Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Ethiopia

I removed this section. There was no indication in the section that genocide in Ethiopia was "Communist genocide" as opposed to genocide committed by a Communist regime. Note that the Derg replaced a regime that also committed genocide and Ethiopia was engaged in a civil war both before and after the Derg came to power. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

User:C.J. Griffin re-inserted the section with the comment He was a communist ruler actually convicted of the crime. Please not that this argument is synthesis and not contrary to WP policy. See WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is nothing in the sources that connects genocide in Ethiopia to communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When Mengistu Haile Mariam officially calls his policy "the Red Terror" and is convicted of genocide, it does not look like synthesis to me to call it "Communist genocide." True, he did not did not call it "Red Genocide," but he wouldn't would he? Nobody would say such a thing about themselves. Is the supposed synthesis the use of "Red" instead of "Communist"? Please don't try to pull something like that. He called himself a Communist and used he word "Red" to signify Communism, was supported by the Soviet union, actively engaged in what he called Red Terror, and was convicted of genocide. The obvious fact is that this was a Communist genocide. I've removed the synthesis template. Smallbones (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of problems I thought this article would raise when I suggested it be renamed above. Since it is about the theory of 'communist genocide', every proposed example must be assessed to see whether it is covered by that theory; technically, if 'communist genocide' has not been mentioned in relation to an event, then it would be WP:SYN for us to include it here. Whereas if we simply renamed the article to Genocides in communist countries, we wouldn't have that problem - all we'd need is a reliable source saying (a) that an event was genocide, and (b) that it occurred in a communist country. It wouldn't be necessary to determine whether the specific phenomenon of 'communist genocide' applies. Maybe there's no support for that move, but doesn't it seem like a more sensible approach? Robofish (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no concept of Communist genocide then there is no reason for the article at all. Genocides in communist countries would be as invalid an article as Genocides in countries that begin with the letter "A". The justification for not deleting this article was that there was a concept of Communist genocide. Yet this article is not about that subject at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, please don't split the hair between "communist genocide" vs. "genocide committed by a Communist regime". Once again, various sources, including numerous books use the term "communist genocide". It is absolutely correct that both words are used against any intentions of the original meanings. "Communism" in Cambodia has nothing to do with noble, utopian ideas of "communism" as equality and fraternity of people. Still, we use the term "communist state" in very ugly meaning. The same with "genocide": As somebody mentioned it, there is a difference between legal abd common usage of the word (and this happens for many other words). Concluding, wikipedia's job to report how the term "communist genocide" is used, not to prove that it is used in wrong way.

Now, about "mass killings" title. There were plenty of mass killings under communist regimes, which are not called "genocide" even by fierce opponents. The term "genocide" is used to describe mass killings of categories of people, for lack of better term; the term "politicide" somehow did not catch up yet. This is article is not about arbitrary mass killings. If one wishes to really be pinpointing and nailing it down, I may suggest the title Communist genocide and politicide. Indeed, I have seen quite a few texts which do use the "and", including the most recent article I wrote, Law on Communist Genocide, on a particular subject I ran across while browsing sources related to this one. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I went ahead and moved the page you created to a more appropriate name. Please do not create other pages on Wikipedia just to make a point here. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate your correct renaming I do not appreciate your jumping to conclusions (WP:AGF to you, if you like alphabet soups). This is how I usually work: I browse the web for whatever reason, stumble across a topic I don't see in wikipedia, and create an article, without particular presuppositions. In this case I was browsing for "communist genocide" and noticed multiple encounters of the phrase "law on communist genocide", and voila! you have a new article. I prefer to write factual articles, rather than waste my time on various opinionated political essays, often created by cut-and-pastes glued together by some trivial musings and usually vigorously defended by their creators. Now, please explain which exactly POINT you had in mind? - Altenmann >t 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, you say I am splitting hairs and then say numerous books use the term "communist genocide". They do indeed but they do not use it to mean genocide in Communist countries, they use it to refer to genocide committed as a result of Communist ideology. That excludes genocide with motivations other than Communist ideology. Also genocide committed by White Russians and Nazis within Communist Russia or the the Soviet Union were Genocides in Communist countries, although they were not Communist genocide. Incidentally why do you use the lower case "c" in "communist"? Do you want to expand the article to include genocide by communists who were not Communists? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not addressing the title suggestion "genocide in communist countries". As for the usage of the term "CG": there is no common agreement of the purposes of killing termed "CG": it may be either ideologically or politically motivated. And politicians was twist ideology to their favor. As for communists which are not Communists, well, Trotskyites say they are the majority of them. So let's not go into this. Let's not turn this into a "true Scotsman" joke/fallacy. - Altenmann >t 17:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

People who use the term "CG" claim that it is ideologically motivated by Marxist theory, which is why this article exists. Communists did not commit genocide against minorities out of prejudice or jealousy of their property but because they were barriers to the achievement of Marxist ideology, and the writings of Karl Marx advocated this. BTW I think you may have the Communist/communist difference mixed. Big "C" Communism refers to parties that were members of the Communist International, its successor organizations and successor parties. Small "c" communism is a wider concept and includes Trotskyists. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You write: People who use the term "CG" claim that it is ideologically motivated by Marxist theory, which is why this article exists. I don't see this written in our article. Please let us limit the discussion to article content. - Altenmann >t 22:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Discussion of article content may include both what is in and what should be in the article. The majority of people who defended this article claimed that "CG" was ideologically motivated by Marxist theory, which is why the article exists. See the AfD discussion: [1]. A typical comment was Keep, "communist genocide" is a specific concept, for example Rebecca Knuth treats it as such in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial --Martintg (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC) So I am asking that either the article actually contain information about Communist genocide or that it be merged with other genocide article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

the lead says "no communist country or communist individual has ever been charged with or convicted of genocide" right after "Ethiopia has been convicted" and "the highest ranking surviving member of the Khmer Rouge has been charged". What is this, an ouroboros tail swallowing? Also, the fact is that the very first charge of genocide in history submitted to the UN in November 1947 was against Soviet Union. [2] Well, another fact is that since Soviet Union was a member of the security council, such charges never made it to the UN's open agenda.--Termer (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No one gets convicted of genocide. The criteria are much too strict. Ethiopia was convicted of Crimes against humanity and war crimes. Individuals and countries get charged and even convicted of those all the time. Thank you for spotting the '47 charge. Once you learn to appreciate the magnitude of the distinction between WC and CAH and genocide, and between charges and convictions, you will see that the '47 charge, which even the source article points out was overreaching, is effectively trivia that does not really belong in the lede with the rest of what I wrote, but for now it can stay. Anarchangel (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"overreaching" is an opinion of the author in the context. Unlike for example a fact that about 50 years later , on the same basis as the 1947 charge made by the Baltic states, a former head of the KGB was found guilty of genocide and sentenced for life in Latvia where he died in prison.--Termer (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Communist genocide not genocide in Communist countries. Please improve the article by adding information about Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide not genocide in Communist countries? Please read the article and the sources that speak about the subject: Communist genocide = mass killings by communist regimes etc. FYI such regimes only have occurred in what you have called "Communist countries". there have been charges of genocide against Communist regimes/countries and anything saying differently that is not even referenced like your edit [3], can be removed by anybody at any time. Please refer to a source that says so, until then, no source -nothing to talk about.--Termer (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again..."no communist country or communist individual has ever been convicted of genocide"? Opening up the first book on the subject speaks about exact opposite: for example Alfons Noviks, a former head of the KGB On 13 December he was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to life. More about communists sentenced for the crime of genocide available for example McCormack, T. "Soviet genocide trials in the Baltic states, the relevance of international law". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2004. pp. 388–409. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)--Termer (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I concede the 'individual'. I am content with "no communist country or government has ever been convicted of genocide"

As for the rest of the changes: you really ought to include some of the sentences from the source nearby the ones you cherrypicked, such as, "In the majority of the Estonian cases the charges of genocide have been connected with the preparation and carrying out of deportations.", which comes right before the one you put in the article, "In 1999 Vassilli Beshkv was convicted for an 'intent to destroy in part a national group offering resitance (sic) to the occupation regime which was also a social group declared "kulaks"'"

It is a rather novel approach to law, would you not say, to accuse a person of genocide for deporting someone? Estonians died of the cold, on long train journeys in railway freight cars. But a Russian commissar who signs a deportation order is not genocidal because of what happened to the people he deported, any more than the customs officials who deport someone would be, should they put someone aboard a plane that crashed. If they knew it would crash, it might be manslaughter, it might even be murder, and if you could prove it was politically motivated it might be politicide, but it is not genocide. So take a care what you dig up, and how you present it. The Estonians are quite clearly subverting the definition of genocide to suit their political agenda. It would behoove you not to repeat their mistakes. Anarchangel (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Anarchangel do not use wikipedia talk pages for publishing essays on the subject. If you do have problems with the facts cited by the sources, please take it to the relevant addressees.--Termer (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Split this article

Many editors have requested that the name of this article be changed to "Genocide in Communist countries". My reaction has been that the term "Communist genocide" has a specific meaning, even though it is not mentioned in the lead to this article, and has a different meaning from "Genocide in Communist countries". Therefore I suggest that the article be split into two articles: "Communist genocide in Communist countries" and "Non-Communist genocide in Communist countries". The first article would describe genocide committed by Communist regimes as part of Communist ideology while the second article would describe genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a rather odd concept: "genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology". --Martintg (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Martintg defended this article at the AfD claiming that there was a concept of "Communist genocide"/"communist genocide" (he never explained which it was). However, no one has explained the concept of Communist genocide in this article. I ask Martintg why after valiantly defending this article he does not edit the article in order to explain his theory of Communist genocide that he defended in the AfD. This is surprising becaue Martintg discussed his theories extensively. In case they are forgotten, allow me to quote Martintg's reasons for keeping this article. If Martintg has now abandoned his previous beliefs about "Communist genocide" then the article should be deleted. I will now list Martintg's reasons for keeping this article and note that the article in no way reflects any of the reasons he gave.

Explanation of the theory of Communist genocide, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"communist genocide" is a specific concept, for example Rebecca Knuth treats it as such in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial The Holocaust is also a "democide" according to Rummel's definition, by your reasoning the Holocaust was not genocide? Quite a number of authors such as Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth have made the connection between mass killing in a number of communist regimes, the connection being that communist ideology was used as the justification for the killing See the works by Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. Actually the concept is not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray publisged the concept of "Communist genocide" here. The concept of "Communist genocide", linking the genocides committed by various communist governments and attributing the phenomenon as a feature of Communist policy is published here. Communists certainly intended to destroy national groups, hence they committed genocide, as the literature shows This is simply not true. Many books do make a link between communist ideology and genocide, see Eric D. Weitz's book A century of genocide for example Indeed if you read further the paragraph states it was a combination of reactions similar to what moved the Nazi system from discrimination to genocide, so the author seems to be implying that Nazi ideology alone is an insufficient explanation too. Either way, ideology is a factor, the question is to what degree. Communist ideology promotes the destruction of national groups, no question about that, and destruction of national groups is genocide according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is well known that Karl Marx was a racist. In "On the Jewish Question" Marx spoke of the Jews as a nationality in highly abusive and venomous language, heaping abuse on their religion, calling the Jews a "chimerical nationality" which he saw destined to disappear as a spiritual and cultural entity. Marx was against the Czechs and Southern Slaves too, stating:"Because the Czechs and the Southern Slavs were then 'reactionary nations', 'Russian outposts' in Europe, outposts of absolutism … to give support to the national movements of the Czechs and Southern Slavs at that time would have been to give indirect support to Tsarism, a most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe." Not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. Comment - Ellen Frankel Paul in the book Totalitarianism at the crossroads discusses the general concept of "communist genocide":"Again, it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life" There is nothing in John N. Gray's bio that suggests that this British political philosopher and former Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics is a fringe theorist. He appears to have published extensively and in fact there is a book written about him: The Political Theory of John Gray, which states "He is much cited and discussed within political and social theory, but he also has a much wider audience, being one of those quite rare creatures in British academic life, a public intellectual, writing regularly for the quality press and appearing on both radio and TV". So I don't see where you get the idea his views are "largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles". What ever your personal view is of John Gray, it cannot now be said that the concept of "Communist genocide" is WP:SYNTH Genocides have particular characteristics, Nazi genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for Jewish people, while Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples. How so? The line "Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples" is from a published source, the comparison to Nazi genocide is not made in the article, but merely a response to User:Multixfer. I'm not sure what you are exactly arguing for here, when you state "should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed", this article does the opposite and aggregates a number of genocides into one article, an aggregation that is supported in the literature because of its particular features related to Communist ideology that makes it stand apart from regular genocide. This has already been mentioned several times above. However the article has since been significantly expanded by several other editors of good standing. So what? "Communist mass killing" [16] also gets tons of hits. This is a naming issue which is a content issue that should properly be discussed on the article talk page rather than here. "Zionist mass murder" only gives me 1,060 hits. Indeed Google searches throw up some strange results, and only covers stuff that is online in any case. I think we are straying off topic here, what we name a topic is a content issue, to be discussed else where, we don't go deleting an article because we don't like the name Claiming "A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work" mis-interprets of the previous discussion, please provide a published source that contends John Gray's chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" published in the book "Totalitarianism at the crossroads" is in any way "controversial". There is nothing in John N. Gray bio that suggests that he is a fringe theorist or controversial, yet we have Wikipedians here who have asserted that without providing any evidence what so ever. It is the quality of sources, not quantity, that determines reliability, and by all accounts John Gray is a scholar of the highest order. Now you are engaging in WP:SYNTH, taking the comments from a publisher about an unrelated book written by somebody else and applying it to John Gray's particular chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" in "Totalitarianism at the crossroads". You really need to find a published scholarly review on John Gray's specific views about "Communist genocide" before you can claim it is "controversial", without it no controversy exists. As for this claim of "POV fork", what is the name of the article that this is supposedly a fork of Again, this is just a naming issue which should be addressed as a content issue on the talk page, some names are used more often than others in various contexts, but they all point to the same underlying topic, the mass killing of people by totalitarian communist regimes around the world. What is "inherently POV" about this topic? What is the alternate POV this article is suppose to fork, that communist regimes didn't kill anyone? Has anyone provided any sources that articulate the claim that no one was killed? "Communist genocide" is a specific term discussed in books, memorial days proclaimed for and courts prosecuting alleged perpetrators because of it. It is a notable and worthy topic no matter how you want to name it. Probably more likely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITitis. We have people here asserting it is "inherently POV", but seem unable to articulate what the actual POV issue is. I don't see anywhere in the article that makes the judgment that Communism is "something totally evil", it is for the reader to judge. Is it a fact that these regimes engaged in mass killing, many eminent scholars contend in published sources that these mass killings were genocidal and a common feature of totalitarian communist policy in multiple regimes, and discuss it in terms of "communist genocide". Would you be comfortable if the article was renamed to Communist mass killings, or would you also contend that was POV too, disputing even that fact? *Sorry, but this comes across as personal opinion, you need to find published sources that make these claims and add it to the article per WP:YESPOV. Plenty of published sources associate mass killings with Communism have been provided, you need to find reliable sources that assert there is no connection between mass killing and totalitarian Communism. Easy, see the book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, chapter 4. Some seem to hold the view that there is no causal link between communist ideology and mass killings. The view seems to be that the mass killings in the former USSR, the Democratic Kampuchea, in the People's Republic of China and Ethiopia were all independent events where the ideology of government was just co-incidental, not a root cause. The problem is that no evidence is presented from published sources that supports the case that this view of no causal link is held by any significant author, we are just left with the unqualified opinion of some Wikipedians that this is the case. When presented with books that make that causal link, like Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, the author who has published extensively in academia is immediately dismissed as a crazy fringe theorist by the AfD nominator. So have you published your theory of no causal link between totalitarian communism and mass killing in some journal? One eminent scholar (fringe theorist according to our AfD nominator) has stated "it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life". How about you provide evidence for your assertion "As far as I can tell his theory has received no recognition either from the academic community" by providing a published paper that refutes the causal link between the communism and mass killing. Seems all you can offer is "common sense", i.e. OR, and a personal attack. How about trying to contribute to the debate by supplying a peer-reviewed paper that claims that ideology was not a factor in mass killings in the various Communist regimes. With regard to the POV fork argument, the nominator seems the believe this article is a direct POV fork of the article Communism, when in fact is is simply a valid sub article of a notable topic in need of coverage (and there is a vast range of sub topics in this space, see Template:Communism), (I note also that Wikipedia does not have an article Totalitarian communism either). Whether we call it Communist genocide, Communist mass killing, Totalitarian Communist mass killing, Communist inspired mass murder or something else is really just a naming issue, but the underlying topic is a valid one and is covered extensively in the literature [24] There is no escaping the fact that there is a significant body of literature that does discus and make the link between mass killing and the implementation of communist ideology, no matter how much we would want to paint prominent scholars and authors that hold that view as "fringe theorists" The argument "Communist" and "genocide" is not a meaningful intersection of topics" is as meaningless as the argument "Islam" and "terrorism" is not a meaningful intersection of topics", yet we have the article Islamic terrorism precisely because it is a meaningful intersection. You argument appears to be equivalent to claiming that since there is nothing inherently "evil" or inhuman in the Koran, the article Islamic terrorism should be deleted. It the issue is one of labeling the entire theory as genocidal, why would you object to renaming to Totalitarian Communist genocide? Would you consider Totalitarian Communist mass killing? Surely nobody here disputes that mass killing was a defining feature of Totalitarian Communist regimes, even if some of us claim the mass killing wasn't genocide. How can you claim it is SYNTH, then acknowledge "that there is a historic linkage between events, roughly along the arguments of the Black Book". If the author of the Black Book, Stéphane Courtois, writes about this linkage in his book, as Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth also do in their respective books, then it is no longer SYNTH. No body has provided authors that have contended that there is no linkage, so how can you speak of a "wider historical debate" Synthesis is advancing a new position, how is what is in the lead new from what has already been published by Peter A. Zuckerman, Benjamin Valentino and Benjamin Wiker, who are essentially saying the same thing? In fact, the Black Book appears to be only cited within the body in regard to numbers of deaths, So I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "Copypasting a summary of a highly politicized document like the Black Book". "even though there are plenty of sources claiming the link is merely coincidental at best", care to post these sources that claim that Communist ideology was not a factor in mass killing in these regimes? Indeed, not withstanding the question whether or not the mass killing was genocide, the fact that mass killing was inspired by Communist ideology is not in question. It is interesting to note that the Dictionary of Genocide has an entry for "Communism", characterizing it as an intolerant, repressive and genocidal political force in the modern world. In fact in the same book states that mass killings along the lines of genocide are often motivated doctrinally. Genocide scholar Helen Fein contends such genocides are justified by an articulated social goal that enjoins the destruction of the victims. It goes on to state that the notion of "class struggle" was used as a guideline for aggressive policies that has led to regimes using genocidal means to destroy the "enemies of the working class", leading to the destruction of millions of lives. So Communist mass killing is certainly a valid topic. Please don't get personal, I wasn't alone in supporting keeping this article. Evidently you still seem to be a bit upset that the article was not deleted, given your lengthy response. You want the article split yet you haven't supplied on single source that supports the notion of "genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology". --Martintg (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

New lead

I propose putting User:Martintg's ideas into the lead. However they appear to be too long. Perhaps Martintg could summarize them. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well ofcourse the article lead has been significantly changed since the AfD, if you want to revert it back, be my guest. BTW, it is not "my idea" that genocide in Communist countries was driven by communist ideology, but the idea of Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. --Martintg (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your whole justification for this article was that that genocide in Communist countries was driven by communist ideology. If you no longer believe this, then the article should be deleted. If you now want to delete the article then I will support you new view. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What an odd discussion, as if articles are kept or deleted upon the basis of my personal opinion. If you are still unhappy about the result of the AfD, don't take it out on me. As I recall, many people argued that this article should be kept, and many published authors continue believe that Communism is a misanthropic ideology that has an innate tendency to be genocidal. You may disagree with their viewpoint, but WP:RS requires us to acknowledge it regardless of whether we like it or not. --Martintg (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

So shall we include a section of "reliable sources" defending communism and arguing that it is the only way to avoid capitalist genocide? I don't see how you can base an article on such claims without giving them undue weight. csloat (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether genocide is driven by ideology or ideology is quoted as a justification for genocide, it's a dance of ideology and genocide. I wouldn't expect the article to be deleted any time soon. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a suggested lead for the article, please comment:

Communist genocide is a fringe theory developed during the cold war, that mass killing was inspired by Communist ideology. The theory was written about in the Black Book of Communism, and popularized by the John Birch Society and other radical right-wing American groups. However since the end of Communism the theory has gone into decline, and has been replaced by other conspiracy theories, such as the New World Order.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh no. Now THAT is complete OR and SYNTH, as well as complete nonsense.radek (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some cite tags to your proposed lead. Do you have a source, or is it your own original research? --Martintg (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with the exceptions of Italy and Japan (who were vicious, but possibly NOT genocidal) the major genocides of the 20th century were primarily committed by regimes at least CLAIMING to be communist.Aaaronsmith (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice you left out Germany, I guess you think they got a bad rap. Turkey too. Then there are numerous recent examples. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You made the same mistake the media, hollywood, the socialists have been quietly ignoring for 70 years. The NAZIS (a term they rarely used themselves) were socialist almost indistinguishable from communists. Hitler stated it in his speeches and the only difference between the two I've ever seen in print is the Russian communists thought lumpenman had to give up his individuality to achieve perfection while the NAZIS thought he could keep it. Where do you think the term NAZI comes from? An acronym of the german words for National Socialism aka the National Workers (arbeite) Society - - - -

As for Turkey, you've got me. Unless . . . . anyone know what the Turkish government claimed to be?Aaaronsmith (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard that theory before. The fringe theory promoted by Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism was that both Nazis and Italian Fascists were socilialists. ("Fascists" in France, Spain and other countries were however right-wing.) But he never claimed that Nazis were Communists and drew no distinction between Nazis and Italian Fascists. I would be most appreciative if you could provide a source for your theory. Also, do you believe that genocide occured in Nazi Germany or was this just left-wing propaganda? Incidentally Turkey was right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have not heard of A. James Gregor's book The Faces of Janus or the recent OSCE resolution equating Communism with Nazism? we all know that Fascism had its origins in communism, and communism exhibited facets of fascism from its inception. --Martintg (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)He did not say that Nazis were Communists. He said "The fact is that the Soviet Union of Josef Stalin was more like fascism than intellectuals throughout the decades from the 1930s to the 1980s seemed prepared to allow." (I don't have a copy of the book and there is no JBS bookstore where I live.) Anyway Aaaronsmith draws a distinction between Nazis, who he says were "Communist" and Italian Fascists. Do you know of any theory that considers Nazis to be Communists or socialists but puts Italian Fascists in a different category? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry The Four Deuces for lecturing but, the political spectrum does not follow a straight line but forms a circle. on one edge of the circle there are people who believe in democracy and on the opposite side of the circle, right next to each other sit the extremist right and left wings. You're acting like you're surprised that "nazi" means national socialism? National socialism is an extremist right wing ideology and communism the extreme "left wing". And on the political scale, on the circle those stand right next to each-other. At the same time the national socialism doesn't have anything to do with for example the modern Scandinavian style social democratic welfare states that run on the Social democratic ideology. And that might be the best candidate for the opposing force in the political scale, meaning n the circle to the extreme lefts&rights, "nazis and commies".--Termer (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, that is only one conception of the political spectrum. Here's a link to the seating plan of the the European parliament. Ex-Communists sit on the far left and neo-fascists are on the far right. (Of course the fascists sit as independents but they occupied the far right when they had party status, as fascist always have.)[4] But Aaaaronsmith's theory is that while Nazis were communists (which they circle theory does not say) the Italisn Fascists were not. I just have not come across this theory before. Btw I have met people from across the political spectrum and Communists and fascists seem to express different views. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources

I wonder what you think of this piece.

Also this book might be of interest. (Igny (talk))

One more holodomor denial (quote:The myth of the Ukrainian famine was created by the most reactionary sections of American society) (Igny (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Considering that WP has an extensive article on the black book of communism and other anti communist books, articles and opinions, I think it is time to create an article about the article "Democratic Genocide" by Curtis. It is a widely cited piece, see here for an interesting opinion about that article and the events which were the reason for the article. (Igny (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Just some interesting quotes from here (Igny (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

the Cold War liberals championed the Genocide Convention as a weapon in the anti-Communist arsenal,

James J. Martin concludes perceptively: "... over 40 years after Raphael Lemkin invented the word 'genocide,' most people who have heard it think they know what it means. The overwhelming majority of them are mistaken; they do not."

I would really like to know why Indonesian killings of 1965–66 and the Operation Condor are not mentioned in this article. (Igny (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't have time to read the references right now (gotta go) but I will note we are beginning to make a semantic mistake in our politics. This article may be an obvious attempt to trash communism. The suggestions to respond by having a new article to show the other side are reasonable. HOWEVER, both of the suggestions I have read have been just plain wrong. One suggested capitalism - which is NOT the opposite of Communism (I don't care how ofter the radicals in my classes at Berkeley misused the term). The other suggests democracy - a complete misunderstanding of the lexicography. Most of the communist regimes claimed to be "democracratic", some were legally if de facto something else, and some really were democracies (let us remember Hitler was legally elected).

