Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 3

Sources that failed verification or acceptable sourcing standards for their claims
The Intercollegiate Review is a free journal which does not peer review. Ulrich's Weyl's article weyl1967aristocide, title=Aristocide as a Force in History, author=Weyl, N., journal=Intercollegiate Review, pages=237--245, year=1967 is not acceptable as a historical description or characterisation. It belongs in a section for popular culture / kook theories. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree that conspiracy theorists like Nathaniel Weyl do not make good sources. If anyone believes otherwise please set up a WP:RS notice.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to add "in your opinion". Please feel free to take it to WP:RSN if you like. The article clearly says according to Wayl, and as a former Communist his word on 'Communist genocide' does belong to the article pr. WP:YESPOV.--Termer (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So if we find lots of communists who don't call it genocide (in non RS sources, apparently it doesn't matter), what do we do then? Take a count?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "in my opinion"? Oswald killed Kennedy acting alone - it was not part of the international Communist conspiracy, as Weyl claimed.  Even the US government accepts that.  His status as a former Communist does not make him a reliable secondary source but a dubious primary source and his claims should only be reported here if they have been evaluated by reliable secondary sources and those sources should be quoted.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a former christian, can I write a blog rant about christianity and expect to be quoted in Christianity on that basis? --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:VsevolodKrolikov everybody should be encouraged to add alternative viewpoints to the article. So in case you're aware of, how may have any other Communists referred to the Communist genocide AKA Communist politicide AKA Communist mass killings AKA Mass killings under Communist regimes etc. please do not hesitate to add such facts to the article.--Termer (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In case anybody wants to discredit Weyl, by claiming "not peer reviewed- it's a blog" etc please see for example Order and legitimacy: political thought in national Spain By Francis Graham Wilson, H. Lee Cheek Page 178: See a notable article by Nathaniel Weyl, "Aristocide as a Force in History," Intercollegiate Review, III (May-June 1967)--Termer (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Termer, we only include sources that are RS and are not WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a random collection of people's opinions, but a reflection of the current positions of mainstream academia. The Intercollegiate Review is a conservative, non-peer reviewed free journal. The article is written by a fringe theorist, who does not have a reputation for factual accuracy and academic honesty - note his invention of Castro's communist teens, and his support for white supremacist eugenics at a time long after it was at all academically respectable. We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not to use wiki as a platform for our political views, and so if a source is not RS, we have to withdraw it. I could start quoting Pravda about how there were no genocides at all (hey, it's an opinion), but I"m not going to, because Pravda under Stalin cannot be considered an RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose book was funded by three conservative think tanks, whose authors are not academically qualified to do discourse analysis of sociology or history, or qual or quant, they're discourse politicians, and who's scholarly publisher Transaction are not scholarly publishers of note in the field of Soviet or Chinese studies. (Let alone, from their web page, a scholarly publisher.) Monographs are notorious for not being peer reviewed and for relying on the credibility of their academic publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything is opinion VsevolodKrolikov, including either the Mass killings under Communist regimes were a genocide or politicide or an ordinary mass murder. Since you keep bringing up "a reflection of the current positions of mainstream academia", why don't you add this "mainstream academia" opinion you keep talking about to the article?--Termer (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not on wikipedia. I really think you need to take a step back and look at sourcing policy and how to tell if an opinion is worth reporting. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of opinions. That's what blogging is for. Interestingly, Termer, your google books ref has this to say about Weyl's article: "See a notable article by Nathaniel Weyl, "Aristocide as a force in history", Intercollegiate Review III, (May-June 1967) pp 237-245, in which the author argues that...", at which point the page finishes, and the next one is not available. Do you know what comes next? It would be nice to know what makes the article notable. Thanks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for lecturing me! I take your teachings for consideration. however since sourced material was removed from this article pr claims of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and you refused to take it to WP:RSN/WP:FTN, I would need to do it for you.--Termer (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the removal of Weyl's material, then non-RS material was removed. Not all published material is RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Termer has posted at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where the article name, this talk, and the full citation were not correctly indicated by the requester. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold your horses, Fifelfoo, the Intercollegiate Review claims to one of the central organs of American conservative intellectual life, so if it publishes an article by Weyl, then that article must reflect the view point of American conservatism as seen by the journal. Since American conservatism is a significant viewpoint, it is not undue nor fringe, therefore it should represented in this article per WP:YESPOV. --Martintg (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not if Weyl is reliable to talk about Weyl's views. The issue is if Weyl is reliable to talk about actual lived history in the Soviet Union; if his theoretical construct is Fringe to Soviet Studies; if his contribution meets scholarly standards (ICR is not peer reviewed). The last I checked American conservatism was not a historical research unit of a research active university; but a social movement. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weyl never held an academic post; most of his books were published either by Arlington House, an openly anti-communist publisher, or Public Affairs Press, which seems to be a defunct publisher of texts on segregation and eugenics. I don't think he can even be taken as representing mainstream American conservative academic thought.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing Weyl is saying in his article is in conflict with facts that happened in the Soviet Union. Only thing that could be labeled unreliable about the waves of mass killings that he's talking about is calling it 'Communist genocide', like a number of other authors starting with Raphael Lemkin. --Termer (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Weyl's facts are correct then there should be no problem in finding them in a reliable source, e.g., an academic peer-reviewed article. And please read about reliable sources so that we can avoid discussions like this in future.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem of this article is not with describing the facts, but with rather frivolous interpretations. (Igny (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Indeed there is no problem finding the facts cited by Weyl in other reliable sources already also listed in the article, that's why I miss the point of removing Weyl. Only thing he says, tells the same story all over again. On "frivolous interpretations", I'm not that sure what exactly are you referring to Igny? He calls the "mass killings under the Communist regimes" - 'Communist genocide' like many other authors.--Termer (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard - which you asked for - has been pretty clear so far.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Termer, why did you say at the Noticeboard "third opinions only" then entered your own comments? BTW Weyl may have his own WP article but so do lots of other cranks.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refer to a [secondary published source calling Weyl a crank and I'm open to following: "According to Weyl, who is a crank according to..., the communist genocide occurred in several waves etc."--Termer (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very funny. I would have to get a biography about him and it would probably be more academically stated.  However you are aware that he was a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist which makes him wholly unreliable.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Kennedy assassination wasn't a conspiracy? How do you know? I would rather buy claims like "a former communist who became a conservative and ended up voting for Clinton and Kerry can't really know what he is talking about".--Termer (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all the bickering and bad faith aside, I do agree that Weyl should not be considered a reliable source. I might as well note here that the article Nathaniel Weyl contains some pretty serious COPYVIO as lots of the text there is taken verbatim from the source. Anyone feeling civic at the moment should go over there and paraphrase key passages before it starts getting blanked, per COPYVIO.radek (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Books Google sources
Doing a books google search of the term I found two books with the term in the title and others referring to genocide by the country when it was under communist rule. So a good place to get more info on the most widespread and systematic genocides carried out in human history. (Except maybe for female witches during middle ages.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Boldur-Lăţescu book The communist genocide in Romania makes moving reading. There are echoes of Havel's Letter to Dr. Husak in its analysis of how oppression worked, although Romania had it worse in so many ways than Czechoslovakia. It may even be an RS for the Romania page, although it's a distinctly personal account. However, from what I can read (many pages are not available), his concept of genocide is the affect on the whole population of Romania - for example, the birth rate, cultural heritage and so on (although there is of course the specific persecution of the church). It's not really the same genocides as in the USSR, Cambodia or China, which were aimed at specific categories of people. This is the problem with this page. There are already pages detailing the crimes of particular regimes. For this page not to be a content fork, there has to be a body of literature examining the overarching reasons for genocide under communism, across countries. I had presumed there was, but so far, no one has come up with much of substance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

