Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Table

Is it a good idea of creating a table listing all the incidents discussed in this article

Main article,when and where, causes, estimates of killed, comments

(Igny (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

US congress reference

According to this or this, the reference for The United States Congress has referred to the mass killings as the Communist Holocaust is not true. (Igny (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Assertions without looking anything up are hazardous. Look at [1]

103d CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 237 To authorize the construction of an international monument in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of Communism."

Whereas
since 1917 the rulers of empires and international communism led by Vladimir Y. Lenin and Mao Tse-tung have been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 victims in an unprecedented imperial communist holocaust through conquests, revolutions, civil wars, purges, wars by proxy, and other violent means;

Appears to use the term "communist holocaust." Collect (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this[2] these words appear to be used by DOL ("(red) Holocaust Memorial Council"), along with "(red) Federal Retirement Thrift Investment" and "(red) Federal Election Commission". However, I doubt it was what Virgil Lasis meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim was made supra that the Congress did not use the term "communist holocaust" and the cite clearly shows the usage. Collect (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My comment had a relation to the Igny's post, not to yours. With regards to "Communist Holocaust", it has been used 7 times [3]. Clearly, it was an allegory, because no serious scholar can compare "civil war" with "Holocaust".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It actually says "imperial communist holocaust". The Four Deuces (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Book

References now are used to back what is said in the references. Le Blanc was totally misused, and I cite Perrault's comments on dispossessing the bourgeoisie, and Weiner's words on the indisputable nature of the killings, as well as a longish quote from Singer. Misuing references is really not good. Collect (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Please show us concrete examples.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Weiner was cited as a critical view -- clearly his review was mis-cited in such a usage. Perrault as a well-known left-wing figure made clear that his objection (using my 3 years of French <g>) was one that it was right that the bourgeoisie should be dispossessed. Seems that saying he argued with methodology etc. was quite inapt, indeed. And I also cite a full quote from Singer now, since it is clear that his problem, also, was not "methodology" but ideology. Concrete. Collect (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think these his words:

"That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation."

"The problems with the authors' flawed comparison are not merely intellectual. Intentionally or not, their argument opens the door for all kinds of apologetics. This is a sad outcome for a country that until re- cently excelled in avoiding its murky wartime past. Communism deserves to be buried, but not by those whose writing and methodology so closely resemble its basic tenets.("Amir Weiner. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452)

is not a criticism?

With regards to "Perrault as a well-known left-wing figure", let me remind you that the BB's authors are a well-known left-wing figures too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The gist of the review is favorable - the quote in the article points out that Weiner regards the gist of the book favorably. adding what is a short comment at the end does not alter what the review basically dwells on. And would you like to ask for cites on Perrault? His quote about the bourgeoisie is pretty clear indeed -- that it is right to dispossess them. Collect (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Did you read this:

"Although it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for most part, indisputable. Even when the numbers of victims are questionable or obviously inflated, the brutality of communism in power is well established. Moreover, the fact that the atrocities consistently commenced with the seizure of power lends support to the argument for intentionality, particularly in the section on the Soviet Union by Werth, the most subtle and best-documented in the book.

That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation. Although the authors argue that the logic of communism entails the above atrocities, they go out of their way to salvage Marxist ideology."

"The comparison with Nazism is inevitable. It is merited on the grounds of the mutual commitment to social engineering through violent means; the ensuing demographic, psychological, and ethical implications; and, not least, the fact that both systems constantly scrutinized one another. Unfortunately, the authors of the Black Book reduce the comparison to body counting, charging communists with killing nearly 100 million people and the Nazis, 25 million. At best, this approach is ahistorical and demeaning. The Third Reich's four-year extermination machine, stopped only by military defeat, still overshadows any other calamity, even when numbers of victims are the main concern."

And, finally, Weiner's conclusion:

"The problems with the authors' flawed comparison are not merely intellectual. Intentionally or not, their argument opens the door for all kinds of apologetics. This is a sad outcome for a country that until recently excelled in avoiding its murky wartime past. Communism deserves to be buried, but not by those whose writing and methodology so closely resemble its basic tenets."

If after reading that someone can conclude that "the gist of the review is favorable", I even don't know what to say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. What can be concluded from this review is that the BB provides a comprehensive list of already known Communist crimes, although the numbers are highly questionable and methodology is intrinsically flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Inasmuch as I included the first line -- I think it is clear that I did read it <g>. The "for the most part" is a criticism of the book - and properly included. And using only the critical bits is a matter of improperly reflecting the source -- the source primarily praises the book. I could always add the very clear Moreover, the fact that the atrocities consistently commenced with the seizure of power lends support to the argument for intentionality, particularly in the section on the Soviet Union by Werth, the most subtle and best-documented in the book. Yep -- the review is primarily in accord with what the book says. It demurs on the tone a little, but that is a small fraction of the review. The reviewer likes the content of the book. PS - your insertion of your own POV when Weiner does not make such a statement (highly qestionable etc.) is an improper use of a clear reference. Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you re-added the words:

" Amir Weiner in his review for the Journal of Interdisciplinary History states "Whenever and wherever ot has gained power, communism has turned into a bloody affair." "Althugh it (the book) adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for the most part, indisputable.""

It is the Weiner's opinion on Communism, not on the BB. However, more important part of what Weiner says is that the general book's concept is intrinsically flawed and that this book opens a way for various apologetics.
In addition, the part written by Werth, according to opinion of many scholars (I can provide quotes and references) is the best and the most academically written part of this book, however, Werth does not endorse under the most cited and the most contriversial BB part, namely, Coirtois' introduction. So the Weiner's words on "long, informative etc" refer mostly to some BB's chapters (I believe, inprticulat Werth's), whereas his words on "intrinsically flawed concept" and "apologretic" refer to the BB's spirit (that has been set by the introduction), and it is the introduction which is being the most extensively cited by Communists' critics. I believe, the words: " seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation" better reflect Weiner's opinion on the BB, so your revert is unjstified. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: " highly questionable" Weiner says "obviously inflated". I believe obviously inflated numbers are always highly questionable, aren't they? In addition, I combined Weiner's words with what I read from other reviews. I believe, that is quite acceptable on the talk page...--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. How can the source "primarily praise the book" if this review ends with the words quoted above? I feel I really don't understand something.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you should serve us some quotes from the review that show how the gist of it is so favorable. Like, Weiner saying "Overall, this is a hell of a book" (or whatever he says in academic terms). The sentences you quoted above do not show that - they just show that Weiner thinks that Werth's section is the best one in the book. From that, he could perfectly well still think that the book as a whole is rubbish - or "intrinsically flawed" etc. --Anderssl (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Um -- does anyone think Weiner was talking about Communism when he wrote "Althugh it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for the most part, indisputable." I submit that the pronoun "it" can only refer to the book. As the paragraph it follows does not just deal with one section, it clearly applies to the entire book. It does not state that all the figures are "questionable" or "highly inflaated" it says "even when" implying that those are the exception and not the rule in the book. And since the quote given in the article states as muuch, it is clear that the primary objections are not on facts, but on tone. Sorry fellas. The sentence does not just deal with Werth. "The brutality of communism in power is well-established" seems pretty clear, indeed. Collect (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No one ever argued here or anywhere else that the crimes and atrocities and killing by Stalin and Mao regimes did in fact happen. That fact or list of facts was mostly indisputable. What is under question here is obviously inflated figures, including the 100 million killed people. (Igny (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Let's separate two things: the account of Communist repressions and the ideological background behind that. Whereas Werth provides the former:

"Practiced eyes will notice a remarkable fact about Werth's history: he revises most earlier estimates considerably downward. Robert Conquest's The Great Terror had concluded with an estimate of twenty million deaths resulting from Stalin's rule, including the famine; Werth gives us considerably fewer. He is concerned, fortunately, neither to minimize nor to maximize numbers, but to accurately determine what happened." (Review: Communism's Posthumous Trial. Author(s): Ronald Aronson. Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by Franois; Furet The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245)

he, along with Margolin (Asia section) clearly rejects the latter (Shane J. Maddock. Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois ; Nicolas Werth ; Jean-Louis Panne ; Andrzej Paczkowski ; Karel Bartosek ; Jean-Louis Margolin ; Jonathan Murphy ; Mark Kramer Source: The Journal of American History, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Dec., 2001), p. 1156)

In other words, the fact that the Werth's chapter is reasonable gives additional weight to neither the Courois' concept nor to dubious figure of 100 million dead. Since the chapter's title is "Causes" (which implies that the chapter discusses theories explaining causes of the Communist crimes, not their scale) the fact that the BB provided a long and indisputable list of Communism's crimes is quite irrelevant (especially taking into account that "it (the book) adds little data that is new"). I'll delete your recent addition if no new argument in its support will not be provided soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that you not edit war on this one. Collect (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not mix an edit war with a content dispute. I am not intended to remove any text if proof of its relevance is provided. With regards to the quote introduced into the article by you, I believe it is irrelevant to this section, and I explained why, and you even didn't attempt to refute my arguments. If you, or somebody else will not do that soon I'll remove it. 1RR rule is a good idea, however it does not mean that everyone can introduce any irrelevant stuff into the article under that pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Basic Definitions

From dictionary:

kill (verb) (used with object)

- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.

