Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:37, 22 August 2021 editDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users105,208 edits →Main topic and primary sources: Replying to AmateurEditor (using reply-link)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,459 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High), Politics (Rater) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{afd-merged-from|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (2nd nomination)|28 August 2024}}
{{skip to talk}} {{skip to talk}}
{{talk header}} {{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Ds/talk notice|e-e|brief}} {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|ee|1RR=yes}}
{{mbox|image=]|text=<span style="font-size:12pt;">'''Warning: this article is subject to a ] limitation.'''</span><br>Per the ] authorized in the ], reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a ] or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the ]. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.}}
{{controversial}}
{{round in circles|search=no}} {{round in circles|search=no}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{tmbox
|image=none
|style=background-color:#CCFFCC;text-align:center;
|text=''Due to the editing restrictions on this article, ] to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.''
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Cambodia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject China|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=mid|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
}}
<!--Clearly of relevance as a long-standing talking point-->
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
{{American English}}
{{Old XfD multi
<!-- 1st -->
|date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
|result = '''no consensus'''
|page = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide
|link =
|caption =
<!-- 2nd -->
|date2 = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|result2 = '''no consensus'''
|page2 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
|link2 =
|caption2 =
<!-- 3rd -->
|date3 = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|result3 = '''no consensus'''
|page3 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
|link3 =
|caption3 =
<!-- 4th -->
|date4 = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|result4 = '''keep'''
|page4 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|link4 =
|caption4 =
<!-- 5th -->
|date5 = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|result5 = '''keep'''
|page5 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|link5 =
|caption5 =
<!-- 6th -->
|date6 = 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
|result6 = '''no consensus'''
|page6 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)
|link6 =
|caption6 =
}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD | action1 = PR
| action1date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | action1date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1
| action1result = no consensus | action1result = reviewed
| action1oldid = 307184164 | action1oldid = 311235290
| action2 = PR | action2 = PR
| action2date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | action2date = 10:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1 | action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mass killings under Communist regimes/archive1
| action2result = reviewed | action2result = reviewed
| action2oldid = 311235290 | action2oldid =
| action3 = AFD | action3 = PR
| action3date = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | action3date = 11:41, 1 June 2018
| action3link = Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_38#Peer_review
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
| action3result = no consensus | action3result = reviewed
| action3oldid = 317412005 | action3oldid =
| action4 = AFD
| action4date = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
| action4result = no consensus
| action4oldid = 325967284
| action5 = AFD
| action5date = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
| action5result = keep
| action5oldid = 357657757
| action6 = AFD
| action6date = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
| action6result = keep
| action6oldid =
| action7 = PR
| action7date = 10:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
| action7link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mass killings under Communist regimes/archive1
| action7result = reviewed
| action7oldid =
| currentstatus =
}} }}
{{Press
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
|collapsed = yes
{{WikiProject History
|author = Lott, Maxim
|small=
|title = Inside Misplaced Pages's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried
|class=start
|date = February 18, 2021
|importance=low
|org = ]
|Attention=yes
|url = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed
|A-Class=
|author2 = Abbott, Joel
|peer-review=
|title2 = The Misplaced Pages page titled "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes" is being considered for deletion 😬
|old-peer-review=
|date2 = November 24, 2021
<!-- B-Class checklist. -->
|org2 = ]
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|url2 = https://notthebee.com/article/wikipedia-is-considering-the-deletion-of-the-page-titled-mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-/
|B-Class-1=no
|author3 = Kangadis, Nick
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|title3 = 'Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes' Misplaced Pages Page 'Being Considered for Deletion'
|B-Class-2=no
|date3 = November 24, 2021
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|org3 = MRC TV
|B-Class-3=yes
|url3 = https://www.mrctv.org/blog/mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-wikipedia-page-being-considered-deletion
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|author4 = Johnson, Autumn
|B-Class-4=no
|title4 = Misplaced Pages Contemplates Deleting Article On Communist Mass Killings
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|date4 = November 25, 2021
|B-Class-5=no
|org4 = MRC News Buster
<!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. -->
|url4 = https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/autumn-johnson/2021/11/25/wikipedia-contemplates-deleting-article-communist-mass
|B-Class-6=no
|author5 = Simpson, Craig
<!-- Task forces. -->
|title5 = Misplaced Pages may delete entry on ‘mass killings’ under Communism due to claims of bias
|date5 = November 27, 2021
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/
|author6 = Nolan, Lucas
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Community Considers Deleting Entry on Mass Killings Under Communism over Claims of ‘Bias’
|date6 = November 29, 2021
|org6 = ]
|url6 =
|author7 = ((]))
|title7 = Deletion Report: What we lost, what we gained
|date7 = November 29, 2021
|org7 = ]
|url7 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-11-29/Deletion_report
|author8 = Chasmar, Jessica
|title8 = Misplaced Pages page on 'Mass killings under communist regimes' considered for deletion, prompting bias accusations
|date8 = November 29, 2021
|org8 = ]
|url8 = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias
|author9 = Blair, Douglas
|title9 = Misplaced Pages Threatens to Purge ‘Communist Mass Killings’ Page, Cites Anti-Communist Bias
|date9 = December 12, 2021
|org9 = ]
|url9 = https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/12/12/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page-cites-anti-communist-bias
|author10 = Blair, Douglas
|title10 = Misplaced Pages threatens to purge ‘communist mass killings’ page, cites anti-communist bias
|date10 = December 14, 2021
|org10 = ]
|url10 = https://www.christianpost.com/voices/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page.html
|author11 = Edwards, Lee and Hafera, Brenda
|title11 = Why We Should Never Forget the Crimes of Communism
|date11 = December 14, 2021
|org11 = ]
|url11 = https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/why-we-should-never-forget-the-crimes-communism
}} }}
{{old moves
{{WikiProject Politics|class=b|importance=high}}
|date1=13 September 2009 |from1=Communist genocide |destination1=Communist politicide |link1=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 2#Requested move |result1=no consensus
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=C|importance=mid}}
|date2=16 September 2009 |from2=Communist genocide |destination2=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link2=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 3#Requested move II |result2=moved
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=mid}}
|date3=16 April 2010 |destionation3=Classicide |link3=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 14#Requested move |result3=not moved
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=C|importance=mid|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
|date4=13 August 2018 |destination4=Communist states and mass killing |result4=no consensus to move |link4=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 40#Requested move 13 August 2018
{{WikiProject Death|class=b|importance=high}}
|date5=31 July 2019 |destination5= |link5=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 31 July 2019 |result5=not moved
|date6=14 August 2019 |destination6=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link6=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 14 August 2019 |result6=not moved
|date7=31 January 2022 |destination7=Mass killings by communist regimes |result7=procedural close |link7=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 59#Requested move 31 January 2022
}} }}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 48 |counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 3 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{TOC left}}
{{notice|{{Graph:PageViews|90}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}}
{{Clear}}
{|class="messagebox" style="background-color: #CCFFCC;"
|-
|<div align="center">''Due to the editing restrictions on this article, ] to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.''</div>
|}{{archives|age=21}}

== RfC: Change "communist" to "totalitarian" in title? ==
Should "communist" be changed to "totalitarian" in the title? ] (]) 18:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' A good argument can be made that some/most/all of the regimes discussed in this article were totalitarian rather than communist. If some believe communism is synonymous with totalitarianism, they should have no objection to this proposed change. By contrast, others might argue communism and totalitarianism are not necessarily synonymous, or are even diametrical opposites, though the regimes were indisputably totalitarian, as they had omnipotent central governments whereas Marxism called for elimination of central government, notwithstanding how 20th century totalitarians may have misappropriated what Marx actually wrote in 1848 and branded themselves "communists." ] (]) 18:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose:''' Per ]. The regimes were all generally known as "Communist". If we want a separate article about "Mass killings under totalitarian regimes", it could include Nazi Germany too, and that would be fine. ] (]) 19:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. This is plainly a descriptive title and not a common name (since no one descriptor directly unites all the diverse underlying viewpoints covered here), and as such ] applies. Totalitarianism is a more precise and neutral summary in that respect, and is broadly a more useful main topic, since most of the academic discourse on the subject focuses on totalitarianism as the unifying factor. --] (]) 19:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Brought here by the bot . This seems like an unnecessarily narrow article, however, based on the content of the article -- a list of peoples republics -- the current name is most appropriate per ]. Renaming it "totalitarian" uses Misplaced Pages's voice to indict or castigate the governments of the states listed. "Totalitarian" is a loaded term that is implicitly negative, while "communist" is a descriptive term that is not values-laden. The fact that its use may be imperfect in this case would be better addressed through careful wording in the lead rather than retitling. ] (]) 20:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It would make the article to broad. Right now the current title fits the content very well and is by far the most ]. If we expand it to totalitarian we would also have to include other groups such as Nazi's or Italian regime during WW2, plus a multitude of others. Which would start to get a little out of hand in scope and fail ]. ] (]) 20:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Sure, the regimes might not be "true" communists, but are commonly described as such. While totalitarianism was what ultimately made most or all of these killings possible, it is seen by most academics in the Proposed Causes section as mediating variable between communism and mass killings. ] (]) 20:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': As the effect of the proposed renaming would be to completely change the content/scope of the article, which has survived numerous previous attempts at deletion based on arguments very similar to those presented by the supporters above. (As an aside, the suggestion that "totalitarianism" is a more narrow or better-understood concept, in the academic literature or otherwise, than 20th-century self-described communist regimes is laughable.)] (]) 20:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': There's overlap between communism & totalitarianism but they are not synonymous. The ideology section specifically and exclusively talks about communism and its variants. Likewise, the entire 'States where mass killings have occurred' section includes only communist regimes. There's a reason why totalitarian regimes like Italy under Mussolini or Haiti under ] are not mentioned at all in this article (i.e., they weren't communist). COMMONNAME applies, but so does ]. ] (]) 20:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The current title fits the content of the article. If we're to change the name, we'd have to broaden the same. ] (]) 05:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*{{replyto|Soibangla}} This is ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 06:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per the arguments above that changing the title would result in changing the scope of the article. 07:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) ]&nbsp;]
*'''Oppose''' Communism and Totalitarianism are not synonymous, the regimes are mostly referred to as Communist. ] (]) 09:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ]] (]) 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - to change it to totalitarian would then require the inclusion of a litany of other regimes which have nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, or any other attempt towards communism. --] (]) 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Aquillion and Adoring nanny's proposal that we make an article about totalitarian regimes in general (I only disagree with Adoring nanny that it should be another article; I propose it to be this article, while another article is created about Communist death tolls and the narrative). This article should be expanded to be about totalitarian regimes in general, and not limited to Communist regimes. that treats the topic as we do, and many of sources are misrepresented, even ''The Black Book of Communism'' (per historian Andrzej Paczkowski, who positively reviewed the work, the book is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon") and Valentino, who is heavily relied on ("Communism has a bloody record, '''but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing'''"). On the other hand, there is plenty of literature about totalitarian regimes and genocide/mass killings, see , , , and . Neither of those works limit themselves to Communist regimes, so why should we, too? Another article, focused on Communist states and about death tolls and the victims of Communism narrative, can be written based on . ] (]) 21:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

