User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2021/December

Your comments that are still incredible current
Just scrolling through the Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archives, I found some interesting comments by you (brakets include my thoughts):

Holy shit, it was and still is that bad. I am just glad you were there because you may not have won, and ideology (anti-communism) triumphed over rationality and respect for our policies and guidelines, but you have won me over. I still hold out hope that eventually, in the end, rationality will triumph. I am sure I will find more gems from you, and I want to keep them because they are so illuminating. Just found another one (and I could go on, and on, and on):

I think this is interesting because you already provided such good arguments but none of this changed anything; the only thing that seems to have changed is that more users, like me, are taking them in consideration and finding problems with the article, so it was not Caporetto. It seems the only reason why Jews and Communism was deleted was that antisemitism is rightly condemned but anti-communism is seen as equivalent to anti-fascism (even though anti-fascism stopped fascism, while anti-communism resulted in genocide and/or politicides, such as the Dirty War, Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966, and Operation Condor), for as you noted, it is a way to argue that the West did the wrong thing by allying with the Soviet Union, etc. Therefore, for the deleted article the same standard as applied for policies and guidelines to other articles stand, while the other is the exception.

I do not know about you but I think the only solution is a RfC on the main topic or a review by admins on whose reading and analysis of sources and main topic is 'correct', and if there is no consensus in the RfC, then an AfD, merge proposal, and rewriting. I am very concerned about it because, if our reading is indeed correct as I think it is, that article can be very misleading and result in citogensis and such to falsely imply scholarly consensus and misrepresentation of scholars' views, which is a serious thing and not to be taken lightly; it has already misled many users to think the article is supported by sources and fine. Wikipedia does not need to have its own Prague Declaration by misrepresenting scholars.

But the reason why I wrote all this in the first place was a question I wanted to ask you after reading these comments. Davide King (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about Frank Dikötter and Adam Jones
[MAIN QUESTION HERE] Did Dikötter and Jones' views gain academic acceptance or any attention since then? It is used at Mao Zedong; of course, it is cited to... you guessed it... Dikötter himself for his interpretation and not to secondary sources that do that for us to establish weight; what we have in support of Dikötter is Jasper Becker, "a British author, commentator and journalist who has spent two decades as a foreign correspondent mostly in China" and also a former Conservative councillor... yeah, not a scholar. Anyway, we say that Becker writes that "archive material gathered by Dikötter ... confirms that far from being ignorant or misled about the famine, the Chinese leadership were kept informed about it all the time. And he exposes the extent of the violence used against the peasants." Of course, we cite this to Becker in the yellow-rated The Spectator, ("The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL, and WP:NEWSBLOG.") In an article about a controversial and polarising figure like Mao Zedong. M A O Z E D O N G. The Spectator. We are citing The Spectator, and no one even dared to remove it outright or at least tag it. Try citing Jacobin, you will be told it is fringe or has no fact-checking, and be linked to the non-reliable Ad Fontes Media saying is not reliable, even less than Breitbart News or whatever fringe right-wing it was... because... well, horseshoe theory. Of course, I will be called a crypto-Maoist for this but... hear me out... Why can't we ... wait for it... just follow the scholarly literature? Crazy, I know?!

