Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 21

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 15

←

Archive 19

→

Is this a Poisoned Work Environment?

A poisoned work environment refers to a workplace in which comments or behaviours create a hostile or offensive environment for individuals or groups and negatively affects communication and productivity. Does this apply here? Bobanni (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Very doubtful. Editing this page is action of one's own volition. What a strange question ..... BigK HeX (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who desires to edit controversial articles should at least expect to perceive some form of backlash. For example, that very question, Bobanni, could be perceived as very offensive by some. (Igny (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

No idea, but I would comment that participation may become progressively less that strictly voluntary for some editors. --FormerIP (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Do readers need to be told what this article does or does not suggest?

do wp articles actually suggest anything? imho, wp merely presents the facts that have been published and peer-reviewed. is there support for removing the guidance offered to readers warning them the article is not making suggestions? "This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist, though this is not to suggest communist ideology as a principal cause in these events (nor does this article discuss academic acceptance of theories about such causation)." Darkstar1st (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not create articles with a random collection of facts. TFD (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

correct, what is your point? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That if there is no connection between any of the events described in the article then it is a random collection of facts. TFD (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And there are issues of WP:WEIGHT, just listing every quote than can be found to support a particular position is not objective. In fact the whole section which suggests causes has no third party references to justify its structure or implications --Snowded ^TALK 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

connection: 1) mass killings. 2) by communist governments. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

but this section is not debating whether the article should exist, rather as long as it does exist, should readers be instructed as to what is, or is not suggested? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, how are these connected any more than say mass killings and capitalist governments? Of course if there is no connection the article should not exist. Are you proposing to delete the article? TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD there is no such thing as a capitalist government mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell that to Margaret Thatcher --Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did, she hit me with her handbag :) mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a very interesting observation, mark nutley. Is it a personal observation, or do you have a source for it? TFD (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass Killings under Capitalist Regimes mark nutley (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, maybe what is needed is a list of Government initiated mass killings which links to more substantial articles. --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We've tried that suggestion. Some have stated interest in implementing it, though success in finding a consensus to accept the end-result is uncertain (and ... IMO, unlikely). BigK HeX (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, mark nutley, but the fact an article about mass killings under capitalist regimes was deleted is not a evidence that capitalist regimes do not exists, only that that article does not exist. As I understand it the article was deleted because no connection could be found in reliable sources between capitalism and mass killings. Do you have a reliable source for your assertion that there are no capitalist governments, or is that merely your opinion? TFD (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the very reason you don't see "Mass Killing under capitalist regimes" is that Capitalism removes singular agency from mass killing and spreads culpability across the entire marketplace. So, when you see massive poverty in places where de Beers sticks their hands, or impoverished tribes slaughtering each other after corporations take control of their natural resources (and thus livelihood) there is no single person or entity to point to. Looking for a "Capitalist Regime" committing mass killings is likely pointless, because the deaths that occur as a result of Capitalism generally take place because of negligence or a lack of a regime to regulate and punish exploiters. It isn't a regime that points to a region and says "Deprive this land of all it's natural resources, give next to nothing to its inhabitants, employ them briefly in the mining operations and then leave them for dead once their economy is dependent on us and we've exhausted their usefulness", the market drives the behavior and so culpability is distributed.

It's like trying to point the finger at someone for air pollution. It's a deterritorialized medium and so the actions of many, many forces converge to create a problem. In short, there's no comparison between the deaths under Communist regimes and the deaths that occur as a result of Capitalism, because the two of them cause death in extremely different ways.

128.2.51.144 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, Snowded. Your comments echo concerns I had when I came across this article as an uninvolved editor in April. Back then I said that "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. Given your comments, it doesn't seem that much has substantially improved since then. BigK HeX (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD: how are these connected any more than say mass killings and capitalist governments? - Did anyone say they were? Do you have any specific issue with the article related to this, or is this just yet another disruptive tangent? And can you now please explain exactly what you find is wrong with section 3 per the discussion we had above? Do you have the sources you are referring to with Furet and Nolte? Can you maybe summarize their views as expressed in WP:RS as asked above? Can you please post here just what it is from Brinks and Wheatcroft that you want included in the article as you were asked earlier? Are you in fact ever gonna answer any constructive question at all? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, please avoid personal attacks. TFD (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no personal attacks in there at all. Only questions to you, which you as usual did not answer. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do readers need to be told what this article does or does not suggest? part 2

