Talk:Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loganallen97. Peer reviewers: Dlaylib, Mpadilla123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of Zuroff's opinion

I'm not sure that Zuroff's opinion is entirely relevant to the subject matter of the article, it seems to have been given undue weight. --Martin (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to present the viewpoint "that communism and National Socialism were comparable", then we need to explain how this view is normally seen by scholars, per WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." TFD (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant and undue weight given to one persons opinion on the matter, removed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I will tag the article for POV and set up an RfC. Please do not remove the POV tag until the issue has veen resolved. TFD (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed it due to there being no actual neutrality issue. Only one of weight. The Last Angry Man (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is an issue of neutrality. Please follow the links provided. TFD (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the reference to Nazism neutral?

The article states, "communism and National Socialism were comparable". Does it violate WP:WEIGHT to state this opinion without balancing it with other opinions. Here is a link to the removal of an alternative view by User:The Last Angry Man. TFD (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not neutral The POV presented in the article does not represent a consensus opinin in academic writing, or even a majority opinion, and has been criticized for holocaust trivialization. Neutrality requires us to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views". An analysis of the source of this view in the article may be found at Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism#Criticism. TFD (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Follows WP policies As long as the opinion is sourced, it is not violative of NPOV to list it. Opposing opinions which are on point should also be allowed. NPOV does not mean "only allow one set of opinions." Meanwhile, the AfD looks like it failed. I suggest that raising this issue is simply more of the same argy-bargy. Collect (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Zuroff's opinion should be allowed? (BTW - please avoid personal attacks, it does not help the discussion.) TFD (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that even "wrong opinions" do not run afoul of NPOV. Is this argy-bargy intended to do anything? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you removed the comments by Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[1] TFD (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It gave the undue impression that Zuroff objected to the concept of Communist crimes against humanity, which is not the case. --Martin (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The passage you removed states, "However Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center criticised the declaration. According to him, the Holocaust should not be equated with other tragedies. He describes the declaration as "the main manifesto of the false equivalency movement", and that it is supported by right-wing parties in countries in Eastern Europe." No reasonable reading of this passage would conclude that Zuroff "objected to the concept of Communist crimes against humanity". TFD (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Um -- READ THE DIFF TFD! I did not remove the quote. Please redact your claim that I did. All it shows now is a remarkable misuse of this talk page to make a totally erroneous and pernicious personal attack which is beneath any conceivable rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. You edited the quote and the link makes it appear that it was deleted, when in fact it was not. TFD (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "however" per WP:WTA -- which is not "editing the quote" by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral as is The opinion of one man whos sole purpose in life is to ensure the holocost remains the worst of all things to have happened is giving undue weight to said opinion. There are no shortage of sources which equate the crimes of communism with those of the nazi`s. The Last Angry Man (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Follows Wikipedia policies Enough scholarly studies have been done on this topic. It is not violation of NPOV only because it does not fit the political agenda of certain individuals who created account in this wiki. This kind of chronic pro-Communist POV-pushing is disruptive to Wikipedia. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. The article currently says that the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism stated that 'communism and National Socialism were comparable'. I don't have a copy of the source for that line, but as far as the Declaration itself goes this statement is misleadingly false. The Declaration states 'recognition that many crimes committed in the name of Communism should be assessed as crimes against humanity serving as a warning for future generations, in the same way Nazi crimes were assessed by the Nuremberg Tribunal', which compares the crimes themselves; and 'an all-European understanding that both the Nazi and Communist totalitarian regimes each to be judged by their own terrible merits' suggesting that each should be judged individually (ie. by their own terrible merits), but is nevertheless comparing the regimes themselves, not the political systems. To suggest that the Declaration states 'Communism' and 'National Socialism' are comparable is incorrect. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - The overwhelming majority of authorities describe communism and NatSoc as being very, very different - in many ways opposites. Just because one source says they are similar does not make it so (in fact, I doubt the source says that: I suspect some editor made an inadvertent mistake when paraphrasing the source). I think what the text is trying to say (I'm agreeing with TechnoSymbiosis here) is that, "in the context of human rights violations, Communism and NatSoc are similar". Simply re-wording the text to make that clear should resolve this RfC issue. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove from lead. May have a place in the body of the article under a section like Comparison with other crimes against humanity, but seems very unencyclopedic as is. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To all those saying remove, I shall put my faith in both my ability to read, it is paraphrased correctly, and in the fact that a book from springer is a very high quality source. Also note, what it says is the crimes against humanity committed by both are comparable, not that both political types are comparable. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The new (current) wording certainly more closely resembles the declaration itself. As I mentioned above, I don't have access to the print source so I can't say if it concurs. I think it's certainly an improvement, at least from the perspective of accuracy. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, do you think the neutrality issue is now solved then? Given the preponderance of sources which say the crimes of both are comparable I honestly do not see what the issue with neutrality was to begin with. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I fear you miss the point of neutrality: "represent[] fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That means you do not represent just one POV, even if it is reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Then by all means produce a source which says communism and nazis are not comaprable in their crimes The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what this RfC is about. You removed Zuroff's comment that the holocaust should not be compared with other crimes. TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No one has compared, nor is there any content in the article which equates the holocaust with the crimes of communism, the article says the crimes against humanity of both are comparable, the holocaust is not even mentioned. You also may not give undue weight to a person who`s sole purpose in life is to ensure that the holocaust remains the worst crime of all time. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. I suggest that the current lead is moved to the body of the article where there might be more room to resolve the current dispute. Then a new lead, which is a summary of the whole article should be written. Part of the problem now is that the disputed text sits in your face in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not neutral In 1973, I took a Philosophy of Government course at Cornell University from a student of Leo Strauss, a conservative, and there was no question then that Nazism was a variant of Fascism and a flawed and failed outgrowth of Nietzsche and the Right, with the use of Socialism in the German acronym intended for political purposes to imply that Fascism was beneficial to society. Recently there has been an attempt by polemicists on the far right to use the word Socialist in the acronym as a false basis to attribute the horrors of Nazism to Communists, and to conflate Nazis with Communists. In fact, these are polar opposites; Communists are eternally the enemies of the Fascists, Nazis, and the Right, and vice versa (in 1971, I met a student in Venice who described gangs of Fascists and Communists, who would periodically throw members of the opposite group into the canals, who he sometimes fished out). The source you are using for this is part of that propaganda effort, and any discussion of this argument in an encyclopedia needs to be in the context of documenting propaganda, not the movements themselves, and therefor does not belong in this article. There is a commonality that does exist; is in extremism and dogmatism and dictatorship, in that those who follow absolutist or extremist dogma may end up using similar tactics - that might belong in this article, but conflation of these opposing and opposite philosophies must be strictly avoided.Mattfiller (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Korean GULAG?

