Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Vietnam War ref

I have again reverted Tentontunic's recent edit [2] -- this time because there is nothing about mass killings on p. 165 of Inside the VC and the NVA: The Real Story of North Vietnam's Armed Forces. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just self-reverted myself right now per Tentontunic's appeal to 1RR, but this is still not a valid reference and has to go. I would therefore sugges that Tentontunic revert himself. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I thanked you on your talk page, in retrospect I wish I had not. You need to WP:AGF and read WP:NPA you looked at the wrong page, I cited 185, not 165. The citations are for the Massacre at Huế and of course the Dak Son Massacre Tentontunic (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me. Albeit in fact there is nothing about "mass killings" on page 185 either. The page discusses the Vietcong and "terrorism", but says nothing (not one word) at all about mass killing, mass murder, or anything synonymous. It does describe two massacres, but these do not fit the definiton for mass killing offered by Benjamin Valentino (see the related talk section Was the Hungarian Revolution a "communist mass killing"?), and I think that it should be removed from here. Incidentally, the United States soldiers committed a series of massacres, most famously at My Lai, so if we don't remove it, we should reformulate this to the effect of something like "during the Vietnam War, both communist Vietcong and anti-communist American troops carried out massacres" (I could find many refs like that). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A massacre is a mass killing. Valentino is not the word of god. American massacres belong in an article on american`s. Tentontunic (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these massacres occurred "under Communist regimes", but occurred in South Vietnam, which was a U.S. ally. TFD (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The actions were carried out by communist regimes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the massacres whilst we discuss the matter and have added another reference for Vietnam. Please explain why you feel a massacre is not a mass killing. Tentontunic (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not meet the criteria for the only source presented in the article that defines "mass killings under Communist regimes". TFD (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And which criteria would this be? A mass killing is a mass killing, why would a definition be required? Tentontunic (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Still awaiting a response on this question Tentontunic (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We use a Valentino's definition (50,000 or more during 5 years or less). If we will not follow this definition, we also will have to remove the Valentino's estimates, because they include not only executions, murders or genocide, but famines and other deaths which are not considered as mass killings by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure as to why we would need to remove Valentio`s estimates? He is but one scholar, why do we not estimates by others? An estimated 5000 people died in Massacre at Huế. That is a mass killing in anyones books. An estimated thirty three thousand killed in south Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 and a further fifty seven thousand abducted. 33 thousand dead is a mass killing. How can you say these do not qualify for inclusion in this article based on one scholars definition? Tentontunic (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not edit wikipedia based on personal idiosyncratic definitions of what a mass killing is. We rely upon scholarly secondary sources. Valentino, a sociologist of comparative mass killing and its causation, defines mass killing quite simply: 50,000 dead, five years or less. "Anyones books[sic]" is not a reliable secondary source. Additionally, we do not produce synthetic research by determining death tolls ourselves, and then including material into the article. We include material indicated in reliable secondary sources which already deal with comparative studies mass killings in communist regimes, and make use of the material outlined in the secondary sources. You would do well to read the various policies on verifiability, reliable sources, original research and synthesis. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You would do well to read the various policies on verifiability, reliable sources, original research and synthesis. Are you always so combative is response to a question? I have not determined any death tolls myself, all I wrote above is from reliable secondary sources. Again, I see no reason to rely solely on Valentio. This article is about mass killings perpetrated by communist regimes, the killings I have described in my previous post are mass killings by communist regimes, hence they belong in this article. Tentontunic (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Because you clearly don't understand synthesis, "the killings I have described in my previous post are mass killings by communist regimes". And were they found in a reliable secondary source specifically on comparative communist caused killings? You're inventing categories: this is the job of sociologists and historians; not of encyclopaedists. Seek your categories, your association between events and categories, in highest quality secondary sources. The gap between "a 5000 person massacre has been attributed to the NLF/PAVN" and "Hue was a mass killing caused by communists and widely reported in comparative communist mass killing literature" is original research and synthesis. The level of combativeness is pretty much a correlation to your arrogance and holding your personal opinion as if it is reliably sourced in the scholarly literature. That's how it goes, "everybody knows". Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. You Tentontunic are free to collect all facts about mass deaths under Communist regimes, to use any existing term to characterise them, or to invent any term you want; however, you cannot publish that on WP pages. If one source states: "let's define mass killings as killing of >50,000 non-combatants for 5 years or less, and let's include there mass death as a result of dispossession (famines, etc)", and when another source states: "let's define mass killing as mass murder of large amount of people", we have to follow either one or another definition, but not to combine them arbitrarily. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to combine them, why do you feel only one scholars numbers ought to be used? Are or you both saying that In the name of terrorism: presidents on political violence in the post-World. State University of New York Press by Carol Winkler does not meet WP:RS? Tentontunic (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not for this article, the book, "The topic of terrorism has evolved into an ideological marker of American culture, one that has fundamentally altered the relationship between the three branches of government, between the government and the people, and between America and countries abroad. In the Name of Terrorism describes and analyzes the public communication strategies presidents have deployed to discuss terrorism since the end of World War II. Drawing upon internal administration documents, memoirs, and public papers, Carol K. Winkler uncovers how presidents have capitalized on public perceptions of the terrorist threat, misrepresented actual terrorist events, and used the term "terrorism" to influence electoral outcomes both at home and abroad. Perhaps more importantly, she explains their motivations for doing so, and critically discusses the moral and political implications of the present range of narratives used to present terrorism to the public." Winkler is not an expert on communism, mass killing, or nationally comparative social causes. Drawing demographic death figures from a non-demographer who is not a specialist in the field is not reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brought to the reliable sources noticeboard [3] Tentontunic (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

to a high of 70 million

This is incorrect, the highest estimated number is 100 million, not 70. Also why on earth has this Billions of people have survived communist mass killings been inserted into the lede? It seems a little POV Tentontunic (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Why? Hundreds of thousands survived the Holocaust. Billions more survived the worldwide communist mass killings called the Red Holocaust. We should restore this point. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Zloy, not killing somebody is not news, and not a topic generally put in encyclopedias. For example, I didn't kill anybody today and presumably you didn't kill anybody today, but neither of those topics is going to appear in any newspaper or encyclopedia. Putting it in simply distracts the reader, like the smoke and mirrors of some cheap magic trick, trying to make 100 million deaths disappear from the article. Oh, actually they have disappeared from the article. Smallbones (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

IPOF, such material would require specific reliable sources making the claim. Such do not exist as far as I can tell -- making all of this speculation exceedingly moot. Collect (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You actually want specific reliable sources that say billions of Chinese live in communist China, for exmaple? Otherwise, what speculation do you mean? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I already explained several times on the talk page, the edits similar to those made by Smallbones are highly misleading, and are not supported by a consensus: according to most sources except Valentino. Rummel and few others, 20-71 million were not killed, because the Valentino's definition of "mass killing" differs from the commonly accepted one. Accordingly, the words:

"The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million"
Will be interpreted by an ordinary reader as if all these people were murdered, executes or exterminated, whereas the most common cause of these deaths was starvation and diseases.

I am intended to revert the lede to the last neutral version [4] immediately after the issue with sanctions will be clarified (the only reason why I haven't done that immediately was that I thought it would be incorrect to edit the article when the situation with sanctions is unclear and not all users can work on the article; however, as I see not all users share this point of view), and I invite everyone to work on new lede on the article's talk page.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Re highest extimate of 100 million, it came from Rummel, who was demonstrated to give dramatically inflated estimates (for instance, he gives ca 40 million Gulag victims, whereas a current scholarly consensus is that the number of died in Gulag did not exceed 2 million). I repeated these arguments on the talk page many times, so all newbies are strongly encouraged to read the talk page to avoid repetitions of the same arguments again and again. See a message on the top of this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Only Rummel? [5] attributes the same figure to Courtois rather than Rummel. No matter -- I just find the "billions did not die" comment from another to be on the order of "there were billions of people who did not see Babe Ruth hit a home run, therefore we can doubt that he ever hit one" type of reasoning. Collect (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not mention Courtois any more. The introduction to the BB is a highly controversial writing, if you want to use the BB correctly, use the Nocolas Werth's section about Russia/the USSR: he provides the numbers that are close to generally accepted ones. BTW, he also provides (in his interview) that the major causes of the brutality of the Communist revolution was the poorly accomplished Tsarist land reform, brutality of the WWI, and other factors not directly connected to the Communism. I am intended to add this, as well other similar pieces of information to the article infuture.

With regard to other sources giving high estimates, most of them are either obsolete, or they use the same flawed methodology as Rummel did. They belong to a Controvercy section, not to the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal concerning new sanctions

I have proposed new discretionary sanctions for this article at User talk:Sandstein#Mass killings sanction, to allow their discussion by editors currently banned from editing this page to comment on them. (Nonetheless, editors who are banned from any general topic covering this article should also stay out of that discussion.)  Sandstein  22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Per discussion here, the old sanctions are replaced with the new sanctions.  Sandstein  20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

from a low of 21 million

Why is Valentino the sole source for this number? Does it seem sketchy to anyone else to use this number and give the impression that Valentino is representing the lowest notable academic estimates for the USSR+China+Cambodia? This is especially so, when (IIRC) Valentino counts many deaths that other scholars do not believe are valid. BigK HeX (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Who else gives a low number? Personally I believe to much weight is being given to Valentino in this article, there are more than one source for such as the USSR Cambodia and China. Tentontunic (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I again strongly suggest you to read the talk page archives: it is simply non-polite to request others to repeat the same arguments simply because you are to lasy to read archives. I am explaining again, two types of mistakes are possible here: (i) infalted figures for death toll, and (ii) different interpretations of what is mass killings and waht is not. The high estimates of death toll come mostly from earlier writers (as Solzhenitsyn) or scholars (Rummel), and from those who reproduce these figures non-critically. In addition, whereas some scholars attribute most excess deaths under Communist regimes to mass killings, others prefer to discuss mass mortality, premature deaths, or speak about victims of Communist regimes. You must agree that "victim" is much more flexible, and do not necessarily implies "killing".

One more point. It is totally incorrect to combine almost fully non-contraversial categories (such as Kampuchean genocide, which was a pure example of mass murder) with much less clear cases, like Soviet famines.

Moreover, even the former case (KR genocide) is much more complex event than it is presented in the current article: the article implicitly assumes that these mass killings occurred predominantly due to the Communist ideology, whereas serious scholar outline at least two other causes, which are totally unrelated to Communism: desperate economic situation of Cambodian peasants (which lead to huge tensions between rural, Khmer, and urban, Chinese, Vietnamese, and other non-Khmer, population), and aincient Khmer traditions of revenge. In addition, the fact that the KR concept was seen as extremist even by Maoist Communists in China, and, therefore, was an example of ultra-extremist Communist doctrine (i.e. was a deviation from classical Communism) is also not reflected neither in the lede nor in the article. This, as well as other examples (which I can provide upon a request) demonstrate that both the lede and the article give a primitve and oversimplified picture which must be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

New editing restrictions

I propose that all editors who work on this talk page need to elaborate common rules, accordingto which we will edit the article in future. It would be better if we do that by themselves, because in that case the rules are more likely to be genuinely observed. I propose the following simple rules:

"You can make any edit, however, if the text you added has not been approved during the talk page discussion (that means that there were no reasonable, or substantiated opposition during a reasonable time, e.g. few days), it can be reverted by anyone, and anyone can report you if you try to do re-insert the text that again. Polls are not allowed. Your support or oppose has zero weight unless you presented a fresh argument, desirably supported by a reliable source. If you have been repeatedly reverted for systematic re-addition of non-supported text, you will be topic banned permanently."

This rule will allow all users, including previously banned ones, to work on this article, because it leaves no space for classical edit warring. Accordingly, 1RR or 1RR per week should be abolished, because anyone should be able to revert any amount of undiscussed and unsupported edits.
In my opinion, it is very important that we elaborate and accept these rule by ourselves. We already have an good example of efficient usage of these rules, the WWII article.
What do you think about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Polls generally have little weight (see WP:VOTE) -- so that is a tad irrelevant. And defining "reasonable opposition" may be a problem - I would suggest that any text which is objected to as a new addition (text not found as of 10 days ago, say) should be removable. Thus no edit war, as the material would not be reinserted. As for "zero weight" that is absurd - no argument which is properly founded in WP policy or guidelines should be ignored. Lastly I would suggest a 10 lines of talk page edits per day per person here. If an editor can not be cogent in 10 lines, it is unlikely 20 lines will improve the post. Collect (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Although explicit references to VOTE may be redundant, it is desirable to mention, because sometimes (unfortunately, very frequently) consensus building resembles a vote. With regard to the rest, I support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Due to this [6] Seven days ago two editors expressed disagreement with this addition. I removed the disputed content and have since waited for a response, both editors have been active on this page in this time. I had also added new references to the lede for mass killings in for Vietnam and North Korea, they appear to have vanished into the ether. These were reliable sources, and absolutely no discussion has been taken on their removal. Your proposal will make this situation worse, the article owners will remove content as they see fit, and quite happily ignore those they disagree with on the talk page. Tentontunic (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote, "It does not meet the criteria for the only source presented in the article that defines "mass killings under Communist regimes". You replied, "And which criteria would this be? A mass killing is a mass killing, why would a definition be required?" What type of answer were you looking for? TFD (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So instead of responding and asking for clarification you choose to ignore it? Thus proving my point. Tentontunic (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You do not understand how it works. Let me explain. If someone removed your text, you have to place it on the talk page and to supplement with needed rationale and/or sources. If no criticism followed for reasonable time you may re add it. However, if some counter-arguments have been put forward, you must respond a criticism and provide counter-arguments, desirably supported by reliable sources. If a consensus has been achieved, you may add the text. Importantly, unsubstantiated objections should not be considered as a reasonable criticism.

In the case you referred to TFD ought to respond; at least, I do not interpret this situation that the discussion about your proposal has ended. I'll respond in few minutes to explain why this your change is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see it as the role of other editors to point out to you what is in the article, when it is simple for you to find it on your own. Look under the terminology section. TFD (talk)

See the comments preceding my reply, "these do not fit the definiton for mass killing offered by Benjamin Valentino (see the related talk section Was the Hungarian Revolution a "communist mass killing"?)" And your response, "A massacre is a mass killing. Valentino is not the word of god." Were you unaware that Valentino's definition was in the article? TFD (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This rule would effectively lock the page as it stands because there are folks who say such obnoxious things as "please don't mention the Black Book of Communism again," even though it has been taken several times to the WP:RSN and been cleared as a reliable source. It's obviously a reliable source having been published by Harvard University Press, but folks will object to it, making this the only article in Wikipedia where an obviously reliable source is not allowed. Unacceptable. Better to just ban those who put such arguments forward, time and time again. Smallbones (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have no desire to argue with the users who do not bother to read my posts carefully (since the Nicolas Werth's chapter I am constantly referring to is a part of the BB, it is simply ridiculous to accuse me in an attempt to ignore the BB completely). However, if someone else will oppose to my suggestion (and will not put forward an alternative one), it will serve as an indication that some users working on this article are not mature enough, that they are unable to develop the rules for productive collaboration by themselves, and that they need in a supervisor. In other words, I will have to fully support the Sandstein's procedure (described on his talk page). --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So we're only allowed to cite the one chapter of a reliable source that you approve of? Shame on you! Smallbones (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as a summation of BOLD, BRD, CONSENSUS, !VOTE, VERIFIABILITY, RELIABLE SOURCES, TENDENTIOUS / IDHT with a sanction applied for tendentious and idht which breaks the principles, policies, and guidelines outlined. Suggest that the text use links to principles, policies, guidelines. Also, Support as preferable to non-fine grain restrictions (such as restrictions on DIGWUREN/EEML/etc sanctioned editors who never had any problem in this area or have ceased having problems, or generalised 1RR/week). Support in comparison to User_talk:Sandstein#Mass_killings_sanction which only covers consensus, and which strongly resembles permalocked articles consensus requirements without actually locking the article. Strongly suggest this article be locked and thoroughly mediated over content issues for a two to six week period by a forceful Humanities and Social Sciences background editor up on wikipedia policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Martintg raised two issues at Sandstein's talk page here. Firstly, that this proposal does not require consent for deletion of content, an obvious gap. Secondly, that the current restriction means that editors restricted cannot discuss this proposal. I propose that this proposal be moved to Sandstein's talk page where the other proposal is under discussion for process reasons. I have contacted the proposer's talk page regarding this process issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise the recent sanctions affected the talk page too. I've done what Fifelfoo asked me to do. Please, leave your further comments there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Terminology section edits proposal

I have been working to flesh out the "Terminology" section of the article on a user subpage here. I don't think any of the additions or changes I have made are controversial (although I did remove a "not in citation given" tag on one sentence after rewording it). I am proposing to swap out the current article section with the version on the subpage. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: I have added the material from my user subpage below with my proposed changes bolded and two minor deletions marked by "****". AmateurEditor (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed "Terminology" section edits