please restrict your comments in this section to the removal of the word "suggest" which i suggest is not the role of an article to suggest or not suggest anything. the reader is allowed to draw whatever conclusion they may. if you wish to discuss whether the article should be deleted, please do elsewhere. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment This article must clearly explain the connection that some scholars (e.g., Furet, Nolte, Courtois and Rummel) have made between Communism and mass killings. Sources that support or criticise their conclusions should be included; sources that ignore their conclusions should not. TFD (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

sources that ignore their conclusions should not. - Huh? What do you refer to here? I don't understand that comment. The rest I agree with.--OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No - The article should not "suggest" anything, and readers should not be told what it suggests. The scholars who thing there is a connection should be presented with their views, and the scholars who claim there is no connection should also be presented with their views. Roughly equal space should be given to each scholar. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure whether or not you are correct, Darkstar1st. Plenty of WP articles "suggest" things. I would agree that there is a general problem with this article that it appears to suggest connections between events where some editors dispute that it is valid to present such connections. The wording in the lead does not seem to me to be ideal, but it is obviously part of an awkward compromise in a difficult article.

To put it another way, I think the comment by TFD explains the more fundamental problem with the article as it stands. If that were addressed then the issue would evaporate.

BTW by removing the word "suggest", we would be left with an ungrammatical sentence, so perhaps you should suggest alternative wording. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some editors dispute that it is valid to display such connections. And plenty of WP:RS say it is. That's what WP:V is for. Should we follow it or not? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct to say that the editors who disagree with you about this article are ignoring policy. I find it unlikely that any RS would directly tell us what it is valid to include in a WP article (as opposed to simply containing facts which you would like to see presented in one way and other editors would like to see presented differently). --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP, i have made an edit which was reverted, and was accompanied by a warning on my talk about revert warning even though it was the only edit i have made here in a week. The sentence should be shortened, if even included at all as it appears to be redundant given the article name. "This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist". Darkstar1st (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do readers need to be told here? Short answer: Yes. The entire purpose of the lead is to inform readers as to the purpose of the article. Here, the problem arises because -- quite obviously -- numerous uninvolved editors have taken a look at the article and have noted on these talk pages that it strongly suggests certain ideas. Moreover, even one of the editors who believes the assertions being suggested still has, nonetheless, stated that the article does not endeavor to make such suggestions. So, the real question is: if laymen readers are apt to take away from the article an understanding which neither "camp" here endeavors to create, then how does it hurt to be explicit? BigK HeX (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. There is no problem with being explicit, but "suggesting", that *is* a problem. The article should not suggest anything. However, many scholars to *claim* explicitly, that there is a connection between communist ideology and the mass killings. The lead may very well mention that. This article is limited to deaths under regimes labeled as Communist. Some scholars claim that communist ideology is a principal cause in these events. That would be explicit. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about sourcing in the article

OpenFuture, I agree that the scholars who think there is a connection should be presented with their views, and also their detractors. What I have trouble with is including the views of writers who neither make nor deny a connection. TFD (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly do we require people who make a connection, if the article is about mass killings under communism then we just require sources which state that mark nutley (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IOW sources that make a connection. TFD (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What I have trouble with is including the views of writers who neither make nor deny a connection. - Why? When mentioning a particular event, should we not be able to use a scholar unless he make a connection between the type of regime and the event? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would say that would be appropriate. Content in this article about the Holdomor, for example, should be about the Holdomor as it is viewed by proponents of the "caused by the ideology of Communism" thesis and their detractors. Sources that merely note that the Soviet Union was communist at the time don't add to quality of the article.