Synonyms:

- slaughter, massacre, butcher; hang, electrocute, behead, guillotine, strangle, garrote; assassinate. Kill, execute, murder all mean to deprive of life. Kill is the general word, with no implication of the manner of killing, the agent or cause, or the nature of what is killed

es⋅ti⋅mate –verb (used with object)

-to form an approximate judgment or opinion regarding the worth, amount, size, weight, etc., of; calculate approximately: to estimate the cost of a college education.

-to form an opinion of; judge.

re⋅gime –noun

a mode or system of rule or government

mass –adjective

-pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people: mass unemployment; mass migrations; mass murder.

This is English Wikipedia - editors should rely on generally accepted English definitions of words and not attribute other non-standard meanings to English words. Bobanni (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Moreover, I suggest you to extend your approach, because other articles need in your urgent attention. For instance, the quark article attributes absolutely non-standard meaning to well known English words like: "up", "down", "top", "bottom", "charm" and "strange". The editors who worked on this article seem to forget that they edit English Wikipedia and such a frifolous treatment of these English words in intolerable.
Your urgent interference there is absolutely necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking seriously, when used in scholarly articles these words become special terms, so their meaning may differ significantly from what common dictionaries tell. Editors should rely on the definitions generally accepted by scholars working in this particular area of sciences, not on dictionaries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your theory sounds like some far-fetched Original Research - can you supply reliable sources that identify kill/estimate/regime/mass as "special terms" by scholars specializing in history or politics?Bobanni (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Red/Communist holocaust/genocide

Clearly these terms are not defined to be mass killings under Communist regimes, nonetheless, it seems that these terms are notable enough to have an article on their usage. I started an article Red Holocaust, which I suggest to expand to include all notable cases of their usage, colloquial or allegorical, mythical or nonsensical. We could list there who, when and where and under what circumstances used these terms, with a necessary section on criticism of such usage. (Igny (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

I started an article on the two terms Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust, which you voted to delete. There is even an ongoing AfD. I find it very strange that you would create an article on exactly the same topic while the other article on the terms Communist Holocaust and Red Holocaust is considered for deletion. Also, the article you created was not really an article, but only a few POV sentences without any sources. My article, on the contrary, was NPOV, encyclopedic and well-sourced. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I offered a solution to AfD in good faith. Why would you undo the solution before input of other editors? Instead of removing content, try to improve it next time. (Igny (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

I refer to my comments at Talk:Red Holocaust. If that was intended as a solution to the AfD, it would be more convincing if you had changed your vote. I didn't expand on your article because there is an ongoing discussion to delete an identical article. I consider Communist Holocaust and Red Holocaust as synonymous terms and don't really care whether the article on the term is named Red Holocaust or Communist Holocaust. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a new title

I agree with the suggestion above to find a shorter title. This article obviously is intended to cover all sorts of death caused by repressive communist policies - what is referred to as the Red Holocaust by many scholars. We should find a better title than "mass killings". Also, the established term Red Holocaust should at the very least be mentioned in the introduction.

The term "Communist terror" that is suggested is, however, problematic for several reasons. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "what is referred to as the Red Holocaust by many scholars" Please provide us with examples.--69.112.65.76 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article includes several examples:

• Rosefielde, Steven (2009). Red Holocaust. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-77757-5.
• Möller, Horst (1999). Der rote Holocaust und die Deutschen. Die Debatte um das 'Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus' [The Red Holocaust and the Germans: The Debate over the Black Book of Communism]. Piper Verlag. ISBN 978-3492041195.
• By the end of the 1990s, the term was already well established - at least established to the degree that a book critical of the term, titled 'Roter Holocaust'? Kritik des Schwarzbuchs des Kommunismus was published already in 1998[4]. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The current title is sufficiently clear, IMHO. Collect (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not merge it with Communist terrorism which according to Biophys is the same thing as communist terror? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it would violate the synthesis? (Igny (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

Because "Communist terror" implies intentionality, so many cases of excess deaths under Communist rule cannot be included into the article with such a title (or only very briefly mentioned in the very end). Another possible title would be "Victims of Communist regimes". This implies no intentionality, so all excess mortality can be included there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Victims of Communist Regimes" suffers from POV, synthesis and vagueness. Adolf Hitler was a victim of a Communist regime. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The current title is pretty close to NPOV looking at it from any POV. Unless we would want "Intentional non-military victims of Communist regimes"? Short and easily understood, IMO, is best. Collect (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the users commenting above have argued that "mass killings" does not include for example the deliberate starvation of million of people. Apparently, they seem to think this article should only cover those who were directly shot or something. The intention of the article clearly was to cover the Red Holocaust, as it's increasingly known as, which includes all excess mortality. Arguing that those who died from starvation shouldn't be included is like arguing that those who died from starvation in the Jewish ghettos weren't really victims of the Jewish Holocaust (Stéphane Courtois famously pointed out that there is no difference between a starving Ukrainian child and a starving Jewish child: "The child of a Ukrainian kulak deliberately starved to death by the Stalinist regime is worth no less than a Jewish child in the Warsaw ghetto starved to death by the Nazi regime"[5]). Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: The discussion referred to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Holocaust, the weird attempt to delete what was originally the start of an article on the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust and is now a redirect (from a term used by the United States government, including the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and several scholars) to this article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) See Holocaust trivialization debate: "Blatant Holocaust denial is offensive, easily labelled as antisemitism, and looked down upon by the majority of society. But this year there has been an disturbing increase in a more subtle phenomenon - Holocaust trivialization. The invocation of Holocaust terminology and symbols to try to make a point about a much less severe event, or to describe any undemocratic or authoritarian behaviour, is to diminish the importance of the Holocaust not only as a pivotal moment in modern Jewish history but also as a lesson for all humankind. Such trivialization of the Holocaust is offensive and upsetting to the Jewish community."[6] The Four Deuces (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I refer to the same article: "David Stannard argued in 1996 that attempts to eliminate Holocaust comparisons belittle other events of comparable magnitude". We're writing an encyclopedia, not some right-wing ADL propaganda. The Holocaust was originally the name of the genocide of the Armenians, and was used as the name of that genocide decades before the term was used to describe the Jewish one. A number of genocides are commonly known as holocausts, including the Armenian Holocaust (the original Holocaust), the Cambodian Holocaust, the American Holocaust (or American Indian Holocaust), the African Holocaust, and increasingly the Red Holocaust.

Stéphane Courtois also argues that "a single-minded focus on the Jewish genocide in an attempt to characterize the Holocaust as a unique atrocity has [...] prevented the assessment of other episodes of comparable magnitude in the Communist world". Describing genocides of million of people, for instance the African Holocaust, or the crimes of Stalin, as "much less severe event(s)"(!), is clearly racist, revisionist and offensive. It amounts to denial of these genocides and is even criminal (as far as the stalinist crimes are concerned) in some countries. (for instance, Stannard "estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust"). Virgil Lasis (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Some of the users commenting above have argued that "mass killings" does not include for example the deliberate starvation of million of people." You twisted my words. I did not propose to exclude deliberate starvation. My point was that there is no consensus among scholars that famines, epidemies and other events that lead to a major part of premature deaths were "deliberately organized". Some scholars argue that they were, some that they weren't, whereas other argue that the conclusion has to be made for each case separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "is to diminish the importance of the Holocaust" I would say uniqueness. BTW, the same trend is observed for the word "genocide" (according to, e.g. Ellman).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Many scholars (e.g., Courtois, Stannard, Finkelstein) don't see any "uniqueness". The word genocide has an increasingly broad definition that covers all sorts of wide-scale murders of large numbers of people within specific groups, which is good. Virgil Lasis (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, not "many", and, secondly, they are being heavily criticised for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Virgil Lasis, do you have any reason why you think that organizations like ADL would promote propaganda? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate starvation

As per Paul's suggestion added "deliberate starvation" method of killing to lead. Bobanni (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think your wording to be an improvement. You write:

"Although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities while others label it as deliberate starvation. Based on the "bad management" conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others.",

whereas the present version is:

"Although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others."

In other words, the present version state that the deaths as a result of "government policies" are added to a "democide or genocide death toll", which already implies intentionality.

In addition, according your version "war, famine and disease" are "deliberate starvation", which is nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When editing, please make sure to form grammatically complete sentences. Otherwise the article becomes unreadable. The first paragraph quoted by Paul above is a good example of how it should not be done. --Anderssl (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the issue is not "deliberate starvation" but starvation of people as a result of government policies which would reasonably have been seen as causing the starvation. Collect (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Just making a note of this that the bold edit that turned the lede into an essay like political commentary that is not even written on the subject is not acceptable. It needs to be straight forward and follow the sources, explain to the reader how and where political killings motivated by the communist ideology have occurred in history. All kinds of analysis in case published by WP:RS can go into the article body. The current lede has been written like WP:SYNTH, and after wards the WP:SYNTH tag was re-added. How is such editing, turning the article into SYNTH + adding the SYNTH tags related to improving the article, I can't even fathom.--Termer (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Valentino's book should be cited correctly

I don't think the way Valentino's book is cited is correct (Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ISBN 0801472733) When a book is cited, an exact page number should be provided. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes?

