. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think admin closure is required, needed, and the norm for things like this. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

When the RFC tag expires. I'll request a closure. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, it has expired. Davide King (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

With the expiration of the RFC tag, I've requested closure for this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Question

Question. Which of the versions (A,B,C or D) corresponds to keeping "status quo" for the page? And if there is no such option, then this is probably not a valid RfC? I mean that version "none of the above" should always be included. That is what me and many other paricipants probably would vote for. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for answering my question [21]. I realize this is "C". My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC) It was not my intention to ask such question here. It was misplaced by BSMRD [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The structure described by option C matches the current structure of the page, though it is poorly executed. If you wish to see an article patterned off the current structure that is the option you should vote for. BSMRD (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, despite your insistence, nowhere in WP:RFC does it state that an RFC must have a status quo option in order to be valid. This RfC asks for comment on a variety of possibilities to restructure the article which was found inadequate in the AfD. Your vague declarations of the RfC being "invalid" feel an awful lot like trying to get it shut down on non-existent policy grounds, and I recommend you stop pursuing such a course. BSMRD (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I concur with BSMRD. With respect to the question at hand (defined scope), the status quo is "ambiguous / no defined scope", but "C" matches the defacto status quo scope. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, do not make attacks towards BSMRD. They did not misplace anything, it should be common sense not to write something as a response to the RfC's OP as you did here but rather to open a subthread about it as BSMRD correctly did for you here. Davide King (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Some recent edits

This edit did not fix any NPOV issue but violated it. WP:NPOV says: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." One is an academic book written by an expert on the topic of genocide and mass killings (Gerlach), the other is a news article about the deletion nomination of this article and the opinion is of a 19th-century French specialist (Tombs). At the very least, the way it is put (right after Gerlach and starting with However rather than like this) looks like WP:FALSEBALANCE and bothsidesism. The section is about proposed causes, and the relevant part is not the criticism of mass killings, which is besides the point and obvious, but that anti-communists and the political right see them as an indictment of communism/socialism tout court (e.g. communism was the main cause) and the political left in general, and the academic counter-argument.

We also need less WP:SYNTH, not more. I am referring to this wording: "Some, such as the Chinese Communist Party, have attempted to suppress discussion and study of such killings." In fact, the news source is referring only to Tiananmen ("China's Communist leaders have made any discussion of the brutal quelling of the student-led demonstrations -- in which hundreds, maybe thousands, were killed -- taboo, but dissidents say the public could yet hold them accountable.") I think that this may be SYNTH for the same reason a similar wording from 'Terminology' that was moved is also SYNTH: "Holocaust – communist holocaust has been used by some state officials and non-governmental organizations." As noted by The Four Deuces here, "[i]t is not properly attributed because none of the sources say, 'communist holocaust has been used by some state officials and non-governmental organizations.' Instead, it is an anaylisis, which is not permissable per no synthesis." Considering the controversies and disputes among us, we should avoid the use of news sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP), which are way below university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, and mainstream magazines (WP:SOURCES). If something is due and notable, it will be published by the academic press, which we should use as reference in its place. Davide King (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: see also MOS:EDITORIAL: When used to link two statements, words such as but, despite, however, and although may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second. Karl Krafft (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is bad. It exists solely for the sake of balance and absolutely nothing else. How is that encyclopedic, when it does not add anything noteworthy/informative/interesting to the article? Additionally, as you said, it is an opinionated source which is not WP:RS, therefore, it serves no purpose to the article in question other than for balance, and exclusively for the sake of it, plus is a clear WP:POV issue. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't noteworthy. He's basically a professor who writes columns from a right-wing perspective. Recently, he falsely claimed that Gladstone's name had been removed from a building at the university of Liverpool because his father owned slaves. In fact it was removed because as an MP Gladstone voted (unsuccessfully) against ending slavery in 1833. TFD (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Double standards? Kristen Ghodsee writes from a left-wing perspective, and is frequent contributor to Jacobin, a leading voice of the American left, but you don't seem to have a problem with that. --Nug (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

At least Ghodsee has some expertise about Communist regimes, while Tombs' speciality is about 19th-century French and is actually revisionist about colonialism, which does not bone well. So while she may not be a country expert, like more mainstream specialists like Ellman and Wheatcroft, she is used correctly for her speciality in anthropology and memories. In addition, she is actually mainstream about the whole "victims of communism" categorization, and that is all that matters.

• David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavic: 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. S2CID 159716738. Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger. Plus, pretty much any scholarly criticism of the Black Book.
• Neumayer, Laure (November 2017). "Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism' in the European Political Space: Memory Entrepreneurs in Interstitial Fields". Nationalities Papers. 45 (6). Cambridge University Press: 992–1012. doi:10.1080/00905992.2017.1364230. ISSN 0090-5992.
• Neumayer, Laure (2018). The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (E-book ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781351141741.
• Neumayer, Laure (2020). "Bridges Across the Atlantic? Intertwined Anti-Communist Mobilisations in Europe and the United States after the Cold War". Revue d'études comparatives Est-Ouest (2–3). Presses Universitaires de France: 151–183. Retrieved 7 December 2021 – via CAIRN.
• Dujisin, Zoltan (July 2020). "A History of Post-Communist Remembrance: From Memory Politics to the Emergence of a Field of Anticommunism". Theory and Society. 50 (January 2021). Springer: 65–96. doi:10.1007/s11186-020-09401-5. S2CID 225580086.

In short, the difference is that Ghodsee is used within her speciality (anthropology and memories), and while she may hold some revisionist views, or left-wing perspectives, about individual countries, and country experts are certainly better than her, her views about the body county are, in fact, well within the mainstream and she is used correctly. Ghodsee has also not falsified history like Tombs did, as noted by The Four Deuces. Davide King (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole section is a POV synthesis

The problem is not in that small paragraph, but is the section as whole.

• First, its title implies that some consensus exists that all those events had common causes. That is simply not true: majority (or an overwhelming majority) of sources propose specific causes for each event. Therefore the "Causes" section should discuss specific causes of each event under each regime, and only after that we can have a small section devoted to attempts to discuss a role of some common factors. That emphasizes the absolute need in a representative set of sources that reflect majority view on this issue.
• Second, on;y a fraction of sources that discuss, a linkage of, e.g., Communist ideology and mass killings see a significant linkage. Other sources say that no such a linkage exists. Therefore, a correct title of a subsection on ideology, should be "Role of ideology". Accordingly, the whole section should have a title "Discussion of the role of possible common factors".
• Lastly, the whole section is a synthesis, where majority of sources are dramatically misinterpreted. I already wrote about that, and I don't understand why this my legitimate concern has not been addressed. Thus, if you take a look at this paragraph,

  "Historian Klas-Göran Karlsson writes: "Ideologies are systems of ideas, which cannot commit crimes independently. However, individuals, collectives and states that have defined themselves as communist have committed crimes in the name of communist ideology, or without naming communism as the direct source of motivation for their crimes." Academics such as Daniel Goldhagen, Richard Pipes, and John Gray have written books about communist regimes for a popular audience, and scholars such as Rudolph Rummel consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings. In the introduction to The Black Book of Communism, Stéphane Courtois claims an association between communism and criminality, stating that "Communist regimes ... turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government", while adding that this criminality lies at the level of ideology rather than state practice."

In reality, the first source (Karlsson) says that ideology served as justification of some crimes (he does not specify those crimes), but he does not say it was a cause ("First of all, it should be noted that the phrase ‘crimes of communism’ can be misleading and has been replaced in this research review with the phrase ‘crimes of communist regimes’. Ideologies are systems of ideas, which cannot commit crimes independently."). In general, Karlsson makes no generalisations, in contrast, he analyses three different schools of thought in Soviet studies (totalitarianism, revisionism, postrevisionism), each of which provide different models. The chapter about China is authored by another scholar (Schoenhals), whose narrative is different, and who discuss no commonalities with other regimes. The same can be said about Cambodia. In other words, the phrase about ideology as some cause of mass killings was taken out of context. Although Karlsson is a good source for this article, and it should be used, this source was badly misused in this section. He says nothing about ideology as a "cause". This source literally says that Communist ideology was used to justify some crimes, but it does not say it was a cause.

The next sentence (about Goldhagen et al) literally says that those authors wrote that Communists were bad. What relation does it have to ideology as a cause? Rummel and Courtous are, more or less ok.

What is especially interesting, is the usage of Harff as a source for the statement:

"Rudolph Rummel consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings"

I checked this source, and I found only one mention of the word "Communist" in it. It was "...or why they engaged in political mass murder of communists and other political undesirables, such as free masons."

In summary, if we translate this paragraph to a human language, we get:

"Ideology

Karlsson said Communist ideology was used to justify some crimes, Goldhagenm, Pipes and Gray have written books about bad Communists, and Rummel and Courtois blame Communist ideology of mass killings"

Clearly, this is a typical example of POV SYNTHESIS, for only two sources out of 7 were used correctly, and one of sources was directly falsified. The only text that may stay in the article is:

"Rudolph Rummel consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings. In the introduction to The Black Book of Communism, Stéphane Courtois claims an association between communism and criminality, stating that "Communist regimes ... turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government", while adding that this criminality lies at the level of ideology rather than state practice."

I am going to make these changes in close future, and I am expecting that falsifications and POV synthesis will not be restored, for that is a severe disruption.

I am going to check other paragraphs of this section, for I strongly suspect other parts of it contain similarly severe misinterpretations, synthesis and or falsifications.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, just briefly summarizing what multiple sources say on the subject of the page is not WP:SYN. That is what we do (and suppose to do) on WP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection, I realised that the "Ideology" section is a classical illustration of a blatant SYNTH that pushes some specific POV. Below, I reproduce a fragment of WP:SYN:

This second paragraph demonstrates improper editorial synthesis:

N If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule "plagiarism". Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

The (...) paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. Making the second paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically commenting on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Now compare it with, for example, this:

N '"Academics such as Daniel Goldhagen, Richard Pipes, and John Gray have written books about communist regimes for a popular audience, and scholars such as Rudolph Rummel consider the ideology of communism to be a significant causative factor in mass killings. In the introduction to The Black Book of Communism, Stéphane Courtois claims an association between communism and criminality, stating that "Communist regimes ... turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government", while adding that this criminality lies at the level of ideology rather than state practice.

Clearly, the above paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that the books by Goldhagen, Pipes and Gray provide some general foundation for the claim made by Courtois and Rummel. Making the paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically linking books by Goldhagen, Pipes and Gray with the claims made by Rummel and Courtois. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

I am going to analyse the rest of this article and check other violations of NOR. I will be posting the results of my analysis on the talk page, and, if no reasonable counter-arguments will be presented in one week, I am going to weed out that SYNTH.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

@Paul Siebert: Hopefully this can solve the neutrality and synthesis problems in the article. X-Editor (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: it was User:Davide King who introduced the sentence structure you now object to. The last AfD was originally opened on the basis of contentious text also introduced by User:Davide King. This is precisely the reason why I advocated a roll back of the article to the July 2021 version. I fixed up that sentence so the referencing is more clear[23]--Nug (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, stop blame shifting. I changed that because that was indeed the original way it was put it and because it previously even failed verification and made it appear that Harff, or Gurr & Harff, was discussing Gray and other works that were published even after or before it, as noted by Siebert. Ironically, that same sentence you changed introduces further SYNTH per the same reason Siebert explained in the OP. See also Archive 51. Davide King (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User:AmateurEditor extensively rebutted Siebert here. --Nug (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a far cry from "rebutted", and I was present the whole time, and I do not think they "rebutted" anything. Davide King (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Siebert's analysis of the section is spot on, and gets to the core of what has always been the problem with this article. It is built around providing evidence to support one specific premise: that of Rummel and Courtois, which looks for a single unifying ideological cause linking 'mass killings' with 'communism'. That the article resorts to synthesis to do this isn't accidental: it has to do so, since the premise isn't supported by most mainstream academic sources discussing individual events, which instead see causes (and ideology) as more proximate and contextual. It presents a minority POV - one discussed little in mainstream historiography, as is evident by the way the same few sources have been used again and again - as something to build the article around. Structuring an article this way can never be neutral, even if token efforts are later made to 'correct' the problem by adding mainstream sources arguing against the POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"it has to do so, since the premise isn't supported by most mainstream academic sources discussing individual events, which instead see causes (and ideology) as more proximate and contextual. It presents a minority POV - one discussed little in mainstream historiography, as is evident by the way the same few sources have been used again and again - as something to build the article around." I don't intepret it that way, and I think the AFD showed that enough people agree on that point that the notion that something about this topic implies that mass killings are an inherent component of communism is, to use your term, a minority viewpoint. An article titled "terrorism in Europe" isn't an implication of an inherent link between Europe and terrorism; nobody questions whether fascism is inherently antisemitic, or whether Spain is inherehently imperialistic. What matters is not some philosphical justification of essence, but the fact that those concepts are tied together by virtue of the the acts of people calling themselves fascists or Spanish. All this article is doing is dicussing mass exterminations that disproportionately occur under regimes callings themselves communist (more specifically Marxist-Leninist, which is probably a detail that could be elaborated on). Nobody denies those occured. There is no precedent on wikipedia that I'm aware of that requries for example a book specifically about that article topic, for the article to be able to exist, and several people in this discussion listed that as a requirement for this article to exist. Since those books (by Rummel and Cortois) apparently do exist, the goalpost shifted to the burden of proof that Cortois and Rummel aren't a minority viewpoint. The goal posts will shift again. At the end of the day, this is just going to come down to an ideological vote amongst editors. AShalhoub (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good assessment. I'll also point out that since the AfD finished, one user has proposed taking out at least two sections entirely. To try and delete the article bit by bit could be interpreted as an attempt to 'backdoor' in a deletion since the original attempt failed. Furthermore, a user who has on multiple occasions misrepresented sources and other users taking it upon themselves to re-write the article should be a red flag for all users. Vanteloop (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed coming down to "an ideological vote amongst editors" but we are not the ones doing this; if it was any other article or topic with the same numerous issues for over a decade (you cannot deny it anymore after the DRN and the latest AfD), it would have been deleted long ago; indeed, it was created by a sockpuppet or banned user in an attempt to troll. If Courtois and Rummel were the majority views, and their views were as supported as you claim they are, it should be very easy to fix the article. The problem is that they are not, and we have Karlsson 2008 supporting this. Davide King (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

AShalhoub, you have the burden of proof backwards. If Rummel and Cortois's perspectives aren't minority, where, amongst all the material concerned with analysing the events discussed in this article, are other sources supporting them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is relevant for the article's existence. But, here's one source. From the source (page 328): “No other state in history,” wrote genocide scholar Richard Rubenstein, “has ever initiated policies designed to eliminate so many of its own citizens as has the Soviet Union.”1 His contention can be challenged. In absolute numbers, the death toll inflicted on the Chinese people by Mao Zedong’s communists was significantly greater than the Soviet one. And per capita, Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge government (see Chapter 7) devised policies that destroyed fully one-quarter of the country’s population in less than four years. A striking feature of these cases is the links among them. Mao’s communists were in many ways Stalin’s protégés; the Sino-Soviet split of the late 1950s, which irretrievably sundered the world communist movement, reflected Mao’s conviction that the Soviets had betrayed Stalin’s great legacy. The Khmer Rouge, in turn, took its inspiration from both Stalinism and Maoism, but particularly from the latter’s ultra-collectivism and utopianism." Shall we include it in the article? It has 992 citations. AShalhoub (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@AShalhoub: We are not discussing article's deletion. We are discussing a specific section that gives an undue weight to generalizations made by non-experts, and ignore the opinia of experts who provide totally different explanations. Thus, Lewin argues that the term "communism" is not applicable to Soviet conditions, because it worked as a cover for a nationalist, agrarian despotic, statist or state capitalist ideology, or simply a ‘brutally repressive police state'. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This illustrates a key problem in this discussion, which is many editors have this view (x/y/z isn't true communism), when it happens to be that x/y/z are three of the deadliest regimes of human history.AShalhoub (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not a question of the views of some editors, but about the predominant views expresed in sources. And, before speaking about all of that, we must establish what majority of sources say on that. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If you had found some sort of consensus that the crimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot should not be analyzed in the context of communism, I think the article would already reflect that. AShalhoub (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

As noted here by Robert McClenon, "[t]he quotes all seem to be making one point, which is that there are atrocities under communism. Duh. We knew that. Those who were arguing to delete the article were not arguing that there had not been mass killings under communist regimes. There were. That wasn't and isn't the issue. Just because large numbers of single-purpose accounts were brigaded for the purpose of arguing that there were mass killings under communist regimes doesn't mean that anyone said there weren't." So please, stop doing this. Have you not noted that they are mainly, if not overwhelmingly, about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Which is exactly what I have been saying such sources say the whole time. This is an example of aspersions that the moderator mentioned — the problem is that Siebert, I, and a few others are actually versed in academic writing and sources, and if you were too, you would know that "no true communism" is a right-wing strawman. Ironically, it is only and mainly anti-communists and tankies who agree Communists states were communism/socialism; academic views are much more nuanced, and is simply what Siebert and I are saying. Davide King (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If you were a domain expert in this field, which is the picture you paint, you could publish an meta-analysis of your own in a reputable journal and have it included in this article. Unfortunately, it seems we both have the same standing here, a nice democratic aspect of wikipedia which I quite like (also relevant to the treatment of wikipedia by current communist regimes). That being said, I'll point out that you and Paul Siebert seem to disgree on whether or not Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao are not true communists, as you say this notion is a right wing strawman, whereas he says this is proven by the majority of sources.AShalhoub (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, stop that nonsense about needing to publish our own meta-analysis when Siebert and I are not doing any of that but simply reflecting and summarizing what scholarly sources say and that OR does not apply, as noted here. No, we do not disagree; indeed, Siebert is correct that this is proven by the majority of sources, the right-wing strawman I was referring to was to your own "no true communism" strawman, which is indeed a right-wing strawman because, as noted correctly by Siebert, what I am saying is supported by the majority of sources, e.g. it is mainly anti-communists and tankies who agree they were true socialists/communists; scholars disagree, and see it more within the societal context and background (e.g. bureaucratic authoritarianism/collectivism, neo-tsarism, state capitalism, neither capitalist nor socialist, and so on), and perverted such socialist ideals (e.g. Mann 2005, p. 350: "Stalinist, Maoist, or Khmer Rouge atrocities were socialist versions of modern organicism, perverting socialist and class theories of democracy just as ethnically aimed atrocities perverted nationalist theories of democracy.").

Tucker, influenced by George F. Kennan's writings on how the Soviet Union had reverted into a tsarist autocracy, emphasized that the Soviet Union was not guided by socialism or ideology but more by ruling class.[1] This perspective emerged significantly from ideas of neo-Freudian psychoanalysis, evaluating Stalin as a deeply paranoid tyrant and in the process creating a more tsarist-type government.[10] Moshe Lewin cautioned historians not to "over-Stalinize" the whole of Soviet history, while he also stated that the Soviet Union developed a "propensity for authoritarianism" after Marxian principles had failed to be established.[11] Lewin argued that the Soviet Union recapitulated a "bureaucratic absolutism" almost Prussian in nature, where the "monarch was dependent on his bureaucracy".[12]

Do you seriously think all those scholars committed the "no true communism" fallacy? We may disagree about how to fix the article, but there is no disagreement between Siebert and I on this, or on the article's general problems. Davide King (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King:, I have noticed that you changed your post after I replied to it, specifically where you mentioned you and Paul Siebert being specially credentialled. This is a very dishonest tactic to employ in a good faith discussion, and in this and consistently characterizing your opponents arguments as nonsense you seriously undermine your argument that your contributions to this dicussion are more valid than other editors. AShalhoub (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me. What do you mean that I changed my post after you replied to it? Can you please show the difference because I am genuinely not understanding what you are referring to. Were you referring to this? I did not change my post, it was simply a edit summary. If so, note that I made a big caveat by saying if they are not backed up by the best reliable sources within the context of false balance; were you referring to me saying "the problem is that Siebert, I, and a few others are actually versed in academic writing and sources, and if you were too, you would know that 'no true communism' is a right-wing strawman"? Well, I provided evidence of this of repsected historians who you may think they doing the "no true communism"; as I said, it is mainly anti-communists and tankies who agree that they were "true socialism", and it seems that you were not aware of the socio-economic nature of Communist regimes is not as easy as you make it out to be. So far, you have provided only one source, which is about genocide in general and does not discuss Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot together as we do (only Stalin and Mao are discussed together), while I did provide plenty of them (e.g. Lewin, Mann, Tucker, and others) in support of my claim about their socio-economic nature being much more nuanced than being editors' fallacy.

Also when did I say that Siebert and I are "specially credentialled" [sic]? Please, do not put me words I never said. I certainly did not mean to say what you think I wrote, I am just saying that analysis of source on the talk page is perfectly fine, and this is not OR; all I am saying is that Siebert's source analysis was positively reviewed in an academic journal, so while they may not always be right, I find the criticism of them deeply unfair and unjustified just because you have different views about sources. We are also not discussing deletion, and you said many editors have this view (x/y/z isn't true communism)" — I have showed that this view is, in fact, held by respected historians, do you think they commited the fallacy? You need to understand that Siebert and I are not putting forward our own views, we are only summarizing what scholarly sources say and support from what we have read about them; so it is not me who is saying "isn't true communism", it is mainstream and respected scholars who are saying that Communist regimes did not establish communism/socialism. Davide King (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking again, I think you may be correct that you didn't actually change your post, just made several successive edits, so I'll continue the discussion. My source that you cite above does discuss Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao together, even in the one excerpt I quoted, and explicitly denotes links between them. Further, it is a recent source, and extensively cited. Is your point that the entire book is about genocide, and not discretely about those three regimes? I'll say again that this is a completely arabitrary requirement, not supported by any other precedent on wikipedia. An article doesn't need to have a book written about its subject, in order to be able to exist. Books on the MKuCR topic of course do exist, but you appear not to like the sources, although they are written by tenured experts and heavily cited. This is my view is a case of "moving the goal posts," but anyway. The point is, sources which talk about genocide outside of the context of communism as well as within are absolutely fair game to include in this article, and there is no reason to insist otherwise. AShalhoub (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, apologies if I may have sounded too hard but this is stressing me so much and I am tired of having to discuss the same points again and again without reaching some consensus on how to fix the article. Do you realize that source is about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, three Communist leaders, not Communist regimes or Communism as a whole, which is what this article is attempting to do? In addition, please look at this — the problem is that it seems as if you guys are trying to prove a point that we and I have already agreed is not in dispute, which is that communist regimes have committed atrocities and mass killings. I went for !delete but that was because the article and topic as currently written is OR/SYNTH and in serious NPOV violations, which made the general criteria notability null; indeed, I have proposed this topic, which is the same topic but NPOV.

Please, refrain from making accuses as me not liking the sources, that is clearly not the reason; if they represent a majority view, it should be easy to prove and provide a source that summarize the literature for us and say Courtois, Rummel, Valentino, and the like do indeed represent the majority view, but even defenders of such an article do not go that far and acknowledge that they are all minority views — how can we write a NPOV article (remember that WP:NPOV does not mean without bias but giving "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", it means proportionately to their weight in the literature, so we should heavily rely on country experts and specialists but they tell a totally different story, do not see communism as a main or significant cause, and do not engage in body counting for Communism as a whole), and you should stop make such arguments in light of the AfD finding our arguments legitimate enough to overturn consensus to 'Keep' into 'No consensus.' I have proposed to do that, go tell "outside of the context of communism as well as within are absolutely fair game to include in this article, and there is no reason to insist otherwise" to Nug, who have repeatedly denied the use of such sources because they do not write in such context.

The problem is that such sources are not even properly represented, and are synthetized to discuss Communism as a whole when they mainly limit themselves to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, who are universally recognized to have engaged mass killings; if one look at the title, one would expect us to actually discuss such mass killings, not turning the topic into a Communist body count, and mixing such mass killings with any excess deaths and demographic losses, as is done by those who attempt to do a "global Communist death toll." Please, take a look at this, especially the comparison with sources about Genocide of indigenous peoples. If this article was not actually OR/SYNTH, and was so notable, it should get similar results. It does not.

