Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 5

Review article of recent genocide historiography
Stone, Dan(2004)'The historiography of genocide: beyond 'uniqueness' and ethnic competition', Rethinking History,8:1,127 — 142 DOI: 10.1080/13642520410001649769
 * Summary: communism isn't mentioned as a specific cause, genocide studies is focused on individual incidents rather than attempts to systematise or synthesise genocides into categorical hierarchies. Not a good sign for the non-Synthesis status of this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a better point if the article was still called "Communist genocide". The particularities of the term "genocide" was one of the main reasons for changing the name of this article. That this source doesn't mention communism as a cause of genocide, however defined, doesn't change that there are other sources which discuss communism and mass killings. Is this source available online? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the SYN problem is even worse, since there simply is no historiography or other scholarly treatment of "mass killings" as an independent category, and certainly not of "communist" mass killings. At least "genocide" is a legitimate category under scholarly investigation. csloat (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Mass killing" in the article title is meant as a neutral descriptor, rather than, as you say, an "independent category". The topic is mass killing, but the particular terminology used by sources may be something else (in fact, the terminology is something of a debate in itself). Regardless, here are a couple examples of scholarly discussion of the topic of Communist mass killings:
 * "'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..."
 * "All accounts of 20th century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees."
 * AmateurEditor (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The source is online: DOI: 10.1080/13642520410001649769 journal link also through ingenta.
 * Your quote from Mann is a little tendentious as a summary of his work at best, your search term also reveals "Release came only when a Communist Vietnamese Army invaded and overthrew the Khmer Rouge. Ironically, the biggest example of humanitarian interventionism was launched by a Communist state, ending the most horrendous case of Communist cleansing[...]" (Mann, 339) – mentioned as there's a tendency to universalise the Communist in this article as if all communists, rather than use it as a limiter "specifically communist" mass killing (or other noun phrase for horror). Only commented because of the immediacy of your throw up from Mann. (though we should use both of your sources in the analysis section, could you add them?) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There were issues with genocide encouraging the addition of miscellaneous cases of killings which weren't mass due to the expansion of the legal term genocide by central european governments. Additionally, as noted, the academic field is in flux.  If you have access to Mann's chapter, could you clarify if the 3 case focus is drawn from Valentino or if its an independent categorisation? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not obstruct the writing of this article. The title is "Mass killings under Communist regimes" and anything that relates to mass killings under Communist regimes may be included. Smallbones (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, the agreed direction for the article is scholars who've made cross cultural comparisons of mass killing in Communist societies and only communist societies. Pointing out that a recent review article of genocide studies doesn't observe that there is a scholarly literature especially dealing with communist causes of communist killings is significant.  It goes to the SYN debate.  One review article isn't sufficient to decisively close the SYN debate though. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Agreed direction?" Some folks have claimed consensus on this, but they seem to be the same folks who want to delete the article! There is no agreed direction that there has to be an over-arching commonality, other than "mass killings under Communist regimes." If you can't add to the article, please don't both bother those of us who want to. Smallbones (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Add a verb, I think we can agree on the need for one of those, and for the probably kind of verb missing). Wikipedia is not a miscillany.  The grounding for this article has to be a notable theory or tendency in the academic literature of the unified features of mass-killings, or genocides, or other large scale human rights violations (the fact that this literature is using a variety of terms doesn't bother me, it just means that its under active academic debate).  Show me the notable unifying theoretical category.  Hell, if you want to contribute, it seems that the school behind the concept of "democide" is sufficiently notable, and (IIRC) made such claims.  Hopefully in a more academic way than the Blackbook, whose intro and conclusion is a theoretical mess.  Hopefully with less vacillation than Valentine whose claim is tenuous, and a descriptive subset of an actual theoretical category.  I'd add the review article I noted as a example counter to the concept, but my current project with this article is trying to find sources for its notability&mdash;so please don't imply I'm a deletionist regarding it. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Black Book of Communism is actually a fine book to show your overarching concept. When you get a book published by the Harvard University Press, perhaps people will be interested in your criticism of the Black Book.  Even then your criticism would be OR if inserted into an article.  Smallbones (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Black Book has been read, cited, and included as an RS. The introduction and conclusion do not clearly argue a cause for multi-social mass murder in communism, its a secondary consideration in the introduction and comes down to an unusual direct comparison with catholicism&mdash;the conclusion spends one page on China, Vietnam and Cambodia as a group (without drawing a conclusion other than "the rot set in in October 1917), and spends the rest of the time elucidating how nasty the Soviet Union was without drawing theoretical conclusions.  The remainder of the chapters are single society studies.  So the Black Book is not particularly useful.  Central European University would probably be a more prestigious publisher for this field than Harvard; but, an editor citing their own highest quality RS secondary work would be a conflict of interest, not OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please let me remind that this talk page is for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, not about finding and listing sources that do not touch the subject.--Termer (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Some" in the lead sentence
Hello,