Could "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" be a possible title? Some users seem to continue to argue that "mass killings" excludes some of the events covered by terms like Red Holocaust or crimes against humanity. Virgil Lasis (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not frequently used by scholars. And, I believe it would narrow the article's scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It actually has all the same problems of the current title. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Increased mortality due to government actions under communist regimes" is likely as accurate as one could hopr for - but it does not fall trippingly off the tongue. Collect (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering why does this personal essay in place of the lede and continues reverting to it by a single editor [7][8][9] get tolerated in the article that's under 1RR restriction?--Termer (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the phrase "Crimes against humanity". It is a widely recognized phrase, includes both deliberate genocide and willful starvation of a population, and makes it unnecessary to single out communist regimes, thus eliminating the main objection to the article title. I propose merging this article with Crime against humanity, keeping the most important and well referenced sections, and removing the less important and less well referenced. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with such a proposal is that many serious scholars do not use the words "crime against humanity" in their articles on repression victims. Therefore, such a title would make usage of the most serious and reliable works on this subject hardly possible per WP:SYNTH.
Nevertheless, the very idea to merge this article with the "mass killing" article (which, for some unclear reason, is a redirect to the "mass murder" article) is quite reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Demur. This article encompasses situations which are not "murder" as normally defined -- that is, actions which could reasonably be foreseen as resulting in death are not necessarily "murder". Collect (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

please take the merge/deletion discussion somewhere else, either another AfD or whatever. Valentino in his Communist mass killings singles out the communist regimes by starting it up with "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing." And then there are editors coming in here advocating exact opposite.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:"This article encompasses situations which are not "murder" as normally defined" That what I am talking about. Whereas "Mass killing" redirects to Mass Murder, "Mass killing Under Communist Regimes" redirects here. This is ridiculous, isn't it?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Crimes against humanity" not used extensively by scholors. Maybe not, I don't know. But "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is not used extensively by scholors either.

Re: Bad communists. Almost everyone agrees that communists have done some very bad things. But I don't think Valentino's claim that, for example, Stalin's killings were more deadly than Hitler's killings is widely accepted. Maybe they were, but the point is that bad leaders come from all points on the political spectrum, that history is full of them, and that nothing in this article gives a good reason for separating out communist killings from all the others. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

nothing in this article gives a good reason for separating out communist killings from all the others because more or less all relevant facts from relevant sources have been removed from the article.--Termer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Communism has become popular in the Baltic States, Poland and the Ukraine since 1989, where it is used to discredit Russian, Jewish and Gypsy minorities in those countries and to rehabilitate local Nazi collaborators. An essential aspect of that view is that the Jewish-backed Communists are seen as having killed more people than the Nazis which provides an excuse for Nazi action against the Jews. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was good to know what have you heard about. just wondering have you also heard anything about where and why exactly has pro-communism become popular again?--Termer (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Communism has become popular in Poland, the Baltic states and other countries due to criminal Soviet communist occupation and (particularly in the Baltic states) communist genocides. Much like Anti-Nazism became popular in countries formerly under Nazi occupation. Anti-Communism in today's context means defending democracy, human rights and freedom against totalitarianism and crimes. Virgil Lasis (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea of merging this with Mass killing makes sense to me. Or perhaps something like "State mass killing" or something similar, to limit the topic to actions done by governments. --Anderssl (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Crimes against homanity" is much more general scope. In addition, it does not reflect one feature of communiust killings covered by the word "mass". A significant feature of communist regimes is that an individual had any rights only as member of a "working class", and even as such his rights were limited. Similarly, communist killings did not target separate individuals: they targeted whole categories of people and regularly performed en masse. IMO the simple and descriptive term "mass killing" in the title is much better than cute neologisms like classicide or politicide. Timurite (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would merge with Mass killing. Crimes against humanity is a wider group and is not the subject of this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be merged and then deleted, but I want to also add that people need to be more specific. Rather than (improperly) saying a general term like "communist", we need to be specific and say things like "Mass killings under Stalin", in the article on Stalin, etc. Most communist groups/organizations/etc. are not mass killers, and the term is too broad to really say "under communist regimes" ... not to mention that there is a very large amount of contention about using the term communist to describe the Soviet Union under Stalin.Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should definitely not be merged with a general article on mass killings or crimes against humanity, that would make no sense. In that case, we would also have to merge all articles on crimes by e.g. fascist states into those articles as well and there would be no reason to have a separate article on the Jewish genocide. We need an article on the Red Holocaust or "Mass killings under Communist regimes". The question is which title is more precise and recognizable. Virgil Lasis (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Move requested

This article should be moved to Mass killings under communist regimes as per Wikipedia MoS. --Againme (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. "Communism" is a proper noun. Not all communists were Communists and vice versa. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Whaaat? Not all communists were Communists"? You cannot even speak that sentence without entering in contradiction... Againme (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You can read Karl Marx and support his theories without becoming a member of the Soviet Communist Party, just as you can become a libertarian without joining the Libertarian Party. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments

I did not edit this article so far. So, just a few quick comments.

1. Few of the events were classified as "genocide", but most of them fall under definition of Crime against humanity.

2. How about a shorter title, such as Communist terror?.

3. Chapter "Causes" is impossible to read. A. said "...", B said "..." and so on. In fact, different waves of Communist terror were cased by different but very practical reasons, according to most historians. The Marxist ideology also played some role. Can I try to rewrite and shorten this Chapter or everything will be reverted at spot? Biophys (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re 2. I am not sure it will work because "Communist terror" cannot be applied to famines, camp mortality, anti guerilla warfare and some other events this article tells.

Re 3. Absolutely agree. Please, try to rewrite it (I would recommend to do that on the talk page first to avoid unnecessary edit wars). The section definitely needs in extensive copy editing (that may lead to someone's strong objections), so the talk page will provide more quite and favourable atmosphere for that. I hope I'll be able to provide some help (although sometimes our POVs are different). I also propose you to think about a separate section devoted to different estimations of the number of victims (including the question on which excess deaths should be considered victims of mass killings according to different scholars).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I will try to rewrite this Chapter later and make it shorter - as time allows. No reason to argue about other points.Biophys (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fine, then I start cleaning the mess in "Cases" section. For example, what the following passages tell about the causes of mass killings? Obviously, nothing. [Moved from the article]. If anyone wants to insert them back, please do, but to different sections.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In the view of Anton Weiss-Wendt, academic debate regarding the common features of mass killing and other legal measures in communist countries originates in the political advocacy of Raphael Lemkin in advocating the genocide convention.According to Weiss-Wendt, Lemkin's hobby-horse was the international ratification of a Genocide Convention, and he consistently bent his advocacy towards which ever venue would advance his objective. Associating with the US government, Central European and Eastern European emigre communities, Lemkin bent the term genocide to meet the political interests of those he associated with, and in the case of communities of emigres in the US, funded his living.

In this way, contends Weiss-Wendt, Lemkin was enmeshed in an anti-Soviet political community, and regularly used the term "Communist genocide" to refer to a broad range of human rights violations—not simply to mass-killings of ethnic groups—in all the post 1945 communist nations, and claimed that future "genocides" would occur in all nations adopting communism. Lemkin's broad application of his term in political lobbying degraded its usefulness, "Like King Midas, whatever Lemkin touched turned into “genocide.” But when everything is genocide nothing is genocide!" states Weiss-Wendt.^(p555-6) Additionally, Lemkin displayed both a racialism against Russians who he believed "were incapable of “digesting a great number of people belonging to a higher civilization,”" and made broad use of his term in the political service of the USA's anti-communist position in the 1950s concludes Weiss-Wendt. Lemkin has been praised for being the first to use the comparative method into the study of mass violence.

Amir Weiner noted in his book review "Although it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for the most part, indisputable. Even when the numbers of victims are questionable or obviously inflated, the brutality of communism in power is well established.", but concludes that the Black Book "is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation" The socialist writer, Daniel Singer wrote in The Nation:

If you look at Communism as merely the story of crimes, terror and repression, to borrow the subtitle of the Black Book, you are missing the point. The Soviet Union did not rest on the gulag alone. There was also enthusiasm, construction, the spread of education and social advancement for millions; when this momentum was lost in the Brezhnev years the system was close to the end of its tether. Similarly, it is impossible to grasp the fascination of outsiders for the Soviet myth and their reluctance to see the reality if you don't view them in their own environment. If you ignore the Great Depression, the strikes and other struggles against exploitation, the colonial oppression and deadly poverty, the wars in Algeria or Indochina--in short, if, like these authors, you idealize the Western world--you cannot comprehend why millions of the best and brightest rallied behind the red flag or why a good section of the Western left turned a blind eye to the crimes committed in its name. History is understanding, not just propaganda."

I just moved this stuff around a little bit. This should be re-written.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No sources question this statement: see Valentino, Rummel, Fein, etc

This topic covers over a hundred years of history with a multitude of scholars as subject-matter-experts in many different countries - so we cannot generalize based on three modern scholars. It does not reflect a consensus only based on your Original Research Bobanni (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What "hundred years of history" do you mean? History of Communist regime starts in 1917.