Davide King (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Vanteloop, the AfD closed as no consensus, with the (long and considered) closing statement by four different individuals noting that the question as to whether the perspective presented in this article (e.g. Rummell and Cortois's) was mainstream or not was one of the key unresolved issues there. You can't simply dismiss such concerns by stating that the AfD didn't result in article deletion. If Wikipedia is to have content on this specific subject (e.g. the Rummell/Cortois perspective), it needs to do so in compliance with NPOV - a 'no consensus' close in no shape or form constitutes an assertion that existing content cannot be substantially revised, and it is common at AfD discussions (even for less controversial subjects, which close as 'keep') for the closer to state this explicitly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@AShalhoub: Yes, the article "Terrorism in Europe" does not imply the inherent linkage between Europe and terrorism. However, such article is not discussing "Europe" as a cause of terrorism either, and it hardly has a section the discusses "European ideology" as a cause of terrorism. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Last citation from the page is simply a poorly written text. One should say more specifically and in more details what exactly every cited academic thought about the relations between the mass murder and communism ideology and practice. Yes, Stéphane Courtois claims an association between communism and these crimes (rather than "criminality"), and not only in the Introduction, but more importantly, in Conclusion of the book (starting from page 727). Yes, Pipes say essentially the same (and a lot more!) by dedicating chapters to the deep historical connections and analogies between communism and Nazism (in his book "Russia under the Bolshevik regime", for example), but it must be explained and directly cited. As about two others, obviously, every historian who supports the concept of totalitarianism supports the overall idea of the political system being responsible for the murder. I would probably exclude Goldhagen (not sure), but Rummel is definitely in this league. Just cite what he said on the democide. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think you make a good point, the current sentence is not the best and the views of the authors [[[Rudolph Rummel], Daniel Goldhagen, Richard Pipes and John Gray should be separated out into individual sentences. --Nug (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. Importantly, all mentioned authors including Stéphane Courtois (one of the leaders of French National Centre for Scientific Research) are mainstream historians, as opposed to some of their opponents who belong to historical revisionists. Do they represent the "majority view" on this specific subject (i.e. mass killings under...)? I think they do, as clear from the current version of the page. If not, this should be clear from citing other works on the page, along with works that are currently cited.My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Courtois is controversial/minority about Communism, and is revisionist about the French Revolution too. Please, stop confusing the "revisionist school" from historical revisionism; since the 1990s, they have been vindicated and the mainstream went closer to them than the old "totalitarian model", resulting in the "post-revisionism" synthesis. Also do not confuse legitimate historians like Davies, Fitzpatrick, Getty, and Wheatcroft from truer historical revisionists in Russia who want to rehabilitate Stalin. Gray is not an expert, Goldhagen has been extensively criticized, and Pipes is outdated and one-sided; again, if all those authors are due, it should be used to find secondary coverage about them within the scope of this topic, rather than cherry pick them and cite them to themselves; they are primary sources about what they wrote and thought, and if we have to attribute everything, especially when we do not treat this as a debate (like correctly noted by AndyTheGrump but as a scholarly consensus when it is not the case, then what is the point? Davide King (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I propose everyone to stop discussing cherry-picked fragments and read sources. Thus, a careful reading of Karlssen (a source that is extensively used in this article) demonstrates that he says that we should speak not about ideology, but about crimes of concrete regimes, and about specific causes. Thus, for the USSR, he outlined "totalitarian", "revisionist" and "posrevisionist" schools of thought, and the first one is obviously obsolete. Clearly, most authors cited in this section focus mostly on the USSR (although they speak about "Communism" in general), and most of them belong to an outdated "totalitarian" school of thought. When I read Karlssen, I saw reverences on the authors that are pretty familiar to me (they usually appear among the sources retrieved by google.scholar when an unbiased search procedure is used). These names are Getty, Wheatcroft, Davies, Ellman, Fitzpatrick, Ellman and others. Their opinia are totally ignored here, and a stress is made on the "totalitarian" (outdated) school of thought. That critical omission is a severe NPOV violation, which I am going to fix.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• "the first one is obviously obsolete" is an example of WP:OR. And I doubt about using any "schools" on this page. The views by these people (e.g. Ellman and Getty) are very different, and every expert must be cited on its own merit. But every cited source must be clearly on the subject of the page, i.e. it should say something specifically about the "mass killings under communist regimes" rather than making some generic statements. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for just proving why this article is unfixable and a NPOV article cannot be written if we must only use sources that discuss Communism as a whole and focus on killings and death tolls. If such scholars are ignored, or there is nothing to presume they are anything other than presenting minority views at best, an NPOV article with this structure is not possible. Davide King (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• A general note. Since many users too frequently characterise a quite legitlmate attempt to analyse relative weight of sources during talk page discussions as WP:OR, it would be very useful for them to familiarize themselves with this discussion. Further attempts to resort to WP:OR arguments of that type will be considered an attempt to derail the discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with the critique above. This is not the first time users have attempted to insert OR into this article by making arguments on the talk page, such as dismissing scholars they disagree with on the basis of their position on an issue. A wikipedia talk page is a self published source and research done here is not inherently notable. Such research could be published elsewehere and then reviewed as a reliable source or not. This is so that the article reflects views espoused in reliable sources (per policy) and not an original thesis by an anonomous editor that is presented in wikivoice. Vanteloop (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Interim conclusion about the first paragraph. The discussion lead to a significant improvement of the first paragraph (thank you guys for your joint efforts), although it is still far from perfect. However, let's keep it for a while as a zeroth iteration.
• Second paragraph

It says:

"Professor Mark Bradley writes that communist theory and practice has often been in tension with human rights and most communist states followed the lead of Karl Marx in rejecting "Enlightenment-era inalienable individual political and civil rights" in favor of "collective economic and social rights." Christopher J. Finlay posits that Marxism legitimates violence without any clear limiting principle because it rejects moral and ethical norms as constructs of the dominant class, and states that "it would be conceivable for revolutionaries to commit atrocious crimes in bringing about a socialist system, with the belief that their crimes will be retroactively absolved by the new system of ethics put in place by the proletariat." Rustam Singh states that Marx had alluded to the possibility of peaceful revolution; after the failed Revolutions of 1848, Singh states that Marx emphasized the need for violent revolution and revolutionary terror."

If we translate it to a layman's language, this paragraph says:

"Bradley says that Communists rejected human rights; Finlay says Marxism legitimized violence; Singh says that Marx emphasized teh need of a violent revolution."

How all of that is connected to the topic of this article? Clearly, the above paragraph is original research because it expresses a Wikipedia editor's opinion that since Bradley, Finlay and Singh wrote that Marxism supported violence, that provide some general foundation for the claim made by Goldhagen, Courtois and Rummel. Making the paragraph policy-compliant would require a reliable source specifically linking the views of Bradley, Finlay and Singh with the claims made by Rummel and Courtois, or, at least, to other sources or opinia that link Marxism with "mass killings", and not to just "violence". In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source concerning the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. {{tq|In reality, the opinion of Bradley was directly misinterpreted, because he said (p. 151-153), that, (i) whereas Marxism rejected individual rights, Communists advocated some socialist version of human rights, although violation of those rights was a common practice in Communist states, and (ii) the story of human rights in Communist states is more complex that some people think (if you want more details, read the source). In other words, not only Bradley does not link ideology with Communism, he says the opposite. Furthermore, adding an opinion of some poet about Marxism is a clear sign of a desperate lack of sources to support this POV. It should be removed if we want Wikipedia to be respected. My conclusion: the whole paragraph should be removed as a misleading synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not how OR works. Having an attributed quote by a reliable source, and then another attributed quote by a different reliable source is not OR. By your logic, every wikipedia article would be delerted under OR, unless it was an exact copy of an Ecyclopedia Britannica article. I would also be careful about doing this If we translate it to a layman's language, this paragraph says to justify an overhaul of the article considering how often you have misintepreted and then dissappeared when exposed. Your conclusion is rejected. Vanteloop (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Please revert your improper removal of text[24]. Bradley talks about "communism", not just communist regimes, so he is talking about the ideology. He talks about Marx rejecting the very idea of human rights and the regimes following suit. He talks about state-orchestrated mass killings and what have come to be called gross violations of human rights being "almost commonplace in communist-led states." That is accurately reflected in the sentence he is being cited for and it is directly relevant to that section. --Nug (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-read Bradley. In fact, he mentions ideology in only one aspect:

"In fact the entanglements between human rights and communism in the twentieth century were more ambiguous than the chasm between ideology and these staggering numbers would suggest."

If you want to write your own article that concludes that Bradley links ideology with mass killings, you are more than welcome to do that ... elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a proper place for that. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph per WP:SYNTH, but that text was re-added and supplemented with a grossly insulting edit summary. I respectfully request for evidences

• that Bradley links Communist ideology with mass killings;
• that Finley discusses legitimization of violence by Marxism in a context of mass killings under Communist regimes, and that he draws a causal linkage the latter and teh former;
• that the opinion of a poet and philosopher Singh about Marxism is relevant to mass killings.

If no evidences will be provided in one week, I am going to remove this paragraph.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Finlay makes the linkage between Marxist theory and mass killings in his paper Violence and Revolutionary Subjectivity: Marx to Žižek:

"This is, however, only the first way in which Marxist theory is related to violent excess though, if we assume a meaningful relationship between Marxist theory and communist practices in government, then we can say that the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat has probably produced the largest body count historically. (The excesses of Stalinism during the 1930s particularly need hardly be rehearsed but a statistic of 700,000 persons executed by the communist leadership during 1937 and 1938 may suffice as a general illustration.) The weakness of Marxism as a theory of revolutionary violence in this regard is that it lays down no clear limits to the kinds of violence available to dictatorship. This establishes the outer dimension of its role as a permissive doctrine, i.e. a philosophical framework within which the possibility of using violence is validated but without setting any clear limits to how much violence can be used and against whom."

I suppose you will now argue that the phrase "produced the largest body count historically" has nothing to do with mass killings. --Nug (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I am partially satisfied with Finley (in terms of SYN, but not in terms of NPOV, but that is a separate story). Please, bring the article's text is accordance with what he says, and let is be a zeroth iteration on our future work (similar to the first paragraph). I am waiting for similar evidences regarding other two authors. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that seems satisfactory, I'll update in the next day. --Nug (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug: ping. What about other two sources (Bradley and Singh)? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, since no updates were made, I delete two sources (which seem irrelevant), and keep just Finlay. @Nug:, please, update the text as you promised.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Bradley, he seems to be saying that because Marxist theory deprecated individual political and civil rights in favour of collective economic and social rights when defining human rights, state-orchestrated mass killings were at times almost commonplace in communist-led states, but over time the communist view on human rights became more fluid but remained largely a polemical state posture. Is that a fair interpretation? --Nug (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree.

• The first paragraph says that Marxism had some specific vision of human rights: it rejected individual ("bourgeois") human right and instead championed collective economic and social rights.
• The second paragraph says that, despite Communist human right phraseology, mass killings were common in communist-led states.
• The third paragraph says that the human right issue is more complicated that some people thinks. And one important factor that lead to that complication is that the very concept of human rights had never been stable and universally accepted. The relationship between human rights and Communist states was manifold, and after 1945, some communist regimes contributed to the creation of a global human rights order.

In other words, this source does not discuss any connection between Marxism (and its vision of human rights) and mass killings. It literally says: "A human right issue was a complex problem that was seen differently in different parts of human history and in different political systems. Communists had their own vision of human right issue, which was unequivocal; despite that, mass killings were common in Communist states".

Therefore, this source is totally irrelevant to this section: it discusses vision of human rights, and it mentions mass killings just to provide a necessary context. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, as I don't have full access to Bradley's book, so I will need to check further. But certainly the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines individual political and civil rights and not Marxist collective economic and social rights, so it appears that the only contribution that communist-led states made to the adoption of the UN convention was to galvanize the other UN members into action with the horror of the mass killings that had become common place in those communist-led states. --Nug (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"... it appears that the only contribution that communist-led states made to the adoption of the UN convention was to galvanize the other UN members into action with the horror of the mass killings that had become common place in those communist-led states." Yet an another overgeneralization by Nug. According to The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights (2006), the Soviet Union contributed to the inclusion of economic and social rights, though this is may be overstimated because they also had a strong basis in U.S. legal and political culture through the New Deal, and the Soviet-bloc, along with other developing states like Chile, pressed the UN General Assembly to include economic rights. Davide King (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Third paragraph

Literary historian George Watson cited an 1849 article written by Friedrich Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" and published in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung, stating that the writings of Engels and others show that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history." One book review criticized this interpretation, maintaining that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is ... at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question." Talking about Engels' 1849 article, historian Andrzej Walicki states: "It is difficult to deny that this was an outright call for genocide." Jean-François Revel writes that Joseph Stalin recommended study of the 1849 Engels article in his 1924 book On Lenin and Leninism.

The first source is Watson, and, it does not seem to be too notable: it was cited just 20 times. I found only one review on this book, which is by no means impressive, and it confirms insufficient notability. The reviewer (Robert Grant, Bowling Green state university, Ohio) describes the author as "a veteran anti-socialist and classical liberal.'". He further comments on a description of Marx's views by Watson, and his conclusion is:

"It is true that Marx's historical relativism, like the parallel, 'biologistic' ethics of Nietzsche, did much eventually to lift the normal constraints upon such political measures; but did Marx ever call for genocide in the sense of the actual, literal killing of unwanted or inconvenient populations? Watson's evidence seems dubious. He reminds us, salutarily, that even as late as the 1930s 'advanced' thinkers such as Shaw, Wells, and Beatrice Webb (all of them also keen imperialists and eugenicists) were defending, and even advocating, the mass starvation or the (more 'humane') gassing of entire races and peoples, to say nothing of the physically or mentally 'unfit'. (Incidentally, that repulsively glib, sinister maxim, 'You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs' is here attributed to Beatrice Webb; doubtless correctly, but it would be useful to have chapter and verse.)

But the case is not so clear-cut with Marx and Engels. To be sure, they were imperialists and, it seems, racists too, believing in the historic mission, and privilege, of 'advanced' nations. 'Germany takes Schleswig with the right of civilization over barbarism, of progress against stability', wrote Engels in 1848 (a statement attributed to Marx on the cover, but to Engels in the text). And Marx (or Engels) wrote also that 'dying nationalities', such as the Czechs and Poles, ought to accept 'the physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbours'.

Such attitudes were wholly normal for their time, and by no means confined to socialists. By today's standards, of course, what Marx and Engels are calling for is not very amiable, being at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question. The ease and suddenness with which Watson slips from the above quotation to 'racial extermination' is not reassuring. There is a world of difference between losing one's physical life and losing one's cultural identity. Losing one's cultural identity, after all, can be perfectly acceptable and comparatively painless, so long as one simultaneously acquires another, as the history of American immigration testifies. We ought, if we value truth, to be absolutely clear as to which of these things we mean. Actually, in his preface Watson is clear: 'they wanted whole races to be killed'. But he nowhere shows that they did." (The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson. Review by: Robert Grant. Source: The Review of English Studies, Nov., 1999, Vol. 50, No. 200 (Nov., 1999), pp. 557-559. Published by: Oxford University Press. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/517431)

Interestingly, besides a direct and complete refutation of this Watson's claim, the author makes a statement (the one that I emphasized), which almost literally coincides with the argument that had already been presented on this talk page. To summarise: this book is a not too notable and very questionable source, which is almost ignored by other authors (just 20 citations) and severely criticized in in only published review. In addition, the author is not just a "literary scholar, but a "veteran anti-socialist", which does not add credibility to his statement. It seems Watson's interpretation is a minority view, and should be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is Robert Grant? Here is a review by Antony Flew of Watson's book where he states "The connection between socialism and genocide could hardly be made any clearer." --Nug (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Foundation for Economic Education is a think thank, and was not found to be reliable here. Robert Grant wrote a review in the academic peer-review journal The Review of English Studies, which is published by the Oxford University Press. Do you seriously not see any difference? Please, stop this false balance and verify at all cost; NPOV and WEIGHT are just as important — on is written in academic journal, the other is written in an American conservative think thank that is not reliable. Davide King (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug:, Robert Grant is the author whom the editorial board of the peer-reviewed The Review of English Studies invited to write a review on Watson's book. And that review was possible to find via google scholar (in contrast to the FEE).

That is a difference between me and you: whereas you cherry-pick a biased source to support another biased source, I provide all sources that I found using a totally transparent and neutral procedure.

It is absolutely unclear for us how you found the Flew's review: what search procedure did you use, how many sources you examined, how many of them you rejected because they did not support your POV, etc. All of that is totally unclear, because the criteria that you are using for source selection are totally unknown. Therefore, since the sources that I find using a totally transparent and neutral procedure differ from sources found by you, I conclude that they are likely to be cherry-picked. And, keeping in mind that you refuse to discuss a common approach to source identification, I conclude that cherry-picking is a core approach in your search strategy.

Of course, I may be wrong. If you explain us your search procedure, it may be possible that your approach is more neutral than mine. However, so far, you keep your approach in secret, and refuse to discuss it, which is a strong indication that you are cherry-picking. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a citation be available on google scholar for it to be included in a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, an author on the mass killings being described as an 'anti-socialist' by one person doesn't mean that source cannot be used. It would be like discrediting a source on evolution because a critical review called them a 'veteran Darwinist' Vanteloop (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, don't you think that by questioning the publication in the OUP journal and by pushing the source that was found unreliable during the previous RSN discussion you undermine our belief in your skills? Remember, WP:CIR, and such blatant mistakes are forgivable for newcomers, but we, established Wikipedia users, must show more respect to ourselves and to our opponents. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The more I am reading sources, the more I realise that the section's title should be changed from "Proposed causes" to "Discussion of possible common causes" (for only a fraction of authors see any significant common causes in those events), and, accordingly, the subsection "Ideology" should be renamed to "Role of ideology" (for many authors reject the very idea that Communist ideology was a cause). Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This analysis is as flawed as your previous. However you have not responded to the criticism of that one before moving onto the next, which I am sure you will do again Vanteloop (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your posts only after you apologise for your previous personal attacks. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice try, but you cannot ignore posts rebuking your proposals on the talk page if you plan on impementing them. Vanteloop (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Interesting. I think both professors should be regarded as experts on the subject and cited. And I do not think Grant actually refutes anything. According to him,

Marx (or Engels) wrote also that 'dying nationalities', such as the Czechs and Poles, ought to accept 'the physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbours'

That sounds just like Joseph Goebbels, except that Nazi implemented such ideas in practice. My very best wishes (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Antony Flew's speciality is philosophy of religion and FEE is not a reliable source; George Watson's speciality is English literature. I fail to see how you can consider both professors [I assume you meant Flew and Watson] [to] be regarded as experts on the subject [sic] and cited. Grant is much better because it is at least published in an academic journal, but I fail to see the relevance of The Review of English Studies to this topic, other than to dismiss Watson as undue because of Grant's views being much more nuanced. I am starting to think Siebert was onto something when they said this may be a case of CIR. Davide King (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so FEE is considered an unreliable source, but in this case FEE is acting more as a blog for Flew's review of Watson's book. However it is definitely WP:UNDUE to claim that Grant's opinion outweighs Watson's opinion on the matter. As MvBW states, Grant isn't actually refuting Watson's claim that Marx and other socialists of the era were a racist, but that everyone was a racist back in the 19th century. Perhaps if some "expert on the subject" had reviewed Watson's book maybe some more weight could be given. But no such review exists. --Nug (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you really see no difference between a review by Flew in an unreliable source and that by an expert (do you seriously think that reviewers in academic journals are not qualified, or chosen in the first place, as experts in peer-reviewed academic journals?) in an academic journal specifically devoted to Watson's exprtise? But Grant does refute Watson's main argument that Marx and Engels were the creators of genocide, and put them in the proper context, and Grant is indeed the "expert on the subject" who had reviewed Watson's book, having done sone in a peer-reviewed academic journal specifically devoted to Watson's speciality. If you think Flew and Watson are due but Grant is not, it is absurd. Perhaps you should conced that Watson is undue, and thus so are Flew and Grant. Davide King (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You and your fellow again are cherry-picking. Grant clearly said that Marx was, to some degree, racist (according to the XXI century's standards), but such attitudes were wholly normal for their time, and by no means confined to socialists. And, similarly, to cherry-pick one sentence from an extended quote and claim that 'dying nationalities' is a Goebbels-style propaganda is by itself a pure demagogy, for the whole quote clearly says that losing national identity may be not a big tragedy in some cases, as the example of the fate of immigrants in the US demonstrates. Please, stop your demagogy. (Keeping in mind that accusation of misbehaviour are considered a personal attack only when they are not supported by an adequate evidence, this my statement is not a PA: the quote directly mentions the names of such thinkers as Shaw, Wells, and Beatrice Webb, who were by no means Marxists, but who expressed the ideas that by modern standards could be considered a justification of genocide. I refuse to believe you didn't understand the author's thought, so this your demagodic statement should be considered as a disrespect to other participants of the discussion).

WRT the constructive part of your proposal, I do not think Grant has more weight than Watson. However, keeping in mind that Watson's book does not seem notable (20 citations, just one review), I think they both UNDUE, and should not be included in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, fair criticism and difference in opinion on what is due weight is met with personal attacks (accusations of demagogy, really?)Vanteloop (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, when we speak about Marx, it is necessary to keep in mind that he was not supporting primordialism, and his views were closer to what is currently called modernization theory. Therefore, according to him, nations were a quite recent phenomenon, and the XIX was a time when formation of nations had not finished yet. Therefore, disappearance of some nation and/or amalgamation of two or more nations into a bigger entity looked quite naturally to him (and to modern theories, by the way). Therefore, any speculations about "cultural genocide" are not serious. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have access to Walicki? George Watson (scholar) claims a citation, but offhand that doesn't look plausible. Watson first 1998, Walicki last 1997. The article quote and summary does not represent Watson adequately. But it was the issue of race, above all, that for half a century has prevented National Socialism from being seen as socialist...It is now becoming possible to believe that Auschwitz was socialist-inspired. The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide... The article text is by no means a good representation of Watson, i doubt Walicki is making the same argument, and should the article really be going down this path? fiveby(zero) 16:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems the hard copy of Walicki is available from my library. I can go and check. What concrete statement should I check? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of checking whether or not Walicki actually mentioned Watson, and what argument he is making on p. 184, if it is even comparable. I don't know that it is even worth bothering. Watson is not only a comparison to Nazism, which i think everyone has rejected for this article, but an actual claim of Auschwitz was socialist-inspired and National Socialism was socialism. If the article is going to quote Watson it should adequately represent what he is saying, does anyone really think we should be making Watson's argument in the article? fiveby(zero) 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the library is closed for vacations. I will go and check the source next week, but I agree with you that all this paragraph is a ridiculous minority POV. I briefly checked the literature about Marx genocide, Engels "The Hungarian Struggle" genocide, "The Hungarian Struggle" genocide Marx, and I conclude that one has to have some very specific POV to find the sources that are currently used in this paragraph. I am going to delete it completely as UNDUE. We cannot devote a space to this minority POV is teh article that is discussing such a broad topic. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with removal of entire paragraph. Revel is a similar argument, and cites Watson, his chapter beginning: Can Communism be compared to Nazism?. I don't think we can paint Walicki with them same brush without yet reading tho. As long as the article is sidestepping Courtois, it shouldn't be allowing such sources. fiveby(zero) 20:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure removal of the paragraph is warranted, Walicki seems to be saying similar things to Watson, so that's at least two scholars supporting the essence of the paragraph. Unfortunately Walicki book isn't available for preview, a trip to the library would fix that, but in the meantime a 1993 paper with a similar title Marxism and the "leap into the kingdom of freedom" written by him (cited 176 times) outlines some of his views that would likely be repeated in the book (pending confirmation). It is in Polish but google translate gives a reasonable translation to English[25]:

"An equally interesting contribution by Engels to the specificity of Marx's philosophical speculations are his journalistic articles from the Spring of Nations. They illustrate the common idea of ​​both of them about the superiority of the cause of human progress over the fate of individuals, social classes and entire nations. For Engels did not hesitate to say that entire nations are reactionary, that this is what the Slavic nations of the Habsburg monarchy turned out to be (except for Poles), and that their opposition to the German-Hungarian revolution qualifies them for total extermination. "The next world war - he wrote - will wipe from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary nations [...], after all these small, stubborn nations not even a name will remain".

It is hard to deny that it legitimized the policy of genocide. No wonder then that these Engels articles were carefully studied by Stalin. It is also justified to suppose that they influenced the ideas of Hitler, who experienced a period of fascination with Marxism in his youth."

I'll check if my local library has a copy of his book. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Fiveby, perhaps the reason why Watson was not contextualized for his fringe nonsesnse (Nazism and Auschwitz being socialism, and linking Hitler to Marx through genocide) is that it would have been removed as undue and fringe long-time ago. Davide King (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

My sense is what these authors are saying is that that Marxist literature was written in such a way that it was open to interpretation by leaders like Stalin who thus (mis?)used it as an "ideological" justification for their most excessive policies. --Nug (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems a good summary, the problem is what is the expertise of those authors and what is their weight? If they are going to talk about Marxist literature, I would expect them to have some expertise about it by having published scholarly works about Marxism. Flew and Watson are clearly undue and do not meet this criteria, while Walicki may fit it ("He specialized in philosophy of sociopolitics, history of Polish and Russian philosophy, Marxism and liberal thought" from his English Wikipedia page); however, I completely agree with Fiveby's comment that we cannot "paint Walicki with them same brush without yet reading tho. As long as the article is sidestepping Courtois, it shouldn't be allowing such sources." I would wait to hear more from Fiveby and Siebert about this. Davide King (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

What does "sidestepping Courtois" mean? Antony Flew was also a philosopher, as was Marx, so I think he is sufficiently qualified to comment on Marx’s philosophical outlook. George Watson has previously published political and ideological critiques in books such as Is Socialism Left?, The English Ideology, studies in the language of Victorian politics, Politics and Literature in Modern Britain, Idea of Liberalism: Studies for A New Map of Politics, so I think he is well qualified in the study of the literature and language of political discourse. --Nug (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug:, i think it was during the Afd, amidst a long discussion of Courtois, where you stated something along the lines of "the article makes no comparision of Nazism to Communism". Certainly the article does not expand on his moral argument. That is whay i meant by "sidestepping Courtois". fiveby(zero) 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Watson discusses the influence of Marxist literature on both communist and nazi regime leaders, but we don’t need to mention that link to nazi regimes in this article about communist regimes, and also we don’t need to mention the link to communist regimes in nazi related articles either. But we can certainly mention both in Criticism of Marxism. It is acceptable separate them out in this fashion per WP:MSWAS --Nug (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug:, forget about Watson, he is a bibliographer and literary historian, and he is a Liberal party activist. By no means his views should be considered as neutral scholarly views. If you want to write this article from a point of view of some political group (rely on writings by one political activist and support it with another activist), this is a direct road to a topic ban for POV-pushing. I believe we are not interested in the development of the events in this way.

Watson should be removed per WP:UNDUE (along with Grant), and the only question is what should we do with the rest of the paragraph. We have no reason to keep it, and we got no reasonable counter-arguments from you so far.

I am still waiting for your response to my post below.

By the way, what should we do with the previous paragraph? You promised to do something. Do you still have any objections with deletion of Barley and Singh? If no response will follow from you today, I am going to delete them.

We are still waiting for your response at DRNMKUCR. I think it would be fair if you explained your vision of your future participation in it: if you withdraw yourself from the process, please, notify the Moderator, otherwise, please, respond. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, it seems that your words ("Marxist literature was written in such a way that it was open to interpretation by leaders like Stalin who thus (mis?)used it as an "ideological" justification") is an almost correct summary. Although I would say that some Marx's statements are written in this way, and they are open to interpretation when are taken out of context.