(Of course there will be exceptions where sources are used for simple facts such as dates etc). --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously, if the source is used for other things than "simple facts", iow, if the text discusses the connection, then the source must discuss the connection. And otherwise it doesn't have to. But that's just saying that the source should support what it is used to source. WP:V, iow. The question is why TFD wants also simple facts sources to discuss the connection (if that is indeed what he wants). --OpenFuture (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but I'm not sure that this is what he wants. I think the distinction to be made is between "simple facts" and "information not relevant to the article". --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Information not relevant to the article should not be in the article, so that comment did not clarify anything for me. Quite the opposite, in fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not our role as editors to promote or detract from the subject by introducing additional sources, which would be original research. I cannot imagine why we would need to look to addional sources. If an event is not mentioned by Courtois, Rummel, etc. then it is not relevant. If we require sources that show their estimates were over-stated then we use sources that claim exactly that. We do not look for sources that provide lower estimates and add them. TFD (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this makes absolutely no sense to me. How is it original research to source statements? ia gree that having neutral sources may not be *needed* but that's a very different statement from saying they should not be *allowed*. I think the problem with comments is that you are talking about things from a principal perspective with a lot of assumptions you don't make clear (I would assume I do that mistake to a lot). Please be concrete instead. Is there some special source you are thinking about? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section "Great purge (Yezhovshchina)", for example, there do not appear to be any sources linking this to the Rummel-type thesis (if I'm wrong, correct me and I'll look for another example). So, as things stand, I can't see why this section is in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should it be linked to a Rummel-type thesis? This article is not about a Rummel-type thesis. It's about mass killings under communist regimes. Does the source state that it is a mass killing under a communist regime? Then it's OK. It might be decided that it's not notable enough of a mass killing to be included here but that's quote a different issue, that the source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the consensus/uneasy compromise that this article is allowed to exist because there is a thesis genuinely held by a number of writers that ther is a causal link between Communist ideology and murder. Without that, it seems to be agreed, the article would be a COATRACK or something similar and would be suitable for deletion. It would make sense, then, that the article should focus around this thesis. So material not linked to the thesis does not belong in the article, I would say. --FormerIP (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With a rename and by making it clear that it is a thesis held by a number of writers, but not a universal truth, that could make sense. --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m not getting it, again why exactly is a thesis required for an article about mass killings under communist regimes? It is not a theory that it happened, it is a fact right? I think you guys are looking for the wrong thing. Ask yourselves, what is this article about, then ask yourselves, why is a thesis required to list these atrocity's? No theory is required, just reliable sources saying X government calling themselves communist killed X amount of people via direct or indirect means. Why is that so difficult? mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the deletion discussion, it's notability seems to rest on the fact that there are sources linking Communist ideology to murder. Without that, the article would only be as valid as the Mass Killings Under Capitalism article that was deleted. It is not a threory that the events in question happened, but it is a theory that they can be approporately grouped as a phenomenon. --FormerIP (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that`s not required either, above myself and snowed were discussing came to agree that communist governments commit mass killings imposing the ideology, which we have sources for. Their economic policy's lead to famine`s (collective farms), their removal of state enemys (anyone who questions the ideology) lead to the gulags, we have sources for that. Surly that covers all the bases here? mark nutley (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about whether those things are true or false though (do I need to remind you about OR?), it's about what information falls within the remit of the article and is most helpful to the reader. The purpose of the article is not simply to collect information about historical events that happened under a particular socio-economic system (if this were appropriate, then the Killings Under Capitalism article would have survived), it is to reflect the scholarly stance taken by reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) So we have plenty of sources which discuss it, what i mean is do said sources need to actually be saying these deaths were caused by the ideology? Or due to it? We have sources which say this as well of course but why the need for a theory? I`ll knock something up in my userspace over the next few days and present it here for evaluation mark nutley (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's it. I think the article ought to be generally limited (but with common sense exceptions) to material sourced from RSs which speak to the connection between the ideology and the crimes and tragedies in question. So a lot of detail about the unfolding of specific events about which the sources do not directly talk is unnecessary. --FormerIP (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That would make the article into "Mass killings caused by communist ideology" and would necessitate a rename to not be a coatrack. Although I personally do not mind, I think most people here who has fought against this article would explode. Feel free to try. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP: I don't get it, why would an article on Mass killings under communist regimes be a coatrack if it talks about mass killings under communist regimes, but not the ideological involvment? A coat-rack is when the title says one thing and the content is something else. So if the article is about mass killings under communist regimes, that's what it should be called, and that would not be coatracking at all. Per the deletion discussion, it's notability seems to rest on the fact that there are sources linking Communist ideology to murder. - That's not what I got out of it at all. Notability rests on the fact that there are sources linking communist regimes to the mass killings. Which is not coatrack. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you could create two coatracks: A list of quotes from authors who think that communism necessarily leads to violence and another list of atrocities. In effect that is what the article is about. A rename to "Theories that communism leads to mass killings" would at least be an honest title --Snowded ^TALK 14:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Straw arguments do not work at XfD nor in article talk pages. Collect (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well you could create two coatracks - Yes you could. But I don't see why. Wouldn't it be better to not have a coatrack at all? --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture: Let's pause a moment. You are saying you do not mind this idea, and Mark appears to be willing to give the idea serious consideration. You say that deletionists would "explode", but Snowded's comments seem to indicate that he is also open to the idea. Plus I !voted delete in the last AfD, and now here I am suggesting that the article could be kept. So that's a sample of two editors from each "side" here and some sort of agreement that there might be something worth talking about. It's tentative, I would agree, and there may well be snags in the detail which mean compromise is not achievable. But what say we open a section and see what comes of it? Even though you have said you are open to the idea, you're still arguing with bits and pieces of what I said that you don't agree with. Not criticising you for this, but isn't there a danger that this talkpage will never get anywhere because arguing has become too much of a habit? Wouldn't it be good to have a discussion to try to establish points of agreement, rather than highlight disagreements about WP:COATRACK or whatever, which are not the main issue in any case? --FormerIP (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

