Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Origins of Communist genocide theories

Here is a link to an interesting article by Jan Herman Brinks, "Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914-2004".[1] On pp. 12-18 he describes Communist genocide theories as having beem developed by the "New Right" (e.g., Ernst Nolte} and later adopted by the conservative right in France (e.g., the Black Book and later in Eastern Europe. His conclusion is:

National conservative and New Right polticians throughout Europe applaud the equation of National Socialism and Bolshevism. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a "positively differentiated" perception of anti-Communist and anti-Semitic nationalists in the interbellum will not lead to increased anti-Semitism.

This article could be used as a source for explaining the communist genocide theory. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As this article is not on "genocide" - in what way would this serve to improve the article? (which is why this talk page exists) Collect (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you agree that the article is not on "genocide" (and its twin "democide"), do you support removal all sources written by "genocide scholars"? And, taking into account that the "Communist mass killing" concept has not been proposed by Valentino (if proposed by anybody else at all), what do you propose to leave in the article?
With regards to the Communist genocide theories, I absolutely agree. The idea on connection between anti-Communism and anti-Semitism (and even Nazism) has been proposed by many scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I find it hard to claim that genocide is not "mass killing" -- while not all mass killings are genocide, all genocides are mass killings. Please read the article, then comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ventriloquism is a form of Entertainment - but a general article on Entertainment need not devolve into issues about Ventriloquism. Collect (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you making accusations of Charlie McCarthyism? The Four Deuces (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards:

• I cannot locate an entry "Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914 - 2004" in a published Scribner's Encyclopedia.
  • Thus I cannot tell if it was for a scholarly or general public
  • Or if the article was reviewed prior to publication
• As the article is published on the Author's website, the author has avoided academic publication methods
  • This is the same problem as the Rummel SELF and avoidance of academic channels problem.
• Please cite from "Scribner's Encyclopedia" as published. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a description of the Encyclopedia where the signed article appears. I will see if Brinks published his ideas in academic journals as HQRS. The article was not taken from the author's website, but from that of the University of Sussex. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you forgot the link to the Encyclopedia in question :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Another source telling about the same:

"Recently, great notoriety has been aroused by several attempts to draw a simplistic causal link between the repression and mass killing in the Soviet Union and in Germany. These claims (or in the case of Nolte suggestions) are generally based on a poorly defined understanding of the complexities of these phenomena, an inaccurate understanding of their scale and a weak appreciation of their chronology. These scholars have, with reason, been accused of attempting to 'relativise' the abhorrent nature of Hitler's Germany."(Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 "Europe-Asia Studies", Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353)--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• In future Paul, can you unwrap your references. "Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 "Europe-Asia Studies", Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353" is in the Peer Reviewed journal Europe-Asia Studies (per Ulrich's list of periodicals). JSTOR hosts the article in question, if you're lucky enough to have access. Wheatcroft is attempting to theorise the question of why mass killings happened in two societies at the same time. His communist related case study is the Soviet Union. There is no comparison of multiple communist societies. 1321ff deals with a literature survey of definitions as of 1996 following Maier as the consensus academic position on definitional issues with abhorrent actions by states. He critiques Maier at 1323ff for exceptionalism, and proceeds to attack the quality of Conquest's data on the basis of superior sources then available. 1328-1334 makes up the body of this critique. His attack on Conquest's methodology is nothing short of savage and devastating. New data is presented 1334ff and the critique of Conquest's methodology over individual data points continues. The conclusion 1348-1349 is excellent in summarising the theoretical findings, but these are either single society (Soviet Union) or cross comparitive (German-Soviet).

  The key finding is: Conquest is not representative of the core quality of research, and his estimates should not be used without clear attribution and annotation that they have been discredited. For the Soviet Union, Wheatcroft's tables provide excellent data for the SU article. Wheatcroft does not theorise causes for similarities in killings between Germany and the Soviet Union, but finesses the concept of direct actions by the state causing mass civilian death, either legitimate or illegitimate, and roots the difference in an extermination policy on "Hiter's" part, where as he views "Stalin" as legalistic (yes, it is "Great man" when it comes to this policy level, bad Wheatcroft). Wheatcroft does note that killing by neglect was important in the Soviet Union.

  Sadly, this is not the kind of account we need: the lack of a theorised category means that "mass killing in totalitarian regimes" claiming Wheatcroft as a justification would be as SYNTH as this article presently is: no such research object exists in Wheatcroft. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, anything related to "equation of National Socialism and Bolshevism" should be part of the article on wikipeda called Totalitarianism. the source [2] has absolutely nothing about current subject. So why was it brought up in here exactly?--Termer (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia treat revisisionist history? Is it acceptable to present them as historical fact or do we ignore them altogether? It seems that Wikipedia has many such articles: intelligent design, holocaust denial, ancient astronauts, Moon landing hoax, birthers, etc. This topic falls into the same category - a semi-academic theory that has no academic support - and should be treated in the same way. I am sorry I missed the link but here it is. Since Brink's article represents the mainstream view of the theory, it should not be a problem to find HQRS that support this view. On the other hand, no RS support the revisionist view. I think that you should take the time to read Brinks' article. It explains that the theory this article discusses is deeply anti-Semitic and irrational, and should be properly explained. Fifelfoo, with your background in social sciences, you should consider how these theories would be received by social scientists. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An article called "Anti-Semitism" exists in the 1914- volume: here (pdf title list, no authors), in the volume, "Scribner Library of Modern Europe — Europe Since 1914 - Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction". It is aimed at an academic and general audience. None of my libraries have holdings (bad sign). But its aimed at expressing current consensus opinion (good sign). It would be nice if someone could confirm that the linked PDF accurately represents the entry in the encyclopedia. Despite this article having an Expert tag, I would not deign to display expertise here due to the habit of biting on this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Expert tag has been long obsolete and meaningless on wikipedia. Please see failed WP:EXPERT FFI. So the tag has only decorative value to it if any.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The good news is that we now know what expert opinion is concerning this theory. It should not be difficult to find HQRS. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

More removal of reliable sources

The Four Deuces has now removed references from Daniel Goldhagen as unreliable. Shame! The tactic of removing any source that you disagree with has gone too far. Former Harvard Associate Professor, author of an international #1 bestselling history, winner of Germany's Democracy Prize, with a forthcoming series on PBS. See bio. Take any complaints about reliable sources to WP:RSN.

It's actually rather funny. Four 2's claims that Goldhagen is a "revisionist historian" See The American Historical Association for the meaning of "revisionist historian."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2010

_____________

Since the article's concept in general (or even the question of the article's deletion) is being currently discussed on this talk page and the relevant noticeboard, removal or insertion of any material there is senseless. This will just escalate an edit war. Let's achieve a general agreement on the article first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No. You are just saying that you disagree with a source, and that since there is disagreement, it can't be included. And you seem to be threatening an edit war. Pure nonsense. If anybody thinks that Goldhagen is an unreliable source, they can take it up with WP:RSN. I'm putting it back in, until somebody can provide a believable reason for saying that Goldjagen is an unreliable source. Smallbones (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And the attempt at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to find somebody who says that this article is original research is going nowhere. Smallbones (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "You are just saying that you disagree with a source, and that since there is disagreement, it can't be included." No. I am just saying that instead of edit-warring over minor details you (and your opponents) should come to agreement on major things. This will save both your and their time.