I'll come back and follow your links to inform myself, but for the moment, we will keep this thread a whole lot cleaner if we remember that to show the opposite of "communist genocides" the opposing article should be named "free market genocide" (or something pretty close). This will avoid a LOT of misunderstanding and arguing over nothing.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Igny, Communist genocide should include genocide against suspected Communists. This happened in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Congo, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and many other countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What next, will you be advocating for an article about genocide against suspected Nazis? --Martintg (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Free market genocide"? To avoid confusion?? That seems nuts to me. "Genocide" literally means killing a people or a race, not a belief system or economic arrangement. If genocides were committed in the name of stamping out "communism" then sure it could be included here, but the idea of "genocide against Communists" is not a real concept, since Communists are not a race or culture. csloat (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment (I'm not back). You're catching on to the problems. Communism is an economic system, and the opposite is free market (and Yes, it does sound dumb). On the other hand communISTS are a culture. A cross ethnic, cross cultural, etc. sub culture, just like Christianity.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well you can say that only if you're using a definition of culture that is, well, entirely bogus. North Korean communists, Cuban communists, and American communists in no way share "cultural" ties. So, no, there is no genocide against "communists" and there is no genocide against "free marketeers", and, in fact, there really is no Communist genocide, ultimately, which is the problem with this whole thing. csloat (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We are wasting everyone's time talking about topics other than the article, for example, what is the theoretical opposite of "communist" so we can have equal time on genocide articles. Please feel free to start a genocide task force or go to already established articles such as United States and state terrorism and take those conversations elsewhere and not muddy the waters here. Thank you. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  02:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: We have already wasted so much time about the trollish synthesis, now we are discussing the ways to improve the article. So please stop stalling the discussion. (Igny (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Vecrumba, this discussion is getting off topic, which is genocide by communists, not against them (I agree with Commodore Sloat here, the idea of "genocide against Communists" is not a real concept). --Martintg (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why as you hopefully noticed I did not suggest an article on anti-communist genocide. Also since the communist genocide is clearly is not a real concept, why were you against merging this article to genocides in history?(Igny (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

In case 'communist genocide' is not a real concept in someones opinion, why should it be merged into genocides in history in the first place? I mean, only someone who thinks that communist genocide was a genocide should support adding it among other genocides in history.--Termer (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a number of unrelated incidents that have been termed genocide. The correct article for these incidents is genocide. If in fact they were not genocides then perhaps they should be put in an article called alleged genocide. But since there is a consensus that there is no such thing as "communist genocide" then there is no more reason to have this article than to have an article about genocides that were committed in even-numbered years. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I said this once and repeat it again. Merge the article to genocides in history for better context, more neutral coverage, and to fix synth issues. Most of this article is already there (please spend a few moments to read genocides in history) just add the missing tidbits which would look less SYNTH in that article. (Igny (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Please stop coming up with the same arguments again and again that everybody has heard hundreds of times at this talk page exactly like at the AfD. There is no point of keep circling the discussion around. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop asking provocative questions then if you already know the answers and your only intent seems to be to attack them. Is that your only counterargument that I repeated myself 3 times in 3 different places? (Igny (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

asking provocative questions? attack them? Whom? I must have missed something but, if I only had any idea what are you talking about?--Termer (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. in case you were referring to my question above, how exactly was that provocative? It's straight forward logic, if you don't think that the 60-100 people killed by the communist regimes has anything to do with the term genocide, why to advocate adding it to genocides in history? It just doesn't make any sense. And I'm sorry if this feels anything like "attack them". In an intelligent discussion arguments should follow certain extent of logic and or reason. If it lacks reason, the discussion is not going to get anywhere.--Termer (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Igny (please accept this as a comment not intended to start a fight): Wiki already has articles w titles pretty much that stupid. For example: "List of Events Named Massacre". Right. The Black Hole of Calcutta and the Rape of Nanking don't qualify. But they had to perform backflips to disqualify the "Barbie Massacre" (a strange piece of action art that actually happened and was actually called a massacre). Go figure.Aaaronsmith (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction (sigh this really isn't my week and had a terrible edit conflict posting above that encouraged me to hit return before proofing) above should have been addressed to Four Deuces and should have referenced his comment about "genocides committed in even numbered years".Aaaronsmith (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the term "Communist genocide"

The article still lacks the definition of the concept "Communist genocide". The section Definition only talks about the term "genocide". Add to this section the definition of "communist" and you will only observe the synthesis in action. Now since it is indisputable that the term is indeed used in various sources, so I suggest replace the section Definition (which lacks the definition anyways) by the History of the term or something similar to describe who when and why uses this term (again no one yet produced the source which defines the term). Again, in my opinion, the article should be about the usage of the term "Communist genocide" rather than about the non-existing concept of "communist genocide". (Igny (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree. Perhaps you could do this. There should also be a discussion of the validity of the term. Since the concept has not entered mainstream academic discourse we will have to rely on book reviews which of course should be taken from respected newspapers. Also, we should be clear in the title that the "c" in "Communist" is upper case. Btw Martintg provided an excellent listing of the literature on "Communist genocide" which I have summarized above at Talk:Communist genocide#Split this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This search for a "definition of a concept" is a straw man argument. This is not an article about a concept, it is an article about events that have been perpetrated by Communists that have been deemed to be genocide by reliable sources. Communist terrorism is a similar article, yet I see no one clamoring to get that article deleted. --Martintg (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nonsense - I was clamoring to get that article deleted about a year ago, and it only remained because a cabal of editors wouldn't let it go. That article is even worse of an abuse of Wikipedia than this one, frankly, and I will gladly jump on board if anyone else wants to start the AfD process, and I will again explain exactly why that article is a complete and ineluctable WP:SYN violation. csloat (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(out)User:Martintg defended this article at the AfD claiming that there was a concept of "Communist genocide"/"communist genocide" (he never explained which it was). However, no one has explained the concept of Communist genocide in this article. I ask Martintg why after valiantly defending this article he does not edit the article in order to explain his theory of Communist genocide that he defended in the AfD. This is surprising becaue Martintg discussed his theories extensively. In case they are forgotten, allow me to quote Martintg's reasons for keeping this article. If Martintg has now abandoned his previous beliefs about "Communist genocide" then the article should be deleted. I will now list Martintg's reasons for keeping this article and note that the article in no way reflects any of the reasons he gave.

Explanation of the theory of Communist genocide, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"communist genocide" is a specific concept, for example Rebecca Knuth treats it as such in the chapter Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial The Holocaust is also a "democide" according to Rummel's definition, by your reasoning the Holocaust was not genocide? Quite a number of authors such as Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth have made the connection between mass killing in a number of communist regimes, the connection being that communist ideology was used as the justification for the killing See the works by Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. Actually the concept is not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray publisged the concept of "Communist genocide" here. The concept of "Communist genocide", linking the genocides committed by various communist governments and attributing the phenomenon as a feature of Communist policy is published here. Communists certainly intended to destroy national groups, hence they committed genocide, as the literature shows This is simply not true. Many books do make a link between communist ideology and genocide, see Eric D. Weitz's book A century of genocide for example Indeed if you read further the paragraph states it was a combination of reactions similar to what moved the Nazi system from discrimination to genocide, so the author seems to be implying that Nazi ideology alone is an insufficient explanation too. Either way, ideology is a factor, the question is to what degree. Communist ideology promotes the destruction of national groups, no question about that, and destruction of national groups is genocide according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is well known that Karl Marx was a racist. In "On the Jewish Question" Marx spoke of the Jews as a nationality in highly abusive and venomous language, heaping abuse on their religion, calling the Jews a "chimerical nationality" which he saw destined to disappear as a spiritual and cultural entity. Marx was against the Czechs and Southern Slaves too, stating:"Because the Czechs and the Southern Slavs were then 'reactionary nations', 'Russian outposts' in Europe, outposts of absolutism … to give support to the national movements of the Czechs and Southern Slavs at that time would have been to give indirect support to Tsarism, a most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe." Not synth, noted British political philosopher John N. Gray discusses the concept of "Communist genocide" here. Comment - Ellen Frankel Paul in the book Totalitarianism at the crossroads discusses the general concept of "communist genocide":"Again, it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life" There is nothing in John N. Gray's bio that suggests that this British political philosopher and former Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics is a fringe theorist. He appears to have published extensively and in fact there is a book written about him: The Political Theory of John Gray, which states "He is much cited and discussed within political and social theory, but he also has a much wider audience, being one of those quite rare creatures in British academic life, a public intellectual, writing regularly for the quality press and appearing on both radio and TV". So I don't see where you get the idea his views are "largely ignored outside the National Review and libertarian circles". What ever your personal view is of John Gray, it cannot now be said that the concept of "Communist genocide" is WP:SYNTH Genocides have particular characteristics, Nazi genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for Jewish people, while Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples. How so? The line "Communist genocide was derived from an explicit and pronounced contempt for any small, "backward" and reactionary peoples" is from a published source, the comparison to Nazi genocide is not made in the article, but merely a response to User:Multixfer. I'm not sure what you are exactly arguing for here, when you state "should we have 50,000 short POV fork articles and stubs about every instance of genocide committed", this article does the opposite and aggregates a number of genocides into one article, an aggregation that is supported in the literature because of its particular features related to Communist ideology that makes it stand apart from regular genocide. This has already been mentioned several times above. However the article has since been significantly expanded by several other editors of good standing. So what? "Communist mass killing" [16] also gets tons of hits. This is a naming issue which is a content issue that should properly be discussed on the article talk page rather than here. "Zionist mass murder" only gives me 1,060 hits. Indeed Google searches throw up some strange results, and only covers stuff that is online in any case. I think we are straying off topic here, what we name a topic is a content issue, to be discussed else where, we don't go deleting an article because we don't like the name Claiming "A passing reference as part of a controversial discussion of political liberalism by John N. Gray is not a substitute for significant scholarly work" mis-interprets of the previous discussion, please provide a published source that contends John Gray's chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" published in the book "Totalitarianism at the crossroads" is in any way "controversial". There is nothing in John N. Gray bio that suggests that he is a fringe theorist or controversial, yet we have Wikipedians here who have asserted that without providing any evidence what so ever. It is the quality of sources, not quantity, that determines reliability, and by all accounts John Gray is a scholar of the highest order. Now you are engaging in WP:SYNTH, taking the comments from a publisher about an unrelated book written by somebody else and applying it to John Gray's particular chapter "Totalitarianism, Reform and Civil Society" in "Totalitarianism at the crossroads". You really need to find a published scholarly review on John Gray's specific views about "Communist genocide" before you can claim it is "controversial", without it no controversy exists. As for this claim of "POV fork", what is the name of the article that this is supposedly a fork of Again, this is just a naming issue which should be addressed as a content issue on the talk page, some names are used more often than others in various contexts, but they all point to the same underlying topic, the mass killing of people by totalitarian communist regimes around the world. What is "inherently POV" about this topic? What is the alternate POV this article is suppose to fork, that communist regimes didn't kill anyone? Has anyone provided any sources that articulate the claim that no one was killed? "Communist genocide" is a specific term discussed in books, memorial days proclaimed for and courts prosecuting alleged perpetrators because of it. It is a notable and worthy topic no matter how you want to name it. Probably more likely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEITitis. We have people here asserting it is "inherently POV", but seem unable to articulate what the actual POV issue is. I don't see anywhere in the article that makes the judgment that Communism is "something totally evil", it is for the reader to judge. Is it a fact that these regimes engaged in mass killing, many eminent scholars contend in published sources that these mass killings were genocidal and a common feature of totalitarian communist policy in multiple regimes, and discuss it in terms of "communist genocide". Would you be comfortable if the article was renamed to Communist mass killings, or would you also contend that was POV too, disputing even that fact? *Sorry, but this comes across as personal opinion, you need to find published sources that make these claims and add it to the article per WP:YESPOV. Plenty of published sources associate mass killings with Communism have been provided, you need to find reliable sources that assert there is no connection between mass killing and totalitarian Communism. Easy, see the book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, chapter 4. Some seem to hold the view that there is no causal link between communist ideology and mass killings. The view seems to be that the mass killings in the former USSR, the Democratic Kampuchea, in the People's Republic of China and Ethiopia were all independent events where the ideology of government was just co-incidental, not a root cause. The problem is that no evidence is presented from published sources that supports the case that this view of no causal link is held by any significant author, we are just left with the unqualified opinion of some Wikipedians that this is the case. When presented with books that make that causal link, like Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century, the author who has published extensively in academia is immediately dismissed as a crazy fringe theorist by the AfD nominator. So have you published your theory of no causal link between totalitarian communism and mass killing in some journal? One eminent scholar (fringe theorist according to our AfD nominator) has stated "it must be observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Once again, communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life". How about you provide evidence for your assertion "As far as I can tell his theory has received no recognition either from the academic community" by providing a published paper that refutes the causal link between the communism and mass killing. Seems all you can offer is "common sense", i.e. OR, and a personal attack. How about trying to contribute to the debate by supplying a peer-reviewed paper that claims that ideology was not a factor in mass killings in the various Communist regimes. With regard to the POV fork argument, the nominator seems the believe this article is a direct POV fork of the article Communism, when in fact is is simply a valid sub article of a notable topic in need of coverage (and there is a vast range of sub topics in this space, see Template:Communism), (I note also that Wikipedia does not have an article Totalitarian communism either). Whether we call it Communist genocide, Communist mass killing, Totalitarian Communist mass killing, Communist inspired mass murder or something else is really just a naming issue, but the underlying topic is a valid one and is covered extensively in the literature [24] There is no escaping the fact that there is a significant body of literature that does discus and make the link between mass killing and the implementation of communist ideology, no matter how much we would want to paint prominent scholars and authors that hold that view as "fringe theorists" The argument "Communist" and "genocide" is not a meaningful intersection of topics" is as meaningless as the argument "Islam" and "terrorism" is not a meaningful intersection of topics", yet we have the article Islamic terrorism precisely because it is a meaningful intersection. You argument appears to be equivalent to claiming that since there is nothing inherently "evil" or inhuman in the Koran, the article Islamic terrorism should be deleted. It the issue is one of labeling the entire theory as genocidal, why would you object to renaming to Totalitarian Communist genocide? Would you consider Totalitarian Communist mass killing? Surely nobody here disputes that mass killing was a defining feature of Totalitarian Communist regimes, even if some of us claim the mass killing wasn't genocide. How can you claim it is SYNTH, then acknowledge "that there is a historic linkage between events, roughly along the arguments of the Black Book". If the author of the Black Book, Stéphane Courtois, writes about this linkage in his book, as Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth also do in their respective books, then it is no longer SYNTH. No body has provided authors that have contended that there is no linkage, so how can you speak of a "wider historical debate" Synthesis is advancing a new position, how is what is in the lead new from what has already been published by Peter A. Zuckerman, Benjamin Valentino and Benjamin Wiker, who are essentially saying the same thing? In fact, the Black Book appears to be only cited within the body in regard to numbers of deaths, So I don't quite understand what you mean when you say "Copypasting a summary of a highly politicized document like the Black Book". "even though there are plenty of sources claiming the link is merely coincidental at best", care to post these sources that claim that Communist ideology was not a factor in mass killing in these regimes? Indeed, not withstanding the question whether or not the mass killing was genocide, the fact that mass killing was inspired by Communist ideology is not in question. It is interesting to note that the Dictionary of Genocide has an entry for "Communism", characterizing it as an intolerant, repressive and genocidal political force in the modern world. In fact in the same book states that mass killings along the lines of genocide are often motivated doctrinally. Genocide scholar Helen Fein contends such genocides are justified by an articulated social goal that enjoins the destruction of the victims. It goes on to state that the notion of "class struggle" was used as a guideline for aggressive policies that has led to regimes using genocidal means to destroy the "enemies of the working class", leading to the destruction of millions of lives. So Communist mass killing is certainly a valid topic. Please don't get personal, I wasn't alone in supporting keeping this article. Evidently you still seem to be a bit upset that the article was not deleted, given your lengthy response. You want the article split yet you haven't supplied on single source that supports the notion of "genocide committed by Communist regimes that was unrelated to Communist ideology". --Martintg (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just post this all before? Seems rather pointy. Given that the first term in a title (or sentence) is usually capitalized, what on earth are you on about with big "c" and little "C" communism? --Martintg (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are of course aware of this but I will explain it none the less for people who are not aware. The term communist can mean many things, some people have called communes communist because of their communal organization. The term "Communist" with a big "C" refers to the CPUSA and associatied political parties. I re-posted this because you provided considerable evidence of the fringe theory of "Communist/communist" genocide. Since most readers do not live near a John Birch Society or British National Party bookstore, then I thought it would be helpful to provide them with a heads up to right wing publications that would assist them in developing the lead to the article. Since you know a lot about the theory of Communist genocide, it would be helpful if you could assist in writing a lead for this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"No one has explained the concept of Communist genocide in this article"? And the article still lacks the definition of the concept "Communist genocide"? Why does this keep coming up again an again? But never mind, feel free.. the answer is still the same The article defines Communist genocide according to the sources more than clearly enough. In case anybody has not taken tme to read the sources nor the article, no problem, here is how Communist genocide is defined: Mass killings of some 60-100 million people committed by Communist regimes. It can't get more straight forward than that.--Termer (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Now all is needed is a source which says something like A genocide according to the UN convention is mass killings etc etc. A genocide is considered to be a communist genocide if ...... If that condition does not hold then the genocide is not communist but rather... ummm some other kind of genocide?. Fill the dots please. (Igny (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

This is about the tenth time the UN convention has been brought up. The answer is still the same, who has said that Communist genocide refers to the UN convention? Nobody, exactly like the Armenian genocide doesn't refer to a crime of Genocide according to the UN convention.--Termer (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I just used that as an example of what a source might say. You see, I found plenty of sources using the term. Yet when I searched for the phrase "communist genocide is" I found no source which actually defines the term. (Igny (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

No kidding? an internet search for "communist genocide is" needs to bring in a definition in your opinion? I would cite Peter jackson from Wikipedia:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1 instead in case anybody wants to improve the article: The Historiography of Genocide, edited by Dan Stone (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), includes chapters on Stalin, Mao & Cambodia, discussing various scholarly views on whether genocide was involved. Looks like a useful starting point for anyone wanting to improve the article.--Termer (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a problem to determine whether a genocide was involved, what a problem is clarify when the communist genocide was involved. Could, for example, Hussein say "I do not like regular genocides, they are too mundane. I want to do a communist genocide to them kurds" (Igny (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry Igny but I'm missing the sense of logic behind "I want to do a communist genocide to them kurds" one could as easily say "I want to do a Armenian genocide to them kurds". What are you talking about? Communist genocide refers to mass killinsgs by Communist regimes, Armenian genocide refers to mass killings of Armenians. etc. Nazi genocide to mass killings done by Nazis etc. And what is a "regular genocide" in the first place? Sorry but your post above just didn't make any sense to me.--Termer (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm missing your sense of logic myself, since you have two polar opposite ways of phrasing things when you equate "Armenian genocide" - mass killings of Armenians - with "Communist genocide" - which you define as "mass killings by Communist regimes." Shouldn't we then speak of "Turkish genocide" or "Capitalist genocide" then? Or, perhaps, if there was a people slaughtered by Communists in a manner approaching genocide, we could speak of, say, "Cambodian genocide" rather than "communist" genocide? csloat (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't come up with either Communist genocide nor Armenian nor Nazi genocide. Why do the sources call it this way, you'd need to take those questions to the relevant addressees.--Termer (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Igny may have a point here, we should search for the term "Soviet war crimes", because we need a definition of this concept too, since for example, Hussein may say "I do not like regular war crimes, they are too mundane. I want to do a Soviet war crime against them kurds". ;) --Martintg (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "Soviet" has the virtue of referring to a specific regime. "Communist" does not. So when you speak of "Communist genocide" then it appears you are speaking of a kind of genocide, not genocide by a particular regime. csloat (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you, Martin, do have a sense of humor. Thank you for ridiculing my attempt to ridicule you. (Igny (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

The word 'Communist' refers to a specific regime just fine, exactly like Fascist- or Nazi. which all include political movements/political parties whose goal has always been the elimination of democracy, an establishment of a single party system where all opposition is meant to be eliminated.--Termer (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for lead

I deleted the first sentence of the lead because it does not agree with the sources given. User:Smallbones has reverted the deletion and I therefore have set up a query on the RS noticeboard.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Communist (or communist) genocide

What is Communist (or communist) genocide? Editors are unable to find a source for a definition in the article Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago while searching web for "communist genocide" I came across the term "Law on Communist Genocide" and created the corresponding article. Afterwards it was renamed to On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives, which is a full translation of the title of the Law. I would suggest to stop time-wasting hair splitting here and rename this article into Genocides and politicides committed by Communist regimes. (adding all "crimes against humanity" into the title would greatly broaden the scope of the subject.) - Altenmann >t 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would be WP:SYN:

Synthesis of published material that advances a position

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Which "position" exactly? The suggested title is a descriptive title, it does not introduce any new idea or new term. Are you saying there was no genocides and politicides under communist regimes and nobody described them? Or do you want two separate articles,Genocides committed by Communist regimes and Politicides committed by Communist regimes? - Altenmann >t 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we have something descriptive and just go with Misery committed by communist bastards? PasswordUsername (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, please be WP:CIVIL. Your sarcasm denigrates your fellow editors. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic with my suggestion. Since this is the essential point anyway, why not? A reasonable suggestion. This would keep things much easier than having some of us editing this mess trying to fit atrocity x into this fork. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a fork, it is a subject of sufficient substance to have its own article. It can easily be referenced from a more general article on genocide. That's how an encyclopedia works. And please don't be facetious on top of being sarcastic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If Communist genocide is not intended to be a concept then the article is merely a collection of genocides or alleged genocides that occurred in countries that happened to be Communist. But then there would be no reason for this article, since all the events should already be covered in other articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is a need for this article, it should say merely the following.

"Communist genocide" is a term used by some sources (ref) to describe mass killings perpetrated by various communist regimes. Whether the term is appropriate is subject to debate among the historians and politicians (refs). Its usage is considered to be politically motivated in some cases.(refs)

See? Very concise. No need for the current bloat, no need for the definition for a non-existing concept anymore... Everyone finally admitted (see the section above) that there is no such concept as communist genocide, it is merely a phrase used for "genocide by the communist regimes". (Igny (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

"Communist genocide" is quite (and more) aptly descriptive of genocide by (self-professed) communists leading (declared to be so) communist regimes including such genocide extolled to advance the communist cause. "Communist genocide" is much shorter. "Communist genocide" is not a term with various meanings and just political anyway. (Seems I've heard this argument about more than one topic at least with regard to the former Soviet Union and its less glorious aspects.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The term Communist Genocide is actually a concept used by the far right Christian Identity movement, and one of their writers, Willie Martin, wrote about it in his book Communism a Jewish Talmudic Concept Know your enemy.[6] This is the only systematic use of the concept I can find. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The term Communist Genocide is used only once in the source you provided, then you claim "This is the only systematic use of the concept I can find". --Martintg (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I genuinely admire your (The Four Deuces') tracking down a crackpot anti-Jewish supremacy tome (I think the title says it all) and your sheer gall in suggesting it's a scholarly source—and that it's the only one you can find on "communist genocide." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) That's just the preface to the book and it does connect Communist genocide to an underlying agenda. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You think I don't know how to use a search tool? The term Communist Genocide is used exactly once in the entire book you cited. --Martintg (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just the preface to the book. The rest of the book is not available on line. As for your google search, if any of those books contain a definition of Communist genocide then please add it. So far I can only find the concept defined in far right publications. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, "Communist nationalization" would also require a definition to not be WP:SYNTH. It's quite clear what communist genocide is from the plethora of sources which discusss historical instances of it as well as its use as a tool of oppression and control. "Please show me an exact definition" is just one big red herring. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist nationalization would in fact be WP:SYN if there were no reliable sources that discussed the topic. But with a simple google search I find "Another fundamental communist principle was the nationalization of the means of production".[7] This is in the book Building capitalism published by the Cambridge University Press. The book explains why Communists nationalized linking it to Communist theory but there are certainly better sources for this subject that relate to the implimentation of Communism rather than its dismantling. But when I look for Communist genocide I do not find it in mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not likely to find a "definition" for "Polish bank robbery" stated as such either (to use an analogy already used...). It's clear from sources discussing communist genocide what is included in communist genocide regarding acts and polity. (And no, that's not facetious per my comments to PasswordUsername.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good analogy. A better one would be Communist bank robbery. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces has been generous enough to include sources which discuss this matter. However, that is not required of those who seek to exclude information from Wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with those seeking inclusion, as you can see in the very first section of WP:V, 'Burden of evidence].

Please show that "Communist genocide refers to mass killings of particular categories of the population carried out by communist regimes, which may be considered genocide".

Note that although the two sources following this very first sentence in the article do use the phrase in a sentence, they in no way define it, nor show how killings carried out by communist regimes are therefore communist genocide.