Yes, some Marx's statements, when taken out of context, could (and had been) used for justification of many atrocities and crimes. The literature about that, and especially about a role of Marxist ideology in justification of crimes against humanity, is abundant. However, if some idea was used for justification of something, it is not sufficient to speak about a causal linkage. Thus, if Christian ideology was used for justification of mass killing during, e.g., Albigensian Crusade, it would be quite incorrect to name Christian ideology among the proposed causes of that mass killing. Therefore, the whole section should be renamed, and it should be rewritten in accordance with the idea that you summarised (that some totalitarian leaders used selected fragments of Marx's writings to justify their crimes). Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The standard of what should be in the article is what is discussed by reliable sources. For example, we may believe religious terrorism is motivated by a misunderstanding of ideology, however it is not wrong to discuss the view (and criticism) that the two are linked. In your example, if several notable scholars argued that a primary cause of the Albigensian Crusade was that Christian ideology could be used to justify mass killings more easily than other ideologies it would be right to include it in the article, even if that view had been criticised. Vanteloop (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as Vanteloop says. Also both Christian and Communist ideologies did define enemies, the Antichrist in the former, class enemies and Völkerabfälle in the later, which had to be destroyed before paradise on earth could come into being, so the seed is there. --Nug (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that means you have equally poor understanding of both Christianity and Marxism. The concept of Antichrist had nothing in common with religious mass killings (none of Medieval and later mass killings were committed under a pretext of a fight with Antichrist), and assimilation of some small "reactionary" ethnic groups was considered as one of preliminary steps of the world revolution. As it has been already pointed to you, these views were quite normal in those times, and, in that sense, Engels's views on Slavs were much more moderate than, for example, Theodore Roosevelt's view on native Americans.

Anyway, I got no evidences and arguments in support of keeping this paragraph, so I am going to delete it. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

But these sources go far beyond Communism and mass killing. They are indictments of socialism, specifically racially genocidal and therefore a basis for the racial policies of the Nazis. There is no "misunderstanding of ideology" in Watson, but an attempt to construct a direct link. Is everyone going by the article text and quotes, or reading Watson and Revel? Is this a preview of what the B content will be? fiveby(zero) 16:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right.

In addition, we can, and we should discuss how Stalin or Pol Pot cherry-picked some quotes from Marx to justify their mass killings. However, to discuss all of that in the section "Proposed causes/Ideology" implies that Marxism (as an ideology) was a cause of mass killings, which is by no means the same as justification.

If some mentally ill person or a sociopath kills people under a pretext of implementations of some (wrongly understood) Christian ideas, can we claim Christianity was a cause of those murders? Clearly, no. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: WRT "Is this a preview of what the B content will be?", let me explain (again) my vision of the B type article. This article will be a discussion of the thesis that Communism had a significant linkage with mass killings. That will include:

• the discussion of the claim itself (who claims that, and what exactly is claimed; different authors make different claims, thus, Rummel's claim differs from Courtois/Malia's ideas);
• the discussion of a historical context those claims were made in (for Courtois, it was a reincarnation of a Vichy syndrome etc, Rummel is libertarian, Brzezinsky is an anti-Communist and a US state official, etc);
• the criticism of those ideas (criticism of Courtois is massive, it includes the criticism by his co-authors, e.g. Werth);
• alternative theories (Mann's interpretation of mass killings as perversion of democratic ideas, Valentino's concept of a role of leader's personality), and alternative generalisation approaches.

That is one of possible structures of the B-style article, but if you have fresh ideas, I will gladly discuss it with you. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, that is a good way to structure it, thank you. And if we are going to discuss the "global Communist toll", it will be totally different from the current section, and be placed in the context of scholarly criticism (e.g. rather than put first the minority and the the majority criticism, we may use David-Fox's criticism of Malia—"the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger"—as the start) and that of anti-communist field, cause advocating of victims of communism (not of Communist regimes), criminalization, and Holocaust obfuscation and trivialization as noted by Dujisin, Neumayer, Radonić, et al. If we can integrate your proposed structure here with my proposed sandbox, I think that would be a great start and may also get you and The Four Deuces closer on the topic and way to fix it. Davide King (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:, this is why i am skeptical of the B approach. Watson is junk, i can't see the full review, but what you have quoted actually looks rather forgiving in my opinion. Then take a source such as Kiernan, going by The Specter of Genocide (don't have The Pol Pot Regime), he has something valuable to say and appropriate for the article. But under your construction i see Watson as more relevant and Kiernan less so. There will be no lack of sources such as Watson, and if taken to RSN the standard response will be, it's published in a reliable source so quote, attribute as opinion, and include criticism. I think the article may end up being forever mired in mainstream/majority/minority/fringe arguments. I preferred the plan you initially put forward after the AfD, and before the RfC. fiveby(zero) 15:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: I agree that B was poorly written, but I supported this text because otherwise this RfC would never have started.

My version of B was:

"The article should discuss the concept that links mass killings with Communism as a primary causative factor, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept."

Indeed, if we interpret the current version of B literally, this article will be limited with discussion of Rummel's findings (who found a strong correlation between his "democide" and Communusm), Harff's works (who found no significant correlation between genolopoticide and Communism) and, probably, Fein. Keeping in mind that NPOV requires us to provide all significant views an opinia on the subject, and taking into account that other authors (except few other genocide scholars) do not discuss correlations at all, we cannot discuss make "mass killings" a subject of the B-type article. That would be a direct violation of NPOV: we discuss MKuCR only in a context of their correlation with Communism.

That means, the subject of "B"-type articles are not mass killings, but the theories that see correlations between Communism and mass killings. That directly follows from NPOV, which leaves us no other choice. To make the scope broader, I replaced "correlation" with "linkage" (which allows us to include Courtois, and similar authors).

This article will not discuss facts about mass killings (let me reiterate: NPOV does not allow us to do that), it will discuss Rummel (strengths and weaknesses of his views), Courtois (support and criricism), VoC (its anticommunist position), Brzezinsky, etc. It will explain who and why maintains that Communists allegedly killed 100+ people and so on. Essentially, it will be saying the same things as the current version of the article, but it will present that as opinia, not as facts, for neutral facts are explained in specialized articles as Gulag (which says 1.7 million perished in Gulag as opposed to Rummel's 30-50 million), Great Chinese famine (which says that it was a man made famine exacerbated by numerous objective and subjective factors, as opposed to "mass killing" as Coiurtois calims), etc. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Paul's vision of B is that it has a narrow focus on Communism as a causative factor. Everyone agrees that mass killings did occur under several communist regimes, so as a reader I want to find out which regimes and what the causative factors or enablers were. Scholarship does exist that looks at common causes and there is also scholarship that looks at country specific causes. Hence a C type article (not withstanding the current structural issues) would best fulfill that goal, with a section on common enabling factors and country specific factors under the respective country sections. --Nug (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I find your position illogical. If Communism is not a causative factor, then what causative factors are common for those events?

If no significant common factors exist, what commonalities this article is discussing?

If different states killed people for different reasons (no common causative factors), then why should we add all those facts together? Just because they all declared they were Communist?

If there were no common factors, why the whole section is devoted to a total death toll, and the article does not present more precise, better itemized and more recent figures?

If there was no common factors, and no commonality, why the whole section is devoted to some fictitious common terminology (which is simply a lie, because overwhelming majority of authors do not use it)?

In other words, if Communism was not a significant common factor, why this article (which clearly implies a significant commonality) is organized in that way. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And, if no significant common factors existed then there is no reason to speak about any commonality, and, therefore, there is no reason to speak about that as a single topic. However, I recall you voted against deletion of this article, because "it is a notable topic". How can loosely connected events be a single notable topic? Can you explain that? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's take a look at that from the perspective of the "Ideology - Political system - Leaders" triad. It is the only section that holds this article together. If we remove it, it is unclear why all this content should be combined in one article: "Terminology" is a garbage (most authors do not use it, and some of them object to usage of those terms), "Estimates" contain only obsolete data, and these data imply some significant commonality, but what this commonality could be? The only conceivable commonality is common causes or common rule. Since most Communist states were independent, the second factor cannot be considered, so the only factor is common causes. If Communism is not a significant common factor, than what "ideology" are we discussing in the "Ideology" section? Let's remove it completely, and add just a mention that some (small) number of authors claim that Communism was a common factor.

Next, "Political system": what commonality can be in political systems of those states? The only conceivable commonality was that they were Communist or totalitarian. If we agree that Communism was not an important factors, then we should speak about totalitarianism, not Communism. But that will be a totally different article. If we want to limit our scope with Communist states, but we agree that Communism was not an important factor, than what holds the content together except the word "communist"? I don't understand it.

Finally, "Leaders". What exactly this section is supposed to say? That each Communist state was ruled by a brutal leader? Ok, that is true for some periods of their history, but is that a real reason do discuss all events in one article? I don't think so.

In summary, we either discuss Communism as an important common factor, or this article cannot exist. We are not going to start a ner RfC right now, so, please, stop your absolutely illogical claims about the absence of a common causative factor. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

?? Where did I say there was absence of a common causative factor. There were obviously a number according to RS, being ideology, political system and leaders. The article no more implies Communism is a significant factor than Valentino implies it in grouping communist regimes together in one chapter "Communist Mass Killings", as far as I understand it, Valentino concludes that the leaders was the main causative factor. I don't think there is any real academic consensus on causes, that's why three are listed. --Nug (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to object the removal of Watson from the article. As a literary historian, his input on the written works of Marx is significant. Watson did purvey wp:fringe views, but the citations at the moment of the paragraph's removal did not quote his views. Particularly, while the source of the citation did mention a correlation between Socialism and Nazism as was stated multiple times, that was not used as a citation, instead, Watson's analysis on the written work of Marx was in fact what was cited. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

How widely Watson's interpretation of Marx are accepted by peers? I found just one review, and that review contains a severe criticism of Watson's interpretation of Marx. Other authors seem to ignore Watson, and it seems his analysis is an insignificant minority view. Do you have any evidences that Watson's interpretation is supported by other authors in peer-reviewed or university level publications? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Watson's papers are peer-reviewed, reprinted and freely available in the library of congress. If he was insignificant that would not be the case. I should note that he has been cited by multiple other sources, 20 to be exact which is sufficient for notability. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read this talk page section? I explained all of that. The review is available from Jstor (see above). This review was published in some OUP journal (top reliable source), and it contains a severe criticism. Other sources in the list provided by you do not discuss this concrete Watson's claim. Thus, one of those sources (Stiebler) says: "Only after we had finished this article did we learn aboutThe Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson (Brownlow 1999, pp. 27–29), the contents of which are here therefore not taken into account", which needs no comments. Most other sources are irrelevant top the topic (just look at their titles).

This, as well as the fact that Watson's claim is exceptional (the claim that Marx's idea inspired genocides is definitely exceptional), does not make Watson an acceptable source. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to avoid misunderstanding: 20 citations is acceptable if the works that cite Watson's book are relevant to the topic and explicitly support author's statement. If a work just mentions Watson's name, but says that the book's content was not available to the author (as Stiebler says), or if the source tells about Jungian perspective of sexuality (e.g. Thompson), or if a source is just a Master's thesis, we cannot speak about "20 citations as a proof of notability". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Walicki expresses similar views as Watson regarding Marxist literature in his a 1993 paper titled ‘’Marxism and the "leap into the kingdom of freedom”’’ (cited 176 times): ”It is hard to deny that it legitimized the policy of genocide. No wonder then that these Engels articles were carefully studied by Stalin. It is also justified to suppose that they influenced the ideas of Hitler, who experienced a period of fascination with Marxism in his youth.” Note that Walicki English language book of the same name has 250 cites, so Watson isn’t all that fringe given what Walicki states. —Nug (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe Levivich gave a good criteria for sources; any source that does not account the 1990s and the archives revolution (e.g. pre-21st century) is likely outdated. Plus, if those views are mainstream and notable, rather than minority views, it should be easy to find coverage in equally reliable academic secondary sources that summarize this for us; we really need to stop not only the "He said, she said" formula but also stop to use their own works, which are primary sources about what they said, to reference this. If they are truly due and notable as you say, it should be easy to find secondary coverage that express the same points and that say Walicki's views are mainstream, or that cite the same quotes we use, otherwise we are too likely to engage in cherry picking rather than follow the mainstream literature. Do any of those cites use Walicki in the same way we do, or in releation to this topic? And are those same cites mainstream and from the academic press? Davide King (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the archives revolution has to do with Watson, unless you are suggesting there were secret writings of Marx that were only released in the 1990s, which is nonesense. You are presenting a false dilemma, that the view needs to be mainstream or it has to be deleted. Wikipedia allows minority viewpoints, and this viewpoint is properly attributed to the author per policy. --Nug (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It has to do because the topic of Communism is politicized and controversial, and that the archives revolution helped to reduce the heat, and made many Cold War era and 1990s sources outdated by now, including Watson, who is not even an expert about Communism or mass killings. As a result, Levivich's criteria1 is relevant, since mainstream sources in the 21st century have taken in account the archives revolution of the 1990s. The problem is that all such viewpoints have been automatically assumed to be significant, when they are not. If they are so significant, it should be easy to also provide secondary sources about them, in addition to their own work. Davide King (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you are overstating the impact of archives revolution, for example it has confirmed the views of Robert Conquest in his 2008 book The Great Terror: A Reassessment. --Nug (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe you can get a better reply from Paul Siebert, but yes and no because it depends of what you mean by it. Conquest did actually revise lower his estimates in light of the archives, so yes — but his estimates are mainly supported by the popular press, whereas historians writing in the academic press (Wheatcroft) still thought that his revised estimates were still too high, and they relied on hearsay and outdated sources rather than the archives, so no — I am not overstating it; again, you seem to confuse my summary of scholarly view as my own personal views (you appear to do this with Siebert too — you are free to disagree with us and think that our summary of scholarly sources is wrong but you need to provide evidence to back this, and your arguments against Siebert have never been convincing to me); if there is overstating, it is not from me but from Ellman, Getty, Wheatcroft, and the like, all of whom do support that the his revised estimates were still too high in light of archival evidence. Conquest is certainly relevant for the Cold War era and from an historical viewpoint, but they are outdated as the mainstream view, as is the Cold War era "totalitarian model", which has been taken up by "revisionist" and "postrevisionist" schools. The fact that you rely on outdated sources does not help and may be telling; surely, if you are right as you claim, there would be plenty of 21st-century sources fitting Levivich's criteria for best sourcing. Davide King (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Rummel says that camp mortality alone was 28,563,000, the consensus after "archival revolution" is that is was 1.7 million max. Of course, that is a minor overstatement...

With regard to the rest, I may overstate the "archival revolution", or I may be right. Only the analysis of a representative set of sources may give an answer. I proposed, for many times, to do that, but you refuse to participate. It seems you do not feel confident, and you suspect that that source analysis may confirm my point of view. Am I right? Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This "archival revolution" is related to estimates of death tolls, and has irrelevant to the literary analysis of Marx's writings. --Nug (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not only related to that because it also discounted many Cold War era myths, including the "totalitarian model", which was already outdated by the 1980s. If we still rely on sources that do not take account of this, we are presenting a very biased and cherry picked picture under the guise of WP:VERIFY, with no respect for WP:NPOV or WP:WEIGHT. Davide King (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, is a literary analysis of Marx's writing really relevant to the article's topic? Do serious historians or genocide scholars use this literary analysis in their work? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

we really need to stop not only the "He said, she said" formula but also stop to use their own works - This whole section is "He said, she said, Rummel said this, Valentino said that...", hence my proposal to remove the entire section from the article. If we are gonna use this argument, at least let's be consistent here.

And to answer your other concern, again his views are fringe, but they were never cited. Only his analysis of written work by Marx was cited. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

His analysis of Marx is also fringe, or at the very least controversial, precisely because we cannot separate it from his fringe claim that Hitler was a Marxist. The problem is not only the "He said, she said" but that we are attributing their views to their own works, rather than look at secondary coverage to both verify they are being presented correctly and what is their weight and/or whether they are due. Davide King (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug: Walicki cites Watson (his earlier work published in 1985). And he reiterates the idea that Hitler's genocide was inspired by Marx. Are we going to seriously talk about that as a majority/significant minority viewpoint?

Nug, you must realize that the idea that Marxism and Marxist ideology laid foundations for genocide is a serious and exceptional claim. I doubt this claim could be left unnoticed by other authors: they should either support it and develop it further, or reject and criticize (as Grant did). But we don't see any indication of a serious discussion of this claim by experts. Note, I do not claim that there is no such discussion, I just say that I have no information about that.

The claim, which Walicki made in passing, that Engels's words in one of his political pamphlet were "justification of genocide" is a small paragraph, and even Walicki does not develop this thought further. If Walicki treated this idea really seriously, he would develop it. But neither him nor other authors who cited his book didn't do that. Therefore, we cannot seriously write that this Engels's article represents an integral part of Marxist ideology and, it was a serious factor that enabled killing of millions of people (I write "serious", because we hardly can afford a luxury to discuss minor aspects in the section that discuss such global events as mass killings in several big Communist countries). Especially, keeping in mind that, per Mann and other authors, Communist regimes were usually effective in prevention of ethnic cleansing. I propose you to show respect to Wikipedia, and either to discuss this claim seriously (if a significant amount of reliable sources exist on that account), or not to discuss it at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Walicki cites the chapter Hitler’s Marxism in Watson's book The Idea of Liberalism: Studies for a new Map of Politics. Note that Norman Davies cites the same chapter from Watson in his book Europe: A History, so I hardly think you can say Watson is fringe if Davies is citing him in general works on European history. In regard to your claim that "Communist regimes were usually effective in prevention of ethnic cleansing", I suggest you read the paper The origins of Soviet Ethnic cleansing. --Nug (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Davies was rebuked by Wheatcroft, and is neither a specialist on Communism, the Soviet Union, or the Stalin era. This just further highlights how country experts tell a totally different story, and we cannot write a NPOV article if do not follow Siebert's suggestion for a common approach to sources. You keep presenting either outdated sources or non-experts on Communism; the fact most of sources for this topic are not experts on Communism should be telling and ring an alarm. Davide King (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wheatcroft's criticism of Davies was related to his citing of Conquest with respect to the death toll, not his cite of Watson's literary analysis of Marxism. --Nug (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not so easy. I do not think it is only in respect to that because it is about the Stalinist period and repressions, and how Davies summarized and presented it, see p. 341. Absence or lack of criticism does not mean acceptance, much less endorsement. It is far more likely to imagine Wheatcroft totally ignored that because it is fringe. I did miss Walicki's claim that it is "justified to suppose that they influenced the ideas of Hitler, who experienced a period of fascination with Marxism in his youth." More WP:REDFLAG. I am also pretty sure that his mention of Watson, or the quote you provided, is not the reason Walicki is cited many times by looking at them and their context.

Do ask yourself some questions — do you really think that such a strong claim would not be in the literature of Marxism, if it really was a mainstream view? Do you really think that Juncker would honor Marx if he actually was the founder and promoter of genocide as claimed by Watson? Do you really think we can have a NPOV article with a bunch of minority views, as long as they are attributed, irregardless of their context, relevance, speciality, and weight? We cannot respect NPOV if we rely only on authors who, in line with the "totalitarian model", compare Communism and Nazism, or in the case of Watson even claim that Nazism was socialism, and Hitler was a Marxist; you cannot support keeping Watson without providing this context of his views. If it is mainly such authors to write about the topic, it tells more about the topic than anything. Davide King (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This article does not make any comparisons between Communism and Nazism. I find it interesting that while you require the highest academic standards for this article, you are perfectly happy citing an "investigative journalist" Jeff Coplon for other articles. What's Jeff Coplon qualifications? And what happened to WP:UNDUE, basing an entire section on Coplon's article? Surely this is a better source. --Nug (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

But several of its proponents (Courtois, Malia, Watson) indeed do, and the global body counting is an attempt to prove that Communism was worse than Nazism, which remains controversial, or hold fringe views like colonialism or Nazism being forms of socialism. Are you WP:HOUNDING me now? As you can see here, it is actually cited in another source (Sysyn 2015), so there is no double standard, and it actually reports scholarly views, which is ironically exactly what is needed here, e.g. rather than use Watson for what he said, we should use a secondary source about them for they they said, as I did there for Lewin et al. It would now be you having double standards if you remove it, as it has got secondary coverage, I used mainly to report other scholars' views, and is properly attributed, including Conquest's response to the article. Thank you for proving that you have lost with Siebert and I on rational arguments and now you have resorted to attacks, insinuations, and false balance fallacies. Yes, that is indeed a good source, but it is unclear what are your edit suggestions. I have no double standards and I ask you that you recuse yourself from this last comment. Davide King (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I was just suggesting better sources and I see you have subsequently improved it. With respect to the global body counting issue, there have been genuine academic attempts to define the total number by mass killings scholars, and there also has been no doubt politicization of the body count as well, and this should be covered in Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates. But painting genuine academic estimates "an attempt to prove that Communism was worse than Nazism" is also participating in the politicization of it, which we shouldn't do as Wikipedia editors. --Nug (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not doubt that but you need to acknowledge and recognize that such attempts have been extensively, criticized, controversial, and politicized, which I believe you just did, so thank you again; however, I ask you to please stop casting further aspersions about my personal views, for all you know I may be the most rabid anti-communist on this talk page but I have to be neutral and respect the sources — in this talk page, I am trying only to present scholarly views, and everything I have wrote is supported by scholarly sources (you are free to disagree about my reading of them but please do not assume I am expressing my own personal views, which do reflect the scholarly consensus, as I mostly agree with the mainstream or non-fringe views on many issues). What I mean by this is that "an attempt to prove that Communism was worse than Nazism" was not my personal view but a significant view of scholars (indeed, the scholarly criticism of the Black Book), and that Neumayer and other scholars have written academic articles and books about it, so I am not politicizing anything. Davide King (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioSuperstar77, you wrote that Watson did purvey wp:fringe views, but the citations at the moment of the paragraph's removal did not quote his views." This is precisely why they are undue and should be removed; we are failing NPOV and VERIFY in not accurately presenting Watson's fringe views. We cannot cherry pick, or separate the reasonable from the fringe, we ought to present both and the context of Watson's claim, which is the fringe view that Nazism and Nazi concentration camps were socialism, and that Marx was the founder of genocide and Hitler goes back to him. Since this is clearly fringe, it is also undue and majority of academic sources, even those who appear to take a similar position, they actually do not because they are much more nuanced and the context is different. Davide King (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't have to present both discussion of Marx and Nazism per WP:MSWAS. I agree with User:MarioSuperstar77 that it is acceptable just to present his views on Marx --Nug (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That is an essay, not an actual policy. We cannot separate his fringe claims because his views on Marx are based on the fact he saw Hitler as a Marxist, which should make it WP:REDFLAG, an actual policy. Davide King (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No need to copy and paste entire paragraphs

It has already been noted that this talk page is almost impossible to follow. This current strategy of copying entire sections of the article to the talk page paragraph by paragraph is not constructive, especially when each paragraph is accompanied with a wall of text. The article page is right there, we can refer to 'the third paragraph in section x' with no ambiguity. We also have a sub-page for that. Obviously some quotations from the article are needed but not whole blocks. This goes for all editors, but especially @Paul Siebert: I have already requested you modify such behaviour, which was met with no response. I am humbly asking again for the sake of the article. Vanteloop (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, such walls of text are hardly readable. But I think the problem is different. Please see Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process (I do not mean you). My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Cause vs enabler, ideology vs regime

A few structural observations. The conversation seems to focus on whether or not the ideology is a cause of the killings. IMO this structural double-narrowing is not a good thing and might cause the reality to get missed.

First, this article is about mass killings under regimes that have existed. It's quite plausible that factors that have gone along with those regimes (totalitarian government, creation of a need to completely change the public to conform, or mis-usability of that need to justify bad actions not necessarily driven by it.) have served as enablers of mass killings. Next, "cause" is a subjective word which can include or exclude enabling factors. So, IMO:

1. Consider enabling factors that have occurred due to being communist regimes
2. Realize that the word "cause" can exclude important enabling factors. E.G. Those enabling factors may be the difference of what allowed a bad person to kill their opposition. Some might call those enabling factors a "cause", others would not.
3. Note that this is about killings under regimes that have existed or do exist, not directly about about whether an ideology causes killings.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you for your comments, all of that seems mostly correct. However, so far, the goal is to check each source for potential V and SYNTH problems: we are discussing each paragraph in this section, and we already removed some sources that do not support the article's text, and that are used in a manner prohibited by NOR. After we finish this work, it will result in a more clean text, which will be subjected to further analysis and modification. I expect that by that time the RfC will come to some logical end (most likely, to "B" or "C"), and in that case all arguments presented by you will be very instrumental. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And one important consideration is missing in your post: as a good review by Karlsson says, most authors prefer to focus on a discussion of specific causes for each regime. That is not only a demonstration of the thesis that they see not much commonality between them, but it also reflects the fact that our knowledge about each regime is evolving in different conditions. Thus, for the USSR, we must always keep in mind the "archival revolution" of 1990s, which revolutionized our knowledge about that regime, and lead to a formation of two new schools of thought (revisionist and post-revisionist), which almost replaced the old (and now obsolete) Cold War era school. Nothing of that kind happened in, e.g. Cambodia: the study of that regime was greatly facilitated by the fact that it was replaced by Vietnam, who took all necessary steps to reveal all facts and details of the genocide that was perpetrated by Khmer Rouge (that was a unique case when the crimes of that regime were stopped and publicly condemned by another Communist regime, whereas Western society initially accepted that information skeptically). As a result, in a Cambodia case, all important information was available to scholars since 1980, and no significant evolution of mainstream views on that tragedy occurred in last 40 years. A situation with China is different from both USSR and Cambodia. All of that contributes to the modern trend to discuss Communist regimes separately, and that is an additional argument for making more stress on country-specific studies, which should be discussed first, and then, in a small section, attempts to make some generalizations should be discussed and critically analyzed. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly structure B will not facilitate that. As laudable as Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia is, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam also had it's own episodes of mass killings. Also many author have proposed common "enabling factors" (to use North8000's terminology), Rummel, Harff, Finlay, Valentino and Bellamy, to name a few. To focus on country specific factors would exclude their scholarship in its entirety. --Nug (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What source authored by Harff discusses "communist politicide" as a separate topic?