== Main topic and primary sources ==
I took a break from this and I would have hoped that {{u|Aquillion}}, {{u|BeŻet}}, {{u|Buidhe}}, {{u|C.J. Griffin}}, {{u|The Four Deuces}}, {{u|Paul Siebert}}, {{u|Rick Norwood}}, and others (I also call on other users like {{u|GreenC}}, {{u|Mathglot}}, and {{u|MjolnirPants}} for further input and a source analysis to avoid any original research and synthesis violations) would have kept discussing and finding a consensus on the main topic; this was not the case and the template was . The article's main topic is still unclear; is it about the events, which are variously described as ''mass killings''? Problem is scholars actually disagree on this and attempts to propose a common terminology (until recently, it was stated as fact that there was one) have repeatedly failed, and the current article's name is problematic because it presupposes there is consensus. Is it about an alleged link between communism and genocide/mass killing? Then the article should be changed to ] or ] (other, more precise titles may include use of ''Communist states'' over ''Communism''). This would be better but would still require a restructuring to make it more about scholarly analysis and less repeating the events themselves. Is it about Communist death toll? The title should be changed to ], ], or ]. It would, and it should, still require a restructuring.{{refn|{{tq|As an example, rather than writing "'''There were many mass killings under communist regimes of the 20th century. Death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them'''", which seem to imply the title should actually be Communist death tolls, we would be writing something like "'''Various authors posit that there is a link between communism, as exemplified by 20th-century Communist states, and genocide/mass killing. ... .'''"}}|group=nb}}

So '''what are primary sources in this case? They are certainly not the Communist state themselves but rather the authors who may propose the topic'''. Problem is that in this sense most sources are primary sources, and follows "he said, she said", in light of attributing minority views, especially about the Proposed causes section. But we should not be citing Conquest about what Conquest wrote, or Rummel about what Rummel wrote (in this sense, they are primary sources); we need to find and cite secondary sources, and not just any secondary source, but reliable secondary sources that clearly refer to the main topic. If one is quoting Conquest about Stalinism or the Stalinism era, it is not enough; it needs to be about excess deaths or mass killings in the broad context of Communist states. Problem is, very few, if any at all, do that. They do not discuss ''all'' Communist states as we do. If we cannot find such secondary sources to establish weight (e.g. Hicks and Watson, who are neither experts of genocide or historians of Communism), they are undue.

I understand that this can be a pain in the ass because one actually has to do research, read all the relevant books on the topic, distinguish between majority and minority, read reviews and secondary sources about them to establish what they actually say rather than our own POV and due weight. We are all guilty of boldly adding primary sources in that sense, but it is fine so that someone else who has more time and resources can do that for us and replace content with secondary sources. But our policies and guidelines are clear; we should report what secondary sources say about Conquest ''et al.'' when we are citing what they say and their views. This article even misrepresents scholars from the "orthodox" or "anti-communist" historiography POV, as Conquest does not support this alleged link and he mainly studied Stalin's Soviet Union. Even ''The Black Book of Communism'', if one actually reads the review rather than make their own analysis, they find it does not support this topic (at best, only the intro does, and it is controversial and "historically revisionist" in equating Communism and Nazism); ''The Black Book of Communism'' is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." (Andrzej Paczkowski) For the umpteenth time, Valentino does not support ] but ], which is a different thing, and clearly says that "Communism has a bloody record, '''but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing'''." (Valentino is an original research and synthesis violation, and contradicts the whole lead) Rummel is about ] governments in general and ], another topic.

If we follow this, you will see that, once the main topic is established, very few reliable, academic secondary sources are to be found that link all Communist states together as we do ("Mass killings under '''Communist regimes'''"). What we do have are actually secondary academic sources that supports the fact this article is original research and synthesis. Per Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, discussion of the number of victims of Communism, an more appropriate topic (except it is not a mainstream view among scholars and it is mainly associated with the European Union and Eastern European double genocide theory, and this would be clarified in the lead) has been "extremely extensive and '''ideologically biased'''." Per Anton Weiss-Wendt, "here is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles '''such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe'''." Yet we are acting like there is consensus on this and selctively, cherry pick those who seem to support it and misrepresent others. So why do we base a whole article on this? Where we use any source that use any of that terminology to mean the same thing, as if they support this article? See "hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss", and criticism of "the idea to connect the deaths with some 'generic Communism' concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals" and the "alleged connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category" (to paraphrase).

Those are not my opinions but of genocide scholars and historians of Communism, which are the only ones we should be using for this article. Problem is '''there is no consensus not only among them outside but even among them themselves in their respective fields'''. Those who disagree should actually engage us rather than dismiss and perpetuate their echo-chamber.{{refn|This may well be caused by our own biases, including geographical ones and political (such as the ] and the ]), as reflected by memory studies and experts (, , , ''et al.''), and this should be taken seriously and not dismissed.|group=nb}} '''TLDR''', after reaching consensus on the main topic (if there is not a clear consensus on it, what are we even talking about and have this article for?), can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? Are there any academic ''Communist Genocide'' or ''Communist Mass Killings'' books, rather than just chapters about selective events under Communist regimes (which are then originally researched and synthesized to lump them all together as we still do)?

