Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 17

RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
How should allegations of genocide against Ceausescu be described? Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians? Should we give equal weight to both? TFD (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicolae Ceauşescu was convicted of the Dec. 17, 1989 mass killings of 60,000 people at Timişoara, which was widely reported at the time. However, the Museum of the 1989 Romanian Revolution in Timisoara states that the actual number was 97.  Modern scholarship places the total at fewer than 1,000.  TFD (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The use of "However" is not recommended - it looks like the purpose is not to report the allegation and conviction, but to imply no crime existed.  NC was also accused of prior killings, if one reads the accounts provided.  Are we going to imply that the prior killings did not exist?  That sort of arguemnt is used by deniers, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please suggest a "recommended" alternative to however? Ceausescu was not accused of any killings prior to the 1989 revolution.  If you want to put such killings in the article then please do so using reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest killing the article. It has created a situation that CAN NOT be solved.Aaaronsmith (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no grounds for that, Aaaronsmith. Please see the previous AfD. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did. It's still a terrible article.  The problem is not the subject, notability, or documentation.  The problem(s) are:  A lack of definition for what is to be included (does a mass execution of genuine criminals count?  And what is a genuine criminal?), an impossibly huge and contentious subject.  Notability aside, there is not way this article can avoid POV (of some kind), ever be complete, ever get even marginal agreement that it has been properly structured to INFORM the reader and not disINFORM by omission and vagueness.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not clutter up this space with a tangent. If you really want to discuss this, start a new section. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of re-opening Pandora's Box, I'm going to also say that having article by this name is a really bad idea. All of the material in this article can easily be included in an article on, for instance, mass killings, rather than have an article whose very title is created to promote a particular point of view. These types of articles have huge NPOV problems. While we're at it, why not have an article titled 'Jews Convicted of Usury', or 'Republicans Convicted of Sex Crimes', or 'African Americans Convicted of Murder'? An article like this violates NPOV before it even gets off the ground. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This box has never been closed. However, your arguments are not completely correct: we cannot have the article 'African Americans Convicted of Murder' because no serious scholar proposed a theory connecting African Americans and murders. By contrast, there are some scholars who connect Communism and mass killings, therefore, the article has a right to exist. However, this article should be devoted to these theories only, not to the events they describe, because other interpretations of these events also exist that discuss the same events without connecting mass killings and Communism as a concept.
 * The article created a situation when the neutrality policy comes into a contradiction with no-original-research policy: neutrality requires us to present all points of view (including the point of view of those scholars who see no connection between Communism and mass killings, or consider such a connection non-essential), however, no-original-research prohibits us to include such a statement into the article (because many scholars who study history of the USSR, PRC, etc. simply ignore the theories like Democide or Politicide). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just state all the figures that are available in reliable sources without implying that one figure is better than another. The figure Ceaucescu was indicted for is relevant and sourceable to news reports from the time. The estimates made later by historians are also relevant. Do avoid using "however". Simply break with a full stop or a semicolon. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith has got it exactly right (except "indicted for" should be "convicted of"). If possible it should be noted WHICH mass murders are being discussed: it's very possible NC was properly convicted of 60,000 murders, but in another case only 97 people were killed, and in another the total was less than 1,000.  Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I did not suggest that the article should use the terms "however" or "indictment", which is absolutely clear by what I wrote above.  I mentioned the indictment because it outlined the charges for which Ceausescu was convicted.  The actual conviction does not do this - it says he was convicted of the charges in the indictment.  Smallbones, where did you get the idea that the numbers in the indictment could possibly be true?  Please provide a source that says any reputable source accepts this figure.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply you asked for a comment - I consider it to be in very bad form to then argue about the comment. Nobody should argue about a suggestion to identify which mass murder you are talking about.  As I see it, you have been questioning whether any mass murder at all occurred;  confusing the issue by quoting several sources which quote different numbers in different languages without identifying which mass murders they are talking about, and then arguing for deleting the section because of the confusion.  What you need to do is find sources that state what you think happened - how many people were murdered under what circumstances.  Nobody argues that NC was NOT convicted of mass murder.  If you disagree with the  source cited, you need to GET  a SOURCE that squarely eliminates the confusion. If the sources disagree, so be it.  But do not add to the confusion and then argue to delete.  Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the source: the source in fact does not say that Ceausescu was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 people.  What I am saying is that the actual number killed should be sourced.  I find it ironic that you would accept the findings of this court as the truth.  TFD (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not our function here to determine "truth"; it is only our function to assure verifiability.  See WP:V.  Where editors insist that their view of truth be what is presented, they are basically ignoring WP policy. Collect (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In actuality, our function is three-prong: verifiability, neutrality and no original research. I doubt this section to meet these criteria. If mass killings really took place, the reliable academic sources must exist that clearly state that. Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania. Otherwise, the section should be removed per WP:SYNTH--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Synthesis is taking multiple sources to each support part of a single claim in a single sentence. Such is not the case here. The source used states that NC was found guilty by a court of mass killings. It is not up to us to judge the court, or to state that the matters of fact found by the court are not "true."  And the requirement is that the source be "reliable" not that it be "academic" by the way.  The NYT is not "peer reviewed" and is an RS under WP policies. Collect (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, you are claiming that the findings of the tribunal that convicted Ceausescu are a reliable source for facts. Can you please point to any guideline that supports your faith.  TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 (UTC)
 * Re: "Synthesis is taking multiple sources" Correct. frankly, I meant WP:OR, synthesis is a part of. In connection to that, please, compare my words:
 * " Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania."
 * with:
 * " To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."
 * Please, demonstrate that the Romania section is not WP:OR. Per WP:BURDEN you must do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Out) No - I am claiming that a RS reported what the tribunal did. WP:V is not about "truth" or "facts" - it is about "verifiability." It is most specifically not up to editors to determine "truth." As to the OR claim, as long as the individual claims are sdirectly supported by RS sources, and as long as no conclusion is drawn therefrom, OR does not apply. To wit: ''The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.'' If the material is as cited and is found in RS sources, and no synthesis occurred, then WP:OR has not been violated. Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source telling about the tribunal is reliable, and it meets reliable sources criteria. However, since this article not about NC, and not about tribunal, to conclude from this source that Communist mass killings took place in Romania would be WP:OR. Again, please, demonstrate the opposite, otherwise I'll remove the section soon. By "demonstrate" I mean to provide quotes and sources that explicitly state that mass killings were perpetrated by the Communist regime in Romania. If these killings really occurred, and if the issue is notable enough, it will be not a problem to find such sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania. That is what the source explicitly says. It is a relaibkle source. It is not OR to aver that NC was a Communist .   In fact, the NYT says he was a Communist. No OR. The source is RS. The cite remains proper.   "If they really occurred" seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth."  That is, moreover, the one thing as editors we can not try using as a rationale. Collect (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources state that the numbers of victims in the indictment against Ceausescu, for which he was convicted, were false. There is no reason why we should not accept what reliable sources state with the argument that no one can "know the truth".  Remember that articles are based on verifiability not truth.  TFD (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania." Correct. However, to include this fact into the article about mass killings is OR, because the source does not directly support the idea that these mass killings really took place. Again, if you believe they did, please, find the source that directly state that.
 * Re: "seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." " I know the WP policy; I also started to suspect that there were no mass killings in Romania, because, despite my multiple requests, noone has provided reliable sources so far that tell about mass killings (not conviction) in NC's Romania.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Careful Paul, you're being too logical/correct for Wikipedia. You'll just make people hate you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never heard about the shooting of demonstrators described as mass killings. When the US government shot students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State it was called a "massacre" not a mass killing.  How is this different?  TFD (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that 97 is a greater number than 4?  Most people do not consider 4 to be a very large number. Meanwhile, it is up to us to use the words used in reliable sources, not to assert what we "know."  NYT  NC hired assassins to kill dissidents and to try to kill radio employees.  General Plesita showed no remorse for crushing anti-Communist dissent..  Mr. Ceausescu literally sold ethnic Germans to the West German government for hard currency, several thousand dollars worth for each of them, in return allowing roughly 10,000 to 15,000 of them to emigrate each year from 1978 to 1989.   but he built such a brutal cult of personality and such a foreign debt that he ended up the only leader to be executed.  et alia.  The sources make claims - it is not for us to say the claims in RS sources are not what we "know" to be wrong. Collect (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly ignore the point: noone questions the validity of the source's statements. However, to state that mass killings (50,000 for 5 years or less) occurred in Communist Romania would mean to make a conclusion, which constitute an original research (and simply contradicts to what the source states).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the strongest opponents of the US used the term My Lai Massacre, not My Lai mass killings, even though more people were killed there than during the Romanian revolution. And Ceausescu's agreement with the West German government had nothing to do with mass killings.  TFD (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Romania section may exist in the article only if some reliable source supports the fact that mass killings took place there. Instead of wasting my time in endless discussions with the person who refuses to get absolutely clear point, I've performed a search and I found that almost nothing is known about mass killings in Romania. However, I found a table in the Valentino's book where Romania is listed among the states where some killings may have occurred, although the evidences are insufficient to judge about their scale, intentionality of motives. Such a statement is sufficient to include the Romania section into the article.    -