Re: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Let's see.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Please, don't forget to sign your posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen is a revisionist historian, and a very good one at that. He's not a denialist or a pseudo-historian. Anyway, can someone actually refcheck this characterisation, "destroy 80 million people." This sounds suspiciously like the old eliminate the class => eliminate the members of the class furphy, an elementary error Goldhagen wouldn't make, but a wikipedia editor might well make, which is why I'm asking for a refcheck. The refchecker could also, if the ref checks on CCP plans to murder 80 million in 1948, change the verb to something less offensive. People are killed, murdered, executed, starved. They're not "destroyed" indicating death as a collective noun. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As it appears Smallbones added the source in the last 24 hours: Did Goldhagen state that the CCP planned the physical liquidation of 80 million in 48/49, or did he say that they "planned to eliminate a class / classes" as a class? Can you please reflect on your source and change the verb to a verb that applies to human beings' deaths being caused as a collective noun, I suggest the clear and snappy "kill"? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen quotes Mao and also Jen Pi-shih using the term "destroy" which is why I stuck with that verb. Goldhagen uses the terms "mass-murderous thinking" and "mass execution," so yes, it's clear he's talking about killing as well as "mass incarcerations" and other "eliminationist policies." "Destroy" is an overarching term for all these. Smallbones (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that, what does Goldhagen himself actually say? Mass incarceration doesn't even come close to the issues in question here and it seems that Mao means both physical liquidation of peasants AND liquidation of groups of peasants in terms of their class position. Destroy is a particularly poor verb because it supports that continued slippage. Perhaps you should paraphrase Goldhagen at greater length, "Goldhagen finds that Mao and Jen Pi-shih's anti-peasant strategy devised in [year] intended the destruction of a group of peasants, this would include destruction of their function as a social group, as well as, in Goldhagen's view, the physical elimination of a large proportion of this group." The current in article is too indistinct. Also, have you remembered to add this to the main article on China? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find a review on his book but I found nothing (low notability?). The review on his other books (mostly about Nazi Germany) suggest (i) that he is a specialist in neither Chinese history nor history of Communism, and (ii) that his works are questionable. Some quotes demonstrate that:

"Second, reviewers, among them historians, were probably impressed by Goldhagen's display of a seemingly formidable apparatus of scholarship, together with his frequent use of high-sounding (and often misapplied) social-science jargon. By contrast, most historians with specialized knowledge of the Nazi period were highly critical. The most devastating review was by Birn (whom Goldhagen had acknowledged in the book), who stated, "[Goldhagen] uses material as an underpinning for his pre-conceived theory."(Review: "Ordinary Germans" before Hitler: A Critique of the Goldhagen Thesis. Author(s): Gustav Jahoda. Reviewed work(s): Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 1998), pp. 69-88)

"To be sure, Goldhagen has his defenders both among scholars and publicists, including Elie Wiesel, Andrei S. Markovits, and Dan Diner, who have praised the work. But the majority of historians and political scientists, such as Raul Hilberg, Yehuda Bauer, Omer Bartov, Fritz Stern, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Dieter Pohl, Christopher Browning, Eberhard Jackel, Hans Mommsen, Robert Wistrich, David Schoenbaum, Henry Friedlander, Kristen R. Monroe, Ruth Bettina Birn, and Norbert Frei have been sharply critical of the book in reviews or in public forums." (Review: Holocaust Views: The Goldhagen Controversy in Retrospect Author(s): István Deák Source: Central European History, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1997), pp. 295-307)

My conclusion is that additional evidence of reliability of Goldgaben's book is needed before it may be introduced into the article. WP:burden rests with Smallbones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You ought to actually read the rules before you try to cite them. Smallbones (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This level of dispute seems standard for history, it certainly doesn't make it FRINGE and thus removable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Removal of the text that has been added by Smallbones is quite justified per WP:BRD. Re-insertion of this text is a violation of WP:BRD. Third re-insertion if this text by Smallbones will be a violation of WP:3RR and may result in Smallbones' block (if someone will decide to report him).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You ought to actually read the rules before you try to cite them. Smallbones (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From Google preview of the book, Mao in his "agrarian reform" study of 1948 conveyed that "1/10 of peasants would have to be destroyed" (not 1/9 or 1/11 but 1/10) (or 50 million of 500 million total peasants); note the accuracy of that estimate. In 1949 Jen Pi-Shih declared in a speech that "30 million of landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed", note how the previous rough estimate was revised down to another rough estimate. In Smallbones' version Mao's and Jen's predictions of death toll (if reforms to be implemented) became Communist plans to kill 80 million (remarkably, Smallbones can add two numbers, I wonder if he can find a minimum or a maximum of these numbers). Goldgaben then continued that when at power Communists began mass population movements, executions, incarcerations effectively destroying Chinese at the scale "as Mao and Jen foretold". Note lumping up actual killing (executions) with movement and imprisonment, and note that the Chinese were "destroyed" by these operations. Also there were no mention of death toll estimates on that page of the book if the reforms were not implemented (plans to kill 10s of million might have been in fact plans to save hundreds of million). (Igny (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Please, keep in mind that per WP:burden, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It is Smallbones who must prove his material is heliable and properly cited.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "You ought to actually read the rules before you try to cite them." I have no problem with reading rules. However, I see you have some difficulties with that, so let me explain. (i) You added a new text [3] per WP:BOLD. It was absolutely in accordance with WP policy, and it was a first BRD's step. (ii) The Four Deuces reverted your change [4], and it was absolutely justified action, a second step of the BRD procedure. You reintroduced this text again [5], and this was a violation of a normal BRD procedure. Moreover, you did it again [6] and now you are on the brink of violation of WP:3RR rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear - WP:BRD is not a policy or a guideline - it is an essay, a suggestion really, and one that is easily abused as it notes itself. The general bright-line rule on 3RR is violated on the 4th reversion in a 24 hour period (and don't bother quoting the exceptions, etc. to me, I know them). WP:Burden is about providing reliable sources - which I have done. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "This level of dispute seems standard for history, it certainly doesn't make it FRINGE and thus removable." Goldgaben seems to be not a specialist in Chinese history and has been accused in manupulation with facts. Although it does not necessarily mean that his theories are FRINGE, additional evidences are needed to include him into the article. It could be an extended quote that would allow us to see the context his words have been taken from. My proposal does no differ significantly from your own words, however, it would be better to remove Goldgaben (probably, for a while) from the article until the BRD dispute is resolved. I personally doubt we can re-introdice him back, because thanks to Igny we see now that Goldgaben's work has been misinterpreted by Smallbones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"This level of dispute seems standard for history, it certainly doesn't make it FRINGE and thus removable." Who wrote this? As for Igny's mischaracterization... I'll fill in the summary per Fifelfoo above and below. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• "This level of dispute seems standard for history, it certainly doesn't make it FRINGE and thus removable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)" Goldhagen isn't FRINGE, he's RS. I'd argue, as I've consistently done so, that the See Also: sections should be stripped back, and body count isn't relevant to this article. But Goldhagen certainly is an RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen is a specialist in culpability for large numbers of preventable deaths, so I'm satisfied there. I'm slightly concerned about the mischaracterising issues mentioned, but they appear resolvable through normal consensus including BRD. I'm not overly invested in this discussion because it doesn't drive forward resolving SYNTH, and should really be transferred to the Main Article for preventable mass death in China. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "WP:BRD is not a policy or a guideline" Correct, it is just one of acceptable ways to edit articles. Therefore, first deletion was quite justified, no "shame".
Re: "Goldhagen is a specialist in culpability for large numbers of preventable deaths". Probably, although after reading reviews I treat his findings with cautions. Anyway, two other issues (i.e. relevance and correctness of interpretation) remain unresolved, however. For instance, Smallbone didn't provide us with an extended quote from Goldhagen to demonstrate that he interpreted it correctly. Judging by Igny's post, we have all reason to doubt if the source was interpreted correctly. Instead on that, Smallbones re-inserted the text again [7] , thereby making 3 reverts during 24 hr. I don't think it is productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The tag team effort that has removed a reliable source 5 times in the last 24 hours is a violation of WP:3RR and I will report you all if it is done again. Consider this a formal warning. Removing a reliable source simply because you do not like what it says is certainly shameful. Threatening an edit war is shameful. Nobody has bothered bringing up the question at WP:RSN, which I suggested at the start. The summary I've given of the source is a simple plain reading of what Goldhagen says. Igny's edit summary on his 2nd "undid this ridiculous 80 million figure again. this is a travesty to mathematically or statistically educated people." is pure nonsense - just read the source. Smallbones (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and your team has just reverted it for 5th time also. Should we report each other? And I read the source, and justified removal of 80mil figure (see above); did your team mates read the source or just blindly supported your POV? (Igny (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Go to WP:RSN if you want to remove a source. Smallbones (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That burden lies with you, doesn't it? (Igny (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Re: "The tag team effort that has removed a reliable source 5 times in the last 24 hours". "Threatening an edit war is shameful." I didn't threat an edit war. I warned you that your non-constructive behaviour may lead to an edit war. Let's see again how this conflict developed:

1. Igny reverted you per BRD, that was signal to join a discussion on the material you wanted to introduce - you accused him in immoral actions.
2. I warned you that your behaviour may lead to excalation of an edit war and proposed you to focus on the article's concept - you preferred to ignore my words.
3. Fifelfoo asked for clarification on what precisely the source states - you didn't do that.
4. I found RS that accused Goldhagen in playing with data and were highly critical of him, that, in my opinion was a ground to request for additional evidenced of his reliability - you provided no additional information.
5. Igny has made some job you had to do: he looked through the source and found what concretely Goldhagen says, thereby demonstrating that you misinterpreted him - you provided no additional arguments and restored the text along with highly questionable number of 80 million.
6. I explicitly asked you to provide us with the quote from Goldhagen to demonstrate that you interpreted this source correctly - you ignored my proposal.
7. And, finally, after we provided sources and numerous arguments in support for our POV, you seem to ignore all our efforts to get a way from impasse: you accused us in removal of a reliable source "simply because we do not like what it says".
   

In connection to that, calling your opponents "tag team" is, using your own words, "shameful".
In connection I request you either to go to WP:ANI and to report on my behaviour, or to take back an accusations in threatening an edit war and tag-teaming and apologize.
Best regards.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A "Terminology" section

Some material [8] that is completely irrelevant to terminology has been re-introduced under a pretext that the sources are reliable. Since, obviously, the sources must be not only reliable but also relevant, since this section has a lot of stuff non related to terminology, and, since the article with such a name must have a section on the overall number of killed, I propose to create a section "Estimations of the number of Communist victims", that, along with my previous proposal (a section that discusses a connection between Communism and mass killing) would help to convert the article into something reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On the connection between mass killings, genocide, democide and ideology

I've just realised that the article is lacking the section that analyses a connection (or the absence thereof) between Communist ideology and mass killings. Let's try to summarize scholar's opinions on that account, and this probably will give us an answer on whether the article with such a name can exist, or the states that perpetrated mass killings, genocides etc. should be grouped together according to some other trait. Anyway, this section is at least as important as the "Terminology" section, and it should go immediately after the later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The article only has to say that these are examples of mass killings which have occured under Communist regimes due to actions by those regimes. I do not see the need for it to make any claim that the killings under different Communist regimes are explicitly related to Communism as an ideology, just that they are related to how the regimes operated. As the article is not named "Killings due to Communist ideology" there is not need to act as thought that were its name. Collect (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right Collect, but the commonality needs to be theorised rather than simply nominal. It is insufficient to have an argument that State X claimed to be socialist under the Soviet / M-L definition, State X had horror; State Y claimed to be socialist under the Soviet / M-L definition, State Y had horror, thus all Communist States cause Horror as this is SYNTH and OR. The expected description for a cross-cultural comparison article like this is an academic stating: All Communist states had Feature X as a result of their Communism (with demonstration). Feature X caused [term for mass horror of your choice] (with argument). The specifically communist commonality could be social, ideological, cultural, organisational, managerial, constitutional; but, some academic must observe a commonality. And no, three paragraphs of Rummel claiming utopianism in general causes genocide, or two paragraphs of Courtois asserting non-catholicism is "criminal" aren't observations of commonality. They're as pathetic and FRINGE as a literary historian making wild claims about non-British Liberalism being socialism, and all socialism causing genocide. (Not that Rummel and Courtois couldn't elsewhere make substantive claims in academic press; they simply haven't in the sources discovered so far). Fifelfoo (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It is not for editors here to "know" that something is true or not - the task of an encyclopedia article is only to contain what is in reliable sources. That you "know" what is required, and I disagree should be a clue that Josh Billings was correct. The material in the article meets WP:RS and that is all we need be concerned with. Collect (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article does not meet WP:NOTE :

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (6 January 1992). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.]

as the subject of mass killings under Communist regimes does not demonstrably exist in the literature, it isn't a category or term. Occasionally its used as a descriptive noun but isn't an independent object of study (Valentino). The collation of the subject into an article cannot be a COATRACK as this is: the commonality of mass killings across Communist regimes is necessarily the object of study. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Such concerns were dealt with at multiple AfDs, AN posts and so on. Raising the same issues over and over does not make them stronger. Collect (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, of course not, WP:NOTE is still as valid as it was before, during, and after the AFDs, and still a legitimate way to move forward. Such concerns are also part of the consensus of moving forward in article direction, please do read the article discussion that resulted from AFDs on what the appropriate direction of the article is, and go contribute to the agreed article direction by looking for sources that deal with multiple societies and actually theorise common causes. Today I located a physical copy of Valentino to read the whole damn thing, analysed three sources for this article including reading and summarising one in full. You could engage with the literature too. On the other hand you could become pessimistic about the possibility of academically published research that deals with this subject per NOTE and argue that the legitimate sources have been exhausted, and that we need to recast this article as an account of FRINGE and pseudo-history; and, help discover those sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I fear that trying to continue the AfD discussion here after multiple AfDs is pointless. This talk page is not for endless rehashing of AfD discussions. Collect (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) During the AfD the following defences were provided:

Termer: "...the claim of original research has no basis to it."

Smallbones: "The claims of synthesis are ridiculous"