Re: Original Research. Please, prove your accusations or remove this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions require sources - if conclusions are based on opinions of Wikipedia editors as No sources question this statement: see Valentino, Rummel, Fein, etc then it is OR. Bobanni (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The sources are required if no consensus exists, e.g. had Valentino and Ellman stated that majority deaths were a result of war, famine and diseases whereas Rummel argued that they were a result of executions, explicit attribution of certain scholar's opinion would be required. By contrast, in this particular case the consensus exists that most deaths were caused by war, famine and diseases, not by repressions and executions. Or you question that fact?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article already states that the "Communist death toll" measure itself is challenged. It seems pretty reasonable for Bobanni here to question assertions about the components of such a "death toll" being presented in teh Wiki article as uncontested fact. BigK HeX (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is starting in the wrong end. Before discussing how this should be formulated in the lede, the appropriate material should be added to the body of the article. The lede is just supposed to be a summary of the article. Under "causes" there should be a sub-heading called "War, famine and disease" (or something similar). And there it might be quite appropriate to give references and names of scholars. In the lede, maybe but probably not. But that comes afterwards. --Anderssl (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the "Communist death toll" measure itself is challenged" Yes, it is. However, although the total figures are a subject of debates, all scholars agree that majority death were a result of not executions or direct repressions but of war, famine and diseases, e.g. Soviet famine or Great Leap forward famine. I know no sources that question that fact.

Re "causes". The article already discusses Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, deportations etc. Probably, that has not been stated clearly, however, all these materials are already present in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"all scholars agree..."

You can continue to believe this personally, but that text in the Wiki article had been reasonably challenged, and you have no citation for it. The text should reflect the sources that you can provide. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and Bobanni, you can easily end this discussion by just providing a source that disputes the statement. If none can be found, this whole discussion is honestly quite hair-splitting, at best. --Anderssl (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor - engineering killings or famine?

Unarmed penal battalions - war or repression?

Working prisoners to death in th GULAG - repression or disease? Three areas of disagreement. Bobanni (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Note the word 'source' in my comment. --Anderssl (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is because it is generally much harder to prove that a statement cannot be sourced to the literature than to provide a citation to the source of the statement. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."Bobanni (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so essentially you are confirming my characterisation of this thread as hair-splitting? Otherwise, feel free to clarify. --Anderssl (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

To Bobanni. Try to remember what the lede states. It tells about "murders or executions". Engineered or not, Holodomor was neither murder nor execution. Unarmed penal battalions were more legends than established facts. GULAG mortality, independent of how do you characterize it, was not a major part of excess death under Stalin. With regards to "burden", I did provide sources, so I sustained the burden. By contrast, you failed to provide any sources to support your claims.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You've provided no source that can back your edit (which is written without qualification), and your statement has obviously been challenged -- I think, reasonably. Why you're arguing this baffles me. The statement currently reflects the ref attached there and conveys the same assertion just as clearly. The article clearly notes that the very validity of these counts is controversial, so IMO, it seems pretty darn reasonable to explicitly attribute any assertions on the counts to their respective author(s). BigK HeX (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You got to love this, why don't we rename this article and call it mass deaths due to pure management under communist regimes. maybe than Paul Siebert is going to allow to mention the deaths in the Gulag, and the deaths caused by mass deportations etc. as something relevant to the article.--Termer (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "You've provided no source that can back your edit". Please, familiarize yourself with the discussion on this talk page. Not only I presented the sources here, I even provided the quotes.
With regards to controversy, as I already wrote here, although a controversy exists about the absolute numbers, noone argues that more people died as a result of "war, famine and diseases" than as result of mass murder, mass executions, etc. I already asked you to provide at least one source that states the opposite. (Of course, the sources telling about "deliberate starvation" cannot be used as a support of your POV).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with enough of the discussion. In particular, I'm familiar with the fact that even YOU acknowledge that the math for these "death tolls" is contested. I'm still not sure how someone can acknowledge that the math is NOT generally accepted, but simultaneously present it as indisputable fact. BigK HeX (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't contest anything. I just stick to sources. According to some sources, old Conquest's works (as well as Rummel's and some other) overestimate the number of died/killed. However, that doesn't mean that Conquest's writings were an absolute bullshit: some his conclusions and estimations are rather reasonable, in particular, the observation that the number of famine victims, GULAG/deportees' mortality, etc was much higher than the number of those who was executed or murdered. This point of view is shared by all scholars cited in this article (if I am wrong, please, provide an evidence of the opposite). Of course, some scholars consider starvation to be deliberate, the GULAG system to be designed as a system of extermination through labour, however, since this point of view is not generally accepted, it should be presented as such. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. With regards to "clarification" and "dubious" tags, they are designed not for spoiling the text you don't like, but for article's improvement. Please, clarify what concretely needs in clarification in the disputed sentence, othervise I'll remove the tags in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. Those tags are there to aid improvement of the article. BigK HeX (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an answer. Please, specify, what was the reason for these tags' placement, and how concretely, in your opinion, the text should be changed, otherwise I'll remove the tags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the tags in that passage is that the presentation of a supposed "lack of dispute" is a bit asanine. Wasn't worth a whole lot of my time, but fortunately, a kind editor has expended the effort to include in the wiki article itself a subsection describing the dispute regarding the claims involving famine.

So, I see absolutely no sense in claiming that there are "no sources" disputing the claim now, when the article itself covers the dispute. So, you can take your pick of at least two sources for the dispute --- Ponton or Milne.

In ANY case, this is really unnecessary. The burden of proof is on YOU to back the text as you have written it. No one has to "prove you're wrong." If the presentation of your text receives reasonable dispute, then YOU are the one who's obligated to prove that it's presentation is as accurate as possible ... which you failed to do. BigK HeX (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The burden of proof is on YOU to back the text as you have written it." Absolutely correct. However, taking into account that I provided the sources to support a proposed text and explained on the talk page the edits I made, I believe I sustained this burden. If someone believes that the proposed text is unclear or dubious, he/she must explain, what concretely he/she means. Otherwise, placement of these tags is absolutely unjustified.
Conversely, if you want to add some information on the dispute, the burden of proof rests with you. Just to mention Ponton's or Milne's names is not sufficient: I don't have to read all what they wrote to find information supporting your claim. Please, provide concrete reference and the quotes from these scholars' works to demonstrate that they disagree with the statement that "the direct causes of most of the excess preventable deaths under communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease". Again, the burden of proof lies on you now. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have assumed a burden of proof now. My edits to the lead refer to the article subsection which already covers the topic, though I even threw a relevant citation into the lead, for good measure. I would say that Milne's reference to the counting of famine deaths as politically motivated inflation is pretty clear dispute of that tolling methodology. BigK HeX (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the reference provided by you is incomplete (no publisher, no page, no ISBN), so it cannot be verified. Please, provide a full reference, and, if possible, a quote from this source to confirm that the text proposed by you is supported by the source used.
Secondly, I do not understand what did you mean under "Though various tolls may not recognize such a methodology...".
Thirdly, it is not clear for me if you found anywhere in the article the statement that questions the fact that "war, famine and disease" were a major causes of excess mortality under Communists. In other words, explicit attribution of this statement to "scholars like Ellman", is needed only if some other scholars disagree with that. Please, clarify who concretely questions this fact, otherwise I'll revert your changes.
Fourthly, the dispute on the tollong methodology is described in the last lede's sentence. If you believe it does that not fully adequately, feel free to modify it. However, I see no reason to start the para with the discussion of this subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need a references in the lede?

According to the guidelines, references are not absolutely required in the lede. Lede is just a main article's summary, and, therefore, all its statements are supposed to be explained in details (with sources) in the article. I see not everybody understand that, e.g., a whole sentence has been recently removed from the lede [10] under a pretext that it "is not supported by sources. Obviously, it is: it is based on the Ellman's words (the reference is in the article, and the relevant fragment has been quoted on the talk page). To avoid further problems with Bobani I added the citation, however, I am wondering if anybody else believes we really need references in the lede?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The source in no way supports the text in the lede. The lede, in its current form is WP:SYNTH in its most straight forward way: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.--Termer (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I provided a detailed evidences (with sources) that demonstrates that it is not a synthesis. You responded with unsupported claims. Any serious discussion on that subject is possible only when you will present concrete example of synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The text in the source is fairly different of the lede, also, the lede misleads the reader. what is this death by disease all about? I mean, if one got phenomia on his/her way being deported to Siberia an died, this is not political repression any more but a regular "mistakes in management". This is what happens when things are taken out of context and misleadingly presented as facts on wikipedia. Again, WP:SYNTH at its best.--Termer (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, do the following: create a new section, copy the lede there, and add your concrete commentaries to every sentence separately. In this commentaries, describe concretely what is a discrepancy between the sources and the text, and what the synthesis consists in. I am ready do discuss all concrete issues when they are correctly and concretely formulated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is synthesis. It is based on a reactionary anti-Semitic conspiracy theory - very popular in the Baltic states, Poland and the Ukraine. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

a reactionary anti-Semitic conspiracy theory? really? Please tell me more about it. I had no idea that Helen Fein with her Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide' ; Valentino with his Communist mass killings etc. are in fact popular "anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists". It this can be WP:Verified, the article could make DYK one day.--Termer (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Fein and Valentino are reliable sources and they do not push fringe theories. The problem is not in these authors, but in the way the article has been written.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. So please explain to the public, why the article is written like it is? Why exactly did you turned it into WP:SYNTH and then added WP:SYNTH tags [11]?--Termer (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot answer incorrectly stated question. I cannot tell why did I turned the article "into WP:SYNTH" because I didn't do that (at least you failed to prove your allegations so far).--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the first question, one possible rerason is that, instead of describing Fein's and Valentino's points of view someone decided to focus on the titles of some chapters of their books.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You edited the article boldly by changing the entire lead section and then re-added the SYNTH tags. And you keep reverting the article to your preferred version that includes the synth tags. It's all in the edit history, that speaks for itself. --Termer (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I defend (with sources) all my edits during the discussion on the talk page. I am always open for discussion. I even proposed you to discuss what concretely is a subject of your concern in the lede, however, you seem to ignore my proposal. That speaks for itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're always open for discussion? You've recently claimed exact opposite by saying the discussion about the lede is pointless [12]. And BTW 'defending' your edits is not a discussion. It's talking to yourself. And the way you boldly rewrote the lede is not according to the sources but your personal interpretation, an original analysis, meaning WP:SYNT. The lede and the article needs to say what the sources say instead of having a commentary written that's not published anywhere.--Termer (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am ready to discuss a contribution, not a contributor, therefore I abstained from the discussion of my behaviour on my talk page. You seem to avoid concrete discussions, at least you left my proposal to discuss the concrete lede's issues unanswered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Only your contributions full of original commentary that have turned also this article into SYTH + contribution by you adding the SYTH tags to the article have ever been under discussion. sorry to head that you seem to take it personally and equate your contributions with yourself as a contributor.--Termer (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I am personally absolutely tolerant to even direct insults and personal threats. With regards to my alleged synthesis, I again and again propose you to concretely explain what it consists in (and to elaborate together the text that would satisfy both of us). You seem to ignore my suggestion, preferring to repeat the same mantra.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Article discusses "excess preventable deaths" but is entitled "killings"