 * Based on that, I include the materials from the Valentino's book into the article, remove the OR tag and delete all non-relevant material from the section. I also propose to close this RfC, because the issue is resolved. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why single Romania? The book uses the same terms about Bulgaria and DDR. Better have a section under the Controversies header listing "possible cases". Also, a note in the article about Valentino's domain of expertise would be needed, as he used a lot of time as a source.Anonimu (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is a table in Valentino's book where he says, "All figures in this... table are author's esimates based on numerous sources". It seems that if we are going to mention cases of estimates of possible cases then we should use the sources upon which Valentino relies.  Incidentally, the entry is for East Germany not the DDR.  Presumably this occurred during de jure Soviet occupation in 1945-1949 since the cause listed is "Political repression by Soviet Union".  TFD (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the US and many other nations never recognized the "DDR" and continued to refer to it as "East Germany." For the earlier era it was called the "Soviet Zone." (Hallstein Doctrine)  The FRG and DDR joined the UN in 1973 - well after your 1949 date.  So much for that cavil. Collect (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1972 the two Germanies agreed to recognize each other and they were both admitted into the UN in 1973. The GDR was recognized by the US and the GDR and the US exchanged ambassadors.  However none of this is relevant.  The term "East Germany" refers both to the Soviet Zone and the GDR.  We should not say that mass killings may have occurred in the GDR when the source says "East Germany" - the reference to "political oppression by Soviet Union" may have occurred during the Soviet de jure occupation (which by the way was recognized by the United States) rather than 1949-1989.  TFD (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any killings from 1949 to 1972 would be described as "East Germany" which appears to be the case in the RS source. Collect (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What reason do you have to believe that Valentino would make this distinction? TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you want to change Paul Siebert's edit for Romania, please use reliable sources that support what you are putting in. TFD (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since they were reliable sources for the claims made in the first place, your comment is useless here. Collect (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources must also be relevant (simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article). TFD (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourrces refer to Ceausescu. I assume that the fact he was a Communist is not seriously in dispute, nor the fact that he was from Romania, nor the fact that he ruled Romania under a "communist regime", nor the fact that he was convicted of mass killings. The article is about mass killings under communist regimes. Seems 4 for 4 on being related.  What other article fits that 4 for 4 fit? Collect (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The source does not say he committed mass killings. Please find a source that says he did.  Also, do not assume, please see WP:SYN.  TFD (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources say he was convicted. Which was what I said.  No assumptions involved. Still 4 for 4. Collect (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No sources say he committed mass killings under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The present article tells nothing about the leader's fate. For instance, nothing is said about de-Stalinisation in the USSR. One way or the another, any attempts to re-introduce the text about NC conviction will be reverted per WP:BURDEN until more reliable sources on mass killings will be provided. However, I doubt it is possible taking into account that such a serious scholar as Valentino failed to find anything concrete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out to Collect that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote anti-Communism or other American extremist views but to present a fair and balanced opinion of subjects. I would also like to point out that distorting sources will probably discredit your views and that the best way to defend your views is to insist on accurate presentation of facts.  TFD (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting misleading information into the article is unhelpful, and will make it appear more like an anti-Communist tract that a neutral account of mass killings under Communist regimes. While the intentions may be noble, to warn people of the dangers of Communism, it may also have the opposite effect, because anyone looking into the Ceausescu trial would see that this article is misleading and therefore question the entire article.  However unpopular a system of government may be, we must not abandon neutrality in writing about it.  TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A commnent from the Guardian is unlikely to represent "American extremism." Nor does the new material make any specific accusation agaoinst Ceausescu.  Collect (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Straw man issues such as "American extremist views" are a personal attack, and I insist that the attack be stricken. Such has no place on this talk page, or on any talk page. Collect (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, the term "straw man" has a specific meaning and is inapplicable here. It was not my intention to personally attack you, so I have rephrased my comments.  TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, could you next time formulate RFC questions better? It looks as if the murder of NC and his wife is equated to "genocide against Ceausescu". To the point: whatever the killers invented in the heat of the moment should be clearly labeled as such - gunmen's apology. They could say 60 thousand, or 600. That's the way the revolutions work, the loser takes it all and pays the bill for everybody. East of Borschov (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am at fault and I changed it. You make an interesting point though.  Ceausescu was convicted by a Communist court and may therefore be a "Victim of Communism".  However one editor, User:Collect, thinks that the findings of Communist courts are reliable sources and take precedence over the opinions of American academics.  TFD (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Making false statements about what I "think" ill-serves your position. I insist that WP:V is official policy here, and that the New York Times is a reliable source for stating that Romanians were found guilty of genocide.  And others at RSN agree that the New York Times is a reliable source for that sort of factual information.  I also insist that inserting what an editor "knows" is directly contrary to WP policy and rules.   Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should not insist on inserting what you know about about mass killings in Romania but should find reliable sources.  The findings of a Communist tribunal are not a reliable source.  Also,  please avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting.  TFD (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The term is "quotation marks" and use is dictated by manuals of style, not by your "knowing" what "quote marks" must be used for.  The use of quotation marks around "know" is thus proper and correct.   What I believe to be proper in an article is material found in reliable sources which means the Guardian and NYT meet that requirement of WP:V.  Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a source for your position on the use of "quotation marks"? TFD (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What a strange debate, why is it even going on? Ceausescu was convicted of mass killings, this was widely reported so why is it an issue? There are even books on the subject, Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes The future of Germany and the Atlantic Alliance really what exactly is the issue? mark nutley (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As explained at the top of this section this strange debate is about "Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians?" The second source you provide says, "On the orders of Ceausescu, hundreds and perhaps thousands of these protesters were killed on December 19, 1989".  Those are the numbers accepted by historians.  However, Collect and others insist on presenting the numbers in the indictment, which is 60,000.  What do you think?  By the way, your first reference does not mention mass killings by Nicolae Ceausescu at all.  Could you please take the time to read your sources before presenting them.  TFD (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange as the first source says, mass killings during the 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the ceusescu regime perhaps you should take the time to read the sources before commenting? Also i`m with collect on this, we use what the sources say and if the sources say 60k were killed then that`s what goes into the article per wp:v Lets face it 60k is on the low side for murder for NC. mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although the words "straw man" have been already utilized here, that was done in the incorrect way. Let me point out that this RfC as whole is a typical example of the straw man fallacy. Firstly, it is impossible to question the fact that NC was found guilty of genocide by revolutionary tribunal, and all sources that describe that fact are reliable and unquestionable. Secondly, these reliable sources do not provide independent confirmation of the fact that mass killings took place. In other words, these sources are quite reliable for the circumstances of NC conviction and execution, however, they are not reliable for the very fact of genocide. Thirdly, we already have a reliable source in the article that states that the data about mass killing are insufficient for making judgement, therefore, it would be an original research to write that the fact of genocide has been well established. One way or the another, the attempt to use WP:V as a pretext for violation of WP:NOR is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While in this case, the people accused of genocide were acting under the instructions of Nicolae Ceausescu, it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. Anyway you are missing the point. No reliable source uses the figure 60,000. If you want to use that number, then please provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. " By writing this you provide your opponents with additional arguments. Obviously, the source is both valid and reliable, however, it is used in incorrect way. The problem is not with the source but with its usage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am referring to [this source], which does not say anything about Ceausescu's connection with mass killings. (Of course one may infer that since mass killings occurred under his regime, he committed mass killings.)  TFD (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people I hope the BBC is reliable enough mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says, "initial reports suggested many hundreds had been killed. In fact the number of dead was probably fewer than 100.... Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people...."  Could you please provide a reliable source that states 60,000 people were killed.  TFD (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not actually read the sources? The initial reports is about the actual uprising, not how many people he had put to death. That is a reliable source saying he was accused of killing 60k people, do you have a source saying he did not? mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But here`s another source saying he killed 60k Lawrence Journal-World - Dec 26, 1989
 * The source you provide is a Dec. 26th editorial from the Lawrence Journal-World of Lawrence, Kansas that says "Ceausescu reportedly was responsible for killing 60,000 Romanians...." Do you have a source saying that he killed 60,000 people?  BTW we do not add false information to articles and require people challenging it to provide a source that disputes it, although in fact historians do dispute this figure.  TFD (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now given you two sources which say he was accused of killing 60k people i have also given sources from books which say he was a mass murderer and was tried for it exactly what is it about these sources you have an issue with? mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And another The Age and another The Herald mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, these are contemporaneous news stories that report the charges against Ceausescu, not sources that he killed 60,000 people. I noticed that you added text to the Romania section where you refer to the conviction but not to scholarly estimates of the actual numbers.  This is a gross violation of WP:NPOV.  Also, you have used a source that is about trials that took place after Ceasescu's death.  Furthermore, your section is poorly written.  It ends with a part sentence.   TFD (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All those sources say he was accused of killing 60k people, everything you removed was reliably sourced. The section was written just fine, your removal of reliably sourced material is disruptive and i shall ask you to self revert. Note this, i did not say nor did the sources that he killed 60k people, the section stated he was accused of this per mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems with your edit: TFD (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is poorly written. Schabas' book was not a novel, which normally refers to a work of fiction (i.e., about things that did not happen.)  Also, the last sentence is incomplete.
 * It says Ceausescu was executed "for the mass murder of 60 thousand people over the course of the Ceausescu regime". In fact the source does not say that this was over the course of the regime.  Also, it implies that 60,000 people were murdered, which is speculation.
 * WP:NPOV requires that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That does not mean that we report a discredited finding at a summary trial but ignore the consensus of historians.
 * You are in error The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" [135] is most certainly in the book the sentence is not incomplete at all. It is not poorly written, that is your pov. wp:npov were is the bias in reporting what the sources say? there is none. Last chance please self revert or i will revert you for removing reliably sourced material from an article without a policy based reason mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The final sentence in your edit reads, In his novel Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" [135]. It is normal in English to use two sets of quotes and to end sentences with periods.  Why do you call the book a novel?  Also, it leaves a false impression that the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu.  I have fully explained my position about why this is NPOV and see no value in repeating it.  By the way, this is an RfC and perhaps other editors will weigh in on the subject.  In the meantime, please note that this article is under a 1RR restriction and therefore you cannot re-insert this subject matter which is the subject matter of this discussion.  TFD (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And again you are mistaken, even though this article is under 1r i most certainly can revert you. There is no false impression here, the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, your point makes no sense. It is not normal when quoting from a book or another source to use "stuff here" and it is normal to end a sentence with a full stop, not a period. You appear to be grasping at straws here, btw policy dictates you should have improved upon the content not removed it, if you thought "Novel" was wrong you should have replaced it with book mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu in the entire "novel". And yes 1RR applies.  TFD (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You will be pleased to see i have taken your concerns seriously, I have changed novel-book and i added the missing ", problems solved mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu Erm, he mentions the Ceausescu Regime of which she was a part, did you actually have a point? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i think you will find in what i added she is mention in this ref The BBC, not the book. mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) As it was shown several times already, the 60,000 figure is not supported by any modern (post-1995) reliable source. The fact that some reputable sources reported the allegations in 1989 doesn't mean that we should ignore newer research (just like we don't quote Strabo when he say the word is flat, even if his works are a prerequisite for any serious study about European antiquity).
 * 2) Unless, there's a source explicitly saying the Ceausescu committed mass killing because he was a leader of a communist regime, his mention here is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Otherwise we can create an article about Mass killing under non-Communist regimes, where we can include all mass killing in history until 1848, and 80% of the ones after 1848. If you want to present original ideas in this article, please produce a research paper, get it peer reviewed by a reputable institution, and then we will discuss. Until then, please read again what Wikipedia is really about.Anonimu (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed during the regime which is what the sources i added clearly state. I have no need to produce a paper nor get it peer reviewed so don`t be silly, per wp:v the sources and what they say stand, try again please mark nutley (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comment just shows one more time that you aren't interested in facts or building consensus, just in promoting a certain opinion. Otherwise you would have noticed the numerous sources presented again and again, that show the figure you cite had no relation whatsoever with reality. Yes, the verifiability policy allows you to use those sources, but on a relevant article, such as one about Nicolae Ceausescu or Nicolae Ceausescu's trial, the present article being neither of them. Also, per WP:NPOV you should not give undue weight to allegations proven wrong, and acknowledged as such even by the people who originated them (in this case, the leadership of the Romanian revolution).Anonimu (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed..." Sorry, but per WP:BURDEN the burden of proof rest with those who adds materials, not removes it. Nevertheless, such a source exists and it has already been cited in the article. Valentino in his book argues that more than 60,000 may have been killed starting from 1947, however, the documentary evidences are insufficient to make more concrete conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead during the regime did not happen according to modern sources, yet all three fail to provide links to sources saying that 60k people did not die under the regime. Either provide sources to back the claims you are making or give it up mark nutley (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You must have trouble understanding sources. All your sources clearly say that figure is only what Ceausescu's executioners claimed. On the other hand. Another source you quoted, says explicitly: "genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in the thousands". It's clear for anyone with a average knowledge of the English language that the source says that the death toll was less than "in the thousands", which corroborates with this reliable source, that says "the genocide charge was based on the killing of several hundred civilians". You can also see in this reliable sources (page 156 and on), how the US media already began to back down on the figure in January 1990, which reached 10,000 on the 10th, 4,000 to 7,000 on the 12th, only to reach several hundreds in March 1990. The 60,000 figure is clearly untenable. You can report the accusation in an article about Ceausescu, making it clear who and in what context made the accusation, but not in this article.Anonimu (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead" You demonstrated complete misunderstanding of WP policy. Firstly, WP is not a democracy. Secondly, since I do not insert new claims into the article, I do not have to provide any sources. By contrast, you (as well as some other editors) want to add some material, so, please, provide a quote form the reliable source that states that 60,000 were killed (not believed to be killed, because such a source, which was added by me, is already in the article). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your full of crap, an edit can`t be reverted out on the pretext that there is new research stating that 60k people did not die under the regime and then not supply the actual sources for it. The links you posted above only deal with the uprising, C was convicted of murdering 60k people during his regime which is what the sources i added actually say. Now either show your source saying he did not have that many murdered or i`ll put it back in mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ceausescu's fellow Communists claimed he killed 60,000 people and shot him. Unlike Marknutley, I do not believe that the statements of Communist officials take priority over those of historians.  TFD (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok this is getting real boring real fast, were are the sources? Were are the papers by these historians which say 60k people did not die during the C regime? You guys keep saying there are some, lets see them mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided, but apparently you choose only to accept official Communist statements. While I appreciate we may have different points of view, we are bound to follow WP:Neutrality.  TFD (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No sources have been provided at all, just a lot of hot air. Sources now or my edit goes back in mark nutley (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are contained in the second paragraph this RfC. You may find it helpful to actually read the contents of RfCs before responding to them.  Regardless the burden is on you to provide reliable sources for information you wish to insert.  TFD (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding right? A Travel Agent which does not even mention how many died during the C regime. The Genocide Convention: an international law analysis only mentions how many might have dies during the uprising, not how many died during the C Regime. My sources are for how many died throughout the length of the regime, so i reckon my edit stands per wp:v and wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first source, the BBC, says they were "accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been charged in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis).  Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara.  (Please do not belittle the 1989 Revolution Museum, Timisoara because it is a tourist attraction.  The British Museum is also a tourist attraction.  In fact it says exactly what your first and third souces say.)  TFD (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is? That is what my edit says they were accused and then shot. However you are focusing on the uprising, not the regime lenght, the aources talk of those dead during the length of the regime not just during the uprising, spot the difference. Your tourist museum source is riddled with spelling errors and mistakes, it is not a reliable source for this at all mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not denigrate the museum, which merely states the facts that are shown in your sources. Where is your evidence that there were any killings before the uprising?  Can you at least name one victim?  TFD (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again it`s not a museum it`s a travel agents. All the sources i used in my edit say there were 60k dead during the C regime. The BBC were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 peopleThe Herald Journal Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime All reliable sources, all saying the same thing he was accused and executed for the murder of 60k people throughout the course of his regime. mark nutley (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW Can you at least name one victim? Vasile Milea mark nutley (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Vasile Milea died during the 1989 revolution along with hundreds of others. In fact he was not a victim of Ceasescu at all.  However I was referring to victims from before the revolution - we are agreed that there were victims in December 1989.  (No, I cannot name any vicims before the 1989 revolution.)TFD (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to comment on the sources i presented? mark nutley (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first source, the BBC, says they were "accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been charged in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis). Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara. TFD (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that, yes that is what the sources say. And that is what my edit also said. So what exactly is your issue with the edit i made to the article? btw the third source also says as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime strange that you missed that out mark nutley (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not consider the Communist Party of Romania to be a reliable source. I do not know if you are a Communist or a Romanian and hold neither against you but WP is based on reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This apparently reliable source give the figure of 1,104 deaths during the 1989 revolution: http://www.euranet.eu/eng/Dossier/The-fall-of-Communism/The-Romanian-revolution-and-the-price-of-freedom Are you talking about deaths during his entire time in power? Here is his obit from the NY Times - no mention of allegations of genocide: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/nicolae_ceausescu/index.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conviction for genocide rather implies Mass killing - really! Even the UN definition says so!
The factual material from the NYT was removed on the basis that a source using "genocide" in it does not mean "mass killing." I know of no reason for removal of the Guardian cite at all. Query: Does "Genocide" imply "Mass killing"? I ratbher thinbk it is implicit. Especially as the UN defined "genocide" as including ""any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."   How one can thus claim that "genocide" somehow fails to fall within the purview of this article is rather hard to comprehend.  Please restore that material, as being fully sourced and germane. Collect (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the quote provided by you demonstrate you were wrong. Not all mass killings are genocide and not all genocides imply mass killings. For instance, Nazi program of Germanisation of the Poles ("forcibly transferring children of the group to another group") was a genocide, however it was not mass killing.
 * However, my point is different. You problem is that you make a wrong emphasis. The source is irrelevant because it tells about allegation of genocide, not allegation of genocide (the emphasis on the word "allegation", not "genocide"). The statement that some people may have been killed in Socialist Romania is already in the article, so the quotes provided by you give no additional information and create a visibility of clarity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Conviction not allegation. Convictions are generally regarded as facts, last I checked.  Your mileage varies? Collect (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conviction by some court in some Western country mean much more than just allegation (although the difference between "legally proven" and "scientifically established" is huge). However, the situation with NC was different: he was never convicted by more or less objective court to speak about any truth (btw, that can equally mean his actual crimes were greater, not smaller). One way or the another, I already presented this argument, so I see no reason to re-iterate all of that again and again. Try to provide anything fresh.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT source does not refer to NC, so the cavil about him is not relevant. Collect (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, many of the victims in this article were in fact convicted by Commmunist tribunals of treachery. Should these be excluded because we can assume as fact that they were guilty of the charges?  TFD (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Find RS sources and add that in then - but excluding the NYT is silly. I would be delighted to see sources saying that those killed under communist rule in Romania were executed for "treachery" as you state.  Add them. Collect (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does the NYT say that the allegations in the indictment on which Ceuasescu was convicted may be considered to be facts? Where in WP policy does it say that a conviction verifies facts?  TFD (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT cite I gave does not accuse NC of anything, thus it certainly does not even say he was convicted. It does say that certain Romaniand were convicted og genocide - and is a RS for the fact that the convictions took place. Which is all that the claim says, and thus is all the RS need say. Collect (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are of course correct Collect. mark nutley (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that some Romanian court convicted some Romanians of genocide neither confirms nor refutes the thesis that mass killings took place in Romania, therefore these quotes add no additional information to what the article already says. By contrast, in the absence of needed reservations these quotes create a false impression that some genocide occurred in Romania. I myself have no idea if some mass killings took place in Romania (probably, yes). However, the sources used provide no information on this account. Try to find better sources if you want to clarify already existing text supported by Valentino's book.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup template messages
There are cleanup template messages at the top of the article which have just been sitting there being ignored. We should either address them or remove them. The "may not include all significant viewpoints" is probably still relevant and may be useful to keep as either a notice to new editors who could contribute or a reminder to old editors who have been busy. The "needs attention from an expert" message is old and should be either removed or reposted. The middle three require discussion, and I will start a talk page section for each to identify examples and work through them. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Essay Template Message
Please post examples below of editors' personal reflections or opinions currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I remember correct, this template was placed by Termer as a responce to some changes made by me. Since most of these changes already vanished as a result of subsequent modifications, I believe, this tag can be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Template Message
Please post examples below of non-neutral language currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This one is easy. Could you provide a single reliable source which encompasses all the cases listed in this article? (Igny (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC))