These arguments are important because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Since the basis for voting against deletion was that there was no OR/SYN, it is wrong to claim that the AfD provides a licence to SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rehasing quality arguments from an AFD or any other location to advocate for yet another AFD at this very moment is premature while improvement attempts are reasonably continuing. Restating quality arguments from an AFD or any other location, which were accepted as the basis for moving forward in producing the best article possible, for the purpose of producing the best article possible, is the normal function of wikipedia. Playing blind about WP:NOTE, the lack of a research subject, attendant SYN, OR and COATRACKING doesn't improve article quality. Locating sources, seeking out the existence of a credible research subject in academia and writing the article from that instead of a bunch of see also:s is improving the article. If these aren't located, writing the article from HQRS secondary sources as the account of a non-academic FRINGE is improving the article. If this is impossible, AFDing the article as no-such research subject and no RS for an account of FRINGE is the responsibility of all article editors. Currently, as I have not exhausted Valentino, and have a number of generalist survey monographs on Genocide aimed at summarising the current knowledge circa 2000, I haven't full exhausted the research tools open to me to locate a credible academic narrative discussing cross cultural commonalities inhering in the communist nature of these societies (as opposed to the Totalitarian nature, or following Valentino the dispossesive nature, or from a World Systems perspective Peripheral nature, for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE Collect (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What did you do to improve the article from RS today Collect? Fifelfoo (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To Collect. The major argument of the deletion's opponents was that "Communist mass killing" is a notable concept. If that is true, than, I believe, you will have no problem to find the sources to suppoprt that claim. If not, this article has no more ground to exist than the article, e.g. "mass killings under Christian regimes", "Mass killings under democratic regimes" or "Mass killings in Asian countries".
If we combine some countries in the same article, we must provide an explanation on what criterion was used to do so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the AfD. Misstating the grpunds which were sufficient to keep the article from deletion does not help here one whit. As for asking for RS sources try: [9] "An official newspaper published an article today disclosing the 27-year-old secret of how soldiers in a southern city killed a score of strikers in a blaze of gunfire and then secretly buried them." [10] "They were the first of the 100 fatalities in the period of martial law that ended in July 1983." [11] "One popular notion is that the country is exhausted -- by the bloodletting during the civil war after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution; by the millions of deaths in World War II; by Stalin's mass killings; by the wrenching changes that followed the end of Communist rule in 1991. " [12] "Russian Files Show Stalin Ordered Massacre of 20,000 Poles in 1940" [13] "The four men have been charged with participating in genocide, as the new Government, the Council of National Salvation, officially refers to the mass killings that led to the Dec. 22 revolution." [14] "But, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the Communists became increasingly brutal themselves, killing and imprisoning thousands of opponents." [15] "From 1975 to 1979, the Communist Khmer Rouge caused the deaths of 1.7 million people, nearly one-fourth of the nation's population. In the decade that followed, Cambodia was ruled by a Vietnamese-backed Communist government in which Mr. Hun Sen rose to leadership." [16] "Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, was the Khmer Rouge commandant of Cambodia's Tuol Sleng prison and torture house, which sent at least 14,000 people to their deaths in a killing field in the late 1970s." And so on == all RS, all directly on point for this article as it is titled. Now can we lay the horse to rest? Collect (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers articles are not of a sufficiently high quality for this article, please see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which covers History project articles. Secondly, please see WP:SYN as your paragraph is a perfect example of SYNTHetic reasoning. The grounds for this article's current editorial direction arose in discussion on Talk:, not at AFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times is not RS? See WP:RS/N BTW listing multiple sources is not SYN. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In that concrete case, when the articles form academic peer-reviewed journals are being extensivelly used, NYT is not a reliable source. If you have any doubts on that, go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "As for asking for RS sources try:" You provided the examples of mass killings, however, you haven't answer the question: what concrete sources declare a connection between a Communist ideology and mass killing?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Iterating: There is absolutely zero need to connect "ideology" to the killing -- the only connection needed is the actions of such regimes. And the issue was raised that RS sources did not exist for some material - in such cases, the NYT is a valid source for matters of fact. Collect (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Re: "the only connection needed is the actions of such regimes". These actions can be grouped according to various criteria (if grouped at all). Remember, all these events already have their own articles. We do need to provide an explanation why these mass killings were combined together in one article, whereas mass killings in, e.g., Rwanda, Indonesia, Sudan or Pakistan were left beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Many articles on WP are not all-encompassing -- vide lists of athletes convicted of crimes, etc. And many articles do, in fact, refer to other articles - WP does not require absolute orthogonality of all articles. And WP does not require extensive theorizing about claims not actually required for the existence of the article (for example, there is no requirement that someone come up with an ideological reason for an athlete being convicted of a crime). If you feel there ought to be a statement of causality for that list, I commend you to that article's talk page. Causality is not required, really, unless the article title states causality. Collect (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "vide lists of athletes convicted of crimes, etc" "Athlets convicted of crimes" is a quite acceptable name. However, an article "Communist athlets convicted of crimes" would require some justification. For instance, I would expect such an article to contain a section explaining on what specific feature allows the crimes committed by communist athlets to be combined in a separate article, and what is the difference between crimes committed by communist and non-communist athlets that allowed us to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The extra adjective does not alter the fact -- by the standard you propose, there would have to be a correlation between being an athlete and being convicted of a crime for the article to stand. No correlation is required by WP for such articles unless the correlation is stated in the title of the article. This article does not claim an ideological reason for killings , hence need not have one. Collect (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the correlation is stated in the title of the article" The correlation is stated (implicitly) in the name of the article and in the article itself. The article claims that intrinsic connection exists between Communism and mass killing (that justifies the very fact of the article's existance). Anyway, your vehement objection to this section tells me that you suspect it would be easier to find evidences on the absence of a connection between Communism (ideology) and mass killing than the evidences of its presence...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I only find that the title says that some mass killings occurred in some places with Communist regimes. Reading more into a title than that requires extraordinary eyesight. Collect (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors at WP:RS/N#New_York_Times__news_articles_not_RS.3F suggested we take the SYNTH questions to WP:NOR/N#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, as far as I understand your reasoning you are really arguing for a list article. I think such an article might well be ok, and a useful way out of the current deadlock. I suggest List of mass killings under communist regimes, where an event must fulfill the following requirements to be included:

• It has been described as a "mass killing" by reliable sources (i.e. peer-reviewed, mainstream scholarly publications)
• It took place under a regime described as "communist" by mainstream historians

The list article should also state clearly in the lead that no inference is made about the causes or any commonality about the events, and refer back to this article for discussions of such theories. And it should only provide very brief summaries of each event, referring to main articles for more detail. See Genocides in history for a template (though one should aim for something shorter, as that one is very long). --Anderssl (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "should also state clearly in the lead that no inference is made about the causes or any commonality about the event" I cannot imagine a list article that openly declares that no commonality exists between the items listed there.
In addition, if the editors who oppose to the article's deletion simultaneously oppose to the attempts to draw any commonality between the events mentioned in the article, it may serve as a strong argument for the article's deletion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, bad phrasing from my side. I really only meant to refer to "commonality in causes" or something like that, but I am sure the phrasing could be refined. The point is to separate the perceived need (expressed by some editors) to provide a list of all these events, from the discussion of common causes. --Anderssl (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the perceived need (expressed by some editors) to provide a list of all these events". It is something I cannot understand. If there is no commonality in causes, and no other connection between some mass killings, what is the "perceived need" to combine them in the article separate from all XX century genocides (and other "-cides")? Since I got no other explanaion, I come to a conclusion that the reason is a someone's deep negative attitude to the word "Communism"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a plausible argument to make that the contents of such a list article would not be fully covered by the genocide list, since several of the events in question are not genocides (according to the un definition, at least). And does the motivation for creating the list really matter, as long as the criteria for inclusion/exclusion are reasonable? --Anderssl (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, it seems that no-one of the editors that have been interested in listing all these events in the article are taking up my proposal. But I think that in itself should serve as an argument for purging spurious details about individual events from this article: If no one wants to create a list article, then it must follow that our focus here is on a concept and not on a mere list of events, so everyone please stop adding details about historical events without properly explaining their relevance to the topic of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You should write a lead for how you think the article should be written. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not advocating a list article, I am just proposing it as a suitable format for whomever thinks that a list of all these events should be included in Wikipedia. I don't feel strongly for such a list, and therefore I will use my time on something more useful. --Anderssl (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Serious editors are doing a lot of work to fix an article that is, by its nature, impossible to fix.

I hate to see so much effort going into fixing an article which, from its title, must always be biased and unencyclopedic. I'm tempted to start an article "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes", but that way lies madness.