What concretely Finlay writes about communist "mass killing", communist genocide, Communist violence? Note, the only source that seems relevant is supplemented by a disclaimer (This paper is produced as part of the Contentions and Transitions programme at Geary; however the views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Geary Institute. All errors and omissions remain those of the author) that indicates that this source was not peer-reviewed.

What exactly Valentino says in his chapter devoted to a comparative analysis of murderous and non-murderous Communist regimes?

What exactly Bellamy says about common factors (except that those mass killings were perpetrated by one Cold war camp)? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You tell me Paul, which subsections should their views go into: "Ideology", "Political systems" or "Leaders"? --Nug (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the names of this subsections are correct. I am going to change them after we finish cleaning SYNTH/POV.

Indeed, a section devoted to "Enabling factors" is supposed to discuss "Common enabling factors", otherwise it is unclear why this section is separated from the sections that discuss each concrete regime. Therefore, "Political system" is supposed to contain a discussion of commonalities in political systems of each regime that lead to mass killings. Clearly, Valentino, whose main claim is that regime type does not matter, does not fit into this scheme. Harff does noyt fit either, for she found no correlation between politicide and regime type. A huge number of country-specific sources do not fit this section either.

Similarly, what is "Leaders" section supposed to discuss? Commonalities between Pol Pot's and Stalin's personality? Do you really believe it is a mainstream topic?

Clearly, the section with this structure must be moved to the bottom and made 3-5 times shorter, for an overwhelming majority of sources discuss concrete regimes (and their political system), concrete leaders, concrete ideologies, and they do that in a context of concrete regimes, not "communist regimes in general". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

When I spoke about moving the section to the bottom, I meant the C-version. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@North8000:, you are indeed correct. That's why structure C where the regimes are listed with an overview of the episodes are given is necessary to give context and make clear to the reader that the article is about mass killings under regimes rather than under ideologies that structure B would imply. Perhaps the section title "Proposed causes" is somewhat clumsy and a better section name is needed, but it current contains three subsections on the enablers, being "Ideology", "Political systems" and "Leaders", which isn't an exhaustive list and other enabling factors could be added as well. --Nug (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Enabling factors" is an improvement, thank you.

However, it does not resolve the issue, because the section discusses common enabling factors, whereas some specific enabling factors were identified for each event in each regime. We need to carefully analyze a representative set of sources (as NPOV requires) to establish a relative weight of common and specific enabling factors. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou for making the case for article structure C, the article currently covers common factors but we also need to have sections on the specific regimes to mention the regime specific factors as well. --Nug (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In contrast to you, I am neutral in the RfC discussion, I am just explaining what each version (A to D) are supposed to talk about. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Valentino does not classify Vietnam, or Afghanistan and Angola, as Communist mass killings but as counterguerilla and (sub-state/insurgent) terrorist mass killings; it is OR/SYNTH that just because they were nominally Communist, then they must be grouped together. Davide King (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Valentino does classify mass killings by North Vietnam and the subsequent takeover of South Vietnam by the north as a communist mass killing, and the killings of civilians by the American military during the Vietnam War as a counter-guerrilla mass killing, but you are right about Valentino's classification of Afghanistan and Angola. However Rummel does lists Afghanistan and Angola as a communist mass killing. --Nug (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this: "Valentino attributes 80,000–200,000 deaths to 'communist mass killings' in North and South Vietnam." (Valentino 2004, p. 75) However, it is not in the chapter about "Communist mass killings", and Valentino actually includes it as one of "possible cases" at p. 75; again, I am clearly distinguishing between universally recognized cases and possible cases, so I stand correct by this, while you are right that Valentino considers it a "[possible] Communist mass killing" case. So scholars disagree, why I am not surprised? Do you at least now see and better understand why I think the grouping as a fact or uncontroversial is problematic? It is OR/SYNTH that just because a mass killing happened under a nominally Communist regimes, or because Rummel (who seemed to apply a proto-"generic Communism") included Angola and Afghanistan, while Valentino (for whom regime types are not as important) did not, they must be grouped together as if it is a fact or uncontroversial when scholars disagree. As I said many times, if this article only covered Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, with just a short paragraph about other states and possible cases, and other relevant events listed through 'See also' links (including the background context) or passing mentions, that would already be a small improvement about the section dedicated to states. Davide King (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sure, causes and enabling factors are not the same. However, as currently described in this section, the regimes (and the ideology of these regimes) were causes of the political repressions, not just enabling factors. So, no. Please do not make this change without consensus.My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if other's posts may have suggested a change, but the operative point of my OP was just to avoid two types of narrowing of the discussion that may be / have been happening. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:@North8000: Maybe a possible compromise: "Proposed causes and enabling factors" to capture the full gamut of potential reasons? --Nug (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "Causes and enabling factors" would be fine (I would exclude "proposed" as excessive). My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not in deep enough here to propose specifics like that. I was more trying to a suggestion for the discussion which seemed to overly narrowing to the question: "does the ideology cause mass killings?". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason why "proposed" preceded the word "causes", by removing it you unintentionally added another WP:SYNTH into the article. The word "proposed" was there to highlight that what is written under said section is opinionated and subjective rather than something that is fully factual and documented by tertiary sources. I am fine so long it is Proposed causes and enabling factors or Proposed enabling factors. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. --Nug (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary, "proposed" is editorializing, an attempt by a wikipedian to cast doubt on the content included to the section. Simply saying "Causes and enabling factors" is a neutral title. My very best wishes (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Stalingrad

A well documented mass killing that I’m assuming is not going to be included ~ cygnis insignis 18:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's related to war, this article is about peace time mass killings. Note this article doesn't mention the Russian Civil War. That said, I just noticed this section Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Soviet_killings_during_World_War_II, probably should be removed as being out of scope. --Nug (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, because that were mass murders of civilians, not combatants during Russian Civil War (currently mentioned in section about Red Terror), and during WWII. For the same reason the Holocaust is the most notable of Nazi crimes. My very best wishes (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I totally agree, I think, the distinction is often seen as a matter of consent, perhaps va political / geographical obligation, when totalling the victims of mass killings ~ cygnis insignis 14:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so you are both saying the distinction should be combatant/non-combatant rather than wartime/peacetime? That makes sense. But I'm not seeing the connection to Stalingrad, the article Battle of Stalingrad doesn't list non-combatant casualties, could you elaborate? --Nug (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not see Battle of Stalingrad on this page. One could make a connection with the Siege of Leningrad, but only if such connection appears in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Combatants versus non-combatants? It depends. For example, how would war-time executions by SMERSH qualify? I am not sure. Whatever sources say. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

apologies, I’m trying to fathom the depths to which an article’s scope loses meaningful resolution ~ cygnis insignis 08:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

[Comments moved.]

Dude, you seriously aren't following the conversation when you respond in the wrong section. And no, nobody is attributing all mass killings under Communist regimes to communism, there are currently three proposed causes or enabling factors: ideology, political system and leaders. --Nug (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

By the way, what source says that causes are ideology, political system and leaders? Is this idea accepted by other authors? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I recall you mentioned Valentino attributed communist mass killings to something, what was it? I'll add it to the Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Proposed_causes_and_enabling_factors section. --Nug (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be highly desirable is you switched from your acrimonious tone to a normal and collaborative one. Keep in mind that you are not a DRN party anymore, so my voluntary obligations are not in force.

I perfectly remember what I said about Valentino, and if I am asking about causes, there is some serious reason.

Valentino says nothing about Communist mass killings specifically, his point is that some Communist regimes (as well as other regimes) perpetrated mass killings, and that was because their leaders found that instrumental.

My question is different. Who decided that "proposed (common) causes" are "ideology, political system and leaders"? Is that statement found in some source, or that is just a conclusion of some Wikipedia user? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent removals

Given the currently standing RfC on this page [26], I think we must wait the official closing prior to making such changes because they are made in the disputed section that is the subject of the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Tombs should not have been reintroduced per WP:FALSEBALANCE and for the fact that the main subject on the cited source focuses on Wikipedia rather than Communism in itself. This is pretty Synth-ish. Additionally, when you revert, don't revert over non-controversial additions to the article, that is disruptive. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is synthesis made by the source, not by wikipedians. Therefore, not a WP:SYN. I can't check the source (paywall), but assuming that the summary was correct, it say he "equated erasure of communist party mass killings to being "at least as bad as Holocaust denial". That is on the subject. What's the problem? Should this be rephrased? My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You read none of the comment past my comment about the synthesis. It should not be rephrased, it should be removed, period. It violates at least 2 guidelines: MOS:SELFREF, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and might violate 2 more: WP:POV and WP:SYNTH due to the way this source is utilized to push a narrative. Additionally, as I stated multiple times, this adds nothing informative to the article since this is entirely an assertion that anyone other than this historian may have, and exists solely for the sake of balance with the added bonus of it being WP:FALSEBALANCE. This source is trash, there is no arguing it. Bonus points for being hidden behind a paywall so not many user can thoroughly review it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean this edit [27]? If so, then no, The Telegraph is generally a reliable source, see here, and more importantly, the author is apparently a historian. If you think the source was incorrectly summarized here, please rephrase. As written, this text on the page does not mention WP, only article does. Perhaps it should?I would think so. But in any event, this is not a self-reference, this is view by author of the publication. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that Tombs is used as a false balance after Gerlach (the 'However' is further proof of such editorializing), who is an actual genocide scholar, while Tombs is an historian of 19th-century France which has nothing to do with the topic. Indeed, I actually moved Tombs in the section about ideology, but Vanteloop moved it back there. Surely that is more relevant, since Tombs is talking about ideology? Davide King (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you failed to appropriately read my reply. Furthermore, I am skeptical that you understand Wikipedia's guidelines. The perennial sources pages is what I would like to call "a rule of thumb", and is only relevant assuming the source itself remains appropriate. If one day, out of nowhere, a reliable source stated that the Earth is flat, would you still agree to use that source as a citation? This article with Tombs is the exception, not the rule, it should not be used as it is piss poor and by all means unencyclopedic. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Restored the content, I also agree we should wait on the RFC. There is no rush after all. Seems like something that should be in the article and is well sourced. I am not seeing a great reason to remove it either. Just noticed me edit summary had a typo, so that is great. PackMecEng (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary also repeats the accusation ~ cygnis insignis 03:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, see WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. That has been challenged, so the onus is on you, not on us, see the "Some recent edits" thread above. It is a news source about the attempted deletion of this article, from which we take a passing quote from a specialist of 19th-century France about the attempted AfD and not the topic, and that includes Cliff May, more extreme than Courtois. As it was already noted in the AfD's talk page by BSMRD and Paul Siebert, they are hardly neutral or accurate (Tombs falsified1 the reason why activists wanted to remove Gladstone's statue),2 and to quote Siebert, "judging by the Telegraph article's tone, the author's intention was by no means to create a balanced story. Of course, he picked the scholar who was expected to express a viewpoint of a certain kind." Davide King (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

this revert and the edit summary are incorrect in many aspects.

First, that type series of reverts is a "rag team" edit war, and is disruptive. This type activity may be reported.

Second, this edit is not "well sourced", it is an op-ed by a non-expert (Tombs is an expert in XIX century history of France.

Third, the source was taken out of context: Tombs wrote specifically about the recent AfD, not about Communism.

Using this type sources in this questionable way opens a Pandora box: if Tombs's opinion is cited, noone can prevent addition of radical leftist sources (which we all would like to avoid).

Finally, I have no idea why and how the RfC's outcome can affect the fate of this concrete source: it is irrelevant and questionable independent on what option (A - D) wins.

I strongly recommend PackMecEng to self-revert. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the reasons explained above, I completely agree with PackMecEng. Actually, I removed this at first, but then self-reverted after realizing I was wrong. Robert Tombs is a reputable historian, his view was reliably published, obviously relevant to this pag,e and therefore should be kept. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• This read more WP:ILIKEIT than objective analysis. Tombs is a reputable historian about 19th-century France, not Communism or genocide/mass killings, which is the topic of this article. He has taken historical revisionist views about colonialism, in spite of what he is quoted as saying there, and has taken extreme anti-communist views about an anti-racist activist. See the links I provided here. Davide King (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Are people really still trying to put this inane Telegraph piece into the article? Tombs is (barely) a reputable historian, in a completely different field from the one being discussed. His conservative bias is well known (and willingness to falsify and exaggerate in favor of that bias) as discussed above, as is the Telegraph's, discussed in our article on them. This adds nothing to the article, other than attempting to use the Holocaust to shield the topic from criticism by promoting the fringe views of an irrelevant historian. With regards to the RfC, this piece has nothing to do with the structure of the article, and could be safely removed regardless of the RfC's results. BSMRD (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

He is an expert in XIX history of France, see, e.g. this. He hardly a non-reputable historian, but he authored no peer-reviewed works on Communism Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of his work on France, but whenever he steps outside of that area it is inevitably some fringe view in service of his ideological professions, be it colonialism or communism or race. In my personally estimation, that severely damages his credibility even for the work he is qualified for, but I suppose he could be a suitable source if this page was about the Paris Commune. Unfortunately it isn't, despite editors treating him like some worthy authority on this topic. BSMRD (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So can we remove any cites by Engel-Di Mauro, who a Professor of... Geography? --Nug (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice WP:FALSEBALANCE. Unlike Tombs, who has promoted historical revisionism about colonialism, Engel-Di Mauro's views about the body-count are pretty mainstream (e.g. scholarly criticism of the Black Book), and it was at least written in an academic journal published by the academic press. Davide King (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you'd like to, you are welcome to go ahead. I will say however, the citation Di-Mauro's name is attached to is an article published in an actual peer-reviewed journal with real authors and citations, not one extremely questionably relevant historian's opinion in the Telegraph. BSMRD (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Engel-Di Mauro's paper is cited by... nobody. --Nug (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(EC) The Engel-Di Mauro source in question, by an author with no relevant credentials, claims that "Capitalism's war-related death toll so far exceeds 150 million," citing Wikipedia. "The data are mainly from Wikipedia," the author explains, specifically our List of wars by death toll. Also according to the author, the death tolls from both the Spanish flu and the COVID-19 pandemic are directly attributable to capitalism: "But why not just cut through the rhetorical rubbish and use the death toll from the 'Spanish' or 'Kansas' flu as a retort to anti-communist demagogues? Using the same inflationary logic, that would already be about 100 million deaths right there, equalling the '100 million victims of communism' within a mere handful of years. After all, since communists are accused of causing mass mortality through their policies, we can just as easily accuse liberal democratic capitalists for their failure in preventing the spread of the flu and for negligence in matters of basic healthcare. In fact, negligence would be an understatement. It was planned capitalist conflagration and deliberate military policies that caused such a grim mortality figure. Even if one relies on more recently recalculated estimates that put total deaths at 50 million, liberal democratic capitalism can be blamed unequivocally for, at a minimum, a period of historically unsurpassed yearly rates of mass death. In the current conjuncture of the COVID19 pandemic, it appears not much has changed in this respect within liberal democracies. ... About two million have died of COVID-19 worldwide so far. This is directly imputable to businesses pushing profitability into tropical forests and exposing workers to zoonotic diseases while undermining public health and relentlessly eroding and pre-empting healthcare provisions almost everywhere." [emphasis added] Will the same editors who contend that Tombs is WP:UNDUE or even WP:FRINGE continue to defend this laughable source?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that is seriously fringe. Unlike Engel-Di Mauro, Robert Tombs is a notable scholar. --Nug (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, that is because it is mainly a tertiary source and is recent. Karlsson 2008 is also cited by nobody relevant and is the only source that I would argue support your structure. You guys clearly missed the point of the article and how it is used here — it is just showing how the Communist death toll is methodologically flawed and can be applied to any ideology or system; The Black Book of Capitalism did the same thing — rather than doing the same thing of The Black Boof of Communism for capitalism, it attempted to show how flawed such approach and methodology is. Do you honestly think that is the problem of the article? Do you not think Watson is a bigger issue? I support a total rewrite, and perhaps in such rewrite none of this will make it, but considering the current structure, it is perfectly acceptable for balance and is properly attributed. Davide King (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To reiterate, this "laughable source" [sic], which was clearly decontextualized, was discussed at RSN, and is published by the academic press, while Tombs' opinion was published in a popular press newspaper about the AfD nomination of this article. This is false balance at its finest. Davide King (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Engel-Di Mauro is one of the editors of The Routledge Handbook on Ecosocialism, which was published by the academic press, but sure — they are fringe; a fringe author would not be chosen to write and edit an academic handbook. As was also already noted by The Four Deuces, "criticism [of the body count] seems to be representative of a large number of experts." In that, they are a reasonable tertiary source about The Black Book of Communism and the Communist body count, which is exactly the context they are placed in within this article. Davide King (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that Engel-Di Mauro is Editor-in-Chief for the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal, which published his paper. According to the section ”Peer Review” in Taylor&Francis’ editorial policies: "The details of the comments as well as the overall recommendations by peer reviewers will be considered by the Editor when making a decision, but ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor." (their emphasis) so there is definitely a conflict of interest and thus his paper can’t be considered anything more than an un-reviewed opinion piece by a non-expert (his area of expertise being geography). At least Tombs' opinions were independently published, unlike the opinions of Engel-Di Mauro. —Nug (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That does not sound like a conflict of interest according to common definitions. We are not using that source for their original research alone but as a tertiary source about the criticism of Communist body counts from uncontroversial claims like the 100 million figure being widely used and common; you did not reply to what I said, namely that it is used in its proper context, in the context it is used it is supported by scholarly criticism of the Black Book, and is in line with memory studies and how the cause is advocated as an anti-communist POV (Neumayer et al.). If you are fine with Watson, and ignore his fringe views, I do not see why you should ask that we remove this source when we are currently using it for uncontroversial and attributed statements, which are also supported by other sources. Davide King (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

At least Engel-Di Mauro's opinions are relevant to this article and the context in which they are placed (§ Estimates), and not about the proposed deletion of this article, which may be bordering in itself on Holocaust obfuscation, and at least a form of slippery slope and lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, for comparing the AfD nomination of this article to Holocaust denial. Davide King (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Davide King, perhaps you are not aware of this, but Engel-Di Mauro is also cited in the "Comparisons to other mass killings" section: "Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro et al. argue that 'since the time of the Russian Revolution, capitalist institutions as a whole have caused close to 158 million deaths by waging war alone, with liberal democratic varieties of capitalism contributing at least 56 million of those fatalities. This monstrous impact, unprecedented in the history of humanity, doubtless reaches hundreds of millions more deaths when the centuries of genocides and slavery systems are considered and when murders in the home, at work, in prisons, and in the streets (including by police) are counted as well.' This would be a higher death toll than the 100 million estimate from The Black Book of Communism, which Engel-Di Mauro et al. argue is a 'simultaneously fictitious and slanderous claim'." These are fairly extraordinary, WP:REDFLAG claims.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That is because I always used the source in the context of body-counting, and when it was supported by other sources; it was X-Editor who added it, not me, so you should discuss that with them. Davide King (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I also would really appreciate if you could analyze everything, especially Watson, who claimed that Nazism and its concentration camps were forms of socialism, that Hitler was a Marxist, and that Marx invented genocide; surely those are just as equally WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG claims? Indeed, none of Watson's fringe views have been contextualized, perhaps because if someone was aware of this, they would have gotten rid of them a long time ago, yet they are still there. Davide King (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want other editors to participate in the discussion, then you need to reference the disputed text. Engel-Di Mauro's article of course is a reliable source for facts. The fact that it was published in 2021 is not a deficit but a definite advantage since we are supposed to use the most recent sources.

Comments by Tombs outside academic publication have no weight. Nug, can you explain why Tombs falsely claimed that Gladstone's name was removed from a building because his father owed slaves, when in fact it was removed because as an MP he voted against abolishing slavery? Also, why are you arguing that the 100 million figure is accurate when it has been debunked by expert who have reviewed it? I don't mind that the article should mention that anti-Communists invented the figure in order to compare Communism unfavorably with Nazism, but we should not pretend that it has any credibility. TFD (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it though? Engel-Di Mauro's article pins the blame for Covid19 on capitalism: About two million have died of COVID-19 worldwide so far. This is directly imputable to businesses pushing profitability into tropical forests and exposing workers to zoonotic diseases while undermining public health and relentlessly eroding and pre-empting healthcare provisions almost everywhere. As I recall VoC foundation was said to be unreliable on RSN because it blamed communist China for Covid19. --Nug (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I would very much like see to The Four Deuces' response to that, and also because I am tired, but let me just tell you that the part you quoted is actually cited to Wallace, Rob. 2020. Dead Epidemiologists: On the Origins of COVID-19. New York: Monthly Review Press (unlike Tombs, Engel-Di Mauro has cited references to back up his claims; that article was, in fact, co-written by the journal's editorial board, so it was not just him, and there was editorial fact-checking), and was clearly not the reason why it was found to be unreliable; the COVID-19 claim made them fringe, not unreliable, which was already agreed on in the previous RSN discussion. You should see that more as showing how flawed the body count is because by the same standards, other ideologies' body count may well be equal or even higher. Davide King (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Should all mention of that person be removed from the article? He does not ring me as someone who is reliable. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail to understand why Nug is so adamant to keep Tombs in the article. With this article, I made every judgement using policy and common sense and not a single paragraph in this article, not a single one other than Nug's addition with a citation from the Telegraph was so obviously out of place that I had to say something about it. Generally speaking, I do not like the structure of the article and the way the sections, paragraphs and sources therein feel ill-fitted, but none of them violate any WP guidelines. The paragraph with Tombs is WP:FALSEBALANCE, MOS:SELFREF and I had not mentioned it yet because I was unsure, but the "however" that precedes the paragraph is editorializing. Outside of Wikipedia's policies, I also commented that this paragraph added nothing informational to the article and existed solely for the sake of balance, or in other words, this paragraph amounted to say "The paragraph right before me sux trololol" eccentuated by the editorialism. Although there is no Wikipedia policy for that, it does not mean it warrants being in the article. This is not that different from fancruft where someone will add unnecessary notes to the article that amounts to literally nothing like stating that this "character" eats apples which is a common occurence in real life, as much so as people who state that denying the atrocities of Communism is as bad as Holocaust denialism. You see the connection I made, this is such a worthless addition that on those grounds alone it should not have been included. Nug, if you really want Tombs in the article, find a better and more relevant source than this because it is bad and it is only going to lead to another AfD - didn't you want to keep the article? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My comment also concerns Vanteloop, my best wishes and PackMecEng who are adamant to keep this trashfire of a paragraph. I know you want to make sure this article is not thoroughly whitewashed, but adding literal op-eds into the article will not prevent that, in fact, people will immediately fight to get it removed because it is by no means an encyclopedic addition. It does not matter what profession the person is either, if a scientist said one day "There is evidence to the Earth being flat" should they be included? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

?? Where did I add it or was adamant on keeping it? My concerns here were around Engel-Di Mauro. --Nug (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I misemembered, it was Vanteloop's addition to the article, not yours. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

scientists have said that ~ cygnis insignis 14:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• How can anyone think news media is a good source for this article? We should be only citing WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Levivich 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the official policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, and the place of publication has been specifically validated in a community discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You've been here too long to argue that all RSes are equally reliable. We should prefer scholarship over newsmedia whenever possible. Here, it's possible. You've got to be kidding me if you're going to tell me that a newspaper like The Telegraph or even The New York Times is the same as a peer reviewed academic publications. Levivich 18:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You said: "We should be only citing WP:SCHOLARSHIP" on this page. I am saying: this is not so according to the policy. Of course the scholarly sources are preferred. No one suggested otherwise. But just excluding all other types of sources on this page would be against WP:NPOV, and that is exactly what some contributors do. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to include newspapers as sources to meet NPOV?!?! That is the opposite of how NPOV works. If the viewpoint isn't published by academia, it's not WP:DUE for inclusion in this article. The tell-tale sign of POV-pushing is trying to use substandard sources (a Telegraph article) because the quality sources (scholarship) doesn't say what you want to say. That's why there are source restrictions in some DS areas (and why we need one here). Levivich 18:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Interesting, I myself started to think about the need to impose on this article source restrictions similar to the Holocaust in Poland topic. The argument in support of that decision include:

• This article is a constant source of conflicts, and one of the main reason is usage of very questionable sources;
• Its talk page archive is among the longest archives in Wikipedia, and the same arguments frequently repeat, which exhausts and frustrates many experienced editors;
• The article has severe problems that caused the longest AfD in Wikipedia history;
• The need of careful approach to sources was acknowledged by the panel of admins who closed that AfD.
• Although the admin panel encouraged us to continue the DRN process, it was closed because one party expressed no interest in participating in it.

