Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Mass killings under communist regimes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Request for comments: Scope of the article

There appears to be diverging views of the scope of this article with regards to what historic events should be included, and to what extent. We should try to agree at least on some basic principles. Here's some possibilities:

The main focus of this article should be to list all significant events of mass killings under Communist regimes with brief summaries and links to the main articles for those events. (In the format of Genocides in history.)
This article should not be formed as a list article - therefore, its main content should not be a list of historic events. Such events should only be included with brief summaries, to the extent they shed light on the main topic.
This article should not deal with individual historic events at all, but only with theories and studies that compare different Communist regimes and postulate some connection between mass killing and Communism in general (rather than just individual regimes).

Note that one option here is to combine for instance 1 and 3, by separating this into a list article and another article that deals just with the concept. Either way, any editor who opposes all three alternatives is hereby encouraged to come up with some alternative of her/his own. --Anderssl (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is to be an inclusive list article, I think we should also seek a consensus as to how certain events should be treated. There are some citations used in the article wherein a somewhat "broad" definition of "mass killing" is used. Should they be treated more carefully? How explicitly should the conclusions of these accounts be attributed? BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anderssl, what exactly do you propose to change in organizational structure of this article? It obviously should describe: (a) the historic events like Genocides in history, and (b) theories and studies that compare killing under different Communist regimes and explain why the killings had happened. But the aricle is already organized by approximately this way.Biophys (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment there are several events which are described in way too much detail (4-5 paragraphs) without any attempt at relating them to the main topic. For instance, the section of "The Great Leap" does not give any reference to a source which calls these events "mass killings". (And no, I am not trying to say that I dispute the fact that a lot of people died, but that is not necessarily the same as a mass killing.) If we agree on alternative 2, each of these sections should be condensed and explicitly related to some kind of theory of why these mass killings were caused by communist ideology or communist authoritarianism etc. --Anderssl (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing only brief summaries for something already described in other article should be done simply per WP:MOS. Most people would certainly agree with this.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Events should be covered in sufficient detail to show that the deaths were sought or were predictable consequences of acts by communist governments. Further detail can be and should be covered in individual articles, with the paragraphs in this article being condensed therefrom. Collect (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be shown explicitly that these events have been classified as "mass killings", "mass murder", "genocide" or something equivalent by at least one, preferrably several RS's? And should all events be covered, or just the most important ones, in due weight with the rest of the article? --Anderssl (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Where different terms have been used, it is reasonable and logical for us to stick with the simplest English term - we can not force sources to all use the same phrases <g> and "mass killing" would seem, in simple English, to encompass multiple phrases. Collect (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not the exact phrase that's required -- we're focusing on the concept. The article describes "mass killings" as 'intentional' and 'targeted' acts, which is pretty much what I would expect from the term. It's not immediately clear how a lot of the deaths detailed in the article fit into such a definition. As mentioned above, even if there is an RS to refer to some event as a "mass killing" (or similar term), it very well may be that the definition within the RS is broader than is generally granted, possibly making such a "minority view" (possibly even "tiny minority"). I think the community's input on whether this is the case (and, if so, then the question of how such sources should be conveyed in the article) would be helpful to the editors here. BigK HeX (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This article should not deal with individual historic events. Implicit in the title is the theory that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings. Describing these events can be seen as an attempt to establish a connection, a clear violation of neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Summing up so far: Seems to me that there is consensus on at least a few things:

The article does not need to list all individual events of mass killings under Communist regimes - only the most important ones.
Description of individual events, to the extent they should be included, should be brief with a link to the main article.

(I know some editors think individual events shouldn't be included at all, but there isn't consensus on that.) Object if I am wrong - otherwise, this is a good start I think. But we should also try to agree on some criteria for inclusion. Some suggestions:

Events should only be included if there can be found at least one RS which describes the deaths as the result of intentional/targeted policy. In other words, it is not enough to just document that the event took place and that a lot of people died.
Events for which only one such RS can be found, or only fringe sources, should be considered controversial. Less controversial cases should be prioritized.

Comments? --Anderssl (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is an article about a similar subject: the Protestant work ethic. This theory attributes the economic success of Northern European nations and North America to their religious beliefs. The article explains the theory and the degree to which it is accepted. It does not assume that the theory is proved and needs no explanation and proceed to describe the economic success of individual Protestant nations or describe the economic failure of individual Catholic countries. That is the difference between a neutral article explaining a theory and a biased article pushing one. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is subject to Wikipedia Policy. Editors cannot override Neutral point of view with consensus.

"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Bobanni (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bobanni, I am sorry but I really don't understand how your comment relates to the ongoing discussion. Could you clarify?

TFD: thanks for the example! --Anderssl (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bobani for providing a quote. Since the principles of neutrality cannot be superseded by our consensus on the article's subject, I believe the Anderssl's clause on the "Events for which only one such RS can be found..." must be accepted without any reservations. Therefore, we come back to the proposal that has been discussed here uncountable number of times: to make a stress on the events that unconditionally are recognized as mass killing (genocide, mass murder, etc) by all scholars, and to move all other cases into a "Controversy" section. Accordingly, the number of victims should reflect only victims of repressions, mass executions, genocides, whereas all sources that include the famine victims etc should be presented as controversial. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How Bobanni's comment relates to ongoing discussion is pretty clear to me. The NPOV policies say in other words: the editors should describe the dispute if any not get involved with it. And in that respect, the article needs to follow the sources. Instead of some editors here come up with yet another plan on how to further this article down to the SYTH path by publishing original thought, by claiming wild things like there never has been any connection between communist ideology and the mass killings. and if said so in article, despite many sources do it, it's suppose to be a violation of "neutrality". NPOV doesn't mean "No Point of View", again, it means, "describe the dispute if any".--Termer (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the idea to present commonly accepted facts as commonly accepted, and controversial facts as controversial fits SYNTH criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

what exactly is 'commonly accepted' and who says so?--Termer (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Termer, does that mean you agree with me that the article should show how scholars treat the connection between communist ideology and mass killings? Paul Sievert, one problem with your proposal is that different scholars use conflicting terminology, making distinctions between genocide, mass killings, democide, etc. and most scholars do not provide complete lists of incidents. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I support any revision of this article that is written according to the sources instead of publishing original thought (including the talk page). regarding how much in depth should it go, I don't see any need to go into major lengths by copy pasting all cases together here from different WP articles. The links to main articles would do. The article should explain who exactly has used such terms like "Communist genocide", -democide or -politicide, and or 'Communist mass killings': the terms speak for themselves, no need for any additional definition. And any criticism to the use of such terms should be included. Why would it be wrong to use it, why it's bad or good, justified or not? At the same time ignoring and refusing to recognize that such a concept like "communist genocide" is out there, this is only going to keep the article in a gridlock.--Termer (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "what exactly is 'commonly accepted' and who says so?" That is simple. "Commonly accepted" means "accepted by all scholars". In other words, if no reliable source question some fact it is "commonly accepted". In our case, murders committed by the Pol Pot's regime are considered "genocide" and no sources question that fact. By analogy, "controversial" means that some controversy exists. Concretely, if some scholars consider Soviet famine deaths "genocide", "classicide" or "democide" whereas other reliable sources disagree, then this case should be presented as "controversial".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article."

