Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 18

Proposed Causes
It is unclear in this section who and what is being proposed - please clarify or return section name to causes. Bobanni (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been about removing the templates. TFD (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are both of you guys talking about? The section name has been changed from "causes" to "proposed causes" by yours truly, since I see that there is quite a bit of difference in interpretation among the authors cited. What's proposed are the different explanations for the historical phenomena, obviously. But if you preferer "causes" to "proposed causes," it ain't gonna be a big deal to me. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Template
Removal of SYNTH template has been done under false pretext. No consensus on the talk page have been achieved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

disagree consensus has been reached, and sourced, unless you consider the university of Cambridge not a reliable source documenting the killings under every communist regime. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You contradict to yourself. Using disagree (in bold no less) means that there is no consensus. (Igny (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Erm no he is not contradicting himself, he is saying PS is wrong, and he is btw mark nutley (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul, no examples were provided under the "Synthesis template message" section despite plenty of time being offered. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the examples have not been provided in this section, the discussion below is devoted, among other problems, to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That section and its arbitrary breaks are the perfect example of what not to do here. The discussion of specific sentences and citations from the article are required if we are to make any headway. Specific examples were not provided in that section either. We can't have these templates up forever based upon vague unprovable (or undisprovable) notions. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the discussion below is devoted, among other problems, to this issue - That's not true. All you have said about synthesis is: "In addition, the article tends to become a collection of all-Commis'-dirty-deeds, which violates NOR or SYNTH principle.". There is no explanation of that logic. I do not see how that is WP:SYN no explanation has been given. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To Darkstar1st. The SYNTH issue is not connected with the absence of sources, it is connected with misuse of the sources. Therefore your argument is not working.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st obviously has not read the article or the discussion. I have set up a discussion thread about this at ANI (see:  WP:ANI).  TFD (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * support remove tag "Although the examples have not been provided", what more need be said? describing this article as an attack page, or fringe theory must discount documented evidence, mass graves, witness accounts, photos, etc.  the proof cited above suggesting this is fringe theory, is by a lone unknown.  TFD, i did read it and your edits here are the same pov as your others in wp   Darkstar1st (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A section was setup above, you did not respond to it. The fact that you will not respond to a section until you revert the removal of the templates speaks volumes. Please specify whic hparts of the article text you believe is synth mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I set up a section called "Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates" above which you contributed to. I am sorry that you did not understand that the purpose of the discussion thread was to reply to the four sections set up to discuss the templates.  Perhaps you could suggest how I might have phrased it more clearly.  Also, since you contributed to that section, what do you think we were discussing?  TFD (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you not think it would have been better to use the sections which were set up previously and discuss each tag one at a time? As for what was discussed in that section i have no idea as you all went so far of topic it is impossible to follow mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you did not know what the discussion thread was about but made nine postings to it anyway. I believe that.  TFD (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I made posts at the beginning, went to a wedding came back and found it so far off topic as to be unreadable, what`s hard to believe about that given i actually posted that in the thread? Now instead of addressing the editor could you focus on what you believe is SYNTH in this article? mark nutley (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality template links to WP:NPOVD, which says: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." Can Igny or TFD or Paul Siebert please point to specific instances in the article which justify this tag. Copying the sentence in question from the article and pasting it here would be best, to avoid any possible confusion. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not in some specific examples (otherwise the tag would be placed in appropriate sections) but is the way the article has been built. As TFD and I pointed out, the article's core is formed by few books that convey the idea that mass killings are specific to Communism, and other books and articles, that do not explicitly state the same are being used to strengthen this point. The example is the Valentino's "Final solution", the most extensively cited book in this article. I already dissected his 4th chapter and demonstrated that Valentino's idea was that some (not majority) Communist regimes did commit mass killings, the reasons of these killings were (i) radicalism of these concrete regimes, and (ii) some pecularities of their leaders. Therefore, to use Valentino's to push the idea that mass killings were specific to Communism is synthesis.
 * To resolve the issue, both I and TFD proposed to focus on the description of the concept of Communist mass killings, to write that this idea is shared by some scholars and is not shared by others, and to remove all tangentially related examples. Frankly, I noticed some positive changes in the article that would help to find a way out of impasse. Nevertheless, it is little bit premature to remove the template.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under several communist governments". While factually accurate, it implies that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings when no academic consensus exists.  A neutral opening sentence would say something like, "x claims that there is a connection between Communist ideology and mass killings that occurred in countries governed by Communists.  These theories have been widely accepted/partly accepted/widely rejected by mainstream academics because...."


 * 1) It is simply false that any sources used in this article convey the idea that mass killings are specific to communism. It is also false that the article itself conveys that idea. That you cannot provide quotations to show this from the article proves it. If you insist on believing that such an implication exists, by all means please remove it by adding a sourced sentence to the lede which would dispel it.


 * 2) Re-focusing the article on a "concept of Communist mass killings" would mean either not using any of the existing sources, since none of them discuss a "concept of Communist mass killings", or engaging in pure original research on our part, which is forbidden. On the other hand, focusing on "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is, as TFD said, "factually accurate". If either of you can find sources which discuss the "concept" of communist mass killings, rather than the history, then it would be appropriate to add a section in the article about this. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re These theories have been widely accepted/partly accepted/widely rejected by mainstream academics because...."
 * I would actually agree with removal of the tags, if the article is renamed to theories connecting communism to mass killings and reformatted accordingly. Any objections to this course of action? (Igny (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Can you show even one source from the article which discusses a "theory" about communist mass killings, rather than the literal occurances? And why should the tags not stay or go based upon the merits of their message? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Re:rather than the literal occurances? Isn't is a synthesis to pile up sources discussing various occurrences of the mass killings filtered by requirement to have the communist trait into one article, thus suggesting the idea of common causality (communist ideology) behind these killings? (Igny (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia is all about "piling up sources" about a topic. And those sources did the "filtering", not us. If you are objecting to inclusion of sources which only discuss a single event, please point to a sentence where that was not appropriate. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You correctly outlined the issue. Whereas only few sources in the article attempt to draw an intrinsic connection between Communism and mass killings, the article is written in such a way that such a connection is well established and widely recognized, hence the tags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The percentage of sources in the article is irrelevant. If you have several WP:RS that supports a statement, and you can find no sources that contradicts it, it can go into the article. That most of the sources in the article neither supports nor contradicts it makes no difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, an "intrinsic connection" and "a connection" are different things. Obviously there is a connection: some communist regimes killed masses of people. This is a fact, universally acknowledged, and the topic of the article. Fewer people acknowledge an "intrinsic connection" between communism and mass killing. Do you think some of the sources are being mischaracterized as the latter, when they are only the former? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:rather than the literal occurances?