 * Why does it have to be one? If it was a list of mass killings, sure, but the article is not a list of them, but about the mass killings. So why only one source? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Igny, why is that required? AmateurEditor (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It`s not, the POv tag can go mark nutley (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The article does not explain that the connection between Communism and mass killings is a fringe theory, as explained in many peer-reviewed artcles, none of which are included in the article. TFD (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide the source which states that the connection is a fringe theory please mark nutley (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles that discuss the theory. If you give me a day I can look through the discussion archives where there are several more articles that discussion the theories.
 * Jan Herman Brinks, "Anti-Semitism in Europe", 1914-2004".
 * Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 "Europe-Asia Studies", Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353

TFD (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry TFD, looking at those archive links i see nothing which says the connection between commies and murder is fringe. I see people spouting on about a theory but nothing which sayd what you are claiming mark nutley (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * However on the plus side the University of Cambridge says All Communist governments have practiced widespread killing of non- combatants Another problem solved i think mark nutley (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What does that site have to do with Cambridge? It's a private project by an Associate Professor at George Mason University, a much less distinguished institution on the other side of the Atlantic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right, it is hosted by George Mason University not cambridge, when i googled the url it came up cambridge, go figure :) mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, I read your first source and all that is available of your second (the first page, found here) and they do not say what you claim. Both discuss the phenomenon of equating hitler's atrocities with Stalin's (or nazism with communism), which is not occurring in this article as the Nazis are not even mentioned. Neither says anything like that "the connection between Communism and mass killings is a fringe theory", as you described it. You still haven't justified keeping this template. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

