Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

1RR restriction

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We've left out one very big category

Leaving out all the trivia about causes and philosophy, why aren't the NAZI killings included in this list?

I know, I know, "the NAZIs weren't communists". Only they were. According to Hitler himself in his speeches there was no difference between a NAZI and a Communist. One of the great lies of all time is how the western liberals (press, Hollywood, intelligentsia) managed to separate themselves from the holocaust after it was discovered by simply never referring to their mass admiration of Hitler and Stalin and quietly implying the NAZIs were far right, when in reality, they were far left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Until there is a stable consensus on the Nazi article that they were somehow communists, it shouldn't be listed here. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

George Watson, already used in this article, considers the Nazis as a type of socialist movement and mentions that their mass killing policies were inherited from the left. I suggest also discussing the Nazis' bloodlettings and moving this article to Socialist genocide. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Socialist genocide would be a fringe theory proposed by Watson and supported by tiny minority of scholar. I am not sure if it will pass a notability test.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would be very interested in an explanation as to why that might be. Given your position here and the broader editorializing going on here, you seem to be using Watson's work selectively. The very book cited here, Watson's Lost Literature of Socialism, actually discusses mass killings through the lens of the view of genocide as a socialist concept -- he specifically considers such bloody ideas as an inheritance rooted in the socialist tradition, including the 1840s articles of Marx and Engels, which he presents as seminal writing in just that respect.

On that very note, since Watson's scholarship, already reflecting exactly this particular view, is included in this article, and has been determined by the consensus of editors of this talk page to constitute a source reliable enough to be included, this seems like a moot point and I don't quite see what different rationale behind your disagreement on this point could be. The majority of the editors who have chimed in on this talk page have expressed the view that the mass murders discussed are related by virtue of the underlying ideology of the governments responsible for them, and the overall direction of the current text has survived many revisions and AFDs on this basis. And the same consensus has overruled the already-discussed contention that Watson is somehow WP:FRINGE and reaffirmed that Watson's views are reliable and significant enough to be discussed in an article structured around the intersection of communism and mass killing.

It's actually an exceedingly simple issue: the Communist systems established across Eastern Europe and in the USSR were all socialist regimes, just as their histories, and the history of Marxism generally, are a subset of socialist history. The Communist rulers of the 20th century, like their genocidal predecessors, Marx and Engels, were all proponents of socialism, and the Stalinist mass murder period in the 1930s occured in an empire officially known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As those studying political theory generally know, Marxist ideology even describes "communism" as the hypothetical stage of history where the state withers away: this stage is the culmination of socialist construction, and is preceded by a post-revolutionary era in which the state exists in the historical period of socialism.

In fact, by expanding the article's subject to Socialist genocide (per Watson), to Genocide and socialism, or Mass killings under socialist regimes, we will have the breadth to include additional information on the murderous deeds carried out by other supporters of socialism, like the National Socialist German Workers' Party of Germany and the socialist dictatorship in Burma. And Wikipedia correctly positions a discussion of national socialism as a subcategory within the article Types of socialism.

If such bloody governments as the Nazis and others are already recognized as heirs of socialism alongside the communists by serious scholarship, like distinguished Oxford University professor's George Watson (and it really seems needless to go at length into its presence among the writings of popular authors such as Jonah Goldberg and others), I don't see what further argument against these proposals might be put up. Like the present article, the broader one would also describe the specific instances of mass killing and the theoretical connections to ideology which are present according to Watson and all sorts of other experts -- still allowing the critics to have their say in counterpoint. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since according to Watson, socialism was conservative and right-wing, why not re-name the article "right-wing mass killings"? TFD (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some libertarians do associate all authoritarianism with the right, but if Watson's work were entitled The Lost Literature of Conservatism, you'd have a far stronger case on Wikipedia. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, that Watson is included does not mean that he isn't fringe, either as a source or in relation to the topic. That he is a reliable enough source to be included does not make him appropriate to base the article upon. The topic is limited to communist regimes, rather than all socialist regimes, simply because that is how the sources upon which it is based have chosen to frame the issue. If you want to make an article about Genocide and socialism, then you can gather your sources and do it, but that is not this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as what I gather, most of the sources used here simply describe the individual events carried out by 20th century regimes like the Soviet Union and Mao Tse-Tung's China (we see, e.g., the Great Purge, the Chinese famine during the late '50s, de-Cossackization, and such), while only a relatively small section, as well as a minority of the references I could find at the bottom of the article, actually directly focus on some specific link connecting any or all of these distinct events with the underlying political commonalities behind them.

The second part of your response concerns the framing of the set of atrocities outlined here, while I see this as the most flexible aspect of the article. The objection you propose is already partially answered by the fact that Communism is a subset of socialism, as explained previously. Watson's Lost Literature of Socialism on the matter the "socialist genocide" of the smaller "primitive" peoples isn't the only one, of course, of the influential names on historical and political questions to examine and dissect the connection between mass killing and the leftist ideal of socialism.