there has to be a body of literature examining the overarching reasons? Please take your time and read any of the sources on the subject. the "overarching reason" for the 'Communist mass killnigs' or 'Mass killings under Communist regimes' or 'Communist genocide' or politicide etc. (call it whatever you like) were always the physical elimination of political opposition to the regimes in the societies including within the Communist parties. Please let me know in case direct citations need to be pasted to this talk page.--Termer (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How has this been assessed as different to the elimination of opponents under other regimes? (for example, reformation and counter-reformation killings, operation Condor and the Dirty War and so on.) Apart from the John Gray source, there doesn't appear to be a respectable body of literature synthesising analyses across countries.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yes! Actual quotes need to be given - not just in the talk page, but also in the article itself. And not just copy-pasted, but incorporated into a text which summarizes the views in a coherent way, with regard to the topic and scope of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you go:--Termer (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what I wrote about the book 2 days ago (you can see it above): Valentino's theory is that radical communist regimes killed people because it was the only way they could create a radically different and better society. Less radical communists did not engage in mass killings. The theory was presented in a chapter of his book Final Solutions (2005). If it can be established that this theory has become established within academic literature, even if it is not the majority opinion, then there is an argument for its separate article. If however it is a neologism used in the book, then it belongs in an article about Valentino or a separate article about his book. Incidentally as [Martintg] point[ed] out the term used is communist mass killings not mass killings under Communist regimes. It would still be WP:OR to use a title not found in the sources.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your Valentino quote does not mention causation, motivation, function, structure, reason or ideology. Additionally, given this article's title, genocide is not mentioned in relation to these killings.  Finally, I don't see how your quote indicates Valentino considers this any different to any other state form of killing of undesirables, such as the killing of criminals in regency England, for example.  You are clearly engaged in an OR project constructed out of tendentious citations. This is not acceptable verification and your sources are not reliable for the conclusions you draw. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately such arguments didn't fly at the Afd and the article is still here. But in case you feel so strongly about it, why don't you take it to a second round. There is no reason to keep repeating such arguments over and over again.--Termer (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo - the book does discuss all of those things, and specifically analyses communist motivations. And termer: at last - you get the idea - academic, university imprint etc. etc. Hurray! Now we need more like that. (At the moment one book suggests addition to an existing article.) Unfortunately, google books has cut off the reference list, which might prove a goldmine. Books like this will also help to define what goes in the article, which shouldn't simply be a list of all supposed communist atrocities. Valentino points out that most commnist regimes didn't carry out what he would label a mass killing and suggests a particularly radical form is necessary for killing to take place. It's true he also distinguishes genocide (as in Rwanda) with mass killings under communism - which in his theory is necessary because he sees a desired and radical transformation of society as a whole as key to understanding what happened. Anyway, I'll have a little look using Valentino's book as a prompter of search results.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad Valentino is useful; but that quote is an example of an un-useful reference. Having a citation isn't enough.  Having a quotation isn't enough.  Appropriately characterising appropriate citations and quotations is the key.  Much of this article exists on the basis of "Lots of people died due to state x.  I think that's genocide.  State x conducted genocide."  The correct way to do it is, "Historian/demographer/economic historian Y argues incident was genocide.[1]  Y describes genocide as W.[1] Y describes State X did this because communist states all (or some due to factor V) act in manner Z.[1]  Brief description of incident with link to [main article.] [2-5]  Any academic criticism agreement in characterising form.[6-9]"  Moreover, if there is a credible key source for a generalised position on Communism and genocide, the article should follow this theoretical position's structuring.  Y's definition of genocide, and theory of unifying factors in Communist groups that enacted genocide.[1] *then* summary abstract of major theoretical / state accusation & law (ie; Ukraine, Slovene, Russian law) in [Main article] and summary form.   *then* major incidents described as genocide enacted by the groups, in [Main article] and summary form. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Termer's use of a good source shouldn't prejudice us against that source. However, it does seem clear that the term "genocide" is unhelpful, and we really should think about moving the article to Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. The material about Slovenia does not seem to fall into the category, however. Settling scores is not part of the theory. Gray also focuses on USSR, Cambodia and China.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep telling me this about "genocide"? I almost every second post refer to the subject with all possible alternative titles and have pointed out right from the beginning that what is the article title exactly is none of my concerns.--Termer (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was meant for everyone - we have an RS that distinguishes between them enough so that the question of genocide can be relegated to a section of the article.
 * Some more sources:
 * Some more sources:


 * which analyses each of the three countries in question, referencing Valentino.
 * . Argues that communism is not a big explanatory factor, and analyses statistical analyses that it is.
 * emphasises the role of utopian fanaticism in communist leadership in the three countries, but places this in a larger theory of mass killings, with the leadership in those countries fulfilling those criteria.
 * I'm not sure if these sources are better suited to supplementing a subsection of an article such as "Mass Killings in the 20th century".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is already an article on genocides in history. (Igny (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Requested move II

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: several arguments both for & against this title were also made above in.

Argument for move: "Communist genocide" is a provocative and inherently POV term as "genocide" has a very negative connotation and the compound term 'communist genocide' lacks a consistent definition. Additionally, the word "Communist" describes the governments that commit the killings, not the killings themselves.

Argument against move: "Communist genocide" is the simplest way to describe the contents of this article and the only term directly supported by reliable sources. Additionally, we don't have to come up with a precise definition of what is or is not genocide, but rather just go by what reliable sources call genocides.