what did we decide about whether readers need to be told what the article does or does not suggest? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look as if we have reached a clear conclusion, but my view is that the issue is connected to other things (I think this part of the lead is not good, but I can understand the history of how it came to be there) and there is little chance in reaching agreement about it without looking at some of the other issues at the same time. I've put a section break above to split off the runaway discussion. I think the fact that what you raised is connected to other things is demonstrated by the way the discussion veered off at a tangent.--FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm what FormerIP is suggesting. It is clear there is a body of theory (lets ignore the source for the moment) which suggests that communism leads to mass killing. An article about that theory is a valid article as long as it doesn't claim to be truth per se, but reporting that theory. --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Think it would be good to have as few red lines (pardon the expression) as possible, but if you're saying we should follow what the sources say and strive for NPOV (AFAICT that's what this amounts to), then that goes without saying. --FormerIP (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But what say we open a section and see what comes of it? - Section? I think we aren't really on the same track on what was suggested here... :-) What I talked about was your suggestion to delete everything that isn't directly related to an author claiming that ideology was behind the mass killings, and then (as I pointed out would be necessary) rename it to "Mass killings caused by communism". No new section was involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds promising, OpenFuture, but you've confused me a little bit. Are you saying you do think there is a worthwhile discussion to be had but no need for a new section? Unless it turns out that there is insufficient interest, I am thinking of trying to formulate a proposal (in terms of what it is we are talking about, rather than content) which editors can critique. A new section would seem appropriate. Do I have your go-ahead or do you not think it is worth it? --FormerIP (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where any sections comes into it. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being intentionally cryptic, but I don't know what you mean, OpenFuture. --FormerIP (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about two different proposals at one time. One involving creating a section, the other not. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I am not talking about creating any section in the article, but about creating a section on the talk-page below to express more clearly exactly what I mean and see if other editors approve of it. I was asking you if you think this would be worthwhile. As an active editor on the page, your view would be an indication of whether I would be wasting my time or not. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, by all means, go ahead. As mentioned, I don't think it's worthwhile, because I think that having an article called "Mass killings caused by communism" is never gonna be accepted, as the title is so obviously provocative and will fall to POV concerns. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have to say that I have no strong opinion either way about whether the page should be renamed (I think this was Snowded's suggestion - it may or may not be a good one, I don't know). My proposal is more that the article should be refocussed (not necessarily radically) and follow more of a logical thread centering on the sources that have been discussed so much. This might involve some give and take, inlcuding a fair amount of give on the part of deletionists, but I reckon it could end with something that gets more "bipartisan" support. I'll start a new section sometime soon, but I don't see the point if certain editors already know they will not want to engage with it, so let me know if this describes you and I'll not bother. --FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the reason they are discussed so much is that the "deletionists" want to get these sources removed, and therefore come up with all sorts of weird interpretations of policy, or simply just claim that they are fringe with no support for that. So refocusing it to focus *more* on these articles seem unlikely to be accepted. But you are welcome to try. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You must be more specific. For example, do you intend to enumerate all people who died when a Communist government happened to be in power? TFD (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm putting the idea of launching a proposal on hold pending the discussion of the Swedish source below. I'll see where we stand after that. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Going no where

I've come across articles with editors taking fixed positions before but this one is one of the worst. Any attempt to make progress is just subject to assertions and homilies. How about we take it to mediation? --Snowded ^TALK 21:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tried that, one of the guys refused it :) I think you and i may make progress, and perhaps the others will tag along, you never know till you try :) mark nutley (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My position here is very fixed: We should follow Wikipedia policies. I actually don't think I'm likely to change my opinion on that anytime soon. If I come off as brusque, it's because the other camp simply refuse to get the point, and this is getting tiring and taking a lot of time I don't really have. We aren't going to go forward as long as people aren't willing to listen *on both sides*. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence and you last sentence contradict each other don't they? Also your interpretation of Wikipedia policies (list everything however long) is dubious to say the least. Hence the need for some third party involvement --Snowded ^TALK 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I could be funny and say something sarcastic as "Think you for confirming that you are trying to violate Wikipedia policy", but I won't. :-) Opps I did, but I didn't mean it, because clearly that's not what you are trying to say (even if that is the consequence of what you are saying). To be serious:

No, they don't contradict each other. I *am* listening to you, and TFD, and BigK Hex and everyone else here. However, I have one fixed point on which I'm not budging: We are NOT going to violate Wikipedia policy.