{{reflist|group=nb}}

P.S. If ] and Mass killings under communist regimes are two separated main topics supported by reliable academic secondary sources and do not violate any of our policies and guidelines, they should be first mentioned or discussed at either ], ], and ]. They are not, because they are likely content forks and do not warrant two separate main articles, and books about them do not discuss them all together as we do, implying a sort of link or common denominator, but only and (this is also why we do not have, and should not have, articles about genocide and mass killings under capitalist, Christians, fascist, Muslim, etc. regimes. All those can and must be discussed in the relevant articles (Genocide, ], and the like), not create more than one POV fork article to imply a sort of link which is not supported by reliable sources or scholarly consensus. See also my still current , which has never been really refuted or properly analyzed. ] (]) 03:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
:Do you think you can condense this down to a few, specific questions? This is not a subject I'm very familiar with, and having specific points to look into would be helpful to me in formulating a response. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 18:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|MjolnirPants}}, first of all, thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, summarization is not my strength and I needed to summarize the last two to three archives for the previous discussions we had. {{u|The Four Deuces}}, could you please summarize my points, since you are very good at that and you can also summarize the many discussion we took part in the last two to three archives? By the way, I think clarified many points and fixed some issues. Now we need to move it to something like ] and ] because, as we way, there is no consensus on the terminology, scholars actually disagree (see Valentino stating that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings), and ''excess deaths'' and ''mass mortality'' are more accurate and neutral, descriptive terms. Then we need to capitalize instances of ''communism'' when they are clearly referring to Communist states, both because many sources do that and treat it as a proper noun, and to clarify that those were not actual ] but rather constitutional ]s, commonly known in the West as '']s'', with a ruling ], usually following the ideology of ] or a variant. Finally, we need to fix the body by using secondary reliable sources, preferably academic, and remove undue opinions by non-experts. ] (]) 18:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
::I did try a TLDR, though seriously one needs to read it all once, please.
::{{tq|After reaching consensus on the main topic (if there is not a clear consensus on it, what are we even talking about and have this article for?), can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? Are there any academic ''Communist Genocide'' or ''Communist Mass Killings'' books, rather than just chapters about selective events under Communist regimes (which are then originally researched and synthesized to lump them all together as we still do)?}} See also my for why most of sources given in response are problematic or even misrepresented.
::Was this not helpful enough? ] (]) 18:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
::An example of how this article should be restrutured is ], which actually has a proper scholarly literature. There is no scholarly literature that lumps all Communist states together and attributes them all as 'mass killing.' Valentino, who has been misrepresented to support this article, clearly stated that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings. There have been authors who have engaged in body counting (]), who have spoken of a victims of communist narrative (]), or equated Communism with Nazism (]) but they are revisionists and are not the mainstream or majority view in scholarship (the article's body and the previous lead all treated this as fact or as if there was some scholarly consensus); there is no scholarly literature the way we treat the article (I have shown that scholars actually disagree on lumping all Communist states together as did by Courtois), which is why the body is still synthesis and gives selective, undue weight to non-experts. ] (]) 21:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
*In following this discussion for a few years now, I've distilled that there are two working theories about what the main topic should be. The first is that the main topic is the actual mass killings under communist regimes - in other words, names, dates, numbers, and the like - briefly ''the events''. The second is that the main topic is the theory of "mass killings under communist regimes" - the scholarship of the names, dates, numbers, and the like - briefly, ''the narrative''. Judging by the recent reworking of the lead by ], and by our previous discussion, he seems to take the position that ''the narrative'' is the primary topic. Indeed, if that is the position, then his new lead is ideal.
:However, that is not the position I take, nor has it been the position of the majority of editors who have contributed to this talk page discussion. As such, '''I propose restoring the lead''' to the way it was prior to 8/8. My rationale is unchanged ]. And, for the record, most editors involved in the discussion opposed the sort of lead Davide King has written. Now, I grant that the !votes in December 2020 were on a different lead, but the problems there are the same as the problems here. The thrust of the lead does not match the thrust of the article. The topic of this article is not that "Various authors have written about the events of 20th-century communist states." Further, the use of "some authors" verses "several authors" in paragraph 1 of the new lead is not neutral. Neither is the present undue weight to criticism of ''the narrative'' without there being a section on criticism of ''the narrative'' in the body of the article itself. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the new lead fails to sufficiently introduce section 4, which is the backbone of the entire article.
:Further, I oppose, on principal, any change to the lead without making prerequisite changes to the body. Changing the lede without reworking the article creates a disconnect. We have a dedicated sandbox, which has been unused since 2018, and it should be utilized to create a new body, then to create a lead that matches it - this new one does not.
:I close with a paraphrase of what I wrote in December 2020: "The lead, as it stood, is neutral and a good summary of the article, albeit a short one. It is not factually inaccurate or violate our NPOV guidelines, and is a closer fit with ] than the new one. ] (]) 22:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
::"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The did not check this. It made no mention of criticism and memories studies, and acted like there is a consensus on terminology or on lumping Communist states together. It can be further improved but it is an improvement from the previous one, and of course the body must be worked too. Again, I take the quotes I provided to hold much more weight than the opinion of a Wikipedian user, no matter who or how many. They are not my opinion, unlike yours, but the summary of scholarly consensus, or in this case its lack thereof. Also Misplaced Pages is not about votes, and I always expressed the belief that one or more expert admins should actually analyze given sources, and clarify whose side's reading is correct. Because it all boil downs to "per sources" and "they do not actually support that." This article should actually be about the history of genocides and mass killings by given regimes, many of which have been described or categorized as 'totalitarian.' As I wrote in the RfC above, there is no scholarly literature the way we structure this article but there is plenty of literature about totalitarian regimes and genocide/mass killings, see , , , and . Neither of those works limit themselves to Communist regimes, so why should we, too? Another article, focused on Communist states and about death tolls and the victims of Communism narrative, can be written based on my lead. So this article should actually be expanded to be a history of genocides and mass killings, not limited to Communist states... because... guess what... that is what sources actually do; they do not limit themselves to Communist states and do not just make comparative analysis between Communist states but between wildly different regimes. ] (]) 22:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
:::I think the new lead strays a little to much away from an NPOV. Given the breath and depth of sourcing for this article starting with the definition of ] is probably not great. Going on to try and cast doubt on if it happened and to what extent is also out of line with what the article talks about. Judging by the RFC just above I think you should revert your changes to the lead and try to get consensus for your changes. ] (]) 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::::I think the IP succinctly explained the problem, issue, and difference, except that scholars do not actually agree that "Mass killings took place in some/many communist states." (see Valentino). What they and we can all agree is that tragedies and awful events happened which have resulted in the deaths of many people. I think a solution to salvage this article and avoid any issue of original research and synthesis is to make it about the history of genocides and mass killings. Because most scholars do not find a link between capitalism, communism, or whatever and genocide and mass killings; the only exception may be fascism, and in that case mainly Nazism. There is no serious valid reason to refuse this, other than political bias, because scholars discuss wildly different regimes together; they do not discuss all Communist regimes together, only some of them, and they may compare them not to other Communist regimes, but to other regimes in general, such as Nazi Germany (in the case of the Cambodian genocide). Another article about the Communist death toll can be created to support the proposition B summarized by the IP. That is the only solution. We already have singular articles about each event and tragedies; there is no need to engage in original research and synthesis by positing there is a link with "Communism." Sources do not treat it as a separate subject. ] (]) 02:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::Yeah but that is all just incorrect. Please see my previous comment that addresses the policy based issues with the lead change you made. Again please self revert pending consensus. ] (]) 02:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::"Yeah but that is all just incorrect."{{citation needed|date=August 2021}}
::::::Per , "here is '''barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method''', and timeframe." Per , discussion of the number of victims of Communism has been "extremely extensive and '''ideologically biased'''."
::::::Per , "Communism has a bloody record, '''but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing'''." Per , "hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, '''have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss'''."
::::::Per , the idea to connect the deaths with some 'generic Communism' concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals and the alleged connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category (to paraphrase).
::::::Per , only Courtois made the comparison between Communism and Nazism, while the other sections of the book "are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations." While a good question , it is hardly new and inappropriate because ''The Black Book of Communism'' '''is''' ''not'' "'''about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon'''."
::::::But sure, my analysis ''must be'' "all just incorrect." ] (]) 03:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::You didn't respond to any of the issues I raised or sources I provided. You have now my lead, even though I would have been curious about what others users had to say. Can you provide a source for "There were many mass killings under communist regimes of the 20th century" rather than "Awful things and tragedies did indeed happen and many people have lost their lives" (which we all agree with)? That statement is contradicted by Valentino and other scholars, per sources I have provided. ] (]) 11:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::Even doesn't really discuss other than passing mentions and very specific events, most of which happened in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. We can make this article about a scholarly comparative analysis between those three regimes, but the title is misleading because most Communist states didn't engage in mass killings. ] (]) 11:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::This has been discussed numerous times over the life of this article. With no new arguments or new information there is no reason to go against previous consensus. It is well documented that the majority of major communist states did, in fact, engage in mass killings of their own citizens. That is not really up for debate. If you think that another article should be created documenting your personal point of view you are free to do so. This article however is not for that. ] (]) 12:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Claiming "consensus" or saying that this "has been discussed numerous times over the life of this article" doesn't mean anything, if sources don't support it. It is well documented that the majority of major communist states did, in fact, engage in mass killings of their own citizens." {{citation needed|date=August 2021}} Again, Benjamin Valentino disagrees. "That is not really up for debate." No, what's really not up for debate is that tragedies and awful events happened, which have resulted in the deaths of many people. What is debatable is whether all these events can be categorized as mass killings and whether Communism was the link. Again, I provided sources that reject this article and the lumping all Communist states. All you have is your personal opinion. I have provided over ten sources, you have provided none. ] (]) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::I've been away for a week and at the risk of re-starting a thread that seems to have died: No, ], Benjamin Valentino does not agree. Valentino is talking specifically about his own definition of ''mass killing'' (50,000 killed within 5 years or less) when he says "''Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided '''this level of violence'''.''" It is important to understand that ''mass killing'' in English is also a generic term for large-scale killing, and Valentino does acknowledge that mass killing in this generic sense did occur in other communist states that he chooses not to focus on ("''Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. '''Mass killings on a smaller scale''' also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa.''"). ] (]) 02:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|AmateurEditor}}, I would like to say I appreciate your work and for taking our concerns seriously, even if we disagree. As you said, we discussed this many times, so I hope {{u|Paul Siebert}} can more specifically answer, if they did not do this already; but Valentino's interpretation needs to be sourced to secondary sources; we need a secondary source that explicitily support what you summarized. I still think the title is one of the issues because it implies a link that is not supported by scholarly sources; it would be the same thing like Mass killings under capitalist, fascism, Muslim, etc. regimes, as if ideology alone was the sole culprit, which is not the case according to genocide scholars, including Valentino. ''Excess deaths'', ''excess mortality'', or ''mass deaths'' would be more neutral and accurate terms, especially because ''mass killing'' is problematic due to not having clear, or using different, criteria, and scholars themselves disagreeing on terminology. ] (]) 06:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::I think this is an issue of primary source because one can cherry pick quotes; however, secondary sources do not support Valentino as a proponent of mass killings under Communist regimes but rather as a proponent of Communist mass killing, which is a different thing, a subcategory of dispossessive mass killing vis-a-vis coercive mass killing. I believe this is also what Paul Siebert said to such objections. ] (]) 11:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

*I'm sorry, {{u|Davide King}}, but I'm not going to be able to read this entire thread, previous threads and familiarize myself with the sources in time to provide any meaningful commentary. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
*:This really sucks and is a serious problem. The article should have been deleted with (K) 22–27 (D) due to being created by an indefinitely banned user. Because it was kept, despite three consecutive ''no consensus'' results (if there is no consensus to keep, the solution is not to keep it; the onus is on those to make the positive charge of ''keep'' to gain consensus to keep the article in the first place), which gave strength to those who were fine with the article and had no incentive in fixing the problems. Keeping the article in that AfD just give more strength to those in favor of ''Keep'' because, by the mere fact the article exists, it is assumed there is no original research and synthesis violations to warrant deletion, or anything other than the article's structure as it has existed for so long. Can you at least check the sources that I cited? ] (]) 03:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
*::], you write ''"if there is no consensus to keep, the solution is not to keep it"'' — that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AfD works. In AfD, the proposed question is whether or not an article should be deleted. If there is a no consensus close, then there is simply no consensus to delete, per ]. And, as to the trope that this was G5 eligible, by the time the creator was identified as a sock there were substantial edits made by other users, making it explicitly not eligible for speedy deletion. I also find it interesting that you brought up the vote total of the first AfD when you yourself said to me just yesterday that "Misplaced Pages is not about votes." I would challenge you (as I have others) to '''put the thing up for deletion''' if you think it should be deleted. Heck, if it gets deleted, you'd be saving everyone a lot of time! I'd do it myself, while paradoxically !voting keep, but that would likely be a ] violation.