*Comment It is normal when a tag is put up that the person placing it there should give an explanation for the reasons directly underneath and sign them. (If someone else wants to do this it would be fine as well.) By placing a tag we are inviting outside editors who have not read the discussion to comment and it would be helpful to them to know why the proposal was made. (If someone does this then I will delete this comment.) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support pr. VsevolodKrolikov above.--Termer (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reason. We have a number of credible academic sources that theorise commonalities in mass killings.  There are no credible located sources theorising a unity of genocide.  Given this articles need to be restructured around credible academic theorisations, move.  Except get rid of those non-standard capitalisation.  Mass killings under Communist regimes. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support so long as the page does not cover all excess deaths under communism, but only those that pertain to the RS analyses of mass killings, to avoid POV, OR and SYNTH.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per all the points made in the previous discussions above I feel this is the best choice available in terms of NPOV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the move to a more neutral title. Thanks to Vsevolod and Fifelfoo for hard work to weed out synthesis and unreliable sources. (Igny (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I have added the basic argument for & against the move to the start of the section in as neutral & brief language as I could. Feel free to tweak if you feel I have misrepresented anything, but please try to keep it brief. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a small adjustment - I think the definition problem primarily regards the compound term 'communist genocide', not 'genocide' in itself. I edited your text directly to avoid making a new tree up there, hope that's ok. --Anderssl (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfectly acceptable and encouraged - that is why I left it unsigned. I did, in fact, mean the compound term but the sentence certainly wasn't clear as written.  Thanks for correcting that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support when we have a category of Mass Killings Under Capitalist Regimes started.Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an article called Anti-communist mass killings, but each article needs to be judged on its own merit. An article called Mass killings under capitalist regimes should be created if there are notable claims in reliable sources connecting such events to capitalism as a system/ideology/historical phenomenon. --Anderssl (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Yeh. So there are notable claims in RS connecting mass killings to communism? I have seen John Grey's 'small, primitive peoples' citation, and remain unimpressed. Come to think of it, I do not even know why that fairy tale is still in the article. It is in a section that purports to show a connection between ideology and genocide, and half of the quote is about Modus operandi, which is quite distinct ideology. Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me a few weeks to locate the literatureSimonm223 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have posted at Talk:Anti-communist mass killings where I have asked for sources. Perhaps you could reply there.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Communism is an ideoligy, while "capitalism" is an economical system. To have a reasonable parallel, the corresponding article must be e.g., Mass killings under democratic regimes. (The apposition for Mass killings under capitalist regimes would be Mass killings under planned economy (a morose joke). - Altenmann >t 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Mass killings under Communist regimes per all the arguments above. --Anderssl (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yah know, it just occurred to me: The early Mormon church had a number of socialistic characterisitcs. True, it was ruled by a dictator, but so was communist Russia. Should the unfortunate incidents involving the Mormons be included in this list?Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Um... no.Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Mass killings under Communist regimes, not all mass killings were genocide. --Martintg (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a note that at the same time not only mass killings under Communist regimes have been considered genocide but also mass deportations by the Communist regimes: according to already cited Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer: The notion of genocide has originally been confined to the physical annihilation, or intention to do so, of members of whole nation. If it were to have remained confied within these boundaries, the Communist genocide would, prhaps be arguably applicable to massive deportations and annihilation of a large number of Ukrainians, Balts and other Soviet nationals + the mass deportations by the communist regime are considered legally genocide in the Baltic states see:--Termer (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, not all genocides have to be mass killings, preventing a targetted group from having offspring is a form of genocide too. --Martintg (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This should have been done long ago.  The support is clearly here for it; let's finally do it. csloat (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems we have concensus here. --Martintg (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per my arguments in the early part of the discussion and the others presented above. Remember when you make the move to remove parts that have no relation to the subject, such as mass deportations and others.Anonimu (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support; it is close to my earlier suggestion, Genocides and politicides under Communist regimes. I was arguing against the suggested title, "mass killings", since it will broaden the apparent original intent of the article. But after some thought, I think that the article may be sectioned into "Accusations of genocide" (since it is a legal term, we have to distinguish proven and claimed cases), "Policitides", "Other" (such as NKVD prisoner massacres). - Altenmann >t 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - much more neutral name. I suggested moving this page to a different title a while ago; I'm glad to see it's finally going to happen. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment So what are we waiting for? There seems to be consensus here, is there any reason not to move?  On another note, I wonder how much the issue currently under arbitration had any effect in terms of skewing the AfD on this page? csloat (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RM discussions normally run 7 days before being closed. Thus it is unlikely an uninvolved admin will show up to close it before 7 days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much as I would be relieved to have the ridiculous "Genocide" tag removed, the current rename would just be trading one worse word, "Communist genocide", for a bad one, "Mass killings under communism", and a worse conflation with a bad one, that mass killings are related to the ideology of communism. If you do not want this whole thing to start all over again, better make it "Communism and mass killings". I believe in this article, I really do. Dittoheads need to blow off steam, one, and two, this is the perfect place to show them that Pol Pot was communist because that was the only ideology with influence in the region that was opposed to imperialism, Ethiopia is based on ancient tribal enmities, and China was a drought. But first, we need to show the real psycho neocons the door. Using the term 'under' is putting out the welcome mat. Anarchangel (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposal seems to drastically alter the scope of the article, as it would have to include, for instance, all the content in Anti-communist mass killings. In essence that would be a completely different article. The word under is a preposition used for increased clarity. --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "[D]rastically alter", "completely different article": Yes. So? And, the point would seem to be, what does under clarify it to mean? It is a weasel word, which, no matter the intentions of its author, runs back and forth between 'during' and 'under orders of' and 'in the country of', and serves only those who do things because they can, rather than because they should. Anarchangel (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if your argument is for the creation of a different article, then please go ahead and create that article, and continue the discussion there. This discussion is about finding an appropriate name for this specific article. As for the precise meaning of 'under' in this context, I certainly think that is something the article should discuss, but it is not necessary to overexplain in the title. Cf. WP:PRECISION. --Anderssl (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since there is no generally agreed concept of "Mass killings under Communist regimes" re-naming the article will open it to synthesized concepts and it will never gain good article status. The term "killing", unlike terms like genocide, does not even imply human agency.  People can be killed in earthquakes for example.  Besides there is not one incident in this article that is not or should be covered elsewhere.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * there is no generally agreed concept of "Mass killings under Communist regimes": This is not a relevant counterargument. As has been argued repeatedly above, the new title is not proposed as a concept, but as a descriptive phrase. --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "killing", unlike terms like genocide, does not even imply human agency.: This is part of the controversies that the article needs to discuss. Following your argument, famines in Ukraine, China etc certainly fit under the proposed title, but it is controversial whether or not they can be considered "genocide". Thus the new title better describes the topic of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides there is not one incident in this article that is not or should be covered elsewhere.: That is not a relevant argument, as this article is about the alleged connection between those events, not just a list. And even if it was considered just a list, why would this be an argument against it? --Anderssl (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Andersii wrote "the new title is not proposed as a concept, but as a descriptive phrase....this article is about the alleged connection between those events, not just a list." I am trying to follow your logic, but there appears to be a clear contradiction in your argument.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that 'contradiction' is not so clear to me. --Anderssl (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the new title is merely a descriptive phrase, not a concept and is about the alleged connection. A connection between killing and communism is a concept.  In other words, when I say that there is no established concept of Communist killing, you say that there does not need to be.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "A connection between killing and communism is a concept." No, it is not. Not the way I understand the word 'concept'. By your reasoning, there could be no Wikipedia articles on controversial topics, since the naming of them in the title would create a new 'concept', which would be WP:SYNTH. --Anderssl (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * concept: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