Terminology Communist regimes Communist regimes refers to those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition (in other words, communist states) at some point in their history. Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants. The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments: Genocide Under the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states, including Stalin's USSR, anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances. However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated. Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled genocide or auto-genocide and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases. In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent." According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary. Genocide is a popular term for mass political killing, which is studied academically as democide and politicide. Politicide The term politicide is used to describe the killing of *****groups that are not covered by the Genocide Convention. It includes the mass killing of political, economic, ethnic and cultural groups. Manus I. Midlarsky uses the term politicide to describe an arc of mass killings from the western parts of the Soviet Union to China and Cambodia. In his book The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century Midlarsky raises similarities between the killings of Stalin and Pol Pot. Democide R. J. Rummel coined the term democide, which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Unlike politicide, randomly conducted and non-targeted mass killing are included. Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago have shown the significance of the differences between the democide and politicide data-sets in that statistical analyses based on them can produce very different results, including whether or not regime type is a significance variable. Helen Fein has termed the mass state killings in the Soviet Union and Cambodia as "genocide and democide." Crimes against humanity Klas-Göran Karlsson uses the term crimes against humanity, which includes "the direct mass killings of politically undesirable elements, as well as forced deportations and forced labour". He acknowledges that the term may be misleading in the sense that the regimes targeted groups of their own citizens, but considers it useful as a broad legal term which emphasizes attacks on civilian populations and because the offenses demean humanity as a whole. Jacques Semelin and Michael Mann believe that crime against humanity is more appropriate than genocide or politicide when speaking of violence by Communist regimes. Classicide Michael Mann has proposed the term classicide as the "intended mass killing of entire social classes". Repression Stephen Wheatcroft notes that, in the case of the Soviet Union, terms such as the terror, the purges, and repression are used to refer to the same events. *****He believes the most neutral terms are repression and mass killings, although in Russian the broad concept of repression is commonly held to include mass killings and is sometimes assumed to be synonymous with it, which is not the case in other languages. Mass killing Ervin Staub defined mass killing as "killing members of a group without the intention to eliminate the whole group or killing large numbers of people without a precise definition of group membership. In a mass killing the number of people killed is usually smaller than in genocide." Referencing earlier definitions, Joan Esteban, Massimo Morelli and Dominic Rohner have defined mass killings as "the killings of substantial numbers of human beings, when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy, under the conditions of the essential defenselessness and helplessness of the victims". The term has been defined quantitatively by Benjamin Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants", where a massive number is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less. This is the most accepted quantitative minimum threshold for the term. He applies this definition to the cases of Stalin's USSR, the PRC under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, while admitting that mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa. Holocaust The United States Congress has referred in legislation to "an unprecedented imperial communist holocaust" and the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation established as a result of that legislation refers to this subject as the "Communist holocaust". The term Red Holocaust has been used by German historian Horst Möller; American academic Steven Rosefielde has published a book on this subject titled Red Holocaust. According to Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine, "historians and philosophers close to politically liberal groups" in Europe, especially in Romania, have made the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Genocide part of today's vocabulary. Notes and references Footnotes References

I'm assuming that the section "Sources and excerpts" is for personal use, not for article insertion? (We are not a source book, and those slab quotes are way too long, we should produce an integrative analysis in prose). Given the article title you need to put mass killing up front, possibly even before Communist regimes. Feels like it needs a little more work at the moment, even as an interim before we get a prose-paragraph discussion of these issues up there. Good excerpt finds. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the userpage is where I store material and test edits relating to the article, so the "Sources and excerpts" section is for personal use and not part of my proposed edits. Only the "Terminology" section from the article is what I am proposing to change with the altered version of it on the userpage. The edit would not change the order of terms from their current configuration, so that concern with the article is unaffected. I think these edits are an incremental improvement on what is there already, even though much more needs to be done. Thanks for the compliment. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I object. The proposed text is a good starting point, however, this terminology deals with mass killing in general, therefore the section in its present form implies that all these terms were developed to describe Communist mass killings, which is simply wrong.

The term "Genocide" was invented by Lemkin to describe Nazi crimes, so initially it had no relation to Communism at all. KR genocide is among few examples of Communist mass killing that were officially recognised as genocide. In addition, "genocide" is a legal term, so it cannot be used arbitrarily.

"Democide" was invented by Rummel to describe the events that cannot be covered by the term "genocide". It also was not designed to describe specifically Communist mass killings.

The same is true for "Politicide" and "Crimes against humanity".

The term "classicide" is probably the most relevant to this article, because, by contrast to majority of other regimes Communist regimes attacked specific social (not ethnic) groups.

The Wheathcroft's "repressions" should be expanded, and it should be added that many (if not most) authors prefer to use specific terminology is every particular case, so the idea to use common terminology is not too popular. In addition, "repressions" refer not only to "killings" but to arrests, imprisonment, exile, deportations, etc.

Re "Red Holocaust", neutrality requires to add that this term was invented by a single scholar (Rosenfielde) and is questionable ("However horrendous the crimes of communism were, there never was a Red Holocaust" (Peter Paret. Central European History, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2004), pp. 304-306)).

Conclusion: This section should be expanded to explain why so many different terms have been proposed, and why no common terminology have been developed so far, and it should be moved to the Mass killing article, because it is more general than the article's subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear that this edit is the first of many improvements on my part as time allows. It simply adds detail to what is there already and does not create a final version of that section. I agree with some of your complaints about the current state of the section, but only the specific changes I am proposing to make should be subject to objection. Would it help if I highlighted in bold the text in the userpage version which differs from what is currently in the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this section in its present form should not be in this article, so I see no reason to waste your time for minor improvements. I suggest you to think about the following: let's take this section (your sandbox version), and add it to the Mass killing article mutatis mutandi (because it is quite relevant to that article). After that it will be much easier to see how the Terminology section of the the MKUCR article should look like.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the terms in the Terminology section, which my proposed edit would not add to or subtract from, are terms used by sources to characterize these events, which the citations verify. I have no problem working on a Mass killing article with you - in fact I thought we had agreed to do that a while ago - but there isn't one right now and the contents of the terminology section here already exist. My proposed edit should be evaluated based upon what it changes, not on what it doesn't change. To make it clearer precisely what that is, I have bolded the added text in the sandbox version and added "*****" in two instances where I deleted text without adding.AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to comment on these changes here, on in your sandbox?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than the term mass killings, I do not see why we need a terminology section. BTW, you should avoid saying that Valentino "admit[s]", which has negative connotations. Also, the term "holocaust" in this context is controversial, which should be explained. TFD (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not proposing to change whether or not there is a terminology section. I also have not added the word "admit" regarding Valentino which you object to: it's already in the article. I agree that the term "holocaust" is controversial and that should be explained, but that is not currently done in the article and my edit doesn't affect that issue. I am sure that will be handled in a subsequent edit. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I commented both on your and the current versions: the "Terminology" section, by and large, discussed the term "mass killing", not "mass killings under Communists". It simply belongs to another article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The same "mass killing" term applies to communists and to others. There is no separate "mass killings under Communists" term. That's a description of the topic, not a term. The topic clearly has many terms, such as "genocide" and "politicide", which are essentially specialized variations of the term "mass killing". That's why we have a terminology section to begin with. All of the terms described there have been used to label mass killings under Communist regimes. And all this is unaffected by my proposed edit.AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the same "mass killing" term applies to communists and to others is correct. And that is why the discussion of the term "mass killings" belongs to the "mass killing" article, not to this one. This article should have only a reference to this discussion. The present situation resembles a (hypothetical) situation when taxonomy of Canidae is being discussed in the gray wolf article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if there were a "mass killing" article (it is currently a disambiguation page), there would still need to be discussion in this article of the various terms used. There isn't a single "correct" or scientific term for mass killings of civilians. Multiple terms are used by scholars discussing this topic and the differences between them aren't insignificant. This article has to acknowledge that to avoid misleading the reader. But, again, I am not proposing to add a terminology section. One has long existed in the article and I think rightly so. The "mass killing" portion of the terminology section will not be so large after this addition to yet justify a separate article, but I think it is important to demonstrate in this article that "mass killing" as a term does not begin and end with Valentino. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

AmateurEditor could you please put your proposed edit here? I do this on the Communist terrorism and find it an easy way to gauge consensus for a particular edit. Such an approach may work on this article also. Tentontunic (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I copied over the version from my userpage with the proposed changes in bold and deletions marked with "*****" at the top in a collapse box. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. The name of the section ("Terminology") is not completely correct, because it implies the existence of some concrete and commonly accepted terminology. It would be more correct to name the section "Attempts to apply different terminology to the mass killings under Communist regimes".
2. "The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:" Incorrect. Only part of scholars characterise these mass deaths under Communists as "killings". Change to "mass mortality".
3. Genocide: Re " because many states, including Stalin's USSR" Why the USSR is mentioned explicitly? Either the list of these states should be provided or the mention of the USSR should be removed.
   Re "However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated." Not correct. Lemkin tried to expand the definition of genocide, which made it not an outstanding event, so too many actions, including those committed by democratic government fit this loose definition. Since Lemkin was critisices for that, it would be hardly correct that the need in a loose definition of genocide "became more apparent".
   Re "Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled "genocide" or "auto-genocide"" If I am not wrong, these actions were found to be genocide by a tribunal, so the wording could be less vague.
   Re: "and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases." By whom? I am not aware of any serious attempts to investigate them according any established legal procedure.
   Re "In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent"." By scholars, not by legal investigators. These events may fit a loose definition of genocide, according to which genocide is not too outstanding phenomenon.
4. Politicide: since it is not a commonly accepted term, which, in addition, has three different meanings, it is not correct to write that the term "is used to describe the killing ..." without attribution. Probably "has been used by Midlarsky ..."
5. Democide: We have to say that Rummel invented the term "democide", which he subsequently applied to mass killings under totalitarian regimes, which, according to him included the cases of mass mortality as a result of wars (non-combat deaths), famines and diseases. I see no reason to mention Wayman and Tago: these two scholars discuss various mathematical models, leaving the essence of the described events beyond the scope. The reference to Fein is also hardly relevant to this section.
6. Classicide This term is the most relevant to the article, because it refers to killings for belonging to particular social group (which was characteristic to Communist mass killings)
7. Repressions It is not the Wheatcroft's term, it is used by most scholars dealing with Stalinism. However, I would separate country-specific terms to the separate section.
8. Mass killing We use the Valentino's definition. The difference between the Valentino's definition and others is that other scholars do not include "dispossessive mass killings" into this category. Do you propose to re-define this term? If no, the difference between these definitions should be better articulated: not only Valentino proposed a numerical threshold, he re-defined the term by adding "dispossessive mass killings". We need to discuss it in more details (although in another article, because this term was not designed specifically for Communist mass killings).
9. Holocaust: this is not serious. Few scholars (in their non-peer-reviewed books) and one governmental organisation have used this term several times. That approach directly contradicts to what other sources say (e.g Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges Author(s): Eric D. Weitz Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29: "Despite hyperbolic and politicized comments about "Red Holocausts" and a "Ukrainian genocide," the Soviet system was never geared toward the complete physical annihilation of a defined population group. The term class genocide is a travesty that serves political purposes but obfuscates far more than it explains.") In my opinion, "Red Holocaust" and similar exotic terms like "politicide" should be mentioned only with attribution, and the sources stating the opposite ("there was no Red Holocaust", "Stalinist regime was not genocidal by its nature", etc) should be cited also, and due weight should be given to them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1 and 2 are not about my proposed edit. Please address your evaluation only to what I proposed to add or change, not to what I have not proposed to change. I highlighted the text that I changed or added in bold to clarify this (the terms themselves, of course, were already in bold when introduced). If you wish to change something else, you should make a separate edit proposal in a separate talk page section so that a separate discussion can be had about that specific proposal. Otherwise, this will become completely unworkable.

3a."because many states, including Stalin's USSR." This is not part of my proposed edit.

3b."However, as genocide studies developed and it became more apparent that political groups were being targeted, this restriction has been re-evaluated." & "Mass killing by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia has been labeled "genocide" or "auto-genocide." & "and, although it remains controversial, the deaths under Leninism and Stalinism in the USSR and Maoism in China have been investigated as possible cases." & "In particular, the famines in the USSR in the 1930s and during the Great Leap Forward in China have been increasingly "depicted as mass killing underpinned by genocidal intent." Wikipedia is based upon verifiability, not truth. I have been very careful to adhere to only what I can attribute to reliable sources with this proposed edit, being under these new restrictions. All of these sentences are verifiable to the source cited. The relevant passage can be read on page 190 of the source, found here.

4."is used to describe the killing ..." This text is already in the article and is not part of my proposed changes.

5.My proposed edit changes the wording of the Wayman and Tago sentence to bring it in line with the source and remove the "not in citation given" tag, but they are used already in the current article, as is the Fein reference. If you prefer the current wording of the section to my proposed change in this instance, that is one thing, but the choice is between the current wording and my proposed change, which I think is an improvement. A subsequent edit can improve things further.

6. I proposed no changes here with this edit.

7. These comments are not about my proposed edit and can be addressed with a later proposal.

8. We use what reliable sources use. Valentino's definition of "mass killing" is "the most accepted" quantitative minimum, according to the source I cited. His definition is not the only one, however, as these sourced additions demonstrate. I think that is an important point. Valentino did not redefine the term by adding "dispossessive mass killing". This is simply an adjective in front of his definition of mass killing which which distinguishes the motivation from "coercive mass killing". Not all killing by communist regimes has the motive of dispossession, according to him, although a lot of it does.

9. The term is included in the current article, so my proposed edit does not change that. What my edit adds is verifiably attributed to a reliable source (as are the current sentences). A subsequent edit can add more from another source, as you suggest. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I must say that the reactions here are not what I expected (that is, I did expect criticism, but of the edits and not of the section in general). Perhaps I should have gone about this differently. For one, the first edit proposal under these new sanctions probably should have been much smaller. For another, I should not have implied that I was endorsing the entire post-edit terminology section by suggesting that it be "swapped out" for the version on my user page. I meant that merely as a practical method to implement all the changes I had made in one edit, not that I intended never to change those things which were kept the same. However, in retrospect, that phrase, combined with my oversight in not highlighting where the specific changes were (in contrast to what I was not proposing to change), caused confusion.

Since so much of the criticism here was unrelated to what I was actually proposing to change, I considered going to a community forum to get an outside perspective on whether or not these criticisms were on legitimate grounds, but I have decided against that. I think it would only serve to further irritate the disagreements between editors here and there is no pressing need for these changes at this time which would justify that. Of course, I stand by my specific responses above and I still don't think it is reasonable to object to an edit based upon what it does not change, but I think that part of the blame for this disagreement may be on the way I introduced the changes.

With that in mind, I invite interested editors to edit the version currently on my userpage here with cited material they feel is lacking or more appropriate. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason for that your reaction. You suggested some changes, however, I also see some problems with this section. Therefore, I proposed additional changes to be made to this section (in addition to the comment on your edits proper). In this situation, we simply have to think how to combine together your changes and my criticism. Let's think about that, because this is a normal practice. At least that is what we usually do with the WWII article: someone propose a piece of text on the talk page, others comment on it, change it further, and, when everybody is satisfied, this text is added to the main article. Why cannot we do the same here?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

But I am agreeing with you. Wouldn't the easiest way to combine my changes and your criticism be for you to adjust or add to what is written on my userpage? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Which version do you propose to take as a starting point?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would rather we start with the version here. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Although an editor recently removed the neutrality tag, this article still suffers from neutrality issues. It infers a connection between Communist regimes and mass killings, which is not explained. There is no discussion of who has made the connection, what connection they have made, or the level of acceptance of their views. Also, most of the sources do not directly address the subject but are written about events in individual countries. Much of the literature is taken from books that are either published outside the mainstream academic press or comparatively recent. Accordingly we cannot discern what level of acceptance they have. These issues need to be addressed and in the meantime the POV tag restored. TFD (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 parts of the lede which seem to go along with what you are saying, but which are unreferenced and unsupported by the article.

"Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, ..." and

"... many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars."

Can you supply references for this supposed focus and supposed questioning? We cannot build an article based on these assertions without references. Smallbones (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

TFD, none of the issues you raised are examples of non-neutrality. And some, such as "There is no discussion of who has made the connection", are simply wrong. But if you have specific edits in mind to improve the article, propose them so they can be discussed. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We discussed this before, but I will refresh your memory and post my comments for new readers. The lead " It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The lead in fact does not do this and does not explain what connection scholars supposedly have made between mass killings and Communist regimes.

I have looked at the sources provided and find that they are all mostly about events in individual countries that happened to be Communist. The sources that discuss Communism in general are mostly about oppression by those regimes without a specific focus on mass killings. The term itself is from a book that groups mass killings in three Communist countries in a chapter but does not categorize them. The most relevant material I could find discusses the advances in scholarship on mass killings in Eastern Europe under Communism. Some of these sources are critical of the approach taken by Nolte, Furet, Courtois, Rummel, etc., both for their exaggeration and the polemical nature of some of their writing.

My suggest would be to use source such as "Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914 - 2004" (2006) by Jan Herman Brinks.[7] We need to explain who makes a connection between Communism and mass killings, explain the connection they make and explain the degree of acceptance their theories have. Merely listing a number of events where there is an intersection between mass killings and Communism is just original research and POV.

TFD (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You have posted all of this before, and it is still incorrect. It is not up to us to do anything other than include what reliable sources as determined by WP:RS and not WP:TRUTH, atate. It is not up to us to "define" anything. It is not up to us to dismiss sources as "polemical" because we know that they are "polemical." Is this sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not dismiss sources because we WP:KNOW they are polemical and exaggerated. We do however report that reliable sources writings have called them polemical and exaggerated. This is determined by WP:RS and not WP:TRUTH. TFD (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

And such opinions must be properly cited to the person holding those opinions as opinions and not presented as statements of fact. Brinks may himself be considered "polemical" with regard to such views as:

After 1935, close Dutch-German collaboration was apparent in the arrest of 'Marxist and Jewish elements'.

This dialectic of moral superiority, however, was rather flimsy.

It is also difficult to maintain that the fate of the Jews who were deported was completely unknown to the Dutch population.

The myth of the Dutch who resisted the Germans on a massive scale and suffered because of the fate of their Jewish compatriots, is being rapidly refuted by overwhelming evidence. and so on.

Brinks' work is cited by almost no other places as far as Google Scholar can find. Yet this is the gold standard you wish to promote? I fear not. It is not even a "published work" - unless you can find Scribner's actually used it -- this site is, to all intents and purposes, self-published (the university allows all articles written by an employee to be posted without review by peers). Brinks is not even a professor - he is only a "research fellow". Yet he is the "gold standard" Nope. Collect (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It was an article in John M. Merriman's The Scribner library of modern Europe: Since 1914 (2006), published by Charles Scribner's Sons. Merriman is a professor at Yale University and the series is used as a survey text for university history courses. You can download the book free on-line. Seems pretty mainstream and uncontroversial. TFD (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Communism: A History

The last sentence of Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#List_of_claims_linking_communism_and_mass_killings - "Daniel Goldhagen,[31] Richard Pipes,[32] and John N. Gray[33] have written about theories regarding the role of communism in books for a popular audience."

