Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

General Concerns and Questions
Nuvola apps kedit.svg Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 2, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
November 15, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
April 22, 2010Articles for deletionKept
July 19, 2010Articles for deletionKept
April 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed

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


Numbers, starting with the "People's Republic of China"[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#People's_Republic_of_China

I found some if not all the numbers listed here dubious, so I started following the source. I started with "These sessions resulted in 92,000 deaths out of a population of about 6 million" from "Jones, Adam (2010), Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-48619-X"

I found the reference from this handy textbook website https://www.mcvts.net/cms/lib07/NJ01911694/Centricity/Domain/155/Textbook.pdf, where I found the author Adam Jones, plagiarized (not paraphrased, plagiarized) the entire section word for word, including the numbers... from this book here: "CTA, Tibet under Communist China, p. 9"

Which an easy google led me to this gem: https://tibet.net/2001/01/tibet-under-communist-china-50-years-2001/ or this: https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://tibet.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/TibetUnderCommunistChine-50Years.pdf&hl=en_US

basically, a glorified propaganda pamphlet by the Tibetan government in exile. Anyway, the trail continues, as it turns out, they copy pasted this number from somewhere else too. Shockers. However, this time it's from an obscure book titled A Portrait of Lost Tibet https://www.amazon.com/Portrait-Lost-Tibet-Rosemary-Tung/dp/0030504511

I can't get access to it, but my academic experience tells me that if a source number is not independently verifiable from multiple sources, and it's only found through a long trail of non-scholarly, obscure and politicized books, the likelihood of it being reliable is next to null. wikipedia:v

I'll bet that most of these numbers were just as unreliable and obscure. Yes, we volunteers do the job of making sure it's right, but in the meanwhile, I'm just going to pull of this whole shamelessly plagiarized section off of this article.

Please discuss. I'll watch this page, if there's no replies I'll follow through with the edits.Gw2005 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Gw2005, it is not plagiarism when Jones encloses a sentence in quotation marks followed by a reference to the source document. That's actually the most accurate way for him to cite something. Your characterization of the source document he cites as "a glorified propaganda pamphlet" also needs more than your own assertion to carry any weight with me. I would revert your deletion of this material from the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
AmateurEditor I will retract my comment about plagiarism, I did not see the quotation marks. My bad.
To your point about my assertion, it is propaganda, when it's written by the propaganda organ of a government. (and then also published the said government's website). I don't believe I need to explain why an obvious piece of propaganda is what it is. For the record, the propaganda pamphlet is published by this:

Secretary (Information)
Department of Information & International Relations
Central Tibetan Administration
Gangchen Kyishong
DHARAMSALA 176 215
H.P., India

[1] index page vi

Had, say, the Chinese government's ministry of information commissioned itself a report on Tibet, one full of loaded language, half truths, with numbers quoted from an obscure, third-hand, non-scholarly source, and then published on its own website, you would have no problem calling it for what it is - propaganda. So how is the reverse not true? When it's biased and when it's simple propaganda, it should be called out. That's all.
Gw2005 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Somethings to point out to AmateurEditor: I'm questioning the (WP:V) of the numbers used here, specifically in this one section I've singled out where even the basic investigation I've done so far have put these numbers into question; and I'm questioning the (WP:NPOV) of this specific section, as the article deals with controversial subjects, and yet sources from only one side the controversy is represented, leading to a non (WP:NPOV) article.Gw2005 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Gw2005, I agree that the source is politically biased and not too reliable. However, Wikipedia rules are much less stringent than you think. If the source you are talking about was published, this source can be used per our policy. Your argument that it is unreliable or biased is not working, because it is just your own speculation. However, if you can provide more reliable sources on the same subject, it is quite possible to add the information from these sources, and, probably, remove the source you are talking about (because better quality sources are always preferable). If no such sources exist, this material will stay. Another option is to find some reliable source that explicitly says this source is highly questionable. In that case you can either remove it, or supplement with a sourced criticism.
To summarize: you cannot remove this information just because you believe it is incorrect: this information is properly sourced, and it is relevant. However, you can either replace it with some better data from more reliable sources (if you find some), or supplement it with a well sourced criticism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Paul Siebert That's fair, I will take that into consideration. Thanks for point this out.Gw2005 (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Vietnam[edit]

Last September, AmateurEditor deleted Valentino's (larger) estimate of U.S./South Vietnamese mass killings during the Vietnam War, opting to include only Valentino's estimate for North Vietnamese mass killings on the grounds that the former were irrelevant to this article. However, one might argue that including both sets of figures balances the section by contextualizing the mass killings against the backdrop of the broader war, which included many atrocities. On the other hand, I concede that allowing U.S./South Vietnamese actions could set a bad precedent that might open up this entire article to Anti-communist mass killings by Whites during the Russian Civil War, the Kuomintang during the Chinese Civil War, South Korea during the Korean War, ect., which could easily get out of hand. Therefore, I have moved this content to Anti-communist mass killings for the time being, although I welcome comment on this matter.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Classicide" is considered "premeditated mass killing" narrower than "genocide"[edit]

This text says: "Classicide" is considered "premeditated mass killing" narrower than "genocide" . Which is of course total non-sense. An ethnic group can contain more than one social group, and a social group can contain more than one ethnic groups. The collection of ethnic groups or even one ethnic group just does not overlap the collection of social groups or even that of one social group, certainly not word-wide and mostly even not nationally or even regionally. Considering that we tend to distinguish far more ethnic groups than we tend to distinguish social-groups, it is far more likely that "Genocide" should be considered "premeditated mass killing" narrower than "Classiside".83.98.229.18 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The characterization is based on the source cited. From the source: "Mann justifies the creation of the term with the observation that the existing analytical categories do not allow a sufficient distinction between the targets of mass violence. On the one hand, classicide differs from genocide because only a pre-defined part of the population – namely identified by its social status – is subject to being eliminated. On the other hand, since the members of a given class are being targeted independently from the degree of their political activity and ambitions, the term politicide would be too restrictive (Mann, 2005: 17). Therefore, the author establishes classicide as a form of partial “premeditated mass killing” within his own matrix of mass violence (Mann, 2005:12)." AmateurEditor (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)