Also your interpretation of Wikipedia policies (list everything however long) is dubious to say the least. - Then we can discuss that, but funnily enough, no-one ever does. They just claim I'm wrong, but never explain why. You are welcome to explain what you find dubious. If we can't agree on something, there are forums to solve such disputes. But somehow, only me seems to be interested in that (for example when it was repeatedly claimed that Rummel was not RS, I took that to RS/N, learned a lot about that process, and in the end it was clearly shown that Rummel was a reliable source, and the claim went away. As all other *concrete* claims of problems with this article tend to do. Which is why there are so few concrete claims, just a lot of waffle and tangents and irrelevant stuff.

I do agree that mediation is a good idea. One editor opposed this, but he also seems to have stopped both editing and discussing so maybe we can ignore him now. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You know OpenFuture, I think you are one of those editors for whom RfC was invented. --Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Try making comments which actually can move the article forward. This is neither the time nor place to make coments about editors. Collect (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but given the various statements above I doubt the article can move forward and saying that a RfC may be needed is valid. Editors who say things like "My position here is very fixed" in response to a suggest for mediation invite such a response. I do think that there is a genuine behaviour issue here, and I note that OpenFuture is familiar with the RfC process --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So you think that an RfC should be opened against me, because I refuse to break Wikipedia policy? Well, go ahead. Make my day. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think your editing style is aggressive, non collegial and that you claims to have WIkipedia policy behind you are dubious. However attempts to engage you in any argument just result in a flat refusal on your part to countenance any opinion other than your own. Without any change to that style progress will be difficult or impossible and raising the behaviour for wider comments form the community as a whole may be the only way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 14:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again read WP:NPA. This discussion is quite out of bounds at this point. Collect (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture has already set up an RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson, although it has not been certified. You are welcome to post any comments there. Although the RfC was set up about another editor, the conduct of all involved editors may be examined. TFD (talk)

Snowded, I think the main problem here is that you didn't read what I wrote very closely. I pointed out that I want Wikipedia policy to be followed, and I'm not budging on that. All you read is that "I'm not budging" and then you didn't read the rest. The rest of this absurd discussion seems to come out of that. If you find any problems in my behavior, please go the normal route of dispute resolution. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you will not budge from your interpretation of WIkipedia policy, although that is being challenged by various editors, not just here but on other articles. I am busy at the moment so can only contribute from time to time, but lets see what happens on the other RfC and also on your willingness to respond to the various questions which are currently being asked. --Snowded ^TALK 06:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Constructive discussion on NPOV

I appreciate BigK Hex's effort of making a constructive discussion. However, he misunderstands the admittedly complex Wikipedia policy and conflates several separate issues. I'll therefore try to set things straight.

What should be included? Answer: All majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources[1] should be included and represented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias[2].
What is a reliable, published source? Answer: Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both. It's worth noting here that there is no requirement for peer-review. There is no requirement that it's published by a university. There is only the requirement that it's a reliable publication process *or* an authority in relation to the subject. It may also not be self-published, and that then excludes blogs etc.
How to we represent them? Answer: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves and give them due weight.
How do we give due weight? Answer: By representing the viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

The focus here is the viewpoints. Not the people. Not the sources. The viewpoints. Sources are used to support the viewpoints, and the source need only to be discussed when it concerns the reliability of sources. The reliability of the sources used has been discussed earlier, and is no longer in general question. That the viewpoints expressed in this article is in no way fringe has also been beaten to death here, and that is also no longer in question (except by TFD, which still claims everyone except him is fringe, which can be safely regarded as a fringe view).

The question therefore is the relative prominence of the viewpoints themselves. If we really want to discuss that, the first thing we need to do is agree on how you show the relative prominence of a viewpoint in this context. Then we need to decide which viewpoints there are. Then we can establish the prominence and give the viewpoints their due weight. Note that during this process no source or viewpoint is likely to be eliminated, since we have already established that none of the viewpoints are fringe and they are all supported by reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've conflated nothing, but your insistence on not giving consideration to policy that has been clearly explained to you may have allowed you to convince yourself that something is being conflated. Perhaps I should emphasize the "significant" part in:

What should be included? Answer: All majority and significant minority views...