What is the point in saying Communism: A History by Richard Pipes written for a general audience? From Modern Library, "Modern Library Chronicles feature the world’s great historians on the world’s great subjects. Lively, accessible, and brief (most under 150 pages), these authoritative short histories are designed to appeal to general readers as well as to students in the classroom."

See the word "authoritative"? So is there any point for the "general audience" thingy? BTW, if I add the word "authoritative" as claimed in the Modern Library website, will you have any problem? --Reference Desker (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

While all these writers are noted academics, their views reported in this article have received no acceptance in the academic communisty, which may explain why they were not published in academic sources. Probably best to strike them entirely as fringe views. TFD (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

But both Rosefielde and Valentino cite Pipes [8][9] --Reference Desker (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Both books mention Pipes once, reporting his observation that the desire to create utopia has lead to mass killings. The fact that among hundreds of footnotes, the book is seldom mentioned indicates that it has been largely ignored. Many scholars of course write books for mass audiences. TFD (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Noted academics writing for a popular audience on their areas of expertise are perfectly fine sources in Wikipedia, and scarce citations of works for a general audience in works for an academic audience are not surprising, let alone evidence that the views expressed in the popular works are fringe. Since Wikipedia articles are themselves intended for a popular audience, such works may actually be better sources for our purposes here than, say, narrowly focused journal articles. But, of course, it depends on the circumstances. As for your specific question, I don't see any need to add the word "authoritative" to describe Pipes' book based on that Modern Library sentence, but I think the article section mentioning those three academics should be expanded a bit to explain just what of relevance was said in those books. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: Pipes is an impeccable source. What's the problem? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The nature of peer reviewed writing imposes a discipline. In addition to rigorous fact-checking, writers must be clear on the degree of acceptance of different points of view and clearly distinguish between fact and opinion. A review of subsequent literature may determine the degree of acceptance of the views expressed. Therefore it is far simpler to use academic sources. The fact that someone is a noted academic does not mean that everything they write is of equal quality and notability. In any case, unless a view is fringe, it can be found in academic writing. I would be surprised for example if Pipe's book contained any significant material that was not presented elsewhere. TFD (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW I noticed that you worked on the History of Falun Gong review. I am sure that there are qualified writers on both sides, i.e., both pro-Communist and pro-Falun Gong, but it would probably be easier to write a neutral article using articles written by them for academic journals rather than editorials in government and Falun Gong publications. TFD (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting what you are arguing here for, you are doing the polar opposite in United_States_and_state_terrorism#Chomsky. There you insists that a professional linguist and partisan political activist Noam Chomsky is a perfectly reliable source for a claim on an international politics topic, but here you insists that a professional historian Richard Pipes is unreliable for a claim on a historical topic.

While I am more or less convinced with the above argumentation that Communism: A History, being not targeted towards an academic readership, should be used cautiously, but at the same time, Pipes, being a leading authority on the history of communism, is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the proper weight. Both writers briefly mention this book by Pipes and that would probably be the extent of mention that book should receive. Pipes of course has written academic books and they might be worthy of more attention, although I don't see much mention of his works in more recent sources. TFD (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I agree that the opinion of some linguist can hardly have a significant weight in the area other than linguistics, I suggest to remember that we do not discuss here TFD's views. We speak about Pipes and The Modern Library. Since the advisory board is composed mostly of notable writers, not scholars, the latter is hardly not a scholarly source, and it reflects the viewpoint on just few historians.

Judging by reviews I read, Pipes is hardly an impeccable source. Moreover, he is somewhat superficial, because he tries to derive different events in different countries based on just one, not the most decisive factor. His views contradict to the views of, e.g. Werth, who explains the events in Russia primarily by the flaws of Tzarist land reform, that was exacerbated by brutality of WWI. According to Werth, that lead to brutal Civil war and eventually to Stalinist repressions. According to other authors, the roots Kampuchean genocide were not in the Communist ideology, but in Khmer's nationalism and in dramatic economic inequality of rural and urban population.

In connection to that, and taking into account that the article is supposed to cover all important facts and viewpoints related to some particular subjects, this concrete article must discuss all mainstream theories explaining the onset of mass killings in each concrete country discussed here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a uniform Wikipedia policy applicable to all articles. It is not that we can create different policies for different articles. This is why I highlighted what is happening in US state terrorism page. --Reference Desker (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything what is happening in the US state terrorism talk page belongs to either that talk page or to relevant noticeboards. You also can address to some particular user on his/her talk page. However, this concrete talk page is not an appropriate place to discuss that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(out) You have completely distorted my position and falsely accused me of applying inconsistent standards. Your link is to a reference from an interview with Noam Chomsky where he spoke about the U.S. and Nicaragua in part of the history section. Here is what I wrote:

• This is sourced to an interview with Chomsky, who wrote, "They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism...."[2] That is the problem with this type of source - we do not know whether Chomsky is asserting a fact or an opinion or, if it is an opinion, the degree of acceptance it has in the academic community. I would agree to removal. TFD (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• We could present the views of Palin et al if they have appeared in academic writing. Similarly we may ignore Chomsky's views that have not appeared in academic writing. TFD (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Does anyone agree to removing the history section? To me it is just a rap sheet, which makes the article advocacy. TFD (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So you accuse me of saying that a quotation from Chomsky is "a perfectly valid" source when I recommended not only its removal, but removal of the entire section. Unless you accurately represent what I write this discussion will be unproductive. It has always been my position that articles should accurately reflect mainstream understanding of subjects, use good sources and be neutral.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia

If Amnesty International (AI) is going to be attributed with claims about an (implausible) 500,000 deaths in Ethiopia during 1977-78, then publications by AI need to be cited, not the popular press and certainly not literature that does not study the conflict. I own Amnesty International's report about the death penalty around the world during the 1980s, and it does not contain anything about half a million people killed in 1977-78.

The use of Andrew and Mitrokhin's book is completely inappropriate. Their book is about sensationalist details about the KGB, not Ethiopia. The depiction of events in scholarly sources shows a much more complicated situation than this article describes. There an urban guerrilla campaign waged by ultra-leftist political groups opposed to the Government. The Ethiopian authorities then responded by mobilizing supporters to root out their enemies, resulting in violent clashes between the two sides during 1977-78. Claims of half a million casualties during this period is not supported by what the scholars of the Ethiopia study for the Library of Congress found. country study: By late 1976, MEISON had become the most influential civilian group on the Politburo. However, the growing power of Abyot Seded was also evident, as it challenged MEISON and the EPRP within the Politburo and in grass-roots institutions such as kebeles and peasant associations. To counter this threat, the Derg began to prepare Abyot Seded to assume the role of chief adviser on ideological, political, and organizational matters. The aim seems to have been the creation of a cadre of Abyot Seded members with sufficient ideological sophistication to neutralize all civilian opponents, including MEISON. Abyot Seded members received ideological training in the Soviet Union, East Germany, and Cuba. On their return, they were assigned the task of politicizing the rank and file of the military.

The EPRP's efforts to discredit and undermine the Derg and its MEISON collaborators escalated in the fall of 1976. It targeted public buildings and other symbols of state authority for bombings and assassinated numerous Abyot Seded and MEISON members, as well as public officials at all levels. The Derg, which countered with its own Red Terror campaign, labeled the EPRP's tactics the White Terror. Mengistu asserted that all "progressives" were given "freedom of action" in helping root out the revolution's enemies, and his wrath was particularly directed toward the EPRP. Peasants, workers, public officials, and even students thought to be loyal to the Mengistu regime were provided with arms to accomplish this task.

Mengistu's decision resulted in fratricidal chaos. Many civilians he armed were EPRP sympathizers rather than supporters of MEISON or the Derg. Between early 1977 and late 1978, roughly 5,000 people were killed. In the process, the Derg became estranged from civilian groups, including MEISON. By early 1979, Abyot Seded stood alone as the only officially recognized political organization; the others were branded enemies of the revolution. Growing human rights violations prompted the United States, Ethiopia's superpower patron, to counsel moderation. However, the Derg continued to use extreme measures against its real and perceived opponents to ensure its survival. Jacob Peters (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Kampuchea

Allegations that Khmer Rouge forces carried out genocide are controversial. It would be helpful to incorporate the findings of the Khmer Institute:

...Charges against the Khmer Rouge for acts of killing minority groups may be unsubstantiated for the following reasons: (a) there was no state policy to eliminate them - the Khmer Rouge Directive issued in 1976 regarding minorities is far from useful as evidence against them; and (b) many of the top and notorious KR leaders in fact themselves came from these various ethnic groups. For example, Ieng Sary and Son Sen are of Sino-Vietnamese ethnicity; Pol Pot, Ta Mok, Khieu Samphorn and Tuol Sleng chief Duch were Sino-Khmer; Thiounn Prasith was of Vietnamese ethnicity (his grandparents were of Vietnamese origin). (c) Evidence indicates that ethnic minorities also took part in torturing and killing people. For example, one of the ruthless torturers of Tuol Sleng was a Cham by the name of Seum Mal. Mat Ly, another Cham (now a member of the CPP Central Committee), was also a high ranking KR cadre. A Khmer Loeu (Cambodian highlander) by the name of Savonn who succeeded Pol Pot's adopted son Phum was one of the cadres in charge of the B-30 or Boeng Trabek Re-education Camp - out of more than a 1000 returnees only about 250 survived this camp. Y Chhien, the Pailin govenor, is also a Khmer Loeu-Jarai, Gen. Bou Thong is Khmer Loeu-Tampuan, Gen. Soey Keo is Lao, Say Phuthong is Thai, and Ny Korn is Sino-Khmer.

Human Rights scholar Professor William Schabas finds: "A strict construction of the scope of the term...suggests the conclusion that the Khmer Rouge atrocities were not genocide."

And in a book review: Human Rights Quarterly 23.2 (2001) 470-477 "Nevertheless, many still point to the destruction of the Buddhist monkhood and the attacks on the Muslim Cham in an attempt to salvage the relevance of the term genocide with respect to the Cambodian atrocities. But even on this more narrow basis, the evidence of genocide, at least as presented in this volume, is unconvincing. What the record of the 1979 trial shows is that the Khmer Rouge were vicious in their attempts to stamp out organized religion. They considered the Buddhist monks to be social parasites, forcing them to abandon their religious robes and to work in manual labor alongside the Cambodian peasants. Those who refused were punished with great brutality. Symbols of the religion, including the pagodas, were vandalized and pillaged. The Khmer Rouge were no more tolerant towards minority religions than they were towards Buddhism, that of the majority. Thus, the Muslim Cham institutions were also singled out for attack. The documents regularly use the term "assimilation" to describe the goal of the Khmer Rouge with respect to the Muslim Cham and other ethnic minorities."

Jacob Peters (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the mainstream viewpoint is that KR mass killings was genocide. However another problem exists with KR: this genocide can hardly be considered as Communist genocide, because the KR Communist doctrine (btw, a very exotic doctrine, which was a huge deviation not only from classical Marxism, but even from Maoism) was only one factor affecting the onset of the mass killings. Other two factors were specific exclusively for Cambodia, so many, if not majority, scholars prefer to speak about "Cambodian/Kampuchean" (not "Communist") genocide, or to use the term "Communist" just as a synonym for "revolutionary".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam

There are some extraordinary claims made in the Vietnam section, but are not accompanied by sources of sufficient quality to substantiate them. Wikipedia's policies state that "academic, peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." But in the section about Vietnam, neither Rosefielde nor the authors of the Black Book of Communism had their work peer-reviewed and published by a university press. Rosefielde himself is not an established expert on Vietnam because he has not written any noteworthy academic work about the country. The inclusion of the Black Book of Communism is inappropriate because it was not published for a scholarly audience, but is for a mass audience of a certain political persuasion.

Data is provided by B. Szlontai of Central European University. In his scholarly article published in the journal "Russian History/Histoire Russe,", he cites the following data about Vietnam. I will be replacing the current text of the section with this: The greatest purge the Vietnamese Workers' Party ever experienced took place in the course of the 1953-1956 land reform campaign, which was patterned after the Chinese model. By December 1955 the rent-reduction campaign had affected 7,77 million people, i.e., 63 per cent of the population. Of the 44,444 "landlords" identified, 3,939 were tried and 1,175 executed. The second stage of the campaign (the land reform proper) had affected 4 million people by December 1955, of whom 18,738 were "revealed" as "concealed landlords" (these "revelations" led to further 3,312 trials and 162 executions). The scope of the repression can be gauged from that during the "correction" of the land reform's "errors" (1956-1957), the authorities released 23,748 political prisoners. Jacob Peters (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that all authors of the BB had not their work peer-reviewed and published by a university press. The BB is in actuality a collection of separate articles of different quality, and, for instance, the Werth's chapter about the USSR is rather good, whereas the Courtois' introduction has been highly criticised. Similarly, the chapter about Asia is highly controversial. Therefore, I would use this chapter with cautions.

Re Rosenfielde, his peer-reviewed articles are devoted mostly to Stalinism, so I agree that he is not an expert in Vietnam. With regard to the proposed text, I agree.-Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism is basically a polemical work, written specifically for a certain political climate in France. It is not meant to be a scholarly work, but is geared toward a mass audience, having sold nearly 1 million copies as of 2001. There is nothing to suggest that Werth represents some kind of consensus about Russian revolutionary history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Noone can represent any kind of consensus about Russian revolutionary history, because no such consensus currently exist. However, what I read in the reviews on the BB (published in reliable peer-reviewed western sources) is that the Werth's chapter of this book is arguably one of the most balanced and good part of this, generally very controversial collection of works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are extensive peer reviewed journal articles covering the VWP's agricultural policy in the North prior to 1975. AFAIR they describe the land reform campaign as internally controversial in the VWP, and that the other line in the VWP shut it down for failure very rapidly. These lead the scholars' I've read to describe the VWP as sensible, and describe Northern internal politics to 1975 as being based on the application of the rule of law. OTOH, the sources that I've read are heavily split about the NFL/PRG policy in the South to 1975 (on polemical lines). The 1975 to 1980 period is similarly polemicised, but in this case, are reliant on "political science" data rather than "historical" data. Regarding the Black Book, Wirth is academically competent for his claims, and as noted was well reviewed. I haven't reviewed the Asia chapter in depth. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBoC was translated and published by Harvard in English, but the French version was published by a publisher called Robert Laffront, which is a commercial publisher, not an academic one. Robert Laffront publishes, "Commercial fiction, literary fiction, non-fiction, self-help, memoris, politics, biographies, current events, sprituality, poetry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however Wirth is an academic expert in Soviet Studies in precisely the period he covers. I disagree with Wirth's analytical perspective, but he is a scholarly expert. Other chapters need to be evaluated on their own merits. Courtois' introduction and conclusion are, for example, unreliable (Courtois claims in his introduction that non-Catholicism causes Communist mass killing). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

M. Hassan Kakar argued that "the Afghans are among the latest victims of genocide by a superpower." Kakar would have to be classified as a primary source because he himself experienced and participated in Afghanistan's revolution and civil war. He was punished for going against the revolution, which perhaps explains his hyperbolic comments about "genocide". As such, Kakar's reliability is questionable. His book is not of scholarly notability, but reads like a personal memoir of events. Genocide is certainly not how scholars approach the conflict in Afghanistan.

A professor at Kabul University and scholar of Afghanistan affairs... Kakar vividly describes the events surrounding the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the encounter between the military superpower and the poorly armed Afghans.

Because of his prominence Kakar was at first treated with deference by the Marxist government and was not imprisoned, although he openly criticized the regime. When he was put behind bars the outcry from scholars all over the world possibly saved his life. In prison for five years, he continued collecting information, much of it from prominent Afghans of varying political persuasions who were themselves prisoners.

This is both a personal document and a historical one—Kakar lived through the events he describes, and his concern for human rights rather than party politics infuses his writing. Jacob Peters (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned.

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Unlike those who have held it against me, I will not hold it against you that you agree with a banned user. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On Soviet Famine of 1932-33

There is a problem with the sources cited in the article. There is an attempt to show some kind of consensus about genocide and a large death toll of 6-8 million. Yet, not a single Russian historian is cited in the article, such as V. Kondrashin, who strongly rejects to the genocide narrative and notes that the Soviet government took measures that contradicts the claims that it either imposed or desired a famine. There is also the noteworthy work of Tauger, who is an established expert on the famine. Basically, his work shows that the famine resulted from complex factors, such as drought and infestation.

Concerning the death toll of 6-8 million that is endorsed in this article, the scholar Tsalpin found that the famine was about 3.8 million

Из-за отсутствия надежного статистического материала изучать данную проблему и особенно определять число жертв голода трудно. Тем не менее, она активно стала разрабатываться отечественными исследователями во второй половине 1980-х гг. Историки накопили немало данных по голоду, предложили методы оценок людских потерь. Одним из первых число жертв голода пытался определить В. В. Цаплин. В своих расчетах он опирался на статистику ЗАГСов 1930-х годов. Ее изучение показало, что в 1932-1933 гг. годовое число умерших в СССР достигало 4 млн. человек против 2,6 млн. в 1927-1931 гг. Исследователь пришел к выводу, что в 1932-1933 гг. зарегистрированное число смертей от голода составило не менее 2,8 млн. человек (1,4 млн. ежегодно). Суммируя эту цифру с численностью незарегистрированных смертей (1 млн. человек), он получил 3,8 млн. жертв голода и его последствий.

Again, it is problematic to include such authors like Valentino and Snyder when discussing the famine. Neither of these authors are experts of the famine because they have not done original research on the topic for a scholarly audience and should therefore be removed. By contrast, Tauger has devoted a significant part of his academic career specifically for researching agriculture during the Soviet era. He did his doctoral thesis on the subject with "Commune to kolkhoz : Soviet collectivization and the transformation of communal peasant farming, 1930-1941". Someone like Valentino cannot seriously be put on equal footing with Tauger, who has much much higher qualifications on Russian agricultural history. Jacob Peters (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

According to his own words, Valentino made his estimates based on a wide range of secondary sources, so his book is hardly unreliable. Regarding Tsaplin, his works are frequently discussed in the articles of Western scholars (Wheatcroft, Ellman, et al), so this source seems to be reliable. However, to write about the famine based exclusively on the Tsaplin's works would be incorrect. In my opinion, the article should summarise the views of Wheatcroft, Conquest, Tauger, Davis, Ellman, along with the viewpoints of Tsaplin and some other Russian and Ukrainian scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edit: Modify presentation of footnotes, citations, references and bibliography to a single unified citation format

Initial discussion

After an initial sounding discussion, I will move a section for !votes to indicate consensus. I am not asking for consensus formation yet, but rather the discussion and clarification of the idea itself.