 * Yourself and TFD are wrong, and in fact appear to be engaging in wp:or Stop. Now were do you get the idea that not all commies are mass murders? From your perspective of Valentino`s work? well the University of Cambridge says All Communist governments have practiced widespread killing of non- combatants disagree`s with you, as does Rummel mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "x claims that there is a connection between Communist ideology and mass killings that occurred in countries governed by Communists. These theories have been widely accepted/partly accepted/widely rejected by mainstream academics because...." Correct. That is close to what the previous version of the lede stated.
 * Re: "...well the University of Cambridge says..." Exactly. Some scholars believe that there was a commonality whereas others either do not support or directly disagree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but you keep saying we should follow the consensus right? An overwhelming consensus of historians from a wide range of political viewpoints concludes that the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous - often greater, in fact, than those of the infamous Nazi Germany. Case Closed mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I am not sure if University of Cambridge can have its own opinion on this quistion. You probably misunderstand what the word "University" mean (or how do western universities function).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course a university can have an opinion, hell they do press release all the time see Climategate and the University of East Anglia for examples of this mark nutley (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you imply the Bryan Caplan's page publish press-releases of the University of Cambridge.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I`m not implying anything, you asked a question and got a reply, Universities can have an opinion, did you actually have another point here? mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been no argumentation for in what way this article is WP:SYN. You can't claims that there is WP:SYN without argumentation. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, a consensus is needed to remove the template.
 * Secondly, these two statements: "the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous" and "mass killings under Communist regimes stemmed from Marxis ideology and were specific to Communism" are two quite different things.
 * Thirdly, the quote provided by you is taken from some non-peer-reviewed source. I myself work for some Western University and I also have a web page in the .edu domain. Nothing can prevent me to place whatever I want there, however, cannot be considered as a serious publication.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To OpenFuture. If you do not understand my arguments, that does not mean there is no argumentation. Try to read again, or ask concrete questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, but if you present no arguments, that measn there is no argumentation. And you didn't. For a week. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, your reply makes little sense, The two statements you refer to are fact and easily shown to be true. Not all sources need to be peer reviewed, the source i provided is an online museum hosted by the University of Cambridge, it is as reliable a source as can exist. Please do not try to argue this as it is pointless mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The two statements you refer to are fact and easily shown to be true" Show, please.
 * Re: "Not all sources need to be peer reviewed" Yes, but peer reviewed sources have more weight.
 * Re: "the source i provided is an online museum hosted by the University of Cambridge" My own web page is hosted by top 50 American University, I can place there whatever I want, however, by no mean I will present such a text as a reliable source.
 * Re: "Please do not try to argue this as it is pointless" I agree that some arguments presented in this dispute are pointless, although I have a different opinion on what whose are.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the page is by Bryan Caplan, who is very respected and in absolutely no way any sort of fringe whatsoever. So although it's wrong to say that "UC says", it's correct to say "Bryan Caplan, of the UC says", and that is enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) In reply to the first of your contested statements, from the council of europe ''The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of mass physical terror, persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, violation of freedom of conscience, thought and expression, of freedom of the press, and also lack of political pluralism'' I`ll deal wit hyour second fallacy in a minute mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor, there is synthesis since reputable sources are used to support theories that they are not advancing. TFD (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If so, why have you not, under one weeks of intense discussion, been able to provide one single example of this? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples (as well as suggestions how to resolve the problem) have been provided many times. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No examples have been provided. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Sievert brought up the example of Valentino as a source that makes the article synthesis.  TFD (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Valentino was only brought up as an example of a source contradicting the notion that the article implied mass killing was specific to communism. But since that notion is not in the article, so there can be no contradiction about it with Valentino. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Valentino is the most extensively cited source in this article. The whole article is based on the concept of mass killing formulated by him. In connection to that, it is hard to understand for me why the fact that Valentino saw not strict connection between Communism adn mass killing is omitted. In addition, it is also very hard to understand why only one chapter of his one book is used, whereas in his other works he groups mass killings into quite different way. For instance in his "Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare (Benjamin Valentino, Paul Huth, Dylan Balch-Lindsay. Source: International Organization, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Spring, 2004), pp. 375-407) he put mass killing committed by Communist into the same category as mass killings committed by democtrats, i.e. into the counter-guerilla mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. By the way, the attempt to create two separate sections that discuss the views of the scholars who see connection between mass killings and Communism, and those who do not support these views or disagree is a step in right direction. I do not support the revert of this change and propose to develop this idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While Valentino is cited extensively, the whole article is not based on Valentino's definition of "mass killing". "Mass killing" is used as the term for this article because it is a very neutral term and does not carry the emotional baggage that "genocide" does. Other writers use the term mass killing without Valentino's definition. Still other writers use other terms which they prefer (like genocide, or crime against humanity, or politicide, etc.) in talking about these same events. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "strict connection", but Valentino obviously does see a connection between communism and mass killing, because he wrote a chapter on Communist Mass Killings and described the commonalities. That Valentino also writes about other types of mass killings and not only communist mass killings should be no surprise. He says in his book that some of the events he discusses have multiple motives on the part of the perpetrators and can therefore be categorized under multiple types. I'm also all for developing the separate sections idea, but I let it stay reverted so that I could focus on one change at a time. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: ""Mass killing" is used as the term for this article because it is a very neutral term and does not carry the emotional baggage that "genocide" does. " Cannot agree. Valentino's "mass killings" is much broader term than commonsensual "mass killings". The former include famine, disease, and other excess mortality cases that usually are not covered by conventional "mass killings". Therefore, we either have to accept Valentino's definition of mass killings ("mass killings sensu stricto + "deprivation mass killings""), or to switch to the traditional definition and change the article's scope accordingly. However, if I remembered it correct, I already presented this argument on this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Valentino does not include excess mortality. He only includes famine if it was used as a weapon by the regime. He limits inclusion to 50,000 killed within 5 years. This is a narrower definition than common sense. But it is ironic that each of us is aguing for the wider definition as we see it. Perhaps "crimes against humanity" is the better umbrella term? I just added a reference review to the article which uses it, as do several other sources already included. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. He introduced a concept of "dispossessive mass killings" (p. 71), according to which all peoples died as a result of forceful dispossession (grain or land confiscation, imprisonment etc.) are considered as victims of "mass killings". He writes that, although Communist regimes did not plan to kill people, they didn't try to prevent deaths as a result of dispossession, and even used these deaths as a tool to implement the social transformations they wanted. However, when he counts the number of deaths he adds victims of dispossessive mass killings and victims of mass killings sensu stricto. If we exclude the victims of dispossessive mass killings, we will get, for instance, for the USSR not more than 2-5 million (Great Purge, Civil War, and, probably Gulag executions). Therefore, we either speak about mass killings sensu stricto (and reduce the number of victims accordingly), or we use Valentino's definition (and are trying to preserve main points of his book).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What you and AmateurEditor says is the same thing: He only includes famine if it was used as a weapon by the regime. vs  He introduced a concept of "dispossessive mass killings" (p. 71). More or less the same thing, but different words. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, not. Dispossessive mass killings are the death caused by dispossession, regardless of intentionality. Valentino does not specify which part of famine was used as weapon, and it is not clear from his book that he included only those famines that were used as a weapon. The same is true for deportation victims, camp mortality, etc. Please, demonstrate (with sources) that I am wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not "regardless of intentionality". Valentino is very specific on this point. From page 10 of his book: "... defined here simply as the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants... First the mass killing must be intentional, which distinguishes it from deaths caused by natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, or the unintentional killing of civilians during war..." Additionally, if you aren't sure what events he includes, you can see Valentino's entire list of incidents of Communist mass killing (table 2) on page 75, in the Google Books preview. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Recent removal of the tag occurred trice during the day, ,. Although these reverts were performed by three different accounts, they will likely be considered as WP:1RR violation in the event if someone decided to report to ANI. Although I personally am not going to do that, I cannot rule out the possibility that someone else will do. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that you claim that you yourself has broken 1RR. In any case it's completely clear that you have not one single argument to keep this tags. Your reversions of the removal of the tags may indeed be seen as disruption, but I don't agree with you that you have broken the 1RR rule. Consensus has been reached, you are providing no argumentation, you are just now doing nothing but claiming that here is no consensus because you don't agree that there is consensus. But you also need to provide arguments for keeping the tags, and you are not even trying that. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the detailed explanation of why the very way the article have been built is synthesis is not an argument, I simply do not understand what type of information will be considered as an argument by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with you that the article's structure is itself synthesis, we can leave that template in place while we continue that discussion, if you like. But what about the neutrality template? What is your objection to removing that one? AmateurEditor (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Formal Mediation
I don't think we are making progress with the current format of discussion. I propose we ask for formal mediation of this dispute, but it requires consent from all parties involved. Would all editors who consider themselves involved please express either their agreement or disagreement to file for formal mediation below?
 * Agree, but suspect it pointless mark nutley (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * agree Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree --OpenFuture (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis
Right, lets take this one at a time starting with the supposed Synth. Could the editors who believe there is a violation of wp:synth please post here which part of this article is the issue. I ask you keep your comments on topic and try to be brief, just copy and paste over what you think is synth so we can take a look at it mark nutley (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a single source discussing all these incidents of mass killings? I understand that there are a list of sources which discuss individual incidents, but is there one source which encompasses them all under the common umbrella of mass killing by communist regimes? (Igny (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC))


 * Yes we do have such a source R. J. Rummel who passes wp:sps and also Bryan Caplan who also passes wp:sps  Rummel also has several books and papers published which link communism to mass killings mark nutley (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Synthesis means coming up with a novel concept such as the troll, Joklolk, who created this article did. Unless you can provide sources that the concept exists, then it is synthesis.  Here is a link to a Google scholar search for "mass killings under Communist regimes".  It returns zero hits.  Could someone please provide sources that the concept exists.  I realize that mark nutley obtains his information from different sources from me and would appreciate if he would direct me to his sources of information.  TFD (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The so-called "novel concept" this article was created with existed prior to its creation (you can see the Google scholar hits here). You could look in the extensive references section of the article for sources but, for your convenience, here are four sources which discuss mass killings under communist regimes.. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The hits are for "communist genocide", which is the name given to the article by the troll Joklolk.  Do you want to rename the article?  TFD (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop calling people Troll`s. And please stay ontopic, any off topic discussion will be hat hab`d. You have been given two sources in reply to your question above, please see my reply to Igny, thank you. Also see this link, mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the wording was off slightly, try "communist murder", hundreds of hits from different sources.  Communist regimes have killed the most people in this century, followed by Nazi Germany, which killed more than 16 million people between 1933 and 1945. The Soviet Union killed 54.7 million between 1917 and 1987, and China killed 35.6 million between 1949 and 1987. The Khmer Rouge killed a much larger percentage of its nation’s people, liquidating about a third of all Cambodians between 1975 and 1979."  http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st211.pdf  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That PDF gives us a third source which links mass killing to communism, see page six All Communist states have committed democide and about one-fourth have practiced genocide. And it`s author seems to be an academic so wp:sps applys mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD: No, SYN is not "creating a novel concept". SYN is using two (or more) sources to say something that neither source says. This article does not do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion above i would request the SYNTH tag be removed from this article. Three reliable sources have been presented above as requested which shows the link to communism and mass killings. One of the editors who says the reason for the synth tag is due to no sources linking the two. He has been active on this page but does not seem to want to reply, i am assuming from his silence he now agrees that the SYNTH issue is settled and we may move onto the next tag mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree We need to find a reliably sourced definition for the topic.  Also, we should wait more than 3 1/2 hours before deciding that no one will reply to this thread.  TFD (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree, A couple of self published sources from biased authors who have been criticized for their methods and conclusions is not good enough to support synthesis of extravagant views. Care to provide reliable mainstream sources covering all these incidents? (Igny (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
 * All three authors both pass wp:sps and are highly respected. The sources are reliable and your personal opinion of them has no place here mark nutley (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Igny, I provided 4 sources above, none of which are self published. And you have the burden of proof backwards. You must show where there is synthesis. It isn't up to others to show that there is none. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed your post above. However I am familiar with the sources, and two points: this article should not be a POV fork of the Black Book of Communism, because removing criticisms of this book and adding more quotations in support of the BB's POV does not really strengthen your argument against the POV tag. Also your sources mostly focus on Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes. Throwing other instances of mass killings is not justified by these sources and a clear synthesis to support genocidal nature of communist regimes, which is not true in general. (Igny (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Igny, if you are familar with the four sources I provided, then please address those four sources, so we don't get off track. The Black Book of Communism is not one of the four, so it can be discussed elsewhere (the article is not a POV fork of that book). You are right that the four sources I provided focus mostly on Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes (here's my link to the excerpts again). This article also focuses mostly on those three regimes. How is that a problem? Including other instances is appropriate because sources acknowledge or include those other instances, including some of the sources I provided which you said you were familiar with. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD you have edited this page four times since the sources were presented and have not replied until now, would you explain why please? Igny, i did not interpret your silence as agreement. You asked for a source linking mass murder and communism, three have been supplied mark nutley (talk) 00:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * mark nutley, as you know, multiple threads were created and I therefore created a thread called "Reply to four sections set up to discuss templates". You posted to that thread about a dozen times, but say you had no idea what the subject of the thread was.  When I set it up I intended it as a reply to the four sections that had been set up to discuss the templates.  I apologize if you did not understand the purpose of the discussion thread.  Anyway, I posted my comments to the four sections that had been set up to discuss the templates under that section.  I apologize for any confusion.  TFD (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: We don't seem to have a consensus for this change yet. >mdash;>nbsp;Martin (MSGJ>nbsp;·>nbsp;talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to removal of the SYN tag. No argument that passes even basic scrutiny has been presented for how this article is WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree the synth tag needs to remain as a fair warning to our readers that the article is problematic in this reguard. The topic and name of the page is a synth problem in itself, and the mixture of these separate incidents in this way is a clear WP:SYNTH violation. Verbal chat  08:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal in what way is the article title Synth? Do you deny there have been mass killings under communist regimes? That is obviously wrong therefore the title is not Synth. We have four reliable sources in this section alone which connect the two, AmateurEditor has also provided four sources which link mass murder to communists. That is eight sources linking the two, please explain how you think the title is synth mark nutley (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is not the only problem. However, the title implies that genocides/mass killings are a natural by product of communism. One way of addressing the synth and npov problems of the content is to turn this article into a list, with links to main articles about the notable incidents, and links to similar lists about Capitalist genocides, US, British Empire, etc. Verbal chat  09:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The title implies nothing. It states what the article is about per wp:mos Titles should match the article content We can discuss the supposed POV issue in another thread once we have this issue sorted, we shall do it one at a time. Thanks you mark nutley (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Asserting the title is fine without any reasoning is not helpful. The title asserts there is a link between communist regimes and mass killings, which is not done by the "reliable" sources. Verbal chat  17:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * agree remove tag Darkstar1st (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic Discussion
Why should I not call Joklolk a troll? TFD (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is no need for it mark nutley (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved this off topic reply and PA to here, it is in response to Darkstars comment @ 22:22, 10 July 2010 mark nutley (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well maybe that is a topic you can discuss at your next meeting of the Young Americans for Freedom. But the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article.  TFD (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * tdf, i had no idea such a group exist, thank you, ill give it a look, although few consider me "young" and american could mean castro, chavez, and Pinochet were all "americans" so the name is a bit confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * marknutley,If you do not think that the account Joklolk was controlled by a troll, then you can request his reinstatement. Here a link to his manifesto, posted under the edit description "**** off nazi" (my redaction), where he states, "If you work on Wikipedia, I’m just going to make you angry. What I am doing is trying to stop people from working on Wikipedia...."  Why are you supporting him?  TFD (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar1st, don't miss their 'Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day' contest! TFD (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD i am not supporting him, i just see no need for rudeness. Could you please focus on the section above dealing with Synth, thank you mark nutley (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * where is the contest? i think if we stage a checkpoint outside ice cream parlors we could win.  i can tell who is illegal the flavor they order.  Darkstar1st (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, TFD, stop implying everyone that doesn't agree with you are conservatives. Stop discussing the editors and start discussing the article. You have shown yourself to be extremely oversensitive to Wikiquette issues. Start behaving towards others as you require them to behave towards you. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Openfuture, it is important to distinguish between the sources we use and other editors. The fact is that the author of introduction to the Black Book is an exponent of a radical right wing view of history and has collaborated with Ernst Nolte, and his theories on Communism are heavily promoted by American conservatives.  Rummel is a neoconservative, you can read his views on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the link between 911 and Saddam Hussein.  Many writers have commented on the reactionary nature of their views and pointed out the exaggerations they have used.  They have also pointed out that their views have become popular with the "New Right" in Europe, including neofascist groups.  No mainstream conservative, liberal or left-wing writers have given any credence to their views, and they have not been published in academic journals.  Essentially this is a radical right wing fringe theory.  Incidentally I have great respect for conservatives, just little respect for extremists.  TFD (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Openfuture, it is important to distinguish between the sources we use and other editors - When it comes to personal attacks of different kinds it is not. You are to not insult anybody, editor or source. You accuse Rummel of neing a neocon, Paul claims he is a libertarian. No matter if anyone of you is right, Rummels political standpoint is irrelevant, and your opinions about Rummels standpoints are doubly irrelevant.
 * No mainstream conservative, liberal or left-wing writers have given any credence to their views, and they have not been published in academic journals. - This is simply untrue.
 * Incidentally I have great respect for conservatives, just little respect for extremists. - That seems quite ironic. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no irony. However, could you please present these journal articles supporting Courtois and Rummel's beliefs.  TFD (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Beliefs"? Anyway, don't try to switch the topic, it doesn't work with me. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley has posted the following on my talk page:
 * You brought the tag reverting issue to ANI and as such you no doubt are aware the decision by the admin there was to not put the tags back. His exact wording being Agree; restore them only if you can provide clear reasons for doing so on the article's talk page; This you have spectacularly failed to do. Will you please self revert oe should i open the case again? mark nutley (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the a link to the dicsussion at ANI:

It seems that mark nutley and I do not share the same thought processes and I would be appreciative if any editors could comment on this matter.

TFD (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus at ANI that the tags should be removed, and wikipedia does not work by admin fiat. Verbal chat  21:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What uninvolved admin supposedly said the tags should be removed? I don't see one in the discussion. Verbal chat  21:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GiftigerWunsch, who wrote the text mark is quoting, is not an admin. Verbal chat  21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is a non admin doing that in ani I assumed only admins dealt with stuff there? But there is a consensus there, three editors said the tags should go, only 1 disagreed mark nutley (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You and OpenFuture agreed the tags should be removed, I disagreed and an univolved editor said it was a content dispute. Incidentally please do not represent that editors are administrators when they are not.  TFD (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually he said not to replace the tags until a reason was give non talk. And i did not wilfully represent him s an admin, see my reply to verbal. Are you ever going to reply to the Synth section above or shall we lose the synth tag now? mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus was established at AN/I. I closed the thread as not requiring admin attention since this is a content dispute, which is not what AN/I deals with. Please do not misquote me, I didn't express any opinion about the use of POV in the article one way or the other as I haven't looked at it, I stated that consensus needs to be established here before the content dispute can be resolved, and that WP:STATUSQUO means that existing content should remain until consensus dictates otherwise. If the consensus process is failing here, I suggest formal mediation, RfC, or other possibilities of dispute resolution. I'd like to make it clear that I am not an admin, and that in any case this needs to be resolved by community consensus; the opinion of an admin carries no more weight than that of any other editor in content disputes.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up, i am sorry you think i was misquoting you it was not intentional. mark nutley (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm sure it wasn't intentional but please be careful about incorrectly quoting or paraphrasing other users' comments in future, and if you are unclear on what has been said and need further clarification, there's no problem with simply asking.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, which is what i should have done to begin with :). If there are no objections i`ll hat this section within half an hour as it is kinda off topic to the article mark nutley (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of synthesis
In a response to the request to provide the example of synthesis I give some of them below. Before doing that, let me remind you the example of the synthesis as it is described on the WP policy page:
 * A simple example of original synthesis:


 * "The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world."


 * Although no conclusion is drawn and both parts of the sentence are true, it implies that the UN has failed to maintain world peace. If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research.

Let me apply the same approach to the "Terminology" section. The first paragraph states:
 * "Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants. Under the Genocide Convention, the Crime of Genocide does not apply to the mass killing of political and social groups. Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances. "

Although no conclusion is drawn and all statements are true and well sourced, the para implies that the authors discuss the terminology for adequate description of Communist mass killings, whereas all authors cited here discuss mass killings in general. My conclusion: obvious synthesis.

The second para starts with:
 * "The term "politicide" is used to describe the killing of political or economic groups that would otherwise be covered by the Genocide Convention. "

in actuality, the authors Harff>Ted present "a global survey of cases of massive state repression since World War II." They developed and used "a typology which distinguishes between two categories of genocide (in which the victim groups are defined primarily in terms of communal characteristics) and four types of politicide (in which victim groups are defined in terms of their political status or opposition to the state)." These four forms of politicide are (i) "Retributive politicides", "Repressive politicides", "Revolutionary politicides" and "Repressive/hegemonial politicide". No separate concepts for Communist politicide were proposed by the authors.

Nevertheless, the para implies (although does not states explicitly) that the authors proposed the concept of some separate "Communist politicide". My conclusion: obvious synthesis.

The fourth para states:
 * "''The latter term has been defined by Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants," where a "massive number" is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less. He applies this definition to the cases of Stalin's USSR, PRC under Mao and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, while admitting that mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa.

The para implies that the author defined the term in a context of Communism and applied it mostly to Communist mass killings. That is simply wrong. My conclusion: obvious synthesis and misinterpretation of the source.

Obviously, most of that would be quite appropriate for the Mass killings under authoritarian (or totalitarian) regimes article, however, when placed in a context of Communist mass killings it is obvious synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 *  "Communist mass killings, whereas all authors cited here discuss mass killings in general"  - I do not doubt that communists would like to see another definition applied to them than to the rest of the world, but luckily that's not how reality works. A definition of mass killings that can be applied to fascists, capitalists, catholics and democrats can be applied to communists as well. This claim of SYN has no basis.
 *  "Nevertheless, the para implies (although does not states explicitly) that the authors proposed the concept of some separate "Communist politicide"."  - No it does not. There is no such implication at all. This claim of SYN has no basis.
 *  "The para implies that the author defined the term in a context of Communism and applied it mostly to Communist mass killings. That is simply wrong. My conclusion: obvious synthesis " - Synthesis is using two sources to claim something neither source claims. This is obviously not synthesis in any way shape or form. This claim of SYN has no basis, and completely ignores what SYN is. Read WP:SYN again, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article's name is "Mass killings under Communist...". Therefore, the "Terminology" section is supposed to discuss terminology used for Communist mass killings, not mass killings in general. In actuality, only one source (classicide) deals with Communism specifically (although even this source tells about "leftists", not Communists). All other sources does not tell about Communism solely and specifically. In addition, I expect to get real arguments, not just "not, it does not". Don't waste the talk page space, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Synthesis is using two sources to claim something neither source claims." Incorrect. Synthesis is using two sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. So if something is even implied it is already a synthesis --Paul Siebert (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again you imply that mass killings under communist regimes need other definitions from mass killings under other regimes. Again I point out that I understand the desire to redefine it in a way that makes communism sound like a nice ideology, and again I point out that the definition of mass killing that's used in other cases works fine for communism too and no separate definition is needed.
 * Yes, even implied, you are right. No such implication is in this article. You have come with no examples of WP:SYN. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When placed into the beginning of the "Terminology" section of the article "Mass killings under Communist regimes" the words "Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants..." imply "mass killings by Communists". That is obvious. In addition, I am impressed by depth and persuasiveness of your arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not imply anything, it is a statement of fact that different people use different terminology. How do you think it imply`s mass killings by communists? Our readers need to know the different terminology used it these areas. mark nutley (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul, none of your so called "implication" actually exist. Can we drop this now? You have no arguments for POV nor for SYN. How long do we need to keep tags for which nobody have any arguments? Come with actual arguments, not non-existing implications, or remove the tags. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * agree no examples offered, delete tag Darkstar1st (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And what makes you believe that you agree no examples offered, delete tag? (Igny (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC))


 * From what I've seen on the talk page (and as I've mentioned previously), it's my opinion that the burden of proof has not been met here in order to avoid synthesis of the type described by Paul Siebert here. BigK HeX (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you. We can not fix issues that does not exist. You must first show that the issues *do* exist. Paul Siebert has not. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * igny, somehow me and several other editors are unable to find the examples of syn or pov, i was agreeing with openfuture no exist on this talk page. the reason i believe myself is because my neural network is incapable of producing errors.  I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.  Darkstar1st (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I'm sorry, the burden of proof is on you." Burden of proof is always on those who adds/restores a material. If I state it is a synthesis, you must prove it is not. So far, you provided no arguments proving I am wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Paul Siebert. Personally, I think it's pretty gracious to go through all of this hassle in merely tagging the material instead of deletion, when the burden of proof is really on the editors who support the addition of the text which has been challenged with SYN and potential UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you agree with him. The question is: Can you show any case of POV or SYN in the article? Paul can't.
 * when the burden of proof is really on the editors who support the addition of the text which has been challenged with SYN and potential UNDUE. - No text has been challenged with SYN or UNDUE.--OpenFuture (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof is always on those who adds/restores a material. - Yes. So if you add the tags, you have the burden of proof. How you can write something as obviously self-contradictory as your comment above is beyond me. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, not. By adding a tag I just state that some material, which was added before, is not properly sourced. WP:BURDEN relates to the article's content, not to tags. Similarly I don't have to provide any sources to justify addition of the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "The question is: Can you show any case of POV or SYN in the article? Paul can't." Could you explain me how did you refuted at least one of examples provided by me? Obviously, numerous "none of your so called "implication" actually exist" can hardly be an arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, yes. If you add a POV or SYN tag it's up to *you* to explain how it's POV or SYN. You may want to read Karl Poppers "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" to understand more about who has the burden of proof in various situations. In this situation it's obvious that the one that claims POV must explain what is POV. And you can't do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To Paul Siebert, BigK HeX, Igny, and others, whoever adds material must justify that addition. This applies to BOTH citations for additions to the article ("The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.") AND to specific explanations for the templates added ("Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies"). However, since Paul here has been a voice of reason in the past on this talk page, and I believe he is acting in good faith, and because there are so many other editors involved now, I will demonstrate that the terms used in the terminology section have been applied to "communist regimes" as a category, even though this has already been done with the existing citations in the article: For classicide, genocide, politicide, crimes against humanity:
 * Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of 'politicide', which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes', a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
 * - Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press.