So Paul Siebert is again proposing Original Research.

Bobanni (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, explain what is the connection between the quote provided by you and my post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote from above states, "Re: "what exactly is 'commonly accepted' and who says so?" That is simple."

I agree that it is simple. It's already been beaten near death on this page, but Wikipedia's policies seem pretty clear that criteria for a person who wishes to present some contested assertion as being "commonly accepted" is also the party responsible for presenting an RS which supports that the assertion about its acceptance throughout the field. So, the answer for "who says so" is indeed simple ... the "who" should be an RS which has surveyed the literature. IMO, Wikipedia policy is clear that the burden of proof lies on the editor who includes contested assertions to present an inline cite which supports material as written. Using whatever delay there may be in the presentation of some dissenting opinion is NOT how one establishes something as "commonly accepted;" such a notion is likely fallacious. If there's reasonable doubt among editors, the content of RS's should be the deciding factor, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If some assertion has been contested by at least one reliable source, it is not commonly accepted. By contrast, if no RS question some statement it is deemed commonly accepted. In addition, I never proposed to explicitly write that events A is commonly accepted (that would be OR). I just proposed to combine all commonly accepted facts (e.g. that Stalin's purges, Mao's cultural revolution etc were mass killings) together, and to separate them from controversial events (famines, etc). I see no reasons why that proposal may cause any objections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you're not getting it Paul how your proposal is leading to OR. First of all again, what is commonly accepted and who says so? I haven't seen an answer to such a simple question. It's not our job here to determine what is commonly accepted. In case someone has claimed so in print, who was it and by whom has the research on "commonly accepted aspects of communist mass killings" been published?--Termer (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

High quality reliable sources tell us what is considered consensus, what the majority opinion is and sometimes what minority views are. We do not have to nor should we poll various texts to determine which views are more prevalent. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean like fr example Helen Fein who has coined the term 'ideological genocide' and has written a chapter under such a term on 'Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide' covering the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China? Its from Sage Publications, 1993 ISBN 9780803988293--Termer (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested above that a tertiary source would be a good step towards resolving these questions. BigK HeX (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Termer, that is not what I am saying. You can read Helen Fein's book where she explains how genocide is generally understood. Here is a link to a summary. You cannot assume that a term she coined is generally accepted unless she says it is and you cannot draw any conclusions from chapter headings. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "what is commonly accepted and who says so?" Again, had I proposed to write "it is commonly accepted that ..." you would have a ground to accuse me in doing original research. However, grouping several sources together in one or another way (provided that you adequately transmit what do they say) is not OR, otherwise this article had to be speedy deleted. I propose just to separate the sources according to a simple criterion: the sources that are telling about well established cases of mass killings should go in one section, whereas the events that are considered as mass killings by one source, and not considered mass killings by another should go to the "Controversy" section (similar to what has been partially done in the article). Let me re-iterate this point: although we cannot do synthesis of several sources to push some idea, we are absolutely free to regroup the sources in one or another way. No secondary sources are needed for such a regrouping, because that is done according to WP internal guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Did I get it right Paul, you've combined material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources in order to get the article speedy deleted?--Termer (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you really want me to answer this question seriously?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Let us be clear on the different types of information: there was a famine in the Ukraine (fact), Communists were responsible (generally accepted opinion), it was deliberate (minority opinion), it was planned by the illuminati (fringe). It is not original research to determine the type of information. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparent consensus: As far as I can see, there is no-one who are arguing against the principles outlined by me above, so it appears to be consensus about at least these basic principles. There has been some discussion about the question of how to determine that something is not controversial, but I think there is general agreement there also - something is not controversial/generally accepted if a reliable sources say so, based on a review of the scholarly literature - if no such sources are found, we should not state that something is generally accepted. Right?

These are quite basic principles, but they are already enough to do significant improvements I think. I will start implementing them now. --Anderssl (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to your "Request for comment", the title of this article implies to me that it refers only to mass executions. It would not seem to include things like economic policy induced famines, civil wars, or politically motivated killings that took place over a period of years, say to kill off your political adversaries a small group at a time. It would only seem to include things like the Katyn massacre. You might want to have one article called "Mass executions under communist regimes" and another "Large scale political violence under communist regimes" and another "Deaths due to famine and other causes". Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, you could title this article "Deaths under communist regimes" and then divide it into something like the sections I suggested. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You might as well have just one article, "Why Communists are Bad". That would put all our rotten eggs in one basket. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Great Leap Forward

In accord with the consensus formed above about the scope of the article, I went through the section on The Great Leap Forward and removed everything that didn't speak of any form of targeted or intentional policy towards mass killing. The only thing I could find was this:

Benjamin Valentino claims that during the Great Chinese Famine caused by the economic and social plan known as The Great Leap Forward, the worst of the famine was steered towards the regime's enemies.[nb 12] Those labeled as "black elements" (religious leaders, rightists, rich peasants, etc.) in any previous campaign died in the greatest numbers, as they were given the lowest priority in the allocation of food.[nb 13]

Everything else in the section was talking about failed policies, numbers of deaths etc. If I have missed something, please do not automatically revert, but bring it forward here on the talk page and demonstrate how it speaks of "mass killings" rather than communist incompetence. --Anderssl (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the Valentino's theory of "deprivation mass killing" deserves a separate mention. Valentino's "mass killing" is "mass killing" (from a commonsensual point of view) + "deprivation mass killing". "Deprivation mass killing" are not considered mass killing by some other scholars, so this type events should go to the "Controversial cases" section; the Valentino's number of mass killings' victims (that include the victims of both conventional and deprivation mass killings) should be treated accordingly. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

TGLF is already listed under "controversies". As for Valentino's concept of mass killing, shouldn't that be discussed further up, under terminology or something like that? --Anderssl (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology section