GULAG refers specifically to the Soviet institution: Korean camps, for example Yodok, are not, strictly speaking, part of the GULAG. This is not a comment about either country or their institutions, but a point of detail. I am editing the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.117.221 (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The source says gulag, per wp:v I shall revert you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

AsiaNews is not a reliable source and therefore I will remove it. My advice is that instead of looking for sources that support our POV, which leads us to POV sources, we should look for reliable sources and report what they say. TFD (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it, take it to the RSN board if you disagree. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I assumned that you were unaware of the nature of the source and would eagerly agree that it is unacceptable. TFD (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it unacceptable? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources seem to refer to them as the "North Korean GULAG" as a common name, there is even a book published with the term in the title [2]. --Martin (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Again this is not the place for original research. We need a reliable source to support our section on North Korea. TFD (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Again why do you think the source is not reliable for the content? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but why is it so imperative that the term "gulag" be applied to North Korean camps? I, too, have heard these camps described as such for the benefit of lay observers, such that they may more readily summon to mind the horrors that the camps inflict on their population. But while it is sometimes a useful parallel, it should be used as a simile, not a metaphor. Can you not simply call them by their proper name, and perhaps state that they have been likened to the Soviet Gulag system? Homunculus (duihua) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Content removed?

I noticed a great deal of content had been removed due to it being added by a blocked editor, I have restored it as it all seems relevant to the article, wiki is about expanding articles, not removing it after all. 86.26.201.167 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note 86.26.201.167 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of mark nutley [3]. TFD (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

^{(Lucky section - not reverted for now)}

Sorry for intruding. Well, I am suspicious to any sockupuppet in the project by definition. But still, .... I did not find the original consensus on removing similar type of content from here in the first place. Where was the hitch? I had to go along the trace of the original contributor in the history (that angry man), to whose sock it probably was, decypher on his original talk page the history of that page - just to find, what that person was probably blocked for. So he could had bad customs in wp:SYNTHESIS if I copy, and in unproper sourcing conduct in general (RS). So I could gues for myself, that the content in this page, which was brought in by that sock, was having this type of problem? That means it was not based on the refs provided? SYNTHESIS?

I just... came here to ask, if I may, that it would be quite nice a service to anyone, who is coming here in good faith, to find here some short summary. Finding that there was revert and trying to decypher who is here in right is difficult. It wouldn't be bad to have here some wery short summary of why, what is the conduct or content problem, conduct or content dispute. Or some link to somewhere, where is particular sanction against the problematic user, or whatever is the issue. So I could relate to it and anyone as well. On a first glance, the content looked as relevant.

From the RfC above it is not possible to make an opinion about it. First, it seems it was not properly closed (hab and hat templates with summary), second I do not see any consensus related to main body of the article, I see that there was some missinterpretation of the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism (and other sources) leading to false understanding and triviliatisation of nacism (in the context of human rights violations, Communism and NatSoc are similar") and it looked that the RfC was about this particular missinterpretation and that it was error just in the Lead section (while now there is nothing more than the lead section - it does not make sense). So maybe the discussion was somewhere else?

And I do not see, that there would be any archives, where could be any excess old debate hiding. So if I may, I would support some, just a little logical rationale behind the removal. As a result I would might just join in, in the patrolling, that is if the rationalle is indeed correct. Have a good time. --Reo ⁺ 23:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was about whether or not the opinions of Efraim Zuroff should be included. I do not see any objections in the RfC to including them, except from the sockpuppet who was the person that removed them. I also removed the sections created by the blocked editor. While this article could be written to an acceptable standard, I do not see that any of these sections help the article. TFD (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove references to Cambodian genocide (widely recognized as such) and North Korean camps [4] ? Biophys (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First, it was entered by a blocked editor and we should not encourage disruptive socks. Second, the first reference for North Korea (for half the entry) was from a biased source. Third, the second part of the entry misrepresented the source. For example, the source does not call the prison camps "gulags". Fourth, the source does not directly address the subject. The best way to write articles is to find proper sources and reflect what they say, not write down one's opinions and Google mine for sources. The best approach here is to start again. Wikipedia will survive without mark nutley's services. The first part of the Cambodia section also misrepresents the source, which does not refer to the killings as "genocide", but says they instead could be called "crimes against humanity" instead of genocide. It also lacks balance. Either it was a crime against humanity, and no in-line citations are required, or it is a viewpoint which should be balanced. TFD (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tag.

Can it now be removed? And shall we expand the article instead of removing content? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. No, because the article still says the crimes committed by communists and nazis were comparable, which may be true, but is an opinion presented as fact. TFD (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a source to back this assertion that it is not fact? Given the amount of sources which sayh they are comparable I have to disagree with you. (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)ser:The Last Angry Man|The Last Angry Man]] (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not need sources to show something is not a fact, we need sources to support facts. TFD

Actually yes you do, you are making a statement of fact, please provide a source to back your claim that the actions of the Nazis and Communists are not comparable, or I shall remove the tag. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD are you going to provide a source to back your assertion that the crimes of both regimes are not comparable? There are a great many which says they are after all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Last chance TFD The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If the POV tag is about the single sentence that compares Communist and Nazi attrocities: "In the 2008 Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism it was stated that crimes committed under communism were often crimes against humanity in the same sense as the Nuremberg Trials and that the crimes committed by both communism and National Socialism were comparable.[4]" then the statement and the source line up, and the statement makes clear the fact that this is the opinion expressed in the Declaration. I don't know what could be clearer, so I will remove the tag. Smallbones (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Revert why

I reverted Anonimu for the following reasons, [5] removes Boldur as unreliable, this is a source from Nova Publishers which is an academic pres and is WP:RS. [6] the Khmer Rouge were communist, to say they were not is pointless. [7] per WP:UNDUE to much weight given to one persons opinion, this was already discussed on this talk page. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have asked on the reliable sources notice board regarding the use of Boldur [8] The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At first glance I see no real reason to exclude Boldur. It would be different though if there are known issues with Boldur or the book himself, but then somebody would need to bring then forward. Another issue might be whether Boldur could simply be replaced by more "reputable" or "safer" source, however that's not really an argument that Boldur can't be used at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replied on the RS notice board. Anonimu (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So far the WP:RS/N discussion indicates the source is usable. If anyone dislikes it, WP:NPOV says to add other sources, not to just remove this one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Please don't split the discussion. Anonimu (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Page moved

Without consensus, I have moved the article back but am unable to move this talk page? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Also, the article starts with "Crimes against humanity have occurred under various communist regimes.", so what's wrong with the current title? Please do not "move" pages by copy-pasting content. There's a dedicated button for moving articles, you should always use that. Anonimu (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

During the AFD it was agreed that the previous title be used. You ought have done an request move before you acted. And yes WP:BRD you were bold, were reverted, and ought discus. I shall undue your revert of the article move per WP:BRD as you quoted. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And of course I am unable to move it, well done. I have initiated an RM The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wasn't the one who salted the redirect.Anonimu (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move back to the old title. 'Communist' to 'communist' was mentioned and is not addressed by this close. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes → Communist crimes against humanity –

Article was moved without consensus. Communist crimes against humanity is a more descriptive title and not such a mouthful, Communist crimes against humanity was the suggested title for this article during the AFD and it really ought remain at that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Angry Man (talk • contribs)

• Oppose "Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes" is more descriptive, just as the lede proves. The article doesn't speak about alleged crimes against humanities committed by non-state actors, thus "Communist crimes against humanity" misrepresents the content of the article.Anonimu (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless we have NPOV uniformity that will allow Capitalist crimes against humanity, the proposed title is manifestly absurd. Communism is a political ideology and a system of government. It does not perpetrate crimes, any more than constitutional monarchy does. Régimes of all political persuasions commit crimes, even against their own laws. This article is a disaster area. I have done something to fix the lead; but the whole thing needs overhauling.