 * The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW Wikipedia articles may be about controversial concepts, but Wikipedia articles should report rather than be a source of new concepts. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, so by the dictionary a concept is an idea, not a phrase. Mass killings under communist regimes is a phrase which describes the topic of the article. You may well consider that topic in itself to be a concept in the meaning you have copy-pasted from the dictionary above. But I don't know what that concept should be called and I am not proposing MKUCR as a name for it. The point of this discussion is not to propose names for concepts, but for Wikipedia articles. As you seem to agree, there is no established name for this idea/theory/concept, and therefore we are discussing the option of a descriptive phrase as title for the article instead. Meanwhile, you have not offered anything by way of an alternative. We all know you want the article to be deleted or merged, but those options are not on the table anymore. If you think the article should stay under the title Communist genocide, you need to explain why that is a better title, taking into account all the arguments that have been presented against that title previously. --Anderssl (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The Four Deuces and Anarchangel are clearly correct here; I support the move only because I find it slightly better than the current heading. But either way this page is OR through and through and ultimately AfD is the only solution that makes sense.  That said, a move to "Communism and genocide" or "Communism and mass killings" might be far better than either option. csloat (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that the proposal to re-name the article has received a limited response and attracted little outside interest. Therefore I am setting up an RfC in order to attract a wider audience.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 17 editors in this discussion. The problem is not the number of editors, but the lack of new arguments - which is only a problem for someone who insists on opposing or obstructing the move in spite of every rational argument. Engage with the arguments if you think there is something wrong with them. --Anderssl (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have continually explained my view which is that Wikepedia should not have articles based on original research. When this article was proposed for deletion many editors assured the community that there was an accepted concept of Communist/communist genocide but no one has provided this.  Incidentally I have recently successfully nominated two original research articles for deletion (see Social democratic centrism and Social Centrism).  Unfortunately many editors seem more concerned about continuing the Cold War than building an Encyclopedia.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have provided a good reason why the article should be renamed. There are a few RS sources that make a connection between more extreme ideology and large-scale killings, but they stress that there is no general connection between communism and mass killings. The application of the term genocide is indeed problematic - hence the move.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then AFD it again. The body of editors connected with this topic has expanded (though the quality does not seem to have improved).  VsevolodKrolikov's discovered sources don't link particularly well with the article as is, and personally the suggested rewrite would be at a different heading, and be needed to be conducted from the ground up out of reliable disciplinarily appropriate peer-reviewed or scholarly academic published sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources don't back up the article as it is. I agree that it needs to focus on RS - which is primarily about certain periods in Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no "connection between more extreme ideology and large-scale killings" then there is no article. Please read WP:SYN.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) No, there's no SYNTH going on here. Let me remind you of some books that do discuss the connection, both for and against: You may not like what they argue, but it's wrong to say that there is no RS discussing the possibility of connection.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * which analyses each of the three countries in question, referencing Valentino.
 * . Argues that communism is not a big explanatory factor, and analyses statistical analyses that it is.
 * emphasises the role of utopian fanaticism in communist leadership in the three countries, but places this in a larger theory of mass killings, with the leadership in those countries fulfilling those criteria.
 * cited in the article as saying the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism".
 * cited in the article as saying the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism".
 * No one has made any attempt to write this article based on these sources. Not one of these sources is used in the lead.  You are saying that some scholars have written about Communist genocide but you ignore them and write your own article.  Can you explain why you have written so extensively on the talk page yet present nothing in the article?  BTW I oppose garbage articles whatever ideology they support.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim No one has made any attempt to write this article based on these source simply isn't true. Just that all attempts to write a serious article here have been drowned into nonsense like "no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide" and "Communist genocide against Nazi collaborators in Slovenia" etc.--Termer (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Valentino and Kiernan are mentioned for facts only, not theories. (Really these facts should come from better known sources which are available.)  The International Studies Association and Chirot are not mentioned at all.  Only the opinions of the crackpot writer Gray are mentioned.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This crackpot Gray? And there was I thinking LSE Professors of European Thought qualified as RS. Tsk. I really must get up to date with things.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down Four Deuces, VsevolodKrolikov's first contribution was on 5/9/09 (after searching here and the archives search above. This kind of "Bite the expert" stuff is bad.  They probably came here for the same reason I did, after an RFC.  VsevolodKrolikov's contributions here have been to locate scholarly articles which have the links between Communist ideology in general and mass murdering.  You're biting one of the few editors here that have made a significant contribution to moving this article forward in the last month. And during this last month, the article has been in constant dispute.  VK was involved in the discussion which lead to the Request for Move as a basis before beginning to edit this article to where it should be. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fifelfoo (although "expert" is perhaps an exaggeration). I haven't made any major changes because for a long while I wasn't much convinced that there were decent sources to justify the article at all (and I was trying to work out a reason for not calling for another AfD). I am now convinced, and the first thing to do is to change the name and make the lede nice and clear that the article is not about all the bad things that communists have done, but about particular historical events, the analysis of which leads some experts to conclude that ideology was a compelling factor in their unfolding (and other experts to disagree). There's no point trying to make a big edit change when there's such disagreement. Thankfully, I think we are moving towards such agreement. Your objections are noted, but the consensus does seem to be forming.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are various theories that Communist ideology leads to genocide, and it may deserve its own article. But an article that merely lists events is not justified.  What is the proper name for that article or does it really belong to the Communism article?  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uselessness of the "expert" tag
Experts were requested, experts have been received, it has not improved the editorial community of this article, because the first thing the editorial community does is petulantly attack the experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This also includes the forum shopping to avoid the experts the requests have brought in; badgering; and question begging. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes
Should the article Communist genocide be re-named Mass killings under Communist regimes? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it appropriate to open an RFC for an issue that is already discussed under a Requested Move? It looks like an obstructing move (if someone wants to declare consensus in the RM, this user can point to the RfC that is still open). This user already engaged in obstructing tactics above, creating an artifical history for the target page, effectively blocking reversion. Can an admin have a look at this? --Anderssl (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I too have reservations about the propriety of this RfC, given that consensus seems pretty clear already. In any case, for those visiting this page from outside, please also look at Talk:Communist_genocide higher up this page.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Second VsevolodKrolikov at 4:27, 24 Sept 2009. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Andersii, you have made a personal attack which you should avoid. Please see WP:NPA.  Obviously the change name tag has attracted no outside interest and since all of us would like outside influence before we make up our minds an RfC is appropriate.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is at least the second time you accuse me of doing a personal attack on you. If you really think so, you should report me to the WQA. Personally I have opted not to take this to the WQA because I didn't want to contribute to escalating the issue and derailing the debate. I suggest we follow VsevolodKrolikov's advice below and let it rest for a few days. --Anderssl (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC questionable: Issue has been discussed above. Result was "move." Clear attempt to override/obstruct consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the article has been moved, I have removed the article from the RfC list. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Soviet serial killers
I have added a section on Soviet serial killers and will look for more serial killers and other mass killers under Communist regimes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * : Given that this is clearly not the focus of the page as shown by consensus, doing that would constitute tendentious editing, which you well know. Why don't you go edit somewhere else for a while, instead of alternatively carping at no one making things better, and trying to disrupt people when they try to make things better? Come back in a few days.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits not agreeing with text
I notice that a lot of the recent edits do not reflect the sources given and represent a biased viewpoint. Since there are so many of them it is difficult to sort through them but could editors please take the time to remove unsupported statements. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Diffs, names. Edits since 16:48 20090924 have culled OR/SYN, and have been working through the Valentine consensus reached above, citing as they go.  I am having a great deal of difficulty comprehending what you've said, please help me by restating at length with examples. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * User:VsevolodKrolikov adds to a reference to Cambodia "in the name of utopian social engineering". However the text cited on p. 99-101 does not say this.  User:VsevolodKrolikov then removes "Watson's book was not reviewed by peer reviewed journals of history."  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing again. The phrase I used is not a direct quotation from Valentino, and is not even cited as such. It is an attempt to summarise the main thesis of writers like Valentino. If you think it is inaccurate go and read the sources and explain why. I removed the phrase "not reviewed by peer reviewed journals of history" because it's OR/unsourced. Wikipedia works on verifiability. As well you know.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Disruptive editing again." Please avoid personal attacks. You state that "The phrase I used is not a direct quotation from Valentino, and is not even cited as such." However here is what the article states:
 * Valentino theorises that a common structure unites Soviet, Chinese and Cambodian mass killings: the defence of a utopian and shared version of radical communism.[1]