Most people do not realize that scholars take more nuanced views than, say, when they write in a non-academic or popular press-published book (you even made a similar example about it), so summarizing what scholars have actually said in academic works turns you into a Communist apologist because such nuanced academic views do not describe Communists as the Devil reincarnated who purposely killed half the world population by the popular pess. Anyway... To me, this looks like Dikötter did not gain the academic accepted or scholarly attention, for secondary sources would have been used if so notable to warrant such inclusion. It looks like Dikötter is like Anne Applebaum and Simon Sebag Montefiore, both of which are used to make controversial interpretations on Communist states as facts or scholarly relevant; of course, similar popular historians who provided a leftist perspective in academic presses are nowhere to be seen, or are soon reverted, when suddenly it is remembered we must rely only on work published by the academic press rather than "using books published outside the academic mainstream, even when written by scholars, because they do not have the same rigorous standards and or have the same intensive scrutiny that academic writing does." I could be wrong about Dikötter though, which is why I asked you if it is accepted. Davide King (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a review of Dikötter's book by Cormac Ó Gráda. It's not an academic book, and makes a lot of unsupported statements. Note also that he teaches in Hong Kong and must have had assistance from the government of China in his research. His latest book has been serialized in the South China Morning Post. "Perennial sources" says, "there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party." Most of what I have been able to find about his work is in newspaper reviews and it has been positive.
 * Jones' book is a textbook which by definition summarizes the literature. Textbooks are not written to present original information or the views of their authors. So don't expect academic papers to cite it. Note that his book does not have a chapter on MKuCR. Instead it has separate chapters for "5 Stalin and Mao" and "7 Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge." So it's off topic for MKuCR.
 * TFD (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Could you also please comment on this. In light of your comment, I have reflected that here. Finally, what are your thoughts on this? How can it be undue if that is a tertiary source? It being a single source does not warrant trimming (the removed content could be put into a note, if that is the issue, but is important to contextualize, and any new scholarship can be added rather than just remove the older one), and indeed it is better a single, tertiary source that summarize (as you correctly reviewed it) than a bunch on primary sources. Davide King (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Mann discusses the reasons for Pol Pot's policies: sending urban people to work on farms would triple farm output. The surplus could then be sold abroad "to pay for the import of machinery, first for agriculture and light industry, later for heavy industry." (The Dark Side of Democracy, p.343) This was all explained in the party's four-year plan. I imagine that at the time most observers were unaware of the agenda and some assumed the intention was to create a "rural utopia," and something that should jar anyone with any familiarity of Marx, Lenin and Mao. You were right to make the edit.
 * I don't think the comment about the historical context is undue. Obviously the level and type of violence in a civil war affects the level and type of violence after it.
 * TFD (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much as always I have followed your suggestion here. About Cambodia, you are again correct; the issue is that while academic sources have explained it as you did, many users are unaware of that and assume the intention was to create a rural utopia, though there may also be sources that are not aware of it (Cambodian genocide says "Pol Pot ... radically pushed Cambodia towards an entirely self-sufficient agrarian socialist society. ... the Khmer Rouge wanted to turn the country into an agrarian socialist republic, founded on the policies of ultra-Maoism and influenced by the Cultural Revolution"). Or is that correct and what you are saying too? How would you word it? I have opened a section about the removal in light of your comments. Davide King (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the point of trying to improve this article. As I said, it fails notability. Most of the editors have no knowledge of the subject and no interest in learning about it. It's like arguing with conspiracy theorists. It amazes me how people who are otherwise rational abandon it when they approach an issue that is emotional to them. I see it on a lesser scale in the War of 1812, where editors argue over who won despite the fact that there is academic consensus that no one won. Dale Carnegie said that people adopt beliefs with very little investigation, then nothing can change their minds.

If you want to read about the type of people who created this article, see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. Their correspondence can be found on Wikileaks and there is an amusing article about the case in Wikipediocracy. Some of these editors are still active today, although names have been changed.

I was unaware of Pol Pot's plan before reading Mann. But I knew the popular version didn't make sense. Why would a Marxist support de-industrialization? But you are arguing with people who don't know about Marxist theory about the role of the working class or stages of civilization. It's similar to Islamophobes who don't know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

We discussed Jews and Communism earlier. The article was also obviously anti-Semitic but it was hard to argue because anti-Semitism can be subtle. But what swung the argument was that the article was actually based on an article published in an anti-Semitic journal. It was easier to get Jews and money deleted, because the anti-Semitism was more overt. Also IIRC an article about how the Jews supposedly control Hollywood.