The present title should be changed so that "communist" is lower-cased (see usage at Communism). I hope there will be endorsement of that suggestion here, and that the closing admin will attend to it. Noetica^Tea? 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title implies that the crimes were committed by Communists as the proponents of the Communist ideology. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If it were not for the ideology the crimes would never have happened. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Source, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century pp97 The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:COMMONNAME it ought be moved back, "Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes" 1 hit on G Books Two on G Scholar 3960 on the web "Communist crimes against humanity" 84 hits 10 on G Scholar 37000 on the web Might we have some policy based arguments from the opposes aside from IDONTLIKEIT? The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop being insulting, Angry. It is not a matter of "I don't like it". Your Google searches are defective and misleading, but I grow tired of explaining these things at RMs. Would you like me to do so?

Just one thing: false choices among particular alternatives with their own detailed wording are especially misleading. Of course you can find many instances of your proposed title, because it is more "generic" than something carefully constructed for accuracy and NPOV as "Crimes against humanity under [c]ommunist regimes".

WP:TITLE requires that we take a balanced approach, not follow glib searches and unscrutinised appeal to "reliable sources" – particularly if the methodology is deeply flawed.

Noetica^Tea? 01:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example is American crimes against humanity (37 results). Does it warrant a separate article? I doubt. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's like saying if a particular topic about dogs does not merit an article, neither does the same topic in relation to cats, say, hair balls. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with those above that the current title is more neutral and accurate. Also, communist should be lower case, per Noetica. Jenks24 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. On further consideration, there is a gulf between a listified "Communist individuals", communist terrorist cells/organizations, and communist regimes. If the article only covers regimes a rename is not needed. If the intended scope is wider, then "regime" needs to be removed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Crimes against humanity under communism" would be a better alternative, as that would include non-governmental communist organizations. "Communist" as an adjective in the title is too open to be interpreted other than the proposer intends, I believe. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Communism's crimes against humanity" would be a bit colloquial, or "Crimes against humanity committed under communism". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AHA! "Communism and crimes against humanity". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ELNO

An editor removed this link and it was restored by User:The Last Angry Man with the notation, "And who says it is a propaganda site?"[9] Here is a link to the site, TLAM is obviously taking the p*** and I will therefore remove the link which fails WP:EL. TFD (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain exactly how it fails EL? The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." TFD (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You have made this claim every time, TFD, in different articles - and repeatedly lost the argument. It is time to simply let the link exist, and add contrasting links if you wish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way... Links to propaganda sites have no place on WP, except when the owner/sponsor of the site is the subject of the article. If you think otherwise, you can try inserting a link to a jihadi site on the US article, and see what comes up.Anonimu (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys really ought read the policy you so blithely quote "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." As the article more or less presents the same content then the EL is allowable under this criterion, also who says it is a propaganda site? Or that is publishes unverifiable research? I looked at the articles there and they are linked to academic websites. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think the article supports a viewpoint similar to the website, then the problem is with the article and it's violation of the core policy of WP:NPOV. Considering you are the main author of the article, should we consider the above comment a declaration of conflict of interests? Anonimu (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Don`t be daft. This article is about communist crimes against humanity, as is the external link, now you can either come up with a source for your claim of this being a propaganda site or it goes back in. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is not about the relevance of this web site, but about the adequacy of the information it provides. I agree that the WP:COI issue should be addressed..--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And which information is inadequate? As stated the articles on that site are all linked to academic sites or are sourced. So no valid reason has been given for this not being used as an EL. There is no COI. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

For example, this information is inadequate and obsolete:

""'With millions killed by mass deportations, the number of victims could be between 50-60 million. This figure does not include the estimated 27 million Soviet lives lost in the Second World War that Stalin helped unleash."

The figures are definitely obsolete, and most serious scholars do not support them any more.

Note, some of the BB's authors argued that, if someone wants to make a comparison between Nazism and Communist (which would be incorrect, it their opinion), all WWII victims should be ascribed to Nazism.

More importantly, the stories published there are being approved and accepted by some anonymous "editors". However, it is not clear who they are, and if their background is sufficient for adequate fact checking and analysis. Therefore, it is just a self-published web-site.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Your just making it up as you go, first they make unverifiable claims, now their claims are obsolete. A link to this 50 or 60 million claim would be nice, lets see exactly what you are taking issue with. Now your opinions it being self published is suspect, were is your source for this claim? As they are in fact hosted and run by The Unitas Foundation I do not see it as being self published myself. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"all WWII victims should be ascribed to Nazism", even the Katyn massacre? The site provides a rich central repository of images and articles (by identified authors), thus it complies with WP:EL. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No ad absurdum arguments, please. Although the authors made no such reservations, I believe they, obviously, did not include NKVD executions or deportation deaths to the WWII deaths toll. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So the site blames the Russians for starting World War Two and Germany and Japan were the innocent victims. Any site that makes that claim should be excluded because (a) it is factually incorrect, and (b) presents a pro-Axis POV. TFD (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Were do they blame Russia for starting WW2? Bearing in mind they did help it along with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Which might make sense as an argument if it were true. I did not find the site asserting innocence for Germany and Japan - so when such an argument is used and is shown to be errant, I doubt all of the argument presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It says, "This figure does not include the estimated 27 million Soviet lives lost in the Second World War that Stalin helped unleash". Do you think that is a neutral and accurate statement? In any case the it is "unverifiable research", which makes it invalide for EL. TFD (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Which says Germany and Japan were 'innocent' in what way? Seems you are reading material which just plain is not there. By the way, did you note the date of the USSR invasion of Poland? I rather think the relatively simultaneous invasions do allow a person to reasonably assert the invasion was partially attributable to Stalin. Your mileage apparently differs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And now it is you who is taking the p*** they have author names for every claim made there. Hence verifiable. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And if the site is good enough for a reputable scholar to recommend then it is good enough for wiki.

It doesn't recommend anything. It just says there's a foundation that attempts to equate Nazism and Communism, and the reader can see their claims at that link. Moreover, the propaganda-nature of the site is confirmed by Maria Malksoo : the founders of the foundation seek to "[condemn] the communist ideology as the ‘root of the evil’". Evident propaganda (unless you're one of the propagandists, of course).Anonimu (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which equate the two, there is a wiki article on the subject in fact. And your misrepresentation on the source is duly noted. Maria Malksoo says noting of the sort about the site in question. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That is in fact what he wrote. TFD (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What who wrote? Please be precise in your comments. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Malksoo wrote, "Mart Laar, a former prime minister of Estonia and a founder of the Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes has further suggested for condemning the communist ideology as the ‘root of the evil’ as such (2008). The aim of the very foundation is declared to be the seeking of an universal condemnation of a similar kind awarded to Nazism for the communist crimes as well." TFD (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(out)Must be the day for epic fails, first Malksoo is a she. Second read again what she wrote,she give the opinion of one person, this is not enough reason to exclude a link. Also as there are multiple reliable sources which equate the Nazis and Communists the nI fail to see an isseu with this statement anyway. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Malksoo is the only writer who actually mentions the site. It lacks notablity and it is not our role to promote it. TFD (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Then put that article up for deletion, it`s notability has nothing to do with it`s use as a EL The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The EL was again removed with the assertion it is a propaganda site, source for this rather bold claim is required. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The source you quoted above is more than enoughAnonimu (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack redacted, until such a time as you present a source which says it is a propaganda site you may take a hike, I have no interest in your opinions or what you know. Get a source to back your assertion or the EL stays. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re "Must be the day for epic fails, first Malksoo is a she" Firstly, let me point out that TFD referred to a different person. A scholar TFD meant was Lauri Malksoo. He is a rather famous scholars, and it is quite understandable that TFD thought it was Lauri Malksoo whom TLAM meant. By contrast to Lauri Malksoo, Maria Malksoo is less notable, an that is why TFD was not familiar with her works.
Maria Malksoo is just a research fellow, so it is premature to speak about her as about a reputable scholar; her work TLAM cites is just a non-peer-reviewed conference paper. I am sure that, if the web site is notable enough to deserve inclusion, TLAM will be able to find more sources about it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