::: I do want to address an earlier point you made. You wrote, in response to me, ''"Another article, focused on Communist states and about death tolls and the victims of Communism narrative, can be written based on my lead."'' Dude, we already have that article, and it's this one! Write your own article if you want an expanded look at totalitarianism and mass killings. And, if you don't like this article, put it up for deletion. But what you propose is deletion by stealth, and there is, thus far, no consensus for you to do that. I echo the call for you to self revert. ] (]) 07:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::::That is a problem of consensus itself, which is misinterpreted, as was also reflected by {{u|Paul Siebert}} and but that is beside the point; the damage has already been done. "I also find it interesting that you brought up the vote total of the first AfD when you yourself said to me just yesterday that 'Misplaced Pages is not about votes.{{'"}} I brought it up because even by that standard, there are problems; you also ignored that I specified that the arguments were largely the same. It is unclear why there was a double standard in the AfDs. By the way, considering the controversy, it would not have been a bad idea to delete the article while improvements to the articles could have been done in a draft and/or sandbox, and then reach consensus on whether the improvements are now enough to warrant the article.
::::You call that "deletion by stealth", I call that writing a proper article that does not violate any policy and that actually follows the scholarly literature. I propose this article to be about the history and analysis of genocide and mass killings (an actual topic and literature), rather than writing a new one myself, simply because it already includes Communist states; we just need to add other types of regimes discusses, dude! Either way, you are deflecting and have not properly responded to any of the issues I raised. Why should we not follow actual sources, such as , , , and ? They do not limit themselves to Communist states, so why should we do the same and imply mass killings are only something Communist states do or did? Why does only Communist regimes, of all regimes under which many people have lost their lives, warrant an article of its own rather than a large section about my proposed-expanded article?
::::Even though actual, scholarly sources do not limit to them. Valentino and other scholars clearly disprove the theory that mass killings took place in some/many communist states; they agree on the tragic events and that many people died but they do not describe them as ''mass killings'', and Valentino say that most Communist states did not engage in mass killings. Who holds more weight? You, or what those scholars actually say? So the topics supported by sources are:
::::'''Proposition A:''' Many tragic events happened under Communist states and many, many people lost their lives. Many tragic events also happened under wildly different regimes and many, many people lost their lives. Why is that? And what can we learn from them to avoid happening it in the future?
::::'''Proposition B:''' These events are connected to each other, and/or to the ideology of communism, through the victims of communism narrative, and several authors have engaged in estimates of death tolls. It is a controversial theory, it has been compared to the double genocide theory, many estimates have been criticized, and is not supported by most scholars but it is relevant and notable.
::::Finally, can you, any of you, answer to this?
::::{{tq|After reaching consensus on the main topic , can you provide secondary sources for "he said, she said" to establish weight and whether they are due? <br><br>Are there any academic ''Communist Genocide'' or ''Communist Mass Killings'' books , rather than just chapters about selective events under Communist regimes .}} Be my guest. ] (]) 08:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::''"They do not limit themselves to Communist states, so why should we do the same"'' — we shouldn't, but this article is about mass killings under communist regimes. This article is not about mass killings under totalitarian regimes. To push that point is to deny the clear consensus in the RFC above. I think that sums up my criticism of the IP's Prop A well. As to Prop B, I'd need sourcing that specifically says it "is not supported by most scholars". The existence of sources that criticize the theory is not evidence of that particular point, and a SYNTH violation is committed by adding up sources on either side and coming to that conclusion. ] (]) 15:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::As I expected, you keep deflecting and didn't answer most of points I raised, including sources. As noted by The Four Deuces below, and as stated by Valentino, most Communist states didn't engage in mass killings, so the only fact is that many peoples have died under Communist states and those were tragic events; this is the fact. What is not a fact is that all those events were either a genocide or mass killings because scholars are still debating them, and most Communist states did not engage in either genocide or mass killing. Communists in Nepal democratically shared the power with Social Democrats and others. The whole mass killing category has definitional problems because it may mean any deaths over 5 and anything over 50,000. This is why scholars don't describe those events as ''mass killing'', and this is where original research come in. Valentino says that ideology doesn't explain genocide or mass killing.
::::::"... but this article is about mass killings under communist regimes." It shouldn't be because this is synthesis per above ("Communism has a bloody record, '''but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing'''"), and because it implies Communism, rather than any other factor, was the main cause. Again, scholars and sources do not treat it it as a separate subject (''Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts'', ''Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide'', ''Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue'', and ''Final Solutions''). It shouldn't be about totalitarian regimes either because it would be committing the same synthesis by claiming that totalitarianism is the cause of genocide and mass killing, when that is not supported by scholars, is not even what sources say, and totalitarianism is also a debated concept among scholars.
::::::The only solution is to make this article about an history and analysis of genocide and mass killing, including Communist regimes and many others wildly different regimes. You are the one supporting the article as it is, so the onus is on you; I have yet to see any source that says the article as it currently is reflects sources and "is ... supported by most scholars." You are the one who is making positive claims, and any positive claim I have actually made was backed up by sources, which you ignored.
::::::"To push that point is to deny the clear consensus in the RFC above." That is to be established by the closer, and you may have the numbers, but they shouldn't matter; I believe the other side gave the strongest argument, while you keep reducing yourself to "per source" arguments, when they don't actually support what they claim to do. ] (]) 09:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::A compromise solution is to make this article about what TFD described. "Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization." After all, those are the three states where most things happened, and as noted by Valentino most Communist regimes didn't engage in mass killing, and democratic Communists in the post-war period, or democratic Nepal, didn't engage in genocide or mass killing. ] (]) 11:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::], if you look at the definitions of the other terms in the terminology section, and the excerpts supporting them, all of them use the generic ''mass killing'' explicitly in their definitions (or some equivalent phrase like "large-scale killing" or "mass murder"). Valentino's non-generic definition of ''mass killing'' should not be confused with the generic term. ] (]) 03:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::But do they specifically discuss Communist states or are they talking in general? Why not turn this article into a scholarly analysis of genocide and mass killing, which would include Communist states and many other and wildly different regimes? An article more focused on Communism (the narrative, excess deaths and mortality, and only scholarly estimates) can be created but this one, since it already discuss Communist regimes, it can be expanded to support my Proposition A (Many tragic events happened under Communist states and many, many people lost their lives. Many tragic events also happened under wildly different regimes and many, many people lost their lives. Why is that? And what can we learn from them to avoid happening it in the future?), which is what genocide scholars actually do. ] (]) 06:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::The sources cited for those terms have specifically applied them to communist states. Please read the excerpts cited in that section if you don't want to take my word for it. That's why the excerpts are there. There is plenty of room in Misplaced Pages for this article as well as other more general articles. Those things aren't mutually exclusive. ] (]) 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::That may be true for each term but I am specifically referring to the introductory phrasing at the start of the section. Krain 1997 is about genocide and mass killing in general, and even if you are right, Wheatcroft 1996 and others still do not support the article as you have written. The fact there is no clear criteria for what constitute a mass killing is the problem (when that number can range from as few as four to more than 50,000 people, what are we talking about?), and for why we should not have such a controversial article.
::::::::::I agree with Siebert and TFD's points below; we should be using all sources but by doing that we would actually have to rewrite the article because sources do not support the events as mass killings, while it only includes, through synthesis and original research, events where many people have died and act like they were mass killing and communism is the link. "Some editors say lets use that definition and enumerate every case in Communist countries." Unfortunately, that is exactly what the article does. If a source says an event was a mass killing, or use any other term (which add further confusions, as stated by TFD, because any term is treated as a synonym or as treating the same thing or topic, hence that section is still synthesis), but defines mass killing as any events with at least four deaths, and other describe the same event as mass killing but defines it as any event with more than 50,000, we have got a problem, there is no consensus, and we are engaging in original research and synthesis. Essentially, this article lists the ] as a mass killing under a Communist regime because a few sources are synthetized to support that, ignoring all the others who do not; if scholarly consensus, or lack thereof, says it was not a mass killing, we are not going to list it here just because you have found a few minority sources who do. In many cases, they are not even significant enough to be in the individual event's main article.
::::::::::If any of this is not enough, we actually have a genocide scholar source that disproves this article. It is not just a genocide scholar source but an actual global database of mass killings which, coincidentally, is also the most frequently used by genocide scholars. Most of the events we discuss in this article are not there, and even the few that are there, no link is made between communism or that they are mass killings under Communist regimes, rather than a genocide (Cambodian genocide) or politicide (others) which just happened to take place under regimes governed by self-professed Communist parties. ] (]) 10:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::You say "''The fact there is no clear criteria for what constitute a mass killing is the problem...''". It is the sources' problem, not ours. The sources are aware of the problem and discuss it. We need only reflect what they have published, warts and all. I responded to Paul Siebert's points below. ] (]) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::And if it's the sources' problem, it's also ours; I can't understand how you don't see this. "The sources are aware of the problem and discuss it." They certainly don't discuss in the same way this article is structured; they don't draw a link with communism or lump together all states governed by self-professed Communist parties as the article does. I look forward to {{u|The Four Deuces}} and {{u|Paul Siebert}} addressing your points below. I am surprised you didn't point out that the global database combines all mass killing events since 1955 because I would say that's irrelevant, as there is no link drawn to communism, are not categorized or divided into mass killings under Communist regimes; they are all listed together, which is why you're always welcome to help me turn this article into a scholarly analysis of genocides and mass killings irrespective of ideology or regime-type, and the other article about TFD's victims of Communism narrative and Paul Siebert's neutral analysis proposal. That would be following what actual genocide scholars do, and not original researching through cherry picking and synthesis, by violating NPOV, this content POV fork article of ] and ]. ] (]) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Our only problem as[REDACTED] editors is to write an article that reflects the content of the identified reliable sources on the topic in accordance with[REDACTED] policies/guidelines. It is not our problem to resolve any issues that the sources themselves are grappling with. There certainly are sources (included in the article already) that do lump together states governed by self-professed communist parties. For examples, see the following excerpts, among others: excerpt "i" by Rummel (from an essay titled "''How Many did '''Communist Regimes''' Murder?''"), excerpt "ag" by Valentino ("''...Estimates of the total number of people killed by '''communist regimes''' range as high as 110 million...''"), and excerpt "aj" by Alex Bellamy ("''Between 1945 and 1989, '''communist regimes''' massacred literally millions of civilians.''"). The global database of genocide/politicide events you mentioned that is reproduced in the more general ] article is of course not restricted to communist governments, but the author, Barbara Harff (with Ted Gurr), has written about Marxist-Leninist politicide specifically: see excerpt "bw": ''Harff & Gurr 1988, p. 369: "Revolutionary mass murder: the most common type of politicide (following repressive politicide), with ten examples in our data set. In all these instances new regimes have come to power committed to bringing about fundamental social, economic, and political change. Their enemies usually are defined by variants of Marxist-Leninist ideology: initially their victims include the officials and most prominent supporters of the old regime and landowners and wealthy peasants. Later they may include-as they did in Kampuchea and in China during the Cultural Revolution-cadres who lack revolutionary zeal. In Laos and Ethiopia they have included ordinary peasants in regions which actively or passively resisted revolutionary policies. Most '''Marxist-Leninist regimes''' which came to power through protracted armed struggle in the postwar period perpetrated one or more politicides, though of vastly different magnitudes. The worst offender was the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea; the second worst, the Chinese Communist regime.".'' Most sources use "communist regimes", but "Marxist-Leninist regimes" is clearly referring to the same thing. ] (]) 00:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::"... but the author, Barbara Harff (with Ted Gurr), has written about Marxist-Leninist politicide specifically." So why do we not rename this ''Marxist-Leninist'' rather than ''communist'' then? And she has not written about many of the events we currently synthesised them with. "Most Marxist-Leninist regimes which came to power through protracted armed struggle in the postwar period perpetrated one or more politicides, though of vastly different magnitudes." ''Most'' is not ''all'', and there remains the terminology synthesis issue ("So you are saying that as long as a source uses the expression mass killing we can put it in even if the sources define mass killings differently.") The whole categorisation of lumping them all together is disputed (when there is a dispute, the solution is not to take the side of those who propose the lumping, such as using a title biased towards their views or implying it as a fact, rather than a more descriptive title; if scholars dispute the categorisation of Communist states, that warrants a more neutral rewrite, it does not warrant having an article that gives more weight to those who support the lumping), and sources can include some and exclude others; consistency does not rank high on your priorities. "Most sources use 'communist regimes', but "Marxist-Leninist regimes" is clearly referring to the same thing." Again, it would be helpful to at least capitalise it then, because ''Communist'' is capitalised exactly to make it clear it is referring to Marxism-Leninism (Communist state) and not necessarily to communism. Finally, this remains a primary source issue because they are sources as interpreted by AmateurEditor; the quotes may be very explicit but we still need a secondary source establishing that they are discussing this topic (and we still disagree on the topic, so what are even discussing about? You say they support yours, I say they support ours, wall against wall), or else they just remain your word against mine because we interpret them differently. '''Rather than cherry pick quotes from their own work, you need to give me a secondary source about what Harff and Valentino thought, and whether they support the topic as ''you'' understand it, or as ''I and others'' understand it'''. Again, why cannot those sources used to actually expand the ] article to discuss Communist states there? Why we ''must'' have a separate, content POV fork article limited to Communist states, when genocide scholars do not discuss them in a vacuum, as we currently do? We need a secondary source about what Harff ''et al.'' thought, and the few out there still do not support the article as currently structured and do not rule out a rewriting or TFD/Siebert proposal. This just is not going nowhere, so I hope that TFD/Siebert can reply you on this, or correct/clarify something. ] (]) 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Just one last thing. As stated by {{u|Paul Siebert}}, as long as main articles about the events disagree with what we write here, all of this is irrelevant; for most of the content here, if truly due, should belong first to the main articles. If there is a contradiction, it is a NPOV, OR, SYNTH, WEIGHT, and so on and so forth violation(s), all the tags remain appropriate, and a rewrite would be necessary. We cannot even agree on the main topic, or how to interpret it, so we can continue to discuss this for months, it will be irrelevant; the fair solution would be to rewrite together and find some common ground. As I said, I think your interpretation can easily fit TFD/Siebert proposal; it is much harder to fit ours in the current article because it is full of violations and require a big re-structuring, which is why your calls to simply add things, criticism, analysis, etc. to the article miss our points and concerns. ] (]) 13:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