I have removed the adjective "some" from the lead sentence. By definition, this article discusses killings under communist regimes. While three regimes are the main focus, the article is not limited. Therefore, I think that "some" is not useful in the lead.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * RS policy on this article. LEDE should summarise.  Neither source substantiates the claims.  Consensus on moving forward was RS presentations of multi-society incidents.  WEIGHTed RS, as noted at length in the article, only demonstrates common theories regarding the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. ... and even these are contentious due to the tendentious nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not claim such a consensus. Do not try to fool yourself, or anybody else, that there were not mass killings under multiple Communist regimes.  Smallbones (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * And please do not remove a properly formatted reference, that is obviously a reliable source. The argument was, as I understand it that there should not be a reference in the lede.  Where did that rule come from?  Show it to me and I'll apologize, but otherwise don't remove RSs; in fact if you'd like them moved, you can move them yourself, but removing an RS reference ....  Smallbones (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The so-called consensus I object to is "RS presentations of multi-society incidents." Smallbones (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Smallbones, you are wrong. I haven't seen Fifelfoo (or anyone else here for that matter) argue that "there were not mass killings under multiple Communist regimes", and it is very unhelpful to insinuate that he has. The disagreement is about whether there are RS's analyzing communism as a common cause for these killings. If you think the ref you are trying to add to the article is such a source, then add it to the "academic analysis" section along with a couple of lines summarizing the central argument in the source. The lead is supposed to be a summary, so if the source is never mentioned in the rest of the article, it has no place in the lead.
 * The consensus Fifelfoo refers to was discussed here.--Anderssl (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Only on wikipedia would people think it's a good idea to have a lead sentence that basically says "Blue sky refers to a sky that is blue."Prezbo (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the article begins with a tautology is that no one has been able to find a definition for the subject in reliable sources. Either a source should be found or the article should be deleted.  Its nomination for deletion has been rejected twice owing to "no consensus".  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject doesn't need to be defined, the meaning of the phrase is obvious. WP:BOLDTITLE is the relevant guideline about this.Prezbo (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you think the lead paragraph should be phrased? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like this. This is a small issue, I don't have any larger opinions about this article's content or existence.Prezbo (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That would widen the article to include enemy combatants killed in battle. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How? To me it seems to mean exactly the same thing as the current version.Prezbo (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not important--whatever the first sentence is, I just wanted to point out that it shouldn't be in this format.Prezbo (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your recommendation for the article says "Some Communist regimes carried out large scale mass killing". Many Communist governments killed people as part of wars they were engaged in, for example the Second World War.    Do you think that this was "mass killings under Communist regimes"?   The Four Deuces (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) "The reason the article begins with a tautology is that no one has been able to find a definition for the subject in reliable sources." Really? Once again, going back to Communist genocide, all that we had to agree on was to represent in article narrative whatever it is that reliable sources state regarding Communist genocide, the summary of that would define the lede. Only on WP do we: This article will continue to go nowhere as long as there are editors who keep steering the argument toward how best to position the cart before the horse, as in inquiries such as: "Many Communist governments killed people as part of wars they were engaged in, for example the Second World War. Do you think that this was 'mass killings under Communist regimes'?" V ЄСRUМВА  [TALK] 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) argue over deleting an article as unsourced when it is; and that a term as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when it appears in hundreds of sources; and when that approach fails,
 * 2) use the lede to wage content war over the body of an article when it is the body of the article which should define the lede.


 * But the body of the article is a list of things/events with one particular unifying characteristic. Noone is arguing that events indeed took place and they had that common characteristic. Now by your suggestion that list has to define the lead which would synthesize arguments into one unsourced statement that the characteristic or the trait (that is being communist) defines the events. (Igny (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC))