The article pretty clearly suggests a distinction, making the title somewhat misleading. The problem is replicated in sections of the articles, with the section header labeled as "killings" but content discussing something more broad. BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

One could create a broader article like Political repression by Communist regimes, but that would be a different scope. As it is, this suppose to describe only intentional killings. A number of the events (like the Holodomor) are controversial because some historians do not believe they were intentional killings. However, as long as at least a significant minority of academic sources describe them as intentional killings, they can be legitimately present in this article as "controversies" on the subject. No, the "excess deaths" (unborn children) are not killings. However, some of the famines have been described by notable authors (like Conquest) as intentionally created to kill. Biophys (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "but that would be a different scope". No, that wouldn't. The major problem of this article is that someone tries to present "political repressions" (both execution deaths and non-intentional deaths) as "mass killing", thereby pushing a POV shared not by all scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Biophys said, "However, as long as at least a significant minority of academic sources describe them as intentional killings"

I'd agree. However, I'll point out that the article's lead does NOT do much to link the term "mass killing" with "excess preventable deaths." Specifically, the lead limits its definition of "mass killings" to only "intentional killing of large numbers of civilians, as a rule, for belonging to a particular social or ethnic group." I really don't see how widespread famine would fit such a definition. Seems there's some subtle conflation/equivocation/weasel-wording going on in the article, and I hope to see it addressed. BigK HeX (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: The famous book by Robert Conquest has established, through analysis of numerous data and events, that yes, Holodomor was an intentional killing of large numbers of civilians for belonging to a particular ethnic/territorial group. Some other authors (like Figes) happened to disagree with him. Hence the "controversy".Biophys (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine for that case -- I'd have no argument with that at all. However, the article still discusses things like famine deaths in China and a couple of other places. Are there WP:RS that refer to those deaths as "killings"? Or, is the problem that those sections exceed the scope of the article .... or, alternatively, that the article title is too constrained? BigK HeX (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Conquest's book was written during Cold war, it can be (partially) ideologically motivated and, more importantly, the materials that become available after Cold war ended demonstrate that some Conquet's figures and conclusions were incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Page Move

Unless someone explains how there is not conflation between "killings" and "excess deaths" (per my statement in the section above), I may be bold and move the page to something like "Politically-related deaths under Communist regimes." BigK HeX (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it would be correct. The present article's name seems to stem from the Valentino's "Final solution" where he proposed a "deprivation mass killing" concept. According to him, famine, disease and deportation deaths fit this definition, and should be combined with a commonsensual term "mass killing". The article (in its present form) also combine Rummel's "democide" deaths, some genocides, etc. I don't think it to be correct, therefore, I will support such a renaming.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, such a title is pure OR. This is even a highly unusual combination of words. An attempt to Google it gives zero hits. A possible title would be Political repression in Communist countries - "repression in Communist countries" returns at least 16,000 hits. But that would be a much wider subject, obviously. It would also include imprisonment, forced labor, arbitraty evictions, forceful population transfer, stripping of rights, and so on. That's a different article.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you would err in so doing. The voluminous talk page discussions seem not to support such a move. The topic is more narrowly construed than "oppression" though it decidely forms a subset thereof. And many of the deaths may not be "political" as much as "let's reduce a certain class of people in the country"-type rationale. Collect (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very open to the likelihood that such a decision may be in error. However, the status quo for the page title seems (to me) to be inappropriate, as well .... or at least the lead does not really relate the page title to a fair amount of the material. The lead seems to draw a distinction between government mis-management versus killings (which seems limited to "intentional" acts against groups which are, at least, vaguely definable). Much of the article content seems to fall under the former as discussion of "excess preventable deaths," which seems to be a notably larger scope than the title would indicate. BigK HeX (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving a page, such inflaming as this one, without new consensus would be very disruptive. "Excess deaths" (unborn children) and "preventable deaths" are different.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "such a title is pure OR". WP:OR defines OR as "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Since the title is not a statement, it hardly can fit this OR definition.

Re: "The voluminous talk page discussions seem not to support such a move." I am not sure. Since the tendency exists to add into the article the facts that do not fit the "mass killing" definition (and fit the "politically related deaths" definition), I believe such a title would resolve some article's problems.

Re: "The lead seems to draw a distinction between government mis-management versus killings" I did that because some scholars see intentionality behind such a mis-management whereas the others disagree. Therefore, by naming all these events "mass killings" an undue weight is being given to a particular scholars' opinion. The article's name proposed by you can resolve this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We should use well established terms, not terms invented by wikipedians.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that's a pretty good guideline .... the term "excess preventable deaths" seems to have survived whatever ruthless controversy exists between the editors on this page so, "Measures of excess preventable deaths attributed to Communist regimes" is pretty clunky, but that would seem to be one possible title that would be appropriate under such a guideline. Verifiability would take precedence over elegance, so, I suppose the ugly title would win.... BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I must agree with Collect. Yes, the deaths from mismanagement do not belong here, but anything declared to be mass murder by the communist regimes in at least some reliable academic sources (e.g. Holodomor) belongs here. No reason to move anything at all.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "we should use well established terms, not terms invented by wikipedians." The well established terms must be used appropriately. If the article about all politically-related deaths under Communist regimes is named "mass killing", I don't think such a usage is fully appropriate. With regards to the proposed name, I don't see how can it be qualified as an "invention". --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Please show me any scholarly source that uses expression Politically-related deaths under Communist regimes (suggested above) as well established terminology. Even Google could not find it. Biophys (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to speak for Paul Siebert, but my suggested title was, of course, pretty flexible --- I said chanigng it "to something like 'Politically-related deaths under Communist regimes.'" As mentioned above, if we're shooting for the title to actually encompass the content, then it seems one of three things must happen:

A) the title is changed (as mentioned above, Measures of excess preventable deaths attributed to Communist regimes is pretty ugly, but would use the term present in the article, so it seems to fit the bill), or

B) the content that goes beyond the scope of the actual "killings" [if defined as "intentional" and "targeted" acts] needs to be pruned from the article (possibly moved elsewhere).

C) RS is used to construct verbiage in the article that explains how the term "killing" is applied to deaths related to the various famines described in the article (among other non-specific deaths stemming from mis-management issues).

I hadn't checked all of the controversy here, but it seems like a large part of it, might be related to the famine deaths. Meh BigK HeX (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We would need to explain how "excess preventable deaths" under Communist regimes differed from those under non-Communist regimes and reliably source it. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re to BigK: A) is indeed very ugly. B) - yes, whatever does not belong should be pruned from the article. C) Yes, absolutely. The article is so poorly written! People were killed as follows: (a) all their food was forcefully taken away, without any means to buy or exchange anything; (b) their movement was blocked by special military forces (they sure tried to escape to any areas where food was present); (c) they tried to eat earth, their children, whatever. The poor people happened to be Ukrainians who created a lot of trouble by rebelling previously against Bolsheviks in Moscow.Biophys (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please browse through the article history. the original title of this article is Communist genocide and that's the subject of this article. The current title Mass killings under Communist regimes is a compromise title, the result of the Requested_move_II. Only alternative titles to this article remain to be Communist democide and or Communist politicide. And sure, the article is purely written because it has been deliberately spammed with nonsense like "excess preventable deaths" and "pure management skills" etc.--Termer (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article "Communist genocide" has been triply nominated for deletion (and was not deleted mostly due to off-wiki coordinated efforts of the EEML group). Since the primary reason for proposed deletion was its weird title, the reference to this old title are hardly relevant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys: I agree that doing B and C instead of A could be a way forward. The problem is that the ones supporting this line of development have so far not come up with convincing use of reliable sources. The ones that have been presented have been attacked for being fringe sources, or being misrepresented by editors. You seem to claim some knowledge of the material, can you bring forward some examples of the best, mainstream sources that document what you are saying? That would be a great help in moving the discussion forward. --Anderssl (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe, to avoid repeating the same arguments (and to save time) it would be useful to re-read the discussion of the proposal that seems to be similar to BigK HeX's A, B, C [13].--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Paul "Communist genocide" has been triply nominated for deletion, and this article has been deleted by bits and pieces, that's why it's poorly written and SYNTH. However, no matter what your opinion or reasoning is, the fact is "Communist genocide" has not been deleted because it's a well-known concept as it was spelled out in an AfD by one of the most respected wikipedians, who's a librarian by trade DGG.--Termer (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Communist genocide" relates mainly to Cambodia, in lesser extent to China and few other cases. The attempts to combine almost all cases of mass mortality under Communists was the main reason for attempted article's deletion. In other words, you inverted the casual linkage: the article was extremely poorly written, contained quite different facts that were arbitrarily collected together and that is why was it nominated for deletion. I personally have nothing against a separate article named "Communist genocide" that would contain well established and widely recognized cases of such genocides from this list [14], however, an attempt to include into such an article all cases qualified as genocide by at least one scholar or journalist is unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Capitalist regimes