If this cannot be shown, may I suggest that another title which can be verified be used for this article. Anarchangel (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: RCF Requesters should not be making comments in RFC sections, the point of an RFC is to elicit external commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: There is no definition of Communist genocide as the humanities and discourse analysis based social sciences define major terms only when used and definitions are only applicable to the work they are defined within; there are a series of events labelled or prosecuted as genocide by other governments or historians which were conducted by communists. Article is full of Synthesis and OR. Article is a mess. Section on "Soviet Famines" is ¶10 long, despite having a main article. Split content on prosecutions into existing article or new article "Prosecutions of communists for genocide." Rename this article to Communist genocides (lower case, plural). Use this article title for: systematic academic thesis regarding the relationship of Communism in general and genocide, only accepting sources in peer reviewed journals and monographs / edited collections from scholarly publishing houses; a one para list of "Main article" sections at the very end, being no more than "where, when, which government; when labelled / accused of genocide by a court or modern government"; restrict non-scholarly works to a section "In Polemic" equivalent to an "In Popular Culture" Fifelfoo (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussions of communist genocide

1. "Eradication of the Middle Class," St. Petersburg Times, Saturday, August 11, 1951

Editorial discussion of discussions of communist genocide

Comments below, please. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well at least it uses the term and says it is a policy. So we can use this source for the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This definitely has to be included as a nice example of how the term was used in an anti-communist propaganda at the beginning of the Cold War and peak of McCarthyism. Who was the author of this brilliant piece? (Igny (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

That's interesting indeed, something that may have looked like an anti-communist propaganda piece back in the 50's turned out to be an underestimated fact of life since Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn published his The Gulag Archipelago, that literally shocked the western world. Just that it's not the 50's any more and the facts are well available in a number of modern scholarly sources already provided in the article.--Termer (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

something that may have looked like an anti-communist propaganda . Of course it looked like propaganda. Because it was propaganda. (Igny (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Says who?--Termer (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not inclined to search for rebuttals or criticism of this article, or some deep analysis published in peer-reviewed journal literally calling that piece an anti-communist propaganda. I merely apply WP:SPADE here. How would you call an anonymous editorial filled with hateful agenda? Are you really going to use this propaganda as a source? What's next? You will allow me to present the Krokodil articles as news reports? (Igny (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

an anti-communist propaganda? The idea of the article right from the beginning is to urge the US ratify the genocide convention. And the first in line are the Nazi crimes against Jews and then second on the list are the Soviet crimes: The Washington Jewish Community Council declaring that the Communist genocide policy is aimed at eliminating the entire middle class- " a socially hostile element etc.. So the bottom line again, the article urges the US to ratify the UN genocide convention and complains that "the US holds back this action". And you're calling it an anti-communist propaganda? Why only anti-communist propaganda, it addresses also the nazi crimes, so perhaps this is an anti Nazi-Communist propaganda in order to get the US ratify the UN convention? --Termer (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow you neglect to mention the reasons for delay of the US ratification. You thought because of love towards the Soviet Union? No. A quote:The long delay in U.S. ratification of the Genocide Convention reflected continued disagreements among lawyers and politicians about the concept of genocide. Some U.S. senators were concerned, especially during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, that U.S. officials might come under frivolous accusations of genocide.(Igny (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

So what is it now, an anti-American propaganda piece?--Termer (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Israeli opinion

From [8]

Some countries of the Eastern Europe and the CIS, following the instructions from Washington and PACE, insist that 'both totalitarian regimes are equally responsible for unleashing the war'. Here I should quote Efraim Zurov, director of the Israeli branch of Simon Wiesenthal Center, who said that by equating crimes committed by Hitler to those of the Communists, the governments of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have practically invalidated the former. “The idea is the following: by talking about Communist genocide to distract public attention from the extermination of the Jews by the Baltic armies during the Nazi occupation... When the EU, US, Israel and all the Jews living worldwide failed to make the Baltic states take responsibility for the Holocaust, the Baltic governments launched their campaign of equating Nazism to Communism”, Zurov says.

Any comments? (Igny (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Sure: Please see Resolution on Stalin riles Russia at BBC: "OSCE parliamentary resolution has condemned both Stalinism and fascism for starting World War II and called for a day of remembrance for victims of both Stalinism and Nazism on August 23. The Russian representatives in response to the resolution threatened the OSCE with "harsh consequences"."--Termer (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the off-topic comment. Any comment on the israeli position?(Igny (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

The source you gave above was no "israeli position" but an opinion piece called "World War II History: Weapon of Informational War Against Russia" by Nikolai Dimlevich. And please stop posting off-topic questions.--Termer (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice attempt to hijack and stall the discussion by posting off-topic comments. Regarding your false counter-accusation of me being off-topic... stop being childish. (Igny (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

How exactly is an opinion piece "Weapon of Informational War Against Russia" that you managed to turn into an "Israeli opinion" claiming nonsense about "extermination of the Jews by the Baltic armies during the Nazi occupation" related to the current article? In case you feel this "extermination of the Jews by the Baltic armies during the Nazi occupation" is a fact, why don't you start an article about it and then I can comment this at the Afd.--Termer (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this article directly blames Baltic states (do not take it too personally) for waging the informational war against Russia, specifically for popularization of the term "Communist Genocide", citing the Holocaust in Baltic states as a reason. The Holocaust in Baltic states did take place, as it took nearly everywhere under the rule of Nazi Germany, I do not understand why you are arguing against that, are you a Holocaust denier? It is also a common knowledge why Israel does not recognize Holodomor as a genocide for example. That is for the same reason, equating USSR with Nazi Germany is wrong. (Igny (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

OK, let me put it this way, the above is nothing more more less that your other similar edits elsewhere claiming that the symbol of the Latvian Air Force during World War II was a swastika and They largely ignore the key role of the Latvians in the establishment and defense of Soviet power during the Russian Civil War etc.[9]. Other than that, wrong or right: equating USSR with Nazi Germany question should be taken to OSCE for example.--Termer (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. and hope I don't need to explain the difference between "The Holocaust in Baltic states did take place, as it took nearly everywhere under the rule of Nazi Germany" vs. "extermination of the Jews by the Baltic armies during the Nazi occupation".--Termer (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, you do not understand what the primary mission of "Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe" was when it was created. It clearly had no authority over judging USSR's actions during WW2. Neither does the EU parliament for example. They all can make politically motivated accusations of course. But they lack the authority for the accusations to stick. (Igny (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

My understanding or not is irrelevant in the context including on the presumed authority of the OSCE or the EU parliament etc. Our job here is to cite the facts the way they appear in the published sources, and not to comment on it in our opinions.--Termer (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Genocide

A quote:

Of course, saying that a state or a regime is a murderer is a convenient personification of an abstraction. Regimes are in reality people with the power to command a whole society. It is these people who have committed the kilo- and mega- murders of our century and we must not hide their identity under the abstractions of "state", "regime", "government", "communism".

Then it proceeds discussing Stalin, Hitler, Mao. (Igny (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

So what are you suggesting, that this article be split into Stalinist genocide, Maoist genocide, etc, etc? --Martintg (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but I definitely want the quote to be included here. Don't you see that the coverage of this topic is lopsided here? Oh wait, what else to expect from a POV-titled article? (Igny (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Proposed lead

Combining two sources to make it fair and balanced I have come up with the following:

According to an op-ed in the Aug 11, 1951 St. Petersburg Times "information seeping from beneath the Soviet Iron Curtain indicates that genocide is an official policy of the Red governments". It quoted a Washington Jewish Community Council memorandum published the previous month in the Washington Post that "declared that the Communist genocide policy is aimed at eliminating the entire middle class - 'a socially hostile' element." However in 2009 Efraim Zurov, director of the Israeli branch of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, claimed that equating crimes committed by Hitler to those of the Communists invalidated his crimes.

Any comments on using this for the lead?

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically this variant is mixing two opposite opinions into one paragraph. Both should be mentioned but for different reasons further down the article and not in the lead. (Igny (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Agree with Igny. The only thing, any quotes from Efraim Zurov would need to come from a more reliability place than an article claiming ridiculous things like "the West is using all means to diminish the role of the Soviet Union in the WW II" etc.--Termer (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a reliable source nonetheless (in contrast to the anonymous propaganda piece from St.Petersburg Times), and we can always attribute the claim to the specific person (Dimlevich), and you just argued about not voicing our opinion about the sources. Unfortunately I could not get the full text of Zuroff's original article in Jerusalem Post to quote him directly (I do not want to pay for the article), but I read quite a lot of other articles which generally regard Zuroff as an established Holocaust historian, and one article had an extensive review of the whole Zuroff controversy over the Holocaust denial in Baltic states and harboring the Nazi collaborators there. (Igny (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

The closest I got to Zuroff's opinion was here. Does not mention the communist genocide, but does say about diverting the attention from Balt's collaboration with Nazists. (Igny (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Ok, here it is (found from Efraim Zuroff). Quotes:

Since 1991, in meetings with senior Baltic officials, in response to our demands that they acknowledge the extensive scope of Baltic collaboration in Nazi crimes, prosecute local Nazi war criminals and rewrite the history textbooks to accurately reflect this reality, they always tried to divert the discussion to their suffering under the Russian occupation and the role of Jewish communists in Soviet crimes.

Another related phenomenon was that Baltic leaders consistently repeated the historically inaccurate mantra that communist crimes were genocidal.

(Igny (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

here is a full story that also addresses the claims above by presenting alternative POV-s: Estonia Accuses Ex-Official of Genocide "Many countries formerly in the Soviet sphere have tried to force an assessment of the crimes and privations of Communist times. The Russian government has generally resisted.Many Russians have been critical of these efforts at reassessment, however, and have accused countries once under the Kremlin’s sway, including Estonia, of not pursuing a full account of some of their citizens’ collaborations with the Nazis. Mr. Arpo, the Security Police Board superintendent, disagreed, saying that Nazi cases are more difficult to pursue in lands formerly occupied by the Soviet Union because the K.G.B. had already disposed of many cases."Both regimes were criminal and committed criminal acts and brought suffering to the Estonian people,” he said. “But the local K.G.B. couldn’t find any more evidence against the Nazi collaborators.","We haven’t found it either,” he added. “And the K.G.B. was a much larger organization than we are and had powers and methods, shall we say, that are not available to a Western democratic country."--Termer (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it is not a full story at all as it does not mention Zuroff at all, let alone rebut his statements. (Igny (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Zuroff has also written elsewhere how evidence of Nazi atrocities by Baltic states' citizens - provided by Jewish groups in the 1990s and 2000s - was conveniently "lost" by "incompetent officials" from what I read months ago. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the context of "prosecute local Nazi war criminals" + anything cited above, Zuroff's claims have never been any different than the ones coming from the Kremlin. But sure, in case you're after a source that addresses claims made by Zuroff directly, those going to be added as well.--Termer (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, even though it sounds like a threat in order to convince me not to include his opinion. By the way you just pointed to one of the biases of the current article. Somehow it lacks Kremlin's opinion on the matter. Or you think it does not deserve coverage? (Igny (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Here's another version for the lead:

Communist genocide refers to the alleged policy of Communist governments to eliminate the entire middle class as a "socially hostile" element. The use of the term genocide has been criticised for invalidating genocide by Nazi Germany.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Suspected" Nazi collaborators

I do not understand why this term is under debate. It is taken from the source where it is used not to blame someone specifically but rather to describe a certain class of people, "suspected Nazi collaborators" are just that a group of people who were believed to be the Nazi collaborators. Why is it so important to say who believed that? Essentially it is the same as used the who template on the phrase "jailed criminals", jailed by whom? Who cares, the criminals were jailed, so they are now "jailed criminals". (Igny (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

In democratic societies there is something called Presumption of innocence: In case you want to accuse somebody, feel free, but you can't go around and claim things out of the thin air , especially on an encyclopedia unlike some editorials may do it. So what criminals, who convicted and jailed them for doing what? And on "suspected Nazi collaborators", who exactly suspected someone being a "Nazi collaborator"? Otherwise one can declare anybody a "Nazi collaborator" or a "suspected Nazi collaborator" , and that is exactly what has been happening with this in the article.--Termer (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Stalin deport entire nations like the Chechens and the Crimea Tatars on the pretext of them being "Nazi collaborators"? It is a fact that demonizing the target people is a feature of genocidal regimes, we all know how the Nazis demonized the Jewish people. --Martintg (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That has no bearing on what we're talking about. It simply the given fact that all reputable sources (from TerrorismCentral to the BBC) describe the class of victims as "suspected Nazi collaborators." The sources are all given. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For wikipedia purposes it still needs to clarify exactly suspected them.--Termer (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You just made up a Wikipedia rule, didn't you? (Igny (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I would say the people who arrested them. The word suspected, assumes that there are charges against you that have yet to be proven. Here's a Google Search on the term's usage: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Suspected+Nazi+War+Criminals%22+&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=6d02e072335ea48a HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging article

I note that an editor has removed the merge templates without discussion with the notation No consensus to merge despite lengthy discussion. Please note the policy for closing a merger discussion:

To provide clarity that the merger discussion is over and that a consensus has been reached, it may be important to close and then archive the proposal discussion. To close a merger proposal discussion, indicate the outcome at the top. If the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.[10]

This procedure has not been followed. A consensus must be reached before the tags may be removed. In this case an administrator should be involved. I will therefore replace the tags.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Peltimikko has now removed the merger tag and I have reported this incident to the Administrators' noticeboard.[11] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) This notice is now archived.[12] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposal has now been up for a month. I have put a note on the admin board requesting that an admin remove it, so we can move on with other ways to improve this article: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close gridlocked merger discussion. --Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

New title proposal

I suggest that this article be retitled "Genocides under communist regimes".

This would help to keep both sides happy. One side does not like the concept of "communist genocide", as it implies something inherently communistic about the mass murders under various regimes, which would be as inadmissible as "capitalist colonialism" and thereby "capitalist genocide", although there's lots of academic work analysing the connection between capital and the expansion of European empires around the world.

There is also the problem of which regimes are actually communist. Many argue that Stalin was no more a genuine communist than North Korea is a People's Republic; a good number of third world regimes were "communist" because that's how they got money and expertise out of the Soviets.

The other side is correct in that communist government as a historical, rather than a theoretical phenomenon, has often resulted in mass murder. You cannot ignore the cultural revolution or Stalin's purges, or Pol Pot.

The only objection would be that "communist genocide" is a concept in acadaemia. It really isn't, not amongst decent academics, any more than "capitalist atrocity", although you'll find that in google books as well. You also find "sad fish" 210 times. What there is, in acadaemia, is an analysis of why (at least nominally) communist regimes so often resulted in mass murder and death. Such analyses could be a section in the article.

This seems to me the most honest way of moving forward (although I personally don't like "genocide" as I think the term really only applies to the killings of ethnic groups). Detach genocide from the theory of communism (in the title anyway), but keep the link to its practice in history. Any thoughts? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are already articles about genocides, so if the theory of Communist genocide is omitted then this article becomes redundant and should be deleted. Otherwise the theory should be explained, even if it is fringe. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that Stalin and North Korea aren't really Communist. Who else isn't Communist? Lenin? Trotsky? Derzhinsky? Marx and Engels?? "Red terror" seems to be a fundamental idea of many Communists, starting with Lenin, if not before. Smallbones (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There already is an article about Red terror. And a disambiguation page: Red Terror (disambiguation).

PasswordUsername (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

We should merge this article with the Red Terror then. Btw VsevolodKrolikov did not say they were not Communist but that they were not communist. We need to decide which this article is about. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we? The article (or the main article, rather) is about a specific period. And we have more articles for the other atrocities. What this article attempts to do is aggregate them all under one place, somehow linking each to genocide because they were communist. We are here, of course, because it was initially argued that "communist genocide" is a meaningful scholarly term. (Not least because "communist genocide" occured in tons of Google hits, as VsevolodKrolikov noted.) PasswordUsername (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Passwordusername misses my point by (sorry, but) about 180 degrees. There are lots of non-notable phrases that get lots of hits on google books. That is no grounds for there to be an article. The following phrases all receive more hits than "communist genocide": "inscrutable Chinese", "sins of capitalism", "British intransigence". Someone needs to produce an academic text that develops the concept properly.

Reviewing the discussion above, it appears that people do not agree that this article is a historical account of mass killings that happened under regimes calling themselves communist. Yet the article as it stands is about nothing else, and in a manner which is just a big content fork (notably about the holodomor) mixed up with a bit of WP:SYNTH trying to shoe-horn the concept of genocide in. Nowhere is there representation of established academic analysis of the concept of "communist genocide", and there is no attempt to give sources that analyse how the mass killing that happened under the regimes as distinctly communist as opposed to the sort of mass killings that went on under Saddam Hussein, the Argentinian junta, Pinochet or any others. The Holodomor isn't even established as a "genocide" (without taking away the horror of what happened). It even lists regimes that are only dubiously communist, and without irony mentions the communist Vietnamese removal of the communist Pol Pot to halt genocide. The inclusion of the invasion of Tibet in this article is unjustified. There is nothing communist, and everything about Han Chinese imperialism in that action. Without a coherent principle tying this article together, there are no clear criteria for what deaths should or should not be included. It's simply not encyclopaedic.

As for Smallbones' surprise that many don't consider Stalin's regime communist in terms of the actual political theory, I would refer to the great schism in the communist movement across the world after the invasion of Hungary and Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin (i.e. that once it was clear what Stalin had been up to, many communist movements rejected the Soviet Union). Nor should the hereditary succession in North Korea particularly be considered a case of the workers' control of the means of production, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again, there is an argument that communism will always degrade into oppressive military dictatorship, but far from all communist societies that did so indulged in genocide, and many non-communist ones did commit genocide. The crucial point is that there is nothing particularly in communism to suggest that genocide is necessary per se, but everything in maintaining an anti-democratic regime in power.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Under WP policy, this article should not exist. However in the AfD discussion[13] it was defended on the basis that Communist genocide was an accepted term in academic literature. Please read my comments in the following section. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

VK makes some good points here. I still think this article should be deleted, or merged into other articles. In present form it should not be allowed to stay. Offliner (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) To VsevolodKrolikov, whether we believe these were "dubious" in relationship to classical Marxist communist regimes is immaterial. They claimed roots in Marxism and called themselves communist/socialist. To claim communist genocide is not communist genocide because these were "dubius" communists is the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So I presume you consider the DDR to have been democratic, or for that matter the 1936 Soviet Constitution. Claims and reality are not the same.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion policy

This article is one of countless examples of WP:SYN articles in Wikipedia, and I would suggest that editors who are concerned about this should contribute to the discussion at WP:Areas for Reform#Can our deletion policy be clearer, and the process more efficient?. I commented there before I even heard about this article:

Many new users will create articles that represent original thought, e.g., fascist cooking, which is not currently an article. In the hypothetical article they will explain their views and other writers will add details so that the result will be a fully sourced article but with no central definition so that it becomes pure WP:SYN and WP:OR. However if anyone applies to delete the article, there is a hardcore that follows WP:AfD who will provide no end of argument why the article should be kept. A Google search for fascist cooking returns 215 hits.[14] What about the Soup Nazi? We now have a large number of articles about subjects for which there is no clear meaning in the academic world, although often used as neologisms in academic books. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Others may of course see this differently. But it would be helpful to develop the types of guidelines that would avoid the types of discussion we have had on this page.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I came here from the main RFC page asking for comments from users with no involvement in the subject. That's me. I would class the term Communist genocide as a neologism which only exists to promote a point of view. On the same page is a request for comments on the article Islamofascism. That article looks almost perfect to me if we are allowing articles on terms which are inherently slanted.

If policy disallows such articles, these should both be deleted. If they are to be allowed, they should follow the pattern of Islamofascism: a description of how the term is used, who uses it, their reasoning, and the reasoning of critics. The current 'Communist genocide' goes beyond this by describing in detail specific historical events which the author claims (POV here) are capable of being covered by the term. A brief list of examples would be tolerable, if justified by sources which attach the term to the events, but the description of the events themselves should be in the specific articles relating to those events.

By the way, I would suggest that in the mainstream English language, "communist" and "Communist" mean the same thing and have done for 60 years or more. Sussexonian (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Communist genocide" is not a WP invented neologism if it is used as a term to refer to communist genocide (!) in hundreds of scholarly books. Please explain how this article is inventing a term never used before. At a more fundamental level, "communist genocide" is not a "term," it is an "act." With regard to my own ethnic background, there were Lativans who collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust. "Latvian genocide against Jews" in that instance is not a neologism, it is the simple description of an act. "Communist genocide" in the context of this article is no different. There are other parts of the puzzle, that is, in how Marxist theory was co-opted into the service of genocide, that belong in the article as well to construct the whole. There is absolutely no basis for deleting this article or contending it's about a vapid meaningless "term." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice that there is no article called Latvian genocide, instead the article is called The Holocaust in Latvia, because there is no assumption that genocide is a defining feature of being Latvian. But Latvia is just one country, while Communism held power in various countries. There is no synthesizing article that connects Latvia with other countries, e.g., Christian genocide, Lutheran genocide, capitalist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the distinction between "Communism" and "communism" from Sara Diamond's book about the radical right, Roads to Dominion (1995):

Here I adopt the distinction Joel Kovel made in his insightful book Red Hunting in the Promised Land between Communism and communism. Following Kovel, I use uppercase "C" Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase "c" communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society.[15]

Essentially big "C" Communism refers to parties that were associated with the Communist International.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finally giving the source on this, but the fact that some authors use this distinction doesn't make it universally true (just as if some authors use the term "Communist genocide", that doesn't make it a universally accepted concept). Capital letter is generally used in English for proper nouns, as well as certain other cases. 'Communism' is not a proper noun. --Anderssl (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I cannot find any books that discuss or define Communist genocide and it is not in any political dictionaries I have seen. I know that the two words are sometimes strung together but it always refers to genocide actually or allegedly committed by specific Communist regimes. The only souce I could find that describes the concept is from Christian Identity writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide"

OK, someone keeps adding this ridiculous statement to the article: "no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide". OK, in case anybody knows of any countries or "governing bodies" that have been "convicted of genocide", please let me know. So far it has been possible to convict in crimes only on individual-, not on collective or institutional basis. to spell it out, it is possible to convict a person in crime, not a "body" of any kind. But since my attempts to remove or tag this nonsense for a citation needed has failed, I hope that someone else takes care of this absurd statement and removes it ASAP. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is merely a function of relative points of view that I also find the focus of this article, the lead sentence, and attributions throughout the article referring to "communist genocide", all assuming that it is a scholarly term established by a solid definition and good use, ridiculous. The uses of this term in the article are based on assumption and no good evidence, and I have provided an argument to the contrary. Scoff if you like, but an impartial observer will surely find that reason beats assumption every time. Also, see the RFC above, and my note on the premature closure of the previous RFC by archiving below, for more serious issues which I do not want this reply to derail. Anarchangel (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Soviet Union forced their genocidal acts out of the definition of genocide adopted by the United Nations under threat of vetoing the whole thing, that merits inclusion as well and, at least to my mind, is quite frankly an admission of guilt (and has been seen as such in scholarly sources). VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving of ongoing RFC

RFC started 13 Aug archived 1 Sept Anarchangel (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AKA Aristocide

Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl (A member of the Communist Party of the United States from 1933 until 1939) published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has following to say on the subject:

Communist genocide in the Soviet Union has gone though several stages. The avowed policy of the Bolsheviks was to liquidate the propertied classes and all their auxiliaries. Thus, the revolution and the ensuing civil war destroyed or dispersed the vast majority of the nobility, the bureaucracy, the officer corps and the intellectuals. The second stage of aristocide was a series of purges executed by both Lenin and Stalin, which liquidated those left wing and socialist intellectuals and politicians who opposed the Bolshevik demand for total power. A third stage was the elimination of the kulaks and the petit bourgeoisie who had flourished briefly under Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP). While these last victims were certainly not a part of the intellectual elite, they were superior to the rural and industrial proletariat who were the supposed beneficiaries of their demise. The last stage to date was the great Stalinst purges of the 1930's, which decimated the entire Soviet military, political and economic establishment and destroyed those Bolshevik cadres whse total loyalty to Stalin was in doubt. Toward the end of Stalins dark tyrannical rule a through liquidation of Jewis intellectuals occurred and the deportation of Russia's two and a half million Jews to Siberia en masse was apparently contemplated.