Do not remove reliable sources that you don't like
Folks who are removing reliable sources because they don't fit in with a preconceived ideological formulation are making it very difficult to write this article. Smallbones (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What pre-conceived ideological formulation do you think these editors have? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The proper subject matter for this page is "Mass killings under Communist regimes." The "requirement" proposed by the so-called "consensus" that all references must show that all the mass-killings are ideologically related (or else be deleted) is a preconceived ideological formulation.  The only true requirements for reliable sources are clearly stated at WP:RS and that they be related to mass killings under Communist regimes.  End of story.  Smallbones (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What ideology are you asserting these editors have? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, Smallbones, either this is an encyclopedic topic or it isn't. The only argument anyone has put forward as to why this might be encyclopedic is that these mass killings are allegedly connected to Communism as an ideology.  Wikipedia is not just a list of things; if there is no reliable source marking the alleged connection, then stringing these mass killings together under this heading is synthesis of original research, which is invalid by Wikipedia standards.  You do not escape that by retreating to WP:RS - there are plenty of reliable sources that we do not use because they are not relevant.  Personally I have not been removing sources for the time being as some editors suggested an honest attempt to bring this article in line with Wikipedia policies, so I am staying out of it for now.  But there are a lot of sources in here that are not relevant by these standards and should eventually be removed.  If there is enough left after that to make an article, great; but, if not, back to AfD it goes. csloat (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's encyclopedic. My memory might be failing me, did you not object to the article title juxtaposing "Communist genocide"? As I recall, there were hosts of claims of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, "no sources," et al. even though Google books returned somewhere around 400 references. My suggestion that the article simply be about what reputable sources describe as "communist genocide" and what is said about it was completely ignored as that did not allow for any injection of personal synthesis, which is what this retitled contrivance is. God forbid we actually just write an article that summarizes reputable sources. Be that as it may, what specific sources are you suggesting to add to the already massive "does not apply" list, and why? What Wikipedia policies are currently being violated by their presence? V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Since the successful retitling, the article does not have to have anything to do with killings connected to "Communism as an ideology." They merely need to be communist regimes. Your objection applies to, at best if at all, OOPS, to the original title . So sorry! V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true then the article should be deleted outright. The only reason it has been given half a chance is because people insisted that there is a cohesive subject matter here, and not an arbitrary list.  If there is no meaningful connection between mass killings and fact that these regimes are communist then the entry needs to be retitled to Mass Killings in the People's Republic of China, the USSR and Democratic Kampuchea.  Is that an encyclopedic entry?  Hardly.  I'm certain the next AfD wont fail.  Those who rightly object to this entry are better off just staying away until such a time that it can be deleted once and for all.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Either there is a topic here, in which case all citations must be related to the topic, or there is no topic here and this article goes into the cruft abyss.  But you cannot have it both ways. csloat (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article name and topic is "Mass killings...", as in instances of mass killing, rather than "Mass killing..." in the abstract. Content about the relationship between Communism and mass killing is a sub-topic, inclusion of which is also appropriate here. If editors want to limit this to just the link between Communism and mass killing in general, then we would need to rename the article. On the other hand, we might want to split this into a List of mass killings under Communist regimes article and a different article about Communism and mass killing. But I am in no hurry to do that. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) So you think the article should include Soviet serial killers, Kennedy murder conspiracy theories, Nazi killings of Soviet citizens and Soviet killings of fascist invaders. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But if you think the current title demands it, I'd like to hear your proposal for a better title. As it stands, I think the explanation for why those categories do not apply to this article should be made clear in the intro. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got an idea to diffuse tensions! Lets all go find an RS each that deals with multi society instances of mass killing, and then describe its theorisation or narrativisation in the article at an appropriate length with clearly cited and weighted points! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An even better idea. You find an RS that deals with the theory of mass killings in Communist regimes, and everybody else write an article (including Reliable Sources) that addresses an aspect that they want to of "Mass killings under Communist regimes."  People who delete reliable sources get trout slapped.  Smallbones (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was honestly trying to suggest above that those who have it out for this entry should just back off until such time that it can go back to AfD. They can rest assured that the next time it will get deleted and you all can have your fun in peace until then.  Enjoy.PelleSmith (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, I'm a little confused by your complaint. Me and Fifelfoo deleted a ref that you tried to insert into the lead because the source wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. So the main argument - as I understand it - had nothing to do with neither reliability or ideology or relevance to the topic, but simply that it didn't belong in the lead if it wasn't used elsewhere in the article. The lead should give a summary of the article, not make a separate argument that isn't given any attention elsewhere in the article. So like I suggested before, if you think this source belongs in the article you should add it to the appropriate section, and then once that has happened we can discuss the lead. --Anderssl (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just change the title of the article to "Mass killings in Russia, China, and Cambodia"? If people don't want to show a connection to "communism" then presumably that word is extraneous in the title. csloat (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet more literature review
Adam Jones "Introduction: History and Complicity" in Genocide, War Crimes & the West: history and complicity Adam Jones ed. London: Zed 2004, p18 claims Leo Kuper's Genocide: its political use in the twentieth century Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981 is a seminal text in cross cultural genocide comparisons. Stoett in the same attempts a typology but its structuralist and doesn't see ideology as a category. The book as a whole would be as useless for an equivalent article on The West as the Black Book is for communism. Only the introduction and Stoett are cross-cultural. Gellately, Robert and Ben Kiernan (eds) The Specter of Genocide: mass murder in historical perspective CUP: 2003, appears to have six cross cultural or theoretical chapter: good possibility. Rubinstein, William D. Genocide: a history Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Longman, 2004 appears to have an implicit theorisation of class as a motivating factor, however, it falls somewhere between textbook and popular monograph, and doesn't deal in a scholarly manner with the negative case of Rubinstein's hypothesis&mdash;he's also off speciality. (this is a reminder note to read Gellately2003Specter and Rubinstein2004Genocide) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your personal review of the literature is irrelevant OR. Stick with WP:RS, your statement that x "doesn't deal in a scholarly manner with the negative case of Rubinstein's hypothesis&mdash;he's also off speciality." reads to me like a joke.  Please be serious about this article.  Smallbones (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro
The intro currently begins: "Mass killings under Communist regimes occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in China during the cultural revolution, and by the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia." Could this be re-written as: "Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in China during the cultural revolution, and under the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia." The Four Deuces (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, that is a better sentence structure. --Anderssl (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed it. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even better would be: "Mass killings occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in China during the cultural revolution, and by the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia." Then the title could be changed to more accurately reflect the content: Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Others
I have removed this section which begins "Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes...." The article needs verifiable information not "appearances". The Four Deuces (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Estimations from reliable sources are quite relevant. I've reinserted the section. Please stop trying to cut the balls off this article. Smallbones (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for weasel words (e.g., "appear to") Incidentally as far as I know only one regime in Africa and one in Latin America were ever Communist, viz., Ethipia and Cuba.  Is your source referring to those countries or are they using a different definition?  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The balls" should really be in summary style, rather than coat-racking. Given the...poor quality of scholarship in the foreword, introduction and conclusion of the Black book I'd like to see a second or third cite for each of the instances as being classified as instances of gross barbarity in the style of mass killing / democide / politicide / genocide / what have you. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If "the balls" of this article relies on such sources and borderline innuendo, I think we are already dealing with a castrato. csloat (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Angola, partially. Tanzania, very socialist, some sources call it communist (it was sort of its own version, though definitely Marxist-Leninist inspired). Mali, from independence till '68 (though again, it depends where you wanna draw the line between socialism and communism) - just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.radek (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Nova Science Publishers a Vanity Press?
I agree with Smallbones that NSP shouldn't be instantly removed, but, investigation indicates we should be worried:
 * Their Book Idea form indicates very strongly they publish in a Vanity mode.
 * They accept unsolicited manuscripts.
 * On the other hand in relation to Sciences, randi considers them low impact, low status, but not beyond the pale.