1. The article currently contains about four citation styles, including [footnote]:[page range], footnotes with pages at the end, citations, and references with further readings. Within this there is probably a great variety of styles in use.
2. I do references good. I am making an offer to homogenise the method of citation to a single method. I propose
   1. Footnotes using short citations for works in bibliography, and long citations for works only cited once: (Author (date if author used multiple times) Title if author used multiple times, p. pages cited; [line break] next citation in foot note. ie: Tomson paragraph 3; [br] Janedaughter (1970) Causes of mass killing, pp. 20–40; [br] Janedaughter (1972) Causes of mass killing: a reconsideration, p. 70; [br] Kevinson, Eric, Tony Janedaughter, Sally Tomson, and others (2007) "Analysis of the causes of mass killing," Journal of Mass Killings 4(2): 102–195; pp. 110–117.
   2. A bibliography giving full citations in alphabetised order for works cited multiple times
   3. A further reading section complying with policy for works listed in the article meeting policy guidelines which are not cited.

Does anyone believe that this would be a bad idea; doesn't trust me to do it by myself with honesty and fairness; or, have an alternate suggestion for citation style, citation/bibliography arrangement, inline citation with bibliography, etc. etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is a new bot which can do most of this, which might save you some dint of effort? I know there was a long discussion on one noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a bot that'll fix the reference formatting in this one I'd be surprised. Once it's fairly good the bots ought to keep it steady. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it that nobody is opposed to the citation style being unified. I'm moving on to seek formal consensus or a time out around the proposal to allow me to do this. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for consensus

• That the article contain a single unified citation style, built around short citation endnotes and a full listing in a bibliography. That Fifelfoo do this.
  • Support as proposer. I like clean citations. Maybe having such will help other editors in general with this article. It will certainly make it easier to read. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, although that is not the most serious article's problem. In addition, since this is just a technical change, which hardly will cause anyone's objection, I do not see why do you need a consensus for doing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, although I would like to know which citation format is being proposed as the standard. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted changes

PS changed "tens of millions" to "millions" in the lede (and a rather minor change of "a number of" to "some"). I think it has been decided that major changes should be discussed here 1st and consensus reached before changing the article. If that is not the system now, that needs to be discussed and changed 1st as well. As far as the substance, the source cited clearly puts the number in the tens of millions and I think we have to respect the source. More significantly, does anybody really question whether Communist regimes killed at least 20 million people in the course of mass killings. If so please note this below and provide a reliable source that explicitly says so. Smallbones (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I changed it to tens of millions is that "millions" suggests a figure less than 10 million (as least that was my strong impression), which would clearly be nonsense. Jprw (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The new addition you made is a considerable change of the lede. Per edit restriction imposed on this article you should have to discuss them first on the talk page, and, if a consensus will be achieved, to add them to the article.

@ Smallbones, since Jpwr's edits were a violation of the edit restrictions imposed on this article, my revert was completely justified. By contrast, your revert, independent of your real intentions, looks like an attempt to game a system. I explain this your step by the fact that, since I didn't use the button "revert good faith edit" but, for some technical reasons, did that manually, you assumed that my revert was a new edit (which was not the case). Now, when I explained that to you I expect you to self-revert, because, once again, you revert is a violation of the edit restrictions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't like being accused, even indirectly, of gaming the system. After a point, reverting an old edit becomes the same thing as making a new edit. I'll revert Jprw's edit from today, but not his previous one - made almost a week ago. If you don't like my call, please get an admin to look at it. Smallbones (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not accuse you in gaming a system. As I already wrote, you probably haven't noticed that my edits were not additions, but reverts of undiscussed changes. I simply warned you that, independently of your intentions, your revert looked like an attempt to game a system. I appreciate your partial self-revert, however, I do not understand your refusal to do that completely. The fact that I haven't timely noticed the first Jorw's edit does not mean that it have been done in accordance with the new procedure. Please, revert it also.

Anticipating accusations in redundant formalism, let me explain why these changes were not appropriate. Firstly, since Valentino, a major source for mkucr, clearly wrote that most Communist regimes weren't engaged in mass killings, some transmits his thought better. Secondly, although the fact that excess mortality under Communist regimes was huge and amounted tens of millions, there is no consensus which part of those deaths should be considered as "killings". If we leave Valentino's "dispossession mass killings" beyond the scope, the total amount of deaths as a result of what is commonly accepted as "killings" was much smaller. Therefore, we need either not to mention any concrete figures in the lede at all, or to speak about "millions".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see you reverted my revert. As I have already explained, I reverted the change made by Jprw, which by no means is a minor change. Per current edit restrictions, such a change cannot be made without discussion, so by doing that change Jprw violated the edit restriction. Since you are aware of this fact, your last revert is an attempt to game a system. Please, self-revert, otherwise I will have to request for sanctions against you. Your self-revert will be a demonstration of your good faith, and it will be helpful for the reason I explain below.

Since the current edit restrictions are de facto an endorsement of the current version, and they do not allow us to work on this article, I suggest to start a discussion about mutually acceptable rules which would allow us to modify this article, which still has multiple problems. Since the admin who imposed the edit restrictions is not active in this area any more, we will have to address to another admin, or to use AE tools to implement them. However, before that, I would like to achieve a preliminary agreement between the users working on this article about mutually acceptable rules. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the changes have been disputed, it seems the restrictions require us to revert them completely for now while further discussion takes place. This includes reverting the "tens of millions" back to "millions" (which I am surprised to see was in place, since I remember Paul Siebert and I having earlier had consensus for using "tens of millions" rather than a range of estimates - when did that get changed?). I also agree with Paul Siebert that we should discuss the rules for editing this article, since the current situation is exactly as I predicted it would be when these sanctions were proposed: article paralysis. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re tens of millions, the problem is that by writing "tens of millions", we have to specify what do we mean under "killings", otherwise a reader can understand that as if tens of millions were killed in the same way as Nazi killed Jews. The latter idea has been widely disputed, because only Valentino, Rummel and several other writers consider famine as "killing" (and Valentino does that with reservations). In addition, "tens of millions" you refer to is curently present in the lede (" There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars.") By placement of "tens of millions" in the first sentence, Smallbones violated old consensus, and created an absolutely false impression that all scholars agree that Communist regimes killed tens of millions.

Regarding the article, I see the solution as follows: firstly, we all have to come to some consensus about some unwritten rules according to which we are going to edit this article. Secondly, based on that, we can request to lift all sanctions. I am not sure if we will need in any formalisation of new rules, because a consensus that every edit that violated these rules can be reverted by anyone woyld be quite sufficient. This scheme works for some other articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IOW, excusing your slow motion edit war here? Sorry Paul - the 1RR rule is there for a reason, and trying to gain an exemption for yourself will not fly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

????--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones and Collect, Paul Siebert did not change the lead to "millions" after the sanctions were enacted, so we are obligated to keep it that way until there is consensus to change it. Please revert "tens of millions" to "millions" so that we can get on with the discussion. I agree with you, by the way, that it should be "tens of millions", but Paul is right on the revert regardless of which is the better phrase. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a good reason that nobody reverted the edit for a week. The edit simply made the sentence consistent with the cited source; before it was off by almost 2 orders of magnitude. To put it back in would, at this point would be to intentionally mislead our readers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no Wikipedia policy or rule requires an editor to intentionally lie to readers. Bring in an admin and we can sort it out, otherwise it has to stay as is. Smallbones (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That means that you concede that my edit was a revert, and that was a revert of not a minor edit, which has been done without discussion. The fact that the edit has been unnoticed for one week means nothing: since the article is effectivelly frozen, not many users look after it carefully. In any event, your action is a violation of edit restrictions, and you leave no choice for me but to address to admin. Please, self-revert within one day.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi I have been looking at Paul sieberts contributions list and found this subject of interest. I would also support a change from millions to tens of millions given tens of millions have met untimely and grisly ends due to communist regimes. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I should like to add a source which says tens of millions of innocents died under communism but am unable to do so, would another editor add it please? The sources is Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world By Walter Russell Mead page 220 publisher Routledge. I any other information needed for a reference? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The facts are as follows:

1. Tens of millions died prematurely under Communist regimes as a result of civil wars, political repressions, executions, famines, diseases, etc. That fact is impossible to deny.
2. Most scholars describe deaths as a result of repressions, and civilian victims during civil wars as killings, although there is no consensus about the victims of famines, diseases, and similar deprivation deaths.
3. Some scholars believe that all these deaths were mass killings, and, therefore, they claimed that Communist regimes killed tens of millions.
4. Currently, the lede reflects that fact as follows " There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars."

Therefore, the statement about tens of millions is already in the lede, the only thing I object against is the attempt to present the viewpoint of some scholars as the universal and mainstream point of view.

One way or the another, that is a subject of a serious discussion, however before we start it, the change we are discussing must be reverted, and if it will be reverted by AE decision, that would be not a good start for the fruitful dialogue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I know of no source asserting under 20 million - so your cavil is remarkable indeed. The edit therefore is proper, and your assertion that you will yell to an admin is remakably reminiscent of WP:ABF indeed. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, let's separate edit restrictions and a content dispute. The rules are obligatory for everyone, so either (1) the edit that have been done without discussion is reverted, or (2) the user who knowingly re-inserted it will be sanctioned. My choice is #1, by the way.

Secondly, I suggest you to carefully read my previous post, and to explain me where concretely have I argued that the total number of deaths was less than 15-20 million? The problem is, however, that many scholars do not consider a major part of these death (famine deaths, deaths of civil war combatants, etc) as mass killings. For instance, the Courtois' introduction to the Black Book has been criticised specifically for that. In other words, although I do not argue about the number of deaths (which are present in the lede's end, btw), I, following what the scholars say, object against presenting of all these deaths a mass killings. Such a theory is not mainstream, it is just one of POVs, whereas this POV cannot and should not be ignored, to present it as a sole mainstream POV is a major breach of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit restrictions are clearly broken, I've been asking you to call in an admin for days, rather than blather on and on about making a totally inappropriate edit. Intentionally inserting a gross mis-statement of the cited source is simply impossible. I will not do it, and I doubt that any admin worth his salt will do it. Smallbones (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the edit restrictions have been violated by you, when you re-added this non-minor and not discussed edit made by Jprw. I just reverted this edit to the version that had been written not by me[10], therefore, any your allegations have no relation to me. Note, these diffs (along with the evidences of my attempts to persuade you to self-revert) are almost ready to be filed to AE. The reason why I am still procrastinating with filing a request is that you have already been placed on notice per DIGWUREN, so your problems may be more serious than you and I want. Please, self-revert, and then we will be able to speak calmly.

Regarding the essence of the dispute, your choice of the source for the lede (the ref to the BB was added by you, wasn't it?) is highly questionable. The scholars generally disagree about which death should fall in category "mass killings" and which shouldn't. This dispute has been summarized by RG Suny as follows:

"Both in Werth and throughout the Black Book the body count mounts, as all forms of violence and official repression, as well as deaths from famines, are homogenized by the various authors into a single bloody stream. The war against the peasants of Tambov, the show trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries (which in some ways was an alternative to the summary justice of the Civil War years), the famine of the early 1920s (the result of years of war and disruption of agriculture, as well as forced requisitions of grain), and the exiling of intellectuals abroad are treated by Werth as different modalities of the same terror extended into the immediate post-Civil War years. The greatest number of dead came with the war on the peasants in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the ensuing famine, and the Great Purges of the late 1930s. The first and the last events had their origins, initiation, and execution in the party-state; the famine, however, is more complex. Historians divide between those who see the famine as the deliberate policy of the regime against Ukrainian peasants, aimed at deracinating nationalism and separatism, and those who argue that it was an unintended consequence of the disastrous program of collectivization and dekulakization." (R G Suny Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 3.2 (2002) 303-319)

and by Kuromiya

"The 20 million referred to above include not only those executed but also those who died in the Gulags as well as the victims of the famous 1932-33 famine and other casualties of political, social and economic upheaval. It may also include those unborn who would have been born under normal circumstances. The famine, for example, took more than six million lives (as Werth notes 159). The brutal agricultural policy and the callousness of the Stalin regime were responsible at least in part for this calamity. Indeed the government, in cold-blooded indifference to life, let the peasants die in order to save the cities. Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recalcitrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine. It is not possible, contrary to Courtois' contention, to show convincingly the 'systematic use of famine as a weapon' by the Soviets. That 'in the period after 1918, only Communist countries experienced such [large-scale] famines' does not in itself constitute evidence of the use of famine as a political weapon." ( Hiroaki Kuromiya Communism and Terror Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)

In other words, whereas the source you used in the lede does support the statement about "tens of millions" victims of Communism, it (i) does not support the statement about "mass killings", and, imporatntly, (ii) does not reflect the scholarly consensus. By using the questionable source and by pretending that it reflects the sole mainstream POV you violated the WP neutrality policy. We need to fix this issue in close future, and it would be good if we will do that in respectful and polite manner.

Regards,

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue these two authors speak of is whether or not the famine was deliberate punishment or an unintended consequence of communist policy, either way, mass killings resulted. As pointed out previously, the term "killings" is a neutral term that does not imply willful intent. Afterall, tsunamis regularly cause mass killings of human populations. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not mass killings, but mass deaths. Obviously, the article implies "killing" by Communist regimes (otherwise it is not clear why these events have been grouped according to this particular trait). Therefore, killing in this context is closer to "homicide", the deaths from natural causes cannot be considered as killing in that context. In any event, that is just our speculations. We have the source, which, as I have persuasively demonstrated on this talk page and elsewhere, is considered as controversial. Therefore, it cannot be used in the opening sentence of the lede as if it presented the universally accepted truth. In actuality, the issue is not in having or not having "tens of millions" in the lede (it will be there even when the statement we discuss will be removed), but in placing it into the proper context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul has no substantive disagreement with the edit. He knows what the source says, and the edit reports that. So is he saying that he has the right to revert in an intentional misrepresentation of the source at anytime following the edit without any substantive disagreement? That's just nonsense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules nor with the edit restrictions. If you think that the source says that its only millions of victimes say so, but you can't say that without being laughed at. If you don't have a substantive disagreement, quit pretending that this is a controversial edit. Smallbones (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you argue against WP:NPOV referring to WP:V. In actuality, since both variants have serious problems, we must elaborate something else. I am ready for a dialogue, however, since your behaviour strongly resembles an attempt to game a system, we need to resolve the formal issue first. I expect you to self-revert within next 12 hours, and, after that, we will discuss new wording, which will be both neutral and precise. In addition, we definitely need a new source, because the present one, which you added unilaterally is highly controversial (as I have already demonstrated), and not-neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But Paul, Valentino who is used as a source in this article says few scholars disagree that tens of millions were killed by communist regimes, I also gave a source in this section which says the same. What exactly is your issue with this? I have also taken care to read the restrictions on this article, it clearly says that if at least four editors agree with an edit then the edit may go ahead, and I believe four have agreed with the edit. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the edit should be discussed on the talk page first, and after that it can be added to the article, not vise versa ("It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours."). This minimal requirement has not been met, and, therefore, the edit must be reverted. After that has been done, we can return to the content dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Russell (2001)

While the addition was in good faith: Russell, Walter (2001). Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world. Routledge. pp. 220. ISBN 978-0375412301; is insufficient for the claim. Both Russell's theme and expertise isn't on target for this article, his assertion is almost certainly an aside. I'm sure that the figure you support can be found in more appropriate sources, which make communist death figures the central point of their claims. Just remember that they'd need to meet the other scholarly criteria too. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, this edit is a violation of the edit restrictions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how the adding of a reference is a breach of the restrictions on this article. i should also like to know how the source does not support the fact that tens of millions died prematurely under Communism, thanks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any non-minor edits must be discussed on the talk page first. In addition, since I do not question the fact that "tens of millions died prematurely under Communism", I suggest you to comment on the edit I proposed below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This specific issue is now moot given Jprw's revert. However while a particular reference may not be that suitable, in general can we all agree that adding a reference isn't a violation of the edit restrictions? To my mind policy requires us to reference articles with reliable sources and such a strict interpretation of the edit restriction would seem to be working against policy in this case. --Martin (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A proposal

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that the dispute can be resolved by changing the first sentence as follows:

"Mass killings deaths occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering in the tens of millions."

I believe, that would be factually correct, and, therefore will cause no objections from any side. Firstly, since the article's title is descriptive, the initial words (which, by the way, do not reproduce the title verbatim) should not be bold per MOS. Secondly, if we replace "killing" with "deaths", that would be what all mainstream sources agree with. The characteristics of these deaths ("genocide", "democide", etc.) has been made in the lede later, so there is no need to place the opinion of few scholars in the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, "deaths" would make the scope too broad, as it would also include natural deaths. "Killings" on the otherhand implies human agency, and the majority of scholars support the view that, at the very least, the famines were exacerbated by poor implementation of communist policy. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we need to remove the figures attributed to famine and diseases from the lede (a major part of premature deaths were a result of these two causes), because at least part of them were caused by natural reasons. In addition, we have reliable sources (see above) that specifically criticise the idea to lump together mass executions and famine deaths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? This article isn't titled Mass executions under Communist regimes. Most scholars agree that premature deaths attributed to famine and disease were a result, at the very least, of communist policy. I don't think any scholar today claims it was entirely natural. Although a lack of food obviously causes famine, implementation of communist policy contributed to this lack of food. --Martin (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because "killing" is generally associated with "homicide", especially in this article. We should either specify what "deprivation mass killing" mean, according to Valentino, or focus on mass executions, political repressions, etc. However, in that case we should speak about "millions", not "tens of millions".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Conjecture over the meaning of "killing", "homicide", "death", etc, has been done previously, see the archives. Since the very next sentence in the lede states:

"Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps"

so the first sentence should state for consistency:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering in the up to tens of millions."