:The terminology section provides a range of definitions from one death per year to 50,000 over five years, caused by any government action, deliberate or accidental. Some editors say lets use that definition and enumerate every case in Communist countries. But ] says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Per policy, we need a defined topic that includes events that reliable sources place within the topic. This article would be an embarrassment to the ]. But note that the sanctions for this article aren't even about ideology, they're about an ethic-nationalist dispute between Russia and Eastern European states in the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine. Somehow Pol Pot's massacres in Kampuchea have relevance to the Russian annexation of Crimea. ] (]) 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::You said: "Some editors say lets use that definition and enumerate every case in Communist countries". No, editors do not say that and the article does not do that. The article title/topic does not refer to that specific definition, it refers to generic "mass killing" as it is used in just about every source cited in the article. "Generic "mass killing" is most appropriate because it is generic. Please see the excerpts. ] (]) 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::So you are saying that as long as a source uses the expression mass killing we can put it in even if the sources define mass killings differently. To add to the confusion, we are assuming that other expressions be considered to be synonyms. ] (]) 04:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, AmateurEditor literally says that the sources that use some certain terminology should be used in the article, whereas the sources that use different terminology should not be used. By doing that, a huge number of sources are either left beyond the scope or put in a subordinated position, which is a violation of our policy. We have a list of ''events'' (Great Purge, Great Chinese Famine, etc), and we must use all sources, ], what those sources say about those events. If we do a comprehensive analysis of sources, we will see that the sources this article is based upon are minority sources. See the example provided by me in the section below. Thus, the article discusses in details if the Great Chinese famine was mass killing, democide, politicide etc, but the relative contribution of FAD1/FAD2 or entitlement famine components is totally overlooked, despite the fact that true famine experts discuss that event in those terms. The article definitely expresses minority POV and put the experts opinia in a subordinated position.--] (]) 05:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::I literally say that sources about the article's topic are the reason the article exists and are what the article must be based upon, and that sources that do not discuss the topic in general but do discuss part of the topic (such as one event, but not in the context of mass killings under communist regimes generally) can and should be included in a supplementary capacity. You have been arguing that we should draw our own OR conclusions about what sources that do not discuss mass killings under communist regimes generally intend by not doing that. ] (]) 06:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


== Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer ==
== Possible summary ==
I hope it's ok for a non-wikipedian to comment here. I read the article and came here to post about it, then I saw the thread above. I'm thinking that my post could perhaps serve as a summary of the same issues detailed above, since it seems that a summary is needed.


Regarding removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from ], we also cite a paper published in the journal '''' by Ghodsee and '''' by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --] (]) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Anyway, here is what I wanted to say. Consider the following two propositions:
:IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
::It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. ] (]) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed , or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and ] objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --] (]) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. ] (]) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. ] (]) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


Mere selection of which aspect to cover usually reflects a type of bias. This is a universal reality, and repeating a universal reality is not information. Trying to pretend that it is noteworthy information is itself bias. For example, if a researcher counts up the number of deaths from high-school sports, we don't put in a section that a critic says that merely counting those deaths reflects an anti-sports bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Proposition A:''' Mass killings took place in some/many communist states.


:PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
'''Proposition B:''' These mass killings are '''connected''' to each other, and/or to the ideology of communism.
:The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. ] (]) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? ] (]) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{Ping|The Four Deuces}} All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of ) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - ] (]) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


== Recent removals ==
Proposition A is a fact. Proposition B is an opinion shared by some historians. The problem with this article is that it conflates A and B as if they were the same thing, and implies that everyone who agrees with A also agrees with B. That is not true.