And for mass killing:
 * ''"Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa."
 * - Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press.

And for democide:
 * "...I found an unrivaled communist hecatomb. These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs..." - R.J. Rummel (didn't feel like typing out more. See here if you want more context; he refers to specific regimes)

Clearly these terms are used to refer to communist regimes. Obviously, it does not matter that they can also be used to refer to non-communist regimes. Nowhere is it claimed or implied in the article that these terms are unique to this topic. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you probably noticed, I did not list Semelin's "classicide" among the examples of synthesis. It is the only fully relevant source. With regard to Valentino, please, read the pages 91-2 in full.
 * Rummel's negative opinion about Communism is well known, however, his results (math computations) demonstrate lesser connection between Communism and democide. One way or the another, Rummel refers to Communism mostly as at one of extreme examples of totalitarianism. Interestingly, by contrast to scholars who specialised on Soviet history, or on history of other Communist countries, he sees no much difference between different regimes and different periods of regimes' history. His claim about 10+ million killed in the USSR in 60s - 70s is just an absurd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All these terms are relevant because different sources discussing this topic prefer one over another (but I only included "classicide" because it was already in the quote). I have read Valentino, page 91-2 in full. They are the first pages of his chapter called "Communist Mass Killings"! What did you expect me to find there which would change my mind here? As for Rummel, you are welcome to add additional sources to the article which directly contradict him or his claims, but he does meet the standard of reliable sources for Wikipedia on this topic and he is not cited in the article in a way that synthesizes anything not attributable to him. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * His claim about 10+ million killed in the USSR in 60s - 70s is just an absurd - Again, your personal opinion about Rummels research is irrelevant. You are not a reliable source. Your sense of absurdity is not a scientific tool. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags stay

 * SYN: At least until issues outlined by Paul are addressed in a constructive way. Claiming that the issues do not exist is not constructive.
 * POV As per points outlined by me above (note: AmateurEditor in principle agreed with that more work has to be done here) Until background and discussion about other possible factors and causes for each and every incident (as they all differ in nature) are properly placed into this article, and it is explained why communist ideology should be singled out as the decisive factor.

And in general per WP:NPOVD, tags should stay until consensus is reached. Consensus reached by one side of the dispute is not the consensus.

I would also appreciate constructive approach to the issues raised. (Igny (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Disagree: Pauls issues has been answered. The tags can be removed. Your interpretation of consensus is "everyone agrees". That is not what Consensus means. See WP:CONS. When one side of the conflict has no other argument that "there is no consensus", then there is consensus. What you are doing now is Filibustering. I would appreciate a constructive approach to the debate instead. You have no arguments to keep the tags. The tags should go. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree NPOV is violated by presenting minority views as generally accepted and it is synthesis to support their conclusions with writings taken from authors who do not support their views.  TFD (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How come you can't present any WP:RS of the opposing view? What does that say about which view is the minority? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. The issues have been outlined as requested, and, IMO, the tags are justified.  Either the tags should stay or the dubious text should be removed since the burden of proof has not been met for the fairly authoritative implications made. BigK HeX (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No dubious text has been presented. In fact, the argument has been that although there is no specific errors, somehow the whole article is at fault. So you here contradict what was said earlier. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What was "said earlier" by others is irrelevant to my comment. If the synthesized implications happen to inundate the whole article, then I'm fine with "the whole article" being stubbed out until the problems are addressed and assertions properly attributed and weighted.... or the tags can simply be present until the problems are addressed.  Either would be adequate. BigK HeX (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have to show that this is the case. Which Paul have tried, and failed. The only serious attempt of showing actual problems with the article has been in the Examples of Synthesis section. Unfortunately, none of the was examples of synthesis. So, the only serious attempt failed. This debate has been going on for ages now, and no examples of problems with the article has been forthcoming. The conclusion is inevitably that there is no problems. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. There is a group of editors here who claim that there is no problem with the bias of the article. Other editors demonstrated the issues with the article showing that there is a bias. The conclusion is that some editors share the POVs of the article in question and some do not. Which shows lack of consensus to remove the POV tag. I do not think I can be spell it out more clearly to you. (Igny (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
 * Other editors demonstrated the issues with the article showing that there is a bias.  - There has not even been an attempt to show that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can choose to believe the implications described by Paul Siebert do not exist. We disagree ... obviously. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no choice or belief. His raised issues has been answered. If you do not understand the answers, please explain what you find unclear, and I will attempt to clarify. Just contradicting as you do now is not constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * disagree consensus has been reached, since no other arguments have been presented, the tags should go.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Darkstar, just the mixture of comments here very clearly indicates that there is no consensus one way or another.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not agreement. Consensus involved argumentation. Clearly, there is none going on here. This is not constructive discussion, it's just reiterating "I think this article has issues" without pointing out these supposed issues. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree: Tags should stay per WP:STATUSQUO until consensus determines that they should be removed, as this is clearly an extremely controversial topic. There needs to be a general consensus as to how the article can be changed to better address the issues currently being raised; I would suggest however, that both "sides" consider possibilities of how the concerns raised by each side of the argument can be resolved. This should not be about whether or not there is a problem, it should be about how to fix that problem. If enough people think there's a problem, clearly there is some sort of problem. Fix WP:SYNTH issues by finding further sources or removing it, fix WP:NPOV issues by simply stating the facts, and/or by making it clear that what's being said is the view of a specific group. The article should not support any one side of the article, and should endeavour to keep the middle ground, regardless of subject. Let's hear some more ideas of how to rephrase problematic sections, and less of whether or not the problem templates should be kept: if you address the problems, they can be removed regardless. Note that I have not been involved in this discussion, and am currently neutral in terms of content.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * issues currently being raised; The only issues raise has been Pauls attempt in "Examples of Synthesis". This has been answered, as it was clearly that none of his examples was synthesis. Hence, there has been no issues raised and hence there is nothing to fix. Currently they are just filibustering. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty difficult to argue that no issues have been raised when clearly several editors feel there are issues. I don't intend to get involved in the discussion and would prefer to help guide the consensus process rather than get bogged down in arguing it. Since apparently some editors feel that the issues have not been expressed clearly enough, I would suggest that a new section be started clearly listing and explaining the issues being raised. It's much easier to establish consensus when everyone knows what they're commenting on.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous page section on this talk page seems to endeavor in doing just that. BigK HeX (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop to vote. Per WP policy the results of such vote are no more binding than any other consensus decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see your point, Paul; consensus is exactly what this article needs. Also, this is not a vote; consensus is established based on force of arguments, not numbers. It is a !vote.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  16:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree to stop voting - ;-) The same issues are being repeated over and over, and revited on over and over. You need to stop saying "I do not agree", and provide examples of actual problems with the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty obviously, you have an entire section dedicated to examples, whether you disagree with them or not. There are multiple editors who are not rejecting Paul Siebert's assertions.  BigK HeX (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those are examples of synthesis. They have been answered. If you don't understand the answers, tell me what is unclear and I will attempt to clarify. It has now been over a week since AmateurEditor added sections for the disputed tags at the top of this talk page. No examples have been forthcoming. The tags obviously most go. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not sure I see your point, Paul" My point is that real arguments must be provided, not numerous (Dis)Agree, or "you proved nothing" Re: "tell me what is unclear and I will attempt to clarify" Please, clarify what did you mean under "Pauls issues has been answered". I got no concrete answer so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that the tags need to stay. Multiple examples of POV and SYNTH have been given. Simply asserting that they're ok does not make the problem go away. Verbal chat  17:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree No examples of either have been given, in fact your only complaint thus far was about the article title, which i replied to above mark nutley (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're replying to me, then you have replied by simply asserting that the title isn't a problem, without making any argument. You are also misrepresenting me as saying the title is my only complaint, it isn't. Assertions don't help, reasoned, policy based arguments are what we need. I'm seeing a lot of policy based argument from one side, and all I'm seeing from the other are assertions that they are wrong and poor dismissals. Verbal chat  17:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was replying to you Verbal, and the article title is not a problem and i gave you a policy based reason for this, wp:mos anything further you think is synth? mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS is a style guideline and not a policy. It says nothing about neutrality or content in he context we are discussing. Try again. The title is a huge problem still. And yes, I think the article suffers huge POV and SYNTH problems as has been outlined using policy based arguments and examples by others, which have simply been denied and not refuted. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbal, yes it is a guideline, but it does say Titles should match the article contents Do you agree that the title match`s the article content? Do you also agree that Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings? The title is apt for the article. With regards to your other point that others have outlined pov and synth issues, this is patently false, all we have had are vague assertions of synth and no actual substance to the claims made. mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. The title is POV and SYNTH, so if it matches the content that is a bigger problem. The guideline has nothing to say about this matter. However, WP:NPOV and our core policies do. The claimed rebuttals have as much value as your refutation of my view. The title is apt for a POV article full of synth. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely nothing POV or SYN with the title, but you are welcome to explain why it would be in the section below, instead of just complaining, and we can explain to you what you have misunderstood. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already explained elsewhere on the page. If you require further clarification please ask on which point, or explain why you think your point of view is the valid policy interpretation. Also, in order to reach agreement it is useful to adopt a collegial rather than belligerent attitude, saying "we can explain to you what you have misunderstood" is an example of poor, WP:UNCIVIL behaviour and a WP:BATTLE mentality, as are many of your posts here. Please strike that and try to be more friendly and open to discussion. The goal here is to improve the project by improving this page, not to "win" or belittle those that disagree with us. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am open to discussion. But that requires two sides. If you are unwilling to explain what your issues with the article is, then this is not my fault. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow ... you're just going to keep asserting that people haven't explained their issues, regardless of how many issues have been explained?? Ignoring the multiple issues raised seems like an awfully unproductive tactic. BigK HeX (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All issues raised has been answered. See the section specifically dedicated to this below. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Communism, like Islamofascism, preaches hatred of life and a contempt for civilized existence. In practice, it is an ideology responsible for the deaths of millions of people all around the world, and there is no need to pinkwash this record by malicious tagging and inventing irrelevant minutiae in order to furnish an apologia. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion on communism has no place in the article. See WP:NPOV and WP:COI.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The crimes of socialists, such as the mass murders described and listed here, are sufficiently well-documented and recognized by just about everyone, minus a smattering of neo-Stalinists and their cohorts within the lunatic leftist fringe. See WP:RS and WP:V. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you are directing me to WP:RS and WP:V while failing to provide either reliable sources or verification, and using weasel words. My point doesn't change, however; your POV is irrelevant, the article should state the facts and not be tainted with POV. As I've indicated I haven't read the article and don't intend to argue one way or the other in terms of content, I was simply pointing out that arguing to get rid of a POV tag based on your POV, is somewhat ironic and counter-productive.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I have responded to Paul Siebert's synthesis examples in the section above. The neutrality tag can go because the "may not include all significant viewspoints" already covers that issue (as I said a week ago, that tag should stay for now). The POV complaint about the title is baffling and I don't understand what the basis is for that complaint. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