The reference is to Valentino's article. Normally readers will believe that if they read a statement that has a footnote that the statement reflects what the source says. According to you the statement does not reflect the source. Do you not see that this is misleading to readers?

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My statement doesn't have a footnote.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Soviet assassinations
User:Termer has brought up the John Kennedy murder conspiracy theories. "Are you saying that the Kennedy assassination wasn't a conspiracy? How do you know? I would rather buy claims like "a former communist who became a conservative and ended up voting for Clinton and Kerry can't really know what he is talking about".--Termer (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)" According to Nathaniel Weyl Kennedy was murdered by the Communists. Should this be included in the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are starting to edit disruptively.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing issues on the talk pages and not edit-warring. If you disagree with my opinions that is fine, but please do not accuse me of being disruptive. That accusation btw is a personal attack (please see WP:NPA) which itself may be seen as disruptive editing. We appear to have a disagreement on this article which should not be seen as a personal disagreement. I believe that articles should be based on academic standards while you believe that articles should represent a point of view. While I respect your point of view, I think that it would earn more respect if you presented it in an NPOV way rather than introduce all kinds of obscure and unreliable sources to back it up. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:DISRUPT
 * their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article
 * their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, especially by refraining from personal attacks, even though they interfere with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article
 * Does not engage in consensus building
 * In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error.


 * Your inclusion of serial killers, your attempts to insert JFK assassination conspiracy theories, your arguments to re-insert sourcing which you yourself do not believe is RS, your attempted salting of this page (for which you were warned by other users) - none of this strikes you as unco-operative or WP:pointy?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I explained before, I did not try to "salt" the article, I had no knowledge of the technical aspects and you are not assuming good faith by accusing me of that. Please see WP:AGF.  You have now widened the article to include "Mass killings under Communist regimes".  But what does the new title include?  It would be helpful if you explained this.  It seems that you have substituted one WP:OR title for another.  And you are avoiding the issue I mentioned.  You altered a sourced statement to include information that was not supported by the source.  All I desire is that this or any other article is properly sourced.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of AGF - I have no idea what you are talking about. I changed the lede, which does not have a source, as it's a general statement. As I said before, if you feel it is not a fair reflection of what the sources are saying, then provide the evidence that it is an inappropriate phrase. To me it seems obvious: the elimination of bourgeois, reactionary elements (etc etc) is fairly characterised as an attempt at social engineering (i.e. it's a summarising paraphrase, not OR). I did not write the phrase that does have a source, and uses the phrase "utopian and shared version of radical communism". You'll have to go through the diffs for that. As for what the article is about, try reading the lede. It's fairly clear. As for OR - please look at the list of sources that I have provided for you. The article is being re-written, and this takes time. It does not help if people who know what the article is trying to be about (and it certainly hasn't been serial killers or JFK) and what sources have been agreed as non RS (e.g. Weyl) try to insert material that is clearly inappropriate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this edit:   The Four Deuces (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is not connected to any particular footnote, as I have said several times before. Essentially, your complaint is that a sentence in one paragraph with no footnote is bad because it does not directly quote a reference cited for a different sentence in a different paragraph. In the spirit of AGF, I'll assume that your complaint is based on a genuine ignorance of how footnotes and citations work. Please see WP:foot for a full explanation. It's a good idea to master what they're for before raising issues with them on wikipedia talkpages. Happy editing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD has been accused of disruptive editing several times by different editors (me included), and has responded with saying that these are personal attacks. Since the problem doesn't seem to go away, should we take this to WQA to get some outside comments on this? --Anderssl (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I am concerned that a couple of editors may be trying to derail improvement by wasting people's time with talkpage activity and various procedural moves, and/or trying to provoke bouts of incivility. I'm therefore not sure that WQA would achieve much in these circumstances, although there are good grounds for it, with plenty of diffs available.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I share your understanding of the situation, but I'm thinking a WQA could show these editors that such activity is not accepted in the community. There's also a good chance they are doing this on other pages, and if so a WQA could be a place to gather evidence. But I also don't have much time for this now, let's leave it for now and see if the problem persists. --Anderssl (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is with people gaming the system. The AfD has been a nightmare (although at least it looks like coming out like the last one, with time being given for the re-write to be done) because it was - funnily enough - called a few hours before the RfM was due to be closed (rather like the RfC timing), and so has had people arguing deletion on the basis of the old title. A perfectly legitimate move to close the RfM because of overwhelming consensus early was reverted and spiked by four deuces (I should note in fairness that he claims innocence in both procedural and technical matters, just as he claims innocence in believing that serial killers and JFK conspiracies are appropriate content for this article). The RfC, the AfD, the WP:NPOVN canvassing, just when consensus formed - it's all been a bit grubby. (At least I can hold my head up high in all of this having been accused of POV on both sides). Let's crack on and focus on the problems we have in the re-write. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Smallbone's edits
As you requested (and God knows we need some more co-operative editing around here), I have come to the talk page to discuss your edits. The reason why the article focusses on the three countries in question is that this is where serious academic analysis has been done on the physical elimination of large numbers of people and the ideological viewpoint of the people in charge (that is, they are distinctive enough to warrant the claim that the ideology, rather than autocratic realpolitik per se, was a decisive factor. Note that Operation Condor would be unfairly characterised as "capitalist mass killings" as what was at stake was not capitalism, but regime power - except on a reading which says that all action by a government of a certain ideology can be attributed to the ideology. This is key, and I think you might want to review this talk page as to why. You also question the use of the word "few", but that's the truth of the matter. The vast majority of communist countries did not experience large scale political killings. The black book of communism is a controversial work; it merits inclusion further down the page, but it cannot be taken as gospel.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Aside) WP:BRD, as I read it means 1 editor writes, editor #2 reverts and discusses, not editor #2 reverts then editor #1 discusses. In any case it, it's an essay - not policy
 * What I dislike about the former lede (I'll revert it again) is "carried out by a few communist regimes" and "in the name of utopian social engineering."
 * few depending how you count there were maybe 10-12 independent Communist regimes (when the East European satellites became independent, they quickly became non-Communist). Say the Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Albania, Cuba, N.Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Ethiopia. 3 or 4 doesn't seem like a "few" compared to 10. In any case many people would say that the number of Communist regimes involved in mass killings is greater than 5.  "Few" is the wrong word in this comparison.
 * utopian social engineering the lede is supposed to be a summary. Is u.s.e. discussed anywhere in the article?
 * Black Book of Communism may be controversial, but it's a well-known book by respected academics (i.e. a reliable source in our lingo) and it is all about Communism and mass killings, and, yes, it will be a major part of the article. Somehow with people gaming this article so much - I'm waiting to see somebody argue that the book is not about Communism, or that it's not about mass killings, or not about the relation between the two, or that the authors are not respected academics - but I don't see how these arguements would make sense.  Smallbones (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * About 'few': I took the liberty of inserting my own compromise solution, 'some'. That is not used as a weasel word here, since the countries in question are listed directly after - the point is just to indicate 'not all', without making the claim that these were few, since that can always be discussed back and forth ad nauseum. Sounds fair? --Anderssl (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Black Book of Communism is not universally respected. For that reason its mention in the lede is unacceptable, especially in an article that has been subject to so much POV disruption. This article is not "Misery caused by communist bastards", it is about the extent to which the use of large scale killing has been attributed to ideological motivation, rather than ideology simply being the cover for other motivations. For example, the Jewish purges in the postwar Soviet Union were described in terms of dealing with "bourgeois cosmopolitanism", when it's clear to all and sundry it was just anti-semitism. The Black Book can be mentioned, but so should some of the severe criticism it's received. It's simply inappropriate to have it in the lede.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The lede should just be a summary of the article so that someone reading it alone would get an overview of the topic. --Martintg (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took out the black book of communism part, and the "commonly attributed" claim (for which I have seen no source - there are some sources which make the attribution, but is there any documentation that this is common?). The lead shouldn't contain claims which aren't thouroughly supported by the rest of the article. If you want to add the black book, add it first in the appropriate sections of the article, along with appropriate criticism, and then let's look at the lead afterwards. (Especially since the lead is being used as attack point in the ongoing AfD - let's not feed the trolls any more than necessary!) --Anderssl (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RE VsevolodKrolikov. In nowhere says it that anything on Wikipedia including in the lede needs to be 'universally respected'. What WP:LEDE says is that It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies . What WP:YESPOV says is ''The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.'' etc. The bottom line, please follow the wikipedia quidelines while making any suggestions and/or editing the article(s). Thanks!--Termer (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think everyone understands that the lead is a summary of the most important points of the article. Currently the only mention of the Black Book is under "Further reading". That hardly makes it an important part of the article. Try writing a short paragraph about the book, summarizing the main points as well as the criticism of the book, do it fairly, and then let's see if that sticks - and THEN let's discuss the lead. One step at a time. --Anderssl (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Estonia project
Does anyone know why is article is listed as part of the Estonia project and not as part of the project for any other country? I would suggest that it be removed from the project because it is not an Estonia specific topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True. the list could get awkwardly long... Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's up to relevant WikiprojectCounry to decide either an article has an importants to its project. And since the country was under discussion in this article, I'm not surprised that someone included this article under Estonia project.--Termer (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Academic Analysis
I have a strong preference for letting paragraphs be structured according to ideas rather than authors. While people are doing great work in summarising different writers, the paragraphing, kind of like a 1st year undergrad's essay, appears to be determined by the reading list. Writers need to be integrated according to topic.