While not Vanity, their editorial policy (the core of a Publisher's status as RS producing) is seriously questioned:
 * Here in relation to Anthro
 * Here academics consider it lacks the peer review process of a scholarly or commercial publisher

Can we deal with this here, or should be shoot it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In Google Books but otherwise not mentioned in Google scholar. Not reviewed in MSM.  Therefore not RS.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you expand MSM for me, I'm so deeply embedded in the Australian tertiary system? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainstream media. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, using blogs and online forums to establish if Nova Publishers is vanity press? According to Wikipedia's own article (more reliable than a blog entry?) some academic libraries do apparently hold journals published by them, and some eminent researchers have published in their science journals. I guess the real question seems to be: whether there are any academic libraries that holds this particular book cited in the article in their collection? --Martintg (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is it cited in academic articles or even reviewed in mainstream media? What specific qualification does the writer have as an historian?  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The work in question is a translation of Gheorghe Boldur-Lățescu Genocidul comunist în România București : Albatros, 1992- (one reason why I demand full citations in article reviews). Albatros appears to be a general commercial publisher (please when searching, don't get confused with Prague: Albatros).  I'm not convinced about Albatros' quality, but it appears much higher than NSP, as its operated on a commercial basis since at least the 1970s. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected the work and dumping it here. Its a single society study which is uncited in the article.  Reference spam is identical in my mind to link spam:Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)



Deportations and famine are not mass killings
War-time deportations and famine are not mass killings, people--Dojarca (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Intentionally caused famines certainly are and deportations may involve mass killings. These are the accusations that come from reliable sources.  The numerous AFDs have failed, please step out of the way - do not try to delete by sections.  Let others edit the article without any nonsense please.  Smallbones (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Famines are not killings at all, intentionally caused or not (and it is not proven the famines were intentionally caused). The deportations may indeed involve mass killings so please write about those killings (even if they were during deportations) rater than deportations themselves. Regarding your 100 million estimates, it is based on the Black Book of Communism which estimates number of "victims of communism", and includes not only victims of killings but also excess mortality and other factors not connected to any killings whatsoever.--Dojarca (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, famine was one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Famines took the lives of perhaps seven million people in the Soviet Union, thirty million in China, and at least seven hundred thousand in Cambodia. Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state."


 * "However, this argument highlights one particular feature of many Communist regimes - their systematic use of famine as a weapon. The regime aimed to control the total available food supply and, with immernse ingenuity, to distribute food purely on the basis of "merits" and "demerits" earned by individuals. This policy was a recipe for creating famine on a massive scale. Remember that in the period after 1918, only Communist countries experienced such famines, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people. And again in the 1980s, two African countries that claimed to be Marxist-Leninist, Ethiopia and Mozambique, were the only such countries to suffer these deadly famines."


 * AmateurEditor (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow interesting invention - "non-intentional mass killing". Do you know that the rise of Lysenkoism was because he promised to quickly eliminate famine? --Dojarca (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can learn something everyday at Wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AmateurEditor, your citations do not even accuse that the famines were intentional. The guilt of Communism according your sources was in that it distrubuted food according the merits before the state thus directing the worst excesses of the famine onto its enemies. So I am sure the use of the "mass killing" term by the first author was nothing more than a rhetoric hyperbola. Otherwise distribution of food according one's wealth in a supermarket is also a case of "mass killing"--Dojarca (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The famines do not have to be intentional for them to be used to target and kill a regime's enemies. The sources I cited state that famine was used as a weapon, regardless of how it originated. The use of "mass killing" in the first source is not hyperbolic, but carefully chosen. He uses a very specific definition for the term: 50,000 killed within 5 years. And the pricing of food in a market is not "distribution" in anything but the loosest definition of the word. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also compare an earlier statement in the lead with the more recent one:
 * Among historians, estimates of the mass killings by communist regimes vary between 60 to 100 million people.
 * An estimate of 100 million deaths are commonly attributed to Communist mass killings.
 * Where there is a range it is wrong to chose either the high or low range as fact.
 * It is also POV to imply that we cannot use the term "genocide" because of a Communist conspiracy.
 * The statement from Weitz's book, "Factions debate whether Communist ideology was the cause of these killings, rather than the difficult economic situations many of these regimes faced" does not appear to be supported by the source which is a chapter about the USSR. Please note too that in Western scholarship, groups of academics who hold differing views are not called "factions".  The objective of Western historians is to understand events not to argue political grievances.
 * Whether or not this article exists, its contents must follow WP policy.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My point here is that the Black Book of Communism speaks about "victims of Communism" in the broadest possible sense including excess mortality compared to other countries, victims of wars (such as war in Vietnam) and victims of famines. Most of them cannot be refered to as "victims of mass killings" in any reasonable meaning.--Dojarca (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was previous discussion that in the article killings would mean intentional killing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Directing famine against ones enemies is intentional killing. That the Holodomor and Deportation sections have been in place for so long clearly indicates that they met the standard of previous discussion. I, however, did not restore the Deportation section because the issues raised about it now seemed to me to still be open, as I do not have the direct quotes from sources at the moment to prove it belongs. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is only mass killing if food is deliberately withheld. Only if the famine was deliberately caused could it be mass killing.  There are other views that the famine was caused by government incompetance or by external factors.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is correct. Your second sentence is not. A famine may be natural or caused by massive state incompetence, but directing the famine against enemies of the state is intentional killing. Other views in this instance can be included from reliable sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * R.J. Rummel on this issue: "democide through deportation is the killing of people during their forced mass transportation to distant regions and their death as a direct result, such as through starvation or exposure. Democidal famine is that which is purposely caused or aggravated by government or which is knowingly ignored and aid to its victims is withheld." www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM


 * All the fatalities as a result of Stalinist mass deportations certainly qualify as democide, and many of the deaths from the Soviet famine of 1932-33 do as well. Regarding the famine, professor Ellman states:


 * Since the death of some of them was a natural consequence of turning back peasants fleeing from starvation and of exporting grain during a famine, the only way of defending Stalin from (mass) murder is to argue that he did not foresee that preventing peasants fleeing from the most severely affected regions and exporting grain would cause additional deaths. This is a distinctly odd argument to use about someone from a plebeian background ruling an overwhelmingly peasant country which regularly experienced famines. Stalin was undoubtedly ignorant about many things, but was he really that ignorant? http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1933.pdf


 * The two sections in question should be restored.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the abstract Ellman wrote: "In particular, the question of whether or not in 1932 33 the Ukrainian people were victims of genocide, is analysed."  It is important to not report opinions as facts.  There are academics who argue for calling this genocide and others who argue against it.  All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.  (See WP:NPOV.)  We cannot take sources we agree with and present them as fact while ignoring dissenting opinion.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How does deleting sections of the article move us toward representing "all significant views"? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Was 1943-1944 famine in Bengal under British rule an example of mass killing (1.5-3 million dead)? Was 1907-1908 famine in India an example of mass killing?


 * Were famines in Russian Empire in 1901-1902, 1905-1906, 1908, 1911-1912 (with 8 million victims overall) an example of mass killing? Note that Tsar forbid the International Red Cross and Zemstva to help the victims, widows, orphans, those able to work and landless peasants were excluded from hunger aid, and the aid should be returned next year (many people dead in 1911-1912 because should return hunger aid received in previous years). At the same time grain was exported. Is it not a "mass killing"?


 * Is refusal to send food to starving Africa is mass killing?--Dojarca (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, regarding exports.