If, in fact, it is impossible to remove the article now, then it may be best to allow the article to get worse and worse until the need to remove it becomes obvious. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't think it would be a solution. Look at the recent addition and you will see the way article will start to evolve to in this case. The recent addition

"This article draws no conclusions as to commonality of reasons or causes for these killings due to actions by governments, but presents positions held by various scholars in the field."

is quite ridiculous. If it is explicitly stated that no commonality is drawn in the article, what is the reason to select only Communist mass killings from all this type events? And the second problem with this sentence is that it states that the article "presents positions held by various scholars in the field". In connection to that, could someone explain me how the "positions held by various scholars" can be presented (on "Communist mass killing" in general, not on these events taken separately) in the article that allegedly "draws no conclusions as to commonality of reasons or causes"? In addition to intrinsic logical inconsistency of this sentence, it is simply false, because some scholars quoted in the article do draw commonality, so neutrality requires us to include opinions of those scholars who see no commonality, i.e. to create a "Commonality is causes and reasons" sections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. If we are stuck with a bad article, it is better to have an obviously bad article than a marginally less bad article. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No. WP policy prohibits to make WP content worse just to demonstrate a point. In addition, if we abstain from editing the article, the editors who lower the article's quality will be pretty satisfied, because a ridiculous collection of various anti-Communist stuff is how they see this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but I hate to see articles like this in Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The article with such a name can exist, provided that it is properly written.
As a result, we are at an impasse: on one hand, the article cannot be deleted (even if it will become a complete mess), because improvement of the article's content is (theoretically) a better way to resolve the issue, and on the another hand, those who opposed to the article deletion also oppose to the article's improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that an article with such a name can exist. Comments and research by a number of editors (I think you are one of the main contributors to this, actually, Paul) have demonstrated that there is no basis for saying that this is a topic suited to an encyclopaedia (as opposed to an essay). Since there is some suspicion (founded or unfounded) that the past attempt at AfD failed because of votestacking, another try would be appropriate IMO. It faces the difficulty that WP does not require editors to understand an AfD in order to !vote in it and many editors may give a (possibly understandable) knee-jerk response in favour of the idea that atrocities by communists are not fictional. I think that, on the other hand, making a silk purse out of this article is probably not possible (a big barnstar to anyone who can achieve it, though). --FormerIP (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert has done excellent work on trying to improve the article, but I agree with FormerIP, we should try again for deletion, not, I think, because communist atrocities are fictional, but because every government commits atrocities, and there is not justification for lumping communist atrocities together. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the major argument for deletion of the article with such a name is as follows. The article should be deleted because various (as a rule, totally unrelated) cases of preventable mortality in states that claimed adherence to a Communist ideology were, are and will be being added here, thereby the WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK issues will constantly reappear.
The major argument against the article's deletion is that some scholars discuss, or are believed to discuss some cases of mass mortality under Communists' rule as something specific to Communism.
Are we ready to address the latter question in new AfD nomination?
Are we ready to prove that the connection between different mass mortality cases under Communist rule were poorly related, or totally unrelated to each other, so the attempted generalisations are not supported by majority scholars?
Are we ready to demonstrate that each of these events already have their own article?
And, finally, are we ready to show that majority cases of premature deaths do not fit a "killing" definition according to many scholars?
If all these answers are yes, we can start new AfD, if not, let's try to improve the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed sentence for lede

This article draws no conclusions as to commonality of reasons or causes for these killings due to actions by governments, but presents positions held by various scholars in the field.

Which eliminates all the bits about "no scholarly consensus" etc. while demarcating the article's intent. This was, however, reverted to the awkward version. Collect (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, if the article "draws no conclusions as to commonality of reasons or causes for these killings", what is, in your opinion, the reason for this article to exist (separately from other mass killing/genocide/other -cides article)? If there is no commonality between these events, the article is a pure WP:CFORK and WP:COAT--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason is to present opinions from scholars in the field. Which is what the sentence says. As such it is neither a fork nor coatrack of any sort. What we can do is present opinions from scholars in the field, some of which do assert commonality. It is not up to us to assert such, however. I woulda thunk the meaning of the sentence was clear. Collect (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on what? If these opinions are about each of these events taken separately, then it is not clear if this article has a right to exist. If these opinion are about some common features of these events, then the proposed statement directly contradicts to what the article is supposed to say. BTW, please, keep in mind the uninvolved editor's notion on the NOR noticeboard [17]: "Given the article title, there is a clear implication that all of these events were caused because the regemes in question were communist."
And, please, keep also in mind that the idea of a list article has not been supported by others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, do you think, that it makes sense to have an article on opinions on mass killings...? (Igny (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Where scholars have opinions connecting mass killings (as in the current article), it is properly encyclopedic to have an article listing such. It is not, moreover, proper for any editor to seek to prevent improvement of an article. And the list is of the opinions, properly sourced, which, in fact, is found in many WP articles. Collect (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, this is not a list article. If you are advocating a list article, just go ahead and create it. Its title should start with "List of..." --Anderssl (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I did not call it a "list article" I fail to see the relevance. It does, moreover, contain a list of events and the comments thereon. It is, in fact, the containing of such scholarly opinions which decidely distinguishes it from a "list article." All articles have a listing of scholarly opinions - including biographies and the like. Collect (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please explain us how do you see the article? Should it, in your opinion, combine all known general thoughts on mass mortality under Communists, all scholars' studies on mass mortality in separate Communist states and describe also those cases of mass mortality for which the question of governments' intent is still open? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources which connect deaths with communist regimes should be furnished, and scholarly opinions given to the reader, without us making statements of our own beliefs about the matters at hand. It is up to us to use what the scholars feel is "intent" and not for us to determine "intent" or lack of intent. And it is us to us to make the article better, not to make it bad so we can argue for deletion. Collect (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, now you support the idea to create a section that discusses a connection between mass killing and Communism?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You misread me. It is not up to us to "discuss" anything in the article. It is, moreover, up to us to present the positions of scholars, and where those positions make connections, to report those positions in this article. To that I end I suggested replacing a somewhat awkward sentence with a simpler one. Collect (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't scholars' articles (at least for notable ones) cover already their positions? (if they don't, then they should). Don't individual articles on the described incidents cover the positions of all these scholars on all possible connections? Could you explain once again to me why do we need this article which is essentially SYNTH of these ideas for no other reason but to imply and generalize the Communist cause behind the mass killings? (Igny (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Nope. BLPs as a rule do not contain references to everything the scholar ever wrote, amazingly enough. That is why encyclopedia articles use their opinions about various subjects. Collect (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And the second question?--Anderssl (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The connection between the mass killings and Communism as an ideology is self-explanatory anyway. So I personally do not see any reasons to spell out whats obvious. But in case anybody thinks it might improv the article, why not. All the sources are very clear about it, Valentino etc.; Fein even puts her chapter on "Soviet and Communist genocides and 'Democide'" under Ideological Genocides.--Termer (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer, you seem to provoke me to comment on a contributor, not on contribution. Fein states clearly that "However, while totalitarian states have been more likely to commit genocide than are other states, most cases of contemporary genocide since World War II were committed by authoritarian, not totalitarian, states and are not ascribable to ideology. Ten of thirteen cases of genocide between 1945 and 1988 in the regions surveyed were related to ethnic stratification rather than ideology (Fein 1993a)." I repeated that many times, but you seem to completely ignore that. It is unacceptable. Communist revolutions took place in poor and less educated societies where human life traditionally was treated with less respect than in western societies. In addition, since Communists (more precisely, the leaders who declared their adherence to a Communist doctrine) won in countries with large populations (the USSR, China), the mass mortality was larger there (in absolute numbers) than in European countries. However, that allows us neither to claim that the connection between the mass killings and Communism as an ideology is self-explanatory, nor to draw any connection between mass killing and Communism at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The "ethnic genocides" Fein is talking about seems is out of the scope of this article. This one is about -according to Fein "ideological genocides" committed by Communist regimes.--Termer (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede etc.