--Termer (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just keep googling and you will find even more neologisms (new=forgotten old applies here). How about classicide? It is said it was coined in 2005 by some guy but clearly that guy just wanted the credit. Here is another one - middleclassicide, wait, there are more how about kulakicide...(Igny (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

You mention Weyl's communist party membership, but omit his later campaigning anti-communism.(And indeed his opposition to miscegenation and support for segregation and eugenics etc. etc.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this shows that Communist genocide is a major concept in conspiracy theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Any fact Weyl has pointed out can be confirmed by any source on the subject. In case you you don't like the fact that Weyl calls the mass killings 'Communist genocide', that's another story and I have always agreed that the article could be called "mass killings by Communist regimes" or anything similar instead. Just that my attempt to rename the article was instantly reverted [16].
RE: VsevolodKrolikov, what are you after, someone needs to be a communist for life in order to have a say on the subject?
RE:The Four Deuces, why don't you refer to secondary sources claiming that 'Communist genocide' is a conspiracy theory and such things can be added to the artcle pr. WP:YESPOV--Termer (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

[17], [18]. What's about Israeli position regarding the "Jew-Communist genocide" ([19]). Read about Chomsky versus communist genocide too. Is it all covered in this article? (Igny (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

An interesting quote:

This reality, of the unbelievable terror that the Nazis practiced in the Soviet Union, against the first socialist country, against the Communists, is almost systematically covered up or minimized in bourgeois litterature. This silence has a clear goal. Those who do not know of the monstrous crimes committed against the Soviets are more likely to believe that Stalin was a "dictator" comparable to Hitler. The bourgeoisie covers up the real anti-Communist genocide to better publicize what it has in common with Nazism, the irrational hatred of Communism, the class hatred of socialism

(Igny (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Good choices on the sources Igny! here is more about the book ::His book, published by the pro-Communist "Progress Publishers in Toronto, appeared practically at the same time Ukrainian Communist party leader Volodymyr Shcherbytsky publicly acknowledged the Famine, in December 1987. As a result the book was subsequently withdrawn from circulation. Nevertheless, the book is available on the internet, and continues to be cited as an "invaluable" and "important" book by groups such as the Stalin Society in Great Britain, author Jeff Coplon, and others." Please see Douglas Tottle FFI.--Termer (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, if you omit that someone became an avid anti-communist, and furthermore, don't see it as a source of bias that someone became an avid anti-communist campaigner, then you need your judgement recalibrated. For those who do not like the title and focus of this article, it is not a question of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on our part. There has still not been found a proper academic source that employs the concept of communist genocide. The definition part of this article doesn't even attempt to pretend that such a concept has common currency. Now, no one is denying that there were mass killings under communist regimes. Several editors, myself included have suggested a retitling to that effect. It was, alas, rejected by those pretending that there is a serious academic concept of "communist genocide" as part of communist theory, a fact which has not been established. It's actually a case of you falling foul of WP:ILIKEIT. I suspect you know that yourself.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is not quite correct. The renaming of the article has been blocked by a few users who think this article should rather be deleted or merged, and who do not want to compromise. As far as I have noticed, all or nearly all of the "supporters" of this article have declared themselves willing to compromise on a new title. Although I agree with a lot of the criticism of the article, it is actually a few of the critics who are the main obstacles to improving it. --Anderssl (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Communist genocide" is no more a "concept" as "Polish fishing." "Communist genocide" is a simple descriptive phrase of an act. What is a concept is the conceiving of genocide as an instrument of the state, which is a sub-plot. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not "a simple descriptive phrase". If it were it would be easy for us all to agree on what it meant - and that is clearly not the case, judging by the ongoing debate. --Anderssl (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, it's not me that's way off the track here. If it was only descriptive, then it would be acceptable to change the title to "mass killings under communist regimes". However, if you look at the discussions on the topic, there are those who oppose this because they want to put forward the idea that there is something inherent in communism that leads to these killings. There isn't the RS to back this up of course, and you'll see that the definition section in the article is OR, but AfDs have reached stalemate, and thus the status quo.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:that there is a serious academic concept of "communist genocide" as part of communist theory, a fact which has not been established -who says that wikipedia articles need to be based on "academic concepts as part of communist theory"? Please see Wikipedia:Five pillars FFI. Now, on Communist genocide, it's a term used by a number of secondary published sources cited also in the article and an encyclopedia as Wikipedias job is to describe the term to it's readers what it means exactly. Now, in case anybody feels the sources are too much anti-communist, why don't you add simply the pro-Communist POV pr WP:YESPOV to the article so that the article could be balanced better if you think it's not?--Termer (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. on there is something inherent in communism that leads to these killings... There isn't the RS to back this up of course. Every serious RS on the subject tells the same story: All Communist regimes have physically eliminated the cultural and economical elite, political opposition etc. anybody opposing the Communist demand for total power in their societies and that's been justified by the theory of class struggle.--Termer (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to balance an article with inherently POV title. Your suggestion to fill it with claims and counter-claims is not balancing POV either. Following your suggestion I too could create an article on Baltic fascism for example and ask you to just add YES/NO POV claims. (Igny (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Please take the complaint about POV title to User:PasswordUsername who reverted my attempt to rename the article [20]. On Baltic fascism , how is your desire to make such an article related to current discussion, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would side with PU on the issue of renaming the article because I have already used this article as a grotesque example in political debates here to illustrate the Wikipedia's participation in Information warfare. Attempts to rename it could weaken my position. With Baltic fascism I just gave an example of an article with inherently POV title. How did you translate that into my intent to create one is beyond me. (Igny (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Did I get it right, you don't think the article has a neutral title enough, yet you don't want to rename it? Sorry but in order to get a WP:consensus, you'd need to make up your mind first how would you like to improve the article exactly? Posting anything else to this talk page, sorry to remind you could be considered a violation of WP:TALK. Please follow the guideline in the future. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is such a nice and polite remark. And such profound knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I am in awe. Is there a barnstar for that? (Igny (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

User:Termer commented: "Every serious RS on the subject tells the same story: All Communist regimes have physically eliminated the cultural and economical elite." Kindly provide a source that states this and we can end the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This statement is plain false. Some of elite was physically eliminated, some exiled, some was "reeducated through labor" in gulag, laogai, etc. But again, this was not about "elite", this was about perceived political enemies, which were a good mix of both elite and non-elite. - Altenmann >t 04:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, if you are interested in renaming the article, perhaps we can have another go at doing that. My preferred term is "Mass killings under communist regimes", as that diffuses the problems of the term genocide being used to describe killings other than cultural/ethnic, and the presumption in the title of a tie to communist ideology, a matter for analysis in the page itself. It is true that the phrase "communist genocide" turns up in google books, but it has not been established that this is typically no more than shorthand for mass killings that took place under communist regimes. As noted above, lots of word combinations can be found in google books.btw, not all communist regimes committed mass killings; those in Central Europe did not. Not that they were nice places, of course.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but I suspect that Igny and The Four Deuces would oppose the move to "Mass killings by communist regimes". The stalemate comes from editors who oppose the existence of Communist genocide but also oppose moving the article to Communist mass killings or Mass killings by communist regimes. --Martintg (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot have articles based on WP:SYN. If Communist genocide is a subject then it deserves its own article with a clear definition. If it is not then it should be deleted. There is no middle ground. However, User:Martintg cannot provide a clear definition although he stated that it was a clearly understood concept defined in academic literature during the AfD. If this is not the case, the article should be listed for deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you oppose renaming the article to either Communist mass killings or Mass killings by communist regimes as VsevolodKrolikov suggested? --Martintg (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would very much prefer Mass killings under communist regimes, for extra neutrality.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think The Four Deuces would even oppose this title. Perhaps he could clarify his position. --Martintg (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would you have an article about Mass killings under Communist regimes if there was no connection between Mass killings and Communism? Why not just have an article called Mass killings? I propose therefore that the article be re-named Mass killings.The Four Deuces (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My rationale for not renaming yet is here. Now could you please explain what that article would be about? Same content? Same genocide claims as here? Same ideological claims as you and your buddies are trying to push here? What is going to be the difference, only in the title? It would still remain to be a synthesis if you keep pushing the idea of that communism causes genocides/mass killings. Or is it just going to be the list of the articles like it should be? (Igny (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

I believe the definition of mass killing is a single event where four or more persons are killed by a person or persons. (There may be disagreement over the numbers but it is in this order of magnitude.) The concept is NPOV. The article would not be limited to Communist regimes and would not be limited to killings by government. However it appears that Mass killing re-directs to Mass murder. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FourDeuces asks "Why would you have an article about Mass killings under Communist regimes if there was no connection between Mass killings and Communism?" You fail to make the distinction between big and small c communism that you made higher up the page. That there has been a historical pattern of mass killings under quite a few communist regimes is certainly the subject of historical analysis. However, it is quite simply not established that the scale of killings that happened in quite a few countries is because of communist ideology or pragmatics per se. Communist regimes can be understood as ideologically driven, or driven by circumstance and accident, or technology (the ability to monitor and kill that many people was barely possible previously), or outside threats (and the page can assemble the academic analyses). As a comparison (and I don't mean this in an "other stuff exists" way) not all foreign relations of the US have been clouded by state terror, but there is a perfectly justifiable page called United States and state terrorism.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) The analogy does not work. There is no article called Republics with presidential systems and state terrorism, Member nations of NATO and state terrorism, Republics with two party systems and terrorism. You must have some reason for wanting to group mass killings in Communist countries. In what way do they differ from mass killings in other countries? You stated "However, it is quite simply not established that the scale of killings that happened in quite a few countries is because of communist ideology or pragmatics per se." That statement is true. But it implies that there is a theory that killings occurred because of Communist ideology. If there is then it should be added to the article. If there is no theory then this article merely duplicates information contained in other articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You are creating a false dichotomy: that the killings were either nothing to do with the particular type of government, or everything to do with the ideology.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No I am not. I am saying that either the killings had nothing to do with the ideology or had something to do with them. If they had something to do with them then there should be no problem in finding a reliable source that discusses this. Wikipedia should not be the first to draw the connection. Please see WP:SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that the Soviet Union, Mao etc. were driven by communist ideology and nothing else? That historical circumstances that led to communist governments could have no bearing on also on the conflicts thereafter? You need to argue this (and do your own pile of SYNTH, eliminating a good deal of established scholarship) to argue that the title "Mass killings under communist regimes" can only refer to communism as an ideology and not communism as a historical phenomenon.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Communism as a phenomenon would have been named something different were it not for communism the ideology, and communism the phenomenon (or incarnation if you will) could not quote communism the ideology to justify genocide as an instrument supporting the betterment of the state were it not for communism the ideology, so I would not expect these—communism as phenomenon and ideology—to be mutually exclusive in the pursuit of genocide. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said they were exclusive? By comparison: ethnic groups have been massacred in the name of Christianity, and the American way, and Islam, and Atheism. There may be some kind of connection in each of the ideologies to the killings, but it's hardly an all or nothing connection. A title should not pretend that it is.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vsev, I am not saying that Communist governments were driven by ideology and nothing else. You are now using the concept of communism as a historical phenomenon, which I think is the same as big "C" Communism. Whether these governments engaged or allegedly engaged in mass killings because of communist ideology or because of some common aspect that had non-communist origins, that common factor should be identified and sourced in the article to avoid WP:SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

one of the common aspects between the genocidal goverments were the totalitarianism. I do not think anyone would argue with Mass killings under totalitarian regimes or some such. (Igny (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

The common factor has already been sourced previously in this chapter Communist mass killings in the book Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century By Benjamin A. Valentino, so it certainly is not WP:SYN. Rummel also makes the connection, as does Gray and several other authors. I found another paper that discusses the work of Valentino, Rummel and others in regard to the connection with communist regimes here. --Martintg (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) To Igny's (was typing up in response to the outdented version...) : Mass killings under totalitarian regimes can certainly be a summary parent article. That doesn't substitute for this one, given the connections between communist ideology and communist practice leading to acts of genocide. If you're fine with the parent article, what is the problem with the child? That some editors will fight tooth and nail (my perception) not to have an article appearing on WP which links communism and genocide in the title? Consensus will be elusive if we're dancing in circles on unspoken agendas. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Please comment in Talk:On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives#"communist genocide" law. - Altenmann >t 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Followup to merge discussion/ possible rename

I closed the merge discussion as no consensus to merge. I am sympathetic to the SYNTH and POV concerns, but merging wasn't the way to fix the problem. My suggestion would be to 1) rename this article so the title is less POV and 2) stick to discussion of historical events rather than trying to tie (mostly) unrelated event together to draw (implied) conclusions about communist governments in general.

A couple a suggested titles would be:

• Genocides committed by communist regimes
• Genocides that occurred under communist governments

Please feel free to add to this list and hopefully we can come up with a better title. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The alternative to renaming & editing to eliminate POV would be to split/merge the info into many articles on the individual events. This, of course, is more complicated and more work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input ThaddeusB. Previously we have had near consensus on Mass killings under communist regimes (since in many cases it is controversial whether the mass killings should be termed genocides or something else). The main argument against was that the merge debate hadn't been settled. Now that merge is not an option, do anyone still oppose the name change, or can we try to find a compromise here, in the interest of getting on to actually improving the article content? --Anderssl (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Communist genocide" is used in enough scholarly sources that we can concentrate on the article without merging, splitting, or renaming. Perhaps we can take a break from questions which do nothing to improve content and expend some editorial energy toward content. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, why have you failed to produce these sources in any convincing way during this lengthy debate? For instance, in the current version of the article there is a lengthy section about China, but no explanation of what the events described have to do with 'Communist genocide'. (In stead, it actually states that scholars decline to call this genocide.) If you are having problems improving the article, is it because you are having problems finding these sources, or is the problem presenting them in a way that other people understand what you mean? There are some editors with no will to compromise here, but there is also a good bunch of open-minded people who are not convinced about these elusive sources. If you have them, then bring them into the article! --Anderssl (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the article Genocides committed by communist regimes and/or Genocides that occurred under communist governments would be a move to the wrong direction simply because it would already clearly refer to the Genocide according to the UN convention. But as we all should know, the Communist regimes worked hard and succeeded with excluding social groups from the convention. So what Genocides committed? ...unlike 'Communist genocide' that is a term used by numerous WP:RSources for the mass killings committed by the Communist regimes. And again, in case the title 'Communist genocide' bothers anybody despite the overwhelming evidence provided by the books in the reference section, I can always support a compromise: ..instead of "Communist genoside refers to mass killings committed by Communist regimes rename and rephrase it to the Mass killings committed by Communist regimes also referred to as Communist genocide... etc.--Termer (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing it to "Mass killings..." - I was merely offering up some choice to get the discussion started. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So lets have another requested move then, that's the only way...--Termer (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
PS. Since there is Anti-communist mass killings, perhaps Communist mass killings would be still a cleaner title than somewhat clumsy "Mass killings committed by Communist regimes...in Soviet Union, China, Cambodia etc.". Also, the phrase "Communist mass killings" is supported by sources out there [21].[22]--Termer (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am optimistic a solution can be reached without the need of a RM. There are certainly sufficient eyes on the article for it to at least be a possibility. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been observing this discussion for a while and as far as I can tell (correct me if I am wrong) only opposition appears to be from User:The Four Deuces and User:Igny. --Martintg (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why some people insist on Communist~ rather than ~under communist regimes, the latter clearly being more neutral. The attestation in the literature has not been produced. Collocations in a google scholar search are not enough, as has been pointed out countless times. For the hard of understanding, "communist success", "communist dog", "communist wind", "communist sex", "communist love" and "communist food" all get more hits than "communist mass killings". You have to produce actual texts that show a discussion of the idea.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did produce an actual text that discusses "Communist mass killings". As far as I am concerned "Communist mass killing" is just short hand for "Mass killings by/under Communist regimes", just like "Marxist ideology" is the same as "Ideology by/under Marx". --Martintg (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I have been participating in this discussion for quite a while and haven't met any opposition from either me nor from The Four Deuces. You got it the other way around, most of the opposition comes from you and your buddies. (Igny (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

So you would agree to a move as well?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering that I was one of the first who suggested the rename, what do you think? But obviously I prefer mass killings by communist regimes, which should be a list. But I guess martin's team would like to push the genocide/ideology claims into that article as well. (Igny (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Please AGF. mass killings by communist regimes is okay with me too. Now we have to hear from The Four Deuces. --Martintg (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would really prefer "under" instead of by, as it has a less accusatory tone.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a minor detail, the real question is whether User:The Four Deuces will agree to the move at all. --Martintg (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Genocide and mass killing are not the same things. Genocide is considered to be illegal, while mass killings may be legal. For example, the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaka may or may not have been genocides, but they were mass killings. There may be an argument for American mass killings or American genocide, but there is no argument for Democratic genocide or Democratic mass killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why the issue of legality and the application of the term "genocide" can be something in a renamed article (the originator of the term genocide intended it for a very broad meaning, and certainly latterly had the Soviets in his sights). VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So is User:The Four Deuces agreeing or disagreeing to moving the article to Mass killings by/under communist regimes? --Martintg (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well The Four Deuces please feel free to start an article legal mass killings and/or democratic mass murder or American mass killings etc. this talk page however is meant for a discussion about improving the article called Communist genocide. what are your suggestions?--Termer (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not really important whether TFD agrees or not, the point is whether s/he has any good arguments against the move. So far I am hearing "Genocide and mass killing are not the same things", which is obviously irrelevant - the point of moving is that a lot of the content of the article doesn't fit uncontroversially under the 'genocide' tag. If TFD doesn't have any better argument against the move, we can just go ahead and declare consensus. It's not a vote. --Anderssl (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Summing up: TFD has entered the debate below without commenting on the title discussion, so I think we may freely assume s/he doesn't have any objections (if so, please come forward with them!). Also, the argument over whether the current title is adequate seems also to have settled on the conclusion that it is not (summing up: Yes the term is widely used but lacks a clear definition, and is too controversial to work as a descriptive phrase). There appears to be wide acceptance of "Mass killings under communist regimes" as an appropriate descriptive phrase. (Some have suggested that the 'under' be replaced with 'by', but 'under' seems to be the form everyone can compromise on - correct me if I'm wrong.)

If anyone has any remaining objections to renaming the article Mass killings under communist regimes please speak up now! Otherwise, let's just declare consensus and get on with it. --Anderssl (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Obviously there is some editing needed to match the new title, but I don't want to do too many controversial things at once...--Anderssl (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time: is current title good

I see this discussion drags for a long time with various digressions and ramifications. I suggest, let us first reach a consensus on whether the current title is good or bad.

The question about a better title must be decided later, and not in this section.

Please continue debate in the structured way, without personal or political digressions. Timurite (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments that it is good

• It is widely used.
  • Contra 1: Wide usage does not always mean preferred usage. If an article "whore" were written, it would most surely have been renamed or merged to "prostitute". Timurite (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pro 1, comment on VsevolodKrolikov's rescinded: I don't mean to be recalcitrant, but I really do fail to see where the google books argument has been "debunked." Either "communist genocide" appears or it does not. If some sources discuss it as ideologically based and some as simply another totalitarian action, that all belongs in the article here. That is not an excuse to contend "communist genocide" is a neologism, doesn't mean anything, only means this or only means that, etc. An article exists to explore a topic—any topic of substance will have more than one aspect to it. Arguing what the exact (implied single) definition is of "communist genocide" as a term (and for what it stands) is completely misdirected. (And I'll WP:AGF that such argumentation isn't just part of continued attempts to kill anything by the title Communist genocide.) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's very simple - perhaps you don't realise how simple. Two words appearing together in a text on google scholar does not necessarily mean that the author means those two words to form an analytical concept worthy of academic attention. "British intransigence", "communist success", "dirty money" and "inscrutable Chinese" all get more hits than "communist genocide". So does "difficult time" (lots there), "disingenuous strategy" and "pretending not to understand". That no one has produced this raft of RS texts that do use the phrase in the way they claim is quite telling.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is even simpler, see my "Contra" below. What "not produced"? The texts (close to 500 the last time I checked) all exist. The problem is all those editors who claim that those texts don't contain a "definition." A "definition" is irrelevant. I'm sure "Blue sky" gets more hits than "communist genocide" as well in books. Again, irrelevant. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no definition gleanable from the sources, then there can be no article with that title. Good. You're on side.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Contra-Pro 1: The fact that the term is in items/section titles and some events are described as "communist genocide" implies that the concept did get academic attention. However this Pro 1 thread is irrelevant: it adds nothing to the fact that "it is widely used". The "Pro 1" does not say why wide usage is a solid argument to use it as a title. Timurite (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments that it is bad

• There is no formal definition of the term "communist genocide" cited, even in the references given in the intro section.
  • Contra 1: It is a descriptive phrase. We don't demand a reference for the definition for title, e.g., "Star Wars characters".
    • C-C 1. Unlike "starwar characters", the title in question has an unclear and what is more, disputed scope. Therefore we need a definition to have clear criteria for inclusion of content: there was plenty of various killings by Communist regimes, and this article intends to describe a certain category of them. Timurite (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Contra 2: The article scope is defined by the use and discussion of "Communist genocide" in scholarly sources. The article content is a structured narrative of same. Any attempt to "limit" or "define" otherwise is by definition WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • C-C 2: "is defined by the use and discussion ... in scholarly sources" - and the inference of the definition by wikipedians (e.g.,to put it into the intro section) is OR. If there is no single definition, and each scholar has something else in mind, then it is WP:SYNTH, an introduction of an umbrella notion by wikipedians. Timurite (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Contra 3: And so, seeking the precise definition of what subset of what is to be included in this article is completely the wrong tack and doomed to failure. What is to be included in this article is all aspects of "Communist genocide" as it is discussed in scholarly sources, supposedly "debunked" for... WAIT!... the reason that they don't contain a precise definition—as near as I can tell from the arguments put forth. The precise definition argument, ultimately, is self-referential syllogism, nothing more. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, can you clarify this argument. How does this relate to the topic of this thread, that "Wide usage does not always mean preferred usage."? Timurite has done a great job here in trying to set up a neutral structure to organize everyone's arguments for and against. If the argument you want to express doesn't fit in this thread, can you please start a new thread and explain it there? --Anderssl (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it in proper section now. Timurite (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but it still needs clarification. Vecrumba, what is a 'self-referential syllogism' - do you mean that the argument is circular? If so, could you set it up in the form of a syllogism, or a structured argument, making it clear how it is circular? My best interpretation is:

• P1: There is no formal definition of the term 'communist genocide'.
• P2: Such a definition should be used to determine what should be included in this article.
• P3: The scholarly sources proposed for inclusion so far do not contain a formal definition of the term.
• Conclusion: The term 'communist genocide' is inadequate as title for the article.

This is not a circular argument. It is true that P3 is basically identical to P1, but that doesn't make the argument circular. That would be if the conclusion was used as proof of one of the premises, which I cannot see that it is. --Anderssl (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: P3 and P1 is not identical - what I meant was that P1 follows from P3, so if P1 is assumed to be true, P3 is redundant. (Of course one can also dispute the truthfulness of P1, 2, and 3, but please do that in separate threads - this is about the circular/self-referential claim.) --Anderssl (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To Anderssl's question regarding circular. "Self-fulfilling" may be more apt.

• P1: The argument has been made there is no "definition" of the "term" "communist genocide". — Pre-supposes that "communist genocide" is a "term" requiring "definition".
• P2: Such a definitions should be used to determine what should be included in this article. — Presupposes that "communist genocide" is a "term" requiring "definition".
• P3: The scholarly sources proposed for inclusion so far do not contain a formal definition of the term. — Presupposes that "communist genocide" is a "term" requiring "definition".
• Conclusion: The term 'communist genocide' is inadequate as title for the article. — This is where the reasoning is circular, syllogistic, and self-fulfilling. The a priori notion of the existence of a "definition" and the opinion posed as a self-evident fact that "communist genocide" is a "term" together lead to the contention, based only on the initial assumptions which allowed for the contention in the first place, that the title is "inadequate."

The scope and content are defined by the coverage of "communist genocide" in scholarly sources, not presuppositions that it is a term requiring definition which then delineates scope and content. I hope this clarifies. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you are using a lot of these words wrong. That creates confusion, makes it hard to understand what you mean, and might make it hard for you to convince other editors that you are right. The argument outlined above would be circular if, and only if, one (or more) of the premises was based on the conclusion. You haven't showed that that is the case. As far as I can see, your main points are that P2 is wrong - i.e. that no definition is needed - and that 'communist genocide' is not a term but a phrase. This is a fair position to take of course, and a relevant argument which Tirumbite has discussed right at the top of this thread. The counter-argument is that the phrase is too unclear and slanted to work as title for the article. These are claims that can be discussed, but either way the argument is not circular. It may be considered a syllogism perhaps, but why would that be negative? As for "self-fulfilling" I'm not sure what you mean, but I guess it's another word for circular, so see the above. --Anderssl (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Contra 4: An assumption that there is no formal definition of the term "communist genocide" cited, even in the references given in the intro section is nothing more or less than simply ignoring the sources. The term Communist genocide is more than well enough defined by the references given. The only question there is, there are editors here who don't agree with the definition given by the sources. So a compromise has been suggested above, renaming the article, and there is nothing more to it.--Termer (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of tagging your argument 'Contra 4', and adjusting indents in this thread, to try to preserve the structure of this section. See separate section below for my take on the substance of your argument. --Anderssl (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, you said "The term Communist genocide is more than well enough defined by the references given." Please be helpful and insert a definition of "Communist genocide", properly sourced into the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I took out all of the problematic wording of the first sentence and it now reads: "Communist genocide refers to genocide carried out by Communists". That is actually a tautology. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I re-read the thread. Not one definition of "communist genocide" other than to refer to killings that took place under communist regimes. No explicit link made to communist theory that necessitated the killings. Indeed, Igny produced an RS quote that emphasised how phrases like "communist genocide" are misleading and unjustified. Furthermore, if we are to invoke genocide as a legal concept (which the article does), communism cannot logically be held as perpetrator, but individual regimes and people.

• Argument 2 The title is POV pushing. It implies that these genocides were part of a deliberate communist strategy, foreseen and desired by communists per se. While some sources hold such a view, it is completely inappropriate for an article title to take sides in a serious, mainstream academic and political debate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The only theory of Communist genocide I have been able to find is from Christian Identity which is that Communism genocide was part of a conspiracy to kill Christians and establish an atheist state. The theory is tied to the Illuminati and the New World Order. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, John Gray's quote that's in the article also tries to make the connection with "classical marxism".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually he wrote about socialist genocide. That is a much wider theory than Communist genocide because it includes not only Joe Stalin and Pol Pot but Tony Blair, Benazir Bhutto, and Morgan Tsvangirai. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Even people who criticise Tony Blair for his Iraq policy do not blame it on his socialist ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This argument is incompatible with the one Timurite has called C-C-1 above: That the title is unclear. You guys are giving a very extensive interpretation of the title, which presupposes that it actually has a clear meaning. I can easily understand why, given the current focus of the article, but if you try to just look only at the title in itself, it doesn't seem so obvious that it necessarily implies all the things you say above. Rather - IMO - it just lacks any clear meaning. It still is a bad title, but I can see why some people object to the idea that it is inherently POV. --Anderssl (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of 'communist genocide'

It has repeatedly been claimed in the discussion of this article that there are a number of scholarly works which provide definitions of the concept 'communist genocide'. However, since the discussion is so extensive, it is hard to get an overview over the sources suggested. Please use this section to collect the proposed sources which give clear, explicit definitions of the concept. If we collect them in one place like this, people don't have to restate their definitions over again later, but can just refer back to this section if the question comes up again.

To help making a clear overview, please use the following format, and provide links when possible:

Definition 1: (Quoted definition)

Page: X Title: "Title here" Author: N.N. Publisher: Bla bla University Press Year: ?

If anyone want to object to any of the definitions, create a thread below that definition and present your arguments. But please do not discuss other topics in this section, to keep it tidy and readable. --Anderssl (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion about this section

We been through this many times including the Afd, there is no reason to start it all over again, please read the previous discussion and the sources provided in the article.--Termer (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is worthwhile. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, there is no sourced definition of the concept 'communist genocide' in the article. Such a definition would need to take the form 'By "communist genocide" is meant X according to the following source (ref)' - or something equivalent. In the 'definitions' section of the article there is a discussion of various definitions of genocide, but not of communist genocide, which is the disputed concept. The first sentence in the lead (in its current version) reads like a definition, but it does not appear to be a direct quote from one of the sources - if so, it should have quotation marks around it, and make clear which of the sources it is taken from. Finally, I have not seen any directly quoted definition here on the talk page. It may well be that I've missed it though, because this discussion has been quite messy and it is easy to miss something. That's why I want to collect the proposed definitions here, so we can have a clear discussion of them. If you don't want to take part in that discussion that's fine of course. --Anderssl (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No kidding? any serious source on the subject is very clear about it. Communist genocide refers to mass killings of about 60-100 million people by/under the Communist regimes. Another question is that the article has been spammed with nonsense and absurd statements that would need to be cleaned up.--Termer (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but since I am not a genocide scholar you need to help me out a little. Can you give me a direct quote from one of these serious sources? --Anderssl (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're asking for to paste all the direct quotes together here from the article references, from this talk page and from the AfD? Because? And again, the article title "Communist genocide" the term coined by Raphael Lemkin doesn't have a priority here. Call it whatever you like, this article is about the 60-100 million people killed by Communist regimes for political and economical reasons.--Termer (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is a lot you don't have to paste in all of them. Start with just the most important one, the one written by the most important author and which most clearly defines the concept. If it is really good we don't really need more than that one. --Anderssl (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, few citations on the subject.--Termer (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ISBN 0801472733.

  Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million

  {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Lenṭin, Ronit (2004). Re-presenting the Shoah for the twenty-first century. Berghahn Books. p. 220. ISBN 1571818022.

  Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer: The notion of genocide has originally been confined to the physical annihilation, or intention to do so, of members of whole nation. If it were to have remained confied within these boundaries, the Communist genocide would, prhaps be arguably applicable to massive deportations and annihilation of a large number of Ukrainians, Balts and other Soviet nationals, but it would leave out the massive extermination of own-nationals etc.

  {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Nathaniel, Weyl. Aristocide As a Force In History (PDF). pp. 243–245.

  Communist genocide in the Soviet Union has gone though several stages. The avowed policy of the Bolsheviks was to liquidate the propertied classes and all their auxiliaries

  {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |coauthors= (help)
• White, Weyl (2007). Fear of persecution: global human rights, international law, and human well-being. Lexington Books. ISBN 0739115669.

  ...The scale of communist genocide is overwhelming, and it will be years before all the information about these atrocities is processed and disseminated. this is a critical task, because communist regimes like N Korea's continue to justify genocidal practices in pursuit of their ideological vision

  {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |chapterurl= and |coauthors= (help)
• Lenṭin, Ronit (1997). Gender and catastrophe. Zed Books. p. 3. ISBN 1856494454.

  Soviet and communist genocide and mass state killings, sometimes termed politicide, occurred in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the People's Republic of China

  {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Thank you. On first glance some of these do appear to be interesting examples of scholars using the term 'communist genocide'. However, none of them takes the form of a definition, so they are not relevant to the discussion in this section, which is specifically focused on the question of a definition of the concept 'communist genocide'. As Timurite has pointed out above it is certainly possible to argue that a clear definition is not needed (see his argument 'Contra 1' under 'Arguments that it is bad') - but that is not the topic for this section. It is really important to try to stay on topic here, since there are so many differing opinions on every aspect of this article. Can you find any 'definitions' of communist genocide in your sources? --Anderssl (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition of this article is given just fine, unless you're claiming that it's completely unclear and you have no idea what are all those sources talking about. But never mind, more sources are on the way.--Termer (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, just for clarity, if you have any that actually define the concept, please put them in the main section above, and not this "meta"-section. --Anderssl (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

here is one more citation that defines the subject.--Termer (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Kent, Allen (2002). Encyclopedia of library and information science, Volume 72. CRC Press. p. 235. ISBN 0824720741.

Evidence of Communist genocides engineered by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot strengthened the theory of an ideological connection, and revealed a flaw in the U.N. definition: the omission of political groups as certifiable victims. Scholars then moved to address this issue. For example , in Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn's 1990 study, The History and Sociologyof Genocide, genocide is defined as "a form of one sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator"

{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This appears to be a discussion about the definition of the concept 'genocide'. I don't think there is anyone here who disagrees that there is a quite legitimate disagreement around whether that definition should include political groups. But the current discussion is about the definition of communist genocide, which presumably is something more specific than just 'genocide'. Can you find such a definition? --Anderssl (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The last citation directly addresses the definition of 'Communist genocide'. Please read the sources FFI and stop ignoring the spelled out definitions above.--Termer (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Termer, but that is simply not correct. As I explained above, a definition of a concept takes the form 'By "concept" is meant X according to the following source (ref)', or something equivalent to this. The source above does this (in a quote from another source) for the concept 'genocide', but not for the concept 'communist genocide'. 'Communist genocide' is mentioned in the first sentence, but is not explicitly defined. --Anderssl (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Termer, for those "most important" examples you have given. If I were someone defining and/or discussing a concept in a book or article, I would very likely mention the concept far more than once. However, in every single one of the citations you give, the phrase "communist genocide" appears exactly once. Not ten, or eight times, but only once each. In the "most important" sources. This is not enough, and I believe you are aware it is not enough.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In nowhere says WP:NAME that an article title needs to be mentioned in a secondary published source from eight to ten times, nor does it say anywhere that an article title needs to be "explicitly defined". The sources are more than clear about it what do they mean by Communist genocide and that's enough to have our article called so. However the question about an 'explicit definition' still remains to be a red herring since what is this article named exactly, I don't really care. But in case you insist, please feel free to find an 'explicit definition' for Mass killings under communist regimes from a secondary publish source if you like. And I can once again support the rename--Termer (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a debate about whether or not mass killings that could be called genocide by some took place. It is about whether the article should be called "Communist genocide", a term which many feel loaded, and in the case of at least one of your sources, is meant to be. If you agree that this name is not suitable, it would help if you don't muddy the waters by appearing to support it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this name is suitable and I do support it, however editing Wikipedia is based on WP:Consensus not on what do I think, and in that respect we moved beyond this question long time ago and I insisted right in the beginning of this thread that there should be no reasons to return to this. Especially because I didn't think another round on it would bring up any new arguments. And I was right. So there is no point to keep circling around this 'explicit definition' and return to the discussion about rename that was distracted by this demand for defining the current title once again.--Termer (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) One again, the article scope is the topic of "communist genocide" as discussed in scholarly sources and article content: a fair and accurate narrative summary representing the same. Definitions and everything else that are being argued here to kill the article, change the name, et al. are all quite immaterial WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this section is about one specific topic: Whether there are sources that give an explicit, clear definition of the concept 'communist genocide' (as opposed to examples of sources using the concept). As far as I have seen, there are two editors who have claimed this: Termer and Vecrumba. Both of these have contributed to the discussion in this section without being able to provide quotations to document their claims.

Unless actual sources are brought forward, the only logical conclusion is that the concept of 'communist genocide' lacks a clear definition, as stated in the title discussion above. Let's close this discussion for now and return to the title discussion. If any of you find a definition later, you can always enter it here and re-open the debate. --Anderssl (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Vecrumba has stated below that he never meant that there is a clear definition. May be a misunderstanding. Either way, that just helps settling the case. --Anderssl (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop Anderssl posting your original conclusions on this talk page like concept of 'communist genocide' lacks a clear definition, that's what WP:SYN and WP:OR is all about, not listing the sources and citations that all clearly define the Communist genocide.--Termer (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, WP:SYN and WP:OR are guidelines for the content of articles, not for discussion pages. What would be the meaning of a discussion page if one couldn't argue and draw conclusions? Of course I am not suggesting that the article itself should state that there is no definition of the concept. The conclusion above is just for use here on the discussion page. As I've explained above, the quotes you have provided give examples of the concept 'communist genocide' being used or mentioned, not defined in any clear way. Continue to assert this if you want, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't actually provided a source which contains a definition. --Anderssl (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just hilarious. You can't find a definition of "communist genocide," and so instead of finding a definition, you claim that saying you can't find a definition of "communist genocide" is original research? csloat (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Anderssl I do not understand why do you keep repeating your arguments? But in case you insist I can repeat myself as well: In nowhere says WP:NAME that an article title needs to be "explicitly defined" by secondary published sources. It has been WP:Verified that the term Communist genocide is in use, and the sources are more than clear about it what do they mean by referring to it. The only thing left to do is keep the article in sync with the sources.--Termer (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, I created this section to work out the specific question of whether there is a definition or not. If you have decided to abandon that position and now want to return to the name discussion that's fine by me, but please take that to the appropriate section above so that those who follow that section can review your arguments. --Anderssl (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Denial of communist genocide

I think it's time to move on , instead of repeatedly listing sources that define the term we should start a chapter in the article called 'Denial of Communist genocide'. Fear of persecution By James Daniel White, Anthony J. Marsella, chapter Denial pp.246-250 has some on it:

genocidal communist regimes have often escaped detection and comment. Until recently, few people knew that for political and economic reasons, communist elites ever since the Russian Revolution have sanctioned the genocide of between 85-100 million people (Courtis 1999). Until relatively recently, intellectuals and politicians with socialist leanings, including French communists such as Sartre, have refused to address the occurrence of genocide in communist activities because this fact would challenge their ideological commitments.

--Termer (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. For a start I have created a section here on the talk page where you can discuss it, to prevent the definitions discussion from becoming cluttered up and unreadable. --Anderssl (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PS.Genocidal communist regimes like it's put by the source above would be also an appropriate alternative title to the article currently named Communist genocide.--Termer (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What you appear to be stating is I have no idea what Communist genocide is, so lets talk about denial of Communist genocide instead. But there is no concept of denial of Communist genocide either. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If we base the article on what sources discuss as "communist genocide", the historical denial or justification (I've read that too, that Stalin was "forced" into dekulakization) of same will be incorporated in the natural scheme of events. Unfortunately since this example does not use "communist genocide" it only serves to fuel syllogistic arguments that (a) it's not the same thing, or (b) that proves there's no such "thing" as "communist genocide." Let's try to stay away from that until we've exhausted specific scholarly reference to "communist genocide" where it is clearly shown to encompass (sub-component) genocidal communist regimes. Otherwise we put the cart before the horse. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I would be interested in your clarification of the "syllogism" argument, that I commented on above: [23]. Could you give an explanation? --Anderssl (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded inline to your inquiry. If you'd like to discuss further please feel free to continue here. Also, to your thread closure above, I have not claimed there is a clear definition, I have claimed there is a clear topic, whose scope and content are governed by the treatment of that topic in scholarly sources. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded above before I saw this, and would like to finish the debate there - the whole point of that section is to have a structured overview of the arguments, so if the discussion spills over into new sections on entirely different topics (such as this one) it would defeat that purpose. As for the definition claim, apologies if I have misunderstood you, but at least we can treat that specific question as settled then. --Anderssl (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the Communist genocide denial laws make it a crime to deny that local Communist governments committed genocide or do they make it a crime to deny that genocides were committed as a result of Communist ideology? In other words, is it a crime to deny the validity of the concept of Communist genocide? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again The Four Deuces, please keep your postings on this talk page limited to suggestions how to improve the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal

When I first became interested in Moldova because of its early independence movement links with Latvia and because Transnistria was home to Soviet Black Berets who shot and killed freedom demonstrators in Riga (the Baltic OMON all transplanted to Transnistria by Alksnis to be the power behind the throne) and subsequently shot and killed Transnistrians and blamed it on the Moldovans, I did some research regarding the best scholarly sources and came up with a short list of Charles King's The Moldovans, which I purchased and read from cover to cover and Charles Upson Clark's Bessarabia (which was available electronically but no longer appears to be on a recent search), which I skimmed/read, but also cover to cover. Only then did I even editorially opine on Moldova or Transnistria on WP, shortly thereafter also purchasing/reading Robert Magocsi's Historical Atlas of Central Europe, which I read cover to cover, first edition, subsequently also obtaining his second edition which covered current conflicts in more depth.

And so, let's just cut through the pontificating and postulating. Below, please list scholarly texts you have read in their totality which deal with "communist genocide" and provide a brief summary on their treatment of the topic. If you haven't read anything from cover to cover, then regardless of whatever side of the arguing here you are on, whatever you are contending here is based on personal bias or materials which do not specifically address the topic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What does the book actually say about Communist genocide? Does it say that Communists committed genocide in Latvia or does it explain how Communist ideology caused genocide? Are you not aware that Latvia was part of the Russian empire and that Soviet policy toward Latvia probably was a continuation of Russian imperialism rather than Marxist ideology? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if I was unclear. My example was to indicate that the proper course is for editors dealing in a potentially controversial topic is to first go out and read one or more sources before contributing on that topic. So my suggestion here is to read one or more sources discussing "communist genocide" and summarize their reading below. That will allow us to start building a true encyclopedic article. The more editors that contribute summaries of different sources, the more complete content we can build. As I have stated ad nauseum, the scope and content of the article Communist genocide can only be NPOV and synthesis-free based on representing the compendium of references specifically dealing with topic of "communist genocide," those two words together. One can not gain an informed understanding without reading at least several sources in their totality, otherwise we just pick and choose tidbits in a "he said/she said" litany as opposed to constructing an informative narrative. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Books discussing "communist genocide" I have read cover to cover and my synopsis thereof

TITLE	Title
AUTHOR	Author
PUBLISHED	Published by whom, where, year, ISBN
SYNOPSIS	Summary of content Key point on "communist genocide" Key point on "communist genocide" ...
SIGNED	~~~~

Discussions of synopses

• Title — comments, etc. ~~~~

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for move to "Communist politicide" - discussion about alternate titles continues below at #Requested move II --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Communist genocide → Communist politicide — Since there is a substantial opposition to the current title Communist genocide , and in order to reach a WP:CONSENSUS I suggest renaming the article Communist politicide. Unlike already suggested "Communist mass killings under/by Communist regimes", the alternative name Communist politicide for the subjece in the twentieth century By Manus I. Midlarsky] or Gender and catastrophe By Ronit LenṭinTermer (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: other suggested name changes include Mass killings under Communist regimes, Genocides under Communist regimes, & Communist mass killings. Please be specific about which, if any, chooses you are supporting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, there already is consensus for a name change, see the appropriate section above, where discussion has been ongoing for nearly a week.--Anderssl (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anderssi moved this page without consultation to Mass killings under communist (sic) regimes. I have moved it back. Please obtain consensus for name changes and give more than 3 hours notice for changes.

The comment above was written by User:The Four Deuces, who reverted the move. TFD, there is a clear consensus for the move. Please see the section #Followup to merge discussion/ possible rename further up on this page, where your input has been requested repeatedly, the last time more than one day before I did the move. You had commented several times on this page in other discussions in the meantime, so I assumed you had decided not to say anything. If you want to make statements about what is and what is not consensus, then please pay attention to the discussion on this page. --Anderssl (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Mass killings under Communist regimes is the best title suggested so far. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think everyone involved here have already stated their opinions, and per WP:What is consensus?#Not unanimity there is no reason we should allow TFD to filibuster this any further. (This is a detail, but did you use capital C on purpose? Don't want to split any hairs, but it's not really correct English as far as I can see...) --Anderssl (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes the capitalization was on purpose. I believe in this context it is a proper noun (and thus capitalized) since it is referring to regimes' political party rather than the general economic\political system of the country. I could certainly see it going either way though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I thought of it as an adjective but I'm not a native English speaker so I'll happily concede that point. :) ThaddeusB, you're an admin right - if you agree that we can declare consensus on the move now, can you delete the empty page Mass killings under communist regimes so that I can re-do the move? --Anderssl (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is an adjective but that doesn't mean it can't be a proper one (I shouldn't have used the term "noun"). For example, in "Communist Party" Communist is an adjective. I believe the sense here is the same sense as that one & thus should be capitalized. I checked and book usage appears to be fairly evenly split between "Communist regimes" and "communist regimes" so either should be fine.

I am an admin, but I'll let the discussion run a bit. The RM tag will draw in some uninvolved editors which should lead to a more solid consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree there appears to be consensus for the move here, TFD actions appears to be disruptive at this point. I also agree with Termer below, that the SYNTH and OR tags should be removed along with the move, since that was one of the points this move was supposed to be addressing. (TFD appears to have salted Mass killings under communist regimes, that is a sanctionable offense according to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK) --Martintg (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No the move would address the POV in the title only. There is still a question of POV and SYNTH in the content. TFD was warned about the moving trick, there was no need to threaten him with sanctions. (Igny (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

(out) Could you please strike through that personal attack. Here is what happened:

If you look at my edits to Mass killings under communist regimes, I

(1) moved the article back to Communist genocide, with the notation moved Mass killings under communist regimes to Communist genocide over redirect: No censensus for move - please look at talk page[24]

(2) explained the move back at Talk:Communist genocide[25]

(3) removed the re-direct with the notation No agreement for re-direct[26]

(4) listed the now blank page for speedy deletion[27]

While I have no knowledge about how these edits would affect the ability to revert Communist genocide back to Mass killings under communist regimes I believe that if the page had been deleted that it would then have no history and therefore nothing to prevent the article being moved in the future. In any case it was not my intention to create a history, merely to revert the article and to delete the redirect page.

So I would request that you take back your comments by striking through them and in future that you not make unfounded accusations against me.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the personal attack? It sounds like what you are saying is that you weren't aware of the disruptive consequences of your edits. That is perfectly fair, but in that situation it seems more appropriate to apologize than to complain about being attacked. --Anderssl (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the comments that you and Martintg made which were personal attacks and should be redacted. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack here, nobody called you a %#$^@. I merely made the observation that your subsequent edits to the redirect effectively salted it. I made no claim either way in regard to it being deliberate or not. --Martintg (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So now I attacked you as well? I'm at a loss, but if anyone can see anything I wrote that was out of line, let me know. --Anderssl (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I discussed that on your talk page. However, I think that it is best that we move forward and if you have anything you want to ask or tell me, please do so. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I'd like you to quote me on my 'personal attack'. In full, with the context, so that it is legible to everyone not familiar with the events. --Anderssl (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Even though Mass killings under Communist regimes would be completely WP:OR-is title, no secondary published source has ever referred to, unlike the Communist genocide, or the Communist politicide or the Communist mass killings so. And since numerous sources speaking about the subject have been accused of not giving an "explicit definition" of the term, how are you going to find sources to WP:Verify and "explicitly define" the Mass killings under Communist regimes? So I'd still think it would be better to use a title that can be WP:Verified. But hey, in case by using a WP:ORish title a WP:Consensus can be achieved, I can support it as long as the Synth and OR tags go with it. Otherwise the WP:OR-sh title that has not seen any print on black and whte yet can be used further to accuse this article of WP:OR and WP:Syn. So what's it going to be?--Termer (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose communist politicide - WP:OR title gets a total of 4 ghits. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no established concept of mass killings under Communist regimes so the article would violate WP:OR. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not OR, here is a published source on Communist mass killing. --Martintg (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Valentino's theory is that radical communist regimes killed people because it was the only way they could create a radically different and better society. Less radical communists did not engage in mass killings. The theory was presented in a chapter of his book Final Solutions (2005).

If it can be established that this theory has become established within academic literature, even if it is not the majority opinion, then there is an argument for its separate article. If however it is a neologism used in the book, then it belongs in an article about Valentino or a separate article about his book. Incidentally as you point out the term used is communist mass killings not mass killings under Communist regimes. It would still be WP:OR to use a title not found in the sources.

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Mass killings under communist regimes is a descriptive name, not a concept. It is no more OR than a title such as Anti-communist mass killings, which is also not taken from sources. The problem with other proposals such as Communist politicide or the current title, Communist genocide, is that they neither work as concepts (no definition - see #Definitions of communist genocide) or as a descriptive name (no clear meaning - see C-C-1 under #Arguments that it is bad and the following debate). When discussing this, please try to engage with the points that have already been made in the preceeding debate, otherwise this is going nowhere. --Anderssl (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - a rather uncommon term, and sounds as a rather uncommon term, too. "Mass killings" may be too broad: the term would include, e.g., Katyn Massacre, I am not sure this was intention of the original scope. I am slowly starting to accept the opinion that the scope of the article is rather vague and piling killings by communist regimes into one article is an arbitrary collection of information, akin to long ago deleted list of songs about suicide and other similar cross-sectional collections. Timurite (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Timurite, above you seem to be arguing that the current title is not good. In the paragraph directly above you seem to be arguing against the term 'mass killing' in the title. Does that mean you are arguing in favor of the other proposal, Communist politicide? Or is that what you oppose? Could you clarify which option you favor? --Anderssl (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I notice there is another proposal way above, Genocides under communist regimes. I don't really have anything in particular against this proposal either, I'd just note that this would narrow the scope of the article considerably - there is currently a lot of stuff in there that don't fit easily into most definitions of genocide. But we could always keep genocide in the title and then start fighting over the content... --Anderssl (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Genocides under communist regimes will simply be forced to be a "list of.." which will then be attacked as a coatrack and then nominated for deletion. Communist genocide is a far richer topic. Again, I see no compelling reason to change the title or topic. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose— My concern is that all this will do is open the door to the argument that only two sources in Google books apply as opposed to the current nearly 500. Absolutely no one has refuted my contention that an article on the topic of "communist genocide" has as its scope whatever it is that reputable sources discuss with reference to "communist genocide", and that our content here should be a fair and accurate representation and narrative thereof. Therefore, I see only "opposition" to the juxtapositioning of "communist" and "genocide" to form an article title. That hardly merits renaming an article when editors in opposition:
  • can't offer a concrete definition of the scope and content of the article; instead
  • keep requesting a "definition" of the "term" "communist genocide"; and
  • to date, have absolutely no comment regarding my definition of scope and content, which only states what it ought to be, by the very definition and nature of being an encyclopedia article based on reputable secondary sources, not what we cook up between us regardless of what any of us personally believe about "communist genocide" and whether or not we agree; and
  • the list of what scholarly references editors have read which discuss "communist genocide" remains empty. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, you might want to start of that list with those books you have read yourself. Just a suggestion. --Anderssl (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If Communist Genocide is the only acceptable alternative, then I would move for deletion. For the millionth time, it is not actually discussed in many of the sources given (the phrase just appears, and is almost always used to mean acts of "genocide" committed by specific communist regimes - a shorthand, rather than an analysis). Let's not forget that there aren't many communist regimes that have performed genocide. There are also far more cases of non-communist regimes doing much the same thing, in addition to established genocides of the Armenians and Jews. Here are a few that appear similar as politicide or genocide:

• the dirty war in Argentina
• Operation Condor across South America
• England under Mary I
• The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in France (huge numbers there),
• The Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, The expulsion of the Jews from England, from France and many other places
• The Spanish Inquisition in its worst moments,
• the destruction of the Zaporozhian cossacks
• The decimation of Native Americans has also been argued as genocide

What is the value added by a page entitled, specifically, "Communist genocide"? That the regime's ruling ideology was used as a justification is not exactly a stunning insight. Ideology covers up brutal pragmatism all the time. Vercrumba argues that alternative titles would just be a list. That's what the article is now - a content fork with a garnish of OR. If the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a genocide, then so was WWI and American action in Vietnam. I suspect that a suggested title, up-page, of Misery caused by Communist bastards is really what some editors here want. There appears to be nothing special in the literature, apart for a few polemicists, about Communist genocide to distinguish it from other forms of genocide, and nothing in historical communism to distinguish it as more genocidal than any other militarised regime.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2009 (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.