 * 1930 - 4.8 million tons
 * 1931 - 5.2 million tons
 * 1932 - 1.8 million tons
 * 1933 - 1.6 million tons
 * Tsarist government before 1914 exported 10-15 million tons of grain every year even in 1911 when 1 million and 613 thouand people dead of hunger and 1900-1901 when 2 million and 813 thousand only Orthodox Christians dead of hunger.--Dojarca (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dojarca, I've given you quotes from reliable sources stating that famines were used as a weapon by communist regimes. If you don't like it, find a reliable source offering a counterpoint. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is evident that the "mass killing" in you source is used in figurative meaning. And political weapon is not necessary a killing.
 * We probably should start Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. Noam Cholmsky, for example, estimated that if to apply the Black Book of Communism's methodology the excess mortality in India alone compared to China since 1945, is responsible for more "victims of Capitalism" than the the Black Book attributes to Communism in total.
 * --Dojarca (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't "evident" until you present evidence. If you've reviewed the source and come to the conclusion that the mass killing referred to in the above quote is figurative, you should be able to give us a direct quote from the source to that effect. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heared about allegory or catachresis  ? For example, use of word "weapon" in politics is the same as using phrase "ship of state".--Dojarca (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources you will understand what they mean. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it. No source says there were killings in literal sense.--Dojarca (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the first quote I provided for you:
 * "Indeed, famine was one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia. Famines took the lives of perhaps seven million people in the Soviet Union, thirty million in China, and at least seven hundred thousand in Cambodia. Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state."
 * It comes from the book Final Solutions, Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century by Benjamin Valentino. On page 6 of the book he writes "I introduce and define the term "mass killing," which includes most commonly accepted cases of genocide but also encompasses a broader range of events distinguished by the large scale, intentional killing of noncombatants." He is more specific elsewhere, defining "mass killing" as 50,000 such intentional killings within five years. Nowhere does he even imply that this is figurative killing. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does he state the famine was intentional (asking just out of interest)? And also can you please tell me is bad medical treatment a murder, massive AIDS infection due to negligence is a massacre and so on?--Dojarca (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Global Museum External link
There has been discussion on whether the link to this website should be included. Please read the WP:ELNO to determine if the link is appropriate. I would suggest that (1) it does not provide any information that is not in the article and (2) the accuracy has not been established. Specifically its source for the claim that there were 100 million people killed by Communist regimes is the Black Book,. But the article already references the Black Book and there are questions about its accuracy. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The site does provide info not in the article, or that would not be in the article upon reaching featured status. And what exactly are you looking for to establish its accuracy if you reject The Black Book of Communism? The writers of its articles would appear to have endorsed the site, and they are quite eminent. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Globalmuseumoncommunism lacks a named curator and a stated curatorial policy, it is functioning and presenting as an unedited blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be much better if you quit trying to delete things simply because you don't like what they say. Where is the requirement for "a named curator and a stated curatorial policy?" Poof.  Smallbones (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The deleted website fails to meet Wikipedia policy criteria: one should avoid: What specific information is available at the website that you think does not belong in the article? More importantly how do you know that the site does not mislead the reader? What third party review has been done on the site? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research...
 * You have yet to show how the site fails this policy.
 * As for the information not specific to mass killings, I'll quote the website:
 * "The museum features powerful images that our research partners have recently recovered, including photographs, propaganda posters, audio recordings and video footage that will move you and encourage hope. The Global Museum on Communism also serves academic communities by preserving a permanent record of the immense suffering inflicted on untold millions by communist regimes."
 * As for misleading the reader, either give me one example from the website of factually inaccurate material, or drop that baseless charge.
 * As for your standard of "third party review," this isn't an academic journal. In this case, oversight is provided by the Board of Directors, who are " charged with the overall administrative and policy oversight of the Global Virtual Museum on Communism." AmateurEditor (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors cannot conduct due diligence on external websites, that would be original research. I have made no charge, only stated the obvious:  that there is no way of knowing whether the source is misleading.  If in  doubt, leave it out.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made a charge: that the site misleads the reader. And you have nothing to back it up. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent my words, which you have now done twice. I said "how do you know that the site does not mislead the reader? What third party review has been done on the site?...  Editors cannot conduct due diligence on external websites, that would be original research. I have made no charge, only stated the obvious: that there is no way of knowing whether the source is misleading. If in doubt, leave it out."  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You cited two reasons why this site fails Wikipedia policy criteria of sites to avoid, one of which was "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research...". You then ask us to prove a negative, that the site doesn't mislead. Obviously, it is impossible to prove a negative. You must show, then, that it does mislead, or else drop the issue. Your "third party review" requirement is not a criteria on that list. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've quoted it a sufficient times yourself, "unverifiable research". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of this unverifiable research? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the museum lacks a named, trained, curator; and lacks a collections policy which meets expected standards for a museum, its publications (ie: exhibits, collections) are unverifiable. I have noticed that they recently corrected their blog software to actually have a contacts page, and have expanded the information about themselves since the AfD on the Foundation. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unverifiable" does not mean "lacking a curator." AmateurEditor (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please propose a verification standard for Museums. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another example of folks trying to remove information that they don't like. Get an unbiased editor to confirm your "judgement" or leave it in. I'm frankly sick and tired of folks who push their POVs by removing material. Can you suggest a forum where you would accept the (to me) obvious judgement that you've got to stop this nonsense? Smallbones (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken it to WP:RS/N at [this section]. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And gotten nowhere. I'll put the link back. If you ever find an unbiased forum that says it is a bad link, feel free to remove it.  Smallbones (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should not oppose adding some links to Stalinist sites, would you?--Dojarca (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize it before, but there is a External links/Noticeboard. If editors are still interested in disputing this, I think we should make our cases there. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really insist on this link? In fact its existence compromises the article's image in my view. Anyway if you want the article to not look like a piece of propaganda, attribute the link as "anti-Communist".--Dojarca (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. The website documents the events, atrocities, and victims of communist regimes and is maintained by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. What could be more appropriate? "Anti-communist" is a loaded term. Any description for the link should stick to facts. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Intelligent readers of history are interested in sources that provide a variety of views, get their facts right, and are consistent with academic rigor. They are not interested in one-sided articles that provide no sources and present estimates as facts.  Furthermore the scholarship on the site is so poor that it leads to serious doubts about their claims.  It has even been suggested that extreme anti-communism actually promotes Communism by making their critics look disingenuous and intellectually shallow.  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why speak in generalities? Present specific examples so that we can actually make progress in this discussion. If the website gets its facts wrong, give an example. The scholars who contribute to it are numerous and respected. If you have legitimate doubts, they must be based upon something concrete that you can share with the rest of us. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fact. They call themselves anti-Communists.--Dojarca (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Google "Lee Edwards" "anti-Communist" and see that the founder of the "museum" proudly calls himself an anti-Communist. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks a bit more interesting than I'd thought. But before pursuing this, we need to ask "Just because somebody may have described himself as anti-Communist, should we exclude his views and the information offered by an organization he is affiliated with?"  Wouldn't that mean that we would also have to purge any information or views offered by Communists and Socialists?  My view of NPOV is that both anti-Communist and Communist views should be presented.  Now please quit your partisan deletions, or get them checked out at WP:ELN.  I'll put the link back in until then.  Smallbones (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleting a biased source is not "partisan". And I disagree that "anti-Communist and Communist views should be presented".  The only sites that should be listed are those with a [WP:NPOV|neutral point of view].  The world is not divided into fanatical anti-Communists and Stalinists.  Mainstream thinking rejects both views.  I would put this up on the board and suggest wording it in a neutral way.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. --Martintg (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the Museum hardly fits that criterion. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Four Deuces, please provide a link to the particular page where Lee Edwards proudly calls himself an anti-communist, because it isn't any of the first ten search results. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From the museum's own site: Joining the growing desire for permanent places of reflection and research, The Global Museum on Communism provides a bulwark against recurrent communist sympathies wherever they appear.--Dojarca (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Independent source calling them anti-Communists: --Dojarca (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lee Edwards is also the founder of the World League for Freedom and Democracy (WLFD, formerly the World Anti-Communist League, WACL). This organization is regarded as extremist, racist and anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League--Dojarca (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the whole article? Here is just part of it.  Unbelievable:
 * The founders of APACL were agents of the governments of Taiwan and Korea, including Park Chung Hee who later bacame president of Korea; Yoshio Kodama, a member of organized crime in Japan; Ryiochi Sasakawa, a gangster and Japanese billionaire jailed as a war criminal after World War II; and Osami Kuboki and other followers of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification Church.... In 1975, Moon denounced WACL as being too facist, and claimed to sever connections between it and the UC. Reports in the New York Times, Searchlight and elsewhere, however, indicate the separation is nominal only.... From 1978 to 1980 Roger Pearson, well known for his theory of white supremacy and his fascist sympathies, was chairman of WACL. Pearson concentrated his efforts in Europe and attracted more radical fascist elements to WACL. For a time WACL appeared to be more anti-semitic than anticommunist....In 1984, columnist Jack Anderson wrote a series of exposes on WACL connecting the group with death squads operating in Latin America, and once again linking them with fascists, this time in Latin America.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also: The memorial is largely the fruit of the labors of Lee Edwards, a writer and a fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation. Long known for his opposition to communism -- in his well-regarded book, The Conservative Revolution, Edwards proposed the notion that “communism should be defeated, not simply contained”
 * Also:
 * Also: "The World Anti-Communist League," Stewart-Smith now says in retrospect, "is largely a collection of Nazis, Fascists, anti-Semites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racialists, and corrupt self-seekers. It has evolved into an anti-Semitic international.... The very existence of this organization is a total disgrace to the Free World." (...) Stewart-Smith wrote Lee Edwards in June 1973, "could destroy WACL. [If they are not expelled] the organization will remain a collection of fringe ultra-rightists, religious nuts, aging ex-Nazis, emigres and cranks."--Dojarca (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowhere on that page does Lee Edwards "proudly call himself an anti-communist." And if he had, that would be evidence to support labeling the external link as anti-communist, not for deleting it, as The Four Deuces did. Regardless, I believe that the Lee Edwards mentioned on that page is either a different person or that the page is mistaken, as that group was founded in Taiwan and there is no mention of any of this on the bio page for the Lee Edwards we are talking about at Heritage.org. The wiki page you linked to also says that the American branch was founded by John K. Singlaub, not Lee Edwards. Lets get to the bottom of this. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lee and his wife also founded YAF. Its story by Lee and Anne Edwards . YAF has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center . Well not only their names, but also names of their wives coincide. --Dojarca (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says:
 * The first WACL chapter in the U.S. was the American Council for World Freedom (ACWF) founded in 1970 by Lee Edwards.... The second U.S. chapter of WACL (1975-1980), the Council on American Affairs, was headed by noted racialist Roger Pearson.... In 1980 John Singlaub went to Australia to speak to the Asian branch of WACL....   Shortly thereafter he was approached to begin a new U.S. chapter of the organization. The U.S. Council for World Freedom (USCWF) was started by the retired General in 1981 with a loan from WACL in Taiwan and local funding from beer magnate, Joseph Coors.
 * Same Lee Edwards. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I now think that is the same Lee Edwards. But there seems to be a lot of confusion here, and we are getting off track, so let me clarify what these links do and do not say regarding Lee Edwards, having now read them myself.