agree please discuss before adding tags again Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles are clear enough. I am sorry but not surprised that you see nothing.  incidentally, 8 minutes is a pretty short period to find and read the discussion thread and both articles and reply, leading me to believe that you have not in fact read them.  TFD (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tfd, i learned some communist are mass murderers in 5th grade, around the same time i picked up speed reading. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been firmly established (See "Arbitrary break 2") that there is no POV in this article. TFD claims everyone who doesn't agree with him is "fringe" and "neocon" but never provides any arguments or support for that position, so he can be ignored. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis Template Message
Please post examples below of sentences containing synthesis or unverifiable facts currently in the article so that they can be discussed. I will remove the template after a week if no examples are offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No examples have been given, and it's been a week now. (Well, minus a couple of hours.) --OpenFuture (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates
This article was created by the blocked editor Joklolk as Communist genocide and was quickly adopted by members of the Eastern European Mailing List. When the article was listed for deletion, they decided off-wiki to rename the article. However the new title does not exist in academic sources. So basically the article is not supported by any sources and represents a far right view of history. There have been a number of attempts by the far right to create articles, including one about how the Jews control Hollywood. The argument they presented was that since some people believe that the Jews control Hollywood there is a controversy meriting a separate article. Fortunately the inherent bias and anti-Semitism of that article was obvious and it was deleted. Unfortunately the inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias of this article is less obvious, which is why it has not been deleted. But it does explain why it can never be a neutral article. TFD (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoever created the article is not relevant. Nor is the history of the name. Nor is the EEML shibboleth relevant.  Nor does WP require articles to conform to your sensibilities that everyone else is racist and anti-Semitic.   Now can we go back to the purpose of the talk page which is to improve the article? Collect (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point. The topic itself is inherently biased.  It is based on a far right conspiratorial view of Communism represented in this article by the fringe theorist Watson.  No real encyclopaedia would have an article like this.  The fact that the article was created by a troll and supported by a group that was willing to break the rules of Wikipedia in order to support their own personal view of Russia and the minorities that supported the Soviet Union is evidence that the topic matter is loaded.  That is why this article cannot be improved.  As I mentioned, we had a similar discussion with an article about how the Jews control Hollywood, created by an editor who believed that the Holocaust was a hoax.  The discussion came down to that there were two legitimate articles:  about the far right conspiracy theory that the Jews controlled Hollywood and an article about Jews in Hollywood.  In the end it was agreed that the inherent bias of the article made it better to be deleted.  TFD (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, WP:AGF is not good policy because all editors are in fact acting in good faith, it is good policy because editors' motivations are irrelevant to the merits of their arguments and because talk page discussions of other editors' motivations are counter-productive. Your concerns appear to be misplaced. Watson is a very small portion of the article. Judaism is not even mentioned in the article. The editors of the EEML are also not participating in this discussion and haven't been for some time. The title achieved a consensus of editors far beyond the members of that mailing list. That the title of this article does not exist verbatim in academic sources should suprise no one as it is a compromise descriptive title of the topic. There are several reliable sources which discuss the topic, so the article is in fact sourced. If you can think of a better title, please present it. If you think the article represents a far right view of history, please present additional sources you would like to see included. If you think there is an "inherent far right racist and anti-Semitic bias" in the article, then make your case as well as you can. I don't see it. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The bias probably is not apparent to you and I notice that the quotes on your user page are from Karl Rove and Jonah Goldberg. If you actually respect Goldberg, then you probably do not have an appreciation for neutrality.  TFD (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks will not get you what you want. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor, I am not making a personal attack. Unfortunately you present yourself on your user page as supporting highly partisan persons, none of whom is respected as an historian or as a neutral writer.  None of them are considered to be rational critics of social sciences.  TFD (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is biased because it collects the views of those scholars who see commonality between mass killings under different Communist regimes (and the regimes that only declared their adherence to the Communist doctrine). By contrast, the views of other scholars, who see no such commonality, and, therefore, discuss these events separately, cannot be included in this article because that would be a synthesis. As a result, this article article leads to a collision between two major WP principles, neutrality and NOR, which is immanent to such type articles.
 * In addition, I already quoted some sources that convey quite opposite ideas, namely that Cambodian regime was the only Communist regime whose nature was genocidal, whereas other Communist regimes, by contrast to Nazi, were not genocidal. The same source states that it was a Communist ideology that prevented a full-scale genocide in the USSR. In addition, other sources describe Cambodia as only formally Communist regime, thereby refusing to see any commonality between the events in this "Communist" country and other Communist states. Unfortunately, these example are not abundant, because the scholars that see no commonality between different mass killings prefer to write about the history of some concrete country, leaving the theories of various "...cides" to political writers and journalists.
 * I already proposed the solution and I repeat it again: the article can be fixed only if we build it as a story about theories that try to connect different mass killings in different Communist countries (along with their criticism). This should not be a list (each of the events listed here already have their own article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But Paul, it is not synthesis to include information in this article from sources which focus on only one instance of mass killing. If the article were titled "Mass killing..." rather than "Mass killings...", then I would be more inclined to agree with you that individual explanations have no place in the article. There are sections on commonalities; there can also be sections on particularities, and they would look very much like the list. In fact, incorporating those alternate, individual, non-common causes into the current list would be a good way to incorporate them. You see, if we were to limit articles on Wikipedia to just the individual instances of mass killing (the situation before this article was created), then we would have the opposite bias problem: only individual causes and explanations could be discussed and commonalities would have no place to be written about. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, formally, to to include information in this article from sources which focus on only one instance of mass killing is not synthesis. However, let's consider the following case: (i) a scholar V. defined a term "mass killings" as "mass killings of more than 50,000 non-combatants during the period of 5 years or less"; (ii) a scholar P. describes a decossackisation as a process of elimination of some ethnic group (Cossacks) by Communist regime in Russia; (iii) scholar X. tells a story of numerous killings committed by both sides during the Russian Civil War in the Don's basin. Can we combine all three sources to include them into this article? I doubt if that is correct. The first source (V.) tells about mass killings of non-combatants, whereas most Cossacks were the party of the Civil War, so decossackisation can hardly be described as mass killings of non-combatants. In addition, decossackisation does not fit a quantitative criterion, because 10,000 to 12,000 executed Cossacks is not "50,000". In other words, we can include decossackisation only if the scholar V. (who coined the term "mass killings") explicitly included it into his book. He didn't . The second source, P., describes the crimes of Communists against Cossacks, however, it is not clear from his book that that was a crime against non-combatants, so it is incorrect to combine V. and P. Finally, the scholar X. writes about history of the Civil War in Russia, including the crimes committed by both sides (and, btw, in similar scale). It would be incorrect to take the X.'s words out of the general context of the Civil war, and, importantly, the story of the White terror would be equally inappropriate here, because it has not direct relation to the article's subject. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While Valentino did come up with a precise working definition for "mass killing", he did not coin the term. It is a common term long predating him with no precise definition that I know of. And I don't know that any other writer uses Valentino's definition for "mass killing" (and Valentino himself refers to mass killings "on a smaller scale" than his definition on page 91). This article does not use his definition of the term, it uses the more general one. Whether we should or not is an open question. As for the other examples you give, whether they should be included depends on the details. We agree that only killings of non-combatants is appropriate, but shouldn't that include civilians and POWs? I don't agree that no examples can be included that are not explicitly mentioned in Valentino's book because he says explicitly that he does not discuss every example. If there is information included in the article that is taken out of context in a misleading way, then it should definitely be corrected. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Valentino did define this term (similarly to Oscar W. Greenberg who coined the term colour), and at least one source in this article (Wayman > Tago) explicitly states that. With regard to the definition the article uses, I doubt the article in its present form to use any single definition. That opens an avenue for numerous non-neutral syntheses.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that some obvious examples can and should be included, because Valentino and similar scholars are not specialists in history of the countries they discuss (their field of interests are general genocide studies), so many details in their books are inaccurate of incomplete. However, that does not mean that the article has to become a collection of everything that has even marginal relation to real or alleged Communist crimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Valentino coined a definition for "mass killing", but he did not, of course, invent the term itself. As for the extent of the instances included, I doubt there will be any more at this point unless something very new is published. If there is an example already included which you do not think is appropriate, it should be discussed on the talk page. If there is a specific example of synthesis you have in mind, please post it in the synthesis template section here on the talk page. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, the reason there can never be a neutral article are because your world view is so common. You, and many others, clearly have the stance that you either turn a blind eye to the murders of "communist" regimes, or you are "far-right" and anti-semitic. And equally, many on the "far-right" have the idea that you either turn a blind eye to the evils of fascism, or you automatically are a communist.
 * Both those attitudes are complete and utter nonsense and has no connection to reality whatsoever. Anyone who has respect for their fellow being will be egalitarian, liberal, democratic anti-communist and anti-racist, ie neither your "far-right" nor "far-left" enough to be blind for the failings of communism. The attitude of left-vs-right, us-vs-them, that you show evidence of above, makes this into a choice between communism and antisemitism, when it's obvious to any thinking person that both are evil ideas.
 * I'd recommend you to stop thinking in terms of "left" and "right". It's an oversimplification with nothing but negative effects. The world isn't that simple. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not followed the discussion so I will summarize it for you. While it is implicit in the title of the article that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings, there are only fringe sources that make this connection.  WP:Fringe means that they are not recognized in academic writing.  Therefore the article is just a random list of atrocities whose only connection is that the perpetrators were Communist governments.  We could just as easily write an article called "Mass killings under Protestant regimes" and include the holocaust and the Salem witch trials.  The sources that do make a connection are in fact far right, and have been the subject of academic articles.  The theory has been popularized in Eastern Europe because it shows Communism with its 100 million victims was a greater evil than Nazism with its 6 million victims.  The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries.  It is ironic that you consider opposition to a manichaean world-view to be simplistic.  TFD (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if only fringe sources make that connection or not is both rather irrelevant and incorrect, as the article name is "Mass killings under communist regimes", which also is what the article contains. And the Nazi regime was not a protestant regime, so you are wrong there as well. The sources that make the connection are not all "far right", and although the theory might be popular in eastern europe, it's in fact "popular" (that is generally accepted) in academia all over the world, and this without rehablitating any Nazi collaborators or "villianizing" of any Jews.
 * And the whole point is that your world view isn't manichaean. You do not propose a choice between good and evil. You propose a choice between two evils.
 * So, sorry, pretty much every single sentence you write is just incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * a connection between Communism and mass killings, there are only fringe sources that make this connection Your kidding right? Commie dictators have murdered millions and this is well documented, and you say anyone making this connection is fringe? And why is it you only seem to have one source all the time btw, this valentino guy? mark nutley (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a source that connects Communism with mass killings. TFD (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * R. J. Rummel There ya go mark nutley (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And also, and of course The Black Book of Communism. None of these can in any way be labeled "fringe". --OpenFuture (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rummel wrote about mass killings in many countries, including many Communist countries but did not have a concept of Communist mass killings. In fact in his book Death by government he includes Great Britain and most other European nations as guilty of mass killings.  While the introduction to the Black Book of Communism does connect Communism and mass killings, the editor Stéphane Courtois never submitted his theories to academic scrutiny and they are considered fringe.  Even two of the contributors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, criticized him for exaggerating the number of deaths in order to reach the figure of 100 million.  Mainstream academics have criticized him for recycling the far right theory about the French Revolution and applying it to Communism.  TFD (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

but did not have a concept of Communist mass killings Try reading the source please, Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide Your habit of not hearing stuff is getting tedious mark nutley (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now trying to avoid that issue by taking up other criticisms or in the case of Rummel nonsense argumentation. But that doesn't change the fact that all of the above mentioned academic sources connect communism and mass murder and n one of the are fringe. Your statement that only fringe sources make the connection is therefore proven false. You should now admit that you were wrong, and go on in the discussion, but it seems to me you are not willing to do that, and instead you are going to dig yourself a deeper hole and become more and more wrong. That's not a helpful attitude when on Wikipedia, and it will do you no good. Admit error, go on, that's the ticket. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rummel has a concept of communist massmurder. Neither he, nor anyone else, claims *only* communists commit genocides. But he does connect communism and massmurder.
 * The Black Book of Communism is only considered fringe amongst communist circles. Yes, Courtois, when calculating the number of dead, takes the "worst case numbers" in all cases, which obviously means his total number is too high. But that's not the issue here, the issue here is if only fringe people make the connection between communism and mass murder, and the answer is clearly "no".

I am sorry, my memory failed me on Rummel and I have looked through the talk page archives. The problem with his work is that again he did not publish it in peer-reviewed literature, his book was published by Transaction Publishers, and his theories have not attracted any sort of respect. Certainly there are writers who connect Communism and mass killings, but there are none in the mainstream academic literature on mass killings or Communism. To get back to the point of this discussion thread, which was about the article templates, the article cannot be neutral if it is based on theories that are considered fringe. Also, even the fringe sources disagree among themselves about what the connection is. Courtois for example saw Communism as developing from the democracy of the French Revolution, while Watson saw it as developing from conservatism. (As a Liberal, he hated both Tories and Labour.)

In fact the observation "The Black Book of Communism is only considered fringe amongst communist circles" is false and you really need sources to support that. My advice to you is to read through the mainstream literature on mass killings rather than only looking at highly controversial books that are fringe and more polemical than academic.