Sources that failed verification or acceptable sourcing standards for their claims

The Intercollegiate Review is a free journal which does not peer review. Ulrich's Weyl's article weyl1967aristocide, title=Aristocide as a Force in History, author=Weyl, N., journal=Intercollegiate Review, pages=237--245, year=1967 is not acceptable as a historical description or characterisation. It belongs in a section for popular culture / kook theories. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I must agree that conspiracy theorists like Nathaniel Weyl do not make good sources. If anyone believes otherwise please set up a WP:RS notice. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to add "in your opinion". Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you like. The article clearly says according to Wayl, and as a former Communist his word on 'Communist genocide' does belong to the article pr. WP:YESPOV.--Termer (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

So if we find lots of communists who don't call it genocide (in non RS sources, apparently it doesn't matter), what do we do then? Take a count?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "in my opinion"? Oswald killed Kennedy acting alone - it was not part of the international Communist conspiracy, as Weyl claimed. Even the US government accepts that. His status as a former Communist does not make him a reliable secondary source but a dubious primary source and his claims should only be reported here if they have been evaluated by reliable secondary sources and those sources should be quoted. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a former christian, can I write a blog rant about christianity and expect to be quoted in Christianity on that basis? --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:VsevolodKrolikov everybody should be encouraged to add alternative viewpoints to the article. So in case you're aware of, how may have any other Communists referred to the Communist genocide AKA Communist politicide AKA Communist mass killings AKA Mass killings under Communist regimes etc. please do not hesitate to add such facts to the article.--Termer (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In case anybody wants to discredit Weyl, by claiming "not peer reviewed- it's a blog" etc please see for example Order and legitimacy: political thought in national Spain By Francis Graham Wilson, H. Lee Cheek Page 178: See a notable article by Nathaniel Weyl, "Aristocide as a Force in History," Intercollegiate Review, III (May-June 1967)--Termer (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, we only include sources that are RS and are not WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a random collection of people's opinions, but a reflection of the current positions of mainstream academia. The Intercollegiate Review is a conservative, non-peer reviewed free journal. The article is written by a fringe theorist, who does not have a reputation for factual accuracy and academic honesty - note his invention of Castro's communist teens, and his support for white supremacist eugenics at a time long after it was at all academically respectable. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not to use wiki as a platform for our political views, and so if a source is not RS, we have to withdraw it. I could start quoting Pravda about how there were no genocides at all (hey, it's an opinion), but I"m not going to, because Pravda under Stalin cannot be considered an RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whose book was funded by three conservative think tanks, whose authors are not academically qualified to do discourse analysis of sociology or history, or qual or quant, they're discourse politicians, and who's scholarly publisher Transaction are not scholarly publishers of note in the field of Soviet or Chinese studies. (Let alone, from their web page, a scholarly publisher.) Monographs are notorious for not being peer reviewed and for relying on the credibility of their academic publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is opinion VsevolodKrolikov , including either the Mass killings under Communist regimes were a genocide or politicide or an ordinary mass murder. Since you keep bringing up "a reflection of the current positions of mainstream academia", why don't you add this "mainstream academia" opinion you keep talking about to the article?--Termer (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, not on wikipedia. I really think you need to take a step back and look at sourcing policy and how to tell if an opinion is worth reporting. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of opinions. That's what blogging is for. Interestingly, Termer, your google books ref has this to say about Weyl's article: "See a notable article by Nathaniel Weyl, "Aristocide as a force in history", Intercollegiate Review III, (May-June 1967) pp 237-245, in which the author argues that...", at which point the page finishes, and the next one is not available. Do you know what comes next? It would be nice to know what makes the article notable. Thanks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lecturing me! I take your teachings for consideration. however since sourced material was removed from this article pr claims of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and you refused to take it to WP:RSN/WP:FTN, I would need to do it for you.--Termer (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the removal of Weyl's material, then non-RS material was removed. Not all published material is RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer has posted at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aristocide_As_a_Force_In_History_by_Nathaniel_Weyl VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Where the article name, this talk, and the full citation were not correctly indicated by the requester. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses, Fifelfoo, the Intercollegiate Review claims to one of the central organs of American conservative intellectual life, so if it publishes an article by Weyl, then that article must reflect the view point of American conservatism as seen by the journal. Since American conservatism is a significant viewpoint, it is not undue nor fringe, therefore it should represented in this article per WP:YESPOV. --Martintg (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not if Weyl is reliable to talk about Weyl's views. The issue is if Weyl is reliable to talk about actual lived history in the Soviet Union; if his theoretical construct is Fringe to Soviet Studies; if his contribution meets scholarly standards (ICR is not peer reviewed). The last I checked American conservatism was not a historical research unit of a research active university; but a social movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Weyl never held an academic post; most of his books were published either by Arlington House, an openly anti-communist publisher, or Public Affairs Press, which seems to be a defunct publisher of texts on segregation and eugenics. I don't think he can even be taken as representing mainstream American conservative academic thought.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing Weyl is saying in his article is in conflict with facts that happened in the Soviet Union. Only thing that could be labeled unreliable about the waves of mass killings that he's talking about is calling it 'Communist genocide', like a number of other authors starting with Raphael Lemkin. --Termer (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If Weyl's facts are correct then there should be no problem in finding them in a reliable source, e.g., an academic peer-reviewed article. And please read about reliable sources so that we can avoid discussions like this in future. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem of this article is not with describing the facts, but with rather frivolous interpretations. (Igny (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Indeed there is no problem finding the facts cited by Weyl in other reliable sources already also listed in the article, that's why I miss the point of removing Weyl. Only thing he says, tells the same story all over again. On "frivolous interpretations", I'm not that sure what exactly are you referring to Igny? He calls the "mass killings under the Communist regimes" - 'Communist genocide' like many other authors.--Termer (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The debate at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aristocide_As_a_Force_In_History_by_Nathaniel_Weyl - which you asked for - has been pretty clear so far.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer, why did you say at the Noticeboard "third opinions only" then entered your own comments? BTW Weyl may have his own WP article but so do lots of other cranks. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to a [secondary published source calling Weyl a crank and I'm open to following: "According to Weyl, who is a crank according to... , the communist genocide occurred in several waves etc."--Termer (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very funny. I would have to get a biography about him and it would probably be more academically stated. However you are aware that he was a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist which makes him wholly unreliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Kennedy assassination wasn't a conspiracy? How do you know? I would rather buy claims like "a former communist who became a conservative and ended up voting for Clinton and Kerry can't really know what he is talking about".--Termer (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all the bickering and bad faith aside, I do agree that Weyl should not be considered a reliable source. I might as well note here that the article Nathaniel Weyl contains some pretty serious COPYVIO as lots of the text there is taken verbatim from the source. Anyone feeling civic at the moment should go over there and paraphrase key passages before it starts getting blanked, per COPYVIO.radek (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Books Google sources

Doing a books google search of the term I found two books with the term in the title and others referring to genocide by the country when it was under communist rule. So a good place to get more info on the most widespread and systematic genocides carried out in human history. (Except maybe for female witches during middle ages.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Boldur-Lăţescu book The communist genocide in Romania makes moving reading. There are echoes of Havel's Letter to Dr. Husak in its analysis of how oppression worked, although Romania had it worse in so many ways than Czechoslovakia. It may even be an RS for the Romania page, although it's a distinctly personal account. However, from what I can read (many pages are not available), his concept of genocide is the affect on the whole population of Romania - for example, the birth rate, cultural heritage and so on (although there is of course the specific persecution of the church). It's not really the same genocides as in the USSR, Cambodia or China, which were aimed at specific categories of people. This is the problem with this page. There are already pages detailing the crimes of particular regimes. For this page not to be a content fork, there has to be a body of literature examining the overarching reasons for genocide under communism, across countries. I had presumed there was, but so far, no one has come up with much of substance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

there has to be a body of literature examining the overarching reasons? Please take your time and read any of the sources on the subject. the "overarching reason" for the 'Communist mass killnigs' or 'Mass killings under Communist regimes' or 'Communist genocide' or politicide etc. (call it whatever you like) were always the physical elimination of political opposition to the regimes in the societies including within the Communist parties. Please let me know in case direct citations need to be pasted to this talk page.--Termer (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How has this been assessed as different to the elimination of opponents under other regimes? (for example, reformation and counter-reformation killings, operation Condor and the Dirty War and so on.) Apart from the John Gray source, there doesn't appear to be a respectable body of literature synthesising analyses across countries.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes! Actual quotes need to be given - not just in the talk page, but also in the article itself. And not just copy-pasted, but incorporated into a text which summarizes the views in a coherent way, with regard to the topic and scope of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:--Termer (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 0801472733.

  In addition to mass killings directly associated with the implementation of communism in the countryside, the communist regimes of the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia each engaged in massive political purges of suspected enemies in society and in the communist party. The targets of these purges included current and former members of opposition political parties, moderates within the communist party, intellectuals, artists, religious, ethnic, or nationalist leders, and a myriad of other suspected political opponents of the regime.

  {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Here is what I wrote about the book 2 days ago (you can see it above): Valentino's theory is that radical communist regimes killed people because it was the only way they could create a radically different and better society. Less radical communists did not engage in mass killings. The theory was presented in a chapter of his book Final Solutions (2005). If it can be established that this theory has become established within academic literature, even if it is not the majority opinion, then there is an argument for its separate article. If however it is a neologism used in the book, then it belongs in an article about Valentino or a separate article about his book. Incidentally as [Martintg] point[ed] out the term used is communist mass killings not mass killings under Communist regimes. It would still be WP:OR to use a title not found in the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Valentino quote does not mention causation, motivation, function, structure, reason or ideology. Additionally, given this article's title, genocide is not mentioned in relation to these killings. Finally, I don't see how your quote indicates Valentino considers this any different to any other state form of killing of undesirables, such as the killing of criminals in regency England, for example. You are clearly engaged in an OR project constructed out of tendentious citations. This is not acceptable verification and your sources are not reliable for the conclusions you draw. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately such arguments didn't fly at the Afd and the article is still here. But in case you feel so strongly about it, why don't you take it to a second round. There is no reason to keep repeating such arguments over and over again.--Termer (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo - the book does discuss all of those things, and specifically analyses communist motivations. And termer: at last - you get the idea - academic, university imprint etc. etc. Hurray! Now we need more like that. (At the moment one book suggests addition to an existing article.) Unfortunately, google books has cut off the reference list, which might prove a goldmine. Books like this will also help to define what goes in the article, which shouldn't simply be a list of all supposed communist atrocities. Valentino points out that most commnist regimes didn't carry out what he would label a mass killing and suggests a particularly radical form is necessary for killing to take place. It's true he also distinguishes genocide (as in Rwanda) with mass killings under communism - which in his theory is necessary because he sees a desired and radical transformation of society as a whole as key to understanding what happened. Anyway, I'll have a little look using Valentino's book as a prompter of search results.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Valentino is useful; but that quote is an example of an un-useful reference. Having a citation isn't enough. Having a quotation isn't enough. Appropriately characterising appropriate citations and quotations is the key. Much of this article exists on the basis of "Lots of people died due to state x. I think that's genocide. State x conducted genocide." The correct way to do it is, "Historian/demographer/economic historian Y argues incident was genocide.[1] Y describes genocide as W.[1] Y describes State X did this because communist states all (or some due to factor V) act in manner Z.[1] Brief description of incident with link to [main article.] [2-5] Any academic criticism agreement in characterising form.[6-9]" Moreover, if there is a credible key source for a generalised position on Communism and genocide, the article should follow this theoretical position's structuring. Y's definition of genocide, and theory of unifying factors in Communist groups that enacted genocide.[1] *then* summary abstract of major theoretical / state accusation & law (ie; Ukraine, Slovene, Russian law) in [Main article] and summary form. *then* major incidents described as genocide enacted by the groups, in [Main article] and summary form. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Termer's use of a good source shouldn't prejudice us against that source. However, it does seem clear that the term "genocide" is unhelpful, and we really should think about moving the article to Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. The material about Slovenia does not seem to fall into the category, however. Settling scores is not part of the theory. Gray also focuses on USSR, Cambodia and China.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep telling me this about "genocide"? I almost every second post refer to the subject with all possible alternative titles and have pointed out right from the beginning that what is the article title exactly is none of my concerns.--Termer (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment was meant for everyone - we have an RS that distinguishes between them enough so that the question of genocide can be relegated to a section of the article.

Some more sources:

• Kiernan, Ben (2007). Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300100983. which analyses each of the three countries in question, referencing Valentino.
• "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing:The Effect of War, Regime Type, and Economic Deprivation on Democide and Politicide, 1949-1987" (PDF). International Studies Association. March 2005. {{cite web}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first= missing |last= (help). Argues that communism is not a big explanatory factor, and analyses statistical analyses that it is.
• Chirot, Daniel; McCauley, Clark R. (2006). Why not kill them all?: the logic and prevention of mass political murder. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691092966. emphasises the role of utopian fanaticism in communist leadership in the three countries, but places this in a larger theory of mass killings, with the leadership in those countries fulfilling those criteria.

I'm not sure if these sources are better suited to supplementing a subsection of an article such as "Mass Killings in the 20th century".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article on genocides in history. (Igny (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Requested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• Note: several arguments both for & against this title were also made above in #Requested move.

Argument for move: "Communist genocide" is a provocative and inherently POV term as "genocide" has a very negative connotation and the compound term 'communist genocide' lacks a consistent definition. Additionally, the word "Communist" describes the governments that commit the killings, not the killings themselves.

Argument against move: "Communist genocide" is the simplest way to describe the contents of this article and the only term directly supported by reliable sources. Additionally, we don't have to come up with a precise definition of what is or is not genocide, but rather just go by what reliable sources call genocides.

• Support pr. VsevolodKrolikov above.--Termer (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the same reason. We have a number of credible academic sources that theorise commonalities in mass killings. There are no credible located sources theorising a unity of genocide. Given this articles need to be restructured around credible academic theorisations, move. Except get rid of those non-standard capitalisation. Mass killings under Communist regimes. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support so long as the page does not cover all excess deaths under communism, but only those that pertain to the RS analyses of mass killings, to avoid POV, OR and SYNTH.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support per all the points made in the previous discussions above I feel this is the best choice available in terms of NPOV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support the move to a more neutral title. Thanks to Vsevolod and Fifelfoo for hard work to weed out synthesis and unreliable sources. (Igny (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

*Comment It is normal when a tag is put up that the person placing it there should give an explanation for the reasons directly underneath and sign them. (If someone else wants to do this it would be fine as well.) By placing a tag we are inviting outside editors who have not read the discussion to comment and it would be helpful to them to know why the proposal was made. (If someone does this then I will delete this comment.) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I have added the basic argument for & against the move to the start of the section in as neutral & brief language as I could. Feel free to tweak if you feel I have misrepresented anything, but please try to keep it brief. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a small adjustment - I think the definition problem primarily regards the compound term 'communist genocide', not 'genocide' in itself. I edited your text directly to avoid making a new tree up there, hope that's ok. --Anderssl (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable and encouraged - that is why I left it unsigned. I did, in fact, mean the compound term but the sentence certainly wasn't clear as written. Thanks for correcting that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support when we have a category of Mass Killings Under Capitalist Regimes started.Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an article called Anti-communist mass killings, but each article needs to be judged on its own merit. An article called Mass killings under capitalist regimes should be created if there are notable claims in reliable sources connecting such events to capitalism as a system/ideology/historical phenomenon. --Anderssl (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

...Yeh. So there are notable claims in RS connecting mass killings to communism? I have seen John Grey's 'small, primitive peoples' citation, and remain unimpressed. Come to think of it, I do not even know why that fairy tale is still in the article. It is in a section that purports to show a connection between ideology and genocide, and half of the quote is about Modus operandi, which is quite distinct ideology. Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Give me a few weeks to locate the literatureSimonm223 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at Talk:Anti-communist mass killings#Original research where I have asked for sources. Perhaps you could reply there. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Communism is an ideoligy, while "capitalism" is an economical system. To have a reasonable parallel, the corresponding article must be e.g., Mass killings under democratic regimes. (The apposition for Mass killings under capitalist regimes would be Mass killings under planned economy (a morose joke). - Altenmann >t 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Mass killings under Communist regimes per all the arguments above. --Anderssl (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yah know, it just occurred to me: The early Mormon church had a number of socialistic characterisitcs. True, it was ruled by a dictator, but so was communist Russia. Should the unfortunate incidents involving the Mormons be included in this list?Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Um... no.Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Mass killings under Communist regimes, not all mass killings were genocide. --Martintg (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that at the same time not only mass killings under Communist regimes have been considered genocide but also mass deportations by the Communist regimes: according to already cited Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer: The notion of genocide has originally been confined to the physical annihilation, or intention to do so, of members of whole nation. If it were to have remained confied within these boundaries, the Communist genocide would, prhaps be arguably applicable to massive deportations and annihilation of a large number of Ukrainians, Balts and other Soviet nationals + the mass deportations by the communist regime are considered legally genocide in the Baltic states see:McCormack, T. "Soviet genocide trials in the Baltic states, the relevance of international law". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law - 2004. pp. 388–409. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)--Termer (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

True, not all genocides have to be mass killings, preventing a targetted group from having offspring is a form of genocide too. --Martintg (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This should have been done long ago. The support is clearly here for it; let's finally do it. csloat (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems we have concensus here. --Martintg (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support per my arguments in the early part of the discussion and the others presented above. Remember when you make the move to remove parts that have no relation to the subject, such as mass deportations and others.Anonimu (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support; it is close to my earlier suggestion, Genocides and politicides under Communist regimes. I was arguing against the suggested title, "mass killings", since it will broaden the apparent original intent of the article. But after some thought, I think that the article may be sectioned into "Accusations of genocide" (since it is a legal term, we have to distinguish proven and claimed cases), "Policitides", "Other" (such as NKVD prisoner massacres). - Altenmann >t 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - much more neutral name. I suggested moving this page to a different title a while ago; I'm glad to see it's finally going to happen. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment So what are we waiting for? There seems to be consensus here, is there any reason not to move? On another note, I wonder how much the issue currently under arbitration had any effect in terms of skewing the AfD on this page? csloat (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • RM discussions normally run 7 days before being closed. Thus it is unlikely an uninvolved admin will show up to close it before 7 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Much as I would be relieved to have the ridiculous "Genocide" tag removed, the current rename would just be trading one worse word, "Communist genocide", for a bad one, "Mass killings under communism", and a worse conflation with a bad one, that mass killings are related to the ideology of communism. If you do not want this whole thing to start all over again, better make it "Communism and mass killings". I believe in this article, I really do. Dittoheads need to blow off steam, one, and two, this is the perfect place to show them that Pol Pot was communist because that was the only ideology with influence in the region that was opposed to imperialism, Ethiopia is based on ancient tribal enmities, and China was a drought. But first, we need to show the real psycho neocons the door. Using the term 'under' is putting out the welcome mat. Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Your proposal seems to drastically alter the scope of the article, as it would have to include, for instance, all the content in Anti-communist mass killings. In essence that would be a completely different article. The word under is a preposition used for increased clarity. --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "[D]rastically alter", "completely different article": Yes. So? And, the point would seem to be, what does under clarify it to mean? It is a weasel word, which, no matter the intentions of its author, runs back and forth between 'during' and 'under orders of' and 'in the country of', and serves only those who do things because they can, rather than because they should. Anarchangel (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, if your argument is for the creation of a different article, then please go ahead and create that article, and continue the discussion there. This discussion is about finding an appropriate name for this specific article. As for the precise meaning of 'under' in this context, I certainly think that is something the article should discuss, but it is not necessary to overexplain in the title. Cf. WP:PRECISION. --Anderssl (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Since there is no generally agreed concept of "Mass killings under Communist regimes" re-naming the article will open it to synthesized concepts and it will never gain good article status. The term "killing", unlike terms like genocide, does not even imply human agency. People can be killed in earthquakes for example. Besides there is not one incident in this article that is not or should be covered elsewhere. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • there is no generally agreed concept of "Mass killings under Communist regimes": This is not a relevant counterargument. As has been argued repeatedly above, the new title is not proposed as a concept, but as a descriptive phrase. --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The term "killing", unlike terms like genocide, does not even imply human agency.: This is part of the controversies that the article needs to discuss. Following your argument, famines in Ukraine, China etc certainly fit under the proposed title, but it is controversial whether or not they can be considered "genocide". Thus the new title better describes the topic of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Besides there is not one incident in this article that is not or should be covered elsewhere.: That is not a relevant argument, as this article is about the alleged connection between those events, not just a list. And even if it was considered just a list, why would this be an argument against it? --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Andersii wrote "the new title is not proposed as a concept, but as a descriptive phrase....this article is about the alleged connection between those events, not just a list." I am trying to follow your logic, but there appears to be a clear contradiction in your argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that 'contradiction' is not so clear to me. --Anderssl (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are saying that the new title is merely a descriptive phrase, not a concept and is about the alleged connection. A connection between killing and communism is a concept. In other words, when I say that there is no established concept of Communist killing, you say that there does not need to be. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"A connection between killing and communism is a concept." No, it is not. Not the way I understand the word 'concept'. By your reasoning, there could be no Wikipedia articles on controversial topics, since the naming of them in the title would create a new 'concept', which would be WP:SYNTH. --Anderssl (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

concept: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.[28] The Four Deuces (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW Wikipedia articles may be about controversial concepts, but Wikipedia articles should report rather than be a source of new concepts. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, so by the dictionary a concept is an idea, not a phrase. Mass killings under communist regimes is a phrase which describes the topic of the article. You may well consider that topic in itself to be a concept in the meaning you have copy-pasted from the dictionary above. But I don't know what that concept should be called and I am not proposing MKUCR as a name for it. The point of this discussion is not to propose names for concepts, but for Wikipedia articles. As you seem to agree, there is no established name for this idea/theory/concept, and therefore we are discussing the option of a descriptive phrase as title for the article instead. Meanwhile, you have not offered anything by way of an alternative. We all know you want the article to be deleted or merged, but those options are not on the table anymore. If you think the article should stay under the title Communist genocide, you need to explain why that is a better title, taking into account all the arguments that have been presented against that title previously. --Anderssl (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Four Deuces and Anarchangel are clearly correct here; I support the move only because I find it slightly better than the current heading. But either way this page is OR through and through and ultimately AfD is the only solution that makes sense. That said, a move to "Communism and genocide" or "Communism and mass killings" might be far better than either option. csloat (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• It seems that the proposal to re-name the article has received a limited response and attracted little outside interest. Therefore I am setting up an RfC in order to attract a wider audience. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm counting 17 editors in this discussion. The problem is not the number of editors, but the lack of new arguments - which is only a problem for someone who insists on opposing or obstructing the move in spite of every rational argument. Engage with the arguments if you think there is something wrong with them. --Anderssl (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have continually explained my view which is that Wikepedia should not have articles based on original research. When this article was proposed for deletion many editors assured the community that there was an accepted concept of Communist/communist genocide but no one has provided this. Incidentally I have recently successfully nominated two original research articles for deletion (see Social democratic centrism[29] and Social Centrism[30]). Unfortunately many editors seem more concerned about continuing the Cold War than building an Encyclopedia. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have provided a good reason why the article should be renamed. There are a few RS sources that make a connection between more extreme ideology and large-scale killings, but they stress that there is no general connection between communism and mass killings. The application of the term genocide is indeed problematic - hence the move.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Then AFD it again. The body of editors connected with this topic has expanded (though the quality does not seem to have improved). VsevolodKrolikov's discovered sources don't link particularly well with the article as is, and personally the suggested rewrite would be at a different heading, and be needed to be conducted from the ground up out of reliable disciplinarily appropriate peer-reviewed or scholarly academic published sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sources don't back up the article as it is. I agree that it needs to focus on RS - which is primarily about certain periods in Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If there is no "connection between more extreme ideology and large-scale killings" then there is no article. Please read WP:SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, there's no SYNTH going on here. Let me remind you of some books that do discuss the connection, both for and against:

• Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801472733. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Kiernan, Ben (2007). Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300100983. which analyses each of the three countries in question, referencing Valentino.
• "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing:The Effect of War, Regime Type, and Economic Deprivation on Democide and Politicide, 1949-1987" (PDF). International Studies Association. March 2005. {{cite web}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first= missing |last= (help). Argues that communism is not a big explanatory factor, and analyses statistical analyses that it is.
• Chirot, Daniel; McCauley, Clark R. (2006). Why not kill them all?: the logic and prevention of mass political murder. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691092966. emphasises the role of utopian fanaticism in communist leadership in the three countries, but places this in a larger theory of mass killings, with the leadership in those countries fulfilling those criteria.
• Gray, John (1990). "Totalitarianism, reform and civil society". In Ellen Frankel Paul (ed.). Totalitarianism at the crossroads. Transaction Publisher. cited in the article as saying the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism".

You may not like what they argue, but it's wrong to say that there is no RS discussing the possibility of connection.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has made any attempt to write this article based on these sources. Not one of these sources is used in the lead. You are saying that some scholars have written about Communist genocide but you ignore them and write your own article. Can you explain why you have written so extensively on the talk page yet present nothing in the article? BTW I oppose garbage articles whatever ideology they support. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim No one has made any attempt to write this article based on these source simply isn't true. Just that all attempts to write a serious article here have been drowned into nonsense like "no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide" and "Communist genocide against Nazi collaborators in Slovenia" etc.--Termer (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Valentino and Kiernan are mentioned for facts only, not theories. (Really these facts should come from better known sources which are available.) The International Studies Association and Chirot are not mentioned at all. Only the opinions of the crackpot writer Gray are mentioned. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This crackpot Gray? And there was I thinking LSE Professors of European Thought qualified as RS. Tsk. I really must get up to date with things.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down Four Deuces, VsevolodKrolikov's first contribution was on 5/9/09 (after searching here and the archives search above. This kind of "Bite the expert" stuff is bad. They probably came here for the same reason I did, after an RFC. VsevolodKrolikov's contributions here have been to locate scholarly articles which have the links between Communist ideology in general and mass murdering. You're biting one of the few editors here that have made a significant contribution to moving this article forward in the last month. And during this last month, the article has been in constant dispute. VK was involved in the discussion which lead to the Request for Move as a basis before beginning to edit this article to where it should be. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, fifelfoo (although "expert" is perhaps an exaggeration). I haven't made any major changes because for a long while I wasn't much convinced that there were decent sources to justify the article at all (and I was trying to work out a reason for not calling for another AfD). I am now convinced, and the first thing to do is to change the name and make the lede nice and clear that the article is not about all the bad things that communists have done, but about particular historical events, the analysis of which leads some experts to conclude that ideology was a compelling factor in their unfolding (and other experts to disagree). There's no point trying to make a big edit change when there's such disagreement. Thankfully, I think we are moving towards such agreement. Your objections are noted, but the consensus does seem to be forming.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are various theories that Communist ideology leads to genocide, and it may deserve its own article. But an article that merely lists events is not justified. What is the proper name for that article or does it really belong to the Communism article? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lost Literature of Socialism as a source

Please explain here why The Lost Literature of Socialism is an unreliable source. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable synthesis and biassed extrapolation from quoted material. Have a nice day. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But how does it violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[31] Emphasis on the former. Claiming that calls for class struggle, even violent class struggle equate to calls for genocide most certainly are extremist.Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks quite reasonable to include this. Watson is not a historian, but is a Fellow in English in Bibliography at St. John’s College, Cambridge and editor of the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature. In short an academic source that historians may want to challenge, but a reliable academic source nonetheless. I'll include it. In terms of extremist views, we might refer this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but I'd think that they'd view the denial of Communist genocide as a fringe theory. Smallbones (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying that titularly communist states have participated in mass killings (as have titularly democratic ones) but to claim an ideological link to genocide is extremist. Simonm223 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier to take it to WP:RSN since you are claiming the "extremism" makes it an unreliable source. Absent their agreement, please leave it in. Smallbones (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Watson refers to an article from Engels (you can read it here), of which historian Andrzej Walicki has said, "It is difficult to deny that this was an outright call for genocide."[32] AmateurEditor (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Walicki is correct but what is not difficult to deny is the underlying assumption that a particular article from Engels represents an "ideological link" between "communism" and "genocide." csloat (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have posted to the RSN.[33] BTW would editors please cease and desist introducing all these obscure crackpot sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note to Simon223, the link made between ideology and genocide is not necessarily extremist. We have established that there are a few RS that seek to make that analysis with respect to the USSR, PRC and Cambodia (that they had a particularly extreme form of communist ideology that was a decisive factor). The only way this article can stay encyclopaedic is if we focus on those analyses (rather than just have a list of all the excess deaths caused by governmental actions, which is much more of a POV position.) There are also others that dispute the link, but it is a legitimate question in history and political science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Source failed verification

George Watson, in his book The Lost Literature of Socialism, cites an 1849 article by Friedrich Engels published in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung, as evidence 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." According to Watson, "In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engel's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found."