No, I'm not really suggesting such an article, though there are plenty of examples. I just wanted to point out that when a mass killing occurs under a Communist regime, that is not evidence that the mass killing occurred because of communist idiology. In the case of Stalin, for example, my impression is that he was paranoid, and that many of the deaths under his rule were due to paranoia, not communism. If there is any common ground in all the mass killings listed here, it seems to be too much power in the hands of one man. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Having this current content as an article of its own, does seem fairly POVFORK-ish BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, the act of putting too much power in the hands of one (or a few) men does seem to be a common feature of most communist regimes. That being said, the issue is what the sources say, and there certa inly seems to be a lack of good sources that theorize the connection btw communism and mass killings. --Anderssl (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So why do we have the article "The Holocaust" (sic!), covering policies by a number of European countries? Communist regimes had their state ideology in common, the mass killings were the result of communist policies, policies of the same political movement. Whereas "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes" makes no sense, there is no such thing as a "capitalist" political ideology or party that was in power in the countries described with the marxist term "capitalist".

The terms communist genocide, Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust are established terms used to describe crimes committed by communist countries. We should have a main article on crimes committed by communist regimes, and/or those terms and the related discussion. We should of course also have more detailed articles on genocides committed by the Soviet Union etc. Virgil Lasis (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The differences between the article on the holocaust and this one are fairly obvious: The holocaust (that which is normally referred to by that term) is one clearly identifiable historic event, conducted by the German nazi regime and its allies in the period 1933-1945. This article, however, covers a number of disparate events of different kinds (executions, labour camps, famines, sickness etc) in a number of different countries in different times (and different continents). That is the issue here; some kind of explicit scholarly theory is needed to explain why these events should be categorized together. As for the term "communist genocide" it was extensively debated before the name change - please review those debates in the archives. --Anderssl (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"some kind of explicit scholarly theory is needed to explain why these events should be categorized together."

perhaps the question should be directed to Helen Fein, why did she 'categorize together' "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide" under Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides in her Genocide: a sociological perspective ISBN 9780803988293.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Fein and don't have time to. But you seem to have read her book. Could you summarize the theory for me in a few sentences? I mean not just the titles of book chapters, but the actual argument that she makes? I would be genuinely interested, I do not mean to be disingenuous in any way. --Anderssl (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a capitalist regime. If anything, that means "a country which allows free market economy". On the contrary, the term "communist regime" has a rather clearly-defined sense, i.e. a regime dominated by a party purporting to be communist and/or marxist-leninist, which rules in a single or dominant-party system. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why Black Book of Capitalism is pure propaganda.Biophys (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A little confused about this comment. First you say there is no such thing as a capitalist regime, then you say that this term refers to "a country which allows free market economy". Surely such countries do exist... And surely they have engaged in horrific acts of mass killing. But one could of course question whether this is too weak a category to lump together without some appropriate theorization in reliable sources. I think that was the point Rick Norwood was trying to make... --Anderssl (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since majority of reliable sources we use in Wikipedia has been written by scholars from capitalist states (or "democratic Western countries"), it is quite natural to expect that they do not use terminology like "capitalist regimes" (or something of that type) to describe themselves, because, looking from inside, they see more differences than similarities between each other. Similarly, in late USSR no one used the term "Communist" to describe, e.g., Pol Pot's regime, because a real difference between Campuchea and the USSR was much greater than formal similarity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re to Anderssl. "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes" makes an assertion that mass killing is an intrinsic feature of the free market economy. This is not supported by any serious sources and belong to pure communist propaganda (although maybe a notable propaganda that deserves a separate article). "Mass killings under Communist regimes" makes an assertion that mass killing is an intrinsic feature of totalitarian systems, like the Communist regimes described as such in numerous books. According to Rick Norwood, there is no "evidence that the mass killing occurred because of communist ideology". No, according to all serious sources, any large-scale institutional violence needed an ideological justification to declare a part of population nonpersons. The nonpersons were historically identified based on their race, ethnicity, or belonging to certain social groups. Communist regimes widely used ideological arguments to convince activists of the Party and members of state security apparatus that the political repressions were necessary. In particular, they widely used the ideological concepts of dictatorship of the proletariat, aggravation of class struggle under socialism, enemy of the people and many others to justify the large-scale repressions.Biophys (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Mass killings under Communist regimes" makes an assertion that mass killing is an intrinsic feature of totalitarian systems... That sounds like a fairly credible assertion, and one that seems to be well in line with Valentino for instance. But why, then, is this not just a subsection of an article called Mass killings under totalitarian regimes? If the essential feature is the totalitarian nature of the regime, that should be reflected in the title. --Anderssl (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing called "Capitalist regimes". --Defender of torch (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

yea capitalism is an economic system, communism is an economic, social, and political system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.75.44 (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

recent revert

The recent changes has been reverted without providing needed arguments. Below I reproduce (with some modifications) my comments and questions that left unanswered since 27 February:

"Firstly, the reference provided by you is incomplete (no publisher, no page, no ISBN), so it cannot be verified. Please, provide a full reference, and, if possible, a quote from this source to confirm that the text proposed by you is supported by the source used.
Secondly, I do not understand what did you mean under "Though various tolls may not recognize such a methodology...".
Thirdly, it is not clear for me if you found anywhere in the article the statement that questions the fact that "war, famine and disease" were a major causes of excess mortality under Communists. In other words, explicit attribution of this statement to "scholars like Ellman", is needed only if some other scholars disagree with that. Please, clarify who concretely questions this fact, otherwise I'll revert your changes.
Fourthly, the dispute on the tolling methodology is described in the last lede's sentence (one scholars consider these calamities as mass killings, whereas the others question these conclusions). If you believe it does that not fully adequately, feel free to modify it. However, I see no reason to start the para with the discussion of this subject."

Please, address (on the talk page) these questions and concerns, otherwise I'll re-introduce my changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated that your proposed edit is nonsensical given the body of the article. As long as the body of the wiki article itself discusses how the famine deaths are disputed, it follows in an exceedingly straightforward manner that summarizing statements in the lead which refer to the famine deaths should be qualified. Moreover, it's astoundingly disingenuous to claim that "arguments haven't been presented" when they very plainly have been.

So... you're gonna be a bit tendentious about this, huh? BigK HeX (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe commenting on a contribution, not a contributor would make your own position stronger.
Secondly, you seem to ignore my previous "firstly". Please, fix the ref and provide a quote.
Thirdly, going back to "nonsensical", could you please respond on my "thirdly" (from the previous post)?
Fourthly, with regards to the famine dispute, let me point out that that dispute has already been reflected in the last lede's sentence ("Some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others.") As I already proposed, this sentence can be modified to describe the dispute better. Instead of that, you inserted a vague phrase supported by unverifiable ref. I believe it is at least equally nonsensical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. The body of the article discusses famine in the "Controversial" section. That tells for itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it is very clear from the article that the numbers dealing with famines, war and disease are much larger than those dealing with murders and executions - which is basically what Paul's proposal is saying. And I don't think BigK is disputing this either (I asked before and got no answer), so it is really just about wording. How about saying something like "Historians generally agree that..."? This is a statement that is easy to verify - if all the main academic sources (Valentino, Fein etc) confirm or at least do not deny the subclause, then the main clause is true. If any significant sources dispute the subclaise, the main clause must be qualified. To object against this formulation, one must bring forward sources that falsify it. --Anderssl (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one source that disputes the idea of counting famine deaths. The article discusses it which is why I am of the opinion that the lead should match the arguments presented in the body. BigK HeX (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You still provided neither correct reference nor quote to support your statement. You even didn't explain what concretely do you mean. I doubt this is a correct way to conduct a discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You can repeatedly ignore that the article itself now even includes a cited section about a source who takes dispute with counting famine deaths, but I'm not really going to engage in any childish games of that nature. I've explained QUITE concretely what I mean. The lead should match the article.

Even without that, your proposed edit still lists ZERO sources that can back your claim on famines as you've written it. If you're truly interested in furthering this discussion, you could try to stop ignoring that multiple editors have taken dispute with your edit, and then actually try to seek some consensus on it, instead of your current approach of conducting your own haphazard survey of the literature and writing your own personal assessment into the article. Of course, an even better approach would be to write that passage based on an actual RS that has surveyed the literature and echo that assessment in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Inclusion of famine as killing" section? If yes, it is based on a single source that generally questions the validity of inclusion of the famine victims into the total death toll, and I don't see how my version of the lede contradict to what Milne is saying.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Re "actual RS". If you think Ellman's of Wheathcroft's articles are not reliable enough, feel free to post to WP:RSN, otherwise, please refrain from expressing your personal opinion that is based on nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PPS. Re: "your proposed edit still lists ZERO sources that can back your claim on famines as you've written it." It is an almost verbatim quote from the Ellman's article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"please refrain from expressing your personal opinion that is based on nothing"

An even better idea.... you could try reading the entirety of a sentence instead of responding to something that wasn't said. BigK HeX (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"It is an almost verbatim quote"...