What do you think about submitting a full scale arbitration case? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think comparison of the issues of this article with the issues of Holocaust in Poland topic trivializes the Holocaust to some extent. Also given the recent dim view of WP:BLUDGEONing shown by Arbcom, a case may result in unintended consequences, --Nug (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a full case, but I think it might be a good idea to file a request at (prepare for alphabet soup) WP:ARCA asking for WP:APLRS to be authorized for WP:ARBEE and applied to this page. Levivich 19:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It could be be argued that existing mechanisms work, for example RSN has been successfully used to remove the VoC source. MKuCR may be a difficult topic, but certainly not in the league of WP:APL. --Nug (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I do appreciate you have come to respect that, but there are users who do not respect the discussion about Engel-Di Mauro. Again, it is properly attributed, and it is one thing to remove him from "Comparisons to other mass killings", and a whole other to remove it outright. Certainly, it would be better to wait for the RfC to be closed and its aftermath, but I think that both Levivich and Paul Siebert's suggestions may be warranted. Davide King (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe he reciprocates your thoughts, or anyone else's for that matter. In his entire time here, he has never admitted being wrong which most other editors did to some extent when proven wrong. He thinks that he is right about everything and he thinks that he knows Wikipedia's policies better than anyone else which is demonstrably false, and therefore, he feels entitled to teach you how to think and tell you what should be inserted into the article. He did this with anyone he talked to here, so I am not sure whether it is constructive to argue with him. Deny him his recognition. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Engel-Di Mauro's article of course is a reliable source for facts." The Four Deuces, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the discussion, or the source (which is free-to-read), as your comments tend to be drive-by in nature and lacking in specificity—note that there has been no previous discussion of citing Engel-Di Mauro for unattributed matters of fact—but Engel-Di Mauro's data is derived from Wikipedia's List of wars by death toll. Even if the figures from Wikipedia are reliable, the author attributes all deaths from World War I, the Russian Civil War, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, among others, to "capitalism," which is ultimately an unfalsifiable opinion (especially considering that avowedly communist or state socialist governments were major participants in each of those conflicts, with the exception of World War I).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Di Mauro belongs to the extreme part of the opinia spectrum, and he is a leftist twin of Rummel. Yes, he takes his figures from Wikipedia, but modern figures in Wikipedia are much more reliable than obsolete and uncritically analyzed data in Rummel's database. In connection to that, I am wondering why Di Mauro is considered questionable, but Rummel still is a core source for this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And, it general, why you guys converted the whole article into a dispute between extreme right and extreme left sources instead of moving all of them into the "Controversy" section at the very bottom, and focusing on what serious sources say? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If we concede that you are correct here, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and it is explicitly banned from being used. Whether a scholar using Wikipedia to extend the known information they have on the topic is a guideline offense or not, that I am unsure, however. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I added Engel-Di Mauro to the section "Comparison to other mass killings" because Mauro was already cited in the article and would provide a counter-argument to the opinions of the other people mentioned in the section, which I re-added to the article from a previous version of the article. I wasn't aware that the source could be problematic. X-Editor (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, so you think that it's fine for wikipedia editors to attribute all mass killings under Communist regimes to communism, yet for someone to link killings carried out by capitalist regimes to capitalism is "ultimately an unfalsifiable opinion." While I realize that the Soviet Union was a partcipant in WWII, there is academic consensus that the war was started by the Axis powers and the Soviet Union defended itself. (While Nug thinks the Soviet Union was responsible for the war, there is no support for that view.) TFD (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I think it would be the best if everyone just agreed to follow the existing policies, such as WP:Verifiability instead of claiming that a special set of rules should be applied to this page and removing well sourced views by mainstream historians. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Do you know that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and is, alongside WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY, one of the three core content policies? Also when did we remove well sourced views by mainstream historians, and who are those historians? Siebert and I have been long-advocated to use country experts, who are the mainstream historians, and the best quality sources in general and to follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you are talking about Tombs, his expertise is 19th-century France and relations with Britain, not Communism or genocide/mass killing. To again quote Newimpartial, if you think "any summary of the revisionist debates as 'Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE' [that] is not a very accurate statement." Davide King (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Do you know that WP:NPOV is non-negotiable"? Yes, it is exactly what I am talking about. That's why this should be included. It is amazing to me that WP participants (who are presumably not experts) are dismissing reliably published views by history professors, such as Robert Tombs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's more amazing to me that an editor with your tenure thinks that because something was written by a history professor, therefore it's an WP:RS, as if RS was based solely on who the author is. Even more amazing is the idea that because someone is a history professor, they are an expert on communism or mass killings, as if "history" was a topic area in which one could be an expert. (Hint: "history" is too broad, it's like saying someone is an "expert in science", and this guy isn't an expert in the relevant kind of history.) Levivich 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, such questions came out in a number of other discussions. For example, can/should we include reliably published views about COVID-19 by someone who is an expert in evolutionary biology or biotechnology? One can say: "hey, that's virology, they are not experts!". I believe such views should usually be included if this is not a repetitive content and something informative - per WP:NPOV. It well could be that someone with a biotechnology background may have a better understanding of certain aspects about COVID-19. Same is here. I do not see that much difference between biology and history - in terms of people having an expertise in their field. This is speaking in general. If there is consensus do not include this specific source, that's fine, I simply do see the arguments convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We absolutely should not include random biotechnologists opinions about COVID, especially if they just spout something off to the Telegraph. BSMRD (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Then it is clear you actually do not know what you are talking about. WP:NPOV is about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not "I happen to like what Tombs said, it was published in a WP:RS, and that is due/NPOV, and it is amazing how anyone would oppose such inclusion." If it was at least published in a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the academic press (Engel-Di Mauro) and either published something about Communism or has some expertise about Communist regimes (Ghodsee) and genocide/mass killings (Gerlach), and summarized the literature about the topic—not passing quotes about the AfD nomination—rather than to engage in slippery slopes (as if we are really going to nominate the Holocaust next, though the fact he thinks this article is on par with that may well be an example of Holocaust trivialization and obfuscation) and insults Wikipedians by comparing them to Holocaust denialists, it would have been useful. Davide King (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I never said "I happen to like what Tombs said". I only said that: (a) the place of the publication was vetted by community as "generally reliable", and (b) the view belongs to a history professor we have a page about, hence he is arguably an expert; and (c) the view is exactly on the subject of this page as plainly obvious from the diff [28]. Hence this arguably belongs to the page. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You're basically arguing that history professor + generally reliable source = WP:DUE for inclusion, and I don't agree with that. There is much more to WP:NPOV than that. We should summarize the best reliable sources, not just include everything any historian has ever written about a topic in any reliable source. Levivich 21:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I started this thread, I was talking about several removals restored in this edit [29], not specifically about this source. I agree, this is not a top but reliable source, aand could be (not must be) used per policy. Personally, I would include it. Yes, it say among other things, that this Wikipedia page, "seems to me careful and balanced". So what? I do not see any policy-based reason to exclude. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of sources for this page at DRNB

• I just saw this. While this is fine to discuss (if people think this is helpful), I think this is mostly waste of time. Among the debated sources, there was only one (Victims of Communism Memorial) previously regarded as mostly unreliable at RSNB, but even in that case there was no official closing. Overall, this looks to me as an attempt to eliminate sources that some participants simply do not like. I would advise against it.

Some comments (such as one by Levivich) are well intended, but do not show understanding of the subject: Google Scholar has over 1,900 results for "mass killing" "communism" since 2017 [30]?? No, almost all these sources, are not on the subject of this page. There are relatively few academic books, specifically on this subject that must be used on this page, one of them Black Book of Communism. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason there are 'very few books' on the subject is because it does not form part of any mainstream academic discourse. See WP:FRINGE.

As for Google scholar, could you tell us what percentage of the results you give refer to mass killing by communists, how many refer to mass killing of communists, and how many merely use the terms in the same article. On second thoughts, don't bother... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, most Google scholar hits are about repressions against communists and other unrelated subjects; I am happy you agree with me on this. However, having only a few academic books on subject X (I am happy you agree with this too) does not mean that the subject is fringe. A lot of subjects is covered in only a small number of academic books; this is nothing special. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What is 'special' is that this article is promoting a single specific minority perspective on subject matter widely discussed elsewhere in academia, where simplistic attempts to assert that 'mass killing' is inherent in 'communism' are seen as inadequate explanations for anything, and as mere political posturing. But you know that already, don't you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I think the political violence in communist countries is actually a "majority perspective". More important, the political repressions in general (not just "killings") are indeed inherent for the communist regimes as a matter of fact (and I actually lived in one of such countries). Sure, the large-scale violence is also inherent for certain other political systems, such as Nazi Germany, Mafia states, dictatorships, etc. The only problem of this page is focusing exclusively on killings, but this is justifiable because the killings were an important part of political repressions in such countries. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My apology, I only now realized, it is actually about this DRNB page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A brief reminder: during the last AfD, the admin panel concluded that

We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock.

In light of that, does anybody have any objection to collapse this section as totally irrelevant?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

While that was only my advice, I think this is relevant and very much on the essence of the problems with the page. Maybe someone else will be willing to comment? I therefore object to collapsing. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

After quickly looking, I agree with final comment by the moderator of this discussion [31]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Victims of denazification

Is this mentioned by Courtois or a totallynotnazi thunk tank as a peacetime mass killing? ~ cygnis insignis 09:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The Execution of the Romanov family is probably the most famous first victims of communism, shooting the adults okay, but killing the kids as well, how is that justified? But they preceded the rise of the Nazis by quite a few years. So your question isn't that clear, could you elaborate? --Nug (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

By your logic, British soldiers were the first victims of Democracy? Levivich 17:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the Ancient Greek city state of Athens invented democracy, I'd say the Persians were probably the first victims of democracy. --Nug (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

and Anastasia in all likelihood. The query is bout exclusivity of victimisation in this article ~ cygnis insignis 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case I don't think so. --Nug (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

you don’t think Courtois mentions that? ~ cygnis insignis 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus sought for removal of fringe source (Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro et al)

Source [93] though being recent, has not a single citation in google scholar, and is the work of a scholar of geography without any notable reputation in this subject or anything connected. In viewing the list of his publications, there is a strong appearance of ideological bias. This inclusion of this source in the article clearly undercuts the other rules we've established regarding sources and is an example of a lopsided application of these rules regarding the viewpoint that the source supports. I suggest we remove this source, since it is clearly a fringe viewpoint, if those established rules are to have validity regarding other sources. AShalhoub (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We just had this closure stating "[t]here is a clear consensus ... an agreement that there is still a lot of work to do here, and the tag should remain on the top of the article for now", and you think this is the problem? We still have Watson, who is true WP:FRINGE for falsely claiming that Nazism and Nazi concentration camps were a form of socialism, that Hitler was a Marxist, and that Marx and Engels invented genocide, and you think this source, which was published by the academic press (unlike Watson and several other sources) is the problem? We discussed it at the RSN, and XOR'easter's comment "[a]n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned" is spot on. It is one thing to remove it from "Comparisons to other mass killings", though TFD is right that it is a double standard, and a whole other to remove it outright, even when it represents a mainstream position and a good tertiary source about the death toll at "Estimates." I would have appreciated if you replied back to me here. Davide King (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Davide King, one of your arguments seems to be that a "worse" source exists, so this source should be withheld on the basis that it was published in an academic journal. Whataboutism aside, the extensive discussion to this point has established that being published in an academic journal on its own does not clear the threshold for inclusion in this article. If that were true, it would open the door for other sources, with contrasting conclusions, that meet that bare minimum threshold. Further, I can't see how diverting to a discussion about another source regarding a completely different point of the article is doing much but convoluting the discussion and resolution of a discrete issue, which is a acknowledged problem with this talk page. Finally, this issue is best addressed to a larger audience and not resolved between two or three editors, so I think it's better to resolve it here rather than at the link you posted. AShalhoub (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop this whataboutism fallacy, when I clearly showed that Watson is fringe, was not published by the academic press, and yet it is still in the article and you seem to have no problem with it, while this source is not fringe, was published by the academic press, and you seem to have issues with it, even though a RSN discussion said otherwise. "... the extensive discussion to this point has established that being published in an academic journal on its own does not clear the threshold for inclusion in this article." But apparently news sources and popular press books do clear it? You cannot dismiss that discussion, it was posted at the WP:RSN, and the onus is on you, not on me. This source is currently used like all other sources; a minority view and properly attributed. Davide King (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your claim that "the other rules we've established regarding sources" is that

(1) we have not actually established it (only Levivich, Siebert, and I have proposed this) and are not following it anyway in the article (we still rely on Courtois and Rummell as core sources, even though Courtois' introduction is extremely controversial and Rummel is outdated and is much better to use through secondary coverage like Harff and others rather than his own works), so why take it on this source, and

(2) Siebert and I have repeatedly proposed a common approach and criteria to sources but no one has been following us.

As I said many times, this article requires a total rewrite, which the RfC's structure results will confirm and help us to achieve this, and I do not think asking removal of single sources is a good way to actually improve the article; for every one bad source removed, there is always another one remaining or that it is not used correctly, and removal of any source that does not reflect this rightist POV just makes the current NPOV issues even worse. To play devil's advocate, this source represents a significant minority view (it is mainly a tertiary source that summarizes the Black Book and the 100 million's controversy, and does not propose any new original research — Le Livre noir du capitalisme already did that) and is properly attributed, in line with the whole article. You should join Siebert and I, and our calls for a rewrite, because only that will remove such bad sources and this source will likely not make the cut, though it is still too soon to dismiss it outright. Davide King (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If I recall right, the expectations put forth by you and Siebert are that the sources should reflect a majority consensus viewpoint, be written by domain experts, be recent, and not contain ideological bias. Why should these expectations be selectively applied? AShalhoub (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole article already fails all this; it has been acknowleged by even its defenders that this article mainly represent minority views. The problem is that Engel-Di Mauro and Ghodsee are also perfectly fine according to the current criteria, so why should we remove them if we are not going to fix the article and rewrite it? We cannot remove them but keep Courtois, Rummel, and Watson because they all represent minority viewpoints, and unlike Courtois and Rummel, Ghodsee and Engel-Di Mauro are not outdated, and unlike Watson, they are not fringe either. Davide King (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not that particular source is included has absolutely no bearing on this source, which is why discussion of that separate issue in this space is whataboutism. If that source is fringe, then of course the same standards should be applied, but this is not the place for that discussion. AShalhoub (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is appropriate because you previously questioned Ghodsee; it seems as though you have something against left-wing perspectives by scholars or that have been published in the academic press, especially since your argument is mainly due to WP:BIAS, and WP:FRINGE does not apply to Engel-Di Mauro (a fringe author would not edit an academic-published handbook) or to his article in full. That you opened new threads about both Engel-Di Mauro and Ghodsee but not about Watson and other questionable sources is certainly interesting and is not something you should be so defensive about. Davide King (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IIRC the wikipedia guidelines are to respond to arguments and not make inferences motivations of editors. To be sure, I have my views about the status of this article, but the pressing concern is the lopsided application of rules sources are expected to follow. If your vote is that this source should remain, despite that it has no citations, is written by a non-domain expert, and is ideologically biased, then you should apply those constraints to sources you disagree with as well. If you identify a source from the "other side" that falls under this description (most important to me is the number of citations), I'll be happy to support it's removal. AShalhoub (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough but since when is the number of citations the be-all-end-all of WP:RS? Can you actually cite a Wikipedia policy about having to rely on citation counts? They are more useful for notability, not reliability alone, especially when academic sources such are Karlsson 2008 and Engel-Di Mauro 2021 are mainly tertiary sources. If we followed your criteria, this article should have been deleted long ago because the only source that comes close to the topic is Karlsson 2008, and has only 8 obscure citations. Davide King (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To counter your likely response that we have Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (CaHuCr), if one actually reads Karlsson 2008, we will see that, despite using crimes against humanity, it is essentially this topic (MKuCR), and not CaHuCr. This discussion may be of interest. Davide King (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The real issue with Di-Mauro is not what he said or believes in, it is that he currently fails wp:Notable. The black book of communism itself is extremely fringe, so removing all mentions of it would be a start. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There was already lengthy dispute about this book which looks to be inconclusive. For me the academic standard is, and has always been, citation count, which is why I think this source should be removed. The black book of communism is a seminal work which is controversial, not fringe, and has already been attributed as such. AShalhoub (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioSuperStar77, notability should not be the be-all-end-all if it is published in an academic journal; many reviewers in academic journals are not notable on their own, that does not mean we cannot use their review published in peer-reviewed academic journals. AShalhoub, citation count is a sign of notability, not necessarily of reliability, and we do not base academic sources on that. Authorship, publishers, and other criteria are just as equally, if not more, important. Davide King (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviewed papers published in academic journals are not "fringe sources." In fact Wikipedia:Fringe theories is not about evaluating sources at all. Furthermore, there is nothing in rs that says the number of citations of a work have any bearing on its reliability. Gibbon's classic The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire has thousands of cites, but is too old to be considered reliable. OTOH, a recently published university textbook on Roman history that summarizes known information to date may have no cites but is considered reliable enough to be used as a university textbook.

It would be helpful if the editor who created this section accurately cite policy.

TFD (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this was better concise than I could. Davide King (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren't the statements that "peer reviewed papers published in academic journals are not fringe sources", and "Wikipedia:Fringe theories is not about evaluating sources at all" contradictory in terms of being relevant to this removal? I'm confused about what you mean by fringe theories are not about evaluating sources. Wikipedia:Fringe theories says "Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." obviously this article doesn't have those, because it hasn't been cited anywhere. The page also says, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe the source fails on this count as well. To avoid running afoul of my own arguments, I will avoid outlining why the inclusion of this topic runs afoul of the arguments made against Rummel and Courtois and avoid an unnecessary sidetrack. Just know that the primary concern for me here is that there is an inconsistency in the constraints applied to various sources, depending on the overall point they're making. AShalhoub (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• support ~ cygnis insignis 15:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of source per TFD's well reasoned argument above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  that’s true, from an in-universe pov ~ cygnis insignis 15:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Engel-Di Mauro is editor-in-chief of the journal where his paper was published, he is responsible deciding what papers get included in the journal, so effectively his paper is not peer-reviewed. His area of expertise is geography, not genocide studies or even communism. Engel-Di Mauro's paper where he states that "Capitalism's war-related death toll so far exceeds 150 million," citing Wikipedia. "The data are mainly from Wikipedia," the author explains, specifically citing our List of wars by death toll. --Nug (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  If we consider Di Mauro's articles non-peer-reviewed, what can you tell about the articles published by the members of the US Academy of Sciences in PNAS?

  Furthermore, whereas I agree that we cannot use sources that mirror Wikipedia. However, that is not what Di Mauro says. He took some data from Wikipedia (which seems pretty legitimate if they are properly sourced) and concluded that capitalism lead to 150 million war deaths. That statement was not taken from Wikipedia, that is the author's conclusion.

  Therefore, that your argument is not valid.

  The second question is if Di Mauro's opinion deserves attention. In my opinion, there are some problems with that.

  - First, to take data from Wikipedia without criticism is not good: it is a demonstration of author's unfamiliarity with source criticism.

  - Second, by arbitrarily attributing these deaths to capitalism, the author makes a very liberal assumption, which is hardly universally accepted.

  - Third, I am sure this interpretation (that capitalism was responsible for those deaths) will hardly be accepted by professional historians.

  Therefore, I would be very cautious with Di Maurio, and I think, in that aspect you are right.

  However, I propose you to think about the following. Doesn't this guy (Di Mauro) remind you somebody in terms of his approach? I mean: (i) uncritically collect some data about death toll, (ii) arbitrarily attribute them to some political system (iii) make a conclusion that is not accepted by country experts.

  I believe, you remember our previous conversations, and "i - iii" is a portrait of Rummel. Indeed, by his approach, Di Mauro is a leftist twin of Rummel. The only difference is that Rummel lived in a pre-Wikipeida world, so he collected data by himself. But his data are even less reliable than current Wikipedia data (as my comparison of Gulag deaths demonstrates)

  In connection to that, I am wondering why you apply double standard to leftist and rightist sources? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's definitely not WP:FRINGE; it's an article in a Routledge-published academic journal, written by the EiC of that journal. His expertise might be geography but his CV shows expertise in Marxist geography (e.g. in 2019 he was on an American Association of Geographers panel called The Geographer Marx, he teaches "Geographies of Socialism" at SUNY where he's a tenured professor). The paper is reviewed, the acknowledgments reads ... Danny Faber, Mazen Labban, Maarten de Kadt, Judith Watson, Marco Armiero, Leigh Brownhill, Adi Forkasiewicz, and Troy Vettese showered great attentiveness to and provided crucial correctives on this most trying of writing endeavours, a most heart-wrenching and stomach-turning subject matter. Without their generous disposition to debate and openly criticise, this work would have been far from presentable and much murkier on the issues raised. Any remaining errors are solely my responsibility. So it's certainly an WP:RS, it's legit scholarship.
  But, an EiC publishing in his own journal is ... meh... it's reviewed by outsiders but of course it'll be accepted for publication. And citing Wikipedia for statistics is... embarrassing, for lack of a better word. Those are two strikes against the source, and for this reason, while it's an RS, it's by an expert, it's in a legit journal, I don't think it's one of the best sources for us to use, and I think there are better sources out there (sources that don't cite Wikipedia, that aren't by the EiC of the journal where they're published, would be better than this, and there are lots of sources like that). So I think it's OK to include but sparingly, and I think it's pretty sparingly used as it is, so I don't really see a problem with how this source is used in the article, even though it's not the best (but not fringe either). Levivich 00:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• WRT "And citing Wikipedia for statistics is... embarrassing" Not really. If we apply Barbara Harff's logic, it is quite ok to use this type data for generalizations of that type. Like genocide scholars, Di Mauro didn't need too precise data, so raw data from Wikipedia are quite acceptable for is purpose. At least, Di Mauro looks not less legitimate than Rummel (although it is not more legitimate either).
• What is more problematic, it is the idea that those deaths can be attributed to capitalism. However, it seems to me Di Mauro is trolling supporters of Rummel's views, and in that sense he is quite correct. IMO, they (Di Mauro and Rummel) are both questionable, and should be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• I already proposed that, and I repeat my proposal.

Let's get rid of all questionable sources from this article Let's leave only those sources that passed a serious peer-reviewing procedure and monographs that were authored by renown experts in the field that specifically discuss this subject (not just mention it in passing). In other words:

• If some source is an op-ed - remove it;
• If some source is published in some peer-reviewed journal with impact-factor below 1 - remove it;
• If some source is a book devoted to some other subject - remove it;
• If the author has an h-index below 4 - remove it;
• If the source is more than 30 years old and was cited less than 10 times - remove it;
• This list may be expanded.

That would immediately resolve a significant part of conflicts. What do you think, Nug? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is a completely different subject, but #1 - the citation indexes and impact factors are completely irrelevant (some of the most reliable sources, like X-ray crystallography articles, have citation of zero); #2 no, many older publications are classics (should we dismiss books by Hanna Arendt?), #3 no, one should look at the publications at the case to case basis - exactly as explained in WP:Verifiability. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. The only reason I oppose removal as things stand is that it is no worse than many others sources, some of which even core, we currently use. If we actually rewrote the article by merging Siebert's proposed structure with TFD's and my topic, we would not even need to discuss here and would indeed be relying on the best sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Davide King (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal. Here is why. I do not know if the publication was "fringe", but the views and the numbers by the author [32] are at least questionable. His numbers ("Capitalist Wars’ Death Tolls") are misleading as s comparison of apples with oranges: the numbers of war victims are compared with numbers of civilian victims of political repressions. Furthermore, he counts the number of victims of Russian Civil War as victims of a "Capitalist war". But very same numbers appears as victims of the Soviet communist regime (Red Terror, etc.) in books by Rummel and others. Same numbers are included to the both sets for comparison. That is misleading at best. Moreover, he counts victims of Nazi during WWII as victims of "capitalism regimes" in general. Is not that a "trivialization" of something? Putting Nazi Germany and typical "capitalist" countries like Britain and USA to the same "box" - is not it a manipulation? My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• First, this is not a RfC. Second, does that not remind you of something? They have counted fascists and Nazi collaborators as victims of communism on par with ordinary citizens. As I said many times by now, Engel-Di Mauro is better seen as a way, like Le Livre noir du capitalisme, to show how flawed and fallacius the Communist body-counting is, or to quote Siebert above, "Di Mauro is trolling [not sure if 'trolling' is the right word but you get the point] supporters of Rummel's views, and in that sense he is quite correct." Like TFD said, he is at least better than Rummel in that as a recent source he is aware of recent scholarship and the literature. If we actually totally rewrote the article in line with NPOV and no OR/SYNTH, in full respect of WEIGHT, we would not even be discussing this. Davide King (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• The article by Di Mauro does remind me Soviet propaganda. In fact the aricle is classic Whataboutism. No, the Black Book of Communism is very different. This is an excellent and famous book by several academics. Except that the book does not say anything really new and unusual. This is just a big review/compilation based on a large number of other sources. As about Rummel, he simply counts different numbers (not the same as in the Black Book), his numbers are for the democide. Other than that, I think Rummel is a good researcher of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I do agree with MarioSuperstar77 below that it is better to disengage but I do not think that this should go unchallenged any longer.
• That you think an academic article published by the academic press is Soviet propaganda [sic], even though it clearly says "[a]mong the former [of repugnant] are examples like the USSR under the Stalin faction of the Bolsheviks, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, and Albania under Hoxha", makes me question, in good faith, your competence about the topic, especially when you say the Black Book is "excellent" (e.g. your personal view, which totally ignores all its scholarly criticism, which is, ironically, all about this topic, e.g. the introduction and not the individual chapters, especially Werth's, which contradicts Courtois about Marx).
• Rummel has certainly been a good researcher for the democratic peace theory but not for Communism, whose estimates are so outdated and fringe, apart for the Cambodia genocide. But back to the article, it says: "Comparing the deadliness of social systems provides no moral compass and, politically, travels a road to nowhere. Murder is appalling and its systematic prevention must be a rock-solid foundation of any form of socialism." So no, it is not a classic example of whataboutism, and your comments about the Black Book may equally apply to Le Livre noir du capitalisme, Le livre noir du colonialisme: XVIe-XXIe siècle : de l'extermination à la repentance, and Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus: ein Abgesang auf die Marktwirtschaft, also "excellent ... book[s] by several academics." But "I like it"/"I don't like it" is not a good argument. The bottom line is that the article does not say anything particularly new or fringe, and your charge of whataboutism and Soviet propaganda are clearly unfounded and overblown. Davide King (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&diff=prev&oldid=1064890466 Disengage. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this idea as much as I support nuking the proposed causes and estimates section to possibly start over. This article has many issues which would have been swiftly taken care of with this approach. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So I'm moving towards the position that "fringe" is less applicable to this source. However, I think it fails verifiability, as in the following link: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Is this article self-published, seeing that the author is the editor of the journal it was published in?