Alexander Nekrich, a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences and later a respected lecturer at Harvard University, describes the mass killing of the kulaks during collectivization as the first "socialist genocide" [1], Lew Rockwell of the Von Mises Institute has written an essay entitled "The Socialist Holocaust in Armenia" [2], and noted French thinker Bernard-Henri Lévy [3] philosophizes about the Stalinist period of killings in the USSR as "a mode of socialism. Gulag is not an accident.' At fault, he argues, is socialism's obsession with homogeneity, 'expelling from its borders the forces of heterogeneity and ... squelching its rebels.'" Since both "socialist" and "Communist" can be applied to define these massacres and their perpetrators, it's really a question of which term is the preferable one for this article. Since George Watson's take is already given, there is already a good argument made in favor of expanding the article's title to mirror the points of view presently in the article. Making an article about Socialist genocide would be one resolution of Aaronsmith's original proposal, but what I haven't seen so far is an argument for the current title. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Watson's "Lost literature" has been cited only seven times according to GoogleScholar [4]. Neither of citing works (except, probably, Conquest) discuss his idea on connection between socialism and genocide (suggesting zero notability). And, again, please, read the discussion of this issue on this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The term socialist is too wide. The mass killings of Iraqi civilians by Western powers could be described as socialist mass killings because the UK had a socialist prime minister while the president of Iraq is a socialist. Murders by right-wing death squads in Columbia could also be seen as socialist because the president is a socialist. The people who tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez are also socialists. In the recent UK election the liberals and conservatives were silent about mass killings by the Labour Party (who got to them!) and the US is silent about socialist provincial governments in Canada, and Reagan appointed a socialist as ambassador to the UN. However, you probably think that Reagan was a socialist. I agree however that this article should explain the supposed connection between Marxism and mass killings. TFD (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Socialist" is not too wide. The problem with your examples is that they are all absolutely moot, since you're determined to conflate social democracy (the ideological ground for much of the political establishment in Canada and Europe, as well as the official ideology of the mainstream European liberal left, including American allies like the United Kingdom under Brown and Tony Blair) with socialism (the official ideology of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Ne Win Burma, and Ba'ath Party Iraq).

I agree that the connection between ideology and practice should be the primary point of this article. My only point here has been that a good place to start from would be with the intersection of all mass killing regimes from the socialist tradition (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ne Win, Saddam, and others) rather than the much narrower Marxist subset included here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, fascists and Ba'athists are really secret socialists, parties that belong to the Socialist International are really liberals, parties in the Liberal International are really social democrats, and so are conservatives and Christian democrats. Do you have a source for any of that? TFD (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, if you read any serious work on the political history of the mainstream left, you'll learn that the reformist current of socialism broke away in the late-1800s to early 1900s, with the European Social Democratic parties completely severing their links to Marxist theory by the mid-20th century, and I'd thought that this was common knowledge to those familiar with the field. The Social Democratic current, which largely no longer self-identifies as socialist regardless whether some parties remain in the Socialist International or not, advocates a reformed capitalism with a large welfare state alongisde the democratic institutions condemned by the traditional Marxist left as "bourgeois democracy"; traditional socialism asks for the replacement of capitalism by a fundamentally different system and expresses disdain for the institutions of "bourgeois democracy". If there are specific parties or groups you would like to discuss, I am completely willing to go along, but please point them out by name, as you've been very vague in your last couple of posts. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The fascism is left wing theory has them evolving from pro-Great War Socialism not Communism, and point out that Mosley was Labour while Mussolini was a socialist. If you believe that today's socialists have abandoned socialism, you need a date for that. Was it 1915 (which would make the fascists non-socialists) or was it 1959, then you have to explain what prevented the Weimar Republic from carrying out mass killings. Your definition of socialism appears to include Communists, fascists, some socialists (including those like the Burmese who did not evolve from either socialist tradition) and other unrelated parties like the Ba'athists. Or are you saying that violent socialists are violent, while peaceful socialists are not? What is the connection between socialist theory and mass killings? TFD (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "The fascism is left wing theory has them evolving from pro-Great War Socialism not Communism, and point out that Mosley was Labour while Mussolini was a socialist."

Exactly, fascism under Mussolini and Germany's National Socialism (also labelled as "fascism" by leftists trying to negate the self-identification of the Nazis with socialist ideology in their effort to conceal something) evolved from the pro-Great War Socialism of the 1910s. Benito Mussolini, the founding father of fascism, was not only a socialist, but a leading figure in Italian socialism before the Great War. The ex-Labour Party MP Oswald Mosley in Britain is a tad less interesting, since he is hardly as relevant in the great scheme of things by comparison as the Duce and his German ally. (Incidentally, Mosley did come from an era in which the Labour Party stood far closer to "socialism" than it does today.)

Re "If you believe that today's socialists have abandoned socialism, you need a date for that."

I merely began by pointing out the differences between the socialists and the modern center-left. You seem to have suggested that the neoliberal Tony Blair governed as head of a socialist government, when it was explained that neither Labour Party of the UK nor the European Social Democratic movements advocate any political program of socialism today. Even "Old Labour" in its heyday under Attlee did not rise to anything more radical than the positions of the European Social Democratic left and appealed merely for the establishment of a welfare state while rejecting its own earlier slogans of wholesale redistribution of property and the means of production. The Labour Party no longer chooses to self-identify as socialist today even for rhetorical purposes, whereas in practice the original "socialist clause" was never applied by any Labour government, at last being jettisoned by Tony Blair's party as a complete anachronism by 1995.

The raised ideological banner of the party's recent days has been a very open neoliberalism, particularly since the advent of New Labour and Blair's aforementioned rejection of the last vestiges of the party's original taint at that point, but even in infancy the party's overall direction has been from the left towards the center. Granted: some pro-socialist sentiment amid the party's more leftist tendencies has always coexisted alongside the less radical sections of good-old-Labour to some extent. The fact that such black-sheep politicians as George Galloway (long disassociated from Labour and no longer even a Member of Parliament) have held office as members of the Labour Party does not distinguish them as representative members of the party either, any more than such Progressive Democrats within the Democratic Party of the United States as Dennis Kucinich reflect the mainstream side of the Democratic Party.