We need to agree common themes, along the lines of different kinds of analyses for why the killings happened. Doing this would also help combat accusations of SYNTH being thrown around, as it would show how different writers are actually talking about the same thing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that they're talking at crossed purposes, that a number of the "key sources" are actually clap trap, and given that outside Valentino (who appears at the edge of his discourse within academia, though firmly on the *inside* of the edge), theorists of Genocide do not claim a unitary factor lies behind Communist states engaging in mass killing&mdash;I don't know we can unify the paragraphs. Valentino starts talking into the democide issue... but. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're allowed to edit in peace, and add more stuff that we find, I think it will get easier.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The way forward lies through Valentino, his footnotes, and his citers. "Black book" only deals with intra-society levels in the introduction and conclusion, and are disappointing.  I'm concerned that typifying around ideas, without having a review article to this purpose, will simply be SYN.  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's more than that. A good trick is to use references (author, title) as search terms. Books generally on one particular country will often contain attempts to place that country in a framework, or at the very least contain a literature overview.

Here's a few more worth having a search through: VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Words kill: calling for the destruction of "class enemies" in China, 1949-1953, Cheng-Chih Wang, Routledge, 2002 ISBN 0415934281, 9780415934282
 * Governments, citizens, and genocide: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach, Alex Alvarez Indiana University Press, 2001 ISBN 0253338492, 9780253338495
 * Death by government, R. Rummel, Transaction Publishers, 1997, ISBN 1560009276, 9781560009276


 * The advantage of source-based searching is of course that you more easily find RS that compares different authors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source that makes a clear connection between Khmer Rouge utopianism and mass killings:
 * A century of genocide: utopias of race and nation Eric D. Weitz Princeton University Press, 2003 ISBN 0691009139, 9780691009131 page 158

There really is rather a lot out there, and rather a lot that has USSR, PRC and Khmer Rouge as a triumvirate to study together, even if not all sources believe that they are, in the end, similar.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah well, there's the problem with being called away to do something. I have no time today to put the sourcing in; but I wanted to establish how we can organise the analysis section. Here's the material taken out:


 * Academic analyses of these mass killings has explored reasons for what may have caused these - at least superficially - similar events. Causal factors considered include ideology, the absence of democracy and totalitarianism and rational interest group action.

Absence of "democracy" is a bit tendentious. All states mentioned had formal multi party elections (though the multiple parties all ran on a single "list", with the exception of a miniscule number of independents). You'd want a quote for that. Totalitarianism isn't used in contemporary academics, see Joravsky, David, "Communism in Historical Perspective" American Historical Review, 99 3 1994 837-857. (No DOI sadly). "Ideology" is so bland as to be vacuous. Rational interest group action is kind of a characterisation of Valentino, but we could just use Valentino's phrase instead, no? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then please feel free to re-write it. I wanted to make a start on organising the analyses by theme rather than by author. The ideological part I do not think is bland - it's quite simply the question of "did they do it primarily because they believed that it was a necessary part of creating a better society". There are strong readings (Gray/Black Book) which sees Communism as inherently destructive, and more specific ones such as Valentino which specify a certain kind of utopianism. Totalitarianism was a phrase used in Rummel; if there's a better way of describing that approach it can be put in. The rational interest group thing has come up in a couple of sources, not just Valentino; when I have time I can lay out the sourcing more systematically.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello there, I was wondering if Niall Ferguson’s book “The War of The World” could be used here? Sir Floyd (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would not include it because it is a popular book by a controversial historian. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A Harvard University Professor with a long Oxbridge working background seems an entirely acceptable source. He's controversial (I personally can't stand some of the things he says), but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be referenced. The point is that academics do disagree on this topic, so what we should do is try to reflect that debate with proper weighting. Accepting or rejecting sources based on whether WP:ILIKEIT is not encyclopaedic. So, Sir Floyd, could you be more specific on what Ferguson has to say in his book?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From the WP article: "He is best known outside academia for his revisionist views rehabilitating imperialism and colonialism.... Gopal has also pointed to quotes from The War of the World such as Ferguson's statement that people "seem predisposed" to "trust members of their own race".... A few fellow academics have questioned Ferguson's commitment to scholarship. For example, in the article quoted above Priyamvada Gopal characterizes Ferguson's popular work as "half-truths and fanciful speculation, shorn of academic protocols such as footnotes"...." The book was published by Penguin and is not academic.  And you please do not question my motives.  If Ferguson wishes to present this theories to the academic community where can be evaluated then they might become a reliable source provided they gained any recognition.  His work on the Rothschilds for example meets this criterion.  BTW Newton was a respected academic but that does not mean we should give any credence to this theories on alchemy.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ferguson is a bit of a crunchy nut bar; and outside of his field of long-term history of technology and society... well. The larger point is: Ferguson hasn't contributed as his primary engagement to this field: he's vomiting up other work better found at the source. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel seems pretty controversial and I note the preface to his book is from Irving Horowitz. BTW note what Alvarez writes in the introduction to his book:
 * Given the increasing pervasiveness of genocide in this century, it is surprising that social scientists have so seldom applied their efforts to the study of this particular type of criminality.... While there have been a few noteworthy exceptions to this omission, genocide has remained largely outside the mainstream of contemporary social science.