First, Edwards is not the founder of the World League for Freedom and Democracy (WLFD, formerly the World Anti-Communist League, WACL) as stated above by Dojarca. That group was founded in 1966 in Taiwan. The link Dojarca provided states that Lee Edwards founded a group in the US called the American Council for World Freedom (ACWF), which joined the league as the American chapter in 1970. The link then states "In 1973, the ACWF, at the urging of board member Stefan Possony, complained to WACL about the fascist members from Latin America. The report was discredited, but in 1975, ACWF left WACL and its members drifted off to other groups in the New Right."

Dojarca then says that "this organization [meaning the WLFD, which Edwards did not found] is regarded as extremist, racist and anti-Semitic by the Anti-Defamation League." In fact, that assessment dates from 1981, six years after Edwards' group left, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) revised it's opinion just a few years later in 1985. That statement by the ADL is obviously not a reflection on Edwards or the group he founded.

Dojarca then says that Edwards and his wife founded YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) and that YAF has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In fact, according to the link, Edwards, who was not married at the time, was invited "to attend a meeting of young conservatives who wanted to form a national organization." He arrived on Saturday; the meeting had started the previous evening. About 90 people attended and it wasn't his idea to begin with, so it's a great exaggeration to say that he is the founder. He was elected to the first board of directors (along with 20 others) so I suppose one could argue that he is "one of" the founders. (His future wife is not mentioned at all in the context of that meeting.)

The YAF today has branches across the country, and it is one of these branches, the Michigan State University branch, rather than the whole organization, which was so designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Edwards was with the group at its founding in 1960. The Southern Poverty Law Center took issue with the Michigan State University chapter of the group in 2006. This also is obviously not a reflection on Edwards.