Re "Was it 1915 (which would make the fascists non-socialists) or was it 1959, then you have to explain what prevented the Weimar Republic from carrying out mass killings. Your definition of socialism appears to include Communists, fascists, some socialists (including those like the Burmese who did not evolve from either socialist tradition) and other unrelated parties like the Ba'athists. Or are you saying that violent socialists are violent, while peaceful socialists are not? What is the connection between socialist theory and mass killings?"

Both of these questions are trivial, since the basic fact that throughout history socialist rulers such as the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and the Maoists, the movement for "Burmese socialism" under Ne Win, and the Ba'ath Party government under the socialist dictator Saddam Hussein all sought to implement their socialistic political aims while committing gross violations of human rights to the point of extinguishing whole classes of their own people in the course of their political pursuits. The mere fact that the liberal government of the Weimar Republic of Germany so happened to be largely dominated by the German Social Democrats and the German Communist Party at a particular time when the Social Democrats identified with socialism is no more relevant an objection than the fact that the Chilean government under the Socialist leader Salvador Allende carried out no mass killings in Chile. Such observations no more preclude us from creating an article entitled Socialism and mass killing or Mass killing under socialist regimes than the fact that such countries as Communist Czechoslovakia, Communist Moldova, and Communist Poland refrained from mass killings has precluded us from writing an encyclopedic article about the intersection of mass murder and Communist rule. It is sufficient to list the various examples of such cases and to provide whatever scholarly literature exists on the underlying commonalities of the atrocities.

The significant question here is simply this: given the existence of scholarly literature on the intersection of socialism and a pattern of mass killings by various socialist regimes, what is it that prevents us from going on to remark about the wider phenomenon, and compels us to limit our investigation to the such states as China, Cambodia, and certain states within the old Soviet bloc, as editors such as yourself and Paul appear to suggest? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still confusing because the fascists also moved to the right, abandoning Strasserism for example. I think the best place to describe fascist mass killings as socialist-inspired is in this article. TFD (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, does this mean you have changed your position that this article should be deleted, or do you simply see inclusion of this material as bolstering that position? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you asked this question before and I answered it. Please stop raising the same questions over and over again. TFD (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked before for the same reason I am asking now: to reconcile your contradictory actions. You make suggestions on the talk page for how to improve the article at the same time as you argue for deletion on the grounds that such efforts are pointless. Which is it? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, I don't know how long you have been monitoring this article, but there have been many, many arguments about the title on this talk page. A rough consensus on the current title was a long time coming. That's one of the reasons I am reluctant to see the issue reopened. I think the best way to handle this would be to create the separate article, see if it survives Afd nomination (and it will be nominated), and see how it develops. If there is enough sourcing to sustain an article like that, then we can talk about whether to merge the two articles or to leave them separate. Many of the sources currently used in this article focus on one aspect of the topic simply because of the inclusion of a list of incidents. But that there is an article at all is based on those fewer sources which discuss the events as a group. I quoted four such sources in the most recent Afd here. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of view Zloyvolsheb is trying to push is a novel version of Manicheism: a rather childish belief that our world is divided onto the realm of good and the realm of evil. He (as well as Watson) believes that it is possible to find one single word that would be able to manifest all evil of our world (and, accordingly, this word's antithesis is supposed to manifest the eternal good). This approach is hardly novel: orthodox Marxists saw the world evil in private property, Hitler - in Jews and Communists, libertarians - in state control, etc. However, since serious scholars do not use such primitive propagandistic generalisations, the article that is supposed to be based on scholarly sources can hardly be build according to the concept proposed by Zloyvolsheb.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. The only general term that we seriously can use to combine the deeds of "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ne Win, Saddam, and others)" in one single article would be "bad guys". Even "totalitarian or authoritarian regimes" would not be a good substitute for "bad guys", because in that case many clients of democratic states (Southern Vientam, Indonesia, Latin American juntas etc.) will also join this company. In connection to that I propose not to waste your time and to turn to more serious ideas.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul Siebert, please see the Wikipedia article on Straw man. Nowhere did I mention anything morally general or abstract, and let me assure you that never did my statements ever convey anything that bears on concerns with good, evil, or any other metaphysical assertion relevant to Manicheanism or some other scheme. Indeed, my sole in aim in all of the points I've made thus far is to reflect what has already been established by eminent scholars like distinguished Oxford University professor George Watson (apparently a WP:FRINGE writer in the minds of some), as well as many other voices who can be described as experts in the field. In other words, throughout our exchanges I have committed myself to following the official Wikipedia approach, as set out in WP:RS policy regarding sources, and would ask you do likewise. And please -- let us henceforth carry on in such a way that no extraneous words be put in my mouth, nor any positions imbued to me, as I mean no more than that which I commit to stating explicitly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Marxism was not Manichean, private property and the state were seen as necessary stages in social development. But anti-Communism is Manichean and I agree that these views should be properly explained here, provided they have received coverage. While I like Watson's theory that evil can be traced to conservative legitimism, the theory that it can be traced to liberal Jacobinism is more popular. TFD (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Zloyvolsheb, I myself hate the straw man type arguments, and I am trying to avoid putting my own words into my opponent's mouth. My major point was not that your statements "convey anything that bears on concerns with good, evil, etc", but that the concept you are trying to push inevitably leads to that. Your (and Watson's) ideas are dramatic oversimplification of the issue, and, as a result, will lead to one or another metaphysical assertion independent on your will. BTW, you didn't comment on my notion about low notability of the Watson's concept: the fact that Watson is a distinguished professor does not automatically mean all his ideas are notable and deserve to be reflected in WP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are too hasty to dismiss the argument. Wikipedia does not so much care for what is or what is not an oversimplification, but for what is notable enough to be encyclopedically discussed. Needless to say, I completely disagree with you about the supposedly low notability of Watson's concept; the idea of the Nazis as a socialist movement has its critics and thus some controversy surrounding it, but it is hardly a fringe theory -- at least in the United States. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