A sentence has been recently added to the lede

"There is no scholarly consensus on the terminology describing the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatant, nor whether it should be called Genocide, Politicide or Democide."

that I completely support. By writing that we restrict the article with only those mass deaths that were a desired result of governments' activity. In connection to that, I believe a separate section is necessary that would analyze the intent issue. The need of such an analysis stems from the fact that for majority cases of mass mortality under Communist rule (famines, deportations, camp mortality etc) the proof of intent is either controversial or lacking. IMHO, inaccurate and controversial Rummel numbers were obtained based on the assumption that all excess deaths under Communists were a result of their intentional actions. Valentino used the term "dispossessive mass killings" where the intents are not so pronounsedly stressed, Ellman argues that intents cannot be proven unambiguously, and Wheathcroft excludes famines etc from the mass killing victims' list. I believe we need to present the opinions of these (and other) scholars in a separate section.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the sentence as it is written and placed in the lede is a little unclear. Are we stating that this article is only about intentional killing, or just that the terminology which deals with a certain category of mass killings (intentional ones) is controversial? I certainly support the idea of restraining this article to intentional mass killings, but this sentence doesn't clearly state that. --Anderssl (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is a little problematic to summarize the article negatively - that is, by saying what it is NOT. Instead we should be saying what the sources say positively (assertively) about the subject. I'm fully aware that that is difficult, given the lack of good sources, problems with synth, or etc... Just sayin'. :) --Anderssl (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The best solution would be to devote the article to intentional killings, and, in my opinion, this sentence is a great step in a right direction. Eventually, I believe we may get an article that devote a major part of space to cases when intent was clear and obvious. In addition, since the intent issue is controversial, and some scholars (and especially political writers) see intent where others do not, I believe a separate section should briefly summarise the cases where intents have not been demonstrated unambiguously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No scholarly consensus

The term no scholarly consensus needs a reference - otherwise it is a conclusion that may be tagged as WP:SYN Bobanni (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:LEDE advised that "the necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." In this concrete case, since a whole "terminology" section, that follows immediately after the lede, addresses this controversy in details this concrete citation is redundant. In addition, since a lede, by definition, summarises what different scholars write, it is ridiculous to request all general summary statement in a lede to be supported by citations. If a scholar X writes "I call it genocide", whereas a scholar Y writes "I call that democide", then it is quite correct to write that there is no scholarly consensus on that account, and that would not be OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I borrowed "no scholarly consensus on the terminology..." directly from Valentino who says "No generally accepted terminology exists...". In case "no scholarly consensus" is too far from "no generally accepted", please feel free to rephrase. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Killed or deported

I found several statements like "they killed or deported N civilians" have been added to the article. Although they are properly cited and have a visibility of reliability, they are intrinsically misleading, because "10000 civilians were killed or deported" can mean that 10 civilians were killed and other 9990 were deported. Since deportations cannot be considered intentional mass killing (and because majority of deportees survived), the statements of such a type must be interpreted as "some (unknown number) civilians were killed". If the editor who introduced these statement will not fix a problem, I will change these statements accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is not needed to point out that "killed of deported N civilians" does not mean that 100% of N were killed - everybody knows that - so it is not misleading. Where separate figures are available for killed and deported, obviously we should use the figure for killed. But where only a joint figure is available, we should use the best figure we have. Smallbones (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Killed of deported N civilians" tells nothing about a number of killed. This statement means that the actual figures on killed are unavailable, and that should be explicitly stated, because the present article tells about killings, not repressions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement surely says that some were killed. As we use what scholars write, we have to stick with what they write. If they say "killed or deported" and (presumably) the number killed is substantially non-zero, the quote belongs. It is not up to us to declare that some statements by a scholar do not fit neatly into what we want them to fit into. Collect (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is never reasonable to excuse the inclusion of inappropriate information by the absence of appropriate information. In the absence of knowledge, silence. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The statement surely says that some were killed." If the statement says that some were killed, then one should write "some". Since no reasonable arguments have been provided, I change the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a school lesson

Is this article a school lesson? And if it is, should it really be in Wikipedia or should it be discussed in a separate Wiki for school lessons? I only ask, because a lot of the content seems fairly shallow and appears to be based around a discussion topic rather than written in an encyclopaedic style.

If it is a school project, at the very least I suggest changes to reflect a more neutral Wikipedian stance. I suggest re-titling the article "Casualties under communist states". And I suggest creating an accompanying article named "Casualties under democratic states". Although the second would run into such lengths it might require an encyclopaedia of its own. Cerius Mann (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rummel's three paragraphs and Transaction Press

Moved from the article

=== General claims of "criminality" === [[Rudolph Joseph Rummel]] in the course of three paragraphs lacking footnotes, publishing in the ideologically motivated Transaction Publishers press which he has held management responsibility for, claims that all communist killing is a result of the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology in the context of millenial utopianism which placed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union above the law.<ref>{{cite book |author=R J Rummel |chapter=From the Study of War and Revolution to Democide—Power Kills |title=Pioneers of genocide studies |editor1-last=Totten |editor1-first=Samuel |editor2-last=Jacobs |editor2-first=Stephen L. |year=2002 |publisher=Transaction Publishers |location= |isbn=0765801515 |nopp=true |pages=153-178 at 168-169 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=g26NmNNWK1QC&pg=PA168&dq |accessdate=}}</ref> Rummel's factual claims supporting this assertion are atypical to an extreme and do not relate to standard historiographies of the structure of state inflicted execution.<ref>Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 "Europe-Asia Studies", Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353.</ref>

Transaction is not an acceptable publisher as it pushes an ideological line with a direct connection to the article's purpose. This work is not acceptable as it is, at best, a practice reflection collection, and at worse, a stable of hobby horses. Finally, Termer, three paragraphs in an unrelated article is not an adequate theorisation and does not relate to the object at hand: the expression is not relevant. He's published Monographs which have received appropriate review. Go to your library and read one in its entirity. Also, you have been repeatedly warned about the quality of your citations, and until you can realise that separately authored chapters in edited works should be cited as such, I strongly counsel you against editing the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Fifelfoo like I've said earlier, I'm going to ignore your comments on contributors including the latest one. In case you like, please feel free to add Wheatcroft's comment to Rummels statement and that should do it.--Termer (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS other than that , the whole Causes section needs to be rewritten, the current sub-chapter titles don't make any sense and the text and the references are not formatted according to wikipedia standards.--Termer (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see reliable sources: "Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Rummel is a primary source for the subject under discussion, the revisionist theory concerning the connection between communist ideology and mass killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Collect, as you are aware there is a difference between a WP:List and a normal article. Are you suggesting that we remove all details from this article and turn it into a list? If so, then we must be sure that it conforms with the criteria for a list. However please do not give examples of other lists to justify this article. You are well aware of WP policy and know that just because another article something does not justify what we do here. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when Listification was suggested, I checked the list criteria for notability, synthesis, coatracking. They're identical to article space requirements, a list of see also:s under this heading would be just as OR as this article space example. I didn't check Category space for their NOR / notability requirements. Some other editor might wish to. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice not to see a vague reference to oneself as though I had made such a proposal. As for insinuating that I do not know what a WP List is, I feel WP:NPA and WP:AGF are in order. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• According to feedback given on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pioneers_of_genocide_studies I'm going to restore the statement according to R. J. Rummel that was first altered as "an extremely pov edit with original research" and then removed by Fifelfoo.--Termer (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer, you failed to notify other involved editors and this Talk page of your creation of an RS/N entry on this topic. You also misquoted me by selective quoting. Your reversion on this basis is flawed and an example of attempting to deliberately game process by failing to notify. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Per RS/N -- Transaction Publishers is RS. You appear here, moreover, to be making charges against an editor which, if you believe them, should be placed at WQA. Rhanks. Collect (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Transaction not withstanding, there appear to me to be major problems of Original research and failed verifiability with the section under dispute. For example the commentary about Rummel having "no footnotes" and "ideological motivated publishers" etc needs to have a source making this point. I'm guessing Rummel didn't write it, somehow?! And it is impossible that Wheatcraft is a source for Rummel being "atypical to an extreme and do not relate to standard historiographies" since his paper was published years before Rummel's. WP doesn't do this kind of editorial analysis and commentary; the paragraph and needs to be rewritten sticking closely to the content of the sources cited. If you want to critique Rummel, you need to find somebody critiquing Rummel.--Slp1 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that Fifelfoo disputes his own edits [18] up here that have been described also on WP:RSN as "an extremely pov edit with original research" [19]
The consensus on WP:RSN however is straight forward, there is no bases to remove the statement by R. J. Rummel from wikipedia like it was done again: [20]. Please have it restored ASAP. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I'll thank you not to order me. Ordering other editors is a sign of ownership.
2. Your diff:

   • According to [[Rudolph Joseph Rummel]] the killings done by communist regimes can be explained with the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology - [[Marxism]]. <ref>{{cite book |title=Pioneers of genocide studies |last=Totten |first=Samuel |authorlink= |coauthors=Steven L. Jacobs |year=2002 |publisher=Transaction Publishers |location= |isbn=0765801515 |page=168 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=g26NmNNWK1QC&pg=PA168&dq |accessdate=}}</ref>

   Is inferior to an edited version of the diff removed earlier, namely something such as:

   • [[Rudolph Joseph Rummel]] in the course of three paragraphs lacking footnotes claims that all communist killing is a result of the marriage between absolute power and an absolutist ideology in the context of millenial utopianism which placed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union above the law.<ref>{{cite book |author=R J Rummel |chapter=From the Study of War and Revolution to Democide—Power Kills |title=Pioneers of genocide studies |editor1-last=Totten |editor1-first=Samuel |editor2-last=Jacobs |editor2-first=Stephen L. |year=2002 |publisher=Transaction Publishers |location= |isbn=0765801515 |nopp=true |pages=153-178 at 168-169 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=g26NmNNWK1QC&pg=PA168&dq |accessdate=}}</ref> Rummel's factual claims supporting this assertion are atypical to an extreme and do not relate to standard historiographies of the structure of state inflicted execution.<ref>Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45 "Europe-Asia Studies", Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353.</ref>

   Your attachment to a particular wording, which is a poor summary of Rummel's actual statement, is another sign of ownership.

3. No deadline. The discussion is ongoing. I'll thank you not to close your own RS/N particularly after you display the incivility of not notifying other editors about its existence. The RS/N is in no way straight forward. I shall be waiting until the RS/N has run its course. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
4. And yet again you miscite the work. Termer, apart from anything else, please read a guide to citation in the humanities, such as Chicago, which deals with the issue of how to cite chapters in books. You search google books and don't even bother to identify what you're citing. This has been repeated and sustained conduct, which is easily corrected by reference to a variety of style manuals. The effect of your conduct is deception. And it is readily corrected by learning how to identify a separately authored chapter is not a book. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

well, Rummel just spells out what's self explanatory anyway: the killings that the article looks into were committed in the name of communist ideology. But in case the text in the article really read inferior we can perhaps cite Rummel fully, no problem: [21]--Termer (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew - through Marxism - what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness.

I believe Rummel's allegories and metaphors do not belong to this article. The claims here have been exaggerated enough even without explicit quotation of Rummel's anti-Communist POV. (Igny (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Re: "Rummel just spells out what's self explanatory anyway: the killings that the article looks into were committed in the name of communist ideology" It is self-explanatory only for you. Some scholars, e.g. Helen Fein are less categorical:

"The justifications are, however, different. In communist states, murders are justified in the name of the revolution; while in anti-communist states such murders are justified in terms of the need for homogeneity or ethnic purity and as a defense against revolutionaries. This is not surprising. Arendt first related genocide to the concept of totalitarianism in her explanation of the origins of the Final Solution (1966). But the classic concepts of totalitarianism, communism, and fascism are ideal-types based on the experience of the inter-war years in Europe. Major communist states have evolved from the totalitarian archetype, and new types of states have emerged with many, but not all, characteristics of communist and fascist totalitarian states since World War II: e.g., socialist states in underdevelopedr egions; Islamic fundamentalist states; praetorian regimes based on right-wing authoritarianism; and, most recently, ethnic-based authoritarian states in the Balkans. Such states display many of the characteristics of fascism and have generated similarly deadly effects."

"murders are justified in the name of the revolution" i.e. in the name of protection of the new state system (the same phenomenon took place during Great French Revolution, when noone knew about Communism). No connection to ideology.
" Arendt first related genocide to the concept of totalitarianism..." It is totalitarianism, not Communist ideology that leads to genocide, according to Arendt.
"Major communist states have evolved from the totalitarian archetype" in other words, they inherited, at least partially, a totalitarian archetype form previous society. An obvious conclusion that is based on well known fact that new state system never emerges from nothing; again, no connection to Communism...--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

the chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocide and Democide under 'Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides' in 'Genocide: a sociological perspective' by Helen Fein, has no connection to Communism? I really must be missing something here.--Termer (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, the reason is that you use a book.google's snippet view whereas I read Fein's articles in academic journals?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I use 'book.google's snippet view' only for the purpose of WP:verify, and that's all what's needed in the context.--Termer (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. other than that, all unsourced citations you've listed above are not related to the subject. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article, not for citing random quotations on totalitarianism. I'm sure the quotations you listed would be valuable addition on Talk:Totalitarianism.--Termer (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I use 'book.google's snippet view' only for the purpose of WP:verify" Could you please (for the purpose of WP:verify) provide us with an extended quote form this book to demonstrate what context these definitions were used in.

Re: "all unsourced citations you've listed above" of course, they are sourced. However, since I already presented the references previously I see no need to reproduce them again.

Re: "not for citing random quotations on totalitarianism" If you see no connection between these fragments of text and the article's subject, please, ask. I'll explain.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen's book

A recent reference led me to Daliel Goldhagen's excellent book, Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. It shows how a correct attribution can still be misleading. Goldhagen does write about mass killings under communist regimes, but he does not suggest that there is something unique about communism that leads to mass killing. His book impartially indites Americans as well as Russians and Chinese, Harry Truman as well as Stalin and Mao, Christians and Muslims as well as atheists. By singling out a passage in the book that mentions communism, the reference suggests the opposite of what the book demonstrates. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the communists and their killings are discussed quite a bit throughout the book, and he does claim that Communists have been the most lethal killers (which I added to the article), where as democracies have been the least murderous (p. 54). Regarding the murderous nature of Communist regimes, he states on pg 301: "These and other communist leaderships, with newly won power, sought to prepare their followers and society more broadly for eliminationist initiatives, by convincing them that producing the future utopia necessitated the sacrifice of many people, specifically malignant class enemies and other groups deemed inimical to the revolution, the nation, or the future communist paradise." He also rightly credits both Lenin and Trotsky with creating "the Soviet Union's eliminationist institutions and programs." (pg 77)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rick, thank you for this post. Could you please verify if the statement

"[Daniel Goldhagen]] states that, as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience, Chinese Communist leaders, as early as 1948, planned for the destruction of 80 million people, including peasants and landlords. This destruction included mass executions, mass incarceration, mass population movements, and other eliminationist policies. (Goldhagen, Worse than War, p. 344)"

correctly reflects what Goldhagen actually says?
Thank you in advance,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Goldhagen does say that. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also a matter of wording the summary. The paragraph I typed in at RSN could be summarized as

" The communist party decided to proceed with the agrarian reforms aimed at restructuring the overpopulated (and already starving) China despite the grim predictions of possible death toll. According to Mao's and Jen's estimates (dated 1948) up to 30 million or 1/10th of peasant population might have to die as a result of the reforms"

Also the source lacks actual reasons of the excessive deaths. "Agrarian reforms" is too vague a cause. (Igny (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