You can continue to ignore that there are many minority viewpoints that the WP:NPOV policy disqualifies from inclusion in Wikipedia (as quite clearly explained in one instance by even a quote from Jimbo) -- views that have no support as being SIGNIFICANT are not worthy of inclusion. Ignoring a rather clear and important part of policy doesn't make it go away though. Doing so would not be productive. BigK HeX (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already noted that fringe shouldn't be included, and that none of the viewpoints in the article is fringe, so I didn't ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "none of the viewpoints in the article is fringe". You presented evidence for that? BigK HeX (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How to establish the relative prominence of viewpoints

Please discuss here. I'll give the opening words to those who claim that the article is NPOV, as it is they who need to be convinced, so they need to say how we should convince them. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the two viewpoints to which you refer? TFD (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misspelling. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For the significant viewpoints, I have no strong quibble with the present weight. The current text may be in need of a bit of tweaking, but I see far too many other more-critical issues. So, my answer is that I don't need to be convinced for this issue yet. I may resurrect this issue at some time in the future, when we're down to hashing over the lesser details such as this. (I'll repeat, my comment here refers to weighting of significant viewpoints.) BigK HeX (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so then we can leave the NPOV issue alone at the moment and move on. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Unfortunately, we cannot "leave the NPOV issue alone". Part of the NPOV issue is described above, where there is a challenge for supporting editors to provide evidence that some of the questioned viewpoints meet the level of being "significant." BigK HeX (talk) 07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, this had already been dealt with, but apparently you want to drag it around again. Why didn't you do so in your section above? You went directly on undue weight and prominence, not significance and fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We find a reliable source that explains the relative prominence of different viewpoints. TFD (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to the place in Wikipedia policy that requires tertiary sources to establish relative prominence? And what do we do if there are none? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec):Ditto, its one of the difficulties I am having with this whole article, we have a group of books and articles, several from fringe groups or groups with an agenda, and some from reputable academics, in different media. We have no evidence that this is a general field of study, no third party sources which discuss the relative weight or quality of the material. The idea that wikipedia policy says that you list everything regardless is clearly wrong--Snowded ^TALK 06:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We have no evidence that this is a general field of study - That's a pretty bold statement, considering the wealth of academic sources on the issue. Can you explain this claim?

no third party sources which discuss the relative weight or quality of the material. - True.

The idea that wikipedia policy says that you list everything regardless is clearly wrong - Why? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not bold, in general as far as I can see from the literature the idea that communism causes mass killings (as opposed to being one ideology amongst many) does not have any significant credence outside of a narrow range of publications. I'm still waiting for the sort of text that you find in history generally which describes a field as a whole. As to your final point, its being explained to you many times. --Snowded ^TALK 07:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have tertiary sources that it's a narrow field of study? This article has 172 quotes. Some books are used multiple times, but feel free to figure out how many sources there are if you like. Doesn't sound narrow to me.

the idea that communism causes mass killings - Is not what this article is about. It's about Mass killings under communist regimes. Are you saying that only section 3.1 is NPOV? Then can you remove the NPOV tag from this article please, and stick one under the 3.1 heading instead.

As to your final point, its being explained to you many times. - Not it hasn't. Saying "you don't understand policy" is not an explanation. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I have sources to prove its not significant? Sorry I don't have a reliable source to say that the moon is made of green cheese. --Snowded ^TALK 07:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So you admit your statement is completely unfounded. Good. I still did not get an explanation, so I assume it was just your opinion, and not based in actual policy. I look forward to you moving the POV tag from the article to the section. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether you genuinely don't understand the point or you are trying to avoid the issue. Assuming the former let me elaborate. If a theory has some validity I would expect to find evidence of it in tertiary sources. I don't and you have failed to provide any. By asking for proof of the negative you are asking me to prove that there are sources which say the moon is not made of green cheese.--Snowded ^TALK 08:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I do genuinely not understand the point. What *you* expect is completely irrelevant, what Wikipedia policy expects *is* relevant. Please explain where Wikipedia policy demands tertiary sources for notability of a topic (which you now have switched the topic too, for some reason. I didn't know the notability of the article was an issue).