PS You argument about Mussolini is moot because no mass killings were committed by Mussolini's regime (except, probably Ethiopia, however, anti-partisan warfare is hardly a prerogative of totalitarian regimes).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually largely in agreement with you on that: Mussolini has little to do with the kind of article I have in mind, and was only mentioned in passing in reply to TFD. It's far more notable that a good deal of writers, especially libertarians, describe the Nazi Party as a socialist movement. It's easy to name a number of other high-profile people if for one reason or another you think of Watson as being too fringe. For instance, the American political philosopher Murray Rothbard, whose schema of political classification insists on the traditional identification of the 18th-century liberals with the left and their counterrevolutionary opponents with the right, describes the national-socialist government of the Nazi party as a type of "right-wing socialism" -- i.e., an adaptation of the collectivist and statist elements of the broader socialist movement to the anti-liberal reactionaries' categorical rejection of the liberal changes of the Enlightenment. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Watson's book has had zero influence and therefore is just a footnote to the article. The libertarians did believe that fascism was socialist, but it was a right-wing socialism that eventually influenced all governments, including the Communists. But it was a heresy to Marxism, which was anti-statist. Their theory has not become popular because Americans do not know the difference between liberalism and conservatism. The most popular anti-communist theory is in the Black Book. Essentially Communism is an evil conspiracy and mass killings are an objective rather than a means. It is essentially an update of the Protocols of Zion and has the advantage that it can be tied into the New World Order and the black helicopters. TFD (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We're missing an opportunity here. Remember the Wikipedia article on Massacres? The one that was an absolute can of worms where they had no idea what they were trying to do? Well, we can use their (In my opinion, incredible weasel worded) fix for this article. If "List of Massacres" can solve its problems by renaming to "List of Events Named Massacres (leaving out the Barbie Massacre, the Saturday Night Massacre, etc.)", we can fix this article by renaming it to: "Mass Killings Under Regimes Calling Themselves Socialist".

This has a couple of advantages: We don't make the call, the originators make the call. It will pick up even regimes with controversy i.e. the NAZIs where NAZIs was only an acronym for National Socialis . . . and one that was almost never used by the NAZIs themselves. They were "National Socialists" in their own minds.Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We would have to include British mass killings under Labour or coalition governments in Iraq, Germany and other places, killings by right-wing death squads in Columbia, and the Indian government's crackdown on various minorities. TFD (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're starting to catch on. Anyone else think this article is just as poorly conceived as all the other articles in Wiki with an "agenda"? About we AfD this thing before someone says (and it's been done for other articles just as dumb) "It doesn't matter how wrong it is. We've put in too much work to AfD".Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support an AfD. TFD (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it would be correct, because the arguments of those who oppose the article's deletion are unbeatable: the sources (reliable sources) exist that discuss mass killing under Communist regimes thereby making the article's subject notable. However, the problem with this article is different (I already tried to explain that elsewhere): the article with such a name should be based exclusively on the sources that discuss mass killings under Communist regimes as something pertinent to Communism, and these theories should be presented not as established facts, but as theories (not shared by other scholars, btw), otherwise the article becomes a pure original research. It is incorrect to add sources and facts from other books and articles that deal with some Communist countries taken separately, and it is incorrect to take the scholars' views out of context. We can use Rosenfielde with his "Red Holocaust", but not Wheathcroft, whose works are focused on the USSR only, not on Communist mass killings in general. We can use the Black Book, but I am not sure we can use a Rummel's works, because his "Democide" is a much wider concept (he draw a connection between totalitarianism and democide not between Communism and democide). In other words, the article should be seriously modified: it should discuss not the events (that have already been covered in many other articles), but the views of some scholars on commonality between different mass killings under different Communist regimes. And, of course, a critique of these views also should be added.

In other words, the article should not be deleted, it should be significantly modified to comply with its name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The article will always be problematic because we are combining a number of obscure, unrelated non-academic theories from a variety of sources, none of which are specifically about "mass killings under Communist regimes", or even use that term. TFD (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. If we remove all OR the article will not be problematic. However, after having that done the article should be constantly watchlisted and all attempts to " combine a number of obscure, unrelated non-academic theories from a variety of sources " should be stopped as attempts to decrease the article's quality and, thereby, to prepare it for new AfD.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

More Original Research shoe horned into this article

Well sourced material has been deleted based on one editor's OR.

Source defines some mass killings as genocide. Another source clearly combines people that were killed or deported.

because they use synonyms for mass killings then one editor (based on his own OR that genocide is not mass killing) uses this a justification for deleting properly sourced relative material. Bobanni (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence removed was "During the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks," which for some reaon had five footnotes.[5] Unfortunately, Cossacks do not form an ethnic group and therefore the term "genocide" is inapplicable. Please look up the definition of genocide in the mainstream sources used for the article. If minority opinions are presented as fact, this article will never receive good article status. TFD (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Cossacks are not an ethnic group? See

(esp. in czarist Russia) a person belonging to any of certain groups of Slavs living chiefly in the southern part of russia in Europe and forming an elite corps of horsemen.