The section mixes two things: the discussion of the "mass killing" term in general, and the terminology used to describes the crimes committed by Communist regimes. These two things should be separated from each other. It would be better to split the section on two subsections. First subsection should discuss the "mass killing", "democide", "genocide" (both sensu stricto and sensu lato), whereas the second one should be devoted to how this terminology can be applied to Communist mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Anderssl (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am rather unsure that this might not make the entire article more obscure rather than less obscure. Many of the examples appear to fall squarely on the cracks - are policies, for example, which clearly could have been predicted to exacerbate the number of deaths from a famine, to be considered "crimes related to Communism" or just acts-of-God which were not directly related to Communism although they were clearly related to the planning systems of the governments involved? Collect (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You should read a bit on the unintended consequences. What is clearly could have been predicted according to you (everyone is wise in afterthought), may not be so clear before events occurred. Usually policies are not intended to do much harm to general population, unless you can cite the text of policy explicitly saying "let's starve people to death" or "let's exacerbate that famine". Even if there were those who predicted particularly bad consequences from a particular policy (there are always nay-sayers with ominous predictions), there could be no way to prove it for certain. And some predictions could be an acceptable mortality resulting from huge reforms needed to transform society aimed with good intentions such as to avert a potentially bigger catastrophe. (Igny (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

an acceptable mortality resulting from huge reforms?? That must have been a joke? Or who exactly thinks that the "huge reforms" that didn't lead to anywhere had "acceptable mortality" rates? Other than that there is a difference between 'mass killing' and what's considered the 'communist genocide'. The genocide also includes mass deportations (for example the crimean tatars), not just direct mass killings. Getting back to "an acceptable mortality". From the Soviet-Russian nationalist-chauvinist POV the mass deportation of the Crimean Tatars must have included "acceptable mortality"? After all the people who didn't support the Soviet empire were not very useful people, and there you have it: "an acceptable mortality", hope I did get it right? In case yes that would make it easy. There is a rule of thumb now: for example since the people in Ukraine were not too big fans of the Sovietization, the whole Holodomor must have been just "an acceptable mortality"?--Termer (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: "That must have been a joke?" In actuality, two types' joke are being frequently reiterated on WP pages: (i) that mass mortality was an unavoidable consequence of Stalin's reforms; and (ii) that Stalin's administration intentionally organized starvation to kill people. Obviously, both these points are the minority views and should be treated as such. Stalin's reforms were made not in an optimal way (primarily because Stalin was a brillian intriguant but poor economist), and led to mass deaths because he simply didn't care about the fate of million peasants. However, it is insufficient for speaking about his policy as the policy of deliberate starvation.
With regards to Crimean Tatars, the measures agains Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Volga Germans and some other ethnic groups did not differ significantly from what the Americans had done with their ethnic Japanese and German citizens. Much higher mortality among Soviet deportees can be easily explained just by catastrophic economic situation in the USSR during that time, when there were no resources even to feed ordinary Soviet civilians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Such an outstanding Stalin's apologist speech that I've never heard of before is definitely no joke.--Termer (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that to claim that the death as a result of Stalin's reforms were not unavoidable is an outstanding Stalin's apology? Please, explain what concretely is wrong with my statements. Otherwise I will conclude that you've exhausted your arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I must say i agree with Siebert's explanation, its neutral, something you couldn't say about the other comments who instead of discussing just keep on replaying the old line over and over again; "Stalin was a mass murderer"... --TIAYN (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stalin was not a mass murderer?--Termer (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for proving TIAYN's point so succinctly. (Igny (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

Igny, I believe your irony is not appropriate. It seems to me that when talking about Stalin Termer is simply too emotional to read the texts carefully. I think a polite explanation of my words would be more helpful. Termer, I wrote that the frequently repeated statement: "mass mortality was an unavoidable consequence of Stalin's reforms" is a bad joke, and by that I tried to state that these mass deaths could be avoided; thereby I tried to debunk one of the major Stalin apologists' myth. However, another myth exists, namely, that Stalin conceived his reforms with the purpose to kill as many people as possible. Since newly found documentary evidences do not support this idea, this seems to be just a cold war myth. These myths were born at the opposite sides of the Iron Curtain, and both of them must go after this curtain disappeared. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Is my point clear for you now?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

there is no need to speculate around this question. The historical fact is Stalin' goal was to eliminate all his real and possible/potential and suspected political opponents outside and inside the Communist party. Therefore a claim like "mass mortality was an unavoidable consequence of Stalin's reforms" makes no sense whatsoever.--Termer (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is incorrect to mix Stalin's purges and Stalin's reforms. The formers were aimed to eliminate real, potential or suspected opponents (and, therefore, should be considered as mass murders), whereas the latters were not directed against anyone specifically and should be attributed to overall incompetence and irresponsibility of Stalin's authorities (and, accordingly, the deaths caused by them may be considered as mass manslaughter). One way or the another, since (as I already repeated several times) I also see no examples of mass deaths under Stalin that were unavoidable (except, probably, mass mortality in wartime GULAG), I see no reason to continue this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I revised the lead. It had suffered from synthesis and lack of neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your lede suffers from a lack of facts - e.g. mass killings in China and Cambodia - and seems to say that folks who believe that there were mass killings by Communists are anti-Semites. It starts with theory in the form of argument, which is just not what a lede is supposed to do. Let's stick with facts and an overview of what follows in the article. Though the previous lede has some faults I've reverted to it. The accusations of anti-semitism should not be re-inserted in any case, even in a more subtle form. Smallbones (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed the inference of anti-semitism. Reverted. As for "lack of neutrality"??? Collect (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is inappropriate and unencyclopedic -- no similar article exists in any other major encyclopedia. But even given the low standards of the article the lede is worse, in no way serving to introduce the article as a whole but instead getting totally off-topic with a discussion of the relationship between communism and nazism. I'm going to attempt a new lede that at least introduces the subject of the article and reflects the body of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In general, the new lead is good, although I don't think that all scholars writing about Communist mass killings are anti-Communists. Please, try to rephrase the first sentence to make it more neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A scholar writing about mass killings by, say, Stalin, would not imply, as the title of the article suggests, that Stalin was a mass-murderer because he was a communist. They would be more likely to describe him as a dictator, or as paranoid. Only an anti-communist would imply that cause and effect is an accepted explanation for killings by communists. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. However, the first sentence proposed by you tells something different. "Anti-communists often stress the fact that there have been mass killings under various communist governments" can be understood as the very fact of mass killings is being stressed only by the anti-Communist authors. That is not true. Even such a controversial and rightist author as Rummel stresses the connection between totalitarism and mass killings ("democide"), not between Communism and mass killing . I think you have to bring the first sentence in accordance with your last post, because currently the lede's sentence conveys a somewhat different idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should explain the connection between communism and mass killings: who made the claims, what connection they saw and how their theories have been received. Instead the article actually argues on behalf of the theory rather than describing it. The communist genocide theory is generally seen as a recycling of right-wing descriptions of the French revolution (e.g., François Furet) and has been adopted by the Right and the far right in Europe, but has received no acceptance in the academic world. And yes it is seen as anti-semitic because it places communists, who are associated with Jews by the Right, on the same level as the Nazis, trivializes the holocaust and excuses collaborators who are now seen as patriots. The sources I used are Stalinism and nazism[1] and "Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914 - 2004" [2] If someone would like to make another attempt at writing the lead it would be appreciated. But Rick Norwood's re-write is an improvement over earlier versions.