I'll accept your word that you genuinely don't get the point although I am surprised. I've done my best to explain it. Lets try another way - Can you show me any reliable source which summarises the various theories as to cause in the case of mass killings (ideally under Communist Regimes), i.e. is there any reliable third party material that allows to say objectively what those theories are, their weight and their acceptance in the academic community? --Snowded ^TALK 09:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How is that a point? As far as I can see your point is that *you* want a tertiary source. My point is that relevant here is only what Wikipedia policy wants, not what you wants. Do you understand my point? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a question and the answer can be satisfied by a secondary or a tertiary source. Can you answer it? --Snowded ^TALK 09:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I don't understand your point is without a doubt your continued refusal to state what your point is. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't refused, you just don't understand it, that may well be down to my powers of explanation or it may not. Do I gather that you either can't or won't answer the question? Its a simple request so it doesn't require understanding or interpretation--Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I think its fairly clear and I've explained the point several times. Given that there is a failure to communicate I am trying a different tack which is to ask you a very straightforward question. If you can answer that then we might be able to make progress --Snowded ^TALK 09:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can stop explaining it and just *say* it? Because I have no idea what your point is. Your question seems to me to be both irrelevant and convoluted, unless you are, like TFD, trying to say that you require a tertiary/summarizing source. Which again prompts me to ask where in Wikipedia policy you find that. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to answer my last point twice... So: The answer to your question is "yes, probably". Now can you please state your point? --OpenFuture (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Then do it, if so the point I am trying to make that you don't understand can be resolved by working through the source. --Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Points do not need to be resolved. I can't understand your point because you refuse to state what your point is. If you continue to refuse to state your point, I am forced to assume that all of this discussion thread has been nothing but disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make any assumption you want. As far as I am concerned the jury is out on why you have chosen not to respond to the question and why you claim not to understand. --Snowded ^TALK 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Understand what? I can't understand your point when you refuse to state it. You say I don't understand it. OK, what then is it I don't understand? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see that you have yet to remove the POV tag from the article and add one to section 3.1. Why not? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the tag currently and accurately states that there are multiple issues with the article --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently one of those issues is *not* NPOV. So therefore we can remove it. Possibly there is an NPOV issue with section 3, so we can add the tag there, and we'll come to that issue later. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about tertiary sources, and I avoid them entirely. If you cannot find a source establishing the relative prominence of a theory then it has none. TFD (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You said We find a reliable source that explains the relative prominence of different viewpoints. That's a tertiary source. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Of course there are different meanings for the term, but that is the one used here. I always avoid them altogether. TFD (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the value of secondary sources, but you would also expect tertiary sources to exist if the field is significant and I haven't seen any. --Snowded ^TALK 07:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I have a source for the statement that a field is not "significant" if it does not have tertiary sources? The effect of what you are saying here is that no article should exist unless there are tertiary sources covering it. This is pretty obviously not normal Wikipedia policy. WP:NOTABILITY has nothing on this. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If this was just a list of mass killings without any attribution of cause then it would not be an issue. Given that causes are attributed then there needs to be a reliable source that allows us to understand (and represent) the various hypotheses with due weight. You approach appears to be to flood the article with references that talk about individual theories without any third party assessment for balance/weight etc. --Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that causes are attributed - Only in section 3. This concerns the NPOV tag for the article as a whole. You obviously agree that only section 3 (or possibly even 3.1 from what you said above) is NPOV. Why do you not then move the tag? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, TFD, that's the usage of the term here. Do you have any support for your requirement of tertiary sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy does support the use of tertiary sources, especially here. BigK HeX (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But is does not *require* it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, we have a failure to communicate. I said, "I always avoid [tertiary sources] altogether". TFD (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you then require them from others? You said "We find a reliable source that explains the relative prominence of different viewpoints". That *is* a tertiary source, which I noted above. Stop avoiding the subject. Explain where in Wikipedia policy the requirement of a tertiary source to show relative prominence exists. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, Wikipedia policy defines a tertiary sources as "compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources". I never recommended using these sources and in fact said, "I always avoid [tertiary sources] altogether". TFD (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We find a reliable source that explains the relative prominence of different viewpoints - That's a summarizing source. You required a tertiary source. If you now say that a tertiary source is not needed, then your suggestion on how to show the relative prominence is invalid. You can not both require a tertiary source and say that we shouldn't use them. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not. Please see WP:TERTIARY: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources." TFD (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And sources which summarize the positions of secondary sources are, indeed, tertiary with regard to findings of fact (that is, sourcing a claim made in the secondary sources, for which the secondary sources are RS). They are secondary sources with regard to weighing the prevalence of opinions held by groups of researchers. This is the result of reading far too many RSN discussions about such. I trust this is quite clear? "Encyclopedias" generally make statements of fact - and for such, the secondary sources are "best evidence." If an article in a "tertiary" source states (for example) "2/3 of the researcher papers from University of Woebegon agreed that global warming is caused by evaporation of petroleum distillates" then that claim, appearing in only a "tertiary source" can be used as it is then a "secondary source" for that fact. The aim of the RS policy is to get the source which is the first level to make a claim, and which does not violate WP policies about certain (not all) primary sources. Most especially the WP ban on official documents. Collect (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And hence, TFD, you require tertiary sources. Call them what you want, you still need to show that Wikipedia policy requires this. If you can't do that, you can't require it, and that means your suggestion on how to show prominence can not be used. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That is an original interpretation of Wikipedia policy. By that logic any source that cited any source that was not itself a primary source would be a tertiary source. The intro to the Black Book would be tertiary because it discusses the articles in the book. But those articles themselves would be tertiary because they refer to earlier studies, which would also be tertiary because they themselves refer to previous studies etc. I suggest both of you read the WP:RS policy. Claiming that peer-reviewed journal articles and books published by academic publishers, which is what I recommend using, are tertiary sources is clearly wrong. TFD (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's an "original" interpretation of what tertiary source means. It's also complete and utter nonsense. I'm sorry I provided you with this excuse of refusing to supply what was asked of you: The Wikipedia policy on which you base your requirement. It doesn't matter what word you use, tertiary or not, explain why you want "a reliable source that explains the relative prominence of different viewpoints", especially since you yourself earlier claimed that there is none, so in your opinion, you suggest we do something that in your opinion can't be done. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