TFD quoted from here paper, if he is to lazy to research the people he wishes to quote then yes, epic fail. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And again it was removed, please provide a source which says this is a propaganda site or the link may stay, I want to see a reason within policy which says this EL fails. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Now we have to start providing sources for external links? Ludicrous! Malksoo presentation of the site's founders' objective and the "mission" of the site makes it clear that it's only raison d'etre is pushing a minority view (i.e. "communist is evil" and "communism is just like nazism"). Remember: Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. And unless you acknowledge the article you created is just an attempt to push a POV, the exception doesn't apply.Anonimu (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes you need to provide a source to back your claims that it is a propaganda site. Or that it provides factually inaccurate material. I need acknowledge nothing, this article was created after it was suggested on another article talk page. I would also point out that the comparison 0f communism and nazism is not a minority view, now put up or shut up. Prove the EL is what you say it is, you have a good few hours left before it goes back. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

We have shown that it is factually inaccurate and that the only source that mentions it is disparaging. By your reasoning any website that had not attracted any attention would be acceptable. TFD (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have shown no such thing, tick tock. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my rhyming slang is a little rusty. TFD (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

rhyming slang? If you wish to waste time by posting random nonsense go ahead, but time running out for a valid reason within policy for a reason to exclude this EL The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I am bit surprised how furious is this debate about the comparison of Nazism and Communism. Yes, all comparison between any subjects have some limitations. Obviously, there is hardly exception for those two unexampled ideologies, very unique ideologies. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the people who's nations lived through both the nasty regimes (as in my country) this often comes as warning, that it really is to some degree comparable evil, causing massive bloodsheds, epic injustices and ... yes crimes against humanity defying imagination. (somehow it feels here like if skeptics here feel, that this comparison aims in belittling the dread of Nazism, ummm .. in my opinion not at all, it is more likely, that non-residents in post-communistic countries fails to see what the communism really was, and Prague declaration was just about that)

However, I did not come here to talk here about my possible POV or express any other opinions, (it was just my natural reaction here, trying to calm down both sides of the dispute, there is not need for seeing ulterior motives here on any side)

I came here because I wanted to present here suggestion to include note about Kang Kek Iew in Cambodia section. Well with few links about his sentence for Crimes against humanity ..:

Although this link could not be really source, it gives some context Reo ⁺ 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Sources are more likely to compare Hitler and Stalin, or fascism and communism, rather than nazism and communism. You will notice that there is no article "crimes against humanity under fascist regimes". There are no articles that group together crimes committed by the German Nazi government with terrorist attacks by modern far right groups. That is not because editors are pro-fascist or wish to minimize crimes committed by fascists, but that we follow politices of no original research and neutrality. And we should distinguish between different Communists - Dubchek and Pol Pot did not act in the same way. TFD (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Why is everyone in this discussion avoiding the elephant in the room: Not one 'crime against humanity' trial of Russian Communist criminals after the 'collapse' of the USSR in 1991?! The explanation for that can be found in KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1984 book, 'New Lies for Old'. Golitsyn was the only defector from behind the Iron Curtain to have a high accuracy rate (94%) in predicting future Soviet/East Bloc behavior, according to United States historian Mark Riebling in his 1994 book 'Wedge'. That 94% statistic means Golitsyn's methodology for analyzing Communist future behavior was correct. Golitsyn's bona fides also means that Dubček's Prague Spring reforms were part and parcel of the Communists' Long-Range Strategy (I noticed that Dubček was given a clean bill of health in this discussion by an observer).22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.10.237 (talk)

why no Capitalist regimes

Why isn't there a similar article for Crimes against humanity under Capitalist regimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.192.12 (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Because that would need a whole Wikipedia. emijrp (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Without comparable articles about other ideologies, including plenty of Western ones, the overall impression conveyed is be of 'Wikipedia as Propaganda'. 2A00:23EE:1208:28D3:2E21:FDA:B2D5:2B9F (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

As Communist regimes would need 1.3 to 2 wikis if they existed in proportionate numbers for about the same time as capitalists.

Because capitalism is not a political system or ideology, is not that hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.128.202.18 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Capitalism is just as much an ideology as communism is. Corn Kernel (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312125452/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/romania-president-says-communist.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/romania-president-says-communist.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues

1. This article was created by a sockpuppet.

2. This article ignores a number of mainstream sources

3. The article combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.

If these issued will not be resolved, it is preferable to delete this article completely, and, for a while, I put the tags to inform a reader about these issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose and note that a formal RfC would be required. Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the further reading section

@Drmies:, how is this not a reliable source? From Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

For this source, all three meanings support reliability.
1) The work is an academic research review directly related to the article's topic.
2) The authors, Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, are both professors and subject matter experts in the area they write about in the source.
3) The publisher, Forum for Living History, is "The Living History Forum is a Swedish public authority which, using the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity as a starting point, works with issues on tolerance, democracy and human rights." AmateurEditor (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Restored. WP:RS/N and/or an RFC here is better than the comment oh please--pretend you know what WP:RS is) which appears to be quite snarky and disparaging in its own right. Collect (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh Collect. Yeah, RS--with all its requirements about editorial boards and peer review and oversight and what not. Yet what I see here is stuff like "Through our excellent cooperation with researchers and scholars...". So, well, whatever--"in its own right" is quite applicable here: this does not appear to be an RS in its own right, at least not obviously so. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty obviously a reliable source to me. And I don't see any "requirements about editorial boards and peer review and oversight and what not" at WP:RS. After the part I pasted above, it goes on to say:

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[7] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.

If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses
• Magazines
• Journals
• Mainstream newspapers

Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria.

You seem to be saying that the highest possible standard for reliability is required, rather than just nice to have (although, in this case, this source comes very close to the highest standard). Of course, in order to be included as a reliable source, we only need to see if the source meets or exceeds Wikipedia's minimum requirements. This source easily does that, and Collect's post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here confirmed it. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is not with reliability of this source, it generally meets RS requirements, although it has not been peer-reviewed. A real problem is that this source is the only source that defines this topic . In contrast to MKucR, which separated in a separate topic in a Valention's chapter, in the BB, in Rosefielde's book, no other source discuss crimes against humanity under communist regimes as a singe, separate phenomenon. In connection to that, the sole source that defines the topic must be a top quality source, because it is the only source that warrants existence of this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thus, no references have been provided to support the opening statement in the lead. All other references deal with separate examples of crimes against humanity in separate communist states. It suspiciously look like a synthesis.