I also think this source fails reliability for two reasons. First, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." I don't see this journal as a reputable peer-reviewed source for history or genocide studies. Also the lack of citations raises red flags, as in the following: "Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ." Second, the journal probably runs afoul of the stipulation from the same link that "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals"

Since many of you drew comparisons to the works by Rummel and Courtois that are still in the article, maybe the most neutral way to go about this is to put this source through the RFC process those sources have gone through. AShalhoub (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The lack of citations is not a good argument for this source at this time — come back in a few more years and let's see it if it still has 0 citations. We also need to clearly distinguish two usages: (i) criticism of the body count and The Black Book of Communism, and (ii) attempt to prove how flawed such an approach is by applying it to capitalism to show that, by using the same standard of Courtois and Rummel, capitalism can be indicted with an equal or even greater number of victims (in this, I disagree with Siebert of him as a "twin Rummell" because he recognized how flawed that approach is but is merely showing the double standard). For i, it is perfectly fine and reliable, for ii it depends but I do not see how it is fringe at that, and it does actually cite its own sources, none of which are fringe. Those works did the same thing for colonialism and capitalism:

• Bordier, Roger; Frémion, Yves; Perrault, Gilles (2001). Le livre noir du capitalisme. Montreuil: Le Temps des cerises. ISBN 978-2-84109-325-0.
• Beaufils, Thomas; Ferro, Marc (2003). Le livre noir du colonialisme: XVIe-XXIe siècle : de l'extermination à la repentance. Paris: R. Laffont. ISBN 978-2-221-09254-5.
• Kurz, Robert (2009). Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus: ein Abgesang auf die Marktwirtschaft. Frankfurt: Eichborn. ISBN 978-3-8218-7316-9.

So TFD is right about the double standard and that this article is summarizing the literature of the Communist body count, while also showing how flawed it is by attempting to do the same capitalism. The thing is that this source was actually already taken at least once at WP:RSN like Courtois and Rummel. You are free to take it again there but I do not think your argument about lack of citations is strong because it is still too recent and the source is clearly fine for i. Davide King (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How it fails verifiability? It is an editorial of an academic journal published by the academic press, so your other claim which applies to predatory journals fails, and there was clearly some fact checking and editorial control by them. Only for WP:BLP are self-published sources not allowed, even if written by an expert per WP:SPS. The only relevant issue is the lack of citations, but that is still too recent too tell, and it does not apply to i, for which it is a tertiary source, but only to ii, which I argue is still supported by the scholarly criticism of the Black Book and the aforementioned books by academics about capitalism and colonialism. Davide King (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@AShalhoub:

• First, a peer-reviewed journal is not an SPS.
• Second, I agree that this journal is not a top reliable source for history or genocide studies, as well as many other sources cited in the MKuCR article. I already proposed to remove them, so, maybe, we will return those sources first?
• Third, a "no citation" argument doesn't seem completely sincere, keeping in mind that the article is very recent and the topic is not too popular. The article contains sources that have about 20 citations in 20 years (one citation per year), and this article is just one years old. Let me reiterate: I am not sure we need to keep this source, but I am objecting to applying double standards, so let's remove the sources that we already discussed previously.
• Fourth, WRT " A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs" Again, this might be a good argument if it is applied universally. Are you ready to check other sources using the same approach?
• Sixth, Rummel and Courtois never passed an RfC, they were discussed at RSN, and the conclusion was that they are unreliable for figures. The fact that the figures are still in the article is an indication of a failure to implement community's verdict, so this your argument is simply wrong. In addition, RfCs are not a universal method, and starting an RfC about every source may be considered as forum shopping. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Your claims about Rummel and Courtois are untrue, the conclusion on Rummel is that he is reliable with attribution for his theories around Democide and his figures can be used in the context of his theories, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Rudolph_Rummel. Similarly the conclusion was Courtois is reliable with attribution as well, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Black_Book_of_Communism --Nug (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, there is absolutely no contradiction between what you and I say. The real problem is in different understanding of the words "reliable with attribution for his theories". My analysis of sources demonstrates that Rummel's "democide" theory (and Courtois's view too) is not a majority view point, so they definitely should be included into this article, but they should be in the "Controversy" section, along with their criticism. I am not sure if Di Mauro belongs to this article, and if Rummel, Courtois & Co will be moved to the appropriate place, I will probably support removal of Di Mauro (although I am not 100% sure).

  The problem is that, from one hand, you oppose to moving minority (anti-Communist) views into a proper place, and from another hand, you are advocating removal of an anti-capitalist minority view, which is hardly consistent with your adherence to the NPOV policy.

  As I already explained, I am very skeptical to the approach (which, unfortunately, is prevailing in this article) when users make a focus on extreme anti-Comminist and anti-capitalist sources, whereas more balanced sources that reflect the actual scholarly consensus play a subordinated role. I find this approach deeply flawed, and that is why I proposed to perform a comprehensive source analysis (the proposal that you repeatedly reject).

  I have not much hope that this my post will lead to anything productive, because you have an unpleasant habit to disappear every time when you have no counter-arguments (are re-appear again in a different section with essentially the same, debunked, argument). Please, disappoint me: prove that that my expectation is wrong, and my words about you are false. In that case I will gladly apologize. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

no, RSN was clear with respect to the reliability of Rummel and Courtois. Comparing these two highly notable scholars with a nobody like Engel-Di Mauro is creating a false equivalency. Your proposal of putting Rummel and Courtois into a "Controversy" section breaches MOS:LABEL. You need to demonstrate sources that contradict them are relatively equal in prominence and then describe the opposing views clearly. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue are WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. They can certainly be used with attribution, but WP:DUE must always be kept in mind, and I thought that you wanted this article to be about facts; I do not think attributing stuff, when we are citing it to their own works and not to secondary coverage to assess how much weight their views hold in the literature, is a good way to write a good article, and at the very least the structure must be changed to B, if we are going to provide opinions about facts and attribute everything due none of them being majority views. I do not think the onus is on us (you are asking us to prove a negative) but is on you to prove that Courtois and Rummel are the majority view and are uncontroversial, and I believe we have already demonstrated again and again why they are controversial and not a majority view; you really need to decide on whether Karlsson & Schonehals 2008 support the existence of this article or not because it certainly supports Siebert's view about Courtois and Rummel. Also notability does not necessarily affect reliability if it is published in an academic journal by the academic press, and is reviewing the literature about the body count and The Black Book of Communism, for which it is a good source precisely because it is new and aware of shifts, as noted by The Four Deuces. Davide King (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying "they are controversial and not a majority view", please articulate what the majority view is. --Nug (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Dallin, Alexander (Winter 2000). "Review. Reviewed Work: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy, Mark Kramer". Slavic Review. 59 (4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 883. doi:10.2307/2697429. JSTOR 2697429. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss.
• David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavic: 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. S2CID 159716738. Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger.
• Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008). Crimes Against Humanity under Communist Regimes – Research Review (PDF). Forum for Living History. p. 8. ISBN 978-91-977487-2-8. The same is true for the extremely extensive and ideologically biased discussions on the number of victims.

This, plus country experts (Ellman, Wheatcroft) and the two short paragraphs at "Estimates" that we dismiss as criticism are, in fact, the majority view. Ellman has commented on how politicized is even the category of victims of Stalinism and how difficult it is, so imagine doing this for Communism as a whole. Again, the onus should be on you to prove that your views are actually supported by majority of scholars and are not controversial. Prove that Courtois, Rummel, and the like are not controversial and the majority view; it should be very easy to prove if I am wrong. Do you have any equally reliable sources that discount the ones I cited? I am sure Siebert can cite many, many others. Davide King (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One could engage in the same mind reading exercise and question your sincerity regarding Rummel citations. Naive indeed would the individual be who can read this discussion and conclude that you actually believe he should be removed because he's not a domain expert, or because ideological bias is to be avoided in a general sense. Twice the amount of poor content is better than poor content that come to the wrong conclusion, obviously. AShalhoub (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, your interpretation of the outcome of RSN discussions is incorrect. There was no consensus about reliability of Courtois and Rummel for facts. "Use with attribution" is a typical approach to op-ed and similar materials, and that makes them different from really reliable sources (for which no attribution is required). "Use with attribution" means the source is reliable for author's opinion. but not reliable for facts. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A few lines from two book reviews of BBoC and a single line from Karlsson is hardly expressing a viewpoint "equal in prominence" as required by WP:NPOV. I was expecting a complete paper if not a monograph. In the first book review, the line "Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." just means the authors of BBoC don't discuss the question of a single essence sufficiently, the reviewer isn't expressing an opinion on whether lumping them together is valid or not. But what is significant is that is shows that reliable sources do in fact lump these regimes together, the second review confirms it, so thus there is no longer a the question of WP:SYNTH when lumping these regimes together in this article. --Nug (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you correctly identified the problem: we need some common criteria for prominence. In addition, we need common criteria for reliability, because "prominence" and "reliability" are not the same: thus, David Irving is definitely a prominent author, but that does not make his books reliable.

Can you propose some criteria of reliability and prominence that will allow us to analyse and check all sources used in this article? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt's book, Denying the Holocaust, and the subsequent libel suit was a very prominent rebuttal of David Irvine. But first can we agree that at a minimum, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are generally grouped together in reliable sources that discuss mass killings? Davide King agrees with this, do you? --Nug (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, you are discussing facts. The only source of facts are reliable sources (sorry for tautology). Therefore, by starting to discuss facts before having discussed sources you put a cart before the horse. I propose to put the horse before the cart, and you cannot deny this is an ironclad logic.

Using a purely formal logic, the following list of approached to this issue (MKuCR) can be proposed:

• Communist states are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them;
• Communist states are grouped together, BUT significant differences between the are noted and extensively discussed;
• Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND other Communist states;
• Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND they are contrasted with other Communist states;
• Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND the differences between are noted;
• Communist states are discussed separately from each other, and comparative studies reveal significant differences;

This is not a comprehensive list of approaches, and we don't know so yet which of them is generally accepted by majority of scholarly community. To give an answer, we need to analyze a representative set of sources. This analysis may demonstrate that you are right, or it may show that DR is right, or it may show that you both are wrong, and some other approach is a majority view. We cannot answer this question by bringing one, two or a dozen of sources, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the source presented by you or by DR express a majority view.

Therefore, if you want to continue to argue about that ad nauseum, feel free to do that. At some point, that behaviour may be sufficient for accusing you of filibustering or stonewalling.

With you, or without you, we are going to perform the analysis of sources and to decide which viewpoint is a majority view. I would prefer if yo you joined this process, but if you decide not to participate, we will survive. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Irving is an extreme example (I just gave an example of a highly notable but totally unreliable source). I do not claim any of sources we are discussing is directly comparable with Irving.

And, with regard to your question {"can we agree that at a minimum, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are generally grouped together in reliable sources that discuss mass killings"), as I explained, in contrast to you guys, I do not consider myself to be sufficiently familiar with this topic to give a definite answer (see Dunning-Krueger effect). In addition, I do not understand what does "reliable sources that discuss mass killings" mean: should we include such authors as Werth, Conquest, Ellman, Getty or Suny into that list, of we speak only about such authors as Rummel, Valentino of Courtois?

Again, I can give a definite answer only if I analyze at least 100-200 sources that I found but had no opportunity to read yet. But I am somewhat skeptical about that activity, because if I will be doing that alone, some POV-pushers may reject my conclusions, which means my work will be a waste of time. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

After 12 years of dominating of this talk page are you now seriously suggesting that you do not consider yourself to be “sufficiently familiar with this topic”? You have had a large input into current state of the article, it was your suggestion that we needed a section that discussed the connection between communist ideology and mass killings (hence the “Proposed causes” section ) and you said that it was as important as the “Terminology” section.[33]. And yet the existence of these two sections you previously suggested we needed is now presented as the core of this dispute. Davide King on many occasions stated that the sources show that mass killings occurred in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, that it is something he does not dispute. Yet you seem somewhat equivocal about this basic point. Back in 2009 you said ”In my opinion, a good lede should start with obvious and non-controversial statements that (i) Excess mortality was common for most Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. (ii) These excess mortality cases were a result of mass murders, mass executions, famines and deportations, etc. (iii) A "mass killings" term is being used by some scholars to describe some of these cases, although this terminology is not commonly accepted.”. You no longer support your own statement? —Nug (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have never disputed that, and I do not think Siebert have disputed that point either; I think the issue is that you have not yet understand the grouping issue, and I do think you misread what Siebert is saying because I do not think they no longer support that statament, and I do not think they are contradicting anything, if that is what you think but I will let them clarify this. It is not whether they happened or not, of course they did, but whether the grouping is done by a majority of sources in the way that you support it, which I do not think they do. It is not sufficient that they happened under a nominally Communist regime, which no one is disputing and is not the issue, but the way it is done, and what weight it holds in relation to other Communist grouping types.

I kindly ask you to carefully re-read Siebert's statements about the grouping:

"[1] Communist states are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them;
[2] Communist states are grouped together, BUT significant differences between the are noted and extensively discussed;
[3] Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND other Communist states;
[4] Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND they are contrasted with other Communist states;
[5] Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND the differences between are noted;
[6] Communist states are discussed separately from each other, and comparative studies reveal significant differences;"

The current version and your favoured structure fail in explaining this and focus too much on generalizations (e.g. the first category, which at first analysis is clearly a minority view and is done by Courtois and Rummel). Chirot, Karlsson, Jones, Mann, Valentino, and others fit much more the other categories, and when scholars disagree, we cannot do the grouping unless it is the majority view and is not controversial, do you better understand our point now? This is why we do need to engage in source comparison between those group types; if you did engage with us on this, you could actually prove whether Siebert and I are wrong.

I also kindly ask you to consider the comparison with genocide of indigenous peoples I made here. There is no Mass Killings under Communist Regimes: A Critical Bibliographic Review or Communist Mass Killings: A Critical Bibliographic Review, which is the reason why that article is not even controversial like this one. It simply has a much clearer and bigger literature about the topic as a grouping and as a whole than MKuCR does not even come close to it. Of course, there are plenty of country-specific works but this article is about Communism in general, and you have refused to rewrite the article according to each country-specific literature, and I can kind of agree with you on this but completely disagree on the conclusion one should take from this, e.g. that an NPOV article cannot be written without them, and if we cannot have a NPOV article, it should be deleted and only recreated in the future when such issues would no longer be present.

Anyway, if you are up for some compromise, I would propose to remove the sections about all other states other than Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, and only leave the short paragraph at "Other states", would that be fine? I still think the article would have issues (we would need Karlsson 2008 to represent the majority view about the grouping in regards to USSR, PRC, and DK), and we are going to disagree about this, but it would be an improvement in refocusing the topic away from the global Communist death toll towards universally-recognized Communist mass killings. Davide King (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug:,

• First, I am frequently seeing your references to someone's overall contribution to this talk page. In most cases, the context of these references implies that you are implicitly accusing other users of bludgeoning. That may be considered as a personal attack, and I respectfully request you to refrain from this type arguments in future, otherwise I may stop assuming your good faith. Deal?
• Second, you may be surprised to read that, but, although I (as well as all other users) do have some POV, it is not something immutable and rock stable. It is gradually changing when I find some new sources, or when my opponents present some convincing arguments. Obviously, my position significantly changes since 2009, and there are several reasons for that.

- I compared this article with "daughter articles", and I realized that they tell totally different facts, provide different interpretations and present different figures, which means this article is a huge POV-fork. My 2009 proposal cannot resolve this problem.

- I started to systematically look for sources, and I found that there is a lot of country-specific sources, that are of much better quality, they contain much more trustworthy figures, and they provide much more insightful and nuanced interpretations of the described events than the sources used in this article do.

- I realized that, during 12 years, the article's supporters failed to identify fresh and high quality sources on the topic that support the main article's concept, and many sources this article currently uses do not support the article's statements, or directly contradict to them.

All of that are my recent observations, and each of those three arguments, taken separately, are sufficient to reconsider my 2009 POV.

With regard to my current point of view, I will discuss it with you after I get your answer to my invitation to join the analysis of sources that I am going to start soon (as admin's panel recommended). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"I realized that, during 12 years, the article's supporters failed to identify fresh and high quality sources on the topic that support the main article's concept, and many sources this article currently uses do not support the article's statements, or directly contradict to them." There are plenty of fresh, high-quality sources such as this one or this one that discuss current genocide under communist regimes, which as I gather was the original title of this page. It's clear recent research is important to you, so perhaps it would make sense to revert the article back to that title. Otherwise, it seems far more likely that the passage of time is only going to yield a favorable ideological shift, and scant new evidence regarding 80 year old massacres. The question is, is that what we want the article to reflect? I don't think an encyclopepic article only which is informative regarding the biases of whatever time period it was written in will have much credibility. AShalhoub (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Uyghur genocide does not involve mass killings while few if any of the mass killings under Communist regimes met the definiton of genocide. Also, we need sources about the topic MKuCR, not just isolated examples. TFD (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A few lines from two book reviews of BBoC and a single line from Karlsson is hardly expressing a viewpoint "equal in prominence" as required by WP:NPOV. I was expecting a complete paper if not a monograph. Again, I think you are being unfair because the onus should not be on me but on you to prove that I am wrong. They do clearly show that Courtois and Malia are controversial or do not represent a majority viewpoint, and that the grouping is not as easy as you would like it to be; grouping Communist regimes just because they were nominally Communist, and ignoring their background and differences, is not a good way to do a grouping, which applies to the MKuCR article.

Perhaps this answer your point: there are no complete paper or monograph, though Siebert may find them, because this "generic Communist" grouping is such a mainority and controversial viewpoint that does not warrant them. Finally, you did not provide any new sources in return to prove me wrong, and David-Fox was actually chosen to write for The Cambridge History of Communism, so they are clearly mainstream and not fringe. Dallin did question the "generic Communist" grouping, or else what do you think deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist? Again, as for reliable sources do in fact lump these regimes together, neither of Siebert or I have ever disputed that some sources have done the grouping, the issue is what weight they hold in the literature; they are clearly a minority view, and since they are controversial, we cannot do the grouping as fact, which is what this article does, implicitly or explicitily. The SYNTH issue is merging Courtois and Rummel (Category 1) from all the other scholars (Mann, Valentino, and the like) who do the grouping in a different category and context (Category 2–6). Davide King (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You say "I think you are being unfair because the onus should not be on me but on you to prove that I am wrong", no the onus isn't on me to prove your assertion wrong, it is on you to prove your assertion is right. You assert there is some majority view not expressed in the article, WP:PROVEIT. --Nug (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That, however, would surely also equally apply to you, for I am not the only one making assertions, you are doing the same and saying the article has no significant issue and that Tombs' views are proof of this. It is not just that some majority views are not expressed in the article, it is that they are dismissed as criticism, or where the views of country experts like Getty, Fitzpatrick, Wheatcroft, and others are misused as if they are writing within the context of MKuCR when they are writing mainly within that of the Soviet Union, and not as part of a Communist death toll. Can you tell me to which group source of category (1–6) do Chirot, Courtois, Harff, Mann, Rummel, Valentino, and the like belong? Do you think that it does not matter that they are different group types of sources, as long as they are grouping nominally Communist regimes, even if in very different ways and disagree about which specific country include or not (e.g. Courtois and Rummel do it for Communism as a whole, many others only for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, or highlight differences or compare them to non-Communist regimes, and 18-cases study), is fine? Davide King (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Uyghur genocide sub-section

I removed this sub-section on the basis that no mass killings are taking place there, making this sub-section WP:UNDUE for an article on mass killings. It was restored based on the argument that some "scholars fear that a genocide (aka mass killing) will happen." That is not a good reason to include this material, as Wikipedia articles on mass killings should document those instances that have already happened or are happening, not engage in speculation on the possibility of future mass killings.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This article has enough issues, we don't need speculative mass killings that haven't happened but "might" clogging it up. BSMRD (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless the source cited states that the events are occurring because (in the opinion of the author) China is under a 'communist regime', it is synthesis to include it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to what others have said, it also does not appear to be within the context of this article, and it highlights how problematic it is that just because a mass killing happened under a nominal Communist regime, therefore it must be added or we must have an article about the grouping, even if the latter does not represent a majority viewpoint. It totally ignores the societal context of each Communist regime — is China capitalist only when it comes to its economic successes and Communist when it comes to its human rights abuses? Certainly, it makes me question their WP:CIR when they complain about Engel-Di Mauro, and then add this, engaging in SYNTH by twisting two good academic sources in the context of MKuCR, which is not the one the authors place them. The latter is a problem of the whole article, too. Davide King (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is why I have long recommended that we change the name of the article to "Victims of Communism" and focus on the claim that communism is inherently homocidal. Instead of focusing on the credentials and academic influence of the people who made this claim, and omitting those who lack them, we could write about the claims they made and explain their degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You brought up this proposal for a name change to VoC just two months ago (see Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_54#Name_change), there was no support for it. You also proposed it over a year ago (see Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_44#Deletion/renaming) and there was opposition to it back then as well. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Nug (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

what’s wrong with that title, I have been contemplating an article with that name to widow this one. ~ cygnis insignis 22:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that is TFD's intent in continually pushing for a name change to VoC? --Nug (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

no, you are ~ cygnis insignis 22:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, since I last made the suggestion, you and other editors have filled up another four pages of discussion threads and made no progress. They say the defintion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In fact there are now 57 archived pages and you have participated in them for over 10 years, without making any progress. Can you please provide me with a timeline for bringing this article to good article status? I notice too that most of your erstwhile colleagues have long since abandoned the discussion to move on to other articles. TFD (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

A good summary by sociologist John Torpey: "In view of The Black Book's relatively scanty scholarly contribution, it is hard to read the book in other than political terms. In this regard, The Black Book may be seen as an effort to legitimize the claims to memorialization and reparations of those who suffered under Communism. Such claims have become high stakes in an era that frequently rewards those who can demonstrate that they, too, have been victimized in the past." This is what this topic should be and is what I believe TFD is referring to, and I would like to hear from Levivich and Paul Siebert's thoughts on this and TFD's proposed topic. That some users may understand this to mean that it would be too broad and about the events, when it would be about claims to memorialization and its relation to Holocaust trivialization and obfuscation, which is currently missing or put at the bottom when it should be upfront (just like criticism of the body count is the mainstream view and should go first), is not a good reason to not do this. That users have failed to comprehend this is not TFD's fault. Rest of quote, which explicitly say "victims of Communism" and shows TFD had been right all along, and how this article attempt to prove this through veiled antisemitism and Holocaust trivialization, which makes Siebert's point about it reflecting a rightist POV all the more accurate and telling:

"Courtois puts the matter succinctly: 'In contrast to the Jewish Holocaust, which the international Jewish community has actively commemorated, it has been impossible for victims of Communism and their legal advocates to keep the memory of the tragedy alive, and any requests for commemoration or demands for reparations are brushed aside. ... [A] single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide in an attempt to characterize the Holocaust as a unique atrocity has also prevented an assessment of other episodes of comparable magnitude in the Communist world.' What are we to make of this extraordinary outburst?

In reality, the situation is exactly the opposite of what Courtois asserts. What has happened in recent years is not that the 'single-minded focus on the Jewish Holocaust' has crowded out other demands for recognition and compensation, but rather that this mode of dealing with past misdeeds has become generalized to all kinds of groups--only some of which, however, are successful in making their claims. Part of the reason that the victims of Communism have been relatively less successful in gaining recognition of their suffering lies in the fact that the victims of the Nazis seem so clearly defined, whereas those of the Communists appear to have been more random and the dividing line between perpetrators and victims more fluid. The Black Book aims to sharpen the boundaries defining the groups persecuted by Communists, as both Courtois' term 'class genocide' and Margolin's discussion of the 'racialization' of Communist enemies suggest. Victims of 'genocide' are more likely to gain recognition than a grab-bag of 'class enemies'." [This was already back in 2001, and the MKuCR article was created in 2009]

It is clearly a notable topic, more so than the current SYNTH/NPOV-violating MKuCR structure, which conflates mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot with the global Communist death toll, which is different from mass killing, but we do not make this clear because we got the whole structure wrong, and we are trying to prove it as fact rather than presenting it as to what Torepey said, which is how it should be structured. Davide King (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So you agree that there were mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? You keep saying the article is "SYNTH/NPOV-violating", but Robert Tombs says "I have read the Wikipedia page, and it seems to me careful and balanced."[34], so who do we believe, you or a world renowned scholar? --Nug (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, this world renowned scholar {of French history) made the false claim that a building named after Gladstone was renamed because his father owned slaves when in fact it was renamed because Gladstone himself as an MP had voted against ending slavery. He actually wrote, "Gladstone was not a...defender of slavery."[35] One of the things that most bothered me about Communism was how they re-wrote history in order to score political points. I had hoped that would end with the fall of Communism, but unfortunately anti-Communists are just as bad or worse. I have always thought that if one's views were correct, then the facts should be sufficient. In any case, an editorial in The Telegraph isn't a reliable sources. TFD (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to agree with what TFD and Siebert wrote about, and add that now you are recycling debunked points:

• Yes, I do agree, and I never disagreed to begin with, so what is your point? Are you again falsely accusing me of denying the mass killing events? As you can see in my !comments in the RfC, I actually suggested an article about mass killing under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, though I believe both TFD and Siebert gave valid points for how it would not be useful and have similar issues with this one, albeit it would at least be properly focused on universally recognized and proven mass killing events.
• As for the NPOV and all other relevant issues with this article, denying that the article has problems does not help at all, and at this point is downright disruptive to say so in light of the latest AfD, the closed RfC, and the moderator's comments at DRN.
• As for Tombs, I am just going to quote what TFD said: "Per[s]onally, I would say 'who cares?' if a person who falsified facts in order to push a political views said this article was 'careful and balanced.' While this may not matter to you, it does to other editors who are more concerned with accuracy than supporting a political position." How can you criticize Engel-Di Mauro and use Tombs to support this is beyond me. I would add to what TFD said that he has engaged in Holocaust trivialization by comparing the AfD nomination of this article to being "almost as bad as Holocaut denial." I remember you once used a book by a far-right publisher to prove a point, why are you doing this again? Davide King (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you stop trying to weasel Tombs back into the discussion? This shit for a source was indefensible. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is also irrelevant, since what matters is that a panel of admins concluded that "the Wikipedia editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether 'mass killings under communist regimes' is a suitable encyclopaedic topic." Tombs does not overturn this fact and using it as an argument, or weaseling it back into the discussion, should now be seen as disruptive. Davide King (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating a fork?