TFD (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This was very interesting and insightful. So much so that I wish I could discuss this with you more in-depth and at length, especially about Marxist theory and similar topics because you actually do your homeworks and I wish all users were like you in being knowledgeable about the topic and not resembling conspiracy theorists. Are you referring to Mass killings under communist regimes? Because I think your analysis is accurate for politics in general and Communist-related articles in particular. I have heard about the Eastern European case, though I do not know the exact details. I guess this could be an example of what you are talking about. A relevant and interesting academic article may be this. Do you have access to the whole document and summarize what it says and if it mentions this? Because it discusses The Soviet Story and writes about "transnational memory work in YouTube and Wikipedia as a multidirectional enterprise that both reinforces and emancipates existing hegemonic representations of controversial past."
 * It looks like things did not improve after the Eastern European case. Communist-related articles still reflects Cold War interpretations and the POV of only side of historiography ("anti-Communist", "Draperite", "orthodox", etc.), and they mainly a reflect of popular press (Applebaum, Pipes, and the like, who just because were well-received in the popular press (Dikötter), and criticized much more in the academic press, are due even though they fail other policies and guidelines), rather than the academic press. Considering it is an admittedly controversial and polarizing field, it would be better to use so-called "revisionist school" views (Davies, Fitzpatrick, Getty, and the like) because:
 * (1) in spite of the name, they are actually mainstream (it is "anti-Communist" historians like Courtois who hold revisionist views like the double genocide theory and equivalence between Communism and Nazism, and the "totalitarian model", which many users seem to take as a fact rather than as a proposed concept, on which such historians rely, has been disgarded for the most part, though of course this is not reflected in most Communist-related articles, which is the point)
 * (2) they cannot be dismissed as anti-communists because they are not and they are certainly not pro-Communists or apologists (in short, they are the most nuanced and neutral ones), so everything would be less polarizing.
 * In any case, we should follow what you have stated many times, i.e. following secondary sources summarizing for us their interpretations rather than editors themselves paraphrasing them by citing their works (primary sources on this).
 * I still think your summarization analysis, referencing Harrington, is the most accurate one. In general, Communist states are more similar to 19-the century liberal-capitalist Western states, who also took despicable actions, rather than Nazism, which was itself a fruit of the same 19th-century liberal capitalism (internment camps in Britain and colonial empires, and slavery in the United States). The Soviets did not invent any of this. Finally, a comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union is not helpful because the United States was a fully-industrialized nation by the 20th century while Russia was not; Communist states are better compared to 19th-century pre-industrialized liberal-capitalist regimes rather than fully industrialized 20th-century ones, just like it makes more sense to compare Stalin and Mao to 19th-century figures like Andrew Jackson; if we were to apply universal standards, almost every major statesman, especially in the United States but also in Britain (Churchill, Thatcher), would be seen as white-supremacist or something awful. It is common to cite the example of West Germany as performing better than East Germany but North Korea performed better than South Korea until the 1970s, which incidentally is also when Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism was abandoned; of course, this is a generalization, and it had much more to do than with Marxism-Leninism, but it highlights the double standards and low standards in general that, if applied equally well to other regime-types, would result in Communism not ending up as the worst regime-type ever. That would be Nazism, and the second would be capitalism/colonialism/liberalism, if we use the same standard applied to Communism, which killed less (by such standards), and the highest estimate of 100 million would still be out of over a billion; proportion is really helpful and useful in this but it is usually ignored when counting the bodies of Communism, which mainly come from famines (the Great Chinese Famine resulted in the loss of 15–55 million out of over 660 million; in Free Congo, 10 million died out of like 20 million, and apparently decreased from 20 million to 8 million, so it could be even more but only for Communism are mortality events relevant)
 * I still maintain as I wrote to still "hold out hope that eventually, in the end, rationality will triumph" but this was really just hoping for common-sense rationality rather than idealism (though it appears that C.J. Griffin changed his mind about it, so it was not a waste) because, as you noted, "they have no knowledge of the subject and no interest in learning about it." Nonetheless, exactly because this is so discouraging and a shame, something needs to be done about it. As you wrote, "I was unaware of Pol Pot's plan before reading Mann", it is precisely for this that I want to improve them, because I actually want to know, and I am really interested in, the mainstream academic (published by academic press) interpretations, analysis, and historiography of Communism, just like I would be very interested about your proposed Victims of Communism and what authors and scholars actually say. There is a possible solution but it likely requires much work, which I am willing to take if you can help me, and Paul Siebert could also be very helpful too. What I wish to create is an article about scholarly analysis (including any comparative analysis, similarities and differences, and criticism of some authors treating Communism as a monolith bloc), interpretations, and historiography about Communism. Davide King (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible solution
As much as I appreciate all your comments about (please, never stop), and Paul Siebert's efforts, clearly none of our rational arguments are going to affect changes. Therefore, the only solution other than giving up, which should not even be an option, is to work on it and do something about it. I actually wish you could write a draft yourself (I may help you with copyediting, formatting all the refs, etc.) because you are amazingly good at finding the literature, whether someone or something is due or not, and in general what is the consensus among scholars and their majority/mainstream, minority, and fringe views; this is something I am very interested about and wish I knew. I did write Socialist (insult) but it was deleted (I am curious about your thoughts and what you would have voted; whatever such deleted-articles results, Mass killings under communist regimes et similia really do have separate policies and guidelines from virtually every other article...) but for such an article about scholarship on Communism, I would need some of the following help:
 * (a) some general guidelines
 * (b) a short paragraph summarizing its scope, a possible lead, and its structure
 * (c) a list of most relevant scholars, academic press books, reviews of their works, and secondary and tertiary sources about their views, analysis, etc. on which to base the article
 * (d) any other suggestion