By the way, a brief examination of the Crimes against humanity article demonstrates that not a single event listed in the CAHucR article is mentioned in the main article (I mean Crimes against humanity). One more nuance is important. Like "genocide", the term "crime against humanity" has two meanings. The first one is a strict legal term, we can speak about crimes against humanity when such a crime was recognised by the court. A second term is more a journalism: "Oh, they were acting so brutally, they raped a lot of women, it was definitely a crime against humanity!". As you understand, the second category is much broader. Which events is this article supposed to describe? It seems the source we are discussing speaks about CAH that fall in the second category: brutal, although not always lethal actions of these regimes not recognised as CAH by a court . However, that is a pure journalism. How many events described in this source are CAHs recognised as such by a court? I think,, just a few. If that is the case, why should we discuss it as a separate categories: "CAH in Communist Romania", "CAH in North Korea", "CAH in China" (by the way, the previous, non-Communist regime in China was not less brutal, so I even don't think it make sanse to separate them.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Brief reading of this article shows that only in the case of NK there was an attempt of a legal accusation of CAH. In other cases, there were just characterisation of some events as CAH by some individuals. Therefore, this article is about accusations of leadership of some communist regimes of crimes against humanity. IMO it does not deserve to be a separate article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum 21:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Now I know many sources refers and uses "Communist state", but in practice they all refer to this, a Marxist–Leninist state; Communism as state ownership of the means of production rather than as a classless, moneyless and stateless society under common owenrship; and Marxist–Leninist state or Marxist–Leninist regime have been used anyway. I also remember reading another dicussion in which it was stated that communism shouldn't be capitalized and perhaps it was done so as a way to distinquish from communism itself, but then why not just use Marxist–Leninist instead? I would also argue it's not a neutral title in that it refers to a specific ideology (Marxism–Leninism), but calls it communism, which is much more than Marxism–Leninism.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. We list titles according to their common name, so that the average reader will quickly know they have found the right article by looking at the title. The common name of the regimes listed here is "communist", not "Marxist-Leninist". However, I agree that "communist" should not be capitalized in the title, so I support moving the title to lowercase "communist". Rreagan007 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan. The suggested move target ought to be turned into a redirect, if desired. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, then it should stay capitalised since that's how the word is used in many sources; just like Italian Fascism and National Socialism are all capitalised, so Communism and Communist state were capitalised for the same reason to refer to a specific ideology, Marxism–Leninism; a state governed by a communist party that follows Marxism–Leninism, etc. Either way, what to do in cases like these where a word means literally the opposite of what some people understand? What to do when the word Communism is used to refer to a specific model, Marxism–Leninism; and when it's basically used as a synonym to refer to that? Should we call an apple apple or orange, even if the source itself aknowledge it's an apple but calls it orange anyway? Either way, I agree it should at least be turned into a redirect; and thank you for your replies.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to put Rreagan in a difficult place here, but just in case anyone misunderstood my comment: I did not agree to lowercase; I guess I come down neutral on that. I just oppose moving to the "Marxism-Leninism" title. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I would agree keeping it like this, if my nomination isn't accepted. Anyway, I don't dispute the WP:COMMONNAME; I just argue that since Communist regimes were Marxist–Leninists in one form or another and the concept and the page specifically talks about and refers to Communist regimes as Marxists–Leninists, then I wondered if this could be enough to supersede the WP:COMMONNAME and avoid confusion about communism meaning only Marxism–Leninism.--87.17.95.218 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed that no one, beside a precious few who also seemed dissatisfied with the current name but may disagree with my proposal, actually replied to my objections and no one actually provided a single source; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for. I don't even dispute that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME, although I repeat once again that by the same logic the word should stay capitalised in the title since that's what many sources do and they do it exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. If you disagree with this, fine; but at least reply to my objections, which some did but stopped now; and do it with sources, which no one did as of now. I have no problem accepting whatever decision will be final, but I would have liked to have a more thorough discussion and sharing of sources.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 14 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes → Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem, but I have accepted the previous result and this one is mainly based on consistency since the Mass killings under communist regimes page isn't capitalised. I would oppose this move based on WP:COMMON NAME. I don't know which one is more common; I believe when it isn't capitalised it's only because communism is considered a noun, but it's also just as often capitalised both to distinquish it from communism and because the word Communism is used to refer to the Communist Party-state rule rather than communism. Either way, vote on talk pages whether you want both of them to be capitalised or not. Thank you.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Please, check Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 14 August 2019. --MarioGom (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Capitalization of word "Communist" is more relevant here. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to small "c". As per my argument on another talk page, "Fascist" with a cap "F" refers to the original fascists, Mussolini's gang in Italy. "fascist" with a small "f" goes for all fascist organizations in general. The same should apply here "Communist" for the originals (i.e. the regime began by the Bolsheviks in Russia), and "communist" for a general description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Beyond My Ken: I agree it makes sense with the Italian Fascists since thay actually coined the word and referred themselves as such while other fascists referred to themselves as National Socialists or Falangists/Francoists but which are generally considered variants of fascism. However, I thought that Communist referred to Communist regimes as a whole and not just the Bolsheviks. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to small "c". Also consistent with Communist party (see lede), Criticism of communism, LGBT rights under communism, etc. --MarioGom (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Discussion listed at WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Socialism. --MarioGom (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of all the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support move - reference is to the ideology rather than to the party (per Dictionary) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: @Atsme: Doesn't your same source also say "(initial capital letter) a member of the Communist Party or movement" and "(initial capital letter) of or relating to the Communist Party or to Communism"? I thought in this case the word Communist was used to refer to a specific form of communism (as it was practiced in Marxist–Leninist socialist states) rather than communism as a whole ("an advocate of communism" and "pertaining to communists or communism").--80.180.150.209 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support the move on the basis of communism here referring to an ideology as opposed to a political party. Primergrey (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Talk:Communist state#Requested move 31 July 2019 (31 July, closed)
• Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 31 July 2019 (31 July, closed)
• Talk:History of communism#Marxism–Leninism called communism (August 3, open)
• Talk:Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes#Requested move 14 August 2019 (14 August, open)
• Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 14 August 2019 (14 August, open)
• Talk:Communist state#Scope of the article (14 August, open)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Navigation templates

User:Гармонический Мир is removing the "Communism" navbox from the article. Is there some reason that navbox isn't appropriate? I know that they prefer the "Marxism-Leninism" navbox instead, despite the article being specifically about "Communist regimes" and not "Marxist-Leninist regimes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• On the other hand, since we have the "Communism" sidebar, do we need either navbox? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  This article and article Mass killings under communist regimes are primarily about Marxist–Leninist regimes, therefore Marxism–Leninism templates are more appropriate. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Гармонический Мир Please do not make edits to this article with an edit summary saying you have consensus to make the edit, when there is no consensus to do so on this page. "Consensus" doesn't mean that you made an argument in favor of the dit, it means that the editors on this page agreed with your suggested edit. That is not the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, the article shouldn't have both the communism sidebar and the communism navbox, so Ive removed the navbox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Importance in WikiProjects