And it is UNQUALIFIED -- an assertion cited to a single author being presented as undisputed "fact." This would violate the idea that a "source ...must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Your personal assessment of the literature isn't exactly the best substitute. Until you have something more than a survey of the literature that you have devised on your own, the statement is far too strongly worded for the citation attached to it. Multiple editors have already challenged your burden of proof as insufficient for the edit you propose. It seems you'll continue to ignore that. BigK HeX (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "an assertion cited to a single author being presented as undisputed "fact."" It is presented as undisputed fact because nobody disputed it so far. I ask again, can you provide quote from at least one source that states the opposite? One way or the another, your statement on "zero" sources is false. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "passage based on an actual RS that has surveyed the literature and echo that assessment in the article" In other words, you propose to use some tertiary source instead of the secondary one. It is directly opposite to what policy says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Errr.... what? "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." I'm at a loss to find which part of that suggests we should prefer your personal survey of the literature, as opposed to an RS.

No matter what's posted here, it's clear you're determined to ignore whatever doesn't support your proposed edit. Unless you have a substantially new issue to address, my further responses will be to repeat that your proposed edit violates the policy where the "source ...must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I would strongly suggest that the two of you take a break and get back to this issue in a day or two. What started as a reasonable disagreement now seems to have the two of you locking horns rather than looking for solutions. Paul, I think BigK's proposal was to use a secondary source of the type mentioned in policy: "For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." Correct me if I got that wrong. BigK, you still haven't answered Paul's most important question: As far as he (and I) can see, Milne confirms Paul's wording. Which source are you referring to, exactly? --Anderssl (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the most important question is how Paul Siebert proposes that an edit based on his own personal assessment of the literature is sufficient burden of proof to make an unqualified statement that should stand despite the criticism of multiple editors. His personal guarantee that the claims of a couple of sources must represent the generally accepted conclusions throughout the literature is less than satisfying --- I doubt anyone really believes he should be taken at face value when he claims to know what "all scholars agree" upon. Anyways, once this question is answered, I'll be happy to invest a bit of effort into the remaining questions... Milne, etc. Until then, the burden of proof for Paul Siebert's unqualified edit still lies with him, as it has since I came across what I thought was a reasonable criticism of his edit 2 weeks ago. Didn't know I stepped into such a hornet's nest ... but, I'm confident that consensus will eventually sort this out. BigK HeX (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BigK, if you wonder why you are having such problems building consensus on your own edit, it is because you make claims such as "There is at least one source that disputes the idea of counting famine deaths" while repeatedly refusing to answer the obvious follow-up question: Which source? I see another editor just added a paragraph about Goldhagen, which states that famines in some cases should be considered mass murder. Is that the source you are referring to? --Anderssl (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit now does nothing other than to attribute a claim to its author. Unless there's disagreement that Ellman draws the stated conclusion, perhaps now everyone here will be able to focus on the burden of proof where it properly lies (if that text still is to be generalized beyond the cited author). If that text is to be generalized, perhaps we'll see something more than a Wikipedian's personal guarantees that its appropriate to do so. BigK HeX (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear Anderssl, although your intervention is really very helpful, I don't think we two "locking horns". I believe we simply do not understand arguments of each other. Moreover, I am even not sure if our points of view really differ in actuality: see, e.g. BigK HeX' A,B,C and my earlier proposal here [15]. In that situation your attempt to re-word the most essential (in your opinion) point of the dispute may be a way out of impasse. Yes, you correctly pointed out that my major argument that direct attribution of the statement X to the scholar Aaaa is needed only when the scholar Bbbb says something directly opposite. In the absence of sources that directly question Ellman's conclusion I see no need in the reservations added by BigK HeX. Moreover, it is not clear for me why did BigK HeX decided that Ellman's words were just an assertion. Ellman came to that conclusion based on the analysis of large amount of primary and secondary sources, so his work is already a "summary of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources". Moreover, if we assume that another source is found that, based on the analysis of multiple sources, states that Ellman's statement does reflect a scholarly consensus, who can guarantee that this is not just an "another unqualified scholar's assertion"?
I believe the next BigK HeX's step should be either to provide a source (and the quote, as I usually do) that directly supports his claim ("Ellman does not reflect the scholarly consensus") or to accept my arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I still think this is a rather strange reversal on the burden of proof, but in order to end it, I will provide a link that may help. As mentioned multiple times above, I've cited Milne as one source disputing the counts famine. Milne proposes a toll of 2.5+700k deaths. He refers to numbers above the labor camps and executions as "ideologically-fuelled inflation." [16]

Really, this seems unnecessary, given that the proposed alternative is an edit written as if it reflected a survey of the literature, when there is no such source to back it. In any case, with as much variance as the various sources propose on the tolls in this topic, (as Bobani above) I'm of the opinion that we Wikipedians should tread pretty lightly on how strongly any author's assertions on the numbers should be treated as fact. BigK HeX (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that citing only Ellman (who wrote about Stalin's victims only) would be formally an unjustified generalisation. However, if we compare Ellman's conclusion with what B. Valentino (also cited in the article) writes on China ("Close to thirty million people are thought to have perished in the four terrible years between 1958 and 1962....Despite the enormity of a disaster, there is no evidence to suggest that Mao or other Chinese leaders deliberately engineered the famine. Its primary causes were a combination of deeply flawed agricultural policies and the attempt by local cadres to meet ... grain production goals." For Cambodia, the Feun's work can be used who states that 50% victims died from hunger (although in latter case it was a deliberate genocide). So formally, the statement I wrote should be split on three statements (separately for Cambodia, China and the USSR). However, that would be an additional argument in support of the opinion that the article is a collection of almost unrelated facts, so it should be split and their parts should be merged with the articles about famines, genocides and repressions in corresponding countries taken separately. I personally have nothing against that, however, as soon as we decided to keep this article, lets shape it accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert says, "if we compare...."

I keep trying to point out that this is a problem. We should not be comparing anything. If there's an RS that can be presented which has determined that some conclusion or another is generally shared throughout the literature, then great. Otherwise, it would be in error to introduce one's own conclusions -- an error further compounded if the personal analysis which makes a sweeping declaration about the entire literature turns out to be based on no more than four(?) sources. BigK HeX (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Milne is a notable writer and Guardian is a reputable magazine. However, Milne is not a scholar, so he hardly did his own research. He relied upon some scholar's works, e.g. on Getti, whose figures were demonstrated to somewhat underestimate the number of Stalin's victims. Please, keep in mind that the authors which give lower figures for famines, as a rule, give proportionally low figures for total deaths, so the Ellman's conclusion remains to be valid.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. In addition, you seem to cite Milne incorrectly. He writes about 2.5 millions of those who died in GULAG + 0.7 million executed, leaving a question of famine figures beyond the scope. He also refers to (although disagrees with) the Lindblad's and the Council of Europe's opinions (according to them, those "killed by communist regimes" died mostly in famines, so the Ellman's conclusion seems to get an additional support).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, I cite Milne quite correctly. He clearly criticizes the "fiercely contested" figures of the Black Book of Communism, and explicitly refuses to attribute the famine deaths.

This is all beside the point anyhow. Even though the burden of proof for generalizing that statement is on you, I've responded to the request for a source that disputes the famine deaths.

Now, if the assertion on famine deaths is to be generalized, I think we should insist on it being done properly, i.e. based on an actual WP:RS which has surveyed the literature. BigK HeX (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "IMO, I cite Milne quite correctly." I don't think so. The major Milne's point was that famine victims cannot be considered "killed by Communists", however, he discusses neither the number of famine victims nor the fact that famines took place.

Re: "I will insist on it being done properly..." I believe, Ellman, Valentino and Fein are reliable enough for Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's victims, accordingly. Since all these sources are already in the article, I believe combining their conclusion in one lede's phrase is quite justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

While you may "believe" what you like about the appropriateness of generalizing those sources, I hope not to see any such sweeping generalizations placed into the wiki article without an actual RS that agrees with the generalization. My position on using what you "believe" as the overriding criteria for asserting something as an unqualified fact remains unchanged.