--Martin (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you describe the scale of mass killings before the definition has been provided. We need to define the term first, and then to speak about the figures. If you want the figures to be presented in the first sentence, this wording is more adequate:

"Mass killings occurred under some radical Communist regimes, mostly as a result of almost complete material dispossession of vast population, with an estimated death toll numbering in tens of millions.

In addition, since the term has been borrowed from the Valentino's book, the source should be this book, not the (highly controversial BB).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WRT "deaths" - unless mortality was ended in some places <g>, that sort of sentence would be nonsensical. As for the interpolation "but most of them were actually natural" or the like is also not borne out by prior discussions on this page. So the issue was, and remains, whether a number of deaths which (by the most conservative accounts) were over twenty million should be described as "millions" or as "tens of millions" - I suggest "over twenty million" as a nice low compromise at this point (using the lowest figure so far produced). Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Different estimates take into account the deaths from different causes. Re "not borne out by prior discussions on this page", you do not follow the discussion carefully: most deaths in the USSR and China were a result of famine and deportations, so if we leave these deaths beyond the scope (as some scholars do) the figures will be dramatically lower. Re "I suggest "over twenty million" as a nice low compromise ", this figure is not a subject of compromise between us: if this figure is a subject of debates, no single figure should be in the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest putting a series of figures in the lead as suggested by Jprw below. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

revert

I've self-reverted back to "millions"; I still consider the change that I made to be non-problematic—indeed, an improvement, more accurate, less misleading etc.—but I wasn't aware of the particularly strict restrictions on this page. So, let's discuss first. My main bone of contention is that "millions" suggests a figure of less than 10 million, which would be grossly misleading. My preferred wording would be "tens of millions, perhaps upwards of 100 million deaths". Jprw (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Whereas I agree that scholarly consensus is that tens of millions died prematurely under Communist regimes, the scholars, as a rule, prefer not to combine these deaths into a single category. For instance, Courtois has been criticised specifically for that. In connection to that, I propose to separate figures from interpretations (see above). In other words, I suggest to write about "tens of millions" mass deaths, or mass mortality, and then to discuss the causes, terminology, etc. The lede is already doing that, btw. In addition, since "100+ million" come mostly from Rummel, who is known to give dramatically inflated estimates, that figure should not be mentioned. In that sense, the BB estimate should serve as an upper bound.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That certainly gives plenty of food for thought, thanks. For the time being, the table given on page 15 here seems to be supported well enough with reliable sources. Perhaps we can write "some contend that XXX millions (upper bound; quote Rummel, who is still a WP:RS), others believe (lower bound; quote WP:RS of more conservative estimate); most scholars however do agree that the figure is in the tens of millions". Jprw (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Rummel's estimates and conclusions have been widely criticised (see, e.g. the Democide talk page[11]). In addition, whereas most scholars reconsidered their estimates after the release of formerly classified Soviet archival documents, Rummel refused to do so, therefore, his estimates are based on the obsolete data. For instance, whereas it is generally agreed that the number of GULAG deaths amounted 2 millions, Rummel claims that 40+ millions died in GULAG, which exceeds the total number of GULAG intake (14 millions from 1929 to 1953).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, we oughtn't use Transaction Publishers editions of anything. (I'm not commenting generally on Rummel here. Rummel in a right press is fine). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is rs and weight. While Rummel's books published outside the mainstream are obviously not rs, his views that have gained no acceptance at all lack weight. Therefore forget about it. TFD (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As I already explained elsewhere, Rummel is a reputable scholar, whose works devoted to the application of factor analysis to the genocide studies are highly commended. However, in addition to that, he has published the books where he presents his estimates of death toll under various authoritarian regimes, and draws far reaching conclusions based on that. By contrast to his articles in peer reviewed journals, these books have been extensively criticised by scholars, so we should not use them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was using Rummel as an example for a provisional wording along the lines of "some contend that XXX millions (upper bound; quote WP:RS), others believe (lower bound; quote WP:RS of more conservative estimate); most scholars [here adduce two or three references], however, agree that the figure is in the tens of millions, while according to some the death toll may exceed 100 million." I think that the last bit is important as it is backed up by this, to quote one example. Jprw (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No respected source places the death toll at over 100 million. That figure has been criticised for holocaust trivialization. TFD (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Jprw's suggestion--and if there is no reputable source that puts the DT over 100mill, then use whatever is the reputably highest. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits not discussed

I think that a "newbie" editor hasn't processed the process at the top of the page. Millions of deaths got reduced to thousands - it certainly needs to be discussed. I'll revert until consensus indicates otherwise, and inform Sandstein - after all the rules are pretty complicated. Smallbones (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand these complicated rules at all. I was under the assumption that the normal rules applied.Jacob Peters (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned user. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Read prior discussions - the ones above and the metooism does not represent existing consensus whatsoever. And, in case you did not know this, Harvard University Press is considered one of the best RS sources out there. Dismissing stuff you do not like as "polemical" and reducing numbers of dead by orders of magnitude is not going to cut it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The estimates in the introduction to the Black Book have been widely discounted. TFD (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And when you finally get non-banned users to actually get the current consensus changed, and you can get WP:RS deleted, then maybe the WP:TRUTH will get in the article. Meanwhile, seems like status quo ante reigns. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read up on the literature. The intro to the Black Book has been widely criticized (in reliable sources) as presenting unreliable estimates. It may be that the book tells the truth, but I am more concerned about reliability and weight. TFD (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Call your bluff here and now. Please just list these reliable sources. No commentary needed. Smallbones (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please write respectfully to other editors. Both Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, who contributed to the Black Book criticised the editor for his mathematics, and no mainstream writer accepts the totals. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Valentino and other experts on mass killings do not accept these figures. TFD (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A little respect shown by yourself would go a very long way. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well...

1. "That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation." Amir Weiner (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452)
2. "It would be uncorrect to say that the book tells us more about the authors than about the subject; however, it be equally fallacious to omit the time and place ... from its etiology"
   "The book must have required an immense effort by a groop of dedicated contributors. It is unlikely that its impact will be commensurate." Alexander Dallin (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. Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 882-883)
3. "Courtois' attempt to present communism as a greater evil than nazism by playing a numbers game is a pity because it threatens to dilute the horror of actual killings."
   "Courtois is irritated by his perception that most western intellectuals are softer on communism than on nazism and that therefore the crimes of communism have not been fully exposed." Hiroaki Kuromiya (Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression by Stephane Courtois. Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)
4. "The 1997 brouhaha over Le Livre noir du communisme at least posed the possibility of an unself-righteous and non-propagandistic perspective towards Communism, one which might combine a critical stance, a self-critical spirit, and a genuine effort to give the facts their due. An adequate moral history of Communism is still worth writing, and still to be written." Ronald Aronson (History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245)
5. "What Werth and some of his colleagues object to is "the manipulation of the figures of the numbers of people killed" (Courtois talks of almost 100 million, including 65 million in China); "the use of shock formulas, the juxtaposition of histories aimed at asserting the comparability and, next, the identities of fascism, and Nazism, and communism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint" (Stanley Hoffmann. Source: Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 166-169)
6. "For an argument so concerned with justifying "The Black Book", however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger. In the context of the Soviet-Nazi comparison Stephen Wheatcroft insisted before the publication of The Black Book on the relevance of distinguishing between "purposive killing" and "deaths from criminal neglect and irresponsibility." In response to The Black Book, Hiroaki Kuromiya has criticized the results when "'indirect deaths' are indiscriminately lumped together with deliberate political killings."" Michael David-Fox. On the Primacy of Ideology.Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia) Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5.1 (2004) 81-105
7. "Whereas Hobsbawm and Mazower compare communism and fascism, preserving their distinguishing differences while elaborating their similarities, Furet and Stéphane Courtois, the editor of the Black Book, go much further and equate them. These passionate critiques of the Left are distinctly products of the French intellectual environment - the long hegemony of a Stalinoid communist party, the counter-influence of the nouvelles philosophes, the enormous impact of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and the turn from structuralism and Althusserian Marxism to Foucauldian post-structuralism and Derridean post-modernism. Both Furet and the authors of the Black Book take on those intellectuals whom they see as naïve or venal apologists for brutal totalitarian regimes. As Bartov mentions, there is nothing new about the trahison des clercs, but ideological intoxication seems to affect intellectuals most extremely, and not only among those on the Left."Ronald Grigor Suny. Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History" 3.2 (2002) 303-319.

I believe that is enough for the beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "widely criticised", cannot completely agree. This book does not seem to be discussed widely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of heat and very little direct criticism here, for example what is actually said in number 2? More or less the usual academic back and forth. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot provide larger quotes due to copyright reasons. To learn more, you should probably read these sources by yourself. Meanwhile, could you please redact your grossly offensive statement about bluff? Regardless of the behaviour of your opponents, this statement is extremely rude (and, as you can see, false).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for reliable sources is not rude, it is an essential part of Wikipedia, and many times folks have refused to provide sources here. Could you provide a source of two on what you think is the mainstream view of mass killings under Communist regimes? Smallbones (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for anything cannot be rude per se, everything depends of concrete wording. You question ("Call your bluff here and now. Please just list these reliable sources. No commentary needed."), has been made in an extremely rude form, and by doing that you just made your point weaker.

Regarding "mainstream", it is hard to tell, because mainstream scholars prefer to focus on different Communist countries separately, and leave generalisations for political journalists. Thus, the part of the Black Book that is the most close to mainstream views is the Werth's chapter about the USSR. Interstingly, Werth disagrees with many claims made by Courtois in the introduction (which is the most controversial part of the book), and, one of the sources of disagreement is the number of deaths. It is also interesting to note that almost every reference to the BB in Wikipedia is in actuality the reference to the Courtois' introduction, not on the book itself.

Other sources that are mainstream for the USSR are the works of Wheatcroft, Conquest, Tauger, Davis, Ellman, along with the viewpoints of Tsaplin and some other Russian and Ukrainian scholars. Generally speaking, recent articles in western peer-reviewed journals present views close to mainstream ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And who do you believe represents the mainstream view on Communist China? Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do please come up with some sources that you think represent the mainstream view on the PRC. If we have reliable sources then it should be very easy to proceed with the article, if all you can do is say "your sources are not mainstream" then progress is likely to be very difficult. Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It means that the intro does not have the respect of the academic community and that it should not receive the same weight as mainstream commentary. One could argue that it represents the truth, but cannot argue that it is mainstream. TFD (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me what you consider to be a mainstream source. Smallbones (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is not the first time for this discussion. Consensus appears to not agree with the "truth" I suppose, but that is how consensus works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is the first time that one group of editors has bothered to propose a set of sources that they consider to be mainstream. Consensus (even if you can use the word on this article) cannot over-ride the need for reliable sources. I'd like to see what people think are mainstream sources. Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say, this is a first time that you bothered to read the posts where I present mainstream sources. I am doing that permanently.

Speaking seriously, your request to provide the sources that I see as mainstream is a very reasonable step. However, before we will go further, I would like to know if you agree that these sources are mainstream, and if you disagree, then I would like to see the sources that are mainstream according to you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction; the 2004 Duff Cooper Prize; and it was nominated for the National Book Critics Circle prize and for the National Book Award. It is published by Penguin and is generally hailed as a great history of the Soviet camp system. Presumably we can all agree that it fully satisfies all the WP criteria for mainstream and reliable sources; yet it is not referenced anywhere in the article. Not even once. Why? Jprw (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Anne Applebaum's views have not gained widespread acceptance outside her target audience. Note that she is a journalist, with no academic credentials in history or genocide studies. Note that other winners of the award include Norman Mailer, George Wills, and Will Durant. TFD (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is rather syllogistic to contend that people who don't care much about the subject don't care much about her book. Google scholar lists 217 citations of her Gulag: A history alone, in addition to other works. I see no justification for Applebaum's works to be censored. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not censorship, it is WP:WEIGHT. If you can find among the Google scholar references a discussion about how widely accepted her views then we reflect that weight in the article. TFD (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I can not find any policy or guideline which says "count Google scholar hits" to see if a reliable source can be used in an article. If the source is reliable, it can be used. "WEIGHT" is not a reason to completely exclude a reliable source. Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Collect (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to show sarcasm toward Peters' comments. BTW could you please explain how you believe WEIGHT should be applied. And what specific use of the source do you think could improve this article? TFD (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. Try this[12]. This essay, which is cautious about general search engines, contains well sources information about gscholar (I think you are not going to question the statement supported by peer-reviewed publications?). It says:

"This search engine is a good complement for the commercially available Thompson ISI Web of Knowledge, especially in the areas, which are not well covered in the later, including books, conference papers, non-American journals, the general journals in the field of strategy, management, international business, English language education and educational technology. The analysis of the PageRank algorithm utilised by Google Scholar demonstrated that this search engine, as well as its commercial analogs, provides an adequate information about popularity of some concrete source, although that does not automatically reflect the real scientific contribution of concrete publication."

@Peters. Glad that you realised that gcholar is a useful tool. Re Appelbaum, she is a journalist, not a scholar. She uses the data from peer-reviewed scholarly articles (for instance, she used for GULAG the figures from the GRZ article you dismissed so categorically), but gives more emotional interpretation to them than the scholars do. The language is more vivid, hence the wider popularity among public. It is not a non-reliable source per se, however, it is more tertiary rather than secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Jprw. Because Applebaum's book is about GULAG, not about mass killing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that "mass killings" had to be the primary topic of a reputable source to gain admission here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that works cited here be scholarly works: see WP:RS "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." This is particularly so, in that there seems to be a range of academic views rather than a strict academic consensus on many issues discussed here, and the contention among some of our editors that academics only look at one country at a time, leaving cross-country generalization to journalists. We need to get out of the mode that reliable sources can be removed simply because somebody doesn't like it. Smallbones (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources used should be relevant to the topic. My understanding of rs is that we use journalism when academic literature is unavailable. For example, the recent death of Bin Laden can only be sourced to journalism. But for an article about the American revolution, it would be tendentious to demand inclusion of views from the National Review or Mother Jones. We should use common sense rather than a legalistic interpretation of policy. Ask yourself this - if one wanted to know what happened during a period of history, would one read a book by a journalist or by an historian? TFD (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a partisan and highly subjective view. Is it not the case that one of the crucial tenets of Wikipedia is that articles be written for a general readership? Thus a book such as Applebaum’s should suit the purposes of this encyclopedia perfectly. Your line of reasoning would work if WP were a reference source aimed exclusively at the academic community. Jprw (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• While we write for a general audience, we must write using the highest quality sources available to us. Conversely, while we write using the highest quality sources available to us, we must write for a general audience. Also, Applebaum is repeatedly cited at GULAG where she's dead on topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about Mother Jones or National Review. In many cases of modern history, journalism can be better or equal to academic work, academics simply haven't gotten around to it yet, give 'em a couple of decades. And let's stick to policy - there are probably lots of folks here who wonder whether others have lost their common sense. Smallbones (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Recent journalism may be better than academic work. Also, our opinions may be superior to anything dreamt of in philosophy. But we must wait until we have independant corroboration. TFD (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability versus High Quality Reliability; Synthesis

I'd like to restate two arguments relevant to the discussion immediately above:

1. This argument as a history article is covered by History sourcing stipulations which are the stipulations at WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. HQRS are very strongly favoured with regards to historical articles. Obviously, in this case, which is about a theorisation of multiple events in multiple societies, works of scholarly political science and theoretical sociology are just as valuable. We should, as always, avoid FRINGE theses, such as Courtois' "Non-catholicism" thesis. We should also avoid popular theses unless they are discussed specifically in academic works, for example, the solid critique of the populist early "Genocide" conception as driven directly by emigre funding immediately post WWII which was presented at length in a scholarly journal.
2. That the key sources used to derive the articles structure, and to discover examples to illustrate the various theoretical conceptions of a common cause of mass death, ought to specifically advance a theory of the cause of mass death in multiple societies. A scholarly work which advances a society or mass death event specific thesis ought not to be used to structure the articles, or as an example of theory. The theories discussed here are the theories of causes of mass mortality in multiple societies; a theorisation which is specific to the Ukraine famine is not relevant to this article's topic (but is of course, highly relevant to Holodomor). Single case works may be used to fill out examples where the examples are derived from multiple-society works (but not to the extent to weight particular examples beyond their measure of weighting in the multiple-case theorisations). Single case works may be used to contrast their theorisation with multiple-society works (for example, "Jane in her Mass killings by Bolshevists claims that the man in the moon causes mass deaths, giving as one example the Holodomor. However, Judy, a historian of Holodomor studies argues that the causes of the Holodomor were specific to the Soviet Union"). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1.WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is good as a standard, although it seems to me to differ very little from Wikipedia's basic policies. Ignoring the characterization of the topic as a "theorisation of multiple events", which I would not use, I do have to ask what you are referring as "Courtois' FRINGE 'Non-catholicism' thesis". I read his introduction to the Black Book some time ago and while I do remember brief mention of Catholicism, I don't remember anything like this.

2.I agree that article structure should imitate the structure found in sources which discuss multiple societies and that single society sources should be used to supplement their portions of the article as necessary, including any single society causes they propose. I think this is essentially what has been followed already. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't check back here or notice your post. I replied in detail regarding Courtois' non-catholicism thesis on my talk page. You may be particularly interested in the section on the Swedish research review which I just posted: as a scholarly tertiary (historiographical) review it allows us to have a solid, scholarly, high level method of cross weighting, principles of including single society case studies (at weight), etc. It also assures us that this article has a separate notability claim to be in the encyclopaedia, and cannot be subsumed beneath articles on the "Totalitarian thesis," the "Black Book" or the "History of Genocide theory". I'd also note that according to the Swedish text's report of the scholarly consensus, our article sucks! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey of what the sources say regarding number of killings

There seems to be two schools of thought with regard to Soviet mass killings. There is the "Communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race" mega-death school, and the "Stop exagerating, Communism wasn't that bad" not-so-mega-death school.