(ec)Page 344 states two figures -- one of 50,000,000 for killing one tenth of the peasants, and of 30,000,000 for killing "landlords and rich peasants." Presuming that the number of "rich peasants" was well smaller than the number of "landlords" one hits the 80,000,000 figure, but using the 50,000,000 figure should be totally acceptable if qualified as "peasants" and then adding the additional statement as a separate stement of the 30 million as categorized in the source. Page 206 specifies that the Chinese killed more people than did the Soviets. Collect (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I see that the number of 80,000,000 is a result of SYNTH, the connection between deaths and Communist ideology is the editor's own conclusion, and the deaths themselves weren't a primary and desired objective, but predictable and acceptable collateral consequence of social transformations. That coincides with what other sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fifty million is "acceptable collateral consequence"? Seems that is not up to us to claim - we must, perforce, use the scholar's words. That is how WP:V and WP:RS work - we are not to make judgements of what we "know." Collect (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The full passage referred to from Goldhagen follows. I challenge any fair-minded person to say that Igny's summary is accurate, e.g. where does this "(and already starving)" come from? "..despite grim predictions of a possible death" and "estimates"? Goldhagen uses "required" and "would have to be destroyed", i.e. these are the planned numbers - there's nothing about "despite". Paul Siebert should re-read the first two sentences. Smallbones (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. Therefore, the intention to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystallizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists’ victory over the nationalists and the assumption of power neared. In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's intention already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their eliminationist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.

See [22] Smallbones (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Look as I have demonstrated above the paragraph you are citing is rather ambiguous. An extravagant and fantastic (read:WP:FRINGE) claim of yours that "Chinese Communists planned to kill 80 million people" is significant enough to have other sources (in fact more than a dozen, not just one source) where the phrase ""Chinese Communists planned to kill 80 million people" is unambiguously present. It can not be any simpler than that, just find these other sources. (Igny (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

You again misquote. The verb is "destroy" not "kill." Destroy may mean mass executions, mass internments, and population movements. Goldhagen is consistent with this, and I have been consistent in quoting or summarizing him. Goldhagen is a reliable source - nothing at all close to Fringe - the actual number of killings is on the same order of magnitude as the planned destruction according to Goldhagen. If you have other sources on how many people Chines Communists planned to destroy, or planned to kill, you may feel free to include them. Lacking other sources, it seems impossible to label Goldhagens estimates as "Fringe." Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, destroy or kill, it is still a fantastic and, as a matter of fact, unsourced claim and requires more source to be added to the article. And again the burden of proof lies on you, I do not have to run around looking for sources to counter your fringe edits. (Igny (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

• The "80 million" fall foul of WP:SYN, as that figure is nowhere present in the original source. Goldhagen himself cites Rummel, p. 223, which is visible in google books. Rummel quotes Mao's instruction mentioning the 10%, and then adds that "Jen Pi-shih, a party Central Committee member, had also said in a 1948 speech to cadres that '30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed'" (emphasis mine). The word "also" reinforces my impression that neither Goldhagen nor his source, Rummel, meant for these two figures of 50m and 30m to be added to each other.
• Rummel is much the better source to use here. The page in Goldhagen moves from Hitler to Mao to Serbia in the space of two paragraphs. It is a high-level survey, whereas Rummel's book is actually dedicated to the topic of China. Rummel puts the figure of those killed as a result of these policies at an estimated 4.5 (not 80) million. --JN466 19:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH on how adding two numbers is not considered OR. You are assuming that "Landlords" = "Peasants": but no Communist would ever do that. "Rich peasants" i.e. Kulaks would never be confused with ordinary "peasants" as well. If you insist that you are still confused, change the number for planned destruction to 50 million - What's 30 million people to Mao? Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your SYN is not the arithmetic, but your assertion that the two figures should be added in the first place. Rummel --JN466 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "adding two numbers is not considered OR" Adding two numbers is not considered OR per se. That doesn't mean, however, that any numbers can be added. Obviously, "rich peasants" form a subset of "peasants", therefore it is incorrect to add these two numbers (and, btw, that, probably, was a reason why Goldhagen didn't do that).
Re: "destroy vs kill". The popular Soviet slogan in 1930s was "destroy kulaks". However, this slogan never meant "kill them all", just eliminate the rich homeowners' strata by deprivation them of their land and possession. "Destroy" cannot be used as a synonym of "kill" unless the source state that clearly and explicitly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the context of the Mao and Pi-shih quotes in Rummel: [23]. Rummel speaks of murders and deaths. --JN466 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

4.5 million killed according to Rummel is not the same as 50 million destroyed according to Goldhagen. Although there are serious reason to doubt in accuracy of Rummel's estimates, the former figure can be mentioned in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does Goldhagen speak of 50 million destroyed? As far as I can see, both Goldhagen and Rummel quote Mao writing that 50 million would have to be destroyed. That is all. (You can view Goldhagen in amazon.com if you are an amazon customer. Rummel is linked above.) Note that Rummel's figure is for killings related to the land reform only. --JN466 21:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to dispute when our points of view coincide. I believe, your comment should be addressed to those who made the edit we discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I was wondering whether I had missed something in Goldhagen. --JN466 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

See the apparent agreement at WP:RSN does anybody really disagree with that? Smallbones (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. There is no phrase "Mao planned to destroy" in any source. At best, he estimated possible death toll (10% of peasant population, not sure where 50 mil came from) from the reforms. (Igny (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't have a very clear view on whether this is an RS, but what to include or not include in the article is something to be determined in the talk page in any case.

It seems to me that this is an author who is noted for being controversial (according to his WP article) and who offers figures many times higher than those found in sources which, it seems to be common ground, are more authoritative. For that reason we ought to be cautious and also ensure that the text is subjected to some scrutiny.

I would sound a basic note of caution that some of the key words have been translated from Chinese and it is not easy to be sure how they would best be interpreted. The word "destroyed" in English, when applied to people, does not most commonly mean "killed", so it is not clear why we should assume that it does here. --FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Books that bypass academic scrutiny are not reliable sources for this topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "See the apparent agreement at WP:RSN" The current discussion is not about reliability of Goldhgen's book, but about its relevance, and, more important, about misinterpretation of this book by Smallbones. In addition, if Goldhagen uses Rummel as a source than the figures (4.5 million) should be taken from Rummel.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In this very book on page 410 Goldhagen claims the Chinese communists killed around 10 million people from 1949 to 1953, mainly in their camps. This seems plausible. Hell, even Mao sympathizer Lee Feigon asserts that some 2 to 5 million landlords were killed during this period. (Mao: A Reinterpretation. p 96) As he refers to the victims as "landlords," the primary victims targeted in land reform, it seems he excludes those killed as "counterrevolutionaries" in Zhen Fan and other enemies driven to suicide during the three-anti/five-anti campaigns.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "even Mao sympathizer Lee Feigon". Mao didn't consider a large number of victims as something he had to conceal.
With regards to your other points, this is not a question of sympathy or antipathy to Maoism. If Goldhagen uses Rummel's data, then Rummel's number should be used, at the more so Rummel points out that different estimations varies from ca 1 million to 20 million, so 4.5 million is just the most probable figure (that fits a 2 to 5 million Lee Feigon's range).
Going back to Goldhagen, were those ca 10 million he writes about and the landlords killed as a result of the land reform the same people, or these 10 million include other "counter-revolutionaries"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The wording in Goldhagen is: "... each communist system housed in their camps more than ten million people, who also suffered enormous mortality rates. From 1949 to 1953, when the Chinese communists were consolidating power and laying the groundwork for their vast country's social and economic transformation to communism, the regime killed on the order of ten million people, mainly in their camps." The 10 million are a total figure killed. Judging by Rummel and Short, victims killed in the course of land reform were not typically first sent to a camp, but shot or killed on site. --JN466 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)