TFD (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your appeals to authority are a strawman, to say R. J. Rummel who is a professor emeritus of political science has not published in peer review is blatantly false he has written 24 books, and has around 100 publications in peer-reviewed journals, try again mark nutley (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

aw hell, it was only 50 million? lets give communism another try... ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.116.238.121 (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly have no objection to using Rummel's writings that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals or are published by the academic press. But there is a distinction between scholarly writing and polemical writing.  There is a difference between writing an informative book and one that advances a political viewpoint.  The way to tell the difference is of course the choice of publishers and the reception by the academic community.  Many academic writers choose the freedom of the non-academic press to express views which not be acceptable in the academic press.  For example, he would have been laughed at had he tried to get a journal to publish the following comment, "Was it necessary to protect the United States against the likes of Saddam Hussein. You betcha. The 9/11 attack made this clear."  That is what Transaction Publishers is for.  Again, if the only sources for the article are fringe, then it cannot be neutral.  TFD (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, TFD, but the fact is that pretty much everything you say is either irrelevant, an attempt to change the topic, or simply factually wrong. The sources mentioned above are not fringe. RJ Rummel is widely quoted, and has, despite your claims to the contrary, widespread respect gained from his research, and is widely quoted in other research: . You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong. The connection between communism and mass murder has been done by mainstream scholarly sources.


 * My advice to you is to read through the mainstream literature on mass killings - You see, that's what I have done. Maybe you should too? Then maybe you should read Marx and see what he says, then read some liberal criticism of communism, and then you'll also understand *why* communism so readily lends itself to mass murder. Then stop telling me to read things you haven't read yourself, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. Since you are so well read on the literature of mass killings, could you please provide me with an article in a peer-reviewed journal that explains the connection between Communism and mass killings.  TFD (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw no personal attack above at all. Meanwhile, for the fiftieth time, WP has no requirement that the name of an article be found in "peer-reviewed journals" at all.  Valentino.    Penn.   Midlarsky.   Gvosdev.   Etcheson.   Weinstein. And a host of other reliable sources.  Sufficient indeed. Collect (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Collect, you appear to have misread the comments to which you are replying. OpenFuture's comment, "You are, to be blunt, lying" is a personal attack.  I did not say, " WP has [a] requirement that the name of an article be found in "peer-reviewed journals"" but asked  for "an article in a peer-reviewed journal that explains the connection between Communism and mass killings" (my emphasis).  TFD (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! You left out the significant part of it. Maybe I should accuse you of personal attacks, you have after all accused Courtois of lying. "App-lying", more specifically, which reasonably must be worse. With creative quoting you can make your opposition say anything. It's not a serious way to discuss, though. So don't quote out of context, OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me what above would be a personal attack above? And why just articles? Why not books? Books published in university press and widely cited in other works are also reliable sources, you know. That said, RJ Rummel has for example published many articles doing this connection in peer-reviewed journals, as I'm sure you would have known if you have even tried to look for them. But you brush off everyone that is not communist as "fringe", thereby supporting your theory that only "fringe" people contradict you.
 * The problem with that attitude is that in the end, the whole world becomes "fringe" and you are left alone as the only "mainstream" person in the universe. Not a very fruitful attitude... --OpenFuture (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Democide talk page you can find quotes that demonstrate that serious scholars doubt in validity of Rummel's conclusions and accuracy of his figures. Similarl evidences are presented on the BB's talk page. I admit, that is my fault that having these sources I haven't modified both these articles accordingly, but, taking into account low importance of these two subjects, this task has low priority for me. One way or the another, if someone build their arguments based on such reliable sources as Rummel and Cortois (in actuality, when people cite the BB they mean mostly The Courtois' introduction, the worst and least reliable book's part), then the problem of lack of reliable sources on anti-Communism is serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. Scholars have different opinions. That's life. Let's recap: The claim was that *only* fringe sources would claim that communism and mass murder was connected. This claim has been thoroughly debunked by showing many non-fringe sources that argue for that connection. Is anything there unclear?
 * Then you bring up anti-communism, which is a much wider topic, and which has absolutely no lack of reliable sources. Marxism has been shown to be fundamentally flawed both in theory and practice. Pretending otherwise is denialism. But that's not the topic here. The topic is this: Are there non-fringe sources that connect communism and mass murder. And the answer is: Yes! --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's compare three statements: (i) "only fringe sources draw a connection between mass murder and Communism"; (ii) "the sources that draw a connection between mass murder and Communism are mainstream"; (iii) "Communists killed 120 million people". Obviously, the fact that (i) is an exaggeration does not automatically mean that (ii) and (iii) are true.
 * Therefore, the question is non correctly stated. The real topic is: can we conclude that the opinion that there was a direct connection between Communism (ideology and theory) and XX century mass murders is mainstream? The answer is: No.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is a resounding "yes". That there is a clear both ideological and practical connection between communism and mass murder is a well known and well accepted fact in history and sociology, and there has here been provided sources that show this. Try finding mainstream peer-reviewed post-cold war articles that claims there was no systematic violations of the human rights record in Soviet, China, Cambodia, etc. I would be very amused to see what you come up with. The murders are well attested and generally accepted. The discussion is only about how big they were, and how many millions that died. That they happened has not been contested since the fall of the wall, nor is it generally contested that the totalitarian and violent communist ideology lends itself to these violations. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "WP has no requirement that the name of an article be found in "peer-reviewed journals"" Yes, it hasn't. However, the policy explicitly states that peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources, so if these sources state that, e.g. Rummel's methodology is flawed, his data are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses and he is a controversial writer, then it must be explicitly stated here, and, accordingly, the article cannot be build as if Rummel and similar authors represent a mainstream POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously both viewpoints need to be attested in the article. Nobody said anything else. The discussion is the absurd claim that Rummel et al are "fringe". They are not. It's really not that hard to understand. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Openfuture and mark nutley, if you wish to base your understanding of history on what you read in neoconservative publications, that is your right. But please do not continue to assert these views are mainstream or that anyone who opposes them is a communist or is lying without any sources to support your views.  TFD (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, in my opinion, the statement that these neoconservative publications are fringe is also too strong. Obviously, they are not fringe, although they are not mainstream either. They represent a significant minority views and due attention should be paid to them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See Identifying fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study".  The term covers a wide of theories.  I am not implying that these theories are in the same league as people who believe the moon landing was faked.  TFD (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, None of the sources I have given you are neoconservative, nor are they fringe. They are mainstream and liberal democratic. TFD, you don't have to choose between two evils. The communism and fascism are not the only alternatives, and you don't need to choose either one. In fact, communism and fascism are just two variants of the same evils. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Transaction Publishers, founded by Irving Louis Horowitz is the main neoconservative publishing house. While the Black Book was originally published in France, it recently notice and support in the U. S. virtually entirely from neoconservatives and the New Right.  And fringe of course merely means "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view".  You need to step away from the view that anyone who is not a U. S. conservative is either a Communist or fascist. In any case the Communist mass killing theory is an over-simplification.   For example, Russian agression against the people of Chechnya began under the czars and continued under Yeltsin and Putin.  The Russian view that the conflict is part of the global war on terror is similarly simplistic.  Mainstream historians approach history with neutrality and do not attempt to analyze events according to pre-conceived beliefs.  TFD (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obvious from your answer that you regard everyone who is not communist as "neoconservative", which just confirms what I said before about your position. Rummel is not a neocon.
 * I repeat: Nobody claims that *only* communism is behind mass murder. That czars and other totalitarian dictators also violate human rights is not an argument for communism, and not an argument against the fact that communism has killed a lot of people. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "It's obvious from your answer that you regard everyone who is not communist as "neoconservative"".  If you do not wish to engage in rational discussion and resort to name calling, I am afraid that you are not contributing to the improvement of this article.  TFD (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you, including me, by saying or implying that they are neocons. I have already made clear that I am not neo-conservative. I hereby make clear that I take any implications that I am as insults, and that you will be warned for personal attacks if you continue to imply that I am conservative. You can pretend that everyone that doesn't agree with you are evil, but it doesn't change the fact that almost every single sentence you have written here is completely incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not insulting those authors by ascribing political beliefs to them, I am merely stating facts. But it is not their political viewpoints that detract from their work, but that they are written as political rather than academic books.  I have made no personal attacks against you, however you made the following attack:  "You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong",  I did not "accuse" you of being a conservative, I would not see that as an accusation at all, and accept that you are more likely a liberal.  But our personal views are not important.  Let us discuss the sources, not other editors.  TFD (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy. At least you seem to have realized now that not every anti-communist is a conservative. That's a step forward. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Re: OpenFuture's "The answer to your question is a resounding "yes". That there is a clear both ideological and practical connection between communism and mass murder is a well known and well accepted fact in history and sociology, and there has here been provided sources that show this. Try finding mainstream peer-reviewed post-cold war articles that claims there was no systematic violations of the human rights record in Soviet, China, Cambodia, etc. I would be very amused to see what you come up with. The murders are well attested and generally accepted. The discussion is only about how big they were, and how many millions that died. That they happened has not been contested since the fall of the wall, nor is it generally contested that the totalitarian and violent communist ideology lends --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)itself to these violations."

—Firstly, "Try finding mainstream peer-reviewed post-cold war articles that claims there was no systematic violations of the human rights record in Soviet, China, Cambodia, etc." You mix "human rights" (the term that is quite differently seen in different cultures and during different periods of history) and "mass killings" (the article's subject).

—Secondly, even genocide scholar themselves, e.g. Valentino on the page 91 of his "Final solution" states that "most regimes that describe themselves as Communist ... have not engaged in mass killings".

—Thirdly, although mass killings in the USSR can be attributed to communist ideology (although it is hard to speak seriously about any ideological moteves behind actions of Stalin, who initially allied with Bukharin against Trotsky and Zinovyev, and vehemently defended NEP, and then fought against Bukharin and condemned NEP; clearly, there were no ideology behind his actions, just pure will to power), many scholar note that Campuchea regime, the most pure example of genocidal regime, was Communist only by name. Moreover, this regime was vehemently condemned by the major Communist state, the USSR (and, interestingly, it was supported by the leading First World's country, the U.S.). How can we speak about common ideological roots here? —Fourthly, "The murders are well attested and generally accepted." is probably too strong a statement. The only consensus is that some murders occurred. However, neither motives of these murders nor the figures are commonly accepted now. With regard to the figures, Rummel's "100+ million" is definitely a fringe views (see the quotes on the democide talk page). There is also no consensus what should be considered "murder", "killings", or just "excess mortality". A connection with ideology is also unclear: Rummel himself considers "Communism" just as one of parameters in his factor analysis, and his conclusion is that it is totaliarianism that strongly corellates with democide (i.e. mass killings), not Communism. However, even this conclusion is questioned by, others, e.g. by Wayman and Tago.

—Fifthly, "That they happened has not been contested since the fall of the wall..." That is constantly being contested, for instance, the numbers of victims under Stalin's rule has been re-considered to much lower values since the fall of the wall, and due to the fall of the wall, because opening of secret archives provided Western historians with more precise information, thus allowing them to leave the realm of estimations and to step into the realm of statistics.