I consider you NOT to have met to burden of proof for presenting a generalization on famine deaths. Moreover, you requested, and have been presented with a source that disputes the method of attributing famine deaths. It seems this means nothing to you, in which case, I was mistaken to continue putting effort into elaborating on the matter. I return to my earlier position --- unless you have a substantially new issue to address, my further responses will be to repeat that your proposed edit violates the policy where the "source ...must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Have a nice day. BigK HeX (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is true as Paul says that Ellmann spoke only about Stalin's victims, then your edit basically turns what may have been SYNTH into misrepresentation of the source... If generalization is not acceptable, then the sentence need to say specifically what Ellman said about famines under Stalin, Valentino about Mao and Fein about Pol Pot. Of course, as Paul said, the fact that generalization proves impossible in the lead is a clear indication that this article lacks sources which actually speak about the topic of this article as an object of study. --Anderssl (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the source is likely misrepresented. Of course, I merely adjusted the existing text to explicitly attribute the statement to the source that was already cited, but the source was probably misrepresented to begin with .... though I still would be the responsible party for the edit, I suppose. If the point is to present some generally accepted assertion that appears throughout the literature of the topic, I see little recourse than to strike the sentence, since it tries to generalize on a point that has no RS able to support any broad generalization. BigK HeX (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "with a source that disputes the method of attributing famine deaths". Well, I see we need to specify what is the subject of our dispute. Please, explain me, are we discussing the method of attributing or counting famine deaths? In my understanding, the first sentence ("Nevertheless, the direct causes of most of the excess preventable deaths under communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease") deals only with figures, whereas the next sentence ("Although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others.") discusses attribution.
By the way, I already proposed to modify the last sentence to make more clear the main sticking point, namely, that some scholar see intentionality behind famines under Communists, whereas the others disagree with that.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I agree that the source is likely misrepresented" 1. The lede is focused on the USSR, China and Cambodia; 2. Ellman (Valentino, and many others) says that more people died from hunger in the USSR than were executed. 3. Valentino, Rummel and others write the same about China. 4. Fein writes that 50% Pol Pot's victims died from hunger. 5. I write that the major cause of excess death were not repressions but famines. Please, explain me where do you see misinterpretation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the fact that generalization proves impossible in the lead is a clear indication..." Exactly. Any attempt to create more or less consistent generalized text leads to enormous difficulties.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "since it tries to generalize on a point that has no RS able to support any broad generalization". Try to read Valentino's "Final solution" and his concept of "deprivation mass killing". Maybe that can provide a needed degree of generalisation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Paul"I write that the major cause of excess death were not repressions but famines. Please, explain me where do you see misinterpretation?"
It has been pointed out how you have misrepresented the sources several times. But no problem, we can go over this as many times as needed: Valentino is very clear about this on page 99: in all three cases the famine was intentionally exacerbated by the regime...there is strong evidence that Soviet authorities used hunger as a weapon to crush peasant resistance to collectivization. Deaths associated with these kinds of policies meet the criteria for mass killing...".--Termer (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take into account that the dispute is about the following statement: "Nevertheless, the direct causes of most of the excess preventable deaths under communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease" In other words, we discuss the relative numbers, so the regime's responsibility is simply beyond the scope of our discussion.
With regards to your point, I believe that by writing that "although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others." I reflected, among others, the Valentino's point of view also. However, if you believe the latter sentence needs in some modification, please, propose your version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PS. Since Valentino's speciality is not a Soviet history but genocides and mass killings in general, he hardly did his own studies of Soviet famine. He seems to rely mostly on Conquest's "Harvest of Sorrow", so it would be correct to say that Valentino+Conquest=Conquest; re-iteration of the same conclusion do not make it stronger. Many more recent sources, from Wheathcroft to Werth, do not support the conclusion about intentionality of Soviet famine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah right "Wheathcroft to Werth, do not support", like its a vote....And Wheathcroft? is it the same guy again Stephen Wheatcroft who has earned such a comment from the International Association for the History of Crime and Criminal Justice like "the risk by revisionists like Wheatcroft of sliding towards an apologetic stance has not yet been wholly eliminated". And why don't we let soviet authorities do the talking: you should know the infamous quote. "It took a famine to show them who is master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay, We've won the war." Any ideas why Wheathcroft keeps ignoring it? They say he has based his research on Soviet archives. Any complaints about how badly managed the Soviet archives have been like the famine was suppose to be a result of a bad management?--Termer (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, as I already pointed out, the quote provided by you belongs not to some association, but to a single scholar. Secondly, the quote is simply incorrect. Please, check the source to find what it states in actuality. Thirdly, yes, it is the same guy who was regarded, among all, as the author of one of the most comprehensive monographs on Soviet famine and as one of the leading experts in grain statistics (that has a direct relation to determination of the real causes of famine).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for the lead

Re: "are we discussing the method of attributing or counting famine deaths?" This seems to be the core of the problem. It seems that all the RS's in the article concur that famine, war and diseases was the cause of a majority of the deaths in question. However, some sources claim that in certain cases, deaths caused by man-made famines should be considered mass murder. If we all agree on this rough understanding of what the sources say, then it's simply a matter of finding a precise and concise formulation that covers this in the lede. How about something like:

Scholars generally agree that a majority of excess preventable deaths under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot was caused by famine, disease and war. However, some scholars contend that in certain cases, famines caused by mis-management or even intentional starvation should be considered a form of mass murder. This is a subject of much controversy.

That can be refined and adjusted endlessly I am sure, but as far as I can see it basically sums up the content of the article. Objections? --Anderssl (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Same objection as before. What's the RS to support that "Scholars generally agree..."? BigK HeX (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer "Scholars have found that..." followed by refs to Ellman, Valentino and Fein? The point is to not get into the detailed discussion of each source, that should happen in the article body. --Anderssl (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Bobanni (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bobanni, was that intended as a comment on my proposal? Could you explain in what way, precisely, this excerpt from policy is relevant to what I am proposing? --Anderssl (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To Bobani. A lede is a summary of what the article says, so it has to present some degree of generalisation. Since the main article gives a detailed explanation what "cholars generally agree" means, I see no problems with that wording.

To Anderssl. Support.

There has been no support presented as to what scholars generally agree upon. It's been stated numerous times already, but using the work of 4 (maybe even four-hundred scholars) and then forming your own opinion as to what "scholars generally agree to" is synthesis, and if it is contested by an editor, policy says it must be cited. Obviously, that sort of wording is contested, so if we're going to write about what "scholars generally agree" about, then we need to find an RS that tells us about it. BigK HeX (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To BigK HeX. Did you read Valentino's "Final solution" and Rummel's works? I believe these works provide a needed support for such generalized claims.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Valentino's definition of "mass killing" seems significantly broader than is common in the literature. I'm a bit unclear .. perhaps you can elaborate as to why Valentino's work might be used as a reflection of theconclusions that are generally accepted throughout the literature? BigK HeX (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BigK, I already proposed a weaker wording: "Scholars have found that..." followed by refs. Do you have a problem with that wording, or not? --Anderssl (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[To Anderssl] I think the first consideration is to find which of these famine/disease deaths (if any) are labeled "mass killings" by an RS [probably Valentino].... or if non-specific deaths are to be included, some relationship needs to be drawn between the term "mass killing" and these non-specific, non-targeted deaths. Afterwards, we may be able to say something like:

Though starvation, illness, and government mis-management are certainly not limited to Communist regimes, it is known that famine and disease claimed a significant number of lives during the reigns of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There are scholars who have studied various Communist regimes and have attributed the deaths to the ruling party[ref][ref][ref]; however, other accounts vary in this methodology.

But first things first.... which of these events has an RS showing that it belongs in an article about "mass killings"? (And, if Valentino is the only source, there will probably have to be a good bit of qualification added to the article, since his definition seems to differ in material ways from the more common definitions.) BigK HeX (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this. Your main point ("first things first") is that we need to find RS's that show that these various events qualify as mass killings - or otherwise, presumably, drop them from the article? Then why are we discussing this fine point of wording in the lede... I believe both me and Paul agree with you on this! This was my exact point earlier, that we should work on the body of the article first, and just try to make sure the lede summarized the rest of the article appropriately. Anyway, your proposal seems fine by me, except I am not sure if the word "methodology" is the right one - i would say 'approach' or something like that. --Anderssl (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I listed what I see as the alternatives above. I'm not sure which of the alternatives is most appropriate. I'm not quite sure on it, but it seems like there are two camps ... editors pushing for more inclusion, and those pushing for less. I don't really have an opinion on which route is most appropriate to the article. I'm only stopped through here because I noticed (what I thought to be) a minor WP:RS dispute, and thought Bobani's point should receive due consideration --- didn't know it was such a hornet's nest. I'll let the more interested editors figure out which of the alternatives (if any) are most appropriate. Truly, I think an RfC is needed to settle that specific question once and for all -- what should this article cover and, what title would then be appropriate. I see there have been RfC's .... though I'm not sure if any have directly addressed what content should be covered by this article, since there are those who would like it to go in somewhat different directions. BigK HeX (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "hornet's nest" - sorry if I came across as hostile, was just a little surprised to see that we agreed on the most important point - but all the better. :)

As for an RfC on the scope of the article, that isn't too bad an idea. Hell, why not try it. --Anderssl (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)--Anderssl (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, his definition of "dispossessive mass killing" is much broader than what usually "mass killing" means. However, I talk not about that. According to Valentino, "dispossession mass killing" (or "war, famine and diseases") lead to more deaths than murders and executions. That is what the lede states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is perfectly fine, so long as the assertion is clearly attributed as being the conclusion of Valentino. (Not sure how deeply the work of individual sources should be covered in the lead, but I'm uninterested in any debates on that aspect.) BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "but it seems like there are two camps ... editors pushing for more inclusion, and those pushing for less" There is one more camp: the editors pushing for not mixing apples with oranges. In other words, it is necessary to outline (i) the events that are considered as "mass killings" by all scholars (these are: mass executions, mass murder, widely recognized cases of genocide etc), and (ii) the events that are considered as mass killing by one (or few) scholar and not considered (explicitly or implicitly) as such by others. Then we need to re-organize the article to make a difference between these two categories clear and obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)