Paul Siebert, I think that is a semantic problem. Anti-communist usually means radically anti-communist as in the World Anti-Communist League.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems consensus is that "anti-communists" is not proper in the lede then? Collect (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I believe, by fixing this semantic problem we eliminate the last lede's flaw.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. One more problem. The article discusses not some of those mass killings, but mostly all of them. At least, it pretends to provide an exhaustive description of all mass killings perpetrated by regimes that claimed their adherence to the Communist doctrine. I changed the lede accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Rick Norwood's statement was fine: "Anti-communists often stress the fact that there have been mass killings under various communist governments." But the replacement brings back synthesis and bias: "Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under some communist governments." It is similar to beginning an article "There are many stupid people living in Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming" (which is true - there are stupid people everywhere) and then enumerate the stupid people living in states that begin with a "W". You must explain who makes the connection. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I am not a proponent of the article named Mass killings under Communist regimes in a situation when the only other WP article on the same subject (Mass killing) redirects to Mass murder. That demonstrates a strong anti-Communist bias of a considerable part of WP community. However, it is incorrect to say in the lede that only anti-Communist writers stress the that there have been mass killings under Communists. Nevertheless, that is exactly what the Rick's version does ("Anti-communists often stress the fact that there have been mass killings under various communist governments.") I tried to fix this inaccuracy, as well as another one: mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes, not various. Anyway, the current lede correctly reflects what the article says. If you are not satisfied with that (btw, I am not satisfied either) let's fix the article first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only anti-communists draw a connection between communism and mass killing and were it not for them there would be no literature at all to justify this article. While I appreciate the radical right-wing interpretation of history, I do not believe that it should be presented as anything other than a theory. The way the lead is written it is presented as fact. Why do you dislike the term anti-communist? Would you prefer another term? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I dislike any term. My only concern is that the Rick's sentence mix two things: (i) mass killing under Communists did occur (and that is indisputable fact), and (ii) the connection existed between these mass killings and the Communist ideology (that is a strong anti-Communist bias). Frankly I expect the Rick's version to be reverted soon by some anti-Communist user, and he will have some ground to do that. One way or the another, if you have another idea how to fix the problem, please do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Merely saying that mass killings occurred under communist governments implies that there is a connection. The article should not treat the connection as a fact but as a theory. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope we now have a stable lede. As Paul Siebert points out, the article only exists because a small group (four?, five?) of anti-communists have always managed to defeat attempts to delete it. But Paul's comments give me an idea. Could we change the title to "Mass Killings Under Totalitarian Regimes". That would be a more encyclopedic title. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What about "Mass killings under authoritarian government". It avoids two contentious terms, totalitarian and regime and also is closer to the concepts used by mainstream writers. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime could we change "Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under some communist governments. This article describes the best known examples of those mass killings, including both those that were intentionally carried out by communist governments and those where mass death occurred as a result of governmental policy, but intentionality is disputed." to "This article describes the best known examples of mass killings of non-combatants under some communist governments, including both those that were intentionally carried out by communist governments and those where mass death occurred as a result of governmental policy, but intentionality is disputed." The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would say, Mass Killings Under Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regimes. The connection between authoritarianism and mass killing is obvious, and such a title would be quite encyclopaedic. However, such a renaming would require a major modification of the article, because only a part of scholars believe the Communist mass killing constituted a major part of XX century mass killings. Another idea is XX century mass killings. Such a title would be even more encyclopaedic, because it would cover the mass killings perpetrated by, e.g. American troops in Vietnam, and that would give us an opportunity to discuss similarities and differences between mass killings perpetrated by totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic countries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The current lede works fine [3] other than who exactly were the some Communist governments? Well, the fact is those "some' happened to be the major communist regimes in the world like the Soviet Union and China. Regarding the suggestion again and again to replace "Communist" with "Authoritarian and Totalitarian", this as been addressed, there is no good reason to go over this again and again.--Termer (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just searched the archives and in fact the suggestion to change the name to "Authoritarian and Totalitarian" has never been made. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please search better. Adding Authoritarian to a former suggestion Totalitarian would expand the scope of this article even further. I mean, do you really want to include the mass killings committed by Julius Caesar into this article? Most interesting question is why would you like to do it?--Termer (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I searched real good and the issue has never come up. So far it is three in favor and one against. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not support changing the name in this way. The proposed names are different enough to be separate articles. If there are problems with the current title, surely we can address those problems without changing the topic itself. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "who exactly were the some Communist governments?" "Some" is supposed to reflect the Valentino's notion that most communist regimes did not commit mass killings ("Final solution" p. 91). I have no ground to question his conclusion.

Re: Caesar. Obviously, the article's scope is limited to the XX century, so the XX century mass killings would be the optimal solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"XX Century mass killings" is a good compromise because it is neutral. I believe though that the accepted style is 20th century. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is neutral, but it is also general. And this is not a general article: it is specifically about Communist regimes. There are multiple reliable sources discussing those incidents specifically within Communist countries and there is no reason not to have an article about this topic. These other suggestions are fine for additional articles, but to apply them here would amount to deletion-by-renaming. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How else do you propose eliminating the problems of synthesis and bias from the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lay out the instances of synthesis and of bias and I will try to address each one in turn. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) The first sentnece of the lead is "Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under some communist governments." That is implied synthesis. Presenting an implicit theory as fact is bias. It does not conform to WP:Lead: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." The Four Deuces (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the implied synthesis? What is the implicit theory? The sentence reads to me as a straight statement of fact using neutral terms. (Assuming this is just the first of a long list, I think we should move this to a new section.) AmateurEditor (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

While the sentence is factual, it implies a connection between mass killings and communist regimes. Compare with an article called Palm trees under communist regimes that begins "Palm trees grew under some communist governments". However if there is no implied connection then the sentence is a non sequitur and should be removed. If you believe there is a connection then that connection should be made explicit. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If the sentence is factual, then there is no problem. How can there be an implied connection when the connection is made very explicitly: some Communist regimes intentionally killed large numbers of civilians. And that point is not disputed. If you mean the implication is that there is a link between mass killing and all Communist regimes, then the use of the word "some" should have addressed your concern. If there were reliable sources addressing the topic of Palm trees under communist regimes then, of course, there also could be a Wikipedia article on that subject. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In other words you think that there are no reliable sources for a connection between communism and mass killings that could be used in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, several reliable sources make the connection between ideology and the killing, and at least some of them are used in the current version of the article. Why should they not be? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why do you not put them into the lead? It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead was drastically changed just recently. It will improve over time. I think the best thing for this article is to let people calm down and to make gradual and moderate changes. Some people may want an edit war over this article. I'm not one of them. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about the article, just the lead. The lead gives direction to the article. How about starting the lead "Some writers have drawn a connection between communism and mass killings of non-combatants under their administrations"?