—Sixthly, regarding yours "the totalitarian and violent communist ideology lends itself to these violations", can it be used as an argument in favour of creation of the article Mass killings under totalitarian regimes (or even Mass killings under authoritarian regimes, because many scholars see a connection between authoritarianism, not totalitarianism, and mass killings), and accordingly, of moving the content of this article there?-Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, because the mass killings of communism is mostly a result of a systematic violation of basic human rights. It's not like the Holocaust were people were rounded up and taken to death factories, or the Rwandan genocide were people were hunted and slaughtered by their neighbors. So I mix mass killings and systematic human rights violations, because when it comes to communism, they are so tightly connected that they are almost the same.
 * 2. So? Most regimes of *any* kind has not done this. You can't deny both that communist regimes have engaged in mass killings, neither that communist regimes have done so in a higher degree than regimes in average.
 * 3a. Communism is one ideology who readily lends itself to those who have a "will to power" as it provides an ideological basis, a rationalization and excuse, to use violence against anyone who doesn't agree with you. That communism so readily can be bent to support people like Stalin is one if the reasons for communist mass murders. Obviously in the end, it's people who do the killing. But that does not mean that we can pretend that the ideology doesn't play a part. It clearly does, or mass killings would not be more common under authoritarian regimes.
 * 3b. Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. It's an excuse used to defend belief in communism and try to merge it with the fact of the Khmer Rouge murders, an excuse used for any communist regime that has ever existed. You find some part where the regime doesn't agree with you, declare that part an integral part of communism, and claim that the human rights violation under regime X was not because of communism, because they weren't "True Communists". It is, in short, just a variation of the "No True Scotsman"-argument. The fact is that the Khmer Rouge were intensely communist in their ideology. What they were not was Leninist. They did not believe in a protracted dictatorship of the proletariat. They wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat to pass quickly (simply because they had seen how Russia and China had gotten stuck in the bureaucratic dictatorships), and therefore started a quick an violent campaign to force people into the communist state directly without delay. This campaign led to the death of around a quarter of the population. In fact, the reason so many died was that the Khmer Rouge if anything was *more* communistic than other regimes. But that's nothing socialists want to hear, as this implies that the socialist utopia simply is not possible to attain.
 * 4+5 I pointed out that the mass murders was not being contested, just the number of dead. Your answer is "Yes they are being contested, the number of dead is being re-appraised". Well, QED, they are not being contested, just the number of dead. That's what I said.
 * 6. The mass killings under communism are so numerous that they probably warrant it's own article, as I suspect that a "Mass killing under authoritarian regimes" would be a seriously huge article and needed to be split up in several subarticles. But there is certainly nothing problematic with such an article in principle. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion page is not the place for general discussion but to assist in improving the article. It is also unhelpful to dismiss other editors' opinions as "purely pro-communist rationalization".  Could you please provide reliable sources for your opinions.  You might also find it useful to widen your reading beyond writings that validate your opinions.  At least it may make you more tolerant of other viewpoints.  TFD (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: TFD has been warned for this personal attack, but he removed that warning from his talk page (which is his right). Just so nobody warns him again. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been to a wedding and this thread seems to have gone awry, the two sections prior to TFD`s PA are insanely long and rambling. I see a suggestion to move this page, emphatic no, and start a new thread if such a move is to be discussed. Regarding the mainstream view on mass murder and commies, that is the mainstream view and sources have been given to prove it. The onus is now on others to disprove this with reliable sources which say that this view is fringe, as it appears to me that saying mass murder and commies go hand in hand is the mainstream view, and i do not see how anyone can say otherwise mark nutley (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Yes, because the mass killings of communism is mostly a result of a systematic violation of basic human rights." Every killing is a result of a violation of the fundamental human right, so this argument can be applied to all mass killings, and, therefore, is useless and senseless here. Maybe, you imply that human right of Jews were not violated by Nazi? I would say the opposite: Nazi started with violation of civil and human rights of Jews (Nuremberg laws) and that eventually opened an avenue for the Holocaust.

Re: "Most regimes of *any* kind has not done this." That is why there is no articles like Mass killings under Calvinist (Democratic, Christian, anti-Communist, Fascist, Liberal, etc.) regimes, and I don't see why Communist regimes should be an exception. One way or the another, if a reliable source (Valentino) states that there were no mass killings under majority of Communist regimes, your speculation are just speculations and should be treated as such.

Re: "... as it provides an ideological basis, a rationalization and excuse, to use violence against anyone who doesn't agree with you". All other regimes do the same, the difference is only in details: the threshold of disagreement after which sanctions may be applied, as well as the degree of violence may vary. And, btw, noone (except some libertarian writers) has been able to find anything in Marx' or Lenin's theoretical works that justified the need of killing (by contrast to other kinds of violence, that are normal during all revolutions).

Re: "Calling Campuchea "communist only by name" is a purely pro-communist rationalization. " Feel free to report to WP:RSN about (un)reliability of the works of Helen Fein (you can find the ref in this article). If a consensus will be achieved that it is a fringe pro-communist source, we can return to this discussion. Otherwise, that is just your personal assertion, and it should be treated as such.

Re: "Your answer is "Yes they are being contested, the number of dead is being re-appraised". " You interpreted my words incorrectly. There are two separate questions: (i) which events should be considered Communist mass killings and (ii)what was the number of victims? Both these questions are the subject of corrections, because (i) the figures were re-examined, and (ii) many events (like famines, diseases, etc.) are not considered as mass killings by many scholars now, as they prefer to speak about the "victims of repressions", etc.

Re: "The mass killings under communism are so numerous that they probably warrant it's own article..." ...which should be a Mass killings under authoritatian regimes' daughter article, so all considerations about "mass killings" (which, according to the concept's author, were not specific to Communist regimes alone), "democide" (that, according to the term's inventor, is connected with totalitarianism, not Communism) and other "...cides" should be moved there.