Hi hi, I am quite new to wikipedia editing and I don't know how this work. In the last edit (931856593), someone changed a all of empty importance tags for Projects to "High". Is this correct or should this be reversed? It seems weird when most others are low or mid. Corn Kernel (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Corn Kernel: As far as I know, it is not forbidden, but it is not advisable to rate articles this way. If a bulk rating does not seem sensible, it can be reversed. If there was a dispute over the rating, it would be up to each individual WikiProject to decide their importance assessment. --MarioGom (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Review

Czar, in response to this, could you please check this article too? Because it is the same topic as Mass killings under communist regimes; the only source discussing crimes against humanity under Communist regimes is Crimes Against Humanity under Communist Regimes by Karlsson et al. but the topic is the same and they are discussing the same events; indeed, the only difference is that Karlsson disagree with genocide or mass killing as term and prefers using crimes against humanity. The article, however, synthesis sources with any events that has been called as such and does not follow the literature, which is the same as Mass killings under communist regimes; all of this can be discussed at Crimes against humanity. In addition, I agree with Paul Siebert, as written here, that there are multiple issues:

1. This article was created by a sockpuppet.
2. This article ignores a number of mainstream sources
3. The article combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.

If these issued will not be resolved, it is preferable to delete this article completely, and, for a while, I put the tags to inform a reader about these issues.

If none of this is even mentioned at Crimes against humanity, what makes you think a standalone article is fine? They need to be first discussed at the main article, not vice versa. You and this article have it backwards. Davide King (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I went through this article earlier today. It certainly has overlap with the "mass killings" article. The main difference I've seen articulated (don't remember where) is that "crimes against humanity" is broader in scope than killings. If both articles are lists, they would ostensibly have their own inclusion criteria. If they're mean to be prose articles, there is certainly opportunity to revisit potentially combined scope. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 07:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, the problem is also similar in that the main topic is not clear. Is this article to be a list of Communist states charged of crimes against humanity? Or is it about an alleged link between communism and crimes against humanity? First, why do we have this article when the main/parent article makes no mention of it? This means it is a POV coatrack article. Second, why limit this only to Communist regimes? Why not turn this into an article of states charged and/or indicted of crimes against humanity? It is no surprising that all such articles are only about Communism and both were created by either blocked user or sockpuppets. The problem is that both articles are not lists and they imply there is a link between communism and crimes against humanity/genocide/mass killing, even though scholarly sources do not support this and none of this is really discussed at their main/parent articles, which are are all much shorter than these two. The simple solution would be to move the content at Crimes against humanity, Genocide, Mass killing et similia while having a single article about the authors who find a link between communism and genocide/mass killing and describe it as a concept or theory rather than academic fact as we currently do or imply. Davide King (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Absent any sections on discussing the topic, this article presents as a "list" and would be subject to WP:NLIST for determining notability. I would investigate where this material is already covered as I imagine it'd be a candidate for redirection. czar 09:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, what would be the criteria for such a list of crimes against humanity and/or mass killings under Communist regimes? I believe The Four Deuces had a point here and here, namely that "we cannot create articles that group unconnected events. We need to establish why why [sic] these events are connected using reliable sources." Both articles fail this. So either we turn them into a List of crimes against humanity by Communist regimes and List of mass killings under Communist regimes, where we simply list them, rather than use prose, or we create a single article about the authors who see a link between the ideology and the crimes, or that these were victims of communism, which is an actual notable topic (currently, the problem is this concept is implied as being a widely accepted fact by scholars rather than a popular theory among the public but minority view among scholars, if not outright fringe). Even then, why only limit to Communist regimes? It would still fail criteria, so the list should not be limited to Communist regimes but should be about crimes against humanity and mass killings committed by any regime on which they were either charged and/or indicted for in the first case, or for which there is consensus among scholars it was a mass killing. This is still problematic because scholars do not even agree on criteria for a mass killing, going for a low threesold of 4 to as high as 50,000. Davide King (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Without delving too deep into it, I think the murky definition is at least part of the reason why we don't currently have a List of crimes against humanity. We do, however, have a List of genocides by death toll, List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, and List of battles and other violent events by death toll, though I believe these can be potentially combined. As per my note on the Mass killings talk page, I wouldn't focus on scope. I would improve the parent articles and lists and then ask the question of what sourced material does not fit into those articles and thus would warrant a summary style split. If the answer is none, then you have your sourcing answer. The aforementioned lists already do breakdown by macro and micro events (e.g., wars/genocides vs. battles/individual terrorist attacks). I haven't looked into why they're split instead of a single List of events by death toll, but for such a list, the cutoff would be somewhat arbitrary based on desired length of the total list. czar 04:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Czar, apologies for the length again. Is there any way to learn how to summarise? But scope is the issue. This article "combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article." Mass killings under communist regimes is the same ("combines several topics in a new, non existing topic") and it is a summary of neither Communist state or Mass killing but of the events themselves, even though the events themselves are not described as genocide or mass killings but they are grouped together through synthesis; and they should not be, because scholars disagree and historians of Communism do not see them as such. Mass killings under communist regimes, or whatever name will be chosen, should be about the concept, theory, or narrative; this is a whole new topic, not a summary of anything. It would be mainly about and the events would simply be referenced such as "Author A include events A, B and C as part of victims of communism." We would not go in detail about the events, when that is "a multiple summary style split of many articles, each of which tells different things about the same events." I think I got what you are saying as a solution, i.e. we should move relevant paragraphs from these articles to their parent articles as summary and if nothing new remains in both articles, they should be a redirect to the main parent articles, right? Problem is, what is their parent article? Crimes against humanity, Communist state, Criticism of communist party rule, Genocide, Genocide in history, Mass killing, all of these? I did already save all the content except "States where mass killings have occurred" because these are so many events and they should already be a summary of their parent articles, so there should be nothing new. Nothing is actually going to be lost but no new information is provided, hence they should be redirects. "Attempts to propose a common terminology" is already at Mass killing and it is synthesis to have at Mass killings under communist regimes. "Estimates" are already at both Criticism of communist party rule and Communist democide "Proposed causes" is at Criticism of communist party rule and perhaps should be at Criticism of Marxism, although it is not clear whether it should be a criticism of Marxism or of Marxism–Leninism and communist party rule, which would replicate Criticism of communist party rule. "States where mass killings have occurred" should already be in their parent articles. "Debate over famines" is at Criticism of communist party rule. "Legal status and prosecution" is also at several articles linked such as Lustration, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Derg, People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Khmer Rouge Tribunal (including relevant people's articles), Arnold Meri, the Katyn massacre and the NKVD. "Memorial and museums" at Communist state and relevant memorial and organisations' articles. Perhaps Criticism of communist party rule should be renamed Analysis of communist party rule, where we summarise Soviet and Communist studies scholarship, what scholars agree, what they disagree with, what are the controversies, etc. Or make it about an analysis of the events not limited to mass killings. Same thing for this article, where "Under Mao Zedong" could be moved at Mao era. Same thing for the other events; they should be in each individual country's history and the rest should go at Crimes against humanity. In other words, there is nothing these articles say that is not already discussed elsewhere (if it is not, it should be), hence it is synthesis and/or does not warrant a standalone article. Perhaps that lead may moved in a section about mass killing at Communist state and Mass killing. In conclusion, Mass killings under communist regimes and its redirects should be targeted at Communist democide or Communist mass killing; this article's events should be moved at the relevant events and Victims of Communism should be created following this summary proposal. That is because both articles are summary styles of their parents article, or they simply replicate thing more relevant for other articles, so they do not say anything new. I do not see how that will solve the issue but what is to be done when an article is a summary-style as a whole and does not say anything new that is not already reported in their parent articles? Both violates WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Are they supposed to be summary-style articles or articles on their own? If they are not in their parent articles, they were not until I did the move, does that not mean they are content forks?