I am starting this thread to discuss recent content removals by DaltonCastle. I disagree with them, because the removed content was well sourced and in line with the rest of the article. Much of the article consists of reporting the views of different academics on issues such as the proper names to be used for the mass killings (terminology), the numbers of people killed and how those numbers should be estimated (estimates), causes of the killings, comparisons to other mass killings, and so on. In many cases, there is no overall consensus on these topics, there are only different sources with different perspectives. So the article reports the conclusions of author A, then those of author B, then those of author C, etc. In cases where two authors directly disagree with each other, this is also noted. I think this is a good format, and actually I cannot think of any other way to organize this information. DaltonCastle has removed certain sentences and paragraphs on the grounds that they represent the views of only one author, or only two authors, or that they are "hardly a consensus". That is true, but the same could be said about every other sentence and paragraph immediately before and after the removed ones. Of course each paragraph (or part of a paragraph, or sentence) focuses on a single author, because that is the structure being used. We describe the various sources one by one, when there is no way to combine them without doing original research (for example, when they disagree with each other). The names of the authors are given every time, and the content makes it clear that it is reporting their separate conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. - ] (]) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the discussion above is basically about this, and about whether the article should be about A or B or both. Right now it seems to be about both, but without distinguishing them (in other words, it does not explain that "mass killings took place" and "all these mass killings are connected and happened for the same reasons" are two different ideas with very different levels of academic support; one is simply a fact, the other is a highly controversial opinion). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)</span>
:The issue is not about the quality of sourcing, its that there is a ] issue to insert a point of view. When the "Estimates" section starts off with "a communist-leaning academic believes the following estimates are exaggerated" (I'm obviously simplifying), there is a concern. It is a question of 1. due weight, 2. Coatracking, 3. POV-insertion/whitewashing. The near-majority of the article should not be weighted towards the handful of academics who say the numbers are overestimated. At most it is a quick mention. ] (]) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:That is a very good and fairly accurate summary. The only problem is that scholars do not actually agree that "Mass killings took place in some/many communist states." (see Valentino), which makes this article remaining as it is even worse, because it clearly does not reflect what scholarly sources say and even misrepresent them. Like us, they only agree that awful things and tragedies did indeed happen and many people have lost their lives. Instead, Proposition B is a perfect summary. What I propose is to have a single article about history of genocide and mass killings, where we discuss the views of scholars of why they happened, what can we do to avoid them happening again, etc. but without using any single label or category, whether capitalism, Communism, totalitarian, etc.
::The "Estimates" section begins by quoting ], who is not remotely communist-leaning as far as I can tell. He has written a book specifically about the crimes of communist states. Also, he is not saying that the estimates are exaggerated, but that they are contentious and debated. This is true, and it is a good summary of the literature. Every author who has estimated the number of people killed by communist regimes has arrived at a different number, and the differences between the numbers are in the tens of millions. It's not a question of high numbers or low numbers, it's just that they are very different from each other. For example, the three highest estimates cited in the "Estimates" section are 94 million, 110 million and 148 million. The differences between these "high" numbers are just as big as the differences between "high" and "low" numbers. So, it is not as if most academics agree on a single number, and a handful of sources say that this number is overestimated. There is no agreement on any single number, high or low. I think it is therefore good and important to cover all the estimates and the various debates about them.
:Because by using a label or category, we are indirectly implying that is the link why they happened, which is not what scholarly sources say. Even totalitarianism is not a full-agreed concept among scholars and there is no consensus that totalitarianism is the sole reason why such events and tragedies happened. Indeed, Valentino actually says that ideology alone, or even ideology in general, does not fully explain why genocide and mass killings happened.
::I don't see any particular weight in the article towards some estimates or authors as opposed to others. Every author gets about the same space as every other author. On the contrary, it seems to me that removing some authors would privilege those that remain. We should not give the impression that there is academic agreement on an issue when there is no agreement, by citing a single author.
:To sign your comment, use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 02:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::Finally, regarding ], I don't see that here at all. In my understanding, coatracking is when an article groups together different topics that are unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the article's topic. So, coatracking here would be if the article cited sources that don't talk about communist mass killings. But all the cited sources do in fact talk about communist mass killings. They disagree with each other on things like estimates or causes, but describing sources that disagree with each other is not coatracking. That's just standard academic debate. - ] (]) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|MjolnirPants}}, as I stated above, this a good summary by the IP. I hope it can help you, so that you can make your contribute. ] (]) 03:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Any academic work is going to full of things that can be critiqued. Respectfully, your edit had a massive amount of such material, (plus a whataboutism argument made by someone.) I think that a high-quality paragraph (information, not talking points) covering variability and possible bias in estimates would be a good addition. But IMHO the edit that I just described was not that. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''A''' would be synthesis. It would be like mass killings in English speaking countries. Some connection between speaking English and mass killing would have to be made. There are I think two versions of '''B''': (''i'') Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization. (''ii'') The other version is that mass killings were dictated in otherwise forgotten works of Karl Marx. Under this view, COVID-19 can be seen as the latest attempt by the Communists to wipe out the world population. Anyone who argues for '''A''' probably believes '''B''' (''ii''). ] (]) 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|The Four Deuces}}, this is correct. "Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization." Is this not exactly what ? Can you summarize what this source is arguing? My understanding is that it is B (i). ] (]) 10:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::I don't think it is arguing anything, since it is a review study summarizing what others have argued. It does however confirm what I said. The "geographical scope" is the USSR, China and Cambodia. The reason for the mass killings was rapid industrialization: "what marked the beginning of the unbalanced Russian modernisation process that was to have such terrible consequences?" It mentions that some writers see the origins of mass killings in Marx's writings. Unfortunately, there is very little literature that compares mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and the literature that does exist mostly enumerates mass killings rather than explain their ideological reasons. ] (]) 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|The Four Deuces}}, I agree, especially that the reason was not necessarily ideology but rapid industrialization. Do you agree, then, that this source may be used for B (ii)? We could use it to summarize what they have argued within the narrative of Victims of Communism article. The problem of this article is that it uses too many primary sources (perhaps because secondary sources that support don't actually exists...), especially for the Proposed causes section about "he said, she said." Rather than using a secondary or tertiary source like this one, they use a primary source of the authors themselves. When you cite the author to say what the author say, it's a use of a primary source, right? ] (]) 14:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::If you use a source for the opinion of its author, it is a primary source. While allowed, I would avoid this because it requires us to interpret the passage and determine its degree of acceptance. The only exception would be direct quotes that had been reported in secondary sources. So for example in the ], it is useful to cite the text of the amendment. ] (]) 16:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{u|The Four Deuces}}, so are accurate? I just tagged the obvious one, but essentially the whole body is like this, with just a few exceptions. ] (]) 23:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::], those are not primary sources. See ], which says "''Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.''" ... "'''''A secondary source provides an author's own thinking''' based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. '''It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis''' of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.''" ... "''Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is considered to be a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.''" A primary source for this article would be something like original documents from the USSR with lists of people to be executed without trial. The sources used in this article use in-sentence attribution because we are trying to follow ], which says "''A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. '''Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.'''''" ] (]) 03:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::They are primary sources in the sense that any interpretation requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, as we do for Rummel with Jacobs and Totten. Either way, we should not be citing the authors themselves to say what they think; we need secondary sources; if we cannot find secondary sources, and they need to be specifically about the topic and not passing mentions, it means they are undue. For example, we should not be citing Conquest for {{tq|In the 2007 revision of his book ''The Great Terror'', Robert Conquest estimates that while exact numbers will never be certain, the communist leaders of the Soviet Union were responsible for no fewer than 15 million deaths}}. We could be citing Wheatcroft, Stephen G. (1999), who says {{tq|The arguments about excess mortality are far more complex than normally believed. R. Conquest, ''The Great Terror: A Re-assessment'' (London, 1992) does not really get to grips with the new data and continues to present an exaggerated picture of the repression. The view of the 'revisionists' has been largely substantiated (J. Arch Getty & R. T. Manning (eds), ''Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives'' (Cambridge, 1993)). The popular press, even ''TLS'' and ''The Independent'', have contained erroneous journalistic articles that should not be cited in respectable academic articles}}. Too bad he is writing about "victims of Stalinism", which are "a matter of political judgement" (Ellman 2002), and like Conquest, they did not write about mass killing or lumped all Communist states together as we do, but that at least would be a secondary source for what Conquest said. See? ] (]) 06:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::], these are not primary sources for the topic of mass killings under communist regimes. I linked you to the policy/guideline pages and quoted directly from them: we '''are supposed to''' identify the various opinions as the opinions of the particular authors, per ]. Finding a source that criticizes another source means you include both, it doesn't mean that one cancels out the other. Redefining the secondary sources as primary sources and then arguing that we need "secondary sources" for the analyses is nonsense. If you read what I posted before (and bolded for you), analysis and opinion is one of the characteristics of a secondary source. Primary sources are documents of the base facts and secondary sources are authors' "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts", which is what we have here. ] (]) 02:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Original interpretations or opinions are primary sources. Secondary sources report those opinions. As a tertiary source, Misplaced Pages articles must rely primarily on secondary sources. What confuses some editors is that the same source may contain all three types of source at one time. It would be helpful if we had secondary sources that compared and contrasted various studies on mass killings under communist regimes. Unfortunately none exist since there is no reliable literature about the topic of this article. Instead this article combines material to create a novel synthesis. ] (]) 03:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::You say "Original interpretations or opinions are primary sources." No, they aren't. Original interpretations or opinions about the facts are what secondary sources do. See ], which says "''Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.''" ... "'''''A secondary source provides an author's own thinking''' based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. '''It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis''' of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.''" ] (]) 03:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::I believe {{u|The Four Deuces}} gave you a better explanation than I ever could, and that's exactly what I was talking about. Another thing is that many sources, especially at "Proposed causes", are mainly about ] than ] or the topic of this article, and are also non-scholarly, undue, or by non-experts, even if properly attributed and everything; they need a secondary source for their interpretation, as explained by TFD. The reason why you or someone else could not provide such secondary sources is because "none exist since there is no reliable literature about the topic of this article. Instead this article combines material to create a novel synthesis." ] (]) 10:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
{{outdent|::::::::::::}}As I said, some source may contain all three types of sources at one time. If it expresses a novel theory about the information it analyzes, it becomes a primary source for that theory. A biographer of Caesar for example will use all available sources to write about his life, which is a secondary source. But when he starts talking about his own theories, it becomes a primary source for those theories. Note that we attach the description reliable to secondary sources. Reliability relates to facts, i.e., the facts established by the author. But opinions are not facts and we don't require reliable secondary sources for them, since opinions expressed are primary sources. Alex Jones' website for example is just as reliable a source for what he says as is a peer-reviewed article for what its author says. The difference is that one is a reliable secondary source for the facts while the other is not. I guess the confusion is that secondary sources analyze primary sources to determine facts, but they also use those facts to determine opinions. Facts and oipnions are different things. While our main concern about facts is their accuracy, our main concern about opinions is their degree of acceptance. ] (]) 04:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I will give you an example. There are no reliable primary sources for the life of Caesar and no primary sources that say he was assassinated in 44 B.C., since that dating system had not been developed. It requires "evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources" to determine that date. ] (]) 04:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:The current sources that analyze and interpret mass killings under communist regimes are rightly considered reliable secondary sources on the topic of mass killings under communist regimes. If you want to call them primary sources on the different topic of "analysis of mass killings under communist regimes", that's irrelevant to this article. If you want to have an article about the topic of "analysis of mass killings under communist regimes", you need reliable secondary sources for that topic. All secondary sources contain opinions, whether you call it evaluation, interpretation, or whatever else. There are three categories of degrees of acceptance for secondary sources in Misplaced Pages: fringe, significant minority, and majority. Until evidence is presented that the identified sources are fringe or majority views, we rightly treat them as significant minority views. ] (]) 04:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