Would it be creating a fork, or indeed pointy, if the title Victims of Communism was developed as an article? It maps well to agencies that deliberately developed the narrative, a literally concrete place within the sphere of US hegemony? ~ cygnis insignis 15:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is a wikimedia fork in the form of a navbox on a memorial at the English wikipedia, apologies for my lack of notification to users here, preceding its deletion, and more interestingly an extensive arrangement of images at commons:Category:Victims of communism ~ cygnis insignis 14:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The thread also notes the changes to Victims of Communism our page history that emerged from reactivation of the proposal to align the page to its reactionary foundations, chiselled narratives and postwar apologetics for strategically placed fascists. ~ cygnis insignis 15:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• I merged two wd items to Q9315058 ~ cygnis insignis 15:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be acceptable under Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a point of view (POV). There are for example separate articles about conpiracy theories and the actual events they attempt to explain.

There was a similar situation in reverse where some editors complained that Jewish Bolshevism (aka Jewish Communism) did not provide the "reasons" that the conspiracy existed, which to them was the "overrepresentation of Jews" in Communism. So they created the article "Jews and Communism." That article however was deleted. I had argued that it lacked notability: while there were many sources for Jewish involvement in Communism in different times and places, there was no literature that linked them. However the closing administrator said that there was no consensus on that issue. The article itself was POV, since it tried to prove that Jews were in fact overrepresented in Communism and was actually based on an article published by the Institute for Historical Review, which is a holocaust denial website. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination).) Not surprisingly, the fascist website, Metapedia, copied both Mass killings under communist regimes and Jews and Communism.

Incidentally, I had started the first AfD and many "Keep" editors claimed it was disruptive for another editor to start a second AfD less than two months after the first one.

TFD (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose an analog would be an article Victims of rape that "maps well to agencies that deliberately developed the narrative", implicitly denying that any rapes occurred. --Nug (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a good analogy, since no one is DENYING that mass killings occurred. A better analogy would be an article about John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories that blamed the international Communist conspiracy. The article would not DENY that Oswald was a Communist or that he killed the U.S. president, but like most literature on mass killings, it would not pin Oswald's crime on a mistranslated essay by Engels.

Anyway, look on the bright side. We'd be able to talk about Watson and Tombs and many other anti-Communist writers without any weight restrictions.

TFD (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So you don't deny that mass killings did occur under the communist party led governments of the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, and that these countries are grouped together in reliable sources that discuss mass killings? --Nug (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please, stop this nonsense, we never denied anything. As for the grouping, I think that Siebert gave a good answer here about the group type sources and grouping, and how there are different types of Communist grouping that you totally ignore, and do not support the type of article you want. Davide King (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comparing victims of non-consensual intercourse to victims of a political ideology is a false equivalence. X-Editor (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those victims documented by Memorial (society) didn't consent to be killed. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you trying to argue? X-Editor (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Creating an article entitled 'Victims of Communism' would present a splendid opportunity to violate both WP:OR and WP:NPOV at the same time. Not that this would be new territory for some of the regulars at this talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, why do you think that? How is it any different from Jewish Bolshevism? TFD (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevism article has also presented many opportunities for WP:OR and WP:NPOV violations, as should be fairly obvious from its history. You seem to have dealt with at least one yourself: [36] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

TFD, can you please explain me (again) what the article "Victims of Communism" is supposed to discuss?

In my opinion (and I expect majority of Wikipedians share this view) the VoC article will become a collection of stories about all (real and perceived, lethal and non-lethal) victims of Communism. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh joy. The Wikipedian's Compendium of Things We Know About the Nasty Reds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly how an average Wikipedia user will interpret it. "Victims" is a very broad and very vague term. Thus, I found some source about Cultural revolution (actually, I was looking for something else, but that source has drawn my attention). That source discuss victims of Cultural revolution (roughly 20 million) and deaths (0.75-1.5 million). That demonstrates a huge difference between the term "victim of Communism" and "mass killings". Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would summarize it as follows:

Victims of Communism, or Communist genocide, is an interpretation of MKuCR that assigns responsibility to Communist ideology or Communists collectively, typically assigning a total death toll of at least 100 million. This approach became noteable after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe with the publication of the Black Book of Communism. The position draws a moral equivalence between Communism and Nazism. As a consequence, various museums of and memorials for the victims of Communism have been established by center right governments in Europe and North America.

The interpretation has been used to discredit European Communists and socialists who aligned with the Soviet Union during WWII. It is also used to discredit government intervention in the economy which is seen as a precursor to Communism. Accordingly, states that are Communist or could be compared with it, such as China, Russia and Venezuela, are seen as unique threats.

TFD (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

And the source you cite for that can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

One source is Kristen Ghodsee. "A Tale of “Two Totalitarianisms”: The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism." History of the Present (2014):

The signatories to this Declaration proclaimed that the “millions of victims of Communism and their families are entitled to enjoy justice, sympathy, understanding and recognition for their sufferings in the same way as the victims of Nazism have been morally and politically recognized” and that there should be “an all-European understanding . . . that many crimes committed in the name of Communism should be assessed as crimes against humanity . . . in the same way Nazi crimes were assessed by the Nuremberg Tribunal.”

The current upsurge in East European commemorations for the victims of communism originates from a regional desire for victimhood status.

In addition to the desire for historical exculpation, however, I argue that the current push for commemorations of the victims of communism must be viewed in the context of regional fears of a re-emergent left. In the face of growing economic instability in the Eurozone, as well as massive antiausterity protests on the peripheries of Europe, the “victims of communism” narrative may be linked to a public relations effort to link all leftist political ideals to the horrors of Stalinism

Furet had initially been tapped to write the introduction to the book, but after his death in July 1997, the task fell to the editor Stéphane Courtois who asserted that there were 100 million worldwide victims of communism, a number four times that of the victims of Nazism.

In museums such as the Hungarian House of Terror and the Lithuanian Museum of Genocide Victims, more space was allocated to the victims of communism than to the victims of the Holocaust.

The double genocide thesis and its production of the “victims of communism” discourse not only aims to prevent a return of leftist politics. It can also be used to justify acceptance of neo-fascism.

TFD (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Quickly looking at this source, I do not see where author disputes the idea of the Communist ideology or regimes being responsible for political repressions in a number of countries. She does not. She also does not deny any crimes by such regimes, including mass murder. See seems to deny only that certain crimes by such regimes amounted to genocide, and that they were on the same scale as Holocaust. Speaking about the " Victims of Communism Memorial"-related things, she seem to miss the point. This is not all about victimhood, but about rejecting such ideology and practice. The Nazism was condemned and rejected by German people, but the Soviet imperialism and Stalinism were not (50% of people in Russia support Stalin). Hence the Russian imperialism continues: the attempts to restore the USSR and attacking other countries in 2014 and now. My very best wishes (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• How would you describe the topic she is writing about? The fact that you think she agrees with your conclusions is irrelevant. What topic do you think the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is dedicated to? TFD (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• These are not my conclusions, but my understanding of what she is saying. The topic is difficult to define, and the article has no Abstract. This reads like a personal commentary/opinion in response to Prague Declaration. Apparently, she is concerned about the rising right-wing forces in Europe. Sure, this is a very much reasonable concern, but it is not really on the subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

TFD, you seem to be proposing to 'fix' the current issues this article has (building itself around a single perspective, and rejecting any source that doesn't conform to that perspective) by creating another one, doing the same thing. As much as I personally agree with Ghodsee's take on things, I've got to say that is a spectacularly bad proposal, unless the objective is to replace a single time-sink-unresolvable-conflict article with two such time-sink articles - mirror images of each other. Underlying this all there is genuine academic discourse around 'communism', 'violence' and 'killings', but it is one where few participants agree over either the scope of the debate, or the general terms to be employed - and a great many participants seem not to think that dealing in generalisations is useful at all. If Wikipedia is ever going to justice to this topic (if Wikipedia is even capable of doing justice to this topic, which seems debatable) it won't come about by creating further PoV forks to build articles around, and to argue over. No, the only half-sensible way to tackle this amorphous and ill-defined topic is to start from the premise that this is discourse, it is debate, it is politics. Stop trying to tell readers that PoV X, or PoV Y is even the place to start when trying to make sense of it all. Present it as a debate, where little is agreed, and many participants don't particularly see the need for agreement, and you might actually arrive at something approximating proper encyclopaedic coverage of this ill-defined topic. That is all that Wikipedia can possibly do, according to its own 'NPOV' policies. If it is actually capable of doing so at all - as I suggested at the recent AfD discussion, I have serious doubts as to whether Wikipedia can ever resolve this, given the inherent structural (and cultural, and political, and...) problems evidenced here. Maybe there are some subjects (important subjects) that Wikipedia should just not try to cover. Bad articles can be worse, much worse, than no article at all. Leave coverage to real experts - experts with opinions they can express, as experts, without the requirement to meet arbitrary 'neutrality' requirements that academia has never seen as of merit when dealing with such matters. You can't crowd-source imaginary academic agreement from amorphous academic discourse. And nor can you achieve 'neutrality' by creating multiple PoV forks around people you agree with, and ignoring the fact that they are part of a broader discourse. It doesn't work. See the history of this article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "the premise that this is discourse, it is debate, it is politics." Therefore I support an article that explains what the argument is and its degree of acceptance in reliable sources. The debate begins with the premise that there is a connection between mass killings and Communism. It doesn't begin with the observation that there were a lot of mass killings under Communist regimes and a debate about how to explain them. That is the premise of this article. That of course is what Nug (Martintg), My Very Best Wishes (Biophys) and the other veterans of the Eastern European Mailing List have argued for 10 years. Of course it could be that both topics are notable in the same way that the assassination of JFK are both notable or it could be that only the interpretation is notable as in the case of Jewish Bolshevism and Jews and Communism. But an article about Victims of Communism is not a POVFORK, it's merely explaining an interpretation which is definitely notable. Whether or not the topic it tries to explain is notable is another issue. TFD (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To put it another way, was Ghodsee a genocide scholar trying to calculate how many people the Communists killed and explain why they did that or was she trying to explain why that topic has energized the Right? TFD (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You are telling pork pies again. I've had relatively little involvement in this article or input on talk page compared with you. --Nug (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I hope that you do not give up because your comments have been interesting, a fresh good air, and I do agree with them, though I would not fault you if they think this talk page is a mess, and if I did not help either. If you disagree with TFD's proposal, what do you think about Siebert's? I think their proposed structure would be following what you have outlined above, or at least close to it, and making it a debate and discourse in politics, and leave coverage to real experts. I think the issue is that there are some users who are completely opposed to turn this into anything but a list of killings by Communist regimes, but you should not give up, and your proposed structure may be well represent B, if the RfC's closure will see it as the best way forward. Davide King (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I give up. If I (firmly on the left) want to understand why people calling themselves 'communists' or 'socialists' were willing to do engage in mass murder on the most horrific scale (as some clearly were), I'll look elsewhere, since I'm clearly not going to get anything of consequence here. And I do want to know, regardless of whether some on the right are using the topic for rabble rousing or not. I'm not going to find answers here though clearly. And neither will the genuinely curious reader Wikipedia is supposed to cater for. Not in this crowd-sourced Kindergarten, where everything is framed around the inherent evils of the Other Lot, and actual academic debate (which extends well beyond arguments about the supposed inherent evils of communism, and looks instead at the inherent propensity for evil in humanity as a whole, or instead rejects such grandiose ambitions and intellectually-numbing generalisations and looks at nitty-gritty detail where 'communism' isn't a useful category) gets drowned out in facile arguments about secret email lists and about who has been wasting their time here the longest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

IOW you don't have the confidence in Wikipedia editors to write an article about a notable topic. But at least it's more likely than for them to write an article about a non-notable topic, such as this one. Nug, please avoid personal attacks on other editors. Don't think that using Austraiian rhyming slang will fool anyone. We've all watched "Fools and Horses." TFD (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What do AndyTheGrump actually propose? If they support deletion of this article, I do agree and I certainly support them in this but it is simply not going to happen unless a panel of admins engage in a supervote. Do they really think that keeping the article as it is, it is any better than TFD's proposal? I do agree that objection to TFD's proposal is indeed a lack of confidence, which is not a good argument. For the umpteenth time, TFD's proposal will not be a list of any incidents under Communist regimes (that is actually an argument against this article, which is events-based rather than theory-focued) but about what Torpin, Ghodsee, and many other scholars have said, namely "an effort to legitimize the claims to memorialization and reparations of those who suffered under Communism. Such claims have become high stakes in an era that frequently rewards those who can demonstrate that they, too, have been victimized in the past." Davide King (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably not directly prohibited but IMO a bad idea. You have 3 vague terms in there that are mostly subjective: 1. What counts as a victim? 2. What counts a communism? 3. What counts as the victim status being caused by communism? So the article will be an eternal debating society and I don't see what useful content it would contain other than "who's winning the eternal wiki debate at the article?"  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding to that, in contrast to this article (where the title just said that they occurred under such regimes) that title would mean that for everything in it, it has been determined that communism is the cause. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand why you do not think it applies to the current title and structure as well; if it had been determined that communism is the cause, we would not even be here, and there would be no SYNTH issues per TFD; it is not sufficient that they happened under a nominally Communist regimes, else Mass killings under capitalist regimes, Mass killings under fascist regimes, and so on can be created and there should be no issue if that is the standard — none of them would entail that capitalism or fascism was the cause, just that they happened under a number of capitalist or fascist regimes, which is not a sufficient ground to write an article about it and I do not think they should exist for the same reason I oppose this article, unless we actually have a good scholarly literature that discuss the topic as a whole, like is done for Genocides of indigenous peoples, and not different country-specific groupings. For the current version to not have any issue, communism would have to have been the primary cause; on the other hand, "victims of Communism" would present this theory, that communism was not the primary cause, as such and not as facts. Certainly, we can worry about the name later on, since I think we do agree on seeing B as the first or best option. Davide King (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aren't a valid arguments. --Nug (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please let North8000 actually respond to me? Those are essays about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, not in normal talk page discussions. In addition, several users in the AfD explicitily suggested creating such articles. I do not support creation of them, but if this article is going to be kept and this is the standard (a few minority sources), surely such articles would be fine as well and I expect you to support the creation of at least one of them, and be consistent, which is something we both seem to appreciate and can agree with. Davide King (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King:(First to note, my main comment was based on the "3 vagaries" and your question is not about that.) Well, the narrow answer is that because I was commenting on a potential new article, not this current one, which has AFD's and a current RFC making determinations. But I did make a distinction between the discussed new title and the current title, and so I'll expand on why I made that distinction. First, the proposed new article title explicitly states a cause-effect relationship whereas at most the title of this article might just imply a cause-effect relationship. The explicit statement would be a two-edge sword for folks (if any) primarily concerned about the article making communism look bad/good. On one hand it makes a more explicit statement about communism being the cause. On the other hand, it would tend to exclude material where communism can't be shown to be the primary cause. And, IMHO, the answer to the question lies in that middle ground which that would probably exclude. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that you should see "Victims of Communism" more like Cultural Marxism and Jewish Bolshevism, e.g. we would describe the theory of communism as main cause and the Communist death toll, and what its proponents believe and the scholarly critical analysis. As for the title, it is the WP:COMMONNAME and POV names are allowed, e.g. Boston Massacre; the current name can be said to do the same thing you outlined by implying, even if not explicitily, a cause–effect relationship between Communist regimes and mass killings just because they did indeed happened under Communist regimes. As for communism being the primary cause, such material would be a clear minority because majority of mainstream scholars do not actually support that (e.g. the introduction to the The Black Book of Communism); indeed, the article would mostly focus on that theory, so it would not exclude it. As I said, we may also discuss, in the same article or a separate article, scholarly views about the link between communism and mass killings, e.g. the material you feel would be excluded, if that is the issue, e.g. you feel we present only the extreme anti-communist views and not the more nuanced scholarly views. Davide King (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

We have at least one source (Ellman) who explicitly states that the term "victims of Stalinism" (which is a subset of what majority of authors see as VoC) is an intrinsically vague term, whose meaning strongly depends on political views of each concrete author. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To add to what Siebert have wrote, that again falsely assume that this article is going to be focused about the events like it currently is — it will not. Please, read Ghodsee and Torpin's summary of the topic — as noted by TFD, none of them are scholars trying to calculate how many people the Communists killed and explain why they did that but rather to explain why that topic has energized the Right, which is what their proposed topic is about and is the really notable topic. Davide King (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Imagine your proposal is accepted, and the article was renamed to "VoC". Now please answer these questions:

1. What can prevent other users from adding more and more instances of wrongdoing (with lethal or non-lethal consequences) that were ascribed to Communism by at least one RS?

2. What if other users will start an RfC about the article's subject, and majority of votes will be: "The article is about all nasty things Commie did"?

In other words, have you ever considered a scenario when your proposal to rename the article will be accepted, but your vision of the article's scope will not? IMO, that may be very, very possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think that is a serious concern, and that is why "Victims of Communism" is not a good name now, though it is the common name; however, if we can merge your proposed structure with that of TFD (distinguishing between scholarly views about the link, and popular press and anti-communist organization's views), it would be good. If merging is an issue, we may have two separate articles, which is something that TFD seemed to touch on in a previous post. Either way, I suggest that you two work together to find a compromise and good solution. I do think that TFD's proposal is a good one, and that if we actually follow it, without naming the article "Victims of Communism", your proposed structures would be very similar and a name change may be warranted. To play devil's advocate, we will just have to revert them like we have done so for the Uyghur genocide. As much I do understand your concerns, and indeed I do share them, I do not think they make a good argument against TFD's proposal. To summarize, please work together on the structure and topic, and on what you do agree, and we will worry about the name later on when the article is finally fixed. Davide King (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A note that the title "Victims of Communism" now redirects to a disambiguation page. ~ cygnis insignis 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Every article about fringe theories attracts advocates who try to use the article to promote their views. As Andy the Grump pointed out by linking to one of my reverts in Jewish Bolshevism, some editors tried to add material listing Jews who were Communists, in order to show that there was some truth to the conspiracy theory. But it was a lot easier to remove this material than it was from "Jews and Communism."

There is a current ongoing dipute at Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The argument, made by Jordan Peterson and others is that while there is a conpiracy theory, the truth is that there really are cultural Marxists and their followers are trying to undermine Western civilization. In the past, 9/11 conspiracy theories and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories have attracted similar advocacy from editors.

The best approach is to define the topic in the lead, as recommended by Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This article for example begins by saying, "Mass killings under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century. Death estimates vary widely...." So we expect information about these deaths and how many there were. If we begin an article by saying "Victims of Communism, or Communist genocide, is an interpretation of MKuCR," we expect to find an article about said interpretation.

Unfortunately, there is nothing to stop editors from turning any article into a propaganda piece. If the overwhelming major of editors believed that JFK was murdered by Communists then the article would say that. But given that there has never been consensus for this article (depite what a previous closing administrator said), I do not expect that the problems will be insurmountable.

TFD (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Tombs said that downplaying the connection between genocide and ideology would also prevent the teaching of crimes under Facsism and colonialism, and that it is morally indefensible, at least as bad as Holocaust denial. So you are saying mass killings under communist regimes is just a hoax or did it really happen? --Nug (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point Nug (made here [37]), about editors "us[ing] the Holocaust to shield the topic from criticism by promoting the fringe views of an irrelevant historian". BSMRD (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is aq loaded question: "a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)." Not only is that type of tactic disruptive, but using this tactic implies you have no valid arguments.

As has been pointed out, Tombs is not an expert on Communism or mass killings, and falsely claimed that Gladstone's name had been erased from a building because his father owned slaves when in fact it happened because as an MP he voted against the Act that abolished slavery. Tomb's comparison of deleting this article to Holocaust denial is particularly outrageous. Using the Holocaust to support a political position trivializes this unique crime in history. As you know, no one claims that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot committed mass killings and I suggested we have an article about it.

In fact there are no other articles about ideologies and mass killings. Where are Mass killings under fascist regimes and Mass killings under liberal regimes? Certainly they killed more people, but there is no body of literature to establish notability and their opponents in Wikipedia have not been so disruptive as to create them.

Colonialism incidentally is not an ideology, it is a system that apparently China uses in its oppression of Uyghurs, Tibetans and other minorities in non-Chinese territories it conquered in the 1600s. It should be clear to you that colonialism has been carried out under liberal, conservative, fascist and communist regimes.

TFD (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

SYNTH tag

Can someone clearly identify where and what the SYNTH is here that warrants an article level tag, otherwise I will remove the article level tag in the next 24 hours. Per WP:TAGGING "'Tags' should be used to clearly identify problems with Wikipedia pages to indicate to other editors that improvements are needed." --Nug (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can't contribute in any meaningful manner then you are just a part of the problem you describe here. --Nug (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And by the same logic, if you agree with what I wrote there (else why quote it?), so are you. As should be self-evident from this facile (or troll-like) attempt to erase any acknowledgement that the recent AfD concluded with synthesis being cited explicitly as grounds for deletion by a great number of participants. The article is riddled with synthesis from start to finish. This talk page, and its history, is likewise riddled with attempts by participants to synthesise mutually-acceptable content. The recent 'dispute resolution' efforts were likewise built around trying to synthesise a mutually-agreed article to project a single unified understanding of whatever the vague and disputed terms 'mass killings' and 'communism' are supposed to mean. As always, the attempt failed. As it will again here, as long as people keep insisting that Wikipedia can decide for itself how to label, and structure, a complex and diverse discourse within academia (and beyond) where almost none of the terms of reference are agreed, and a great number of participants see no useful purpose in engaging in grandiose generalisations at all. The article is built entirely around the principle that Wikipedia can synthesise a single narrative out of multiple sources which (when they aren't engaging in political polemic) agree over almost nothing at all. It stinks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you that as a Wikipedia reader I want to discover the same things as you want to discover when reading this article. There is certainly a lot of noise on this talk page and one of the problems is that discussions always go off tangent before we can focus on a resolution some specific issue. With respect to the AfD, an admin recently said: "Based on that AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) the question primarily raised was not about NPOV, but about synthesis of the topic ("there are communist regimes", and "there are mass killings", but the combination was put into question of whether that was synthesis by editors. My quick scan of the AFD shows that there appears to be no synthesis involved since there were plenty of sources to point out that the intersection of the topics have been discussed by social science academics, but the writing approach to our article probably needs some work."[38] So on that basis I'm proceeding with this thread. --Nug (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Since when does 'an admin' (one who's opinion you presumably share, else you wouldn't quote it) get to decide such things? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Shrug, admins generally have a better understanding of policy as demonstrated by their respective RfA, so their opinions carry some weight. As I mentioned, one of the problems here is the noise and discussions being derailed, if you can't stay focused then please stop. --Nug (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

At least for me, this is SYNTH on the basis that the article is supposed to be fully factual due to its premise (The lead paragraph + the title indicates that the article is entirely fact-focused), but in reality - this article is comprised of gossip, debates and opinions. This fabricates a narrative that none of the sources advanced, that the sources themselves are to be taken objectively, and this is partly my issue with Davide and Paul who really want to add more scholarly sources because it does not and will not fix the central problem of the article, that being those sources being mistaken for statements of fact. This is something I had made mention of several times, but stated this much with different wording each time. You may check the archives. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should note, however, that whatever that reason may be to the addition of the tag, I do not believe you can remove it "just because". I think this may at least require consensus regardless. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that is more a structural issue, right? Am I right in interpreting your stance that issue of synthesis doesn't lay with the intersection of the two facts "there are communist regimes", and "there are mass killings" because that intersection has been discussed by social science academics? If you could in-line tag those statements that are mistaken for statements of fact, that would be really helpful. --Nug (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Which of the points in WP:WTRMT do you think are met here? As far as I can see none of those reasons for removal apply to this tag except maybe 9, but in that case that would be grounds for article deletion. (Also points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:WNTRMT are clearly met as well.) BSMRD (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

We can't read your mind, tagging is pointless without the associated talk page discussion. Maybe section level or in-line tags are more appropriate, who knows if you don't tell us. So please list the issues in point form so that other editors can address them. --Nug (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The AfD summarized it thusly: "The principal argument for deletion is that the article collects together incidents of mass killing by communist regimes that reliable sources normally treat individually, not together under the umbrella of 'communist mass killings'. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to 'synthesize' disparate bodies of information in this way, because it is considered original research that violates our commitment to verifiability and a neutral point of view."

The counter-argument was summarized as this: "The principal argument for keeping the article is that the topic meets the 'general notability guideline', our basic criteria for including a topic in Wikipedia as a standalone article. They contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight."

Bottom line: "To the extent there were substantive attempts to engage between the two sides, the discussion centered on whether the references given in support of the article actually represented a significant, mainstream view in reliable sources, or were 'cherry-picked' examples from a non-significant, 'fringe' minority. A subsidiary debate concerned whether the sources presented were correctly interpreted. In our analysis, these questions represent the core of the dispute, and are critical to deciding whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, we can find no consensus on them, and consider it unlikely that further discussion in this forum will produce one."