???
Regarding the following paras:
 * "According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology - Marxism. 


 * "Of all religions, secular and otherwise," Rummel positions Marxism as "by far the bloodiest – bloodier than the Catholic Inquisition, the various Catholic crusades, and the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants. In practice, Marxism has meant bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal prison camps and murderous forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and fraudulent show trials, outright mass murder and genocide." "

I have the following questions: In connection to that, I propose to replace this florid wording with something more modest (although backed by high quality reliable sources), like:
 * 1) Firstly, since Rummel's numerical estimates are known to be skewed towards highest values and have been questioned by many peers, neutrality requires us to supplement the first sentence with a reservation that Rummel is one of the most controversial genocide scholars and that his estimates are gross exaggeration.
 * 2) Secondly, I do not understand why only self published or non-peer-reviewed sources are used on Rummel whereas he published numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals. Maybe, the explanation is that Rummel is much more modest in his conclusions there?
 * 3) Thirdly, since the essence of Rummel's approach is statistical analysis of democide data, it cannot establish any casual linkage, just correlation. In connection to that, all references to Rummel in this concrete section should be made with great cautions.
 * "''Based on the results of the factor analysis of 218 regimes (141 state regimes and 77 quasi-state and group regimes) Rummel observed a statistically significant correlation between totalitarianism (including Communism) and democide (mass killings) The reliability of the data used by Rummel was questioned by other scholars, who noted that Rummel's estimates are almost always skewed to the highest guesses which may have a significant impact on the results of statistical analysis Other scholars partially confirm the results of Rummel's analysis, although the issue of validity of the data sets was left beyond the scope by them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are Rummel's numbers "known" to be skewed, or are they just criticised as possibly being skewed? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to answer for sure, however, taking into account that it is generally accepted that the number of victims in, e.g. the USSR was not more than 15 millions, Rummel's data for the USSR (60+) are definitely a gross exaggeration. One way or the another, Rummel himself conceded that he did his estimates based on existing secondary sources (he performed no his own archival studies), so his data are just another interpretation of the works of others. Please, also note that I am more precise in the proposed text (no "are known to be" are there)--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is "generally accepted" that the USSR had no more than 15 million, then how can Rummel have used 60 million if he based his estimates on "existing secondary sources". Isn't that a contradiction? But if you have a source which says that "it is generally accepted that the number of victims in, e.g. the USSR was not more than 15 million", then I would agree that Rummel's numbers are "known" to be skewed. Do you have such a source? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "If it is "generally accepted" that the USSR had no more than 15 million, then how can Rummel have used 60 million if he based his estimates on "existing secondary sources"." Because after archival revolution in 1990s much more data become available about the USSR. Scholars re-considered their early high estimates, because they have now more or less reliable numbers (that, btw, can be cross-validated by comparison different data sets, central and local archives, etc) However, Rummel (who was active mostly before this date) refuses to reconsider his early theories (although even such a hawk as Conquest partially reconsidered his earlier views).
 * Re sources. Below are two quotes taken from the review on the Black Book. The authors of the BB cannot be blamed in attempts to understate the scale of Communist crimes.
 * "Practiced eyes will notice a remarkable fact about Werth's history: he revises most earlier estimates considerably downward. Robert Conquest's The Great Terror had concluded with an estimate of twenty million deaths resulting from Stalin's rule (the Conquest's earlier estimate- PS), including the famine; Werth gives us considerably fewer. He is concerned, fortunately, neither to minimize nor to maximize numbers, but to accurately determine what happened." (Ronald Aronson. Communism's Posthumous Trial. History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245)
 * "Nicolas Werth's and Jean-Louis Mar- golin's contributions on the Soviet Union and Asia, respectively, largely shy away from ideo- logical pronouncements and instead relay ar- chival and eyewitness accounts about the depths of terror, repression, and mass murder in these regions. Werth's and Margolin's rejec- tion of Courtois's tone and argument has also led them to denounce publicly the introduction and Courtois's grand total of a hundred million deaths"(Shane J. Maddock The Journal of American History, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Dec., 2001), p. 1156)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that those sources are enough to say Rummel's and Courtois' numbers are criticised, but not that they are "known" to be skewed (that is, not enough to say that his numbers are in fact skewed, or are generally recognized as skewed), because the source would have to say that explicitly about the field, rather than it just being the source's own opinion. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, since Rummel's numerical estimates are known to be skewed towards highest values  - I suspect you misunderstood our earlier discussion. But if not then [Citation Needed] please.
 * Secondly, I do not understand why only self published or non-peer-reviewed sources - This is simply not true. Most rferences his book, death by government, which is a summary of his research. It's easier to base it on this summary, than to gather all of his articles and read through them. It would also likely be very expensive to do so for somebody who doesn't have easy free access to all these articles.
 * In connection to that, all references to Rummel in this concrete section should be made with great cautions. - That does not follow. His ideas of causal relation is based on his understanding of the ideology combined with the correlation his research shows. What is the problem with that? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the requested "Citation Needed" refer to: "Harff, Barbara. 'Death by Government.' The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 26.n1 (Summer 1996): 117(3)."
 * Specifically, the quote is, "Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses." BigK HeX (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Further, the Harff source I mentioned also concludes that Rummel's work draws a connection between Authoritarianism and Mass killings, and not really "Communist regimes". Rummel also states as much himself in an academic debate between himself and T. G. Carpenter.  This pretty strongly indicates that -- within the context of this wiki article -- the use of this source constitutes WP:SYN, precisely as raised by TFD in the talk page section above, and quite similar to points already made by Paul Siebert. BigK HeX (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what his research is about. He doesn't choose anything, he takes *all* the available estimates, and make statistical analysis of them. What Harff basically does is to complain that the numbers Rummel sees as "unlikely high" are in fact "unlikely high". :-)
 * 2. That one scholar diagrees (or in this case misunderstands) is not proof that the numbers are wrong, fringe, or anything else. You need to show that they are generally seen that way.
 * 3. Nobody argues that only communist regimes engage in mass killings. I've pointed this out numerous times. Please stop bashing in open doors. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. First of all, you asked for a citation for the assertion that Rummel's numbers are high. You got it.  You can protest that there are fundamental misunderstandings inherent to an assertion made in an academic journal if you like, but we all know that carries zero weight here.
 * 2. I didn't set out to prove his numbers were "wrong" ... you now have the source which was given in response to the question you actually asked.
 * And, sorry, but no ... it seems that I would not need more than one source in order to treat Rummel's theory as fringe ... as a matter-of-fact, I likely don't need any sources to do so. If you support the notion that Rummel's "Power Kills" theory is not fringe, then it is you who must show that the view is accepted within the mainstream, as I've already quoted for us earlier where the burden of proof is spelled out clearly.  So, unless you plan to quote something contravening this guidance, then the burden of proof is clear.
 * 3. The article very clearly suggests that there's something inherent to Communist regimes which makes them worthy of an article dedicated to their "mass killings", though you have made it clear that you disregard this objection. BigK HeX (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. No. I asked for a source for the claim "Rummel's numerical estimates are known to be skewed towards highest values". One citation from one scholar does not do for that, you will probably need a tertiary source that shows that it is generally accepted that the numbers are skewed, or some other way to show that. One scholars opinion is not proof of that.
 * 2a. The claim was that his numbers was wrong, "known to be skewed", I asked for a citation for that. None was given.
 * 2b. He fulfills the requirements for WP:RS and in widely quoted in other research. This is proof he is not fringe. QED, case closed.
 * 3. The thing that makes communist regimes worthy of an article about mass killings under communist regimes is that a lot of communist regimes have engaged in mass killings. This is uncontroversial, even within this debate, where most editors repeatedly have accepted that many communist regimes have engaged in mass killings. Nothing in the article "suggests" that there is something inherent with communist regimes, however, there is a section dedicated to theories that explicitly claims there is something inherent, and that this inherent thing is communist ideology.
 * All your arguments here have been answered repeatedly. You are just Filibustering. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Your contention is pretty nonsensical. You claim that the citation of a single author is NOT useful, but that a tertiary source IS useful.  Logically, you are precluding the existence of any tertiary sources written/edited by a single person --- a rather nonsensical assertion.
 * 2a. Did you READ the citation given??†
 * 2b. QED ... that's rather amusing. When you decide to stop inventing your own guidelines, we can refer to the actual guidelines, as I've posted already ... namely that "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance".  The burden of proof to clear the fringe hurdle is very explicitly established here, and you have yet to meet this burden.  So, no ... I wouldn't have to "prove" they are fringe when it is already presumed that we should treat Rummel's assertions as fringe until YOU (or another supporting editor) prove otherwise.
 * 3. Again, I find your contention baffling. Personally, I don't find it reasonable for a person to simultaneously claim that "nothing in the article 'suggests' that there is something inherent with communist regimes" while also acknowledging there's even a section called "Proposed causes" in the article entitled "Mass killings under Communist regimes".  In any case, you respond as if blind to this -- I just hope it's not willfully.
 * My objections apparently have been answered with unsound arguments. But, FYI, I have no need to filibuster anything as the onus is on the editors supporting the current usage of the material ... instead of wasting time arguing irrelevant† points here, I would suggest they get to meeting that burden of proof, as explicitly requested above.  Until that is done, I don't think any further discussion between you and I will serve to move anything forward.  Cheers!
 * † The continued argumentation about the phrase "known to be skewed" is woefully irrelevant to the thread, since it was clearly pointed out ~6 replies ago that the phrase is NOWHERE in the proposed text that is supposed to be discussed here. BigK HeX (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm pretty sure you understand the difference between one persons scholarly opinion, and an overview of existing scholarly opinions, so I have a hard time taking this argument seriously.
 * 2a. Yes. Again, it's hard to take this line of argumentation seriously.
 * 2b. Claiming I invented my own guidelines is hardly an argument worth taking seriously. Rummels standing has already since long been proven. Your and TFD's repeated, baseless claims of him being fringe has on the other hand gotten no support whatsoever.
 * 3. There is a difference between "suggesting"/"implying" and stating outright that ought to be pretty obvious. The article does not "suggest" nor "imply". However, there is a section that outright states that many scholars claim there is a connection between the ideology and mass murder, and lists those claims.
 * 4. The burden of proof that there is something wrong with the article that needs fixing still rests on you.
 * I'm now tired by this increasingly repetetive and pointless argumentation about Rummel. Hence: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what his research is about. He doesn't choose anything, he takes *all* the available estimates, and make statistical analysis of them." Yes, there is some misunderstanding, but from your side. The procedure of factor analysis requires to characterize each case of democide with one number. This the most plausible figure is obtained by Rummel using a comparative method called reasonable approximation, by which the researcher uses many estimates for each case study. Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated by others that this reasonable approximation is not as reasonable as Rummel claims. As Dulic summarised:
 * "Rummel argued that we cannot depend on very few sources and therefore should use those that are at the extremes and reasonably authoritative. Unfortunately, it soon became evident that the estimates he used were neither authoritative nor credible. One could argue that Rummel would hardly have had any sources to work with if he had applied more source criticism to his research. However, lack of data can never be used as an alibi, and sometimes we have to accept that basic research has not yet been conducted."(Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 85-102)