Origin: 1590–1600; < Polish kozak or Ukrainian kozák, ult. < a Turkic word taken to mean “adventurer, freebooter,” adopted as an ethnic name by Turkic tribal groups of the Eurasian steppes '

Sure looks to me like they are an ethnic group. Collect (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure looks to me like they are an ethnic group.'. Sure. And so are the cowboys. (Igny (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Well -- so far I found dictionary entries and encyclopedia entries using "ethnic" with regard to Cossacks, but not with regard to "cowboys." I suggest that where RSs use "ethnic" that this meand Cossacks are, indeed, ethnic. Collect (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also Today, Cossacks have been granted status as an ethnic group by President Boris Yeltsin, [6] So -- legally an "ethnic group" under Russian law. Collect (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for disproving your own point. That means that they were not an ethnic group before Eltsin. (Igny (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Yeltsin could not "create" a group -- what he did was "recognize" it. Just like when an Indian tribe gets recognized in the US, it does not mean the tribe did not even exist before <g>. Collect (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then it would be very easy for you prove your assertions with a RS. (Igny (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC))

Firstly, the statement "Source defines some mass killings as genocide" is quite correct, however, the conclusion drawn from it is not. If some mass killings are genocide that does not mean that every act of genocide is a mass killing (read the basic Lemkin's definition). Mass deportation may also be considered as an act genocide, however, they are not necessarily mass killing.
However, the most importantly, the newly added text in actuality duplicated what the article already says:

" The policy of decossackization amounted to an attempt by Soviet leaders to "eliminate, exterminate, and deport the population of a whole territory," according to Nicolas Werth. In the early months of 1919, some 10,000 to 12,000 Cossacks were executed and many more deported after their villages were razed to the ground."

so the number of killed is already there. Since the number of "killed or deported" hardly sheds more light on the article's subject (mass killings) the new addition simply obscured the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. With regard to ethymology, the Turkish word Kazak (Kozak) means "the man from the border"; old German tribe "markomanns" means the same. In that sense, modern Kazakh and Cossacks have the same ethymology, "peoples from the border between steppes and forests".--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. IMO before talking about decossacisation, it is necessary to add few words on the reason for that, namely, that cossacks were traditionally one of the most reactionary groups of population of Russian empire, and were used by the tzarist regime to suppress numerous revolts and uprisings. Their very active participation on the White side (and their atrocities) should also be mentioned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Explaining Postmodernism

This source appears to be a self-published book by a professor of philosphy but is shown on his personal website not that of the university where he teaches. The book has been written outside the academic mainstream. Does anyone know if Hicks has subjected any of his views in the book to peer review? Did it attract any attention outside the Mises and Ayn Rand crowd? While I understand that were it not for fringe writers we would not have an article, I think we need to establish that they have received some recognition, like the Black Book. TFD (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed by Mises Review etc. No reason to dismiss it as "self-published". Publisher also printed "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and "Problems in Finite Group Theory" so is not problematic as to what is published. As for asserting the "Mises and Ayn Rand crowd" is somehow anathema to WP, recall that JW is a follower of Rand. The only valid issue is - does Hicls have credentials sufficient to write a book on philosophy? Collect (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia, to avoid opening itself to absolutely every idea anyone wants to promote, needs to limit the kinds of sources it uses. Even if a self-published book is reliable, there is probably a book from a major academic press that says the same thing. If there is not, that is a sign that the ideas are fringe. Mainstream ideas have many sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Romania section deleted by anon editor

References for Romania found in investigation of victims of communist repression also incudes deaths and disappeared individuals (presumed dead) Bobanni (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That is original research. You have to show that there were mass killings. TFD (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of the source in the article is a very tendentious original research. The source specifically says that "direct victims" includes 600,000 people put under trial for political crimes, of which only 1/3 were condemned. The rest (1,4 mil) are peasants put under trial for refusing to participate in the activities of the kolhozes, the POWs taken by Soviets between 23 Aug '44 (the date when Romania declared it changed sides) and 12 September '45 (when Romania signed an armistice with the Allies), which other sources put at around 100,000, deportees (including about 70,000 ethnic Germans expelled after 1945 according to the Allied decision, plus some 45,000 people temporarily moved from the western border in expectation of a Yugoslav invasion), Soviet citizens from Bessarabia and Bukovina repatriated to the Soviet Union, 520,000 people who served in the "grey army" (as the size of Romania's military was limited by the Paris Treaty, a part of the conscripts were not enrolled in the regular army, but in work detachments for public construction projects), "tens of thousand" of people who were put under trial for trying to illegally cross the boundary. So nothing about 2,000,000 deaths. The documents talks about "several thousands" of "unnatural" deaths, including in this number people who died of illness caused by environmental detention conditions, and the largest group killing mentioned is that of 7 (seven!) detainees. Moreover, when talking about indirect victims, it specifically mention that this category refers to "family members who suffered from social discrimination", making it clear that it considers the people "who died in liberty as a result of their treatment in communist prisons" and "who died because of the dire economic circumstances in which the country found itself." as part of the 2,000,000 direct victims. Any Romanian speaker can read the source and confirm the above.