The Four Deuces links to a Google search that he says shows Lee Edwards "proudly calls himself an anti-Communist" but won't link the page on which that happens. I believe that Edwards is opposed to communism; he probably considers himself an anti-communist, but we shouldn't label him ourselves. People tend to define themselves by what they are for. We don't label pro-lifers on wikipedia as anti-choice, even if that is how we see them. And even if he were so labeled, that wouldn't necessarily extend to the Global Museum on Communism website, which is the actual issue.

Dojarca linked to one source that calls the group creating the museum anti-communist, rather than the museum itself. I don't think we should use a label to describe the website that they do not use themselves, or that is not widely used about them in more mainstream sources. If we must add additional information to the external link, why not just present it this way: Global Museum on Communism - a product of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Or use their own descriptions: Global Museum on Communism - a virtual museum whose mission is "to educate this generation and future generations about the history, philosophy and legacy of communism." Or: Global Museum on Communism - "an international portal created to honor the more than 100 million victims of communist tyranny and educate future generations about past and present communist atrocities." AmateurEditor (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is too long and does not reflect the essence. The essence is that the museum is anti-Communist and the readers should know it. We have a reliable source that calls them anti-Communists.--Dojarca (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, however your opinion is not a reliable source and we should refrain for inserting personal political commentary into the article. --Martin (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For the source see above. Did you read the thread, Martintg?--Dojarca (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read AmateurEditor comments? Evidently not, as you think it is "too long". Let me summarise: all your sources state is that Lee Edwards is anti-communist, but then claiming that the museum is "anti-communist" on that basis is purely WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link, Martintg? It says nothing about Lee Edwards, I says about the museum.--Dojarca (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I followed the link just now to see, and what it says is that the museum was founded by an anti-communist organisation. --Anderssl (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal here, an organization that is dedicated to the victims of communism is definitely not a pro-communist organization.--Termer (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Termer, as explained above these articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is no place to play out the ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe. Rather, the articles should describe mainstream academic views. Unfortunately this article contains a lot of extremist and fringe viewpoints and could be improved by following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * neutral point of view? Completly agree: "''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 be presented fairly."

Regarding "the ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe", what has that do do with anything here? And which "ethnic conflicts of Eastern Europe" you exactly are talking about, and how is that related to the article? --Termer (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Weasel
I have tagged this article for weasel words and identified some of the more obvious examples of weasel words used in the article. Please re-write the article to remove weasel words. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalist Mass Killings

 * I haven't read these sources (and don't have time to now), so in all likelihood I may be missing something important, but could I ask you to clarify: From what you write above, it seems (very simply put) that Valentino is stating that communist regimes are regimes which tend to attempt radical social transformations, which in turn can lead them to conduct mass killings. Whereas Wayman and Tago are saying that communist regimes are a particular kind of autocratic regimes, which due to their ideology and organization sometimes engage in mass killings. Sounds to me like two different attempts at explaining why communist regimes engage in mass killings. Why is the sub-category vs main category distinction crucial? Isn't there an argument to be made that if many other categories of mass killings are analyzed, then those could also be valid topics for their own wikipedia articles? The idea that one could create an article such as "mass killings under military regimes" doesn't seem to imply that "mass killings under communist regimes" is an unacceptable topic for an article. --Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question, Anderssl. Set A containing (C, D, E, F) causes mass killings because of B. This means the article is "Mass-killings in A. Lede: Mass killings in A happened because B." This article is currently "Mass-killings in C. Mass killings in C happened because of B." This is deceptive and misleading conduct: C is a case-study or example of the set of A. Escalating this article to "Comparative theories of Mass killing, Genocide, and Democide" and actually covering comparative horrorific social behaviour en mass studies would be the optimal outcome. This would be effectively a rewrite from scratch though. Neither Wayman and Tago nor Valentino address "Communist states / governments / etc" as an object of theoretical analysis, they address them as a case study within a set that is the object of theoretical analysis. This is the reasoning for why the article should be deleted: the object of this article is not an object of academic study. As should any other "Mass killings in [research object]". I'm aware of a few generalised claims for the causes of mass killing in capitalism, but these are a) primitive (alienation, commodification of the human being, extraction of labour power while enclosing common land) and b) not currently cited at the other pathetic article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, but what makes me wonder about this argument is that it seems to isolate every source. If you view it from a different perspective, we have: "A number of communist regimes have conducted mass killings. Source A claims this is because communist regimes belong to category X, which lead them to do mass killings. Source B claims it is because they belong to category Y, etc." So multiple sources offer different explanations of the phenomenon. I am not sure if this holds, but I am also not sure that it doesn't - there is the difference between being convinced that this is a sound theory, and being convinced that it deserves being mentioned in Wikipedia (as you probably can tell, I am an inclusionist). --Anderssl (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even for an inclusionist this is problematic way forward. A(b,c,d,e) caused by X ; F(b,g,h,i) caused by Y=> Article Mass-killings in b as part of A due to X; in b as part of F due to Y is synthesis, as b is never an object of study.  The object of the article is simply not an object of study.  The correct articles would be A and X; or F and Y.  There is a place for scholarly thematic pieces; but, the place is defined by the literature available.  The best way to present the possible thematic piece is by moving the substantive literature survey achieved here to a general comparative genocide/mass killing/population destruction piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think that is a very good point. You may just have convinced me. --Anderssl (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)