In other words, we have a source B claiming that the source A is not correct. Since we have no sources that claim that the source B is not correct we have no reason to question the conclusions made in the source B. Please, provide sources, not your just your opinions if you want to continue this dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dulićs criticism of Rummels sources applies only to Yugoslavia (and only to one period, as well). Too narrow to be relevant here, even if he is correct (which he may or may not be. Again, one source does not a consensus make). --OpenFuture (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a source that he is wrong: . But your understanding of this as a sort of tennis match where the last source not to be argued against wins is mistaken. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dulic explicitly states that his criticism is more general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Criticism of Rummels numbers from reliable sources can also be included in the article. We don't get to choose between reliable sources as editors. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Criticism ... can also be included..." That is what I already made. Do you have any more objections against/comments on the proposed text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We need to distinguish too between sources that criticize Rummel's facts and theories and sources that comment on the reception of Rummel's facts and theories by the academic community. TFD (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. We cannot do that here, because this article is not about Rummel. We discuss a concrete Rummel's point, and, since it has been criticised, the mention of this criticism should be included.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could provide a source to that criticism, because so far all the criticism discussed here has been about his numbers and stats, not his "point". --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rummel is cited for 3 kinds of things in this article: his definition of his term "democide" (since he coined the term, this should be uncontroversial), his opinions on mass killing and marxism, and his numerical estimates of the killing of specific events or regimes. TFD is right that we must distinguish between sources that criticise Rummel's numbers/facts and those which which comment on his overall reliability or reception in the academic community. We must also distingush between sources that criticise his numbers/facts and sources which criticise his opinions about communist mass killing. Paul, you are proposing to replace text on Rummel's opinion on the nature/cause of communist killing with text and criticism of numbers/facts in his statistical correlation work, (correlation work which is not now cited in the article). I think criticism of his numerical estimates should be next to where his numerical estimates are used in the article and criticisms of his opinion of communist killing or overall credibility should be next to that opinion. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the conclusions (at least those Rummel draws in his peer-reviewed publications) are based on numbers, it is natural to expect that these conclusions were significantly affected by numbers. The sources cited here explicitly state that. The other sources (e.g. Harff, a very reputable genocide scholar, btw) criticise Rummel's conclusions unequivically:
 * "Rummel's attempt at explanation seems oversimplified" (the ref already in the text)
 * "Ironically, given Rummel's rather naive mission to show the utter inhumanity of "Marxism", his own figures can be turned against him."(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)
 * Re: "Paul, you are proposing to replace text on Rummel's opinion on the nature/cause of communist killing with text and criticism of numbers/facts in his statistical correlation work." I propose to replace the propaganda text published on some not too reliable web site with the articles published in peer-reviewed journals. It is unclear for me why, taking into account that Rummel published a lot in academic journals, we use some odd source, that, btw, was written not by Rummel himself, but by another author. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is that this seems to be taking criticism of one particular work of Rummel's and applying it to the different one used in the article. The "propaganda text" is Rummel himself simply "propogating" his opinion, which is why it does not need to be from an academic forum to be a reliable source (on his opinion). I am not aware of any "odd source, that, btw, was written not by Rummel himself" used in the article. If you are referring to this source, that chapter was in fact written by Rummel. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you put the above text into the article i will remove is as OR and synth, you intend to remove a reliable source and insert text which is about rummel, not this article mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I am not aware of any "odd source, that, btw, was written not by Rummel himself" used in the article. " I mean Samuel Totten, Steven L. Jacobs "Pioneers... " I don't understand why we use this source instead of Rummel himself. BTW, this source is really odd and outdated, at least because it states that 39 million died in GULAG. Obviously, it is a fringe views. You can find all needed reliable sources in the GULAG article (about 15 million people passed through GULAG, and major part of them survived).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the source I linked to. It is a collection of essays, one of which was written by Rummel. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Than this source is simply outdated, because it directly contradicts to new sources. Apparently, by the end of his life Rummel appeared to be unable to re-consider his own views in light of new data. That is sad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He is as far as I know still alive, although ill. He seemed perfectly open to change in the one e-mail conversation I had with him, but admittedly, that was not about these views. Anyway, refusal to change your mind is something that afflicts many people, especially the ones at the extreme parts of the political spectrum such as communism and fascism, which is why discussions about communist crimes usually turns into these long and boring discussions where you have to prove and re-prove and re-re-re-re-re-prove everything forever, until the communist, still unconvinced, finally gives up and decides to ignore reality completely. That's just how people work. Nothing you can do about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "If you put the above text into the article i will remove is as OR and synth..." You will not be able to do that unless you managed to do one of three things:
 * To demonstrate that at least one statement in this text is not supported by the source I used, or,
 * To prove that at least one of the sources do not meet reliable source criteria, or,
 * To show that at least one text's idea is not explicitly stated in the source used.
 * If you will not be able to do that your attempts to remove this text will be reverted as obvious vandalism.
 * Re: "...you intend to remove a reliable source" The source is based on dramatically wrong figures, is outdated and not reliable. I demonstrated this eslewhere.
 * Re: "and insert text which is about rummel, not this article." The text is about mass killings, not about Rummel. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"The influence of communist ideology in many of these events is disputed"
OK, do we have any WP:RS that claims that communist ideology is completely innocent of mass killings, so we can show that it *is* disputed? Or even better, a tertiary source that shows it's disputed (but that seems unlikely). --OpenFuture (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Think that's the wrong question, OpenFuture. The statement can be correct without communist ideology being "completely inncoent", so long as its influence is disputed in many cases. --FormerIP (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean that in what way communism influenced it is disputed, I'd say that the current sentence is misleading. People will see that as that there is a dispute about whether the ideology is a cause or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean. For example, sources may argue that communist ideology was an influence in some cases but not others, or that its influence was marginal in some or all cases. Given the significance of some of the historical topics we are talking about, sources may look at them in terms of a complex of different events and causes, some being attributable to communist ideology and some not. These scenarios would be consistent with the statement above. So I think "completely innocent" is too high a standard to demand. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, get rid of "completely innocent" and say "marginal" in what I wrote above then. We still need the sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged as citation needed, give it a few days so you guys can find one. mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, although I think allowing more that just a few days would be normal. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Terminology section.
Despite the terminology section being referred to in much of the debate above as something useful for this article, PMAnderson deleted all of it, apparently because he doesn't like RJ Rummel being quoted in it. I reverted that change, as I think the section has a place in the article (although should a parent article be created it should be moved there, of course). --OpenFuture (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; I believe it's informative enough that it warrants its own article, perhaps one should be created. Then this article could just have a very brief section as the terms apply to this article's subject, and link to the main article with a section hatnote.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What like Terminology used for Mass Killings ? I`ll write that up if nobody objects mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what about Types of homocide? Bit more... formal.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Homicide is just Murder it does not really cover the killings of millions does it. How about Types of Mass Murder? mark nutley (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah there mark, you're completely misunderstanding the term homocide there I'm afraid. Homocide refers to killing another human. (Homo = man, cide = kill). It has a diverse set of different types. Murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. are all different forms of homocide in many legal systems, for example.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about ensuring that existing articles contain all relevant information and avoiding creating articles that no one is likely to read? TFD (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I removed the section because it's irrelevant to this article or indeed to any Wikipedia article. Classicide isn't even used in the rest of the text - even in the bibliography; why discuss it at all?


 * If there is a place for these tedious and purely verbal paragraphs, it's at Wiktionary; this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. But those who would include these nonce-words, even there, may wish to read WP:NEOLOGISM first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to self revert you breach of the 1r restriction on this article mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not violated 1RR - I have made one edit and one reversion; furthermore, 1RR only applies to the article you men of one website are trying to use as a pulpit if one does not discuss one's actions. I have just done so, at length. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * wp:3rr states A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word This is what you have done, self revert or i shall take this to the edit war board. Please note another editor here made the same mistake you have and got a 24hr block for this troubles mark nutley (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do tell me if you make any such request; I shall consider whether this claim, which amounts to freezing in place any irrelevant and off-topic information inserted into this article, constitutes a WP:OWN violation. Otherwise do stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, does anybody, including mark nutley and his twin, have any actual reason why classicide is relevant to this article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So much has been written on this page in a short time that it is hard to keep track of everything. I assume you missed my post here, at the bottom of the "Examples of synthesis" section in which I showed its relevance, along with the other terms. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that be  Classicide, in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. 