I would say the lead takes direction from the article, that is, the lead is derivative of information in the body of the article. I have no problem with you adding that sentence to the lead, but I don't think it replaces either of the sentences there now, and I don't think it is a better opening sentence. After all, a variety of explanations have been offered. Perhaps as a third sentence? AmateurEditor (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) I have now added it as a third sentence. We now need to give examples of what those connections were. Any ideas? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you are no longer interested in deleting the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I said long ago I would support the continuation of the article if it could be written in a neutral point of view. If it is not possible to improve it then I would vote to delete. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You just pledged your support for a new deletion nomination below. But if you are attempting to improve it now then you must believe it is possible to do so. What I don't understand is: did you change your mind on supporting deletion in the last few minutes, or do you still reject the very topic of the article? I'm certainly willing to work with you on removing any synthesis and bias if you are willing to accept that the subject itself is legitimate. But I don't want to spend time trying to achieve consensus with someone who isn't interested in anything other than deletion. I remember that, unlike Fifelfoo, you never changed your position in the deletion discussion for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation article, even after your specific reasons for deletion had been answered. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That was different. I voted to delete because the article had no reliable sources. I later noted that the New York Times had written an article about it which was published after the nomination for deletion and said that it was a reliable source. But it did not seem to establish notability. "Notability is also not predictable. A topic that does not meet the general notability guideline at one time may do so later. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future." Had it been about any other topic, the vote for deletion would have been unanimous. Here is what the article looked like when it was recommended for deletion:[4]. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Your initial criticism was that the foundation was a commercial entity trying to get free advertising on Wikipedia. But both the notability criteria for its deletion nomination and the non-commercial nature of the organization (evident in its very name) had been answered by Martintg twenty minutes before you even posted your initial position - by showing news articles about the foundation dating back to 1995 and spiking in 2007, years before the deletion nomination, and mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar. That is, the notability was in no way "predictive." You then changed your justification for deletion to notability due to a lack of sources in the article beyond one website, and when I added a third party source to the article to address your criticism, you didn't recognize it as such. You then responded to Martintg's post - proving that you hadn't simply overlooked it - but rather than acknowledge his links you denied the organization's national scope, a point already belied when I had mentioned that the foundation was established by an act of Congress. When Martintg responded to you directly and explicitly spelled out several of the news organizations which had written about the Foundation, your response was a mystifying dismissal due to the sources being written "before the museum was set up." (I still don't understand the relevance of that. The article and the sources were about the Foundation, not the proposed museum.) And now you say that "Had it been about any other topic, the vote for deletion would have been unanimous." On the contrary, you ended up being the lone "delete", despite not having a leg to stand on, and after even the nominator had changed his mind. What I would like to know now is whether you are serious about wanting to improve Mass killings under Communist regimes, because your continuing efforts to delete it, as seen below, seem to directly contradict this. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting off topic. If you wish to discuss the Foundation vote further please use my talk page. In the meantime, could you please provide a draft for the lead that conforms with WP:Lead. If you or others are unable to do this, then could you please join us in supporting the deletion of this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I will help improve the lead, but the status of the lead does not determine whether or not the article should be deleted. Despite its prominence, a lead is a relatively minor thing and derivative of the body of the article. I don't understand why you or others are even interested in working on it if you also advocate deletion. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Obviously if it is not possible to write a lead without bias or synthesis, it is impossible to write an article without bias or synthesis. In that case I ask that you join us in getting this article deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The best way to make a consensus lead without synthesis or bias is to eliminate instances of those within the body of the article. After all, the lead should be a "concise overview of the article." I believe the best way to proceed is to list on the talk page each example of bias and synthesis that can be found within the body of the article so that each can be addressed in turn. I suggest creating a new section and starting with the worst examples. When that is completed, it should be much simpler and much less contentious to write a summary/overview of the article for the lead. To try to tackle bias and synthesis in the article by eliminating it in the lead is putting the cart before the horse and doing twice the work. Again, lead sections do not determine articles, articles determine lead sections. If we are interested in eliminating synthesis and bias from the article as a whole - and we must be - then this will be faster. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, what is your opinion on the motion to delete? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

My view is that it does not matter whether one puts the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart if one does not know where one is going. However I will follow AmateurEditor's suggestion, starting with Cambodia. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I do not support the motion to delete. I continue to participate in the discussion here and to make occasional edits because I believe the article is worth improving. For all the criticism of details of the article, and however we decide to describe the topic in the title, the topic's notability and importance has been clear. Much of the criticism has resulted in an improved article, although some substantial issues are still outstanding (the descriptive title, for example, may never please everyone - but this is reflective of the same debate within the academic community over what labels are most appropriate to describe these events). AmateurEditor (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you say "the topic's notability and importance has been clear". Could you please define the topic and explain why it is notable, so that we can put that into the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll let the sources do that for me (emphasis added in bold):

"The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia." - Why not kill them all?: the logic and prevention of mass political murder (42-43)
"All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." - The dark side of democracy: explaining ethnic cleansing (318)
"Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." - Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide (331)
"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. Documentation of these cases in secondary sources, however, remains inadequate to render a reliable judgement regarding the numbers and identity of the victims or the true intentions of their killers." - Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century (91) AmateurEditor (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

None of your sources define the topic or explain why it is notable. Could you please define the topic and explain why it is notable so that we can write a neutral lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope others are seeing why I'm finding it hard to take you seriously. To explain: the topic is mass killings under communist regimes, and the notability is the large scale of the events and the significant coverage of it in numerous reliable sources independent of the subject. We will write the lead after correcting all instance of synthesis and bias in the body of the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Some writers have drawn a connection between communism and mass killings of non-combatants under their administrations." The writers should be named. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Classicide?