Czar, if they can already be summarised in their parent articles, if they say nothing that is not already reported in their parent articles, i.e. if they only replicate content, does that mean they should be a redirect rather than a standalone article? What is the connection between the events? Is not making a list of some events claimed by at least one source crimes against humanity, even as sources are not discussing the events together or not explaining the connection, synthesis? How is this any different than Crimes against humanity committed by people with moustache? I also agree these lists you linked should be combined. In short, most of what we say in these two articles can be summarised in their relevant parent articles without the need of these many splits which are turned into content forks, so these two articles should be redirects, because nothing new would remain for a standalone article. That is why we should work and focus on the parent articles and then see if they warrant a summary style split, is that right? Davide King (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Scope is the issue" only if there is agreement that there is some kernel of a topic that just needs to find its boundaries. I read your collapsed section as the intro to a merge discussion, which is good and I would keep revising it. re: how to get better at summarizing, I'd say it's all about writing it over and removing every word that doesn't "tell".

I'm hesitant to comment on the general case here because it's the wrong talk page (should be centralized elsewhere) but the gist is that you're making a WP:POVFORK case: the material is already covered in context elsewhere and combining it here (or in X article) to imply a causal connection that scholars do not say exists would be improper synthesis, so the best option is to debundle the content back where it "belongs". It doesn't matter if the article has one or more parent articles and it doesn't matter what the redirect becomes, or at least those are separate, secondary discussions. That's where you can lose some length—make a point of deferring those decisions until later or handling one by one, if easier. The point is to find agreement on the POVFORK case and show that the content already exists elsewhere.

Here is how I see summary style currently working (note that there can be many parent articles): Communist state § Analysis >> Criticism of communist party rule § Mass killings >> Mass killings under communist regimes (MKCR). The dedicated "Criticism" article is needed insofar as the top article would become imbalanced if all the sourced info were to be included, BUT the top article should still at least mention mass killings if indeed it is an important subtopic. (Renaming "Criticism" as "Analysis" brings other issues that I don't think are worth exploring right now, but you could later.) It is natural for controversial subtopics to attract more material than their forebears—that's the whole point of summary style splits, to go into a wormhole on a subtopic—but the next step is to balance that material proportionate to the coverage, e.g., MKCR is huge particularly because it coat racks in a list.

Focus on the parts you can do right now, especially the uncontroversial merges and section cleanups. E.g., are you looking to combine this crimes against humanity list with another existing list? If so, make your case for it. Are you looking to make the case for redirecting Mass killings under communist regimes to Democide § Communist democide? To re-scope the "Criticism" article into "Analysis"? To fashion a new victims of Communism split from Democide § Communist democide? Focus on making one really concise and convincing policy-based case at a time. And then remember that decisions on Wikipedia are based in policy but often have institutional inertia—you can make a compelling case but if you let your case be derailed into side topics, no one who wants to weigh in on the article is going to want to read the whole thing. czar 00:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

One comment. "Communist democide" is hardly a scholarly concept: the first reference to the list is the Dulic's article where he criticized Rummel's approach. In general, "democide" is not a mainstream concept at all, it is a statistical category that was used by Rummel to obtain very crude statistics of government inflicted deaths followed by their treatment using factor analysis. This term hasn't become commonly accepted term, and such terms as "mass killing", "politicide" (and other "-cides"), as well as loosely defined "genocide" are used by scholars concurrently and interchangeably. The very concept of "democide" implies the linkage between totalitarianism and democide, not between Communism and democide, so "Communist democide" can hardly be some universally accepted general category: it is primarily linked to Rummel's name, whereas most single-country historians do not use it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, thank you so much for your comment. That "the material is already covered in context elsewhere and combining it here (or in X article) to imply a causal connection that scholars do not say exists would be improper synthesis, so the best option is to debundle the content back where it 'belongs'" seems to be a good summary. The other solution is to rewrite the article and make it about the few authors who see a link between communism and genocide/mass killing, hence these were "victims of Communism". "[R]emember that decisions on Wikipedia are based in policy", this is what I and others have lamented, namely that these articles do not actually represent policies; and if users were voting based on policies rather than wanting to keep the article for their own sake, both of these articles would have been deleted a long-time ago. I would be curious if you agree the WP:POVFORK charge is accurate, but you can take your time and this is not the proper talk page. It seems to be more easier to make the charge here because this article is in contradiction with Crimes against humanity which currently only list apartheid and racial and sexual violence as types and there is no mention or discussion of communist regimes.

Paul Siebert, I agree that Communist democide is hardly a scholarly concept but at least there is not a whole POV fork article about it. Davide King (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I unsuccessfully recommended deletion of the article in 2011. The final vote was 3 delete, 5 keep and 2 merge.[10]

The only source for the topic is about mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot,[11] which is the same topic as MKuCR. While crimes against humanity have been committed by Communist states, we don't have any literature that connects them. AFAIK, no Communist state or leader has ever been prosecuted for them.

So we might try for merge. AmateurEditor voted merge in 2011, while Nug voted keep.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

TFD, I am surprised to see a usage of such terminology as "vote" by you. You are a very experienced editor, and I believe you perfectly know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the number of votes does not matter. The strength of arguments must be taken into account instead. This article was created by a cockpuppet, and one of the votes belonged to the same sockpuppet. The arguments of those who voted for keeping the article are based mostly on political declarations, including Prague declaration, which was criticized by some scholars for "attempts to rehabilitate perpetrators and discredit survivors" (Dovid Katz, Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23256249.2016.1242043). The sources provided by supporters of keeping the article are laughable (such as a link to some blog). We have one review article by Karsson, and using it as a core source we create the article that essentially duplicates several other Wikipedia articles. That is a direct violation of WP:NPOVFACT, so I propose just to delete it, unless someone explained why, in their opinion, this article does not violate NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I believe what The Four Deuces meant by that is that, while in theory this is neither a vote nor a democracy, in practice it is, for if we actually followed our policies and guidelines, both of these articles should have been deleted long ago (the fact both were created by blocked users or suckpuppets should have been just one further reason to delete while trying to keep and/or move useful content elsewhere) and the only article we would have should have been about our proposed narrative-type topic. Indeed, one 14–7 resulted in no consensus while a 7–14 resulted in keep, even though the arguments were the same and these in favour of delete gave stronger arguments backed by our policies and guidelines. The problem is these for keep continue to insist the topic is supported, as if there was a literature, and that there are reliable sources; but this ignores the fact the sources are misrepresented and do not support the topic. Valentino is just one example. That these sources support the topic is taken at face value, or for granted. If one actually analysed them as you did, as I and others did, I do not see how one can come to their conclusion. Perhaps this one is weaker, as even AmateurEditor argued for delete/merge, but unfortunately all of this has been reduced to votes and not on whether they violate our policies and guidelines. I would argue yours and The Four Deuces' arguments alone are worth more than all these votes for keep, but unfortunately this has not been translated in doing the right thing and the mere existence of these articles just made it take it even more for granted that a literature exists. That is why both of these articles are actively harmful. Davide King (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