In summary, during this dispute I am constantly referring to reliable sources, whereas you provide just your own opinions. Could you please be more serious?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Your quote of me is out of context, and your reply is therefore a straw man argument.
 * 2. No, there are no "Mass killing under calvinist regimes" because there have been no Calvinist regimes. Mass killings under liberal or otherwise democratic regimes are so few that they don't warrant their own article. Mass killings under fascist regimes is pretty much only Nazi germany, unless you (as is common) extend the word "fascist" to mean any non-communist dictatorship, etc, etc. So no, that is *not* the reason these articles do not exist.
 * 3a. All other regimes do the same,  - You are now comparing regimes and ideologies. That's obviously not useful. Try again.
 * 3b. Reliable sources can also be incorrect.
 * 4. No, I did not misinterpret you.
 * 5. No one has ever claimed only communist regimes are responsable for mass killings. I made that clear in discusson with TFD above, at least twice. I though that straw man argument was done with now.
 * 6. No you are not referring to any reliable sources in this discussion, which is obvious from your answer above. That's a weird claim. What I'm doing now is explaining things to you. If there is a factual statement I make you don't believe, you are welcome to point that out. But most of it is simple explaining that doesn't require sources, just a rational mind and a sensible attitude. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there have been Calvinist regimes and there have been substantial mass killings under liberal regimes, including Calvinist ones. BTW instead of accusing other editors of "straw man" arguments, it would be helpful to point out the actual logical error, instead of just labelling the argument "straw man".  TFD (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I like that you at least imply that communism is a religion. That said, your claims above, as most of your "factual" statements need a big . Calvinism isn't a political ideology, and there has not been Calvinist regimes in the same sense that we talk about communist regimes. Then you talk about "liberal regimes including Calvinist ones", and if you knew what liberalism meant you would know that it includes freedom of religion, and that a "Calvinist regime", at least of you use the word in a sense similar to "communist regime" therefore can't be liberal.
 * 2. The actual logical error *is* that the argument is a straw man. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Re: "Your quote of me is out of context" What this context was, and how did I distort your argumentation?
 * 2. Re: "No, there are no "Mass killing under calvinist regimes" because there have been no Calvinist regimes." What about Kalvin's Geneva?
 * 3. Re: "Mass killings under liberal or otherwise democratic regimes are so few" By its scale the Belgian Congo genocide exceded the Holocaust, and famines in British India had much greater scale than Soviet famines.
 * 4. Re: "You are now comparing regimes and ideologies" In other words, you propose to separate these two? Fully support. Let's discuss Stalin regime's or Pol Pot regime's crimes, because peoples were being killed by regimes, not ideologies. However, it is not clear why do we need this article: all these events have been already described in details in specialised articles.
 * 5. Re: "Reliable sources can also be incorrect." In every particular case it must be proven based on other reliable sources.
 * 6. Re: "No, I did not misinterpret you." I am not sure I understand what concretely do you mean.
 * 7. Re: "No one has ever claimed only communist regimes are responsible for mass killings." Neither I did. I also didn't put these words into your mouth.
 * 8. Re: "No you are not referring to any reliable sources in this discussion..." Valentino, Fein, and the refs in the Democide talk page. I am not sure I need to reproduce full refs here, because they are already in the article. I can provide more sources, however, for the beginning, let's dissect those I already provided. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I introduced numberings to your answers, as I don't want to double the size of this already needlessly long discussion by having to quote everything you say.
 * 1. The context is the other text surrounding the quote.
 * 2. How was that a Calvinist regime? Was the regime made up of Calvinist priests? Did they base all law and politics on Calvinist dogma? Or was Geneva during during Calvin a normal European medieval city-state who's main religions was Calvinism? Because that's *not* the same thing.
 * 3. Neither Congo is not a liberal or democratic mass killing. Starvation in India in not a mass killing (and not liberal, as India during it's democracy has been strongly socialist in it's economic policy, which is the main reason for the starvation. BUt that's off topic).
 * 4. A regime and an ideology are not the same thing, no. Therefore the statement "all regimes do the same" is irrelevant in a discussion about ideologies. The statement "all ideologies do the same" would not have been relevant. That I am forced to explain things like this is the reason this debate is pointless, and also why it is likely to stop soon.
 * 5. Correct.
 * 6. I mean that when you said that I thought I misinterpret me above, I did not.
 * 7. OK, so you said "which, according to the concept's author, were not specific to Communist regimes alone" for no reason whatsoever. Fair enough.
 * 8. If mentioning a bunch of names is "referring" then I have done it too. I have even given links to books and articles. You can't have other demands on me than you have on yourself during a debate.
 * I feel now that the debate has strayed to far away from the content of the article, as it seems to stray into basics of debate and language. I fear I don't know how to make a debate useful with you, when the debate strays into such things that the words "ideology" and "regime" aren't interchangeable, so this is the end from my part. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture, I am a bit confused by your response to Paul Sievert. There are no Calvinist priests and Paul Sievert was referring to India under the Raj not after independence.  Of course the reference to the Belgian Congo was during the period when it was the Congo Free State.  TFD (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, what exactly does a Calvinist regime or the Indian Raj have to do with communism, Keep it on topic, the topic being mass killings under commies mark nutley (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have to read the discussion thread where Paul Sievert and OpenFuture discuss it. I am a bit confused however by some of OpenFuture's comments.  TFD (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, if you think that no priests are Calvinists, and that India under the Raj or teh Congo Free state was a liberal democracies, then no wonder my answer confuses you. Again I have to ask you to check your facts before making a claim, since pretty much every factual statement you make are are in disagreement with reality. And as long as that situation persists, constructive debate is going to be impossible. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think there are Calvinist priests you obviously are not familiar with theology, and India and the Belgian Congo were governed by liberal states (U. K. and Belgium). Paul Sievert's point is that we could create an article called "mass killings under liberal regimes" but it would be synthesis, just as this one is.  TFD (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they were not liberal states. I think you should let Paul make his own points. WP:SYN is when you use several sources to draw new conclusions that doesn't exist in any of the sources. I don't see how this article is that, nor how an article on mass killings under liberal regimes would be it. However, it would be very short. You seem to be struggling to find anything to put in such an article, for example. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Thank you for explaining me the meaning of the word "context". I would like, however, to obtain the answer on my question, namely, how concretely did I distort your thought. BTW, since the sentence I quoted was the first sentence in your post, it could not be "surrounded" by anything.
 * 2. To stick to the word "Kalvinist" and to ignore the point in general is a kind of the straw man fallacy. Please, respond to my main thougt, or, if you have no arguments, just accept it.
 * 3. "Democratic mass killing" is a little bit awkward wording. I would say, "mass killings committed by a democtratic regime. Re India, do you imply that famines as a result of some concrete economic policy are not mass killings? Frankly, I agree with that. Maybe we should discuss removal of Holodomor and similar famines from this article?
 * 4. Well, do you agree with the following statement: "all kind regimes, that are based on quite different ideologies, from very liberal to absolutely totalitarian, used to suppress their opponents, although both degree of such supression and the threshold of disagreement after which sanctions may follow vary widely."?
 * 5. That mean your initial statement was senseless: you had to prove that my RS was wrong before making any statements of this kind.
 * 6. By refusing to explain me what concretely did you mean you demonstrate you decided to abstain from further discussion.
 * 7. Good.
 * 8. I have no demand at all. However, if you claim that something is a pro-communist propaganda, or that someone is a mainstream writer, it is natural to expect you to familiarise yourself with reliable sources that state the opposite. In addition, I didn't just "mentioned the bunch of names", I provided full citation (the exact refs are in the article) with page. I also provided quotes (both here and on the democide talk page).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I find your debating style poinless. You pretend to not understand what "quoting out of context" means or to not understand that "ideology" and "regime" are not equivalent words, and then you chastise me for explaining it to you. At the same time you completely ignore all questions or arguments. Sorry, I'm not interested in that. I could possibly keep the debate constructive by simply ignoring most of what you say, but I'm sure I would get criticized for that too, so no thanks. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not pretend. I really don't understand that. And I thought I tried to address your arguments. If you find some of your arguments have not been addressed by me, please, explain what concrete arguments I ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, I see no reason to discuss this subject further with OpenFuture and mark nutley.  Neither of them has presented reasoned arguments.  OpenFuture for example is talking about "Calvinist priests" while mark nutley is busy defending fringe theories.  One defends ignorance, while the other rejects rationality.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Paul, it's hard for me to believe that somebody wouldn't understand these things, but if you say so I must take your word for it. In any case my earlier suspicion that it will be impossible for me to have a constructive conversation with you still stands, as it is beyond my powers to explain these things to anyone. The concrete arguments you ignored have been every single one of them, so pointing those out would just take the discussion from scratch once again, something that evidently would be pointless as it is beyond my ability to explain things like that two different things are not the same thing, etc. So sorry, you'll have to ask somebody else to explain these things to you. I have done my best but it clearly is not good enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD How exactly am i defending fringe theorys here? mark nutley (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To OpenFuture. You claim it is hard to believe that "somebody wouldn't understand these things", but it is hard for me even to understand what concrete "these things" do you mean. You write:
 * "Yes, because the mass killings of communism is mostly a result of a systematic violation of basic human rights. It's not like the Holocaust were people were rounded up and taken to death factories, or the Rwandan genocide were people were hunted and slaughtered by their neighbors. So I mix mass killings and systematic human rights violations, because when it comes to communism, they are so tightly connected that they are almost the same." (look, I quote your words in full to avoid any accusation in taking your words out of context).
 * Let's try to dissect this para in more details. The first sentence represents your main idea: Communist mass killings were mostly a result of violation of human rights. The second sentence provides the examples of the opposite: mass killings that were a result of violation not of human rights, but of something else (unspecified). The third sentence is your conclusion: since Communist mass killings were tightly interconnected with violation of human rights, these two can be mixed in this particlular case (if I understand correct your thought, by contrast to other cases). I believe I transmited your idea correct.
 * Let's analyze the structure of this para. We have: (i) The main idea; (ii) the examples demonstrating your main thought; (iii) your conclusion. Examples and conclusions are not a context, because context is something that influences the way we understand the expression. In this particular case, the opposite took place, namely, the first sentence was a premise your argumentation is built on. It is hard to imagine how could I distort the major idea or your premise by omitting your conclusion. In other words, I simply was unable to take this fragment out of context because of the absence of any context. Therefore, my request to explain, what concretely did you mean under "quoting out of context" was quite justified.
 * In addition, any accusation in straw man fallacy implies that your opponent built his own proposition, only superficially similar to the original one. Therefore, by accusing me in constructing a straw man argument you implicitly assumed an obligation to explain what my proposition was, and what was the difference between your proposition and mine. However, you refused to explain that. Frankly, such a refusal is usually equivalent to withdrawal of the accusation.
 * Please, accept my apologies for so wordy reply, but I believe your major issue is not in "defending ignorance", but in inability to satisfactory explain your idea. The things that seem self-evident for you are not necessarily self-evident for everybody else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To TFD. I concede the last Mark Nutley's question is justified. I believe, detailed and polite answer may help to resolve some issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley, you are defending fringe theories in this article by supporting writers of fringe theories. OpenFuture, it is very offensive to suggest that Calvinists have a priesthood.  Could you please stop attacking Protestantism.  I suppose that you made these comments because you are ignorant of religion, but it is still offensive.  Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders.  TFD (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * @TFD: I didn't suggest they have a priesthood, although obviously they do, namely the priesthood of all believers. Now stop your ridiculous accusations and your pointless attempts of a vendetta. It's off topic and disruptive.
 * @Paul: I'm sorry I don't quote your replies at length to give you context to my reply. I was under the assumption that when I made a referral to something previously mentioned, like "these things" you would look at the text you wrote, to which I was answering, to find out the context. I now understand this was a mistake on my part to make that assumption. I'll try not to make that error with you in the future. In the meantime you are welcome to spend your time making analyses of the exact wording of a comment made on a talk page on Wikipedia, in the attempt to prove that your earlier out-of-context quote can't possibly exist. Obviously I could engage in a reply where I explain all your logical errors, but I do have difficulty imagining that to be anything except an enormous waste of time.
 * @Both of you: If you want the article to improve it would probably be more efficient if you engage in constructive debate instead of trying to just find errors in every single detail of everything written on the talk page. Constructive debate could for example include such things as actually stating what concrete problems you have with the article, beside it contradicting your ideologically based POV. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture, I suppose you believe that this Calvinist priesthood burns incense and prays to the saints. TFD (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should suppose less. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) TFD, please make yourself clear, which fringe writers am i supporting? mark nutley (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
Well. Let's try to do that in another way. The article is biased because it presents the theories about connection between Communism (as ideology) and mass killings as well established fact, whereas only part, maybe a minor part, of scholars share this POW. That violates a neutrality principle. In addition, the article tends to become a collection of all-Commis'-dirty-deeds, which violates NOR or SYNTH principle. As a result, many editors have nominated, and, I am convinced, will nominate this article for deletion. Since I am not a proponent of deletion of this article, I am interested to prevent that. Do you have any idea how to fix POW and SYNTH issues?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is biased because it presents the theories about connection between Communism (as ideology) and mass killings as well established fact - No, it presents it as views, with sources and explanations, of a set of scholars.
 * whereas only part, maybe a minor part, of scholars share this POW. - The connection between mass killings and any kind of authoritarianism/totalitarianism, including communism, is well attested and I'd say even uncontroversial outside communist circles. After all, the only argument *against* these connections is statements similar to "it's not really communism", which is just a variant of the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
 * In addition, the article tends to become a collection of all-Commis'-dirty-deeds, which violates NOR or SYNTH principle. - I'm not convinced it's OR/SYN unless it purports to be a list of communist mass killings.
 * Obviously we should try to make the article as good as possible, but deleting most of it because you are convinced it will get an AfD if we don't delete it ourselves is a line of thought I don't understand. :-) So I have a good idea of how to fix POV and SYN issues, I'm just not convinced this article have any of those issues. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The connection between commie`s and mass murder is a well established fact, and when you say the majority of scholars do not link the two you are wrong, and when you say you quote reliable sources the only one i ever see you quote is Valentino were`as others have quoted multipile sources which make the connection. It seems to me the only OR is from yourself and TFD in deciding that all sources which do not agree with your POV are fringe or not scholarly enough mark nutley (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And using Valentino to argue that there is no connection between communism and mass killings is pretty creative in itself, as he repeatedly argues for the connection. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing me with a good example of straw man fallacy. It will be easier for me now to explain you what this fallacy is. You replaced my proposition ("there is no consensus among scholar that there was a commonality between mass killings under different Communist regimes, and that there is a strong connection between Marxist ideology and mass killings") with much weaker one ("there is no connection between communism and mass killings"). Obviously, it is much easier to refute the last proposition, because some connection definitely exists, so no serious scholar will claim that there were no such connection at all.