So either bring other sources for that extraordinary large number of deaths, or remove the section.Anonimu (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If "the number of direct victims of communist repression at two million people" refers to the number of arrested, tried, convicted, executed, exiled, deported, died from hunger, disease, etc., then the material re-added by Bobani is not relevant. Please, provide a quote (translated to English) demonstrating that all these two million were killed (or showing another number of killed). The second para (execution of Ceausescu) is irrelevant anyway. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The text, that seems to be irrelevant to the article, has been recently re-added. Since it is impossible to "improve" the irrelevant text, the only reasonable improvement would be its removal. However, before doing that I would like to know if anyone can explain why this text is relevant to the article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor has restored the Rumania section with the notation: "Undid revision 362576700 by The Four Deuces (talk)as it covers an actual conviction for mass murder, it is decidedly on-topic".[7] First, could that editor please explain why the 1989 killing of citizens (now estimated at fewer than 1,000) for which Ceausescu was convicted is seen as "Communist mass killings". Also, could he please explain why the source, a 2001 article on www.moreorless.au.com written by an amateur historian[8] is a reliable source. A side note on writing articles: please go to reliable sources and present what is found there rather than write one's own personal opinion and search for sources that support them. TFD (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As the criminal convictions were for mass killingfs, it would appear per se to be on topic. [9] is an undoybted RS for Four senior officials in the Nicolai Ceausescu Government were convicted yesterday in Bucharest of charges of complicity in genocide. They were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court. Is the New York Times insufficient to make a claim of mass killings by the Romanain governemnt? Collect (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a statement is true is no reason to provide an unreliable source. The source used was a personal website, not the New York Times. You are well aware of WP:RS. Incidentally the link in the New York Times you provided is to the caption of a photograph of officials in Ceausescu government and does not even mention the Ceausescu trial. Could you please read the sources that you are providing. Also, do you have any reliable source that claims the killings were "mass killings"/ If not could you please remove the section. Thanks! TFD (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Is the New York Times insufficient to make a claim of mass killings by the Romanain governemnt?" Of course, no. The New York Times article is a reliable source to make a claim that Ceausescu and his subordinates had been accused in genocide by their political opponents, not that mass killings took place in Romania. It is not clear if (i) the mass killings took place in actuality (genocide =/= mass killing); and (ii) if these accusations were genuine: although I do not argue that Romanian regime was brutal, the primary goal of its opponents was to get rid of Communist leaders as fast as possible, not to establish real facts. Remember Beria was executed for being a foreign spy, that was absolutely ridiculous, although completely understandable: his opponents wanted to execute him as quick as possible, and the most universal pretext during those times was treason.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not just "accused" - but "convicted." WP requires that where such a claim is made by a reliable source (such as the NYT) that it not be ignored. BTW, the NYT has a number of articles thereon - I chose the one which most succinctly stated the claim. Ascribing the matter of a few thousand deaths as acusations by "opponents" is perilously close to a Godwin's Law invocation. Collect (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Accused, convicted, no matter. You apply a Western vision of legal procedures to the ex-Communist country. If someone has been convicted in genocide by communist or ex-communist authorities that doesn't mean he really committed it. Again, Beria was executed for treason, however, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that he really did that. One way or the another, we need the source that openly states that mass killings (not genocide) were committed by Romanian authorities, because not every genocide is a mass killing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's widely accepted nowadays that Ceausescu's trial was a kangaroo court. Even those who participated directly acknowledged in the last few years that the trial did not even respect the laws of the communist regime. Actually Ceausescu's rule was the least bloody part of the Communist regime, with only about a dozen political killings (if you include deaths of women who died during illegal abortions, the number could be raised to hundred, but this is not directly to the political ideology, and it's even contrary to communism).Anonimu (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Find an RS for the conviction being a fake then. Until then WP requires we give WP:V the edge - with the NYT being RS n spades. Collect (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The section you support is not supported by the New York Times, but by a personal website. Please read WP:RS in order to gain an understanding of reliable sources. Thanks! TFD (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: " Find an RS for the conviction being a fake then." It is rather loose interpretation of WP:V. Per WP policy, the burden of proof rests with those who adds/restores the material, and you seem not to sustain the burden. The fact that someone in post-communist Romania was convicted for genocide does not mean that (i) the genocide took place in actuality, and (ii) that that genocide was mass killing (per Valentino definition). --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect did a google search and found something that appeared to be a reliable source from the New York Times.[10] However, the source did not even mention the trial. Collect should provide real sources and read them before presenting them. This article is an embarrassment. Anyone reading it would think that Wikipedia was a collaboration between US teabaggers and Eastern European fascists. TFD (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