I see several positive things about such development:
 * (1) it would be helpful in fighting misinformation and misconceptions about what scholars actually say about Communism, which is much more nuanced than is commonly assumed, and in several cases is gotten completely wrong, as is done for Valentino and others
 * (2) it should lead to broad improvement to Communist-related articles, as it would help us determinate mainstream academic press scholars and remove sources used in Communist-related articles to authors that are not due or specialists to make it in the scholarly article
 * (3) it should help to highlight the synthesis and lack of notability of Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and Mass killings under communist regimes

The article need not to be very long (like my created and deleted article was), as it would mainly summarize what scholars have said, the principal interpretation, and historiography, etc. It should include only academic press published works and reviews and similar tertiary sources. Ideally, it should be expanded, eventually leading to each separate article for analysis (main article) and comparative analysis and historiography of Communism (sub articles). Eventually, the content could be moved to Communist-related articles, which would be rewritten and restructured to be good and neutral articles actually reflecting academic press views.

Another possibility is to simply expand Soviet and Communist studies into this, though I am unsure whether its scope is limited to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, or not. I have expanded it to include a summary of historiography and main controversies but it could be expanded to add what notable scholars, through secondary and tertiary sources, have said, any comparative analysis of Communism states, and in general the scholarly view of Communism. Davide King (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Your comments rule
I did not thank you for it, I did not want to go off-topic there, but this was both amazing and amazingly accurate; only for Communism the exception is made, so even though MKuCR is indeed part of that belief, only the antisemitic article (thank you) has been rightly deleted ... because ... well, many users really do believe in that but when it comes to antisemitism, that is the correct view to delete an article while for MKuCR is not, even as both are part of that field of belief. Please, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The only exception for Communism may also be Cultural Marxism, where the article correctly reflects (or reflected, I did not check since late 2020) that it is a conspiracy theory and a fringe view ... But there were, and still are, so many believers in that same belief who challenged us, just like at MKuCR, except that the roles are inverted in whose side won.

It appears to be that communism, conflated with Communism and equated with Nazism, is seen as even worse than antisemitism, which is antisemitic in itself, or that antisemitism is rightly condemned while anti-communism, which is falsely-balanced compared to anti-fascism, is perfectly fine. So pro-antisemitic articles violating our policies are rightly deleted, Communism-related violating articles are not, and any attempt to improve them is very strongly resisted. And we are not asking at all for pro-Communist articles, we are just asking for neutral articles, respectful of our policies, and of scholarly consensus and literature ... Davide King (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems right. The Cultural Marxism theory is really about attacking cultural liberalism, which is promoted by mainstream media, mainstream politicians, big business and even the armed forces. It takes communism is evil as a given, then tries to smear liberals. So obviously that has to be debunked. But if they can tie the radical right to Russia, that's fine. TFD (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that should indeed be the main topic and how it is to be structured, which appears to be what both you and Siebert support (1); however, what are your thoughts about their response? I think that it makes sense to work first on the body, and have a more realistic, gradualist approach, as that may be the only way to reach an NPOV article according to our proposed topic, which is in fact supported by sources — my goal is to reach a NPOV article/topic, and whether it will be through your approach or Siebert's, I do not know, but I think you may both give valid arguments for which would be best. If you want, I can try to help you for a NPOV version sandbox of the article, if you think it is either useless or fruitless to try to fix the currently-structured article. That way we may have a comparative analysis of the article, and show that our version is the only possible one to be NPOV and not engage in original research. Davide King (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I had a similar discussion with PS about Jewish Bolshevism. (See Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 3.) His position was that the article should list Jewish Communists and explain their relative representation and role in Communism, because, "The Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory [has its] roots in objective reality." [20:57, 1 December 2009] I disagreed: anti-Semites blame everything on the Jews, then search for evidence. Listing their evidence is just promotiung their theories. (See Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination).)
 * In another forum, I could imagine for example presenting reader with the pros and cons of any argument and let them decide. (Here's the evidence that UFOs are real, here's the evidence they aren't.) Wikipedia's co-founder, Larry Sanger, believes that articles should be written to provide "both sides."
 * I don't think PS will change his position or that it is possible with the current title or article scope to develop a neutral article. Either we delete or rename and change the scope.
 * Note that "Jews and Communism" failed its first AfD. Although there were no sources for the overall topic, there were sources for Jewish involvement in Communism in different countries and at different times. It was only after another editor found that the article had been copied from an anti-Semitic website that editors agreed to delete. "Jews and money" was so obviously biased that even after it was renamed, it was deleted on the first attempt. (See Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews.) But the anti-Semitic nature of MKuCR is more subtle.
 * TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am with you on this — you were right about Jews and Communism, and you are right about MKuCR. Since several users seem to fail to understand our issues with the grouping and think we need not to make any connection, perhaps you may take it to No original research/Noticeboard to ask whether we need a connection for the Communist grouping, and as the quotes from you I cited above, none of given sources (e.g. Chirot and Valentino) connect them in any meaningful way. I know you may feel that it is a waste of time because some users are simply not going to change their mind, but I think it would be good if you could analyze those sources because you are better than me (especially with Nug, I think you have been better, e.g. this — how would you have responded them to?) and because there are new users who may change their minds. When you say rename and change the scope, would this suffice? And are not the sources for Holocaust obfuscation not enough in showing its antisemitic nature? Davide King (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You should at least take part at WP:DRNMKUCR, for your short and concise comments, plus analysis of sources and topic, could be very helpful. I do not know about Cygnis insignis, but you appear to be the only native English speaker, and as I said, could be helpful for the DR. Davide King (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cygnis is supposed to be a native speaker, but Australian, the claim to reading French and German well is questionable and any grasp of Latin is obviously wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cygnis insignis (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Content disputes are discussed on the talk pages of the relevant article.
For future reference, content disputes should be discussed on the relevant pages.