That is a major obstacle to this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that as a perfectly valid and rational quote, what is the problem with it? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the quote, quite the opposite. It points out that there is very little study of genocide and my point was that this fact makes writing this article extremely difficult.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, be more than happy to allow the cranks like Rummel to be shown and measured and found wanting. The Black Book's own introduction and foreword stake the metatheory advanced as general refuse (though, the chapter on Russia I read seemed like excellent normal scholarship for the first 10 pages... doesn't mean I agree with it).  The difficulty of writing this article is part of the challenge.  If in about 20 days time the academic sources do not sustain a serious discourse, watch me line up to be the first to AfD on the grounds of unverifiability. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some folks need to stand out of the way and let the article develop. Their usual argument is that such and such a source is "claptrap." All sources are not going to agree with your POV, but there are plenty of academic sources out there that say there were Communist mass killings or Communist genocides. Try Robert Conquest for an example. See one of the following comments for an example of "I don't like it." Smallbones (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conquest is an excellent work. Conquest is an excellent work specific to Mass killing in the Soviet Union.  If Conquest makes claims larger than the Soviet Union (generally, try chapters on other states, the intro, the conclusion) bring them forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Early theories para
Problems as of 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC). (Obviously I know what these things were, but the article needs to contextualise them. Also, please supply the theory element.)  Noted and inlined by Fifelfoo (talk)
 * Dewey Commission: What was it, what was their theory of Communist mass murder.  Was it generalised, or Soviet Union specific, why is this a scholarly theory?
 * Darkness at Noon: What was it, what was their theory of Communist mass murder.  Was it generalised, or Soviet Union specific, why is this a scholarly theory?
 * The Great Terror: What was it, what was their theory of Communist mass murder. Was it generalised, or Soviet Union specific, why is this a scholarly theory?  Is it Conquest's theory that all Leninism is mass-murderous in all locations, or just Russia, and why does Conquest believe this, what action causes Leninism to be this way?

WP:PSRP
I think this article could be an excellent first “target” for this new (made by me) wikiproject. Perhaps the events that have caused such division here can be avoided in the future on this, and other, articles? Irbisgreif (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RS, OR, SYN, Notability, NPOV. That seems like five current policies very useful.  And as soon as we started implementing them, the article quality improved.  And the key to implementing them was editors focused on the issue of RS, OR, SYN, Notability and NPOV, rather than on interrogating political views. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one think Irbisgreif's initiative is good! If there is anything that is needed here, it is people looking beyond their immediate political beliefs, to the idea behind the policies that Fifelfoo is listing. --Anderssl (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I also think that there needs to be a real focus on people not "taking sides". There have been people insisting that "Communist genocide" is a distinct political concept, despite all the evidence that it isn't, and people insisting there's no RS framing the subject as the article does (i.e. the grouping of the three countries), despite being presented with it. The policies are there to serve as criteria for what can and cannot be included on wikipedia, and how it should be included. Personal beliefs should not come into it at all.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the idea is that members of this project could work togeather to stop taking sides, by admitting they have sides. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the things I've noticed in this debate is how, when bad wiki behaviour has gone on, only the other side's bad behaviour is noted. Obviously ridiculous sourcing goes unchallenged by the other anti-communists; pointy editing and disruption goes unchallenged by the other deletionists. Part of the project needs to really focus on that. (I've found this whole affair has rather damaged my view of wikipedia. I've fought for lost causes before (not that this article is one - yet!), but at least they were honest discussions.) However, I would be wary of declaring my real-world allegiances (if that is what you mean by admitting we have sides). It might just cause more problems with disruptive editors.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've tried to point out that kind of behaviour on both sides (and I've noticed you have as well), but it hasn't exactly bought me any friends. But declaring your opinions on the topics just invites a lot of discussion on the topic, rather than on the article - as in the "denialism" vs "anti-communism" mudslinging on this page. --Anderssl (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle but I disagree that this page has addressed the policy concerns listed above. I've made the argument pretty clear on the AfD. I think we're just throwing sources at the problem, without discussing what the sources actually say. When we look at them closer the justifications start falling apart. A source may mention three genocides in the same chapter, for example, but does the source discuss them as examples of "communist mass killings"? Or does the same source address the notion of an ideological connection between communism and mass killing that makes these three mass killings different from other (non-"communist") political mass killings? And are these sources naturally in conversation with each other or are we forcing them into conversation by putting them on together on Wikipedia under a particular heading? I believe these are problems that are not associated just with the "anti-communist" or "denialist" mentality but are rather about what it means to have an encyclopedia article. csloat (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not helpful to assume that differences are based on political attitudes, although the reference to opposing opinions as "anti-communism" and "denialism" is interesting. Even before this article was created I wrote at Areas for Reform:
 * Many new users will create articles that represent original thought, e.g., fascist cooking, which is not currently an article. In the hypothetical article they will explain their views and other writers will add details so that the result will be a fully sourced article but with no central definition so that it becomes pure WP:SYN and WP:OR.  However if anyone applies to delete the article, there is a hardcore that follows WP:AfD  who will provide no end of argument why the article should be kept.  A Google search for fascist cooking returns 215 hits.  What about the Soup Nazi?  We now have a large number of articles about subjects for which there is no clear meaning in the academic world, although often used as neologisms in academic books.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In other articles I never insert dubious sources for theories that mainstream sources do not support. When someone claimed that a source in Neo-conservatism was "very controversial" I wrote "I would like to see more use of peer-reviewed literature in this article. If this book is as scholarly as is claimed then it should be easy to following the footnotes/sources to find this information in peer-reviewed literature." The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)  I can give countless examples. I just happen to think that it is a disservice to readers to use poor sources in articles.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion tag
I confess to not being very familiar with this article, but it seems that adding a deletion tag on this article is preposterous. The deletion tag should be deleted. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AfD is perfectly valid. Furthermore the AfD tag should not be removed until the AfD is resolved either with a decision of keep, delete or no consensus. Refer to WP:AFD Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read WP:before Simon? You didn't follow that. You ignored the RfM and RfC. Was it because they weren't going your way?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the deletion tag should be immediately removed. If someone wants to debate on the discussion page that is OK, but there was no proper procedure followed. Even the debate on Neutral point of view/Noticeboard isn't needed. The tag is one person's POV. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the consensus editorial direction, and warning about content lying outside of that consensus