The following sources support the mega-death school:

• Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
  • Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
  • Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
  • Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
• Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
• Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago,
  • Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
  • Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
• Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
  • 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
  • 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
  • 1939-45: 18,157,000
  • 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
  • TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
• William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
• Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
  • Cited by Wallechinsky:
    • Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
  • Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.

Average: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

From the not-so-mega-death school:

• Nove, Alec (Victims of Stalinism: How Many? in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
• Cited in Nove:
  • Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
  • Tsaplin, V.V. (Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
  • Dugin, A. (Stalinizm: legendy i fakty 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
  • Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
• Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
• Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.

Average: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

However a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million:

• In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
• Britannica, Stalinism: 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
• Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
• Daniel Chirot:
  • "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
  • "Highest": 40M
  • Citing: Conquest: 20M; Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M; Medvedev: 40M
• Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
  • Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
• John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M
• Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
• Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
• Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.

Average: 20 Million

• Conclusion: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims just for the case of Stalin, tens of millions is absolutely correct for this article. --Martin (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you provided no full citations, so it is hard to verify what the sources say. Most of those sources from this list I am familiar with are either obsolete (e.g. Solzhenitsyn, Conquest), unreliable (e.g. Rummel), or they reproduce the results of others (e.g. Courtois). Dugin is a neo-Stalinist author, and is hardly reliable. Maksudov and Tsaplin speak about population losses, not about the victims of mass killings. Britannica cites the former Communist leader Medvedev, who was not an established scholar. Brzezinski is a politician, not a scholar. Antonov-Ovseyenko is treated with cautions by Western scholars.

An authoritative source about the victims of Stalinism (Ellman) says

"The best estimate that can currently be made of the number of repression deaths in 1937-38 is the range 950,000-1.2 million, i.e. about a million. This is the estimate which should be used by historians, teachers and journalists concerned with twentieth century Russian-and world-history. Most of these repression deaths were deliberate NKVD killings ('executions') but a significant number were deaths in detention (some of which were also deliberate)." (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)

"Estimates of the total number of Soviet repression victims depend both on accurate estimates of the numbers in particular sub-categories and on judgement of which sub-categories should be included in the category 'repression victims'. The former is a matter of statistics on which we are better informed today than previously but on which the figures are still surrounded by a significant margin of uncertainty. The latter is a matter of theoretical, political and historical judgement." (Ellman. Op. cit)

Therefore, before we speak about the figures, we must agree about what we define as victims.

"During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly in 1918-23, 1931-34 and 1941-45) were not repression but war, famine and disease.83 The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period led to a large number of excess lives."(Ellman, Op. cit)

Therefore, if we give the numbers for the USSR, we must clearly explain that the victims died mostly as a result of war, famine or epidemia, and, as a rule were not executed or murdered. Importantly, since the overall result of the Communist rule in the USSR was a decline of mortality rates (which was high in pre-revolutionary Russia), to write about the policy of Communist authorities in a context of excess deaths and to ignore the excess lives, which were also a result of this policy, would be ahistorical.

And the quote below explains that the situation was even more complex:

"It seems that in the 27 years of the Gulag's existence (1930-56) the number of people who were sentenced to detention in prisons, colonies and camps was 17-18 million. This figure excludes the deportees, prisoners of war and internees, those in the post-war filtration camps, and those who performed forced labour at their normal place of work, and counts people sentenced more than once just once. The number of prisoners in the Gulag (camps and colonies) in 1934-53 was 18.75 million (a figure which exaggerates the number of people involved since some people were detained more than once). These huge figures are not a measure of political repression. A large number of inmates of the Gulag were criminals. However, the distinction between criminals and politicals was blurred under Soviet conditions, the statistics on the classification of the prisoners are misleading, and the concepts themselves are problematic under the conditions of the 1930s. Some (e.g. the homeless) are difficult to classify either as criminals or politicals. The large number of Gulag inmates is mainly an indication of the large number of people dealt with by the criminal justice system in this period and the harshness of that system."(Ellman. Op. cit)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ellman concludes in his 2005 paper The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931 – 1934, (EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, pp 823 – 841):

"As far as leadership perceptions are concerned, it is important—especially for nonspecialists unfamiliar with Bolshevik thinking—to realise that the party leaders (unlike Tsar Alexander III in 1891 or NGOs and the general Western public today) did not perceive the famine as a humanitarian catastrophe requiring a major effort to relieve distress and hence made only limited relief efforts. As Leninists they looked at it from the standpoint of the historical process and of the class struggle. They regarded it as a necessary cost of the progressive policies of industrialisation and the building of socialism under conditions of fierce class warfare. Not only was it just one aspect of a necessary policy of extracting resources from agriculture for industrialisation, but it also eliminated ‘class enemies’ more efficiently than deportation, improved the grain balance by reducing rural overpopulation, and was a disciplinary measure which made a useful contribution to socialising the rural population into their new role as collective farmers.

As far as intent is concerned, there is some evidence that in 1930 – 33 in addition to deportation, sending to prisons and the Gulag, and shooting, Stalin also used starvation in his war against the peasants. In other words, there is some evidence that an unknown fraction of the mortality in the 1931 – 34 Soviet famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation."

So clearly the Bolsheviks used starvation as just another weapon, along with deportation, imprisonment and execution, in its class warfare. The humanitarian consequences was of little consequence to Leninists. That is why famine deaths are correctly included when we speak of Communist regimes. --Martin (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not take a quote that says "there is some evidence that in 1930-33... Stalin also used starvation" and rewrite it as "clearly the Bolsheviks used starvation as just another weapon". TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, communists had novel ways in dealing with issues like reducing rural overpopulation, like starvation, apparently more efficient than deportation according to Ellman. Not a humanitarian disaster, just a historical process, a necessary cost of the progressive policies, apparently. --Martin (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of this discussion shows the synthesis problem with using single society papers to deal with this article. Valentino's proposed cause of "dispossession" indicates why mass agricultural deaths by famine occurred in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. Valentino notes, in relation to this, that similar events didn't occur in other societies (Vietnam and Hungary, for example, hard large rural proletarian or "peasant" groups). To continue, without reference to Valentino, in both these cases dispossession went ahead by other means—the socialist market economy, legalistic persecution, humanitarian changes to land laws which amounted to land reform. Ellman's thesis is excellent for the Soviet case study; but it isn't a universal thesis, even for "high Stalinism" such as Hungary 1948-1953. In relation to methodology and death totals—we ought to use death totals from studies which are explicitly multi-social instead of adding up single case study totals. I suspect that the statistical synthesis in us editors adding up individual case studies is obviously original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The idea that Soviet authorities deliberately tried to reduce rural population does not follow from the Ellman's works; that is purely your conclusion. Ellman clearly writes about some unknown fraction of the mortality in 1931-34 that can be attributed to deliberate starvation. The fact that some famine victims were probably a result of deliberate starvation does not allow us to describe all famine deaths as a result of mass killings.

In addition, you seem to ignore totally the point about "The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period". If we discuss the deaths that were an unintended result of the Communist policy, and forget about the overall decline of mortality during the Soviet period, we create an absolutely misleading impression about the Soviet regime. It would be absolutely ahistorical approach.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly speaking, I see no commonality between the famine deaths in the USSR and Cambodia. Whereas the USSR was building industrial society and needed grain and human resources for industrialisation - Kampuchean regime was building purely rural communism; whereas the Soviet Union relied primarily upon industrial proletariat and suppressed peasantry - KG de facto were forcefully converting urban population into peasants; whereas the USSR was internationalist state (during 1930s) - KR were extremely racist, and one of their major goals was to physically eliminate non-Khmer population. For these reasons, the scholars prefer to analyse the KR case separately from other Communist regimes, and even the foreword to the BBoC tells about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ellman never claimed all the deaths caused by famine was an "unintended result of the Communist policy", but "a conscious policy of starvation", so it seems your line of argumentation based on single society studies includes an element of synthesis, as Fifelfoo suggests. --Martin (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide a quote from the source where you have found this.

Re single society studies, you started that first by providing the sources about the USSR only. Let me also add to that that in a situation when some general source exists which makes some general statement, and the more detailed sources, devoted to the societies taken separately, come to different conclusions, we cannot totally ignore these single society sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Tammsalu quoted him above as saying, "there is some evidence that an unknown fraction of the mortality in the 1931 – 34 Soviet famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation". TFD (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, than Mr. Tammsalu is wrong: conscious policy of starvation is not necessarily aimed to decrease a population (sometimes it is needed just to break a resistance, or to convert rural population to urban one). Anyway, let's allow Mr. Tammsalu to explain that by themselves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying "there is some evidence that an unknown fraction of the mortality in the 1931 – 34 Soviet famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation", Mr. Ellman is saying this, I'm just quoting him. Mr. Ellman also states "Not only was it (famine) just one aspect of a necessary policy of extracting resources from agriculture for industrialisation, but it also eliminated ‘class enemies’ more efficiently than deportation, improved the grain balance by reducing rural overpopulation, and was a disciplinary measure which made a useful contribution to socialising the rural population into their new role as collective farmers", how exactly is Mr. Ellman wrong? --Martin (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as far as the party's leaders' perception is concerned, let me remind that the Lenin's views on famine, which has been cited in the article's epigraph was that famine is a good tool for social transformation of peasantry to proletariat. However, there is a big difference between social and demographical transformations, so elimination of rural population non necessarily implied their deaths: most of them were converted to urban proletariate.

Secondly, the article you quote starts with the words:

"IT HAS LONG BEEN DEBATED whether the victims of the Soviet famine of the early 1930s died due to a conscious policy of starvation or whether they were unintended victims of unfavourable natural conditions and policies aimed at other goals. Although the difference was of no importance for the unfortunate victims, it is of considerable importance for historians. In their recent monograph, Davies & Wheatcroft, on the basis of detailed study of the sources-many of them previously unused archival documents -and an enviable knowledge of the period, come down strongly on the 'unintentional' side."

Then Ellman summarises the Wheatcroft's & Davis' monographs and formulates the major question as follows

"The Davies & Wheatcroft interpretation is powerful, and there is much evidence to support it. Unlike much writing on this topic it is also numerate, with extensive statistical data to back it up. However, is it complete? Is it really the case that no peasants were deliberately starved to death?"

In other words, in his article Ellman does not question or rejects the conclusions of these two scholars, he simply tries to complement them with circumstantial evidences that would allow him to hypothecise about the intents of Soviet leaders. And, as far as you decided to quote the conclusion of his article, let me quote the most essential part of it:

"The causes of the excess deaths in 1930-34 can be divided into three groups. First, deaths caused by exogenous non-policy-related factors. Examples include the 1931 drought and, in the interpretation of Davies & Wheatcroft, adverse weather in 1932. Second, deaths which were an unintended result of policies with other objectives. Examples of such policies are the tribute model of rapid industrialisation, the rapid and complete socialisation of livestock, and the emphasis on sown area at the expense of crop rotation. Third, deaths which were intended. Examples include the shootings policy of 1930-31 and the starvation policy of 1932-33. Quantitative estimation of the relative importance of these causes has not yet begun and is a fruitful area for future research."

Yes, according to Ellman, some peasants were probably deliberately starved to deaths, however, to tell for sure if they were, and what was a real number of them is hardly possible. I am not sure if additional comments are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you ought to realize that Stalin probably did not keep a list of those who starved to death as a result of deliberate government action? I do not find that a credible basis for asserting that therefore they did not die as a result of government action, for some odd reason. Collect (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the positive side. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We have reliable sources making claims - basically lots of people. We do not need to "prove" that anyone died - we only need to show what reliable sources clearly state. I addressed a claim that "some peasants were probably deliberately starved to death" with an implication that, since Stalin did not keep a roll, that since we can not count them that somehow the numbers presented by reliable sources are therefore not usable. I suggested that this is not how Wikipedia works - that the sources make the claim of tens of millions and it is not up to us to "prove" anything. All we do is report what they say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A 2007 Ellman paper (Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 – 33 Revisited, EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663 – 693) states:

"In 1932 – 33 Stalin caused numerous deaths by acts of omission. He omitted to appeal for or accept international help (unlike in 1891 – 92, 1921 – 22, 1941 – 45 and 1946 – 47) although this was proposed by the Ukrainian president in February 1932. He also omitted to import grain. His crime of omission is accepted by Davies and Wheatcroft. In 1932 – 33 Stalin also caused numerous deaths by acts of commission. Numerous deportees and camp and prison inmates—victims of a major Stalinist policy—died. Grain which might have been used to feed the starving population was exported (though in much smaller quantities than originally planned). Peasants who tried to flee from famine-stricken Ukraine and North Caucasus were turned back. Many of them will have died as a result.

From the standpoint of national criminal law, the debate is about whether Stalin was guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter or whether he was guilty of (mass) murder."

So taking the generous view that Stalin was only guilty of (mass) manslaughter, manslaughter is a form of homicide and thus fulfils the definition of "killing" thus it is correct to include famine numbers. --Martin (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect.

“There’s more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,” said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry: “this paper has just been picked up.”

“What’s in it?” said the Queen.

“I haven’t opened it yet,” said the White Rabbit; “but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.”

“It must have been that,” said the King, “unless it was written to nobody, which isn’t usual, you know.”

“Who is it directed to?” said one of the jurymen.

“It isn’t directed at all,” said the White Rabbit: “in fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.” He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added “It isn’t a letter, after all: it’s a set of verses.”

“Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?” asked another of the jurymen.

“No, they’re not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that’s the queerest thing about it.” (The jury all looked puzzled.)

“He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

“Please your Majesty,” said the Knave, “I didn’t write it, and they ca’n’t prove that I did: there’s no name signed at the end.”

“If you didn’t sign it,” said the King, “that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.”

@ Martin. Firstly, the Ellman's statement you quoted provides no evidences in addition to those already presented: yes, Stalin was definitely guilty of mass manslaughter, however, the question of scale is still open: never in his 2007 article did Ellman provide exact figures of those died as a result of deliberate starvation, although it is quite clear from his work that only part of victims can be attributed to that policy.

In addition, let's tell a full story. The 2007 article is a responce on the Wheathcroft's responce on the Ellman's 2005 article. Therefore, it is necessary to mention the Wheatcroft's article also. Wheatcrof argued as follows:

"However, we have found no evidence, either direct or indirect, that Stalin sought deliberately to starve the peasants...."

"Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that 'Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it'."

"Ellman claims that there was a continuity in the attitude to famine between Lenin and Stalin, both of whom, he alleges, regarded famines (or possibly just their consequences) as progressive (Ellman 2005, p. 832). On this basis he holds that the 'political structural factor' which led to the 1931-34 famine 'was the communist victory in the Civil War and the resulting Communist dictatorship' (Ellman 2005, p. 829), rather than being a result of the Stalinist version of that dictatorship. But, as Ellman hints in passing (Ellman 2005, p. 824), there was a major famine in 1921-22 and the attitude and policy of the regime, and of Lenin personally, towards this famine was entirely different from Stalin's a decade later. The famine was openly acknowledged and substantial foreign, particularly American, aid saved many lives."

"Why should we take trouble to resist the charge that Stalin deliberately starved the peasants? After all, our book-though Ellman appears to deny this provides a mass of evidence that Stalin's policies towards the peasants were ruthless and brutal. Stalin was a dictator, and bore more responsibility for the famine than any other individual. But it seems to us important to establish how far the famine was a consequence of the workings of the institutions established under Stalin and how far it was the outcome of the exceptionally vicious personality of the ruler. Ellman has taken a step backwards in the study of the subject by turning attention towards speculation about the inner workings of Stalin's mind and away from examining his actual decisions, and analysing their intended and unintended results."(Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to EllmanAuthor(s): R. W. Davies and Stephen G. WheatcroftSource: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633)

And, importantly, in the dispute of two scholars it is always helpful to see a third opinion. I found a recent Kuromiya's essay on this account where the author summarises the dispute as follows:

"Recent advances in research on the 1932–1933 Soviet famine, most notably the monograph by R. W. Davies and S. G. Wheatcroft [2004, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan)], have generated a debate, involving Michael Ellman and Mark Tauger, on the pages of this journal. The present essay re-examines this debate in two areas: intentionality (did Stalin cause the famine in order to kill millions?) and the Ukrainian factor (was the famine a Ukrainian ethnic genocide?). I argue that there is not enough evidence to answer in the affirmative. The essay concludes by discussing the international context of the famine as a factor of critical importance."(HIROAKI KUROMIYA Debate. The Soviet Famine of 1932–1933 Reconsidered EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 60, No. 4, June 2008, 663 – 675)

In other words, independently of what general studies devoted to Communism related deaths as whole say, the studies devoted to the Soviet society demonstrate that there is no enough evidences for describing the famines on the USSR as mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Davies and Wheatcroft in their seminal work on the famine strictly avoided speculating on motivation. Tauger, IMHO based on his rantings, is incapable of a reasoned discussion without deriding anyone who doesn't agree with him and prefers to cite himself as an authoritative source. While one might wish to present this as: no man-made famine versus pre-meditated man-made famine, that ignores the nature of the situation which presented itself which Stalin used to wipe out Ukrainian opposition—why else would starving people be confined to their territory to finish them off while all their grain was requisitioned? In the famine of 1921 Russia asked for, and received, international assistance. American relief efforts were led by a future president. Why not this time? This is not rocket science. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's allow Davies and Wheatcroft to speak for themselves. The quotes from their later works have been provided above, and these quotes shed a light on their views on Stalin's motivations. Regarding your other point, it has been analysed in details in the articles I quoted, and the authors' verdict was: not enough evidence that would allow us to speak about deliberate killing of 6-8 million people by starvation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you agree "Stalin was definitely guilty of mass manslaughter, however, the question of scale is still open: never in his 2007 article did Ellman provide exact figures of those died as a result of deliberate starvation, although it is quite clear from his work that only part of victims can be attributed to that policy." no one has published a definitive number, it could have been anywhere between 10%, 30%, 60% or even 80%. In fact in all probability no one will ever truly know the exact figure of famine victims attributable to policy, but we do know a portion of them where. In fact a more recent study by Renate Starkin her 2010 paper Holodomor, Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933: A Crime against Humanity or Genocide? (Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies: Vol. 10: Iss. 1, Article 2):

"This paper has demonstrated that famines, contrary to the outdated popular belief that they are haphazardly caused by adverse climatic conditions and that they generally afflict developing countries, are more often phenomena consequent to man-made factors. It has indeed been established that particular adverse government policy and unequal food entitlement issues play a major role in the occurrence of famine, factors that are preventable. Furthermore, it has been determined that in particular cases a certain intentionality has sadly been implicated. This moves the study of famine into the field of international law, crimes against humanity and genocide."