The NRZ article does not contain the words "racial trash", nor does it contain "dung". control-F was helpful in this regard, to overcome any error in reading comprehension I may have. The source also conflates 20th century ethno-racial nationalism with 19th century lingo-cultural nationalism. Bald faced deceit and lying in a source means taking it out immediately. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, the source has not failed verification. Engels' article was originally written in German. "Racial trash", is a translation from the German Volkerabfalle (alternatively translated as "ethnic trash",[34] or in the case of this translation from Marxists.org, "residual fragments of peoples"). This issue was hashed out before (see here). The "dung heap of history" bit doesn't come from the Engels article, it's part of Watson's larger point, of which the Engels article is the most prominant support. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, do you have a link to the German original? If the word is 'Volkerabfalle', then "racial trash" sounds like a fair enough translation (although I'd think that "ethnic trash" might be more precise). To be fair to Watson, "dung-heap" isn't used in a direct quotation, so that also seems relatively fair (although, again, not strictly precise). It definitely doesn't qualify as lying... so it seems a little rash to drop the source just over such fine points. --Anderssl (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find one. Here is where I found reference to the original German word:[35]. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we are: "Völkerabfälle" [36] AmateurEditor (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed - there doesn't seem to be anything particularly wrong with Watson's translation, though his representation of the larger argument might still be a little tendentious. But for that one should rather refer to the reviews of the book. --Anderssl (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Watson's ludicrous claims are certainly extremist in nature. He couldn't get that nonsense published in a peer-reviewed academic press so he went to a minor press to print his anti-communist screed. It is not a RS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And beyond your own opinion, what are you basing that on? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This quote: "In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engel's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found." It is such obvious extremism I honestly don't know what else to say. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that one example will disprove that statement. If you can provide it, I'll drop this immediately and congratulate you for improving Wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Please read Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable_sources:

In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

This book just does not meet that standard. There are many books by academics that are not peer-reviewed because they try to reach a wider audience, or write about subjects outside their area of expertise. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're saying his publisher is not respected? Are they somehow fringe? Their book of the month is 50th Royal Tank Regiment: The Complete History.[37] That doesn't exactly smack of extremism. You're saying that a newspaper qualifies, but not this book? That's absurd. This book is well within his area of expertise, "political literature".[38] AmateurEditor (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address either of our points. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm listening. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the source is that it has not entered mainstream academic discussion. Who has checked the facts and who has scrutinized the writing? The book has attracted little interest outside right-wing publications and no academic review. He states for example that Engles advocated genocide. If he were to write that in a peer-reviewed article then we would have replies from academics and there would be a consensus whether or not he was correct. The other issue to is that the book is really a primary source for the author's opinions. But there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss his views. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not adhering to the very policy on reliable sources that you just pasted above. And the book has been reviewed by academics in historical literature such as the Review of English Studies.[39] But even if it hadn't been, it still qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, as you quoted above. As an aside, it's odd that you would use "Engels advocated genocide" as your example, since I provided another source saying essentially the same thing earlier in this discussion (here it is again[40]). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) If there are facts or interpretations in Lost Literature that are also contained in reliable sources, then it is much better to use those reliable sources. (I have not looked into the other source you provided to determine whether it is a RS, but for now just assume it is.) The "review" in The Review of English Studies is actually a 1999 book review by Robert Grant not a peer-reviewed article. I can find nothing about Grant and also have no idea what he said about Watson's book. Lost Literature is just not a notable book and its author's ideas have not entered mainstream academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard about peer review for book reviews before... The review looks mainstream to me. --Anderssl (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Book reviews are not peer-reviewed but the ideas in notable books become the subject of peer-reviewed articles. Take the book The liberal tradition in America (1955). As you can see from Google scholar,[41] which returns 2,710 hits, the theories in the book have been supported, rejected or modified by countless scholars. I don't see that Lost literature has received any recognition. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions on the appropriate levels of recognition are not the threshold sources must meet to be considered reliable enough for inclusion here, as the RSN showed. Your example of hits on a "classic" work from 1955 would obviously be the upper bound of the scale. This book clearly exceeds the minimum requirements of Wikipedia policy for reliable sources, and until you can show otherwise it will be considered a reliable source. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The claims against the use of this book were reviewed at WP:RSN and rejected by the regulars there. The book stays - it is a reliable source. Smallbones (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to wait for outside editors to comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have. Both outside editors who commented at your reliable sources noticeboard entry (Kansas Bear and L0b0t) found the source reliable enough for use.[42] AmateurEditor (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed to implement what AmateurEditor claims as consensus, "Since Watson's field of expertise falls into a gray area, why not simply state after George Watson's name[62], his field of study and if appropriate his employment in the academic field?" I dispute AE's claim that that was the consensus of RSN, but the edit did not implement the consensus AE claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How should have it been done? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to do it the way suggested at RSN, then the way I've just done it is the way. Also, as far as the press's quality goes, read this, "It is very expensive for what it is, and poorly produced: type comes from the wrong font, or is cramped, or badly spaced, or not spaced at all." Grant "Review" Review of English Studies 1999 559. This is after, demolishing (and I have been warned on wikipedia that my vernacular Australian English is misconstrued, so I have very carefully chosen demolish), Watson's standing as a historian or historical political theorist. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(similar post as at RSN) I think this is the best way. It's a bit long as it is, mind. My own feeling about this kind of thing is that what Watson is claiming kind of operates as an urban myth about what Marx, Engels etc said. It is useful for the reader to have a brief summary of these kinds of debates to know where good academic researchers stand. (I've been arguing for the book as RS on wiki grounds; personally I think it does look a bit rubbish, but RS is not about what I like.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems Grant is not a fan. I don't have any problem with including criticism in the article. I will read the review when I can get to a library. However, so that people don't think his opinions are universal, and in the interest of the discussion here and at the RSN, I want to reproduce the five blurbs from the publisher's website (which include one from his review):

"A stimulating book and if it sparks genuine debate, it will have done much good."

-Contemporary Review

"George Watson’s stimulating contribution to the problems of political theory is most welcome. It is a pity it is not a longer book."

-The Salisbury Review

"George Watson has devoted many thoughtful hours to the problem of the crimes, privileges, and general behaviour of the socialist elite. He has succeeded in producing a startlingly simple explanation of the otherwise inexplicable. A fascinating, very readable book, filled with deeply satisfying quotations from the perpetrators themselves and their publicists. Lively and fascinating account of current forgetfulness."

-Chronicles

"George Watson has been re-reading this literature as a professional literary critic, with strong interests in both political affairs and the history of ideas. Many of his findings are astonishing."

-Antony Flew, The Freeman

"The merits of Watson's book are its brevity, its admonition to socialists ignorant of what has been done in the name of their creed, and a few discoveries."

-The Review of English Studies

AmateurEditor (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Freeman article is available here. The Freeman is a long running political rag aimed at the general public and I'd esteem it as much, as for example, similar non-scholarly political monthlies that have a fair bit more red on their cover (at my reference date there was an amusing "fatal error" on their About page). The Freeman Review is a relatively academically contentless piece aimed at the general book buying public, rather than an academic review. Flew appears to be dead at the moment (he's not appearing on Reading University's website as staff). Flew's disciplinary speciality was not history. I'm honestly not going to bother to track down what appears to be local newspapers (Salisbury Review, "Chronicles" with no adjectives). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible review by Flew. "Watson concludes that “it is becoming ever more probable that it was not just the idea of genocide that the Nazis owed to Marx and the Marxists, but its detailed practice too, not excluding camps and gas chambers" is allowed to stand. That from a man whose own country (mine too) invented the concentration camp. Flew, although eminent certainly is speaking outside his subject (philosophy, atheism and logic), and the freeman is not an RS for this kind of thing. As an academic I would not bother with it. As an encyclopaedian? Still no.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Book blurbs are in general notoriously unreliable, and cannot be used to verify anything about a book's reception. I am myself a book critic (of fiction) in a mainstream Norwegian newspaper, and see quotes from my reviews on book covers all the time. No matter how critical I am of a book, they always manage to twist something out of context so it sounds good. For instance, this review, one of the most sarcastic and critical I've written, is quoted by the publishers as saying "...a nice little story about the rules of cricket and immigration." (That sentence isn't even in the review.) The general problem is documented in this article - still in Norwegian, but there is little reason to think the situation is better in the UK. --Anderssl (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I will comment further when I have read the Grant review for myself, but if these blurbs turn out to be invented that would be a serious problem. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying they ARE invented, just that book blurbs alone are not very reliable. It is true that Grant's review is quite damning, but it doesn't appear to be a total dismissal. My take on this is that Watson is worthy of mention here, but should not be given undue weight - meaning, he should probably be given less attention than Gray and Valentino, unlike what is the case in the current version of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I now have access the the Grant review in full. Unfortunately, I have not so far been able to located digital or hard copies of the other three reviews. Here is an extended excerpt:

"In their amorality, cruelty, violence, tyranny, and ruthless utilitarian indifference to human life, the Nazis showed themselves apt pupils of their Communist rivals and mentors. Watson cites the Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess's admiration for the Soviet gulag, which the Nazis had been privileged to observe during their two-year alliance with the USSR. However, in a chapter entitled 'Marx and the Holocaust', all this is substantially, and ultimately, laid at Marx's door. 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 quotations 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."

Watson does show where they did. A quote from page 77: "The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there were still, in Marx's view, races that would have to be exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler."[43] It's actually quite explicit in the 1849 article. After reading it, it really is "hard to deny that this was an outright call for genocide." I recommend everyone read it for themselves. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is clear-cut on either side, but it's also not our job to referee in a disagreement between Grant and Watson - that would be OR. Either way, the "nowhere shows that they did" claim disappeared in my cleanup before. --Anderssl (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're drawing a poor comparison, and it speaks poorly that you used Grant above to support Watson's Reliability without reading the review. You are conflating genocide as the cultural assimilation with genocide as the mass killing; this kind of conflation is tendential reading: something to leave to the sources themselves, Watson to conduct, and Grant to savage him for. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the review, and the relevant portion of Watson's book, and the Engels article (several times, very carefully). I really don't want to get into this again, as I have explained very thoroughly why the genocide advocated in the Engels article is not cultural assimilation here (ctrl+f AmateurEditor). Please read that thread if you want my explanation. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not a diff, and the link doesn't point to an argument. What you want to hold personally is fine; but Grant specifically bashes Watson for not citing that it was physical extermination, and if you wish to edit on the basis of your reading of Watson, I will wish to edit based on my reading of Watson being an insane old boy. This is why we use RS and NPOV and characterise from RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was merely responding on the talk page to Grant's claim about Watson not citing evidence, not proposing to change what is currently in the article. The thread I linked to ranged over several days, so a diff might not be the best way to show it. I have copied the relevant portion to this page so it can be more easily read, if you're still interested. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it (as in, I cannot make the connection between the quotes about the perishing of the nation, and the physical liquidation of the constituent members of that nation); but thanks for the link. I think those two para are appropriate now. I also agree with below about UNDUE; but this should be through expansion of other topics in the section, not contraction (I think it would be harder to characterise Watson / Grant in any less space). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleaned up the paragraph with Grant's review a little - more neutral language, and more accurate representation of his review. Probably both this paragraph and the one about Watson's book should be shortened more, to avoid giving Watson's views undue weight - any improvements welcome. --Anderssl (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that more space should be given to Gray and Valentino than Watson. I hope the balance will come from the Gray and Valentino sections filling out, rather than reducing the text explaining Watson's position, as it is a short paragraph of four sentences. The Grant criticisms are nearly as long. If it's necessary to reduce article space for undue weight issues in the short term another option might be to note in a sentence that Grant takes issue with Watson's conclusions and move Grant's quotes to the footnotes, so that we do not have to delete any information, but I will not do it myself without a consensus. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree partly, let's leave it as it is for now though, and see how it fits in when more material has been added about the other sources. --Anderssl (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Uselessness of the "expert" tag

Experts were requested, experts have been received, it has not improved the editorial community of this article, because the first thing the editorial community does is petulantly attack the experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This also includes the forum shopping to avoid the experts the requests have brought in; badgering; and question begging. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Should the article Communist genocide be re-named Mass killings under Communist regimes? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to open an RFC for an issue that is already discussed under a Requested Move? It looks like an obstructing move (if someone wants to declare consensus in the RM, this user can point to the RfC that is still open). This user already engaged in obstructing tactics above, creating an artifical history for the target page, effectively blocking reversion. Can an admin have a look at this? --Anderssl (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I too have reservations about the propriety of this RfC, given that consensus seems pretty clear already. In any case, for those visiting this page from outside, please also look at Talk:Communist_genocide#Requested_move_II higher up this page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Second VsevolodKrolikov at 4:27, 24 Sept 2009. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andersii, you have made a personal attack which you should avoid. Please see WP:NPA. Obviously the change name tag has attracted no outside interest and since all of us would like outside influence before we make up our minds an RfC is appropriate. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is at least the second time you accuse me of doing a personal attack on you. If you really think so, you should report me to the WQA. Personally I have opted not to take this to the WQA because I didn't want to contribute to escalating the issue and derailing the debate. I suggest we follow VsevolodKrolikov's advice below and let it rest for a few days. --Anderssl (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC questionable: Issue has been discussed above. Result was "move." Clear attempt to override/obstruct consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the article has been moved, I have removed the article from the RfC list. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet serial killers

I have added a section on Soviet serial killers and will look for more serial killers and other mass killers under Communist regimes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

: Given that this is clearly not the focus of the page as shown by consensus, doing that would constitute tendentious editing, which you well know. Why don't you go edit somewhere else for a while, instead of alternatively carping at no one making things better, and trying to disrupt people when they try to make things better? Come back in a few days.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion tag

I confess to not being very familiar with this article, but it seems that adding a deletion tag on this article is preposterous. The deletion tag should be deleted. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD is perfectly valid. Furthermore the AfD tag should not be removed until the AfD is resolved either with a decision of keep, delete or no consensus. Refer to WP:AFD Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read WP:before Simon? You didn't follow that. You ignored the RfM and RfC. Was it because they weren't going your way?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the deletion tag should be immediately removed. If someone wants to debate on the discussion page that is OK, but there was no proper procedure followed. Even the debate on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard isn't needed. The tag is one person's POV. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the consensus editorial direction, and warning about content lying outside of that consensus

The consensus standard of proof from above is that theories constituting a specific link between ideology and mass killing must exist in RS for any other content to be included. As the Move result acts as an endorsement of the consensus built on sources, I will be enforcing this on this article. Consider this a polite warning to all editors, not only must facts be RS demonstrated, but facts can only be placed in relation to a scholarly academically published theorisation of a structural link between Communist ideology (in general, or in a specific incarnation broader than a single state / movement) and mass killings. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That really narrows the topic and it may be that the article can have no content at all. The Four Deuces (talk)

In that case we'll have excellent material to merge into a more suitable article, and get the prior names creation locked. And if the process succeeds then we'll have a good article here, and get all the annoying other potential titles redirected and semi-protected. Either way, wikipedia and RS'd encyclopedic content wins. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I came here from the AfD. Why on earth was the entry renamed to something so ambiguous and general if the consensus is that all content should relate to something more specific like "communist genocide", which ironically is what it was renamed from? The new name seems to fly in the face of every single general naming guideline in WP:NAME. It is arguably recognizable (1), but certainly not easy to find (2), precise (3), concise (4) or consistent (5).PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a comprehensive discussion about the problems with the title "Communist genocide" above, at #One step at a time: is current title good. Please review the arguments discussed there, and at #Definitions of 'communist genocide', and explain why you think a different title would be better. --Anderssl (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the arguments. Please review WP:NAME. This title fails 4 of the 5 basic naming guidelines (and arguably all five). I appreciate the impetus to change the name based on POV concerns but it is time to recognize that you all took a wrong turn in doing so.PelleSmith (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you doubt the applicability of the basic guidelines to names deemed controversial by a group of editors please review Wikipedia:NAME#Controversial_names. The old name, or conversely Communist mass killings would be much better. But please note that whether or not such a subject is itself notable or fit for an encyclopedia is a whole other matter. Though that matter should be judged on its own. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed these pages a few times now. WP:NAME states, under "easy to find": "This means that if the article topic has a name, that name is used as the article title, if possible. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources." We have established that there is no consistent naming in reliable sources, and have therefore found a descriptive name which is more precise and consistent (as genocides are normally named after the victims, not after the perpetrators). There is, as always, a trade-off between being precise and concise, and consensus has been that 'Mass killings under Communist regimes' strikes an appropriate balance. If you want to reopen the issue you may make a new RM, but I would suggest to leave that until the current process of improving the content of the article has yielded a more stable result. Now that we have a consensus for a focus of the article, hopefully it can be improved significantly; if the final result seems better fitted for a different title, I'll be the first to support a move. --Anderssl (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how this entry title is in any way "precise" ... which is the only 1 out of 5 guidelines you are even claiming this name succeeds at? You assume 1) that "mass killings" has a precise definition and 2) that "under communist regimes" is a precise descriptor (perpetuated by the regimes themselves? committed by citizens of the regimes? committed in a geographic region ruled by said regime by anyone including foreign combatants?). It appears that mass killing is so precise that we had to redirect it to mass murder here on Wikipedia -- which, along with the ambiguous word "under" seems quite related to the suggestion by another editor to start adding content about serial killers in communist states. More precisely - per Fifelfoo's comment above the claim must be that "mass killings under communist regimes" is a precise name for content that discusses "a structural link between Communist ideology (in general, or in a specific incarnation broader than a single state / movement) and mass killings"? Please do explain because I'm quite perplexed by that claim. On a side note it appears that WP:NAME had little to anything to do with your naming discussion above, which is really shame as it is the most applicable guideline we have.PelleSmith (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am arguing that this among the proposed candidates, this is the title that has the best balance between being precise and concise, while also being reasonably consistent. ('Communist mass killings' is more concise but less consistent, because it names the crimes after the perpetrators instead of the victims, just like CG.) As for "recognizable" and "easy to find" I find it hard to see which of the different proposals are the best, they seem pretty equal to me in those respects. I don't want to spend more time on a debate that has been settled, so if you want to reopen the debate do it through a RM. --Anderssl (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a gap between, for example, qual sociological precision in terms; and, discourse analysis precision in concepts. Wikipedia's name concept of precision covers both. The second (which is likely what this could be, if it survives withering editorial analysis) will be sufficiently precise to identify as a theoretical construct according to disciplinary standards. In a history that tends to be a couple of paragraphs with the key clause being repeatedly mentioned in a couple of different ways, but addressed as a key social structure or process that actually exists, rather than a description of part of something else, or a colouring sentence. (I have my doubts that Valentino will survive this). Fifelfoo (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) PelleSmith, I appreciate your concerns about the new name. I'm not entirely happy with it myself (and I suggested it). You're also absolutely right to mention WP:NAME, which should have been brought up before as a matter of course. However, it should be appreciated that the current title has been a focus for building consensus at a time when to begin with editors on either side could not find any common ground whatsoever (the RfM received an near unanimous (11-2) vote, probably inconceivable a month ago). As we sort the article out and remove the syntheses, we do need to let RS descriptions take over. The central problem is having one common short phrase that does not come across as POV. There isn't one in the literature, alas, as the question hasn't been nicknamed at all. If you have any better ideas, please help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, when you say "There isn't one in the literature, alas, as the question hasn't been nicknamed at all" you are actually saying that this is entirely original research which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No. "Mass killings" is used in the literature, specifically about the content of this article. It's the "in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China and in Cambodia" bit that's not unified into a single word. As you well know, unless you have not actually read any of the sources accepted by consensus as a way to move forward. Why don't you go and edit another article instead?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dewey, Koestler, Conquest

This content is unuseable due to violation of the consensus in moving forward:

• Mass killing or a similar structure is not mentioned or articulated
• A general theory, or cross-cultural theory of communist causes for mass killing is not mentioned or articulated
• Sources are not RS. Dewey and Koestler are Primary.

Editors had sufficient warning, tags, with commentary about the source problems. <quote> Early analyses of Soviet repression, such as those of the Dewey Commission and Arthur Koestler's roman à clef Darkness at Noon, focused on the Moscow show trials of 1937. Robert Conquest, in his 1968 book The Great Terror stated that the executions of former Communist leaders was a minor detail of the purges, which caused 20 million deaths including man-made famines. For the 40th anniversary edition of the book, he reduced his estimate to 13-15 million. Conquest stressed that Stalin's purges were not contrary to the principles of Leninism, but rather a natural consequence of the system established by Lenin. </quote>

This is pure unadulterated nonsense. Mass killing is not mentioned in Conquest??!!! 20 million is not enough? There is no rule against including primary sources (if indeed Koestler and Dewey are primary sources), they just can't be used exclusively - here they are mentioned in passing, putting other works in context. Additionally, you're saying that "A general theory" of international mass murder motivated by Communist ideals must be in each reference! Nonsense. Smallbones (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit in Conquest, Koestler and Dewey Commission's relevance to the context quickly, or produce a better context paragraph. "Prior to Robert Conquest, popular debate on the issue of Soviet violations of legality were restricted to shock at the destruction of old Bolsheviks in the Trials(fn). Conquest's scholarship brought the issue of death on a mass scale as a result of state policy to the forefront, however, Conquest (did/did not) theorise this as (a Soviet specific phenomena/a general failing of Communism)." Your para does not adequately relate to the article topic. See the skeleton para which places reference to article context front and centre. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to say, I love the new picture, more so than the old picture. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits not agreeing with text

I notice that a lot of the recent edits do not reflect the sources given and represent a biased viewpoint. Since there are so many of them it is difficult to sort through them but could editors please take the time to remove unsupported statements. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs, names. Edits since 16:48 20090924 have culled OR/SYN, and have been working through the Valentine consensus reached above, citing as they go. I am having a great deal of difficulty comprehending what you've said, please help me by restating at length with examples. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:VsevolodKrolikov adds to a reference to Cambodia "in the name of utopian social engineering".[44] However the text cited on p. 99-101 does not say this.[45] User:VsevolodKrolikov then removes "Watson's book was not reviewed by peer reviewed journals of history."[46] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing again. The phrase I used is not a direct quotation from Valentino, and is not even cited as such. It is an attempt to summarise the main thesis of writers like Valentino. If you think it is inaccurate go and read the sources and explain why. I removed the phrase "not reviewed by peer reviewed journals of history" because it's OR/unsourced. Wikipedia works on verifiability. As well you know.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Disruptive editing again." Please avoid personal attacks. You state that "The phrase I used is not a direct quotation from Valentino, and is not even cited as such." However here is what the article states:

Valentino theorises that a common structure unites Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian mass killings: the defence of a utopian and shared version of radical communism.[1]

The reference is to Valentino's article. Normally readers will believe that if they read a statement that has a footnote that the statement reflects what the source says. According to you the statement does not reflect the source. Do you not see that this is misleading to readers?

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My statement doesn't have a footnote.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Soviet assassinations

User:Termer has brought up the John Kennedy murder conspiracy theories. "Are you saying that the Kennedy assassination wasn't a conspiracy? How do you know? I would rather buy claims like "a former communist who became a conservative and ended up voting for Clinton and Kerry can't really know what he is talking about".--Termer (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)" According to Nathaniel Weyl Kennedy was murdered by the Communists. Should this be included in the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are starting to edit disruptively.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing issues on the talk pages and not edit-warring. If you disagree with my opinions that is fine, but please do not accuse me of being disruptive. That accusation btw is a personal attack (please see WP:NPA) which itself may be seen as disruptive editing. We appear to have a disagreement on this article which should not be seen as a personal disagreement. I believe that articles should be based on academic standards while you believe that articles should represent a point of view. While I respect your point of view, I think that it would earn more respect if you presented it in an NPOV way rather than introduce all kinds of obscure and unreliable sources to back it up. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

From WP:DISRUPT

• their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article
• their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article
• Does not engage in consensus building
• In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error.