== Bad sourcing and obvious bias. ==
:Unfortunately, I cannot actively participate in this discussion right now, but, Since David pinged me, let me explain my position again.
:Surely, mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes, and that is an objective fact. This fact is undeniable, but the interpretation provided in this article is one-sided and distorted. As an example, let's take a look at and the main mass mortality event the Great Chinese famine. This event alone is responsible for about 50% of what is called by some authors "Communist death toll". Therefore, if this event, along with other mass mortality events is a topic of this article, the Great Chinese famine is expected to be described as "Communist mass killing", "democide", "politicide" or other "-cide" in majority of sources writing about it. However, if that is not the case, then by using this terminology we are leaving a significant amount of sources beyond the scope. In other words, if the search phrase and yields the same sources, the topic was defined correctly. However, if these two search produce totally different sets of sources, then the topic was defined incorrectly. As you can see, the first scenario takes place: by using "mass killing" or "democide" or other "-cides" during a search, we artificially narrow the range of sources telling about "Great Chinese famine". Thus O'Grada, a renown famine expert, never uses the term "mass killing" in his about the Great Chinese famine. Therefore, is we use, for example, Valentino, to define a topic and then add the O'Grada article to provide additional information, we thereby imply that O'Grada shares Valentino's views, although there is no evidences that that is the case. In other words, by doing that, we are engaged in original research, which is not allowed per our policy.
:If we take a look at the whole body of sources telling about mass mortality events in Communist states, we will see that few of them (e.g. Cambodian genocide) are universally seen as genocide, whereas others are described otherwise. Only few sources describe all mass mortality events in Communist states as genocide or politicide or mass killing etc. Moreover, even genocide scholars themselves, such as Harff, do not consider the most deadly events such as Great Chinese famine as mass killing a.k.a demo/politicide (it is not listed in the ] database). That means the article is dramatically non-neutral, and it is a piece of original research. The article must be totally rewritten, and it must tell about ''theories'' by Valentino or few other scholars, and about ''claims'' made by some authors, such as Courtois, and explain who support them (they do have a significant support), and who cricitise them (there is a lot of criticism). And, the description of the events themselves must be removed from this article, because it is written from the the point of view of the scholars who share the "mass killing" concept and ignores the views of majority of authors.--] (]) 04:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Paul Siebert}}, this, this, this. Why can't such defenders of the article understand this? The fact ], ], and ] do not really discuss Communist states as a monolithic, if they do at all, apart a few cases, is proof that ] and ], apart from being original research and synthesis per reasons outlined by Siebert, are content POV forks. Of course, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source in itself and there is ], but assuming good faith, if Communist states are such notable cases of crimes against humanity, genocide, and mass killing, surely they would be at least discussed in such articles in the first place? I noticed only now but the fact there is an actual database of mass killing, operated by a respected genocide scholar, who we misrepresent, among others, in this article, and it doesn't include mass killings by Communist states (apart the few exceptions also mentioned by Siebert, e.g. Cambodian genocide), it is an indictment against this own article and 'proof' that it is original research. It essentially contradicts the whole ] section, for any relevant scholar (not any author), who describes the event as ''something'' (in contrast to scholars who do not describe it as ''mass killing''), it belongs to that article if a significant minority view, not here. The fact this article is admittedly based on minority views is the problem. When there is no consensus among genocide scholars and scholars of Communism, and among themselves in their own respective fields, original research, synthesis, and other serious policy and guidelines violations are only natural; they shouldn't be though, they are serious violations. ] (]) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::. In short, this whole article, as currently structured, can only be supported if there is consensus among scholars (especially genocides scholars and scholars of Communism); if all we have are minority views, of which we give undue weight to authors and non-experts over scholars and specialists, this article as currently structured cannot exist, and needs to be rewritten per above. If that is the standard, similar articles about capitalist, Christian, colonial, fascist, Muslim, and the like can be easily created because there are similar minority views; of course, I hope this is not the standard because it would be original research and synthesis but then this article exists and seems to be the only one where our policies and guidelines do not apply. ] (]) 12:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
:::], please read ]. It does not support what you say about there needing to be a consensus among scholars. ] (]) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::Sorry but the article is titled ''Mass killings under communist regimes'', and despite the body being full of admittedly minority views (significant ones for you), the lead states it as fact, including the terminology, which the body now at least say is only an attempt, and I still think it is synthesis; I mean, the whole article acts like there is consensus among scholars, so Paul Siebert's diagnosis is still correct, and the article needs a name change and a rewrite. ] also says {{tq|Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. Review articles, especially those printed in academic review journals that survey the literature, can help clarify academic consensus}}. While the article may not directly implies such a consensus exists, it makes it obvious indirectly, and is also why many users who support the article, and who have less knowledge than you do (even if we disagree), take it for granted. I mean, the real reason this article still exists is because many users are convinced there is consensus among scholars, for God forbid one say "mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes, and that is an objective fact. This fact is undeniable, but the interpretation provided in this article is one-sided and distorted", and it is full of original research and synthesis, exactly because there is no such consensus and sources used to support the article are either misrepresented or non-experts. ] (]) 10:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::"Mass killings under communist regimes" is very much a fact and the lead correctly states it as such. I am not thrilled with the wording of the last sentence in the lead about terms, but it's ok, I guess. I have used the term "significant minority" in discussions here because it has a very specific meaning on Misplaced Pages and you should not understand that as me saying I think they are actual minority views. Views included in the article are assumed to be "significant minority" for weight purposes views if there is no documentation of them being either of the other two weight categories (fringe or majority views). ] (]) 04:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::], since you say you will be inactively participating in the discussion, I will respond to you comments in detail and you can replay whenever you have time.
::::::1) You say "''Surely, mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes, and that is an objective fact. This fact is undeniable, but the interpretation provided in this article is one-sided and distorted.''" I don't think anything in the article is distorted, but I can certainly believe that there are missing interpretations since most of the effort on the apologist side has been here on the talk page, rather than doing the work of contributing to the article itself. My contributions have been focused over the years on demonstrating with sources that there is no synthesis or original research related to the existence of the topic as expressed in the descriptive article title. The solution to missing interpretations is to add them.
::::::2) You give the example of the Great Chinese Famine and say that if it is part of the topic, then it "''is expected to be described as "Communist mass killing", "democide", "politicide" or other "-cide" in majority of sources writing about it.''" I disagree: even among the sources on the topic of mass killings under communist regimes generally (which is the more appropriate pool of sources), an event does not have to be included by the majority of sources to be a part of the topic and a part of this article. It is demonstrably a part of the topic if at least one of the reliable secondary sources we have identified includes it as part of the topic. The famines are the most controversial part of this topic among the communist mass killing sources themselves, which is why we have a separate section devoted to explaining that, so I would not expect a majority of sources about the Great Chinese Famine which are not general communist mass killing sources to use mass killing terminology.
::::::3) You say that adding information on the Great Chinese Famine by O'Grada we would be implying that he agrees with characterizing it as Valentino or others do. I think that is not necessarily true because it depends on the particulars of what is written.
::::::4) You say "''even genocide scholars themselves, such as Harff, do not consider the most deadly events such as Great Chinese famine as mass killing a.k.a demo/politicide (it is not listed in the mass killing database)''". Valentino is also a genocide scholar and does consider it mass killing (Rummel also changed his mind in 2005), and the article directly acknowledge the controversy over famines in the "Debate over famines" section. It is not original research to include famines in the list of events when we have sources that include it. The list should be a superset of all the events listed in all the reliable sources, with the controversies explained. That is basically what we have now.
::::::5) You say "''The article must be totally rewritten, and it must tell about theories by Valentino or few other scholars, and about claims made by some authors, such as Courtois, and explain who support them (they do have a significant support), and who cricitise them (there is a lot of criticism).''" The article currently does tell about the "theories" (I would prefer "analysis") of Valentino and (more than) a few other scholars. It names the scholars in the sentences with their ideas. It also does currently include criticism (and any missing criticism should be added, as I said in point 1 above). Totally rewriting the article is unnecessary, in my opinion.
::::::6) You say "''And, the description of the events themselves must be removed from this article, because it is written from the the point of view of the scholars who share the "mass killing" concept and ignores the views of majority of authors.''" This is a niche mainstream topic with a relatively small number of scholars but uncontroversial enough to be written about in mainstream newspapers in the US. A "majority of authors" do not address the topic at all, but that is not grounds for removing details about specific events from the sources that do address the topic. The mass killing concept itself is not controversial, it is the details that are controversial (such as which term/definition is best, which events were deliberate killing, and which death toll estimates are most accurate). The article should reflect all the information about the topic (including all the criticism) found in reliable sources. ] (]) 06:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::"'Mass killings under communist regimes' is very much a fact and the lead correctly states it as such." Too bad it's not. The fact is that "mass deaths took place in the countries ruled by Communist regimes." We need scholars to actually draw a link; the global database of mass killings, which lists the 1959 Tibetan uprising (genocide and politicide), the Cambodian genocide (genocide and politicide), and the Cultural Revolution (politicide), make no link between them or communism; they just happened to take place under self-professed Communist parties in Eastern Asia, so why should such structured article exists? Most mass killings happened in Afro-Eurasia on vastly different regime-types, do we write ] or something? Both are original research, synthesis, and violate NPOV.<br><br>Ironically, what you believe of the topic can be easily discussed in Siebert's proposal; it would just be neutral and not be original research. The problem remains that such sources are secondary sources when discussing the events, but since they are minority views, they must be attributed; if they are attributed and we provide their interpretation, they become primary sources, and we need secondary sources that explain their interpretation and draw a link. As things stand, apart a few exceptions where the interpretation is sourced to someone other than the author, it's authors paraphrased by AmateurEditor, and not by secondary sources. Either way, I agree we should do something about it rather than just discuss it because you, as the principal author of this article, are of course convinced of your work and believe the article is mostly fine as it is, and nothing is going to change this; I just don't feel doing a draft alone, and wish that {{u|Buidhe}}, {{u|Czar}}, {{u|The Four Deuces}}, and {{u|Paul Siebert}} could help in writing it, so that we can compare both articles, or something, and find a way to move forward.<br><br>P.S. "This is a niche mainstream topic with a relatively small number of scholars but uncontroversial enough to be written about in mainstream newspapers in the US." I am not surprised because, as I have stated, this may well be caused by our own biases, including geographical ones and political (such as the double genocide theory and the Prague Declaration), as reflected by memory studies and experts (Ghodsee 2014, Neumayer 2017, Neumayer 2020, and Dujisin 2021, among others), and this should be taken seriously and not dismissed. I would note that ] put them at last place, after university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, and magazines. Wheatcroft 1999 noted that the popular press "have contained erroneous journalistic articles that should not be cited in respectable academic articles." This is such a controversial article, we need academic and scholarly sources. If you cannot provide such secondary sources for their interpretations, they are either undue or original research; with no secondary sources, parts are going to be removed, and you will see we will have to rewrite it anyway in light of this. ] (]) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::We do have academic and scholarly sources that actually draw a link. See again excerpts i, ag, aj, bw, and others. You say "...if they are attributed and we provide their interpretation, they become primary sources". The primary/secondary source distinction is relative to the topic. Since the topic here is mass killing under communist regimes, these sources are secondary relative to that. Valentino's work would be considered a primary source on the topic of "Valentino's publications" or something like that. ] gives this example: "''An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event''". ] gives this example: "''A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.''" And as I mentioned before, per ], analysis from secondary sources on any topic that do not represent a general academic consensus on that topic are always supposed to be attributed to the authors in a[REDACTED] article ("''...individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources''"). But naming the authors in-sentence that does not change them from secondary to primary sources because the topic and the sources' relation to it is unchanged. ] (]) 01:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::"Since the topic here is mass killing under communist regimes ... " This is the problem; this should not be the topic because it is original research and synthesis state it as fact, directly or indirectly, that there exists an actually literature that lumps all Communist states together. The topic should be as outlined by {{u|The Four Deuces}} and {{u|Paul Siebert}}, or an analysis of genocide and mass killing in general. The quotes said it themselves; they are secondary sources only about the events, about their interpretation they become a primary source. "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Changes this to "A book by '''Rummmel''' about '''events in the Communist states''' might be a secondary source about '''the events themselves''', but where it includes details of the author's own '''interpretation of the events''', it would be a primary source about those '''interpretations'''." Hence, we need a secondary source to see whether they actually support the topic as you understand it, or as I and others understand it. ] (]) 13:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
::], you should not be adding tags to the article that you do not have time to discuss on the talk page (the ] state: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."). Such tags were removed in the past because the discussion had ended, which is one of the triggers also . ] (]) 03:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Paul Siebert has been editing this article long enough not to be considered a drive-by editor. This approaches a personal attack which is not conducive to our long term goal of producing a good article. ] (]) 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::I didn't call Paul a drive-by editor. He stated "Unfortunately, I cannot actively participate in this discussion right now..." Adding tags that require active discussion on the talk page with no intention of discussing them afterward is called "drive-by tagging" in the template usage notes and it is inappropriate. ] (]) 03:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::The key word here is "actively", which means I will not be able to reply promptly. That does not mean I am not going to participate at all. And, I added the tag because the discussion has resumed, and, by the way, the previous discussion never lead to any consensus.--] (]) 05:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::Fine, but you've before and then gone quiet for months. You can't expect tags to stay up in the absence of active discussion (and when I removed tags last time I gave the reason in my edit summary, so you saying in your edit summary adding them "I do not understand why the tags are constantly being removed" is very strange). Per ], item 7, the tag can be removed when "the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template". Consensus does not have to be achieved in a discussion for the discussion to be dormant. ] (]) 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:::I hate to be that guy but if there is anyone to have a conflict of interest, that is you, as , and I understand you put a lot of work to it and it sucks we want to rewrite but we ardently believe that it fails our policies and guidelines, and a rewrite is necessary. I think the tags are appropriate (I was the one to first add them to the two sections, Siebert simply moved them to the lead through the multiple issues tag), as there is a significant and well-argued dissident view, otherwise you wouldn't have lost all this time to engage with us, if we were just spouting nonsense or without legitimate reasons. ] (]) 10:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::The amount of time I spend responding to arguments here is not a reflection of their quality or legitimacy. It is a reflection of my available free time. I am very, very familiar with the article and most of its sources, so I imagine it takes me less time to respond than it would others. ] (]) 04:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::That is a bit disrespectful then. About the tags, I think they should stay. You may have well been right in removing them months ago because both Paul Siebert and I didn't respond to the talk page but now we're here, and I think our reasoning is still legitimate; more users would also agree with us, if this wasn't such a long story to summarize and understand. Certainly, TFD is right about why the primary source tags are appropriate; they are secondary sources for the events but primary sources for the interpretations. We need secondary sources for the latter, and if as you say, they are significant, this article is supported by reliable sources, and doesn't violate original research and yadda, yadda, yadda, it should be very easy to provide them; otherwise, they're going to be removed as either undue or original research, and you will see the article will have to be rewritten anyway in light of this. There just isn't any scholarly literature about the topic ''as'' you ''and'' the current article interpret/propose/structure it. ] (]) 15:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::Rereading my comment again, I don't think there is anything disrespectful in it. It simply can take longer to respond to a low-quality or illegitimate argument with lots of component elements than to a clear and high-quality comment, so the amount of time it takes to respond to any given comment is not a good indicator of that comments quality/legitimacy. The tags should stay as long as there is a reason for them to stay, as described in the how-to guide ]. The primary source tags are not appropriate, as I explained above. ] (]) 01:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::"The tags should stay as long as there is a reason for them to stay, as described in the how-to guide here." I agree, and I think they are warranted again now. {{u|15}}, was a good edit; now we just need to also reflect this in the body, requiring some restructuring, rewriting, renaming, whatever will be necessary. "The primary source tags are not appropriate, as I explained above." They are absolutely appropriate because they are only secondary sources for the events, they are primary sources for their interpretation, which is what they are about in that case, hence the tag. {{u|The Four Deuces}} gave the correct reading of the policy. ] (]) 12:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