In short you want truth and not verifiability to be the rule? It isn't. NYT [11] NYT [12] 1000 killings in one incident. Reuters [13] NYT [14] with the wonderful claim I can't remember if I gave such an order or not. AP [15] An officer testified today that President Nicolae Ceausescu's Defense Minister shot himself in the heart because he could not bring himself to obey the dictator and order troops to fire on demonstrators during last month's uprising. NYT teporting tribunal verdict [16] NYT [17] Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Idi Amin racked up well over 100 million deaths themselves. True or not this all meets WP:V. Scholarly works [18], [19], [20], [21] etc. @TFD, the search is a NYT search for NYT articles. Note the several additional sources for what should be considered supported by RS per WP. Collect (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this. You presented what you said was a source about Ceausescu. Here is the link to the source. Please do not pretend it is anything other than what it is. People can click on the link and read it! It is a description of a picture of Ceausescu followers who were on trial. It says nothing about Ceausescu. Since you have never read this source you presented, please click on the link now and read it. Now you are providing nine sources! It takes you all of one minute to google search for them and then you expect other editors to actually examine them. Are you aware for example that your first reference is from 1991? How does its reference to "the massacre of almost 100 people" morph into "mass killings under Communist regimes"? Why are you providing a newspaper reference close to the event when 1989 was a long time ago and there are now more accurate sources? Before you reply you should ask yourself whether you intend to improve articles so that they present topics in a neutral point of view or whether you want to use these articles to present your Tea Bag point of view. TFD (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. The RS source was quoted precisely by me - despite WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. Did you read the sources furnished? Are thay somehow deficient because they do not agree with what you "know"? Sorry -- WP:V is what applies, and you well ought to consider the WP policies as being binding. Collect (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put in 2 Reliable source - in English- that state NC was convicted of the murder of 60,000 people AND genocide. This is obviously related to the topic of Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. It's from reliable sources. If you want to take this to WP:RSN please do so, but I can't imagine that they'll have much patience with such an obvious case. Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect & Smallbones, I am not questioning that Ceausescu was convicted of genocide, merely stating that the source used is unreliable as a personal website and the first source provided by Collect said nothing about Ceausescu's trial. The next source provided by Collect referred to "the massacre of almost 100 people", which is fewer than the 60,000 claimed by Smallbones. Collect, could you please delete those links which are irrelevant to the facts that you have re-inserted into the article. Smallbones, I am surprised at your total confidence in the indictment against Ceausescu considering that the judges were Communists and no evidence was presented. In fact objective estimates of the massacres during the Rhoumanian revolution are below 1,000. Do you have any sources that claim this was a Communist mass killing? TFD (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, your first source does not mention the trial of Nicolae Ceausescu at all.[22] I am unable to access your second source, however if you mention that Ceausescu was convicted of killing 60,000 people you should also mention what informed opinion is about that. TFD (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody actually denying that there were mass killings under Ceausescu? Are you saying that because you have a source that says 1,000 rather than 60,000 killings, or for another incident only 100 killings, that Ceausescu was not guilty of mass killings? Are you saying that Ceausescu did not head a Communist regime? Earlier somebody compared Ceausescu to Beria, suggesting that therefore he was not a mass killer, and that genocide is not evidence of mass killing! Quit this nonsense - read the passage I put in and the 2 English language footnotes- both are online. If you have reliable sources who say anything different, you may put them in. Smallbones (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reread WP:V It is not up to us ot "know" what is "true" only to make sure that reliable sources are used for any statements.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. is quite clear. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. In connection to that the NYT article is a reliable source for the article about circumstances of Ceausescu's conviction. However, to make a conclusion about mass killing in Romania based on this article is an original research. Try to find some academic source that tells explicitly that mass killings (in a Valentino's scale, more than fifty thousand for five years or less) took place in Romania.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pray tell why we need to use a scale from a single source for determining what is a mass killing? Seems to me that a court finding such is sufficient - as is the lumping of NC with Stalin et al as a mass murderer. And if we take your point seriously, a dictator of an island nation of 49,000 people could kill every single one of the inhabitants and not commit a "mass killing"? Romania is not a juge nation, hence the level to be a mass killing can not be assigned an arbitrary numerical value. Collect (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, you are missing the point. Whether or not the material you sourced is true, it must be backed up by sources. Your source from Genocide in international law does not say anything about Ceausescu.[23] Collect, it does not matter what your personal opinion on what mass killing is. That is original research. TFD (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Correct. The statement that Ceausescu was convicted for genocide is verifiable and the source is relevant to the article about the circumstances of Ceausescu's death.
Re: "Seems to me that a court finding such is sufficient..." Yes, if it is a Western court. In actuality, a decision of Romanian court, immediately after revolution, is hardly an evidence. More reliable evidences have to exist if mass killings took place in actuality.
Re: "a dictator of an island nation of 49,000 people could kill every single one of the inhabitants and not commit a "mass killing" It is a very interesting question. In actuality, as I already wrote before, only few scolars cited in the article see a commonality between mass killings and Communism, and Valentino is one who coined the term "mass killing". Majority of other sources do not see any commonality and discuss different mass killings that occured in one or another Communist country separately. Without Valentino's "Final solution" the whole article would fall apart, because other authors write about Communist repressions (that include not only mass killings), or about genocide (not Communist genocide), democide (committed by totalitarian, not only communist regimes), etc., but not about "Mass killings under Communist regimes". Therefore, if we want this article to exist, we must stick to the Valentino's definition of mass killings. Otherwise the article will become a pure original research (a compilation of unconnected sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly present in none of them) and I will vote for its deletion (although, as you probably noticed, I didn't vote for that before).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why must we use one interpretation from Valentino when the article relies on many sources? Last I checked, the article made no such claim that only Valentino was a valid source. Collect (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The article's claims are not relevant because WP is not a source for itself. The article is based on Valentino's "Final solution" (in actuality, on the fourth chapter of his book; interestingly, Valentino studies not Communist mass killings, but mass killings in general, so such a selective use of this source is somewhat odd). Other authors write about Communist repressions (for each country separately), Democide (by all totalitarian regimes, not only by Communists), Genocide (the same), politicide, etc., so without Valentino the article becomes a compilation of other WP article made around some non-existing concept. In addition, Valentino's concept of "deprivation mass killings" allows us to discuss famines and deportations here (other authors use the term "mass killings" in much narrow sense, so without Valentino, all of that should go). If we do not stick to Valentino we are creating our own concept, that is not explicitly stated in sources. This is a synthesis. Again, although I am not an advocate of deletion of this article, the way you and some other editor change the article suggests that it probably should be deleted because it serves as a permanent seed for sustained attempts of massive synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you need sources to support allegations of mass killings. Articles must be based on reliable sources, not your personal opinions. Paul Siebert is correct about the weight to be given to the summary court that convicted Ceausescu. Do you think that the findings of Communist courts can be considered reliable? If so we should remove from the article any mention of "mass killings" where the individuals were killed as a result of judicial decisions. TFD (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no "personal opinions" on this issue nor do I need to substantiate such. What I presented is that the NYT inter alia reerred to such crimes, and that the NYT is a reliable soure for claims made in it. WP:V applies. As the NYT referred to the court, please feel free to add any RS material about the court - that is how WP:NPOV works. Not by excising RS material because you "know" it is wrong. Collect (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, yes the NYT is a reliable source. But the article you present, which says, "A Romanian court jailed eight Communist officials and members of the secret police today for as long as 25 years for the massacre of almost 100 people during the December 1989 anti-Communist uprising in a western city, Timisoara,"[24] is not a source for the statement, "Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people". Do you understand that a source about people convicted of killing 100 and does not mention any accusations against Ceausescu is not an acceptable source for a statement he killed 60,000 people? TFD (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Since I did not use the NYT for a claim about "60,000 people" it is clear that you are quite confused as to what the NYT says about a conviction of mass killing / genocide in Romania as the various articles refer to them, and the linking by the NYT of NC to Stalin, Pol Pot etc. Please deal wiyth the cites preented and not with straw man issues. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, what are you using this source for? I will post a message at the RSN noticeboard. I do not know what noticeboard to use when editors use sources that are totally unrelated to the opinions they present. TFD (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I set up a discussion thread at the RSN noticeboard here. Perhaps Smallbones and Collect can explain their "reason" and "logic" there. TFD (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"According to William Schabas, these charges were based on an overestimation of the number of deaths during the events of the Romanian revolution." That gives the impression that some people acually accept the indictment used in the summary trial of Ceausescu, which is misleading. Read for example what it says at the museum of the 1989 revolution in Romania: "The scale of the massacre becomes more and more exaggerated with reports of up to 60,000 dead in Timisoara. The borders are closed so frustrated reporters cannot verify anything (actual figures later published were 97 dead and 210 injured in total)."[25] TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cambodia