 * However, going back to my initial proposition, let me remind you that on the page 91 Valentino writes that most Communist regimes were not engaged in mass killings, and that he will discuss the reasons behind that below. With regards to the regimes where such killings occurred, Valentino notes that in many cases we simply have no documental evidences to seriously discuss their scale or motives of perpetrators (in other words, no hypotheses on connection of these mass killings with anything can be drawn). On the page 100 Valention concludes that mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot can be partially explained by these leaders' paranoia, and partially by their own radical interpretation of Marxism. Similarly, the crime of Inquisition can be attributed to radical interpretation of Christianity made by some Catholic leaders, not to Christianity as whole.
 * On the page 140 on Valentino describes other Communist regimes and concludes that less radical communist regimes were able to perform social transformations less violently. In other words, Communist mass killings were a result of radicalism of some Communist leaders, and were not specific to Communism as whole. Note, there were no mass killings in the USSR in 1920s and from 1953 till 1991, i.e. during the major part of its history.
 * I relied upon Valentino's book because it is being used the most extensively in this article, so it is natural to start with it to demonstrate that the major source the article is build upon is interpreted incorrectly. However, other sources also agree with that. For instance, Eric D. Weitz ("Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges", Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29.) writes:
 * "Yet it is important still to distinguish between states that commit genocide and genocidal regimes. The latter are, thankfully, relatively rare. They are the systems in which genocide moves to the core of state practices to such an extent that one can see the entire system revolving centrally around human destruction. The Third Reich constitutes the supreme example, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge a second one. The regimes that commit genocidal actions are many and include western colonial states going back to the fifteenth century as well as particular cases in the Soviet Union under Stalin."
 * In other words, not only Weitz contraposes Campuchea and the USSR, he even groups these two examples in quite different way: Cambodia and Nazi Germany were genocidal regimes according to him, whereas the USSR, along with non-Communist colonial states, was non-genocidal. Weitz goes even further, claiming that it was the Marxist ideology that prevented Stalin from unleashing full scale genocide.
 * Helen Fein also see more commonality between Cambodia and fascism than with Communism (the ref in the article).
 * Again, I have nothing against extensive discussion of Stalin's or Mao's crimes in this article, however, I strongly oppose to drawing unneeded parallelisms and making generalisations that have not been explicitly made in the sources used in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You replaced my proposition ("there is no consensus among scholar that there was a commonality between mass killings under different Communist regimes, and that there is a strong connection between Marxist ideology and mass killings") with much weaker one ("there is no connection between communism and mass killings"). Obviously, it is much easier to refute the last proposition, because some connection definitely exists, so no serious scholar will claim that there were no such connection at all. - Well, that's interesting, because you now agree there is a connection between communism and mass killing, but you at the same time disagree that there is a connection between communist regimes and mass killings and you disagree that there is a connection between marxist ideology and mass killings. So what then is the connection? If neither the ideology not the practice is connected, but there is a connection, where is that connection? In any case, since you admit that there *is* a connection that seems to undermine all your arguments against this article.
 * As to Weitz and Valentinos views of communism dogma and mass killing I can explain why they are wrong ( for example Campuchea was not genocidal in the way of Nazi germany, they did not create institutions with the specific aim of genocide), but that's hardly relevant for this article, and one of the problems in this discussion is that they tend to stray away on the most irrelevant tangents.  --OpenFuture (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are always some connections between mass murder, totalitarianism, different ideologies, religion, and just plain human nature. It is however un-encyclopedic to talk about colloquial usage of the terms and some unspecified connections. To explain the very existence of this article some rigorous definitions and scholarly framework are required, otherwise Wikipedia would quickly turn into a propagandist tool where POV articles are created at whim of the current political agenda. So Paul is correct in his seemingly ambiguous statements. There is no consensus among scholars on whether a connection (as in cause and effect, see also correlation and causation, and also "happened after" =/= "happened because of") exists between communist ideologies and the mass killings in question. And no scholars claim absence of any connection as one could have indirectly or in part influenced the other or both could have the common cause. (Igny (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC))
 * And the way to decide if there is a "rigorous scientific framework" or not, is by using reliable scientific sources. Which is the case already. Hence, since the claim of a connection between communism and mass murder is well attested and accepted within the scientific community, the article is not POV.
 * I'm happy Paul started this attempt of serious on-topic debate about the article. The arguments here all say "We must do X otherwise the article breaks policy Y". And it turns out we already do X. Well, good! Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * agree, not pov Darkstar1st (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal Mediation
It is obvious that all this discussion is not going anywhere. Is it time to ask for formal mediation? Bobanni (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, the conflict here is because there are those who do not want this article for ideological reasons. Any article about extreme political ideologies, conspiracy theories or pseudo-science will be permanently afflicted by people who are unwilling to accept the consensus reality, and mediation will not change that. That means that a solution is unlikely to be found, at least through mediation. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the topic is not supported by mainstream sources and even writers who draw a connection between Communist ideology and mass killings do not agree on what the connection is and are not usually directly writing about mass killings but about human rights abuses in general. The article further suffers by listing atrocities rather than explaining them.  For an article that has similar problems, see United States and state terrorism.  When a concept is not accepted by academic consensus, the correct approach is to describe the theory and comment on how it has been received, rather than try to prove the theory through providing examples that support it.  A good example is the Protestant ethic, which is the theory that Protestants work harder and explains the success of Protestant nations.  Notice that that article focuses on the theory rather than enumerate Protestant success stories and non-Protestant failures.  OpenFuture's comment that people oppose the article for "ideological reasons" is incorrect, but is an admission that the article has an inherent ideological bias, which goes against neutrality.  No one objects to including any of the theories or facts in this article, the only objection is to the presentation.  It should be obvious to anyone that the expression "Mass killings under Communist regimes" has an implicit anti-Communist bias.  While anti-Communism is a legitimate ideology, it does not merit advocacy articles.  TFD (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course the topic is supported by mainstream sources, i pointed out a few to you above if you recall. And i still want my question above replied to, what fringe sources are you saying i am defending? mark nutley (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley, you have had this conversation many times with me and other editors. See WP:Fringe.  TFD (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think not, were on this talkpage have i defended the use of fringe sources? Either answer the question or redact the remark mark nutley (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, you are representing that the the fringe theories in the introduction to the Black Book and Death by government represent mainstream or even consensus views, when in fact they are polemical works, were not peer-reviewed and have no acceptance in the academic community. The fact that the writers have published in peer-reviewed sources is irrelevant, unless you can find peer-reviewed articles by them that support those views, or peer-reviewed articles by other writers that support their views.  TFD (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "...were not peer-reviewed..." Incorrect. They were. The reviewers concluded that the sources are controversial (see RSN for the BB, and Democide talk page for Rummel). In particular, Rummel's figures are inflated, his generalisations are disputable, and his theories are ovesimplification. One more point. Whereas the BB tells specifically about Communism, Rummel analyses the connection between totaliarianism and democide, not Communism and democide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD please read wp:sps R. J. Rummel meets the criteria and is well respected, HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER? i shall be using this as a source to add content to this article. mark nutley (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to use self published sources, because Rummel published many articles in peer-reviewed journals. Therefore, it is very likely that Rummel placed this article at his web site because he was unable to publish this concrete material in peer-reviewed journals. I am afraid I will have to revert your edits if they will be based on this source. Anyway, you have to separate two things: Rummel's theory and Rummel's figures. To discuss Rummel's theory with you seriously I would like to know your math background, in particular, your knowledge of statistics. Do you know what factor analysis is?
 * With regard to Rummels figures, multiple reliable sources agree they are unreliable and inflated. (Interestingly, the Rummel's figures contradict to even the BB. The Werth's chapter, the best part of the BB states that the number of victims of Stalinism was less than 15 million. Where additional Rummel' 40 million come from?). Therefore, Rummel is fringe for figures. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to think we need to research sources, we do not, we use what the reliable sources say. If you revert out material which is reliably sourced you will be edit warring and pushing a POV, do so and i shall have no option but to seek some form of restriction on you mark nutley (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to. The edits we made must be (i) verifiable (only good sources must be used); (ii) neutral (all significant opinion must be reflected); (iii) not original (the main source's idea should not be distorted). If at least one of these requirements is violated, removal of the text is warranted. For instance, if you use the source that is formally reliable, but is known to provide wrong numbers, these numbers can be used only with needed reservations if used at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are so incredibly wrong it stuns me, we use what the sources say, thats it. You are engaging in wp:or if you think we need to research a source which is reliable. And can you provide the ref`s which state that Rummel`s figure`s are fringe? mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.
 * "Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses." (Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)
 * "He also assumes that the entire labour camp population was innocent: for Rummel, deaths in labour camps while serving a prison sentence are legitimate elements in what he calls 'democide' and much space is devoted to computing death rates in camps, yet some of those who died in this way were common criminals or actual Nazi collaborators, while a camp death rate of twenty-six per cent seems hard to credit, even at the height of Stalinism."(Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)
 * "I have shown that there are serious problems with Rummel's method, which is precisely why this one 'data point' might have wider implications. I do not understand why Rummel so categorically refuses to accept the possibility that he might have made similar errors elsewhere, when he has used the same method throughout his research. That is why I call on Rummel to revise his method and properly narrow down the sources to those that are indeed reasonably authoritative and credible. "(A Reply to Rummel. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106)--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those say his figures are fringe, they just disagree with him. Please provide the ref`s which state his work is fringe please mark nutley (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I am not going to add the statement into the article that Rummel's figures are fringe, I am not obliged to provide such a source. By contrast, if you want to add/restore the Rummel's figures, please, prove that they reflect the majority views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley is asking us to prove a negative, but that is not how it works. He has to show that the theories in these books have gained acceptance among academics not just the lunatic fringe.  The same standards apply here as in science articles, and mark nutley should re-read the talk pages where he has tried to insert fringe science into articles and try to understand the arguments.  There is nothing wrong with holding fringe views, but it is against WP policy to inflict fringe viewpoints into articles.  If you are unhappy with that policy, then you may wish to try to change it.  TFD (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m not asking you to prove a negative, you are saying rummel`s figures are fringe. Please provide the source for your claim per WP policy, thanks mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say his figures were fringe, but that his theories are fringe, which means they have gained zero acceptance in the academic community although they are popular with cranks. If you believe they have gained acceptance in the academic community then please provide a source for that.  His figures on the other hand have been discredited, which is not the same as saying they are fringe.  TFD (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You did say his figures were fringe, however please provide the sources per WP policy which say his theories are fringe and his figures discredited, thank you mark nutley (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, I never said his figures were fringe. As you are aware, Wikipedia does not have specific policies which state which figures have been discredited, we have to go to the sources for that and apply WP:NPOV.  For an explanation of fringe, please see WP:Fringe.  While you appear to support many fringe theories and discredited facts in general, it is pointless to argue that they are mainstream views.  If you want to believe that scientists and social scientists are liars, that is your right, but please do not misrepresent what consensus exists.  TFD (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Your kidding right? There is a consensus on mass murder now :). I doubt that somehow. Final time i shall ask you, were are your sources which state Rummels figures are discredited, if you do not supply any and i use him as a source you shall have to reason to revert me and should you do so then i will of course have to take matters further. Sources or give up please mark nutley (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is actually up to the person inserting information to prove its validity. Could you please point to a peer-reviewed source that confirms these figures?  Since you ask however, Valentino says, "Rummel's estimates tend to be considerably higher than those of most other scholars".  TFD (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don`t care what valentino says, The source is reliable that is it`s validity under WP policy. It does not have to be peer reviewed, nothing in WP has to be. You say his figures are junk, give a source to back it or stop saying it mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just provided one. Please do not put incorrect data taken from fringe sources into the article.  TFD (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No you have not, you have pointed out a source which disagree`s with Rummel. Either provide a source which states Rummel`s figures are junk or admit you are wrong mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He was not in fact stating that he disagreed with Rummel but that most scholars disagree with him. TFD (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, so he was in fact giving an opinion, well that hardly counts now does it as a peer reviewed rebuttal of his findings, do try again mark nutley (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I would point you to WP policies. Your comments do not make any sense and I do not see any purpose in continuing this discussion thread,  TFD (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy is we use third party reliable sources which are verifiable. My comments make perfect sense, you say rumml`s figures are discredited, please provide a source which actually says this, thanks mark nutley (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I provided reverences and quotes that persuasively demonstrate that Rummel's data are discredited, the question is closed. If someone has any doubt, (s)he may go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, all you have given are some other academics who disagree with his figures, I have yet to see your source saying his figures are discredited, please provide the sources as i am not interested in opinions here mark nutley (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything the scholar write (including the statement that someone's figures are discredited) is just their opinions. However, if someone is not interested in something, it is his/her private business unrelated to the present discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally you admit your wrong, well done. One academic disagreeing with another`s does not make either unreliable. This is just normal academic disagreement. Given there is obviously no source which states that Rummel`s figures are discredited i know i shall have no problems using this highly respected scholar as a source in this article, thank you mark nutley (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley, could you please stop asking other editors to continue to explain something to you that is patently obvious. That is disruptive editing.  TFD (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not asking Ps to explain anything, i am asking him to provide refs to back his claim that Rummel`s figure`s are discredited. He has not as none exist, hence my use of rummel shall not be an issue here shall it. Now to you it may be patently obvious, but as i do not engage in Or and tend to stick with wp:rs and wp:v i do not understand what you are trying to say mark nutley (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No they were not peer-reviewed. (Please see:  peer review.)  In the peer-review process, articles are sent to academic journals and they are then sent to academics who review them and provide commentaries.  The articles are then improved to meet objections.  The fact that another academic may have written a review or even quoted it does not elevate it to peer-reviewed status.  In fact historians often use non academic sources.  The sps rule should be used with care.  It is not intended to be a loophole to allow theories that have no acceptance.  TFD (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant "they were reviewed by peers and the reviewers concluded the sources are controversial".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Controversial and fringe is not the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. That is why I disagree that Rummel in general is fringe, although he is highly controversial. With regards to his figures, these figures a so unusually high and are so widely criticised that they are obviously fringe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)