This whole page needs to be cleaned up. ] (]) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
== Manual of Style italics for terms ==


:You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? ] (]) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I think most of the italics recently added to terms in the article are incorrect, per ]. We should only italicize ''mass killing'', for example, if it is being referenced as a word/term, rather than being used normally. In other words, if you can insert "the term" in front of ''mass killing'', ''genocide'', etc. without it changing the meaning of the sentence, then ''mass killing'', ''genocide'', etc. should be italicized. If inserting "the term" changes the meaning of the sentence, then ''mass killing'', ''genocide'', etc. should not be italicized. For example, the sentence "Wheatcroft excludes all famine deaths as "purposive deaths" and claims those that do qualify fit more closely the category of ''execution'' rather than ''murder''." has inappropriate use of italics, because inserting "the term" in front of "execution" and in front of "murder" changes the meaning of the sentence. The sentence is clearly using those terms in the normal way and not referring to the words as words. ] (]) 03:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
*You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --] (]) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think I have that specific case you mentioned; if you have other examples, let me know. Thank you. ] (]) 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
::], the other examples are almost all of the italics you added since August 8th. Will you please go through the article and revise the use of italics to be in accordance with ]? ] (]) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|AmateurEditor}}, my bad for that. I thought they were still referring to words as words, and I did not mean to change the meaning of the sentence. Thanks for pointing this out, I will try to work that out as soon as I can. ] (]) 09:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mass killings under communist regimes. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

General Concerns and Questions Q1: Why does this article exist? A1: This article exists because so far there has been no consensus to delete it. The latest AfD (2021) said that the Misplaced Pages editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. Six discussions to delete this article have been held, none of them resulting in a deletion:
  • No consensus, December 2021, see discussion
  • Keep, July 2010, see discussion.
  • Keep, April 2010, see discussion
  • No consensus, November 2009, see discussion
  • No consensus, September 2009, see discussion
  • No consensus, August 2009, see discussion
  • Declined by creator 17:04, 3 August 2009
  • PROD 17:02, 3 August 2009
  • Created 17:00 3 August 2009
  • Related Talk discussions:
Q2: Why isn't there also an article for "Mass killings under _________ regimes"? Isn't this title biased? A2: Each article must stand on its own merits, as justified by its sources. The existence (or not) of some other similar article does not determine the existence of this one, and vice versa. Having said that, there are other articles such as Anti-communist mass killings and Genocide of indigenous peoples which also exist. This article has a descriptive title arrived at by consensus in November 2009.
  • Related Talk discussions: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a subpage has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCambodia Mid‑importance
WikiProject icon Mass killings under communist regimes is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Misplaced Pages, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info.
WikiProject iconChina Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
          Other talk page banners
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • no consensus, 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC), see discussion.
  • keep, 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
  • keep, 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer

Regarding this removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from Aeon, we also cite a paper published in the journal History of the Present by Ghodsee and The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. TFD (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed here, or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and WP:DUE objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --Aquillion (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. TFD (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Mere selection of which aspect to cover usually reflects a type of bias. This is a universal reality, and repeating a universal reality is not information. Trying to pretend that it is noteworthy information is itself bias. For example, if a researcher counts up the number of deaths from high-school sports, we don't put in a section that a critic says that merely counting those deaths reflects an anti-sports bias. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. TFD (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? North8000 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of several such edits) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - Small colossal (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent removals

I am starting this thread to discuss recent content removals by DaltonCastle. I disagree with them, because the removed content was well sourced and in line with the rest of the article. Much of the article consists of reporting the views of different academics on issues such as the proper names to be used for the mass killings (terminology), the numbers of people killed and how those numbers should be estimated (estimates), causes of the killings, comparisons to other mass killings, and so on. In many cases, there is no overall consensus on these topics, there are only different sources with different perspectives. So the article reports the conclusions of author A, then those of author B, then those of author C, etc. In cases where two authors directly disagree with each other, this is also noted. I think this is a good format, and actually I cannot think of any other way to organize this information. DaltonCastle has removed certain sentences and paragraphs on the grounds that they represent the views of only one author, or only two authors, or that they are "hardly a consensus". That is true, but the same could be said about every other sentence and paragraph immediately before and after the removed ones. Of course each paragraph (or part of a paragraph, or sentence) focuses on a single author, because that is the structure being used. We describe the various sources one by one, when there is no way to combine them without doing original research (for example, when they disagree with each other). The names of the authors are given every time, and the content makes it clear that it is reporting their separate conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. - Small colossal (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not about the quality of sourcing, its that there is a WP:COATRACKING issue to insert a point of view. When the "Estimates" section starts off with "a communist-leaning academic believes the following estimates are exaggerated" (I'm obviously simplifying), there is a concern. It is a question of 1. due weight, 2. Coatracking, 3. POV-insertion/whitewashing. The near-majority of the article should not be weighted towards the handful of academics who say the numbers are overestimated. At most it is a quick mention. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The "Estimates" section begins by quoting Klas-Göran Karlsson, who is not remotely communist-leaning as far as I can tell. He has written a book specifically about the crimes of communist states. Also, he is not saying that the estimates are exaggerated, but that they are contentious and debated. This is true, and it is a good summary of the literature. Every author who has estimated the number of people killed by communist regimes has arrived at a different number, and the differences between the numbers are in the tens of millions. It's not a question of high numbers or low numbers, it's just that they are very different from each other. For example, the three highest estimates cited in the "Estimates" section are 94 million, 110 million and 148 million. The differences between these "high" numbers are just as big as the differences between "high" and "low" numbers. So, it is not as if most academics agree on a single number, and a handful of sources say that this number is overestimated. There is no agreement on any single number, high or low. I think it is therefore good and important to cover all the estimates and the various debates about them.
I don't see any particular weight in the article towards some estimates or authors as opposed to others. Every author gets about the same space as every other author. On the contrary, it seems to me that removing some authors would privilege those that remain. We should not give the impression that there is academic agreement on an issue when there is no agreement, by citing a single author.
Finally, regarding WP:COATRACKING, I don't see that here at all. In my understanding, coatracking is when an article groups together different topics that are unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the article's topic. So, coatracking here would be if the article cited sources that don't talk about communist mass killings. But all the cited sources do in fact talk about communist mass killings. They disagree with each other on things like estimates or causes, but describing sources that disagree with each other is not coatracking. That's just standard academic debate. - Small colossal (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Any academic work is going to full of things that can be critiqued. Respectfully, your edit had a massive amount of such material, (plus a whataboutism argument made by someone.) I think that a high-quality paragraph (information, not talking points) covering variability and possible bias in estimates would be a good addition. But IMHO the edit that I just described was not that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sourcing and obvious bias.

This whole page needs to be cleaned up. 2601:248:5181:5C70:F407:1C36:A131:1B6D (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? MWFwiki (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes: Difference between revisions Add topic