 * That reads as an argument for not describing the subject of this article as classicide - a position I would agree with for other reasons. However, there are a great many terms which do not describe the subject of this article, from classicide to carrot - and we do not define carrot either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But using "classicide" is a different question; the section I removed defined classicide and didn't use it. If you have a source which discusses Communist killings as classicide, by all means include it - that might indeed be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote demonstrates that the term is discussed specifically in the context of this article's topic. That is why it is relevant. In fact (although you wouldn't necessarily get this from just that quote) the term was coined specifically for this topic by Michael Mann, which is why Paul Siebert responded to my post that "classicide" was the one term of the group which was unobjectionable to him. The whole point of the terminology section is to define the various terms used by reliable sources about this topic, not to "use" them. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if the section said anything about classicide and communism I would not have objected to it. As it is, this is an indiscriminate collection of information.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From the section, quote: "Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants." Since this is an article about the "killing of large numbers of non-combatants" under communist regimes, it is directly relevant. Each of the terms are used in the context of communist killing, as demonstrated by their citations, which you must not have bothered to investigate. Please remove the completely unjustified tag you just added and cease editing disruptively. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to a sentence summarizing some use of "classicide", even by its unfortunate inventor. But defining words remains the province of Wiktionary, not of us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Including definitions is certainly allowed in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you are now boycotting this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This thread is an additional argument in favour of moving part of the content into the mother article. The "terminology" section is a pure coatrack, because it discussed terminology for "mass killings", not for "Communist mass killings". This is as ridiculous as to have, e.g. a "Chronology" section in the Battle of Kursk article, which started with the words: "no generally accepted date for start of WWII exist in historic literature". The "terminology" section definitely belongs to the "Mass killings" article, not to this one. Even Semelin discusses leftists calssicide, not Communist classicide. Yes, Semelin and Rosenfielde speak mostly about Communism, so these two sources may be used as to demonstrate that these two scholars attempted to develop a terminology for Communist mass killings. With regard to all other sources, they definitely do belong to the main article, not to this one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't understand this. How is the section a coatrack ("a cover for a tangentially related biased subject") when it is crucial to understanding the topic of "mass killings" in general (and thus also "mass killings under Communist regimes" in particular), when each of these terms is used in sources discussing the topic of specifically Communist mass killing, and when Wikipedia policy states that "articles should begin with a good definition"? Sources discussing mass killings under Communist regimes prefer different terms, with slightly different definitions, so the article must explain and define those terms (and, yes, also elaborate on their specific use in the sources). When there is a parent article we will still have to have a terminology section in this article (which, of course, can be more concise and link to the parent). But there is no alternative to having it all here now while there is no parent article.
 * 2) I don't see where you are getting that Semelin discusses "leftists classicide". Semelin is specifically discussion communism with the term classicide in that source (from page 37: "Mann however refuses to use the term 'genocide' to describe the crimes committed under communism. He prefers the terms 'fratricide' and 'classicide', a word he coined to refer to intentional mass killings of entire social classes." And from pages 343-344: "If the term 'genocide' is not adequate to describe the crimes of communism, what other terms should be used? 'Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes,...").
 * 3) Just because a term is not specific to communist mass killing does not mean it can be excluded from the article when reliable sources do use it to describe mass killings by communists. People reading just this article should still be made aware of such terms. The term certainly must have been applied to communist killings to be included, but it does not have to be unique to them. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not have a section defining all the terms and geographic regions mentioned in the article? How about the development of Communism in the early nineteenth century?  Because it is just a tangent.  Let us stay on topic in the article.  TFD (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not have a section defining all the terms and geographic regions mentioned in the article?'' - Because there is no need for it. Again, the removal of this section was prompted by the discussion of Rummel as a source. Removing a whole section just because you don't want Rummel quoted seems like overkill. Discuss the entries in the section one by one instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, you think that a section explaining definitional terms used to describe communist mass killings, and which academics advocate for and against as part of their discussion of communist mass killings, are inappropriate in an article about communist mass killings? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are actually terms used to describe killings, not Communist killings specifically and therefore are inappropriate. The correct place to describe them if necessary is when they are first brought up in the article and directly reference the writer using them.  E.g., "Dr. x claimed that cide was a common element of Communism.  He defined cide as...."  After all different writers will have different definitions.  Having a section explaining all these different versions is just confusing.  TFD (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are used to describe Communist killings "specifically" (as I have shown elsewhere on this talk page), just not "exclusively". You are right that there are different definitions of "genocide" (famously), and Valentino's definition of "mass killing" differs from the common use of the phrase (in at least in his 50,000+ minimum, possibly also his scope). I believe the rest have single definitions. But that there are multiple terms to begin with is in itself notable and deserving of its own section. And definitions need to be addressed at the beginning of the article per Wikipedia is not a dictionary ("Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics),..."). Defining terms at the beginning of an article seems like a no-brainer to me. I don't understand what confuses you about the section. Can you point to a sentence or two as an example? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "the removal of this section was prompted by the discussion of Rummel" I proposed to remove this section many times. It belongs to the "Mass killing" article, not to this one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it belong in both, but more concise here when there is a parent article terminology section for this one to link to? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Mass Killings article is currently a disambiguation page, it clearly does not belong there. And if you have proposed to delete it why didn't you? Ah, because there is no consensus for that, and you know it would be disruptive and pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A way forward
As we've reached an impasse, let us think constructively about resolutions. So I'd like to suggest a to-do list


 * 1) mass killing needs an expansion to include mass killings by government, possibly with examples, and discussion on terminology (all those various -cides)
 * 2) it seems there is no objection to existence of an article on mass killings under totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. A significant portion of this article can be trimmed and moved to an appropriate section of that more expanded article.
 * 3) there seem to be discussion of possible connection between communism and totalitarianism, which could be moved to communism and totalitarianism.

Any objections or additions? (Igny (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC))