Dennis Tao Yang in his paper China's Agricultural Crisis and Famine of 1959–1961: A Survey and Comparison to Soviet Famines (Comparative Economic Studies (2008) 50, 1–29.) states:

"Years later, based on population census and fertility survey data, demographers were able to estimate that the total excess mortality during the Great Leap Forward crisis ranged from 16.5 (Coale, 1981) to 30 million people (Banister, 1987). This monumental scale of the famine makes it arguably the largest in recorded history."

So the very best we can do given the sources with the opening sentence is this:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering up to the tens of millions

--Martin (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You really need a source that defines and explains mass killings under Communist regimes, otherwise the article becomes just a mass of incidents with dubious connection. I still do not understand how Communism connects events in Russia and China that were decades apart, and would appreciate a source that explains it. TFD (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Clue: Each group of "mass killings" occurred under a (get this) "Communist regime". The title of the article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes." There is to many people a reasonable belief that where there are "mass killings under Communist regimes" that having them in an article called "Mass killings under Communist regimes" seems a tad logical. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and I would hope you would not accuse other editors of creating an article based on synthesis. There is for example a website about "Republican sex offenders". What each sex offender has in common (get this) is that he is a Republican. We need a nexus which should be provided by a reliable source, assuming any exists. TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• TFD, there are a number of non-reliable FRINGE claims, Courtois' non-Catholicism argument, arguements by literary academics that Communism is Absolutist Torydom, and the refuted LipsetLemkin apologies to Lipset that they constituted genocide. Then there is a series of multi-social studies which merely address mass deaths in parallel societies without stating a causative association (Rummel's academic work, Valentino). Sometimes a cause is presented for mass deaths in particular societies which is unrelated to communism (Valentino's dispossessive thesis, which has a slate of non-communist exemplars as well as China, Cambodia and the Soviet Union)—these scholars tend to very obviously limit the extent of their claims (Valentino notes that his theses are not applicable to all communist societies, and uses a communist society as an example in another category other than dispossessive mass killings). Finally I believe the only time I've seen a cause for communist mass killings in general was in the Swedish NGO's report on genocide theory. This should be in the archives, and is probably worth referring to. If you'd like to summarise past debates and start a separate article section, that'd be brilliant; but I'm too tired to revist the debate. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To that, I would add that Valentino, by contrast to the MCUCR article, does not consider mass killings in Afghanistan as Communist mass killings. These mass killings have been analysed in the chapter #6 named "Counterguerilla mass killings: Guatemala and Afghanistan", whereas the Communist mass killings have been analysed in the chapter 4.

In connection to that, let me point out that I agree that the single society studies cannot be used in this article (or at least be used with great cautions). I see only few sources here that are devoted to the analysis of Communist mass killings in general: Rummel, the BB (both of them already have their own articles), Valentino, Semelin, Goldhagen (who seems to reproduce major Rummel's theses) and few others. In connection to that, I suggest to remove all single state studies from the article, and to explain that the article is based on the work of some writers who believe that there was a linkage between Communism and the mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008) Crimes against humanity under communist regimes: Research review

Editors may be interested in reading Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes: Research review Stockholm: Forum for Living History, 2008 available here as PDF, 112 pages. I previously raised this item in Archive 24 of talk, but it went unnoticed. Forum for Living History is a scholarly press / institute. The authors have no sectarian opinion on the matter. In particular I encourage editors to read the Introduction (4–8) and the Summary (103ff). Karlsson and Schoenhals review the literature and provide a set of analytical tools. It is a masterful historiographical review of the field, "its purpose is to identify and analyse the main lines of research as they have appeared and been developed, primarily in the leading academic publications of recent decades." In particular detail:

• They establish the academically current term, "crimes of communist regimes"(5) being the superset of:
  • "Crimes against humanity"(5–6), which may be "intentional"(6) or "function[ally] reason[ed]" by evolution of circumstance (6);
  • "Terror" (6) a term with general currency "that researchers have long used the word terror to describe the crimes of the Soviet communist regime, regardless of the framework of interpretation to which they adhere."(6)
  • "genocide" (6) in particular circumstances (Cambodia), which is "relatively widely accepted and established in describing the systematic and selective crimes of the communist regime in Cambodia, although the use of this term is not entirely uncontroversial."(6)
  • where as "mass killing and massacre are used to refer to the general use of violence"(6)
  • And China has its own section on terminological analysis (not reviewed by me here)
• They also provide a scoping for case study inclusion "but is it possible to say that crimes against humanity are or have been committed in countries like North Korea and Cuba? The question is worth some discussion in the light of the research that is available, but in this context focus will be placed firmly on three communist-led countries where there is no doubt that crimes against humanity have been committed by individuals, parties and states that have defined themselves as communist: the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia." (6–7); (This scope could, of course, be expanded with reference to other scholars proposing a general theory covering what Karlsson and Schoenhals' superset of "crimes of communist regimes" are; their use is fairly explicitly one of mass criminality resulting in death, not of petty human rights abuses)
• They also scope time particularly well:
  • "It is clear that the question of how the communist utopia metamorphosed into a dystopia cannot and should not be ignored, especially since well-argued texts such as François Furets Le passé d’une illusion (1995)" … "However, the focus here, in terms of Russia and the Soviet Union, will be on Lenin and Stalin’s periods in power, characterised as they are by a fateful structure of ideological struggle, revolutionary pathos, hunger for power, total war, modernist zeal, and crimes against humanity." (7)
  • They address a post-modern literature in general (cultural and linguistic turns) that is unsystematised in historical presentations "What, however, are the outer limits of the context of these crimes, in a communist state structure where different institutions and social bodies are linked in an overall framework? Could issues concerning education, language and the situation for women form part of the context? Such aspects may seem far-fetched, but modern research devotes a significant amount of attention to issues relating to the social and cultural conditions of crimes committed in communist societies."(7)
• They identify three research perspectives and methodologies, "cumulative" "evolutionary" and "revolutionary" noting that "The different schools of thought to which researchers belong have largely been determined by their position on [Conquest's] The Great Terror."(8–9)
• They note the potential of ideological justification cause, "adherents to the ideology have used it as a source of ideas that dress historical events as ‘objectively’ regulated by law, which means that ‘victims’ along the way towards the ideal communist society can be viewed as both necessary and legitimate."(5)
• They even provide the four theories of causation: [Legitimate war on class enemies in the building of socialism] and (given their definition) similarly FRINGE conceptions coming from the West, a highly criticised non-school of "historical" writing; "Totalitarian theory"; revisionism; and, postrevisionism. (104–5&ff)

This text, as a scholarly tertiary review of the field of literature: a generalised historiography; makes the current basis of this article (effectively, the Black Book, or provisional scholarly alternatives such as Valentino's non-communist specific theorisation of mass killing) look like a ridiculous basis for scope, coverage, weight, classification, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember the discussion and it could be used as a source for the article. In fact it is the only source ever presented that is directly about the subject of this article. BTW the article qualfies as a secondary source under WP:RS. TFD (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It definitely is also a secondary source as a report of original research by academics; but, as a field review it also qualifies as a scholarly tertiary source: useful for adjudicating weighting issues (WP:MEDRS the criteria for medical science articles, also makes this kind of distinction about the value of field reviews). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS#Definitions for types of sources. There was some discussion at one time about extending MEDRS to economics, and it would improve all social science articles if we could apply it to them as well. TFD (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa, WP:MEDRS#Definitions says it better and clearer, and more correctly, than I was saying it, struck my "tertiary"s. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly this research review appears to be of broader scope than this current article. Perhaps we could have an overview article Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, with Communist terrorism, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist genocide as sub-articles. --Martin (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not talk about communist genocide and communist terrorism, and in fact terrorism is not considered a crime against humanity. TFD (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism as a crime against humanity

Yes it is, terrorism can be considered a crime against humanity [13] The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You have provided a link to an article by an undergraduate law student who argues that terrorist attacks should be considered crimes against humanity. TFD (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And? It has been cited 22 times, seems reasonable to me and it meets the RS criteria. Would you prefer some other sources which say the same thing? Are you not capable of looking perhaps? It seems you prefer to make blanket statements and not bothering to actually look to see if what you say is in fact supported. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying terrorism is a crime against humanity and saying that some have argued that it is a crime against humanity. Please see WP:NPOV. TFD (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I began the article as was suggested above. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So you say terrorism is not a crime against humanity, I show you that it is in fact deemed a crime against humanity and you switch tracks, nice. See also Meeting the challenges of global terrorism: prevention, control, and recovery By Dilip K. Das, Peter C. Kratcoski pp268 and simply admit that terrorism can and has been deemed a crime against humanity, I fully intend to add terrorist actions to the Crimes against humanity under communist regimes article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If we want to know what a crime against humanity is, then our best bet is to look at literature that explains it. One may google search "crime against humanity" along with a subject one does not like and voila, lots of things are crimes against humanity. See if you can provide a source for your definition of crimes against humanity. In any case what terrorist attacks were carried out under Communist regimes? TFD (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The founder of the new peoples army were accused of crimes against humanity, if you require more use my talk page, this is getting off topic for the section after all. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Who accused him/them of crimes against humanity and of what crimes were they accused? (And how is this relevant to the discussion?) TFD (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Use K&S, but not exclusively

K&S 2008 is a good general overview of some of the work in the area and should certainly be used in the article. But it is not the last word and others work (including the work of journalists, survivors, and other researchers) should also be included. Almost everything covered by K&S is "mass" and involves "killing" so almost anything included by them is fair game for the article. This work should put an end to the claim "there is no theoretical scholarly connection between Communism and the mass killings." Anybody who believes there is no connection needs to read this. There is no need to change the title or scope of this article based on K&S.

The limits placed by K&S on their paper should not be the limits of this article. Their choice of limiting the analysis to the Soviet Union, PRC, and Cambodia seems to be a purely practical matter of how much can we cover in one paper? Other reliable sources have connected Communism and the mass killings in many countries and that is all that is needed to discuss those countries in this article. There doesn't need to be a theory, approved by us, there only needs to be a connection made by a reliable source. Of course if there is work that says that such and such a country was not part of the general phenomena then that work should be cited. Smallbones (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered opinion, I agree with some points, am inbetween on others, and disagree with a third group. I certainly agree K&S 2008 is not the last word! But, given it is a recent field review, I would suggest that we concentrate secondary sourcing (other than Rummel's scholarly pieces, Valentino, etc.) via K&S's emphasis for the three case studies they give. The stress K&S place on Conquest means that this will obviously need to be referred to as a piece of central importance. Regarding the use of survivors: only when quoting a primary source provides a picture like textual illustration of a point already supported by a secondary. (If the survivor is also a scholar, then they're a scholar!) Regarding journalists (I think you're talking about Applebaum primarily here?); we need to be much much more cautious of using journalists and their ilk—I still hate Chomsky for the gross deficiencies of his journalistic At War With Asia when what was needed was a scholarly text. (Journalistic deficiency is not the province of right nor left, but of the way in which journalists write.)

K&S 2008 definitely does put an end to the claim that there isn't a theoretical connection between communism and mass killing for wikipedia's purpose. Part of the prior frustration of this article was that authors like Rummel don't theorise the link; and, historians like Conquest avoid producing generalising claims beyond their scholarly speciality, even in introductions. K&S allow, quite explicitly, for the judicious inclusion of influential examples of scholarship through their historiographic categories. With K&S's criteria, an analysis of, for example, Laos may lie squarely within the "Totalitarian" literature; or Lemkin's "Genocide" thesis may belong in the pseudohistory group (for Lemkin being here, I'm relying on the critical paper analysing him).Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008): scope, weight, title, structure

I propose that we follow Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008) for article scope, weight, title and structure. Karlsson and Schoenhals directly address the topic of this article in a scholarly manner, indicating that this is without any possibility of contestation a coherent notable single encyclopaedic topic. What would this mean:

• K&S(2008) refer to the topic as "crimes of communist regimes". Admittedly the article title must be synthetic, rather than explicit, due to the level of terminological and theoretical debate amongst scholars. I propose therefore that the article be titled Mass crimes of communist regimes. K&S(2008)'s definition clearly indicates that their interest is mass criminality—a mass criminality specifically resulting in mass mortality. This accords with the general literature. Their choice of "crimes" links the generalised morally normative assumptions of the scholars—without privileging a particular moral normativity, and also without taking a theoretical position (such as Lemkin's discredited version of the "genocide" thesis—there are valid genocide theses of course other than Lemkin).
• That this article is fundamentally about the theorisation of mass criminality, not about the incidents of mass criminality. We do, and ought, to have excellent Terror, Holodomor, etc. articles; but that isn't what this article is about according to K&S(2008)—they provide that the topic is the problem of explaining mass criminality resulting in mass mortality in multiple societies (with of course a hat to Valentino: that it is not all communist societies where this occurred, but that the explanations do focus on the practice of "communism" by such regimes.
• K&S(2008) focus their exposition with theoretical debate first and foremost, followed by exemplars. That we restructure the article towards this, and weight theory much higher in the content of this article, using Main article: style references at the beginning of sections, and limiting exemplar sections to the incidents described as contributing to theoretical perspectives in the literature. The Great Terror is a sufficient topic in itself. The role of The Great Terror in relation to mass criminality of communist regimes is what our readers are interested in.
• K&S(2008) be used to weight different discourses and theories, as such, that we include their four categories in order: FRINGE theories (Soviet historiography of the Terror, Lemkin, that literary historian, Courtois' Introduction), Totalitarian theories, Reformist theories, Post-reformist theories. That these sections enumerate the central importance and statement of each theory, noting if it is explicitly multi-social in its analysis, or if it is monosocial. Ie: We note the impact of Conquest's thesis, and note that it is mono-social (though we'll probably find that K&S(2008) discuss how its impact has impacted on Chinese studies etc. or generalised theories).
• That we use K&S(2008) to avoid memorialisation of specific incidents unless these incidents have been discussed at depth in the relevant literatures as an exemplar or a critical moment; and even then, that we follow my point on discussing the incident, versus discussing the incident's importance to this field of study.
• This would involve a major collective rewrite; but, I think we could get this to FA status by judiciously using K&S(2008) to vet the core literatures we are going to apply in writing this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the scope of what you propose is very much broader, perhaps you could focus your efforts on expanding the article Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, as it already exists. This article Mass killings under Communist regimes is of much narrower scope and should remain as is and possibly assume the role of a detailed sub-article. --Martin (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the considered response; however, I think you're not noting two things: K&S(2008) have a definition of crimes against humanity which is identical to mass killing, not to the standard definitions of crimes against humanity. Secondly, without K&S(2008) this article is non-notable due to synthesis.

The typical definition of crimes against humanity covers a generalised series of abhorrent human rights abuses, both in mass and individually. K&S(2008)'s definition is atypical, in that it covers mass incidents of criminality resulting in mass mortality (the coverage of this article). The difference I'd expect between what this article ought to do (under any title), and Crimes against humanity under communist regimes should do, could be typified by the operation of SLON as an atypical camp to 1936, or civil war summary extraction teams—both the operation of SLON to 1936 and the use of summary proceedings resulting in death are crimes against humanity in the standard definition; but they are not crimes against humanity in the definition of K&S(2008), they are not categorical criminal actions resulting in mass mortality. The Ukrainian famine, on the other hand, is clearly both.

Other than K&S(2008), I have real difficulty accepting the arguments that Mass killings under Communist regimes forms a coherent area of literary analysis by scholars. As previously noted, Valentino's category of "dispossessive mass killings" uses a small number of communist states as an example, not as a theoretical category. Rummel's scholarly work merely juxtaposes a sequence of numerical analyses without arguing for the reason for a sequence of mass deaths in some communist societies or the analytical reason for treating mass deaths in communist societies uniquely to other mass death incidents. K&S(2008) summarises both the single society literatures, and the literatures that do not note the scholarly reason to single out communist incidents as a class of incidents. Until I read K&S(2008), I felt this article lacked notability because nobody stated: a cause common to certain communist states caused mass killings; K&S(2008) is direct proof of the connection between existing scholarly literatures, allowing us to use them for this article. Prior to reading K&S(2008) this article was a "list of blue things." We've got the scholarly object which demonstrates the notability of the article's coverage now, we ought to use it to the hilt. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I generally support this proposal, although I am not sure that Karlsson and Schoenhals directly address the topic. In actuality, they discuss the crimes of just three Comminist regimes (similar to what Valentino is doing), and they made more stress on differences between them, not on their commonality. I have had no opportunity to read this work carefully, however, I have seen no attempts to discuss Communist regimes in general in this article. Therefore, if we decide to use this work as a base, we cannot turn the article into a collection of all wrongdoings committed by all Communist regimes, which would be a synthesis.

The advantage of your approach is that we will be able to put the discussed events into historical context (following the K&S's approach) and separate different studies onto Cold War time, revisionist and post-revisionist schools, following the authors' classification. It is also important that the authors clearly demonstrate that the high estimates of death toll originally coming from Rummel's works should not be used in contemporary studies devoted to Communist crimes.

Let me also point out that K&S are not always correct. For instance, they forgot to mention that VeCheKa had been created not as a political police, but as a substitute for ordinary criminal police, which had been totally abolished. Therefore, not all victims of VeCheKa were political opponents of Communist regime. Another mistake of the authors is that they claim that Litvinov was a Soviet Prime Minister. Thai is simply not the case: he was a Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Molotov, being the Prime minister, took the Litvinov's office and performed the duties of both Prime and Foreign ministers. In addition, they incorrectly interpreted Litvinov's dismissal primarily in a context of prospective Nazi-Soviet rapprochement. In actuality, the studies devoted to this issue specifically demonstrate that there were at least six different reasons for Litvinov's dismissal, and only one of them had a relation to Germany.