 * The consensus standard of proof from above is that theories constituting a specific link between ideology and mass killing must exist in RS for any other content to be included. As the Move result acts as an endorsement of the consensus built on sources, I will be enforcing this on this article.  Consider this a polite warning to all editors, not only must facts be RS demonstrated, but facts can only be placed in relation to a scholarly academically published theorisation of a structural link between Communist ideology (in general, or in a specific incarnation broader than a single state / movement) and mass killings. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That really narrows the topic and it may be that the article can have no content at all. The Four Deuces (talk)
 * In that case we'll have excellent material to merge into a more suitable article, and get the prior names creation locked. And if the process succeeds then we'll have a good article here, and get all the annoying other potential titles redirected and semi-protected.  Either way, wikipedia and RS'd encyclopedic content wins. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I came here from the AfD.  Why on earth was the entry renamed to something so ambiguous and general if the consensus is that all content should relate to something more specific like "communist genocide", which ironically is what it was renamed from?  The new name seems to fly in the face of every single general naming guideline in WP:NAME.  It is arguably recognizable (1), but certainly not easy to find (2), precise (3), concise (4) or consistent (5).PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been a comprehensive discussion about the problems with the title "Communist genocide" above, at . Please review the arguments discussed there, and at, and explain why you think a different title would be better. --Anderssl (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the arguments. Please review WP:NAME.  This title fails 4 of the 5 basic naming guidelines (and arguably all five).  I appreciate the impetus to change the name based on POV concerns but it is time to recognize that you all took a wrong turn in doing so.PelleSmith (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you doubt the applicability of the basic guidelines to names deemed controversial by a group of editors please review NAME. The old name, or conversely Communist mass killings would be much better.  But please note that whether or not such a subject is itself notable or fit for an encyclopedia is a whole other matter.  Though that matter should be judged on its own. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed these pages a few times now. WP:NAME states, under "easy to find": "This means that if the article topic has a name, that name is used as the article title, if possible. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources." We have established that there is no consistent naming in reliable sources, and have therefore found a descriptive name which is more precise and consistent (as genocides are normally named after the victims, not after the perpetrators). There is, as always, a trade-off between being precise and concise, and consensus has been that 'Mass killings under Communist regimes' strikes an appropriate balance. If you want to reopen the issue you may make a new RM, but I would suggest to leave that until the current process of improving the content of the article has yielded a more stable result. Now that we have a consensus for a focus of the article, hopefully it can be improved significantly; if the final result seems better fitted for a different title, I'll be the first to support a move. --Anderssl (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this entry title is in any way "precise" ... which is the only 1 out of 5 guidelines you are even claiming this name succeeds at? You assume 1) that "mass killings" has a precise definition and 2) that "under communist regimes" is a precise descriptor (perpetuated by the regimes themselves? committed by citizens of the regimes? committed in a geographic region ruled by said regime by anyone including foreign combatants?).  It appears that mass killing is so precise that we had to redirect it to mass murder here on Wikipedia -- which, along with the ambiguous word "under" seems quite related to the suggestion by another editor to start adding content about serial killers in communist states.  More precisely - per Fifelfoo's comment above the claim must be that "mass killings under communist regimes" is a precise name for content that discusses "a structural link between Communist ideology (in general, or in a specific incarnation broader than a single state / movement) and mass killings"?  Please do explain because I'm quite perplexed by that claim.  On a side note it appears that WP:NAME had little to anything to do with your naming discussion above, which is really shame as it is the most applicable guideline we have.PelleSmith (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I am arguing that this among the proposed candidates, this is the title that has the best balance between being precise and concise, while also being reasonably consistent. ('Communist mass killings' is more concise but less consistent, because it names the crimes after the perpetrators instead of the victims, just like CG.) As for "recognizable" and "easy to find" I find it hard to see which of the different proposals are the best, they seem pretty equal to me in those respects. I don't want to spend more time on a debate that has been settled, so if you want to reopen the debate do it through a RM. --Anderssl (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a gap between, for example, qual sociological precision in terms; and, discourse analysis precision in concepts. Wikipedia's name concept of precision covers both.  The second (which is likely what this could be, if it survives withering editorial analysis) will be sufficiently precise to identify as a theoretical construct according to disciplinary standards.  In a history that tends to be a couple of paragraphs with the key clause being repeatedly mentioned in a couple of different ways, but addressed as a key social structure or process that actually exists, rather than a description of part of something else, or a colouring sentence.  (I have my doubts that Valentino will survive this). Fifelfoo (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) PelleSmith, I appreciate your concerns about the new name. I'm not entirely happy with it myself (and I suggested it). You're also absolutely right to mention WP:NAME, which should have been brought up before as a matter of course. However, it should be appreciated that the current title has been a focus for building consensus at a time when to begin with editors on either side could not find any common ground whatsoever (the RfM received an near unanimous (11-2) vote, probably inconceivable a month ago). As we sort the article out and remove the syntheses, we do need to let RS descriptions take over. The central problem is having one common short phrase that does not come across as POV. There isn't one in the literature, alas, as the question hasn't been nicknamed at all. If you have any better ideas, please help.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * VsevolodKrolikov, when you say "There isn't one in the literature, alas, as the question hasn't been nicknamed at all" you are actually saying that this is entirely original research which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. "Mass killings" is used in the literature, specifically about the content of this article. It's the "in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China and in Cambodia" bit that's not unified into a single word. As you well know, unless you have not actually read any of the sources accepted by consensus as a way to move forward. Why don't you go and edit another article instead?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dewey, Koestler, Conquest
This content is unuseable due to violation of the consensus in moving forward:
 * Mass killing or a similar structure is not mentioned or articulated
 * A general theory, or cross-cultural theory of communist causes for mass killing is not mentioned or articulated
 * Sources are not RS. Dewey and Koestler are Primary.

Editors had sufficient warning, tags, with commentary about the source problems. Early analyses of Soviet repression, such as those of the Dewey Commission and Arthur Koestler's roman à clef Darkness at Noon, focused on the Moscow show trials of 1937. Robert Conquest, in his 1968 book The Great Terror stated that the executions of former Communist leaders was a minor detail of the purges, which caused 20 million deaths including man-made famines. For the 40th anniversary edition of the book, he reduced his estimate to 13-15 million. Conquest stressed that Stalin's purges were not contrary to the principles of Leninism, but rather a natural consequence of the system established by Lenin.


 * This is pure unadulterated nonsense. Mass killing is not mentioned in Conquest??!!!  20 million is not enough?  There is no rule against including primary sources (if indeed Koestler and Dewey are primary sources), they just can't be used exclusively - here they are mentioned in passing, putting other works in context.  Additionally, you're saying that "A general theory" of international mass murder motivated by Communist ideals must be in each reference! Nonsense. Smallbones (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit in Conquest, Koestler and Dewey Commission's relevance to the context quickly, or produce a better context paragraph. "Prior to Robert Conquest, popular debate on the issue of Soviet violations of legality were restricted to shock at the destruction of old Bolsheviks in the Trials(fn).  Conquest's scholarship brought the issue of death on a mass scale as a result of state policy to the forefront, however, Conquest (did/did not) theorise this as (a Soviet specific phenomena/a general failing of Communism)."  Your para does not adequately relate to the article topic.  See the skeleton para which places reference to article context front and centre. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I forgot to say, I love the new picture, more so than the old picture. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)