In short, whose reading of sources is 'correct.' This could be easily determined if we follow Siebert's source analysis proposal. Davide King (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And how is that comment related to keeping the SYNTH tag? I think main problem here is that people derail discussions by placing comments irrelevant to the subject of the thread. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Nug that the label should be removed unless someone can provide a specific example of WP:SYN on the page. It seems that some participants do not understand our policies. The synthesis is very frequent in RS, but it is fine to include such synthesis on the page for as long as this is not a synthesis by wikipedians. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is very relevant because WP:NOR (including WP:SYNTH) is interlinked with WP:NPOV. As noted by TFD, "to remove editor synthesis, you need to identify those sources [which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight]." No matter your personal thoughts about it, The Black Book is not a good counter-example per what Siebert wrote below, namely that "[it] cannot be a foundation for this article, because that source is highly controversial [as confirmed at RSN and its own article]. You cannot use it as a main source per NPOV." In the post you just replied to, I provided examples of SYNTH, and Aquillion and others also said the article's structure (A and C) are OR/SYNTH precisely because the synthesis is done by us, and many sources are synthesized or misrepresented. That you disagree with this analysis does not entail removal of the tag, especially when several users have provided examples, that you decided to ignore for no good reason other than thinking the article is perfectly fine, and support it. Davide King (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, it seems you want to question the closing statement made by the admins panel after the last AfD. The panel clearly articulated what the synthesis consists in, according to proponents of the article's deletion, and there is no indication that this argument was successfully addressed by proponents of keeping the article. Since no significant changes have been made to the article after the AfD, there is no reason to expect the synthesis problem has gone. Therefore, I find your question disruptive.

I can outline a condition that may allow us to conclude that the fundamental problem with SYNTH has been resolved. This condition is as follows:

• At least one RS must be presented that defines ALL events discussed in this article as "mass killings under Communism" (or variations thereof), AND discuss them separately from other mass killings. In other words, it must discuss ALL mass killings that are listed in this article, and it must clearly separate them from other mass killings.
• This source must be a core source for this article.
• This source must be notable and represent a majority POV (otherwise we get a POV fork)
• This source cannot be Rummel (because the article will be a POV-fork of Democide)
• This source cannot be Courtois (because the article will become a POV-fork of The Black Book of Communism)
• This source cannot be Valentino: Valentino does not include Afghanistan, Angola, WWII killings in the USSR and some other cases.
• This source cannot be Bellamy, because it discusses atrocities perpetrated by two opposing camps during the Cold war, and the volume about Communist states does not cover the topic fully.
• This source cannot be Harff, Semelin, Mann or other genocide scholars: they do not discuss "Communist politicide" as a separate topic, and Mann does not link Communism with mass killings, his "classicide" refers to Cambodian genocide and some smaller events in China and Soviet Russia (such as Great Purge).

I believe I explained the reason why the tag must stay. I expect you will not return to that issue until some significant changes will be made to the article, or until some new source will be identified (which is highly unlikely).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"At least one RS must be presented that defines ALL events discussed in this article as "mass killings under Communism" (or variations thereof), AND discuss them separately from other mass killings." Is this a constraint that is applied to the rest of wikipedia or only a rule we came up with for the special universe which this particular article inhabits? Selective application of arbitrary constraints upon articles is Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it territory. AShalhoub (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• And that is incorrect understanding of WP:SYNTH. No, one does not need a single source that covers everything on the page. One only needs every piece of content (for example, something for country X) to be sourced, meaning several RS explicitly describing/defining an event as a mass killing under a communist regime. And no, of course one can use Rummel and especially Courtois. One can use same RS on multiple pages. That does not mean creating a POV fork. And no, a source should not necessarily describe the subject of a page as a separate topic or chapter. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• That is, in fact, very SYNTHY. It would be like creating similar articles about capitalism, colonialism, liberalism, and fascism by using works about Nazi Germany and country experts, who are not writing within the context of mass killings under capitalism, colonialism, or fascism, but about mass killings in Nazi Germany and each individual country, with the only connection being that they were nominally capitalist, colonial, or fascist, which is as weak as a connection about Indo-European languages, European geography, or Christian religion. Aquillion and others also gave very valid reasons in the RfC about the article's structure for why it is OR/SYNTH, so I have to agree with Siebert that this thread is disruptive. The primary reason why the article was not deleted is not because our arguments were not convincing enough but that the ratio was too strong in favour of 'Keep', which is an unfortunate and bad reason not to delete. Davide King (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Paul, please don’t spin the Admin’s panel conclusion in the AfD. The Admin panel only paraphrased the delete proponents’ case of synthesis, it didn’t endorse that argument. If it had endorsed it because the keep proponents failed to address the delete proponents’ arguments of SYNTH, as you suggest, then the article would have been deleted per reason 6 in WP:DEL-REASON. But it wasn’t deleted, because the deleted proponents failed to convince the Admin panel that synthesis is the issue.

Your conditions are contrived. I doubt any book exists that defines ALL aspects mentioned in the article World War II. But assuming one existed, say Beevor, the next argument would be then say it:

• This source cannot be Beevor (because the article will become a POV-fork of The Second World War (book)).

And then we could go through all the other sources cited for World War II and dismiss them in the same fashion:

• This source cannot be Roskill, his source The War at Sea 1939–1945 doesn’t include the air war
• This source cannot be Glantz, his sources doesn't include the Pacific War
• Etc,

Hence you could argue almost any article is a synthesis of multiple sources with that kind of logic, and any article not synthesis by your criteria would then need to be deleted as a copyright violation! —Nug (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In their closing comments, the administrator said the keepers "contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight." Therefore, to remove editor synthesis, you need to identify those sources and use them.

And no, good articles do not contain editor synthesis. They report what reliable sources say in accordance with the weight those facts and opinions have in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, I can accept your arguments about Coirtois. Other examples do not work.

Beevor never proposed any specific concept of WWII: in his book, WWII is defined in the same way as in books by Churchill, Overy and many other authors. All those authors implicitly or explicitly agree that WWII was a conflict between the Axis and the Allies, which started at 1st of September, 1939 and ended at 2nd of September 1945, and which involved some concrete belligerents, etc. In contrast, Rummel proposed a concept of "democide", which is not universally accepted. The same can be said about Valentino and others: each author discuss different categories of deaths, they provide different explanations, different figures, and group the events differently. And, importantly, whereas when Beevor or Glantz write about Eastern Front, they always keep in mind that EF was just one theatre of WWII, and the discussion of EF is placed into a bigger context (WWII). In contrast, most authors who write about, e.g. Great Chinese famine do not put it into a context of "Communist mass killings". In other words, your example (WWII) perfectly demonstrates that this article is a blatant SYNTH. Even the concept "victims of Communism" is vague and depends of political views of each concrete authors. The same can be said about "genocide", "mass killings", "politicide", etc, and about a degree and a nature of their linkage with Communism. You have NO sources that adequately define the topic as it is described in this article, and that is why this article is SYNTH. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

But even if we accept Courtois, he cannot be a foundation for this article, because that source is highly controversial. You cannot use it as a main source per NPOV. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What is acceptable about Courtois to us? ~ cygnis insignis 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtois combines all excess deaths under Communist rule into a single category and draws a linkage between them and Communism. He definitely sets the topic, so, formally speaking, Nug is right, and there is no synthesis here.

However, if we look at the examples provided in WP:SYNTH, we can see that by adding other sources (Mann, Valentino, Wheatcroft, Werth, and many others) to this article, we engage in an improper editorial synthesis, because we imply that those authors implicitly support the views expressed by Courtois. That is not true: some authors (e.g. Werth) openly disagree with Courtois, other authors describe his views as very controversial and provocative, and other authors ignore him.

Therefore, the improper editorial synthesis is still present in the article, and that is the problem of the article as a whole, so the tag must stay. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My position on npov reckons that accords with devolving the page title to a redirect to that work, the Black Book, based on factual content critiquing the Courtois pamphlet that wrapped around those disgruntled contributors and provoked the controversy in French literature, or credible rejoinders to those like Courtois (or Tombs) that are "running with the wolves". ~ cygnis insignis 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

24 hours is what: 23:38, 17 January 2022 minus 13:56, 18 January 2022. How long is that until the preordained removal of the offense to common decency? ~ cygnis insignis 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I checked with a reliable source and they said "about ten hours now", but it was a while ago and might need updating while we watch this happen. ~ cygnis insignis 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I backdated the tag, this was previously reverted by someone who later said they weren't bothered and @Nug: without an edit summary, because heroes don't need 'em. ~ cygnis insignis 17:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand why you are doing this. This explicitly states that the article had synth issues SINCE 2009, but the tag was removed a long time ago as that problem seemed to have been solved. The issue was later reintroduced in 2021, and then the tag was added ensuing the AfD due to the reintroduction of synth back into the article. Does this really matter to you this much that the tag is backdated? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You, and you too, are well advised not to personalise discussions. If a revision satisfied synth concerns then present it. ~ cygnis insignis 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The tag was removed, it was gone for a while. Again, I do not grasp why you wanna backdate the tag because the synth issue today is not the same as it was a decade ago. This is a misuse of a heading tag. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, you are formally right (the tag was removed many years ago, then the article was fully protected, and after that I added the tag, which was later remived again, under a pretext that the talk page discussion became dormant). However, the synthesis issue is essentially the same as in 2009, and it had never been resolved since then.

We have much more serious topics for a discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the generalized SYNTH argument made in the AfD, but consider this: why is Tiananmen Square included yet Uyghur genocide is not? I propose this as a thought experiment for those that have actually read the sources, and not for talk page discussion here or inclusion in the article (which in my opinion trivializes these episodes). WP:SYNTH is narrow in it's definition and examples, and WP:SYNTHNOT especially WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH would lead to a conclusion that the article is tagged incorrectly. Consider the quote in that section: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." along with the tortured discussions of sources above in which a call for a WP:BESTSOURCES approach falls on deaf ears. Is there a tag that says there is no SYNTH, but we lack thoughtful editorial judgment that would be a good replacement? fiveby(zero) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: The AfD argument was not well written, and your disagreement is understandable. This article is SYNTH because it takes one or few sources that make some general claim (about a linkage between Communism and mass killings), and then selectively cites other sources that either disagree with that claim or totally ignore it, and combine these sources in such a way that an impression is created that the linkage between Communism and mass killings is supported by most sources cited in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:, will try and differentiate the different SYNTH arguments that i think have been put forward:

1. The article can not discuss Communism and mass killing because there are no sources or only fringe sources which do so. The differing nature of the regimes and episodes discussed make the article invalid.
2. Because of Rummel, who said something along the lines of "totalitarianism subsumes all other causes" the article should not combine with such sources and Valentino and Mann, who disagree to a greater or lesser extent yet still make observations concerning Communism and mass killings.
3. Because of Courtois and/or the VoC narrative the article should not combine with sources not part of that narrative, supporting or criticizing.
4. I think restating the two above, the article requires "core source(s)" which define the scope and source selection. Since the genocide works may only be partially concerned with the topic and the observations as to Communism not the core of their arguments, then by default the core must be Rummel/Courtois.
5. As you have described above, selective citation, incomplete presentation or misrepresentation of sources.

I am sure that list could be expanded or clarified, it's just a list and not trying to frame your arguments. #1 is the most prevalent argument on this talkpage and during the AfD, but detracts from and lessens the more nuanced arguments. #4 i see and am sympathetic to the underlying problem. In my mind it goes to a rearrangement of sources, considering multiple articles and deciding on the best or a workable presentation of "all the significant views". But the AfD has mostly precluded such a solution. From some of your comments above i would say you think the RfC result will lead to a better shaking out of the content. Maybe it will, maybe some editors will be encouraged to look at content in other articles. But there is no Rummel/Courtois, that is SYNTH as much as anything. What i see resulting is some monstrous hybridization of Communist Studies#Controversy and VoC with a different definition of "Victim". An article which gives free reign to the most extreme voices and lets some editors engage in the capitalism vs. socialism arguments they are here for. Please don't take that as describing your intentions but just guessing as to what the content would look like.

As to #5, yes, of course. But i think that is outside the narrowness of WP:SYNTH and that WP:BESTSOURCES and "editorial judgment" are a far better framing of that problem. The AfD panel recommended continued dispute resolution along with source analysis. Neither are happening, look likely to happen, or look likely to succeed if attempted. To the extent you see any viable solution that does not have a major change in scope, but may include an extensive rewrite i would like to support.

Basically i think it preposterous to think that an iterative community driven process can generate content at this level. But part of WP is refining that process as you go, so maybe it will work. Anyway good luck. fiveby(zero) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The 30,000' view of proponents advocating keeping the tag seems to be that the article is inherently synthesis, including impossible-to-meet standards for showing that it is not so or impossible to meet standards for resolving the stated issue. That would be something to be / have been considered at the AFD, and the article was kept, with further specific to come from the RFC. Tags are for realistic improvement of the article, not to paint an eternal scarlet letter on it's mere existence. If it's shown to be the former, I'd keep the tag, if it's not, I'd say remove the tag. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

North8000, First, the article was not KEPT: it was concluded that there is no consensus about its deletion. There is a big difference between keeping an article (which implies everything is pretty much ok with it), and not achieving a consensus about its deletion (which implies the article has some severe problems).

Second, what " impossible-to-meet standards" do you mean? Can you name some other article that does not violate NOR and that cites no generally accepted non-controversial source defining the topic? Nug attempted to give such an example (WWII), but he just proved my point: it is quite easy to find many good and non-controversial sources that summarize what is "WWII", and other source seem to implicitly or explicitly support that summary. Can anybody provide similar sources for MKuCR? During last 8 years, this article was edited by proponents of the MKuCR views, and they faced no serious opposition. Despite that, they failed to find any source that meets these quite clear criteria, which directly follow from our core content policies. Actually, I myself tried to find such sources, but my search usually yielded the same set of sources (Rummel, Courtois, etc) that are always cited here. Keeping in mind that I am very good in finding sources (that is a part of my professional skills), my inability to find peer-reviewed sources (or their equivalents) that would define the topic of this article strongly suggests that no such sources exist. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right in pointing out that for my description of the AFD result I should have used the word "not deleted" instead of "kept" but that would not have changed my point. On the rest of your response, I think that you are confirming my point rather than refuting it. If you will forgive my overly brief selective paraphrasing, IMHO the essence of your argument is "sources can't be found to allow / justify the existence of this article" leaving AFD as the only choice, but we just went through that. To refute my point you would need to make the case that the stated problem is really/realistically fixable, not that it is unnfixable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You de facto imply I was not fully sincere when I claimed I was "neutral" regarding the option A-D of the ongoing RfC. Please, AFG: if I believed the article could not exist, I would not have initiated this RfC (remember, it was me who started this process, and who participated in writing the RfC questions).

Your paraphasing it is too selective and too brief, so my main idea almost disappeared from it. My idea was: "sources can't be found to allow / justify the existence of this article in this form and with this structure, therefore, significant changes must be made to fix this problem." Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: If you would take my comments at face value, you would see that I did not say anything about intentions, nor is there anything to make one think I intended or implied that. My post was just asserting what the inevitable (even if unintended) logical conclusion of what such an assertion would be. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The keep argument was "that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight." If that is correct, then it should be possible to write an article without synthesis. The problem I see is that the sources do not exist. TFD (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A shorter version of my response to Paul above. I believe that you are in essence arguing for the deletion of the article. So where does that lead to? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This dispute is not worth our time. It is very obvious that the RfC result means a significant rewrite of the article anyway, and that's obviously going to come with a reexamination of sources. If we all wanted to be productive, we would just move ahead with implementing the RfC result (starting by identifying the major sources around which the article will be rebuilt), but something tells me that some of us will not agree what the result of the RfC is until the RfC is closed, and if that's the case, we wait. Levivich 21:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Should I open the inevitable 'the RfC result doesn't actually apply because reasons' thread now, just to save time? I'm sure there will be one, complete with rehashes of every argument we've already seen for keeping this POV essay in article space, exactly as it is (or with added synthesis, just for kicks...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think these expressions of WP:BADFAITH really help? --Nug (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that a little introspection from you, after reading the guideline you have just linked, might. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: that is unkindest personalised comment I have seen on this page. ~ cygnis insignis 15:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, I do agree but it is telling in that how can we even work together to rewrite it? I am concerned if we can actually do engage in a rewrite, as I expect never-ending edit warring, and we still have the one-revert rule. In such a case, I would suggest to either avoid editing the article, or more preferably reducing it to a stub for the time being (though I am sure this is going to be edit-warred over, so I am not sure), and do the rewrite at the sandbox or creating a draft. We are also going argue about what exactly the structure should look like, and have different understanding: should B be discuss genocide scholars' views, be about what Ghodsee, Neumayer, and Torpey, maybe both? There is also the issue that some users are unaware of that what those scholars say is the real notable topic or that they believe in it. Davide King (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King: I would go (1) scope -> (2) major sources -> (3) table of contents -> (4) section-by-section. The RFC determines #1. #2 is done in the sense that the sources have already been identified (on the source subpage) and it'll be a matter of identifying which of those matches the scope determined in #1. #3 would be the first big change to the article, and #4 will undoubtedly involve some significant changes to each section. I'm not sure stubbifying would work here for the reasons you mentioned, but I also don't think developing a sandbox-replacement will work, either. I would almost rather get to #3, and then "stubbify" each section if needed, before expanding it back out. Levivich 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

SYNTH tag date

I've reverted User:cygnis insignis's disruptive change of the SYNTH tag date to 2009 [39],[40],[41],[42]. There were no SYNTH issues after 2009, as evidenced by the subsequent 2010 AfD resulting in a keep: "This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia.". --Nug (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What an utterly juvenile thing to argue over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, disruptive behaviour is juvenile. --Nug (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Then stop engaging in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have evidence, or should I take this as a PA? --Nug (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have evidence. This thread. I suggested that arguing over the date of the syth tag was juvenile. You agreed with me. After engaging in said argument yourself, by (a) edit-warring over the date, and (b) starting this thread, to argue about it further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, the tag was originally dated September 2021, back dating it to 2009 is misleading and WP:POINTy. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Backdating tags in this way is disruptive, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:POINTY, and pretty much unheard of on Wikipedia. If anyone doubts that, please see WP:CIR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact a tag did not exist or that the article was kept does not mean there was no synthesis. If there was no synthesis then, but there is now, then Nug could tell us where the synthesis crept in. Also, the outcome for 2009 should have been no consensus based on the discussion. We could of course ask for a reconsideration at AfD Review, but I think it would be a waste of time for a trivial debate. TFD (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading from left to right, tip to toe, it bothers me that a hat note indicates a concern on the topic as synth that apparently only emerged recently. I assume that is also why those who prefer all the preliminary disclaimers be removed would also be opposed to revealing that discussion of another forking of atrocities to a preferred version as another list of 'killed by communism' has been going on that long. I've requested a non-synth revision before the thread was widowed by this section, although my scepticism on rationales earlier removals of the tag is based on a conclusion it was always pointy and ought to be deleted; my bias is reinforced when I kick over stones in the sources and see fascists, apologists and fellow travellers commemorated as 'victims of communism'. Hurt and wounded by responses to my contributions here, I cheered myself up by viewing the VoCommunism Memorial Foundation's gallery of posters and comic book covers celebrating 100 years of Dissent. They are arguably cv, but inclusion in commons:Category:Victims of communism is notable by virtue of their presentation there. ~ cygnis insignis 12:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If the article had synthesis since 2009, it would be grounds for speedy delete per WP:WTRMT point 9. If so, why did no one of you suggest the article to be removed on the basis that it is unfixable? The AfD would have concluded with the article's deletion. And while we are at it, why not backdate the POV tag too, clearly the article had POV issues back in 2009. This is seriously silly Cygnis, and I still fail to understand why you are doing this.

Let's be fair here, if the article still had issues from as far back as 2009, then neither Paul, Davide, nor anyone else would have stated this much: We should revert the article back to the start of 2021 when none of the issues it has right now are present. I remember that very well, it was said in around September of last year. Nobody would have suggested to revert the article back to a certain point if the article always had, or had longstanding synthesis issues. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Link the revision that we all remember so well. ~ cygnis insignis 14:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I only came to this article in 2020, and going back to 2009, it still had SYNTH issues and should have been deleted after there were three consecutive 'No consensus' results, which should have been seen as presaging the mess we are in, especially when the article was first created by a banned or sockpuppet user in an attempt to troll. The fact that this article has been kept despite all this is beyond me. Anyway, I thought the date of the tag was to updated to highlight that today the issue has not yet been solved, rather than when it was first stated; certainly, if the current dating is used to argue the article did not have the SYNTH issues back then, it should be disregarded. By the way, I think Siebert explained well the current SYNTH issue here, so I hope this question does not come up again and again. Davide King (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Davide, this was posted in 2022, and I had read the comment already. This goes in line with my prior statement that the sources are treated as statements of fact because of the premise of the article which is inherently synth. What I ponder is how was this article synth in 2017, 2014, 2012, etc - because our friend Cygnis here thinks this article suffers from synth since 2009 instead of the given 2021 date. To me the 2009 synth and 2021 are different, and unrelated and was solved once around 2010, therefore, the synth issue was reintroduced in 2021. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I checked the 2009 year version of the article, and I can confirm that the core neutrality issue was already present in that version. The NPOV violation can be summarized as follows: (i) all mass killings were considered as significantly linked with Communism and Communist ideology, (ii) an existence of some common terminology, or at least of some serious attempts to develop it was stressed, (iii) majority of country-specific sources are either ignored, or their views are understated, because the structure of the article creates an apparent hierarchy.

It is easy to demonstrate that this core neutrality violation never disappeared from the article (in contrast to the POV tag). Therefore, although you are right from the point of view of our policy's letter, your opponent is right from the point of view of the policy's spirit. It seems you guys have more important topics to discuss. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The thing is that Communist genocide was essentially deleted and Mass killings under communist regimes was its rewrite, hence why the tag may have been removed after it was kept in 2010 ("This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia" sounds more the closure's personal opinion than a neutral consensus close); however, the SYNTH issue (NPOV has always been the bigger one, and it has never been just SYNTH; the fact it has had both NPOV and SYNTH issues just makes the whole thing worse) remained, and you do need to consider that the article was essentially blocked from editing due to a few years. If you go through the years, you will see that the SYNTH was always there, perhaps sometimes it was much more subtitle, but it was still there; so perhaps you are right that the SYNTH was there in 2009, resolved in 2010, and reintroduced in 2011, and even if you ignore 2012, 2014, and 2017 (just because there is not a tag, it does not mean the issue was actually solved or was not there anymore; again, the article was effectively blocked from editing, so it could not have been possible to fix it) — that is still almost ten years of SYNTH since 2011. That is why the AfD was a mess — if one had knew that this article was created by a banned user or sockpuppet, that it had NPOV and/or SYNTH issues since 2009, and that users repeatedly tried to fix it or find some consensus, perhaps it would have gone different.

• 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021a, 2021b.

In the end, I do agree with your statement that "the sources are treated as statements of fact because of the premise of the article which is inherently synth" but I do not understand why you think it was not SYNTH in some years; if I did understand you correctly that it is the premise of the article makes it inherently SYNTH, it has indeed been POV/SYNTH since 2009, as you can see the structure remained largely the same throughout all those years. Whether we put 2009 or 2021 as date is not relevant to me; however, if someone argue that the article has been SYNTH only since 2021, that is problematic because it goes way deeper than that, especially if someone thinks that the whole premise is SYNTH, as you reasonably argued. Davide King (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is less of a sourcing problem and more of a structural problem. The sources here also appear in other articles on Wikipedia, but here, and specifically here, they are controversial due to being given too much weight inadvertedly - this is true for every scholarly sources present here. This is why I had suggested to focus the article's content on tertiary sources because they make good fact-checkers, and more often than not, summarizes well the information about their topic of research. Changing the title to something like "Deaths under Communism" or "Discussions of democides within Communist regimes" would already partially solve the aforementioned issue because the reader would be expressly told that the information therein the article is opinionated. In that sense, yes this is an issue that plagued the article ever since it was titled "Mass killings under communist regimes", but I thought we were talking about the sources themselves here since this is emphasized in WP:SYNTH. The arguments being made on this talk page mostly consisted of Courtois this, Rummel that, although Courtois is still a considerably reliable source, in spite of the clear bias. Courtois is not the issue, it is the article's presentation that is the real problem and unless this is addressed which I believe can reasonably be addressed, the issue will persist even after we bleach the article of all controversial scholars and historians. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"although Courtois is still a considerably reliable source" … "Courtois is not the issue" … in the absence of replies to cited and damning critiques of that authority, what remains as encyclopaedic content beyond concretised memorialisation and anti-socialist propoganda? ~ cygnis insignis 18:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, TFD repeatedly pointed out that if such tertiary sources actually existed, there would be no issue. The only tertiary source about this topic is Karlsoon 2008, and is (1) dismissive of both Courtois and Rummel as controversial, and (2) heavily relies on country experts, whose usage has been dismissed by the other side as SYNTH. For the topic TFD, I, and other propose, there are actually sources that are also tertiary and that define the topic, like Ghodsee, Neumayer (a full book about it), Torpey, and others about the same topic but in line with NPOV. Davide King (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Karlsson 2008 is not "dismissive of both Courtois and Rummel as controversial", that is a misleading reading. Karlsson doesn't use the term "controversial" when describing Courtois or Rummel. What Karlsson is describing as controversial is the comparison of nazism and communism which a number of authors do, including Courtois. In respect to Rummel, the criticism here is in context of Rummel's identification of extreme intentionality in Mao, and that his number represent the higher end of estimates, but he is never described as "controversial". Beyond these details, Karlsson isn't dismissing that mass killing occurred under communist regimes. In respect to Karlsson's use of the term "crimes against humanity", he includes "mass killings" "These activities included the direct mass killings of politically undesirable elements, as well as forced deportations and forced labour, partly based on economic considerations, and affected collective groups that can be defined politically, socially, ethnically and religiously." --Nug (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)