I have nothing further to say to you in addition to what has been discussed. But I felt it was important to challenge your erroneous (and somewhat bizarre) suggestion that the only legal sources we should accept are legal textbooks. I have stated wikipedia's policy on legal sources on the relevant talkpage. If you feel it is incorrect, feel free to answer in the correct place, rather than attempting to hive off a discussion to your talkpage because you have backed yourself into a corner where it is difficult to defend your pseudo-legal theories. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As I have pointed out to you, your sources either lack reliability for the statement you want to make or do not actually support it. In addition, your arguments contain a lot of synthesis. Saying that a court made a decision that someone born in the Malvinas is an Argentine citizen does not necessarily mean that it has set a legal precedent. You would need a source that said that.
 * Writing in an abusive tone, as you have done throughout the discussion thread and in your posting above is disruptive editing, because it moves the discussion from relevant discussion to personal attacks.
 * I do not know what the Argentinian law is and have merely pointed out that the facts you have used to prove that people born in the Malvinas are citizens could also be used to prove they are not. That's why reliable secondary sources are required for any claims we put into articles.
 * While there are many types of sources that could be used, legal textbooks are the most reliable. Per contentious claims, that is where I would look if there were any doubt.
 * I would also point out that nationality law is complex and open to interpretation. That's why it would be helpful to have a review study of some sort, either a review article or in a textbook or academic article.
 * Also, see the Argentine reply to the Falklands referendum in "Falklands’ referendum has “no value” and does not change Argentina’s position" (MercoPress June 13, 2002.) They refer to the islanders as an "implanted British population," rather than as Argentinian citizens legally residing in Argentinian territory. President Kirchner compared them to "squatters." Furthermore, in its reports to the UN, Argenina has never claimed that the islanders were Argentinian citizens, although they have mentioned that they "respected their rights " and had extended some rights to them, such as for health care and education. But why not say they have done this because of they are citizens?
 * TFD (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss content, it must be done at the article. I have made no personal attacks. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was merely replying to your posting above. Saying "you have backed yourself into a corner where it is difficult to defend your pseudo-legal theories" is not a discussion about article content, it is a personal attaack and the place to reply is not on an article discussion page. I do not see any progress possible there because there is no new information to provide. I don't think it helps anyone to argue against your view that textbooks merely represent the opinions of their editors or that the legal opinions of a journalist writing in a local history magazine are authoritative, since I expect most editors are already familiar with content policy. TFD (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are aware that this is a serious misrepresentation of my argument? The source by Pepper is one of 8 mentioned in the last exchange, you refused to even discuss the others. Your refusal to engage with any source except a legal textbook breaks wikipedia's policy and is very strange behaviour for such an experienced editor. Similarly, your months of simply freestyling law rather than looking for sources to support your view is hard to understand. If you have arrived at the point where you are applying US case law to Argentine constitutional law, or extrapolating Argentine law from political rhetoric or UN documents on decolonisation, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "pseudolegal theory".