As Davide King says, in practice the number of votes count. In any case they did make a policy based argument, that there are plenty of sources and hence the topic is notable. So the facts were wrong, but the arguments were sound. TFD (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, exactly. So how do we show, as Paul Siebert did, that these sources are either misinterpreted or do not actually support either topic? I understand they are debating AmateurEditor, but I do not see how that is going to change this, although I would hope so, so that the arguments per sources will become moot and our reading of policies and guidelines, especially regarding NPOV, original research, synthesis and weight, is the correct one. Davide King (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

We could try to merge this article into MKuCR, since that's the main focus of the article. The books about crimes against are about laws and prosecutions and don't single out Communist states. In fact there have been few prosecutions of Communists for crimes against humanity. We don't even have an article about crimes against humanity under Nazism, although most of Nazi Germany's top leaders who survived the war were convicted of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. TFD (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, that is the whole problem of these articles, namely that the sources and books are not even about Communist regimes and, as you noted, they do not even single out Communist states for it. This is plain original research and synthesis. All the information and content can be saved and moved to the individual events, which would avoid the original research and synthesis in acting like there are books devoted specifically to crimes against humanity under Communist states, when they are really about "laws and prosecutions and don't single out Communist states." The fact the main Crimes against humanity article does not really discuss this could be proof it is undue and this article is a POV coatrack of it. Davide King (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, can we do something about it? If I recall correctly, even AmateurEditor supported a merge. Davide King (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Review and tags

Buidhe, Czar, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert, I realize this page is not as viewed or discussed as Mass killings under communist regimes but it has been discussed just in the thread above, though it did not lead anywhere. I have tagged it, so that it can be reviewed and it can be improved or fixed. The content can be used elsewhere, to each event and state, if truly due, but to have a main article as it currently is, we need a link that sources do not make.

Crimes Against Humanity Under Communist Regimes – Research Review says the link is not communism or Communist regimes in itself but that killings were the result of unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization under Stalin and Mao (note that this is just a period, not the whole Communist state), and under Pol Pot as part of a similar unbalanced process but of rapid deindustrialization policy; there is no article about crimes against humanity, genocide, or mass killing committed by developmental regimes because it would still be synthesis but only for Communist states do we do this, and even have two separate articles about it as content POV forks, among other violations, when they could be discusses in their proper articles, rather than in a vacuunm just to prove a point as both articles do.

As long as Crimes against humanity does not really address this to justify such a main article, just like Genocide and Mass killing, this remains a problematic content POV fork article and original research/synthesis and violates NPOV and WEIGHT by not presenting scholarly views that would not support the article as currently structured, as main articles about the events contradict what is written here because this article is all about selective, misrepresented sources cherry picked to support the creation of the article, rather than provide an accurate and neutral scholarly analysis of all relevant sources. Davide King (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Pol Pot's strategy was to increase agricultural production in order to obtain money for rapid industrialization. I don't think there was much industry in Cambodia at the time. TFD (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, that makes sense and was what I thought; then here it was stated that the source says that "the Cambodia killings were not done in aid of industrialization, but for deindustrialization." It could be because of Year Zero (political notion), where it is stated "Hoping to transform the nation into an agrarian utopia, communist leader Pol Pot set out to reconstruct the country into a pre-industrial, classless society by attempting to turn all citizens into rural agricultural workers rather than educated city dwellers, whom Pot and his regime believed to have been corrupted by western, capitalist ideas." Cambodian genocide says "Pol Pot, who radically pushed Cambodia towards an entirely self-sufficient agrarian socialist society." So, since you are good at neutral research and source analysis, what is the one supported by scholarly sources? Or, more simply, your summarization comes from that source that, perhaps, another user misrepresented? Or were you referring to another source saying that?

But back to this article, the problem is similar to the other one in that it selectively select some sources and historians that seem to support the topic, and ignore all the others, giving the false impression that there is consensus or a literature. It is a content fork POV because Crimes against humanity does not discuss it at length, other than some passing mentions, meaning that the article acts as a fork for that to push the narrative, which is created by selectively looking at sources through original research and synthesis, that communism by itself results in crimes against humanity, or that there is a notable link between the two that, however, is not picked up by most scholars, and in any case it is not written neutrally to reflect scholars' nuanced views. It also has the same primary source interpretation problem because we are citing, say, Dikötter, Jones, and Rosefield... for what they said, when that is up to a secondary source doing that; because the users may well think that what those authors write support the article but that is original research, and we need a secondary source commenting on, or reviewing them (see "Review: Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide"), to make sure whether they do support this article as structured, or whether it is original research and synthesis.

Because the issue is not about the events, they really did happen, many people have died because of it, and it was awful and tragic, whether it was crime against humanity, genocide, or anything else; the issue is that there is no serious scholarly literature that treats both articles as they are currently structured; however, there are sources that can be used to write a neutral, not-violating article. The topic will be about scholarly theories and the narrative, not about the events, for which we already have main articles. Curiously, the events are not individually called crimes against humanity; this means that, say, for the Great Chinese Famine, we are only putting forward Dikötter's views, which are not even a majority, and ignore all other scholarly views that disagree, and are the majority. That is not a neutral way to write such a controversial article; this is called selecting cherry picked sources that seem to support the events as crimes against humanity, when that is not what their main article say because... well, that is just a single, minority view, and ignores all other scholarly view to present a misleading picture of the event as crime against humanity, when scholars either disagree or still debate it. Davide King (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"the link is not communism or Communist regimes in itself but that killings were the result of unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization" In my personal view, the link here is not communism in itself. It is the planned economy and the way central authorities could use it to push for massive changes at a rapid pace. Plus the ability to silence or eliminate dissidents. When nobody has the power to publicly say that the Great Leap Forward will have unintended consequences, who can stop disasters from happening? Dimadick (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree but that seems to be a problem of authoritarianism more than a planned economy, which by itself is not socialism, much less communism. Several scholars have highlighted that such economies were not, or could not properly called as such, actually-planned economies but rather command economies. Genocide and mass killing happened under more 'pure' and unregulated market economies, but what accompanied both was authoritarianism and the lack of democracy, so that is a more nuanced link in my view. As for Communist states, it looks like they used the planned economy to industrialize faster and catch up with the West. Similar approaches were taken by non-Communist states (post-war Japan) and other developmental regimes. I do not see people complaining of industrialization or saying that there is a link between genocide and modernity, the latter of which is actually more taken seriously by some scholars but alas we only write such articles when it concerns communism; only for Communism this is done, and not by most subject matter experts and scholars, hence why it is a content fork of Crimes against humanity, where information could belong, if due. Davide King (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)