An editor continues to remove sourced material about US involvement in Cambodia without discussion, with the notations, "false "citing," and this theory is prominent only on the fringe left" and "not reliable sources, sorry you hate America". The source used was Governments, citizens, and genocide: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach published by the Indiana University Press.[26] Could this editor please restore the edit and explain why they consider this "false citing" and why they consider the source to be unreliable. The deleted text was, "Following the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime, they and their coalition parters received aid and assistance from the United States government. While the US was aware of their genocide they supported them as a check on Vietnamese power".[27] The source says, "In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge received aid and assistance from the United States after their regime was overthrown by the Vietnamese in the late 1970s. Even though the nature of the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge was by then well known, the United States saw them as an important check on Vietnamese power...." TFD (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a harsh allegation to make citing only one source, and given the academic divergence, and the fact that the only other person I've heart blame America for the Khmer Rouge is Noam Chomsky, I felt that there is inherent POV when few sources are used in such a strong allegation. Its not even mainstream history.Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which you can find by looking through the books listed here. There is in fact no "academic diversion" from these facts and it is not an allegation against the US. The US did not put the Khmer Rouge into power, they supported Lon Nol. But after the Khmer Rouge victory, they supported them because they sided with China against the pro-Soviet Vietnam in order to weaken Soviet power. They justified this on the basis that ending Communism took priority, and publicly supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government long after they were overthrown. TFD (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as i remember, the United States government (and Western Europe) backed Pol Pot, even after he was forced from power and replaced with a "good" communist regime, or at least much better than the previous. The United States gave 5 million of dollars to Pol Pot's Prime Minister after his ousting to continue the fight against the vietnamese satelite state. Saying this is POV clearly shows that you don't know about the matter at hand. --TIAYN (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead by starvation is still dead

Am I missing something? I can find no mention of the Holmodor.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they didn't kill all those people on purpose. Stalin didn't start the collectivization project to purposly kill thousands, if not millions of people. That was not his intention. An example on something that was his intention was the Great Purge in the 1930s were he purposly killed thousand, maybe even millions of people, to keep power. --TIAYN (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is in the article. TFD (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. I didn't spell it correctly when I did my search.Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. So, if I remember my history and understand you: If you lock someone up in a cage and don't feed them it is murder, but if you simply use the army to keep them from leaving a district w no food, it is politics?Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

One more example of synthesis.

I've reverted the text added by Bobani [28], that is a pure example of synthesis. The sources do not describe expulsion of Germans as Communist mass killing. In connection to that, I re-iterate my recent proposal: since the article is based on the works of those scholars who see a commonality between mass killings in different Communist states and present these killings as pertinent to Communism (Black Book, Rosenfielde, probably Valentino) the article should describe these theories only (along with their criticism). The works of the scholars who study the mass mortality in Communist countries separately from each other, and who do not connect these event with the Communist doctrine should not be used in this article as a support for Communist mass killing theory, because that would be a WP:SYNTH.
Although I am not a proponent of the article's deletion, I am afraid that I will have to change my opinion if the tendency to convert the article into a collection of all facts about excessive mortality under Communist will prevail. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not?

I believe this was brought up a while ago (must be somewhere in the archives, I can't find it), maybe by me, but I'm not sure when my logon ID changed from a number to the current.

Anyway, why doesn't WIKI have a coincident article "Mass Killings under Free Market Regimes"?

Notice I did not say "capitalist" Despite 100 years of misuse, the opposite of "communism (socialism)" is free market. Both are social economic systems. Capitalism is a PROCESS (invest today to benefit tomorrow) and is practiced by everybody, regardless of what they claim.

So, while I believe this article is bad, I also think the bias of only listing one side of the coin is really bad. And no, I'm not going to create it myself. Let someone w an agenda do the work.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any sources showing it is a valid topic for an article? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we assume that the current article should tell about the theories combining mass killings under various Communist regimes together, the answer to the question: "why doesn't WIKI have a coincident article "Mass Killings under Free Market Regimes"?" would be:" because no reputable non-fringe scholars developed such a theory, so we simply have no sources for that; we cannot start to collect different examples of mass killings under free market regimes, because that would be a synthesis"
However, if we decide that the present article, that is just a collection of facts about Communist regimes, is satisfactory, I see absolutely no reason why similar synthesis cannot be performed for the free market regimes, and, therefore, the answer would be: "because, such an article has not been created yet".--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you missed the irony. Why do we have an article that promotes the views of far right extremists, people who equate communism with fascism, deny the holocaust, trivialize it by comparing it with Ukrainian famines and promote the same conspiracy theories as the Third Reich? Do you not agree that this is an embarrassment? TFD (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)