 * I think there would be objection, though they may not have been voiced recently. BigK HeX (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) mass killing used to redirect to mass murder, where there is now a section on mass murder by government. I have no objection to filling out the disambiguation page. But how would that resolve anything relating to this article?
 * 2) Igny proposed working on a "Mass killings under totalitarian regimes" article with Paul Siebert on Paul's talk page. I don't object to having that article, but I did object to folding this article into that one as part of the creation process, and I explained why in the same section on Paul's talk page (which I hope Igny read). They are distinct topics. The two articles are not mutually exclusive and the creation of one should not affect the other.
 * 3) A communism and totalitarianism article would also be a separate topic. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, a link to mass murder by government and maybe even Democide on that disambiguation page seems like a good idea.
 * 2. Although related, the mass killings under communist regimes are so large, numerous and brutal that they dwarf other mass killings. If this article was to be merged into a "Mass killings under totalitarian regimes" it would swamp the others and give the distinct impression on a quick read that only communists did it, with the possible exception of Hitler. That would most likely result in the communist regimes being pulled out into this article again, so merging seems pointless. But as mentioned many times, nobody has objected to such an article, so stop talking about it and do it. :-)
 * 3. "Possible connection"? :-) Anyway, I do not object to the creation of such an article. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating an article with "totalitarian" in the title probably is not a good idea. There is dispute about whether the term is meaningful and what countries can be considered totalitarian.  TFD (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is this dispute? I don't see much of a dispute on Talk:Totalitarianism.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem about an article about "totalitarianism" since we can establish that various writers have used the term. But there is no agreement about use of the term.  So if we had an article about mass killings under totalitarian regimes there would be disagreement over what to include.  Right-wing dictatorships and Communist states that were allies of the U. S. for example were not considered totalitarian under the Kirkpatrick doctrine.  Notice the article does not try to list totalitarian countries but concentrates on the concept, which is how articles should be written.  TFD (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We can also establish that various writers discuss mass killings under communist regimes, and yet you object to the very existence of this article. Articles about concepts focus on concepts. Articles about history and historical interpretation, like this one, focus on those things. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor, we had this conversation three months ago (See: Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive 14):
 * Does this mean you are no longer interested in deleting the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I said long ago I would support the continuation of the article if it could be written in a neutral point of view. If it is not possible to improve it then I would vote to delete. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So why did you vote to delete now, after we here reached the conclusion that it could be NPOV, and you suggested some sources to balance? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in repeating this discussion and advise you to read that discussion thread rather than recreate it here.
 * TFD (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You continue to misunderstand that this article is about a category, not a "theory" (to use your term from the earlier discussion). None of the sources used refer to any "theory" or "concept" of communist mass killing. It is always a literal description of a category of events. If you no longer support deletion, just say so. Shortly after you said "If it is not possible to improve it then I would vote to delete" you !voted to delete. I have to assume that is still your position until you say otherwise. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually AE is correct, there is no talk in the article of a theory or concept. This article is what it is, an article about mass killings under communist regimes. Point of fact, this means quite simply that there is no synth here, as all references are about mass killings by commie`s mark nutley (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you are now claiming that these mass killings had nothing at all to do with the form of government in those countries? If so, then the article should be deleted because it is synthesis.  TFD (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think he is claiming that (because he'd be wrong), but even if he was, how does that make it synthesis? Can you stop making just bare assertions and argue for your position? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What i am saying (which seems obvious) is that an article about mass killings under commies would have stuff about mass killing under commies, so were is the synth? You don`t need a theory for such an article, it is no different to a list of stuff what happens. Also don`t piss me off today, my daughter got bit by a dog and i`m not in the mood for any crap ok mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is implicit in the title of the article that there is a connection between mass killings and Communists regimes. See also Attack page:  "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject."  That is why we do not have articles like "Conservative, UKIP and BNP sex perverts", even though we have reliable sources for hundreds or even thousands of cases.  Sorry about your daughter by the way.  I hope it was not too serious.  TFD (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is implicit in the title of the article that there is a connection between mass killings and Communists regimes. - Correct. What is the problem with that?
 * See also Attack page - Yes, and? Be explicit. Are you claiming this article is an attack page? Are we finally getting nearer to the real reason you want this page to go away? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no problem in having an article that says there is a connection between mass killings and Communists regimes, provided we have sources for it. An please stop assuming that anyone who supports WP policies is pro-Communist.  TFD (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We have sources for it. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD: So then there is no problem, and you concede that we can remove the POV and SYN tags. Excellent. And I didn't assume, I asked, as this is one of the few reasons I can imagine why somebody would so consistently and dogmatically argue against all inclusions of material that is criticizing communism. I'm happy to hear that you are neither communist nor any longer for keeping the tags. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we can only remove them once we resolve the synthesis and POV issues. Incidentally, I am not "argue against all inclusions of material that is criticizing communism".  What I am arguing against is including material that does not criticize Communism or does not address criticisms of Communism, which is synthesis.  TFD (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But apparently there are no issues. We *do* have the sources you asked for.
 *  What I am arguing against is including material that does not criticize Communism - I think you got your negations mixed up. You claim now that you argue against including any material that is positive to communism. :-) That is evidently not what you do at all.
 *  which is synthesis. - No it's not. Again: WP:SYN is when you use two sources to draw or imply a conclusion neither source make. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to misunderstand my comments. We should include both "material that does criticize Communism" and material that "does address these criticisms".  Claiming that there is a causal connection between Communism and mass killings is a criticism and of course this article must include those analyses.  I never said that a Communist point of view should be included in the article although.  At the same time it should also provide reliable sources that comment on that view.  The world is not divided into Communists and fanatical anti-Communists, there are mainstream views between these extremes.  It is certainly not synthesis to include different points of view.  In fact the policy of WP:neutrality requires it.    TFD (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are directing this to OpenFuture, but I must say that I agree with you here. Perhaps there is hope for us after all. The "may not include all significant viewpoints tag" covers this concern, however, so it really is not a reason for keeping the neutrality tag. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with everything TFD says above. Some comments:
 *  We should include both "material that does criticize Communism" and material that "does address these criticisms".  - Nobody has argued against this. But also, nobody has provided any such material.
 * Claiming that there is a causal connection between Communism and mass killings is a criticism and of course this article must include those analyses. - Agreed.
 *  At the same time it should also provide reliable sources that comment on that view. - Of course. If you can find any, go ahead. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here are two that came up in earlier discussion: 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) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please post here just what it is from these two sources that you want included in the article? Is it the discussion of equivalency vs. comparison of communist killings to nazi killings? Please be as specific as possible so we can come to an agreement. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, unless you can answer this you can't claim the article is unbalanced. It's not unbalanced if there are no opposing viewpoints. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So, there has been no objections voiced to 1 and 2. 3 doesn't seem necessary, at least not yet. That must indicate that we have a consensus on a path forward. Only the details need to be worked out. 1. I added Democide on the Mass killings disambiguation, feel free to improve the wording or so. 2. So what main article do we create? Mass_murder_by_a_state, Mass killings by authoritarian regimes or something else? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been banging around the idea of creating something like Mass killings under X . Then this article could possibly be renamed to Mass killings under X (Communist regimes), which gives the title a "disambiguation" structure -- this would imply that it's just one of other types. If someone can come up with a good "X", it might work to eliminate a lot of the pesky NPOV problems that plagued past title suggestions.  Sadly, my current ideas are pretty cumbersome (like Mass killings under organizations wielding power) ... meh.  BigK HeX (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just communist regimes?
To add some context to the article and remove some of the bias, I slightly modified the first sentence in the lede to state that many massacres have been commited by governments, including several by communist governments; it will take a grand total of about 15 seconds to come up with a source indicating massacres committed by non-communist governments, and helps to clarify that the article refers to massacres under communist regimes, but does not pretend that no other governments have ever massacred non-combatants. Two very obvious examples of "mass killings" of non-combatants by non-communist governments include the genocide commited by the Nazis under Hitler, and the nuclear attack on Hiroshima by America.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see it has been again reverted without discussion, and without explaining why the change was unsuitable, only that the reverting user thinks their version is better. I've requested another 24h full-protection period to encourage discussion on the talk page.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did ask you to discuss you change here, after you reverted me without discussion :). Yes non communist regimes have committed mass killings, however this article is not about other forms of government is it, it is about communist regimes. mark nutley (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I am discussing the change here. I reverted your unjustified reversion of my change. What ever happened to "WP:DONOHARM"? Does briefly pointing out that other systems of government have commit similar massacres harm the article? No, it provides context. Does pretending that it's just communist regimes harm the article? Yes, it makes it biased. It's really as simple as that; whether you believe that the current phrasing implies that communist regimes are alone in committing "mass killings" or otherwise, the phrasing I introduced makes it clearer that this is not the case, and adds context to the article.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do feel that although "Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under several communist governments." doesn't imply that nobody else did it, it could be misunderstood. However, that can be solved for example by linking "Mass Killings" to the Mass Killings or Democide page or something similar. If we reformulate it, I think there are better ways than "Mass killings of non-combatants have occurred under many governments, including several communist governments." because that's weird, and implies the article is about democide in general, which it isn't. I can't come up with a good way to reformulate it, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The harm is that it is wp:or, other government killings have no place in this article which is about communist regimes. And i really don`t see how the way it is written implies that mass killings only happen under CR`s as everyone knows who Hitler was mark nutley (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said Mark, it can be extremely well sourced within seconds to avoid it being WP:OR. You yourself said "everyone" knows what Hitler did, and yet you're also saying that it's "original research"? WP:SOFIXIT with sources.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is, the title of the article itself is implying both that mass murders are especially frequent under Communist regimes, and that most communist regimes have commit mass murders; do we actually have reliable sources confirming either of these?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * Many democides (massacres of non-combatants by governments) have been attributed to communist regimes, though not the only system of government to have commit such actions. ...etc.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's so convoluted. How about: "Of the numerous Mass Killings performed or instigated by governments throughout history, many have been performed by Communist regimes." --OpenFuture (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That tends to imply that a large proportion of all political massacres have been instigated by communist regimes. I doubt that is even true, let alone verifiable.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec times 4)The prior sentence did not imply that "all" regimes engaged in mass killings at all, hence there is no need for altering it. The proposal you make requires sourcing about other regimes per se, which is beyond the reach of the article entirely. Any statement made in the article should relate directly to the article. Collect (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We really should stick to Mass killing in the lede, not many people will have heard of the term democide. How about this? Mass killings of non-combatants has been attributed to all communist governments, although this is not the only regime type to have committed such actions.(wikilink to Fascism here maybe? mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with Mark's solution, with the grammar fixed of course.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this is more appropriate: Mass killings have frequently been attributed to communist governments, though many other governments are also implicated in such actions . I don't see why you'd make a direct connection with Fascism there, as I indicated above, even several democracies have massacred civilian targets.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Giftiger wunsch: The word "many" is there now, and also in your example, I don't really see a problem with it. "Several of the most deadly" is verifiable, but I doubt that will be accepted. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most deadly as in largest death tolls? That works for me. "While not exclusively responsible, some of the largest political massacres have been attributed to Communist regimes"?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me too. I just don't see how the apologists here would even accept something as clear as that. But go ahead if you want to. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to take a look at the references you mentioned before adding that; I've overheard a lot of debate about whether some of the points raised are OR, SYNTH, or actually verifiable in reliable sources. Can you state the source(s)?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OpenFuture, you please not refer to people who disagree with your opinions as "apologists". The overwhelming number of scholars who question Rummel's figures do not do this because they are Communists.  TFD (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scholars, yes, that may be true. Why do you think I was talking about scholars?
 * I didn't refer to people who disagree with my opinions as apologists. I refereed to apologists as apologists. They exist, they are loud, dogmatic and highly unlikely to let that statement stand as is, sourced or not. I wasn't even serious when I suggested it, because I'm 100% sure that it's going to start more flamewars. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OpenFuture's condescension is pretty annoying. BigK HeX (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What overwhelming number is that then? Thus far i have seen a few who disagree with him, and quite a few who agree. BK comment on content not editors. please redact your PA mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. BigK HeX (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigk please see Here mark nutley (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Giftiger Wunch: As for sources to that statement it's not a problem to find them. Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. is the opening line from Chapter 4 of Benjamin Valentino's "Final Solutions", a source both sides seem to like. I'm sure you can find some support from Rummel and Courtois too, but I'm equally sure that would be a waste of time adding it here, and just provoke more outrage. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for lede
Mass killings of Non-combatants has been attributed to all communist governments, although this is not the only regime type to have committed such Atrocities. Please just say yes or no.
 * Yes


 * Acceptable but not ideal. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some "yes or no ONLY(!!!)" straw poll is useless as written above. Where are the sources to support the statement? Are there significant criticisms of the source? What is the majority stance on the issue? And that's only WP:V ... WP:NPOV would still be an issue. BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be more or less impossible to adequately source a statement that all communist governments have massacred non-combatants, and the word "atrocities" is clear POV. In any case, a straw poll is not appropriate here.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding impossibility, I figured as much also. But, since he proposed it, I presumed he felt he could source it.  BigK HeX (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Three sources were presented on this talk page already which clearly state that all communist regimes have engaged in mass killings mark nutley (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you describe the killings of millions other than an atrocity? I am open to suggestions mark nutley (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Please just say yes or no." Valentino (p. 91) clearly says no.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some actual progress
With the current lead, the article is starting to look a lot less like a POV coatrack. It's a pretty good start toward an actual NPOV article. This is obviously a contentious article, but hopefully more strides can be made. BigK HeX (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually no, and it is being discussed above. As verbal has reinserted text which was disputed without bothering to actually join the discussion means i shall have to revert it out again as having no consensus mark nutley (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So .... you're going to revert verifiable text without consensus?? BigK HeX (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, per wp:or the added text has nothing to do with commies butchering people by the million mark nutley (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The reasoning you've given there has nothing to do with WP:OR. In fact, truly verifiable text, by it's WP definition, can't be called WP:OR.  Here (and in other places), it'd help if you gave actual policy pages that represented your argument. BigK HeX (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with OR, this article is about commies killing people, for that edit you require Mass Killing under several forms of Government as this article does not cover other regime types mark nutley (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Dispel my ignorance. Please quote the relevant part of WP:OR page for me here. BigK HeX (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic This topic is about commies, not other regime types mark nutley (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Telling people to use good sources has nothing to do with your reasoning above. Is there perhaps another quote available that would be more helpful for me to understand how WP:OR represents the argument you've given. BigK HeX (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me make it clearer for you, "the most reliable sources on the topic" hope that is a tad easier for you to understand mark nutley (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a somewhat odd contortion of the English there, but you could bold and underline that part if you like, and IT IS STILL A REFERENCE TO THE USE OF SOURCES ... and it is still in no way representative of the justification you've offered for deleting attributable text. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with mark argument, but I also don't see how it has to do with WP:OR. It's off topic, though. To solve this we need a parent article, I think. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah... no way that it's WP:OR. In any case, now that we've getting away from the strange misunderstandings of policy ... I'd say there's not much that is off-topic about putting in an extraordinarily simple fact regarding "mass killings" when it places "mass killings under Communist regimes" into context, especially when this is done to satisfy WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.  User:Giftiger wunsch says the same thing above, though more eloquently. BigK HeX (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many extra-ordinarily simple facts that are wildly off topic. In a discussion about communist regimes, other regimes are off topic, unless possibly if you are doing a straight comparison to show if communist regimes are better or worse. How about this: "Mass killings of non-combatants has also occurred under Communist regimes." That avoids the use of "Many" which Giftiger wunch for some reason opposed. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Would that be the first sentence of the lead? I assume so, since it has the customary bolding. BigK HeX (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a suggestion for the first sentence in the lead, yes. Sorry for merging two related discussions. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the principle behind your suggested sentence ... but, that's probably obvious since the sentence implies what I've already written out explicitly (namely, that "mass killings occur in other contexts"). So, I would be fine with a sentence like that, however, we can't use the exact one proposed due to grammatical problems.  It uses the word "also" -- as the first sentence of the article there would be no antecedent. BigK HeX (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)