 * I do apologise for the tone of the phrase "back yourself into a corner" which I used on two occasions, as it was unnecessarily combative in its formulation and use. But fundamentally, strong criticism of a weak argument is not a personal attack. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * As I explained, I do not have a point of view on what the Argentinian law is. I just do not think that there is sufficient evidence. And I am not assuming that Argentina would apply the same law as the U.S., but that they would use the same definitions of terms that they adopted from the English common law tradition.
 * Every country has the right to extend nationality to applicants at their discretion. The fact that Argentina provided citizenship to an applicant born on the Falklands does not prove that they have an obligation to do so.
 * TFD (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again you misrepresent the argument and the sources. I would suggest you stop doing that. I don't think there is anything further to be said in view of your refusal to even look at what the sources say. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In order to establish a fact in Wikipedia, per no synthesis, you cannot provide numerous sources and say that taken together they support your position. Each source provided must support the assertion on its own. Can you point to any one of your sources that definitively proves your interpretation of the nationality law? TFD (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are all already on the talkpage where they can be discussed. Either you have not read them or you do not understand what synthesis means. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

One of your sources is Pintore, EJ (2013). "Colonialism and self-determination in the Malvinas question," Journal of the Faculty of Law (National University of Córdoba.) In it the author says that because the Falklands is part of the "territory" of Argentina, that anyone born there would be Argentinian.

There is no reason to view this as a definitive interpretation of Argentinian law, any more than we can accept his claim that under international law the islands should be returned to Argentina. And note he provides no sources for his interpretation. As I mentioned before, the term "territory" in jus soli (a term he mentions) means the territory under the control of the state, whether that territory is inside or outside the state. There is also an issue of whether the constitution, which allows the congress to legislate for "natural citizenship," would allow for citizenship for people born outside the territory of Argentina who had no Argentinian ancestry. Also the issue that Argentinian laws that are in violation of international treaties have any validity, since the constitution says that treaties are the supreme law of the land. You have agreed that this law would have no international validity.

Sir Edward Coke described this situation in Calvin's Case 1608: "though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England."

Since Argentina adopted the concept of birthright citizenship from English common law, it's an extraordinary claim that they should interpret it differently.

IOW, this source is a legal opinion.

TFD (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC (MKuCR)
I noticed that you voted just once. Actually, Robert asked users to vote at each section (A-D). Can you please do that? That will significantly simplify closing. Best --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. TFD (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Killings RFC
Your comment at "B" (which is study of a possible correlation) sounds like it was talking about "A". (which is such a list that you refer to) Is that what you intended? North8000 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. I just figured out that you were giving "not A/C/D" as a reason for B. But you should also weigh in at A,C & D.  North8000 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I believe I did after the discussion in the last thread above. It's getting hard to follow the discussion there, but I will look again. TFD (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Straus 2007 and Tago & Wayman 2010
In regards to this, I think one may be Tago & Wayman 2010. It compares mainly Harff and Rummel databases but includes Valentino's disagreement with Rummel. Nug says this source confirms what they say about Rummel, while Siebert obviously disagree. I would love to hear your analysis of such source. Another thing to consider is the weight that genocide studies as a field holds in broader academia — my understanding is that it is not on par with the field of history, and is still not published in mainstream political science academic journals. When those (Courtois, Rummel, Valentino) are the best sources, it should ring an alarm. Davide King (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

"'[at p. 116] ... Valentino identifies two major types, each with three subtypes. The first major type is 'dispossessive mass killing,' which includes (1) 'communist mass killings' in which leaders seek to transform societies according to communist principles; (2) 'ethnic mass killings,' in which leaders forcibly remove an ethnic population; and (3) mass killing as leaders acquire and repopulate land. The second major type of mass killing is 'coercive mass killing,' which includes (1) killing in wars when leaders cannot defeat opponents using conventional means; (2) 'terrorist' mass killing when leaders use violence to force an opposing side to surrender; and (3) killing during the creation of empires when conquering leaders try to defeat resistance and intimidate future resistance.'"

This is what the other source, Straus 2007, says. I see no one suggesting Ethnic mass killings, and the other categories. Davide King (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The fact that we are still discussing Rummel, Valentino, and the same sources is absurd and should be telling. No one has been able to do what you asked for, e.g. "to establish the weight that Valentino's interpretation has in the body of reliable sources on the topic." Valentino did not find his own Communist mass killing category worthy enough to dedicate full articles about it. I truly gasp at looking at Valentino's publications and why we cherry pick a single chapter. Other authors are the same, there is no academic book fully dedicated to the topic, which proves what you have been saying all along. We can only discuss the theories, which is the real notable topic. Davide King (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)