Your inclusion of serial killers, your attempts to insert JFK assassination conspiracy theories, your arguments to re-insert sourcing which you yourself do not believe is RS, your attempted salting of this page (for which you were warned by other users) - none of this strikes you as unco-operative or WP:pointy?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I explained before, I did not try to "salt" the article, I had no knowledge of the technical aspects and you are not assuming good faith by accusing me of that. Please see WP:AGF. You have now widened the article to include "Mass killings under Communist regimes". But what does the new title include? It would be helpful if you explained this. It seems that you have substituted one WP:OR title for another. And you are avoiding the issue I mentioned. You altered a sourced statement to include information that was not supported by the source. All I desire is that this or any other article is properly sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of AGF - I have no idea what you are talking about. I changed the lede, which does not have a source, as it's a general statement. As I said before, if you feel it is not a fair reflection of what the sources are saying, then provide the evidence that it is an inappropriate phrase. To me it seems obvious: the elimination of bourgeois, reactionary elements (etc etc) is fairly characterised as an attempt at social engineering (i.e. it's a summarising paraphrase, not OR). I did not write the phrase that does have a source, and uses the phrase "utopian and shared version of radical communism". You'll have to go through the diffs for that. As for what the article is about, try reading the lede. It's fairly clear. As for OR - please look at the list of sources that I have provided for you. The article is being re-written, and this takes time. It does not help if people who know what the article is trying to be about (and it certainly hasn't been serial killers or JFK) and what sources have been agreed as non RS (e.g. Weyl) try to insert material that is clearly inappropriate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to this edit: [47] The Four Deuces (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is not connected to any particular footnote, as I have said several times before. Essentially, your complaint is that a sentence in one paragraph with no footnote is bad because it does not directly quote a reference cited for a different sentence in a different paragraph. In the spirit of AGF, I'll assume that your complaint is based on a genuine ignorance of how footnotes and citations work. Please see WP:foot for a full explanation. It's a good idea to master what they're for before raising issues with them on wikipedia talkpages. Happy editing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD has been accused of disruptive editing several times by different editors (me included), and has responded with saying that these are personal attacks. Since the problem doesn't seem to go away, should we take this to WQA to get some outside comments on this? --Anderssl (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I am concerned that a couple of editors may be trying to derail improvement by wasting people's time with talkpage activity and various procedural moves, and/or trying to provoke bouts of incivility. I'm therefore not sure that WQA would achieve much in these circumstances, although there are good grounds for it, with plenty of diffs available.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I share your understanding of the situation, but I'm thinking a WQA could show these editors that such activity is not accepted in the community. There's also a good chance they are doing this on other pages, and if so a WQA could be a place to gather evidence. But I also don't have much time for this now, let's leave it for now and see if the problem persists. --Anderssl (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with people gaming the system. The AfD has been a nightmare (although at least it looks like coming out like the last one, with time being given for the re-write to be done) because it was - funnily enough - called a few hours before the RfM was due to be closed (rather like the RfC timing), and so has had people arguing deletion on the basis of the old title. A perfectly legitimate move to close the RfM because of overwhelming consensus early was reverted and spiked by four deuces (I should note in fairness that he claims innocence in both procedural and technical matters, just as he claims innocence in believing that serial killers and JFK conspiracies are appropriate content for this article). The RfC, the AfD, the WP:NPOVN canvassing, just when consensus formed - it's all been a bit grubby. (At least I can hold my head up high in all of this having been accused of POV on both sides). Let's crack on and focus on the problems we have in the re-write. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Smallbone's edits

As you requested (and God knows we need some more co-operative editing around here), I have come to the talk page to discuss your edits. The reason why the article focusses on the three countries in question is that this is where serious academic analysis has been done on the physical elimination of large numbers of people and the ideological viewpoint of the people in charge (that is, they are distinctive enough to warrant the claim that the ideology, rather than autocratic realpolitik per se, was a decisive factor. Note that Operation Condor would be unfairly characterised as "capitalist mass killings" as what was at stake was not capitalism, but regime power - except on a reading which says that all action by a government of a certain ideology can be attributed to the ideology. This is key, and I think you might want to review this talk page as to why. You also question the use of the word "few", but that's the truth of the matter. The vast majority of communist countries did not experience large scale political killings. The black book of communism is a controversial work; it merits inclusion further down the page, but it cannot be taken as gospel.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(Aside) WP:BRD, as I read it means 1 editor writes, editor #2 reverts and discusses, not editor #2 reverts then editor #1 discusses. In any case it, it's an essay - not policy

What I dislike about the former lede (I'll revert it again) is "carried out by a few communist regimes" and "in the name of utopian social engineering."

few depending how you count there were maybe 10-12 independent Communist regimes (when the East European satellites became independent, they quickly became non-Communist). Say the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cuba, N.Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia. 3 or 4 doesn't seem like a "few" compared to 10. In any case many people would say that the number of Communist regimes involved in mass killings is greater than 5. "Few" is the wrong word in this comparison.

utopian social engineering the lede is supposed to be a summary. Is u.s.e. discussed anywhere in the article?

Black Book of Communism may be controversial, but it's a well-known book by respected academics (i.e. a reliable source in our lingo) and it is all about Communism and mass killings, and, yes, it will be a major part of the article. Somehow with people gaming this article so much - I'm waiting to see somebody argue that the book is not about Communism, or that it's not about mass killings, or not about the relation between the two, or that the authors are not respected academics - but I don't see how these arguements would make sense. Smallbones (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

About 'few': I took the liberty of inserting my own compromise solution, 'some'. That is not used as a weasel word here, since the countries in question are listed directly after - the point is just to indicate 'not all', without making the claim that these were few, since that can always be discussed back and forth ad nauseum. Sounds fair? --Anderssl (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism is not universally respected. For that reason its mention in the lede is unacceptable, especially in an article that has been subject to so much POV disruption. This article is not "Misery caused by communist bastards", it is about the extent to which the use of large scale killing has been attributed to ideological motivation, rather than ideology simply being the cover for other motivations. For example, the Jewish purges in the postwar Soviet Union were described in terms of dealing with "bourgeois cosmopolitanism", when it's clear to all and sundry it was just anti-semitism. The Black Book can be mentioned, but so should some of the severe criticism it's received. It's simply inappropriate to have it in the lede.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede should just be a summary of the article so that someone reading it alone would get an overview of the topic. --Martintg (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I took out the black book of communism part, and the "commonly attributed" claim (for which I have seen no source - there are some sources which make the attribution, but is there any documentation that this is common?). The lead shouldn't contain claims which aren't thouroughly supported by the rest of the article. If you want to add the black book, add it first in the appropriate sections of the article, along with appropriate criticism, and then let's look at the lead afterwards. (Especially since the lead is being used as attack point in the ongoing AfD - let's not feed the trolls any more than necessary!) --Anderssl (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RE VsevolodKrolikov. In nowhere says it that anything on Wikipedia including in the lede needs to be 'universally respected'. What WP:LEDE says is that It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. What WP:YESPOV says is The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. etc. The bottom line, please follow the wikipedia quidelines while making any suggestions and/or editing the article(s). Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone understands that the lead is a summary of the most important points of the article. Currently the only mention of the Black Book is under "Further reading". That hardly makes it an important part of the article. Try writing a short paragraph about the book, summarizing the main points as well as the criticism of the book, do it fairly, and then let's see if that sticks - and THEN let's discuss the lead. One step at a time. --Anderssl (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonia project

Does anyone know why is article is listed as part of the Estonia project and not as part of the project for any other country? I would suggest that it be removed from the project because it is not an Estonia specific topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

True. the list could get awkwardly long... Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's up to relevant WikiprojectCounry to decide either an article has an importants to its project. And since the country was under discussion in this article, I'm not surprised that someone included this article under Estonia project.--Termer (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For Fifelfoo - Black Book link

Knock yourself out: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3398379/Black-Book-of-Communism VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Thanks" ;). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I loathe and detest the traditions and low quality of French public scholarship. The introduction at least has been interrogated. It does not speak into any academic discourse of Communist causes of mass killing in general, unless we're going to accept the Catholic anti-liberal reactionary historiography going back to the French Revolution as commenting specifically on 20th century Communism in a meaningfully academic way. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic Analysis

I have a strong preference for letting paragraphs be structured according to ideas rather than authors. While people are doing great work in summarising different writers, the paragraphing, kind of like a 1st year undergrad's essay, appears to be determined by the reading list. Writers need to be integrated according to topic.

We need to agree common themes, along the lines of different kinds of analyses for why the killings happened. Doing this would also help combat accusations of SYNTH being thrown around, as it would show how different writers are actually talking about the same thing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that they're talking at crossed purposes, that a number of the "key sources" are actually clap trap, and given that outside Valentino (who appears at the edge of his discourse within academia, though firmly on the *inside* of the edge), theorists of Genocide do not claim a unitary factor lies behind Communist states engaging in mass killing—I don't know we can unify the paragraphs. Valentino starts talking into the democide issue... but. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're allowed to edit in peace, and add more stuff that we find, I think it will get easier.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The way forward lies through Valentino, his footnotes, and his citers. "Black book" only deals with intra-society levels in the introduction and conclusion, and are disappointing. I'm concerned that typifying around ideas, without having a review article to this purpose, will simply be SYN. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's more than that. A good trick is to use references (author, title) as search terms. Books generally on one particular country will often contain attempts to place that country in a framework, or at the very least contain a literature overview.

Here's a few more worth having a search through:

• Words kill: calling for the destruction of "class enemies" in China, 1949-1953, Cheng-Chih Wang, Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0415934281, 9780415934282 [48]
• Governments, citizens, and genocide: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach, Alex Alvarez Indiana University Press, 2001 ISBN 0253338492, 9780253338495 [49]
• Death by government, R. Rummel, Transaction Publishers, 1997, ISBN 1560009276, 9781560009276 [50]

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of source-based searching is of course that you more easily find RS that compares different authors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source that makes a clear connection between Khmer Rouge utopianism and mass killings:

• A century of genocide: utopias of race and nation Eric D. Weitz Princeton University Press, 2003 ISBN 0691009139, 9780691009131 [51] page 158

There really is rather a lot out there, and rather a lot that has USSR, PRC and Khmer Rouge as a triumvirate to study together, even if not all sources believe that they are, in the end, similar.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, there's the problem with being called away to do something. I have no time today to put the sourcing in; but I wanted to establish how we can organise the analysis section. Here's the material taken out:

Academic analyses of these mass killings has explored reasons for what may have caused these - at least superficially - similar events. Causal factors considered include ideology, the absence of democracy and totalitarianism and rational interest group action.

Absence of "democracy" is a bit tendentious. All states mentioned had formal multi party elections (though the multiple parties all ran on a single "list", with the exception of a miniscule number of independents). You'd want a quote for that. Totalitarianism isn't used in contemporary academics, see Joravsky, David, "Communism in Historical Perspective" American Historical Review, 99 3 1994 837-857. (No DOI sadly). "Ideology" is so bland as to be vacuous. Rational interest group action is kind of a characterisation of Valentino, but we could just use Valentino's phrase instead, no? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Then please feel free to re-write it. I wanted to make a start on organising the analyses by theme rather than by author. The ideological part I do not think is bland - it's quite simply the question of "did they do it primarily because they believed that it was a necessary part of creating a better society". There are strong readings (Gray/Black Book) which sees Communism as inherently destructive, and more specific ones such as Valentino which specify a certain kind of utopianism. Totalitarianism was a phrase used in Rummel; if there's a better way of describing that approach it can be put in. The rational interest group thing has come up in a couple of sources, not just Valentino; when I have time I can lay out the sourcing more systematically.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I was wondering if Niall Ferguson’s book “The War of The World” could be used here? Sir Floyd (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I would not include it because it is a popular book by a controversial historian. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A Harvard University Professor with a long Oxbridge working background seems an entirely acceptable source. He's controversial (I personally can't stand some of the things he says), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be referenced. The point is that academics do disagree on this topic, so what we should do is try to reflect that debate with proper weighting. Accepting or rejecting sources based on whether WP:ILIKEIT is not encyclopaedic. So, Sir Floyd, could you be more specific on what Ferguson has to say in his book?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

From the WP article: "He is best known outside academia for his revisionist views rehabilitating imperialism and colonialism.... Gopal has also pointed to quotes from The War of the World such as Ferguson's statement that people "seem predisposed" to "trust members of their own race".... A few fellow academics have questioned Ferguson's commitment to scholarship. For example, in the article quoted above Priyamvada Gopal characterizes Ferguson's popular work as "half-truths and fanciful speculation, shorn of academic protocols such as footnotes"...." The book was published by Penguin and is not academic. And you please do not question my motives. If Ferguson wishes to present this theories to the academic community where can be evaluated then they might become a reliable source provided they gained any recognition. His work on the Rothschilds for example meets this criterion. BTW Newton was a respected academic but that does not mean we should give any credence to this theories on alchemy. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ferguson is a bit of a crunchy nut bar; and outside of his field of long-term history of technology and society... well. The larger point is: Ferguson hasn't contributed as his primary engagement to this field: he's vomiting up other work better found at the source. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel seems pretty controversial and I note the preface to his book is from Irving Horowitz. BTW note what Alvarez writes in the introduction to his book:

Given the increasing pervasiveness of genocide in this century, it is surprising that social scientists have so seldom applied their efforts to the study of this particular type of criminality.... While there have been a few noteworthy exceptions to this omission, genocide has remained largely outside the mainstream of contemporary social science.

That is a major obstacle to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that as a perfectly valid and rational quote, what is the problem with it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the quote, quite the opposite. It points out that there is very little study of genocide and my point was that this fact makes writing this article extremely difficult. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, be more than happy to allow the cranks like Rummel to be shown and measured and found wanting. The Black Book's own introduction and foreword stake the metatheory advanced as general refuse (though, the chapter on Russia I read seemed like excellent normal scholarship for the first 10 pages... doesn't mean I agree with it). The difficulty of writing this article is part of the challenge. If in about 20 days time the academic sources do not sustain a serious discourse, watch me line up to be the first to AfD on the grounds of unverifiability. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some folks need to stand out of the way and let the article develop. Their usual argument is that such and such a source is "claptrap." All sources are not going to agree with your POV, but there are plenty of academic sources out there that say there were Communist mass killings or Communist genocides. Try Robert Conquest for an example. See one of the following comments for an example of "I don't like it." Smallbones (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conquest is an excellent work. Conquest is an excellent work specific to Mass killing in the Soviet Union. If Conquest makes claims larger than the Soviet Union (generally, try chapters on other states, the intro, the conclusion) bring them forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Early theories para

Problems as of 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC). (Obviously I know what these things were, but the article needs to contextualise them. Also, please supply the theory element.) Noted and inlined by Fifelfoo (talk)

Dewey Commission

What was it, what was their theory of Communist mass murder. Was it generalised, or Soviet Union specific, why is this a scholarly theory?

Darkness at Noon

What was it, what was their theory of Communist mass murder. Was it generalised, or Soviet Union specific, why is this a scholarly theory?

The Great Terror

What was it, what was their theory of Communist mass murder. Was it generalised, or Soviet Union specific, why is this a scholarly theory? Is it Conquest's theory that all Leninism is mass-murderous in all locations, or just Russia, and why does Conquest believe this, what action causes Leninism to be this way?

WP:PSRP

I think this article could be an excellent first “target” for this new (made by me) wikiproject. Perhaps the events that have caused such division here can be avoided in the future on this, and other, articles? Irbisgreif (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

RS, OR, SYN, Notability, NPOV. That seems like five current policies very useful. And as soon as we started implementing them, the article quality improved. And the key to implementing them was editors focused on the issue of RS, OR, SYN, Notability and NPOV, rather than on interrogating political views. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one think Irbisgreif's initiative is good! If there is anything that is needed here, it is people looking beyond their immediate political beliefs, to the idea behind the policies that Fifelfoo is listing. --Anderssl (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also think that there needs to be a real focus on people not "taking sides". There have been people insisting that "Communist genocide" is a distinct political concept, despite all the evidence that it isn't, and people insisting there's no RS framing the subject as the article does (i.e. the grouping of the three countries), despite being presented with it. The policies are there to serve as criteria for what can and cannot be included on wikipedia, and how it should be included. Personal beliefs should not come into it at all.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is that members of this project could work togeather to stop taking sides, by admitting they have sides. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the things I've noticed in this debate is how, when bad wiki behaviour has gone on, only the other side's bad behaviour is noted. Obviously ridiculous sourcing goes unchallenged by the other anti-communists; pointy editing and disruption goes unchallenged by the other deletionists. Part of the project needs to really focus on that. (I've found this whole affair has rather damaged my view of wikipedia. I've fought for lost causes before (not that this article is one - yet!), but at least they were honest discussions.) However, I would be wary of declaring my real-world allegiances (if that is what you mean by admitting we have sides). It might just cause more problems with disruptive editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tried to point out that kind of behaviour on both sides (and I've noticed you have as well), but it hasn't exactly bought me any friends. But declaring your opinions on the topics just invites a lot of discussion on the topic, rather than on the article - as in the "denialism" vs "anti-communism" mudslinging on this page. --Anderssl (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle but I disagree that this page has addressed the policy concerns listed above. I've made the argument pretty clear on the AfD. I think we're just throwing sources at the problem, without discussing what the sources actually say. When we look at them closer the justifications start falling apart. A source may mention three genocides in the same chapter, for example, but does the source discuss them as examples of "communist mass killings"? Or does the same source address the notion of an ideological connection between communism and mass killing that makes these three mass killings different from other (non-"communist") political mass killings? And are these sources naturally in conversation with each other or are we forcing them into conversation by putting them on together on Wikipedia under a particular heading? I believe these are problems that are not associated just with the "anti-communist" or "denialist" mentality but are rather about what it means to have an encyclopedia article. csloat (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to assume that differences are based on political attitudes, although the reference to opposing opinions as "anti-communism" and "denialism" is interesting. Even before this article was created I wrote at Wikipedia:Areas for Reform:

Many new users will create articles that represent original thought, e.g., fascist cooking, which is not currently an article. In the hypothetical article they will explain their views and other writers will add details so that the result will be a fully sourced article but with no central definition so that it becomes pure WP:SYN and WP:OR. However if anyone applies to delete the article, there is a hardcore that follows WP:AfD who will provide no end of argument why the article should be kept. A Google search for fascist cooking returns 215 hits.[52] What about the Soup Nazi? We now have a large number of articles about subjects for which there is no clear meaning in the academic world, although often used as neologisms in academic books. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In other articles I never insert dubious sources for theories that mainstream sources do not support. When someone claimed that a source in Neo-conservatism was "very controversial" I wrote "I would like to see more use of peer-reviewed literature in this article. If this book is as scholarly as is claimed then it should be easy to following the footnotes/sources to find this information in peer-reviewed literature." The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I can give countless examples. I just happen to think that it is a disservice to readers to use poor sources in articles.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalin's Labour Work Camps

Thanks for responding. I was thinking may be Stalin's labour work camps might get a mention in the article. They were used to built such massive projects, such as Moscow-Volga Canal & the Belomor-Baltic Canal. During their construction tens of thousand of prisoners died, if not more. Would this fit within the parameters of the article? Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really fits in this article; those events are not about the direct execution of people.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly no, though thanks for the good faith contribution on talk. This article has been overburdened with untheorised additions of incidents where large numbers of people died. Unless this is specifically talked about in a reliable academic secondary source as part of a theory of generalised communist mass killing (or other equivalent terms used in the scholarly discourse), you can't talk about it. Why? The unity in this article comes from theoretical perspectives on multi-society mass killing, not from an assortment of individual cases of mass killing. If you'd like to help, try one of the secondary source lists above that isn't in the "Academic" section of the article to write a paragraph on if/if not there is a general theory of multi-state or universal communist mass killing. (No, Gulag Archipelago's Orthodox romanticism and Great Russian chauvanism doesn't count as an academic theory generalising the camps). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would fit in case there is a reliable secondary published source that discusses the labor work camps under a chapter 'Communist mass killings' and/or 'Communist genocide'. Saying pr VsevolodKrolikov that not about the direct execution of people would be about the same as excluding people from Nazi genocide /mass killings who were not directly executed but simply died in the concentration camps. shortly put "direct execution" is not the same as "mass killings". Deserters during war times get "directly executed" in many countries including Communist states, such "direct executions" however remain outside of the scope of this article.--Termer (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[side issue comment] Except that you'd need to find an academic RS that manages to argue that the accepted fatality rate from disease, malnutrition, and lack of clothing was actually a mass killing structure—which is a stretch, and would have to be finely argued, and would get into the Excess Deaths demography issue... A fine mess for which you'd want a nice scholarly article, and the less fine type would have a spiral of reviews and recriminations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PS.Other than that I'm kind of tired of this suggestion that political killings in the totalitarian Communist states didn't have a pattern. There was one thing that's common in all totalitarian Communist states: the 'elimination of classes' and the elimination of "class enemies". Please see The roots of evil: the origins of genocide and other group violence By Ervin Staub, Cambridge University Press, 1992 or Hope and memory: lessons from the twentieth century, Part 443 By Tzvetan Todorov, Princeton University Press, 2003 : "The idea that ultimate harmony can only be achieved by the elimination of one part of humanity is present in both Nazi and Communist programs."--Termer (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"in both Nazi and Communist programs" ... exactly the point that many of us have been making here -- there is nothing unique or specific to "communism" that makes "mass killing" imperative or makes it qualitatively different than when it happens under non-"communist" regimes. This notion "that ultimate harmony can only be achieved" through mass slaughter is the actual thing that analysts and researchers who actually study political genocides and mass killings have found to be the object of study, not "communism" per se. Perhaps "mass killings under totalitarian regimes" might be a more appropriate framework for such a discussion? csloat (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: Termer, you overlook one small thing: mass killings didn't happen in all communist societies. Sloat - one text does not represent the whole of scholarship. Straw man argument.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who brought up the one text; so far nobody has shown how "the whole of scholarship" disagrees with this one text. The problem is it doesn't. Most genocide scholarship that I have come across is simply not focused on "communism" as a specific form. csloat (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a tough one. They were Communist mass killings. My reference would have been Niall Ferguson’s book “The War of The World”. Niall doesn’t quite present his work as theoretical as might be needed for the article, but the other references look more promising. Sir Floyd (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is There were Communists, There were mass killings, Some mass killings were conducted by Some communists. Do the scholars of mass killings discuss a specifically Communist cause for mass killings, or a specific to a sub-set of Communists cause for mass killings. You may personally draw a link "Some communists engaged in some mass killings," but that is OR. You need an academic discourse about "Some communists engaging in some mass killings in a theoretically shared way which is not shared with non-communist mass killings." We're attempting to locate this discourse.

Many of these "scholars," when they single out a theoretical cause, end up like the Black Book stating "Communism is evil, I believe this for ideological reasons, evil makes Communists mass kill in a specifically communist way." I detest the scholarship in the Black Book's introduction and foreword, but I can't dispute that its part of a discourse. Ferguson is not nearly theoretically engaged with genocide studies, nor is he nearly specialised enough. We have included some noteworthy versions of the "evil" thesis, even though I dispute their scholarly nature; but Ferguson isn't even specifically engaged in the debate theoretically. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about Fifelfoo "Some communists engaged in some mass killings,"? It's not what it says in for example Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. It says Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union China and Cambodia--Termer (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings communists were not engaged in: anything prior to 1848 (obviously). Others afterwards. Communists not engaged in mass killing: CPA, CPNZ, CPGB, CPUSA; SED. If we take, for example, the RSDLP(b)/CPSU(b) and the Ukrainian famine, we're creating OR. If we summarise, paraphrase and characterise Valentino we're making an encyclopedia article about Communist mass killing. I suggest you read Valentino's early article cited, where his typology makes it clear that Communist mass killings are not a unique category, but one instance of a larger category of his: in his earlier work Valentino claims that there's nothing categorically distinct about mass killings by Communists. I have no time to read his monograph, because I'm working on the Black book. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:VsevolodKrolikov you most likely were referring to the authors above who were missing "one thing" in your opinion, not me. That's fine, feel free to address the issue by citing the whole of scholarship that address the question. And then all those opinions can live happily together in the article pr. WP:YESPOV.--Termer (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement that "I'm kind of tired of this suggestion that political killings in the totalitarian Communist states didn't have a pattern. There was one thing that's common in all totalitarian Communist states: the 'elimination of classes' and the elimination of "class enemies"." The issue is whether communist states that did experience mass killings are a distinctive case separate from other instances, or are just part of totalitarian systems per se (e.g. the view that Nazi mass killings are part of the same phenomenon) or political opportunist factors/ethnic tensions are important (e.g. like Rwanda). That is, is this "pattern" one that applies to communists states alone, or do each of the cases have greater similarity with other non-communist cases of mass killing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources were clear about it VsevolodKrolikov. the first one said the Cambodian genocide had roots in Cambodian culture and communist ideology the second one, there is no need to repeat it. Regarding the point you're trying to make, that there are other totalitarian regimes that have committed similar mass killings, that the pattern goes with 'totalitarian' rather than with 'communist ideology'. Than again, this article discusses the mass killings committed by the totalitarian communist regimes in Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, who did justify the killings with the Communist ideology based on The idea that ultimate harmony can only be achieved by the elimination of one part of humanity by eliminating the classes and "class enemies". I don't have much against the fact that similar reasons may have been used by many ideologies, and religions as well to justify mass killings in history. This all however would be part of relevant articles as this one over here is about mass killings committed by the totalitarian communist regimes, not about lets say massacres committed by medieval catholic inquisition. regarding the Communist states that didn't , haven't implemented the idea of eliminating the classes together with the "class enemies", than why don't you just address it by writing a section in this article based on any of the sources you prefer to use.--Termer (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input guys. I'm going to lunch and then to work. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting thought. The Holodomor genocide question is similar to the Labour Camp Deaths in a way that; in both cases the peoples endured State created conditions where people died in their tens of thousands.

Also the sheer numbers of deaths (which should speak for itself), was organized by Communist Political Government. It is a form of mass killings. The work camps had a combined dual role. One was to make use of the prisoners and in the process eliminate "class enemies". For Stalin and the other Communist Government officials this was a perfect combination. These unfortunate people were killed by the conditions that were created by (under) the Communist regimes, and they were on a massive scale. May be it should be mentioned in the article. I think a more theoretical approach is not need here and Niall Ferguson as a reference could suffice. Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Think before you revert

regarding the photo and caption:

Cemetery of Buzuluk, December 1921. This and other photos of victims of Russian famine of 1921 as well as the Great Depression in the United States have been used for visual effects in publications and exhibits advocating a theory of intentional starvation of Ukrainian peasants in 1932-33.Template:Full cite

of which I had simplified the caption to "Victims of a famine in the Soviet Union"

What can a 1921 photo taken in the Soviet Union have to do with the Great Depression in the U.S.? All the links are broken. Please be more responsible! Smallbones (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You do not remove material based on that. Give other editors a chance to fix the links. That is what talk pages are for. (Igny (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

I fail to see what the connection is between the Russian famine of 1921 and this article. This is not an article about deaths from administrative incompetence or the effects of a civil war. The photo should go.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But holodomor is to stay? (Igny (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

That's a very good question. IMHO, probably it should, but it should receive much less prominence. The treatment of the holodomor as a deliberate act is, as you know, controversial. Ignoring it could be POV, but overplaying it as had been done before definitely is. For me, it depends to a great extent on how important it has been for comparative analyses. How do you feel about it?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's get agreement on avoiding forks

I think that while the sections explaining briefly how many deaths there were in each instance are of course necessary, we should avoid going into too much detail; instead the hatnote links to the main articles can deal with that.

In other words, enough information to support the paragraphs on academic analyses, and no more. If there is good material beyond that, it can always be put in the main articles.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So no info on Stalin's Labour Work Camps. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think so in this article. If you want to add material, you could look at Gulag.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)