Since the words like "Communist" and "communist" seems like have become too hot for some reason, perhaps the article could be simply called Classicide? it has 75 returns on google books and about 60 on google scholar. The term coined by Michael Mann refers to the intended mass killing of entire social classes...' the author spells out that the Khmer Rouge were the worst perpetrators; Stalinists and Maoists perpetrated short bursts... [5]. It seems to me a title like this would be right on the subject.--Termer (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How can a neologism be a good candidate for a title on this subject? You can however write a wikidictionary article on the term "classicide". (Igny (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm fine with the current title, just thought a title like this, by avoiding the word Communism might help to achieve a consensus. And I'm not so sure a term that has, again 75 returns on google books and about 60 on google scholar would be WP:NEO necessarily.--Termer (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Also, since Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on CLASSICIDE - GENOCIDE IN COMMUNIST CHINA I actually can't see how a title like Classicide would be in conflict with WP:NEO.--Termer (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Termer. Classicide is a clearly defined concept, and has been discussed in academic literture. It is not therefore a neologism and meets criteria for inclusion. It does not have the problems that are the reason for excluding neologisms: that they are poorly defined and may have different meanings. It is possible to write an article without bias or synthesis even if one believes the theory is wrong and makes incorrect connections between ideology and killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "classicide" is that few of the examples of mass killing in this article fall into that category. It better fits the French Revolution. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a brief article about it. It covers Stalin's killing of the peasants, Mao's killing of the landlords and Pol Pot's killing of enemy classes. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The odd term covers some, but not all, of the cases found. Sometimes ethnic groups (however defined by the authorities) were the victims. In other cases, it was chosen by "nationality" (bearing in mind that the largest Communist regimes covered many ethnicities/nationalities.) In still other cases, it was geographically driven more than anything else. "Classicide" is too cutesy by falf, and does not cover these other killings properly covered in this article. Collect (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Which major mass killings were excluded by the theory? Please be specific. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Killing within a region where people of all classes die (Georgia SSR for one single example). Killing of groups of people by ethnicity (Germans, Poles, Gypsies, Chechens etc. by Stalin and other Soviet leaders). Killing by nationality (Tibet) in China (which has a number of such cases). In each case - "classicide" does not apply, while "mass killing" does. Acts which result in large numbers of deaths (including ones where the deaths were foreseeable as a result of government actions or deliberate inactions). Please be specific as to why you feel any of these would be classicide if you feel that way, professor.<g> Collect (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Mann wrote, "Even bouts of apparently ethnic cleansing (in Chechnya, Tibet and Cambodia) derived mainly from them [politicide, classicide, and fratricide]. Leftist cleansing was distinctive, since the people was defined by the ideology, the economics, the military force, and the politics of class, not ethnic struggle."[6] Do you still have any exceptions? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources simply do not have a consensus on the best label to use in these cases. Why should we force them to? Wouldn't that be taking a side and a violation of NPOV? Here is a good quote from a reliable academic source illustrating the diversity of terms, something we must also do in the article:

"Classicide, in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of fratricide is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of politicide, which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia.

"However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of crime against humanity is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann." Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide (p.344)

That this source claims Michael Mann, who coined "classicide", himself believes "crime against humanity is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes" is curious. But I believe the current title is a good neutral descriptive title, the hair-splitting over capitalization aside. Of course, if there are better ideas for a neutral descriptive title, I'm all ears. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you like the current title, could you please briefly describe the subject in a manner that we can use as a neutral lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you exhausted your objections to any synthesis or bias from the body of the article so that I can actually do that? AmateurEditor (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Collect The odd term covers some, but not all, of the cases found. Sometimes ethnic groups (however defined by the authorities) were the victims

This has been covered under the odd term, please see comments on Classicide from the source listed above: In all the cases quoted by Mann, the violence against a specific social class was always combined with violence against other groups, based on ethnic, nationalist or religious motives (Shaw, 2007: 121-124), and
Especially communist regimes have regularly transformed their theoretically universalistic ideology of class struggle into narrow nationalist discourse by means of political daily-life propaganda: they didnt so much represent the abstract class of capitalists as a concrete threat to the rule of the people, but rather focused on foreign powers and inner minorities, once again defining the people in traditional nation-state terms (Maleaevi, 2006: 399-400).--Termer (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets make the discussion about the possible new title "official" by starting up RM.--Termer (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The most accurate title, which would cover all the cases listed, would be "Bad communists". Rick Norwood (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes → Classicide — hopefully less controversial - more NPOV title for the subject?Termer (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Definitely curbs the NPOV issues present now. BigK HeX (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unless article is massively re-written. "Classicide" is a general term, not tied to this particular political topic. The fact that the subject of this article is, well, "mass killings under Communist regimes" is important. The only NPOV issue at all with this name is that some (not all) speakers of some (not all) dialects of English have a tendency (not a guarantee) to interpret the word "regime" as carrying a negative connotation (in certain types of usage). Just the simple fact that the word has neutral connotations as well (e.g. "the legal regime of post-Pacifica US broadcasting regulation", etc.), means that even this concern is a weak one. It certainly doesn't justify such a misleading rename. All that said, I think there should be an article at classicide, covering the issue all the way back to the Roman Empire, but that would not be this article, which is specifically about classicide under communism. NB: Classicide under communism]] is a perfectly good rename suggestion itself. And stop capitalizing "communism". We do not randomly capitalize "isms", be they causes or philosophies, or both. If the term begins with a proper name, e.g. "Marxism", the term is capitalized. Otherwise, it is not (cf. democracy not Democracy, etc.). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Current title is sufficiently concise, avoids using nonce words, and the term "classicide" does not cover all the material in the current article by a long shot (as shown in my posts above). Moving an article to a name which covers only 1/3 of the article is, in fact, inapt under any circumstances. Collect (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose "Classicide" is not a familiar word, thus not a good name for an article title. What happened to the recent motion to delete? I can't find it any more. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Classicide is fine as far as it goes, but it is not a consensus term in the sources and we shouldn't choose it as one. Michael Mann's Classification table of Forms of Ethnic Cleansing, which contains the term "Classicide"(as seen here[7], page 5), lists it as a type of "Premeditated mass killing". That would tend to support the current title. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Support the concept has been established in academic writing which allows it to be presented in a neutral manner avoiding synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per UCN. Flamarande (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose a veritable can of worms including e.g. whether the guillotining of aristocrats in the French revolution should be regarded as "classicide". PatGallacher (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment it seems there is a clear consensus to keep the article with the current title like the last time when it was called so [8]. That's a good reason enough not to return to renaming question for quite some time in the future. Even though consensus seems to be clear I am not going to withdraw my suggestion by myself but let an uninvolved administrator close this discussion. Thanks everybody for your input!--Termer (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. My vote to oppose was limited to opposing "classicide", not to a general oposition to a move. The current title is embarassing, since it is evidence that Wikipedia is not a "real" encyclopedia. (Real encyclopedias never have articles with titles of the form "(bad things) done by (people in a certain group)") My preference would be that the article be deleted, but if that proves impossible, my second choice would be to give it a title that doesn't scream "Blog!". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment. The term "classicide" hardly describes all the mass killing under Communists, and it hardly reflects what the Communist doctrine says. Lenin's "elimination of bourgeoisie as a class" (and even Stalin's "elimination of kulaks") was definitely not the appeal to kill them all, but to convert them into another social entity. In addition, killings during civil wars should be attributed not to some doctrine, bit to the overall brutality of the war, when atrocities and mass killings were perpetrated by both sides in a similar scale. Therefore, although it would be correct to say that the peoples in the USSR under Stalin were being killed based on their belonging to certain social group, it is incorrect to say that the task was to physically kill all representatives of these groups. I would say, the events in Cambodia fit the term "classicide" better. However, as some scholars point out, although Cambodia events were a pure example of "genocide", Cambodian regime was not a typical example of implementation of the Communist doctrine. Stalin's Great Purge was not an attempt to kill anybody on the ground of their belonging to some social group, but the program of elimination of personal Stalin's enemies (along with millions of peoples who were deemed to be a potential supporters of Stalin's opponents).
One more comment. I think that numerous attempts to rename or even delete this article are a result of the (justified) concern of some editors that the fact that the mass murderers described in this article declared their adherence to one or another version of the Communist doctrine is not the best pretext for combining all these mass murders, along with other examples of mass mortality in Communist states, in the same article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Many instances of mass killings by Communist regimes would have to be excluded, particularly those that targeted political opponents and dissidents. Plus there appears to be more scholarly work on Communist mass killings in general (the book Red Holocaust serves as an example) than on so-called "classicide."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Any move or renaming of this article because it is controversial alone is not a legitimate reason. Bugguyak (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Current title is much more accurate and is also a neutral one. "Classicide" is actually less neutral, since it attributes motive, often incorrectly. First Light (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion

If i'd nominate this article for deletion (again), would i muster any support? --TIAYN (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support The Four Deuces (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Rick Norwood (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak support As it stands, the article's problems begin in the title, and persist throughout the article. The article body itself currently reads like a mishmash of POV from a small handful of scholars who it seems deviate from the majority view. If no unifying academic framework exists to tie together the entire article, it should either be deleted or rewritten as a simpler list of attributions. Without a rewrite, there's also the problem of the title -- given the current wide-ranging sprawl of the article, the title seems to need so many qualifications as to be ridiculous; a title that strove for accuracy might read like, "Mass deaths attributed as 'killings' to occur under regimes practicing tenets of communism." BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment I predict you would get a lot of support but not enough to prove consensus. (Igny (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC))
Nope Especially with the clear efforts to "edit" the article present. Find someone with clean hands on this one -- but the result will be the same as in the past. By the way, you should read WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment It might be best to re-name the article "Mass killings". That would then allow us to describe the various theories of mass killings without accusation of bias or original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated it. --TIAYN (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The deletion nomination seems to have vanished. Was it withdrawn?Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Nothing but a propaganda pamphlet selecting a specific group of incidents to prove their point while downplaying other thats what propaganda does and thats what this "article" does. If you think a piece of this is worth in our encyclopedia then lets not stop there and create Mass killings under Capitalists regimes--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was closed as "Keep as the consensus was clearly on that side. Collect (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The worst instances of bias or synthesis

Cambodia (Democratic Kampuchea)

This section does not explain the connection between Communist ideology and the mass killings. Could someone please add this information or delete the section. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind that I changed the title of this section to include examples from any part of the article.) Wasn't the entire debate about whether to make the title "...Communist regimes" versus "...communist regimes" precisely to avoid presuming that communist ideology connected these events? Cambodia is one of the three countries most often mentioned in the sources (frequently being grouped together with the USSR and China). Why would we delete it from an article about mass killings under Communist regimes? It was certainly considered a communist regime, and the first sentence of the section does establish that the government followed "an exotic version of agrarian communist doctrine". In any event, as the article is currently organized, there is a separate section devoted exclusively to "Causes". That might be the best place for that information. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, agrarian Communism has nothing in common with Marx doctrine which is based on the concept of dictatorship of proletariat. In that sense I am inclined to agree that the article must distinguish between the mass killing cases that directly stemmed from the Marxian concept, and the mass killings perpetrated by regimes that were just nominally Communist. The examples of first mass killings were, e.g. Soviet killings during Civil war, whereas Kampuchea, most African regimes should be put into a separate section. Moreover, since Stalin's goal was creation of a weird feudal regime (including conversion of peasantry back into serfs, formation of new nobility, etc), that fact, as well as the difference between Mao's experiments and the genuine Marx doctrine should also be stressed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, each case will have unique features. I'm somewhat agnostic at this point as to how exactly the article is best organized. Perhaps we could group them by type, but keeping a descriptive section for each country and a different section on the proposed causes as it is now is acceptable to me. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That was not the purpose of the title as far as I remember. But if you are correct then do you agree to removing the section about Ethiopia, which was governed by the Workers' Party of Ethiopia and North Korea, which was governed by the Workers' Party of Korea, and Afghanistan, which was governed by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And why would we be doing this? AmateurEditor (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan section tells about the colonial war conducted by the USSR in an attempt to implement its doctrine of Socialism in this country (similar to what the US are doing now both there and in Iraq). Therefore, mass killings committed there should be in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Because, AmateurEditor, you just said that this article is about "Communist regimes" versus "...communist regimes" precisely to avoid presuming that communist ideology connected these events. Since your argument is that "Communist regimes" should be included, not "communist regimes", we should not include "Workers Party regimes". The Four Deuces (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is not "about" that distinction. Nor does the article exclude "communist regimes". The word "Communist" is capitalized in the title as a concession to those sticklers who complained that having "communist" in the title was biased towards one proposed cause (that of ideology) versus all others offered in the sources. Never was it said that "communist" regimes must be excluded from the article, because such an idea is incoherent: all "communist" regimes are considered "Communist" regimes; not all "Communist" regimes may be considered "communist" (that is, just because someone claims to be or is labeled "Communist" doesn't mean that the person is actually following a "communist" ideology). By capitalizing the word, the title demonstrates that it refers to the proper noun rather than necessarily the ideology. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The use of the "capital letter" as an argument for deletion is weak especially when one reads the talk page discussions about it. I would note that the USSR was specifically "Socialist" in its title - yet, I trust, no one would assert that it does not belong in this article! Collect (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Communist parties claimed to follow communist ideology but claimed their countries were socialist - communism could only be achieved in the future. (The USSR was ruled by the CPSU.) Anyway since AmateurEditor now claims that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings (although not necessarily related to ideology) could you please briefly summarize in a neutral tone what that connection is (with sources) so that we can write a fair and balanced lead. If that is not possible, could you please vote to delete this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that where a party has "communist" in its name, that it makes the regime "Communist"? Seems that since this has absolutely nothing to do with the price of eggs (that is, deletion of the article) that your argument is weaker than the first pig's house <g>. AE's points stand. Collect (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You may find it helpful to follow the conversation. AmateurEditor said, "Wasn't the entire debate about whether to make the title "...Communist regimes" versus "...communist regimes" precisely to avoid presuming that communist ideology connected these events?" Do you wish to comment on AE's comments? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to read the conversation. The making of distinctions at to whether we should be big-endians or little-endians appears to be where some would seek to drive the conversation <g>. Noting also, the strange and outre (accent deliberately elided) nature of the thread. Collect (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations about how to write the lead in a neutral point o view without synthesis? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Any lede should as simply as possible set out the primary parts of the article so that a reader can easily figure out what is in the article. It thus is only a reflection of the material in the article. In point of fact, the current lead is quite neutral in tone (well - unless some changed it in the past few days) and as long as what is in the lede is then found in the article, the lede is proper. Did you feel the lede should take some sort of position about the content of the article? That would be quite a misuse of a lede in my experience. (I use "lede" because that is the tradutuonal newspaper term). Collect (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) The WP:Lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Do you have any recommendations about how to write the lead in order to conform to WP:Lead? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you again asking me about proposing language for a lead? This is not the section for that. And if you have been reading my comments, you know that I already said it would be pointless to write the lead now with bias and synthesis possibly existing in the body of the article. If you still believe the Cambodia section is evidence of this, engage in that discussion. If we now agree that having a Cambodia section is not evidence of bias or synthesis, please present what you believe to be the next example, so we can actually make progress here. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not asking you anything, but replying to Collect who had raised the issue of the lead. I raised Cambodia because there was nothing in the section connecting communist ideology and the mass killings. You then replied that communist ideology could not be presumed to cause the events, which is why the article says large-C Communist. I then asked you if we should exclude countries that were not governed by large-C Communists and you asked me why we should do that. You then said that small-c communists should be included. If you can not even decide what this article is about I would suggest that you vote for its deletion. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I see now that you were directing the lead comment to Collect. The outdent confused me. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my points. I'll try to break them down:

1) It would not be NPOV if the title presumed that communist ideology was the cause of the mass killings. Some sources do argue that, some do not. This article cannot take sides. That was the point of making the title "C" instead of "c": to maintain neutrality and not presume ideology as the real cause when multiple sources present multiple explanations. In addition to making the title more neutral, it also makes it more inclusive because "communist regimes" (like the workers parties) are a subset of "Communist regimes" (any regime referred to as communist, big "c" or small, by itself or others).

2) The section on Cambodia is there to be specifically about Cambodia. We have a separate section for "Causes" and we ought to use that for discussion of general causes. If anything, I would expect only explanations which apply exclusively to Cambodia to be in the Cambodia section, rather than explanations which are not exclusive to Cambodia. Maybe we should organize the article differently.

3) But lack of an ideological explanation for Cambodia in the Cambodia section does not mean that Cambodia must be deleted because this article must include any and all explanations from reliable sources, not just an ideological one. This means that explanations which argue all the mass killings were related can be written about in the article and it means that explanations which give each event a unique explanation unrelated to any other event can also be included here. That is crucial to maintaining NPOV. We cannot presume. Your criticism of the Cambodia section assumes that one all-encompassing ideological explanation is the only legitimate topic of the article and that assumption is wrong. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The title does presume that there is a connection. As you say the article cannot take sides but it should mention that some writers have made a connection while others have not (including who and why and how their work was received). You actually have the big-C small-c the wrong way around. I can provide numerous sources for that but capitalization implies a proper noun. "Proper nouns... are nouns representing unique entities..., as distinguished from common nouns which describe a class of entities.... So both Communist Parties and the Workers Party are "communist" but only "Communist Parties" are "Communist". My objection to the Cambodia section was that it does not contain any discussion of the alleged connection between ideology and killings. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The only connection the title presumes is that the mass killings all occurred under particular Communist regimes. I agree that the article should mention that some writers have made the connection with ideology and others have made other connections or individual explanations. If you have some source with information that you would like to add to the article, by all means feel free. These articles are always a work in progress. Doesn't the proper noun quote you supplied mean that "Mass killings under Communist regimes" refers to killings under more than one unique entities, and thus does not presume a connection with all communists everywhere or communist ideology? Isn't the set of all "Communist regimes" then the set of all unique entities? And wouldn't that set include the workers parties regimes? Maybe this is a non-issue: the list of communist parties article seems to make no distinction between "Communist parties" and "communist parties". We can always change the way the article is structured to include causes distributed throughout rather than in their own section, if necessary. I don't think it is necessary. So, getting back to the issue at hand: the Cambodia section is not an example of synthesis or bias. Agreed? AmateurEditor (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The article implicitly suggests that Communism (or "Communism") was some homogeneous movement that killed peoples. In actuality, Soviet propaganda condemned Pol Pot's crimes in almost similar words the Western propaganda did (the only difference was that the Soviet propaganda didn't use the word "Communist", that was almost justified, because even some western scholars see no direct connection between Communism and Pol Pot's crimes), and it was Communist Vientam (supported by the USSR) who stopped the mass killings there. Telling only a part of truth is a perfect example of bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Incompleteness is not bias. This is Wikipedia: articles are never complete. If you think the article is missing something, the best solution is to add it. If you think the Cambodian regime was not really Communist, then find a reliable secondary source to cite (and Stalinist propaganda is not that, although Stalin's propaganda position could be mentioned in an appropriate place). The fact is that the Cambodian regime was and is widely called "Communist" in reliable academic sources, so it is certainly appropriate to include it in an article on Mass killings under Communist regimes. The differences between the regimes needs to be addressed in this article, but it isn't bias or synthesis to have a section on Cambodia, considering that Cambodia is one of the three regimes most often mentioned. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any additional examples of synthesis or bias in the body of the article that they can present here? AmateurEditor (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious example is the usage of the File:Communist countries.PNG. The map depicts the countries that declared adherence to some Communist doctrine, not the countries where the mass killings took place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it would be inappropriate to have that map next to the lead, but it is currently in the "Terminology" section, where it helps to define what is meant by "Communist". It would be a problem if it was misleading labeled to imply that each state highlighted on the map engaged in mass killing of some kind, but it is correctly labeled at the moment. Are you uncomfortable with the map because you believe that it will cause people to jump to the wrong conclusion? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Since mass killings occurred not in not all countries on this map it does cause people to jump to the wrong conclusion (although, formally, the caption is correct). That is how WP:SYNTH is defined: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The map in Terminology section implies that mass killings occurred in all countries on the map, although unintentionally. And, frankly, I see no way to fix it; if we write in the legend that not all these states committed mass killings, the next question would be: "what is the purpose this map serves to"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the "imply" part, but not the "combine material from multiple sources" part. As far as the implication goes, the caption would appear to completely address that. We can't help it if someone does not read the caption. On the other hand, I sympathize here. Perhaps we could present the information differently. Maybe no map is needed, and text alone can explain just what is meant by "Communist regime". AmateurEditor (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The verbal explanation of what "Communist regime" means would be much more appropriate, especially if such an explanation is supplemented by the statement that, according to some scholars, majority of communist regimes committed no mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)