However, despite these and some other mistakes, the article is a good source and can be used as a base for a new article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the name change. While it implies a slightly wider topic, it actually is a more accurate description for most of the sources. "Mass killing" was always an imperfect and narrow substitute for "Genocide" anyway, and changing the title to "Mass crimes" is an improvement for other reasons. As Fifelfoo says, the descriptive title must necessarily be a compromise between the various terms in different sources. The title should therefore be as generic as possible. Using "mass crime" would also end the tiresome disagreement over whether the "mass killing" of the title is generic or specifically Valentino's definition. It would end the ambiguity over the inclusion of deportations in general, rather than only deportation-related deaths. It clearly resolves the budding controversy over a separate "Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes" article. I don't think this actually changes the topic of the article and I do not support at all having separate articles for each of the terms currently in this article's terminology section. However, I'm less comfortable with the talk of overhauling the current article's structure or of writing a "new" article. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If this article is renamed will it not then become a fork of Crimes against humanity under communist regimes? The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you check the terminology section of this article, you will see that "Crimes against humanity" is included there, and has been for a long time. It is one of several alternative terms sources have used when discussing the topic. The forking, therefore, is the other way around. But you are right that the rename will make this more clear. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Crimes against humanity" has a broader definition than just ""killing", it also includes deportation, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts, in fact anything that constitutes a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings can be considered a "crime against humanity" while not resulting killing. --Martin (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "crimes against humanity" is broader than just "killing". My point is that, although the article is called "Mass killings...", the topic has always really been a bit wider than that title indicates (the original title, after all, was "Communist genocide", which is also wider than just killing). Each of the different terms used by different sources to discuss the topic is slightly wider or narrower than others. We gained consensus earlier to change the name to what was perhaps the narrowest of all our choices, in part because the word "genocide" was considered less neutral, and the article had to make some awkward compromises as a result. In retrospect, it would have precluded a number of time consuming arguments if we had decided then to change the name to "Mass crimes of communist regimes" instead. We can fix that now. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think "genocide" is actually narrower than "mass killing", my recollection is that the article name was changed from "genocide" to "mass killing" precisely because of of the narrowness of the term "genocide". In fact all these other terms like "politicide", "democide", etc, are narrower definitions that involve masses of killing, but change the name to "mass crime" is to fundamentally change the scope of the article beyond killing to include rape, deportation, depravation, etc, etc. --Martin (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Genocide" need not involve actual killing, just destruction of a group as a group, according to legal definitions. But one of the problems with "genocide" is that there are many, many definitions. On the other hand, why argue which terms are narrower and which are wider when we don't need to. The important thing is that we agree they differ and that they describe the same basic topic. Therefore, they should be part of the same article, not separate articles. I don't think the name change would involve all that much change to the actual article. If you read what Fifelfoo wrote above, the crimes against humanity definition used by the Karlsson source is fairly close to what the other sources mean with other terms. I agree, however, that inclusion of, for example, deportations, would be a much less controversial thing under the clearer title of "Mass crimes of communist regimes". AmateurEditor (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, Martin is right here. Lemkin's initial definition of genocide, as well as the UN legal definition is much stricter than "mass killing". Subsequent attempts to broaden this definition had been made, however, as a result, according to the Ellman's words, this "loosely defined" genocide would become too common. In other words, whereas the communist mass killings fit the definition of this this loosely defined genocide, other events, starting from extermination of native Americans and ending with the Iraq sanctions also fit this definition. That was the reason for inventing of other "cides" (democide, politicide, classicide) or "mass killing". "Genocide" is much more narrow and concrete term, and one of the most serious reasons for the article's renaming was that the only case of confirmed communist genocide was KR genocide in Kampuchea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was mistaken in writing "legal" definitions. I was thinking of the "cultural genocide" aspect, which is wider than "mass killing", but the omission of political and social groups also makes legal genocide narrower than mass killing. But this distracts from the actual point of my comment. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion primarily following from K&S' treatment of Litvinov's government role

The fact that the regular police were abolished is scarcely a valid argument that VeCheKa was not a political police! Litvinov was not just "a Minister" his negotiations were with foreign Prime Ministers, ans o he was a teeny bit important. [14] is not titled the "Roosevelt-Molotov Agreements". He also had the power to make agreements on the part of the USSR [15], a trait normally associated with people above mere "a Minister" status. So the "prime minister" gaffe (which I can not confirm as there is no English text readily perusable online) seems a minor cavil at most. [16] The NYT even has just called him "Soviet leader" at times. In short a "de minimis" cavil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested Collect, and I heartily recommend the text, Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008) is available online here: as a pdf, and it is in international academic english. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Not a place I routinely look <g>. I am still unsure that the "error" is of "Primary" import to its use. Collect (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In the translation, the sole mention of Litvinov is: According to this perspective, Stalin’s decision in May 1939 to replace the Jewish Prime Minister Maxim Litvinov with Russian Vyacheslav Molotov, and to purge the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of Jews, was not dictated by similarities or influence from Nazism in ideology or politics, but by purely pragmatic consideration for the fact that the negotiations with Germany were approaching. The mention just following Litvinov with the "Commissariat of Foreign Affairs" and specifically negotiations with Germany leads me to think the original may not have intended "Prime Minister" as the translation, but rather something akin to "head commissar" in line with the rest of the statement which deals specifically and only with foreign afairs. Can you get the German original text? This is one of the problems with translations at times. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Prime Minister was Molotov. Litvinov was just a Minister of Foreign Affairs. BTW, Ribbentrop was also just a minister of foreign affair, however, the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed by him. In any event, I recommend you to read these two articles: "The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact". Author(s): Albert Resis. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 33-56, and "Molotov's Apprenticeship in Foreign Policy: The Triple Alliance Negotiations in 1939" Author(s): Derek Watson Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 695-722, where the issue has been analysed in details.

Re translation, I am not sure the text was initially written in German.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maxim Litvinov was People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, later called "Minister of Foreign Affairs". Despite the name, it was cabinet rank equivalent to a Secretary of State. TFD (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Secretary of State has the ability to negotiate and sign binding treaties? Cite? And the original text reads what? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The original text states:

"HISTORIANS HAVE LONG SPECULATED on the reasons for Stalin's dismissal of Maxim Litvinov as Commissar for Foreign Affairs on 3 May 1939, and the connection it had, if any, with Stalin's subsequent rapprochement with Hitler. The consensus holds that the removal of Litvinov, the paladin of collective security, and his replacement by Molotov, were prompted by a policy difference, the rejection by Stalin and Molotov of Litvinov's orientation to the West. Thus 3 May steered the Soviet Union toward the Pact with Nazi Germany and away from alliance with Britain and France.' The revisionist or dissentient view contends that the dismissal was instead prompted by Kremlin politics, a murderous struggle for greater centralisation of foreign policy decision making and execution. It pitted Molotov against Litvinov in contention for Stalin's favour, but the outcome did not entail a fundamental shift in foreign policy. The problem remains unresolved. Recent work by historians of the Russian Federation has made little advance on the question" (Resis. Op. Cit.)

"Whether the reasons for Molotov's appointment as head of Narkomindel were internal rathert han foreign policy factors is still subject to debate, but foreign powers saw it as a clear signal that alternative foreign policy options were to be explored. Litvinov's attempt to negotiate a collective security agreement with the Western powers had failed even with the extreme pressure created by Hitler's occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. To protect the USSR, alternative policies had to be considered. The choice of Molotov reflected not only the appointment of a nationalist and one of Stalin's leading lieutenants, a Russian who was not a Jew and who could negotiate with Nazi Germany, but also someone unencumbered with the baggage of collective security who could obtain the best deal with Britain and France, if they could be forced into an agreement." (Watson, op. cit)--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

William Hobson negotiated and signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and he was not even a minister. TFD (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And the treaty was effectively enacted by Queen Victoria in November 1840 - making the treaty binding the Crown but not on the UK. Hobson was specifically a Consul by the way. The UK Parliament never ratified the treaty, and it carried no legal force in New Zealand for over a century, finally receiving limited recognition in 1975. Waitangi is an interesting place to visit, by the way, but as an example here, it fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact there were hundreds of treaties entered into on behalf of the Crown of the United Kingdom by colonial officials. It is up to individual states themselves to determine how treaties may be concluded. TFD (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And the relationship to the article is? Meanwhile, Waitangi did not have the force of a treaty as far as the UK was concerned in the first place. Try to find a better example if you wish to continue the cavil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The conversation appears to be off topic. Your point that a secretary of state for foreign affairs cannot conclude treaties is wrong. It depends on the laws of the country. And it has little to do with mass killings in any case. TFD (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your example was flat-out wrong. I suppose a country could allow any citizen to confirm treaties - but the US Secretary of State sure does not have that poswer! Cheers. I trust this ends this odd colloquy. Collect (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the US Secretary of State probably has no that power, the fact is that the German-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed by von Ribbentrop and Molotov, both of them were the Ministers of Foreign affairs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Collect, we should not become sidetracked by Imperial constitutional law, which is extremely complex and not altogether relevant here. The point is that under public international law, any state may delegate an individual to contract a treaty, except where it is not allowed under their laws. No idea why you are referring to the U.S. Secretary of State. It means merely a minister with portfolio of cabinet rank. TFD (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Some concrete thoughts about the article's changes

1. K & S do not come up with some sophisticated theoretical schemes, they describe their goal modestly: to discuss the crimes of three the most murderous Communist regimes. The same idea can be found in the Valentino's "Final solutions". The sources that try to propose some theoretical schemes connecting Communism in general and mass killings (the BB, Rummel) are either obsolete or not mainstream. Therefore, the article should follow the K&S's and Valentino's scheme, so we, without any theorising, should simply explain that the article is focused on mas killings in Cambodia (Kampuchea), PRC and the USSR. Everything else may be discussed briefly in the separate section.
2. K & S are more analytic than synthetic, they pay more attention to the analysis of specific features of the three different regimes, therefore, we also should abandon our approach to the discussion of the causes of mass killings in general, and to focus on single society features instead.
3. K & S provide an excellent review of the historiography of the Soviet repressions, and we should devote serious attention to that in the article, because the development of the views on this subject, especially in a context of the development of the world political situation (end of the Cold War, dissolution of the USSR, "archival revolution", etc) is totally ignored in the article. That is a critical omission.
4. K & S characterised some sources, which are extremely popular among some fraction of Wikipedians (Rummel's non-peer-reviewed writings, the BB, some pro-Communist books) as fringe, and that is in a full accordance with the opinion of other serious scholars. In connection to that, I suggest to exclude these sources from the main article, and to discuss them in the separate section (as an examples of fringe or obsolete views).
5. Since the idea to draw parallelism between Communism and Nazism is rather popular, I suggest to devote a separate section to this discussions where all pro et contra will be presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What level of acceptance is there of the K & S review? I can't seem to find any other reliable source that actually cites it. For example, Valentino's work is cited by 73 others--Martin (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the K&S's review has been published only three years ago (2008).

Secondly, the number of citations is not an automatic indicator of acceptance.

Thirdly, this review is a tertiary source, it does not propose new ideas, it is just a systematisation of what have been written by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin, the issue of "acceptance" relates to opinions, not to facts. The number of cites does not establish acceptance of opinions, since citations may refute them. Since reviews present facts, not opinions, the issue is reliability not notability. Reviews are unlikely to be cited often, because they do not present original research. TFD (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the people citing then go on to say "but this is wrong" or the like? Generally the position on WP is that such a claim would require sourcing on your part - the presumption otherwise is that people cite stuff because tey are using it in their own writings. Right now, I think I have seen Robin Hood's barn far too many times here. Collect (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

We do not discuss what is right or what is wrong. We discuss how the article should be organised. The mainstream views should compose the body of the article, and the obsolete or fringe views should be placed to separate sections that discuss the history of the issue, or the alternative views, accordingly. Do you have any arguments against that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot published since 2008[17], yet not one single cite. Fifelfoo claims above that K&S has a definition of "crimes against humanity" which is identical to mass killing and as such is not the standard definition of crimes against humanity, to quote Fifelfoo: " K&S(2008)'s definition is atypical". Given K&S's use of a non-standard definition of "crimes against humanity" I think my question regarding acceptance is relevant and certainly one cannot assert non-standard atypical viewpoints as "mainstream" opinion, let alone as fact as TFD claims. --Martin (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between facts and opinions and the suggestion is that the review is a reliable source for facts, not that any opinions expressed by the authors are notable. TFD (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is a reliable source for facts, why hasn't it been cited in at least one of the over one hundred papers published since 2008? In fact it appears that Wikipedia would be the first to cite it. What do we know of the "Living History Forum" that has published this review, what peer review mechanisms does it have in place? --Martin (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a review of the literature and does not include any original research. TFD (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we are again in an impasse: the only book that discusses mass killing under Communist regimes is Valentino's "Final solution" (Chapter 4), and we cannot use a single chapter from one book as a justification of the existence of this article. Other sources are either fringe, or they already have their own WP articles (Rummel's sources on "democide", the BB), or they represent a single society studies. As a result, the topic in general still has insufficient amount of sources to discuss the subject as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul, this is all old ground. What is being proposed here was proposed back in October 2010[18], being a total rewrite largely based upon a single review. The effect of this proposed rewrite would be to transform the the current article about the facts of mass killings under Communist regimes into an meta-article about the scholarly discourse about the facts of mass killings under Communist regimes, which many editors at the time objected too. It would be like re-writing the Holocaust article from an article about the facts into an article about the controversies, which is something else entirely. In any case you said back then "Taking into account that the works of Robert Conquest are considered as an example of the latest "revolutionary" school, I have a feeling that this review is somewhat outdated." Indeed. --Martin (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A comparison between this article and the Holocaust article is completely wrong, because, whereas there is virtually no controversy about the latter, the former is the subject of fierce debates. Not only the number of victims, but even the question who should be considered as the victim has no clear answer. Therefore, the article should either be about the scholarly discourse, or it should be deleted as non-neutral or coatrack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust was a specific event carried out by a specific government (and its allies) against a specific group of period in a specific period of history. So the comparison is invalid. A better comparison would be if someone were to group it together together with other other mass killings and create a new article, such as mass killings under Christian/European/Germanic/capitalist/fascist regimes. TFD (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well someone created an article Mass killings under Capitalist regimes, but it was deleted at the first attempt[19], while this article remains. To paraphrase Rick Norwood: I marvel still at the hundreds of hours spent over the past few years by people trying to delete this article, fighting to win a battle they lost during the Reagan administration. The article is effectively frozen from further edits due to admin intervention thanks to your efforts, I couldn't have engineered it better myself. So why don't you guys just give it up now? --Martin (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The admin intervention had not frozen it. The review adequately reflects what numerous sources it cites say. Therefore, my question is: do you have any concrete objections against rewriting the article based on what these reliable sources say? Remember, the article is currently based essentially on one chapter of the Valentino's book, the highly controversial Coirtois' introduction of the BB, the obsolete Rummel's works and few other sources. Majority of sources used in this article are single society studies, therefore, the article has some synth. problems. To fix them, we must pay more attention to the differences between the communist societies, and that is exactly what the review we discuss do. Again, I am waining for your concrete counter-arguments, otherwise all of that strongly resembles an attempt to game a system.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've already outlined my concerns previously about basing a total rewrite on a single source seemingly cited by no one published by an organisation of unknown peer review process and again you totally ignore those concerns and assault me with an odious suggestion "otherwise all of that strongly resembles an attempt to game a system". --Martin (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't assault you. I thought my point was quite clear: independently of how many sources cited this review, the sources cited there (most of which are a single society studies) should be summarised in the way K&S do. Taking into account that these sources are essentially the same sources that are used in this article, the article should be rewritten similarly: more focus of the differences between the regimes, more clear separation on Cold-war, revisionist and post-revisionist views, more analysis of the events in their historical context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to write an article based upon K&S, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes is the perfect venue for your efforts, heck, it even has the same title as K&S's work. --Martin (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We cannot write closely related articles based on different concepts, because that would be POVfork. The idea that the viewpoints should not be just listed, but they should be more or less systematically organised is quite obvious, and I simply do not see any reason for the opposition to this idea. The idea that the events should be discussed in their historical context is also obvious. The idea that, since most sources cited in this article are single society studies, the article should devote more attention to specific features, not commonalities, is also quite obvious. I still see no reasonable arguments against these points from you. Please, provide some, otherwise your opinion has zero weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Crimes against humanity" is as closely related to "mass killings" as Crime is related to Murder, yet nobody claims that Murder is a POVfork of Crime, or Crime is a POVfork of Criminology. --Martin (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you misunderstood Rick Norwood's comments. He found it bizarre that after Communism had ceased to be a major political force that anti-Communism, a worldview from the 1950s, would become popular with some people. The reasons for that are of course explained in reliable sources about The Black Book etc. TFD (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that the victors get to write the history, how come anti-communists seem to encounter such opposition when it comes to writing that history? Seems to me that the zombie corpse of Communism is fighting a rear-guard action. --Martin (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a cynical view. Historians are supposed to be objective and emotionally detached. In a sense however, the anti-Communist literature is written by the losers, as the sources I presented explain. But that is not why mainstream historians reject it. And your characterization of your fellow ediors is inaccurate. Very few if any editors who have been involved here are Communists, and none have presented any apologia for mass killings. And of course NPOV requires us to provide greater weight to mainstream history than to alternative views. TFD (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't mis-characterise my posts, I was referring ofcourse to the authors such as those of The Black Book. Mainstream history accepts there were mass killings under Communist regimes, the real issue being how many millions. Yet that doesn't stop some people wanting to delete this article. --Martin (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No one has tried to delete any of the articles about the specific events described in this article. The criticism has always been that the article makes an original synthesis of unrelated events, contrary to Wikipedia policy. TFD (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That criticism that the article makes an original synthesis of unrelated events has proven to have no basis, as the numerous unsuccessful AfD have conclusively demonstrated. --Martin (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The last conclusion is false. The AfDs failed because the topic is notable. However, the notability of the topic provides no carte blanche for various synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)