IOW if a reliable source explains the relative prominence of different views we should ignore it because.... I am sorry but this is not productive. TFD (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that it's not productive, since what you said above bears absolutely no resemblance to what I said at all. It's pretty much the exact opposite in fact. If a reliable source explains the relative prominence of different views we should *use it*. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could all participant`s read this as a nice tertiary source [3] mark nutley (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it an hour or so ago and reading it. I think it could be what we are looking for as it identifies the main theories, their criticism and progression. It would allow us to replace the whole of that series of quotations with something more objective and with a better narrative. It would be nice if there were others as its a Scandinavian take (but that is more objective than most anyway) --Snowded ^TALK 11:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to look up the word, but I believe that is a quaternary source. Looks promising, but I'll leave the initial investigation to Snowded. --FormerIP (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read this yet, but it should be immediately clear that the idea that our article is a "coatrack" or the synthesis of of its editors is totally destroyed by this publication. Also the idea that there is no connection between Communist ideology and the mass killings (or that there is no widespread acceptance that there is a connection), is totally destroyed. I quote:

"Ideologies are systems of ideas, which cannot commit crimes independently. However, individuals, collectives and states that have defined themselves as communist have committed crimes in the name of communist ideology, or without naming communism as the direct source of motivation for their crimes. Thus, the communist ideology is not an actor that can perpetrate crimes against humanity. However, it can legitimize and has de facto legitimized the perpetration of crimes by placing these crimes in the context of a viewpoint that has rendered them understandable, acceptable and even necessary and good for large groups of the population. Even for later generations who have sought to defend or mitigate the judgement of past crimes, the communist ideology has functioned as a tool for modification of criminal history. Adherents to the ideology have used it as a source of ideas that dress historical events as ‘objectively’ regulated by law, which means that ‘victims’ along the way towards the ideal communist society can be viewed as both necessary and legitimate."

So we can rule out the idea that the Communist ideology itself murdered tens of millions (what a strawman that was!), but reasonably adress the idea that there is a connection between the ideology and the mass killings. Smallbones (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "that there is no widespread acceptance that there is a connection...is totally destroyed"

Welp .... if you think there's anything in that quote to actually "totally destroy" the objection, then your logic is pretty questionable. I am anxiously awaiting to see how you believe one [the quote] logically leads to the other [your conclusion of "totally destroyed"]. BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Its an interesting and useful article. What it establishes is that there around three theories relating to the reasons for atrocities. The idea that it is inherently linked to communism is squarely placed in the context of cold war conflict. It also clearly established that ideology can legitimize such crimes (the quote above), communism as an ideology has thus had that function. What it allows us to do is to write a balanced summary of the material to replace the strings of quotations etc. on the different theories. It does raise the question of title name, and the coat rack aspects remain. No rush on this one but it gives us a way forward based on a third party source, assuming that people do not want to use the article to perpetuate a particular political perspective. --Snowded ^TALK 17:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

The conclusion to be drawn from the quote mark nutley has kindly offered is that theories in writings that draw a connection, such as the introduction to the Black Book and Death by Government, fall outside academic theories and are fringe. TFD (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are not the only theories that draw a connection, as I'm sure you know. I'm not sure what quote you refer to. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What quote? I have not provided any quote? mark nutley (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to he PDF i see nothing in there saying the black book is fringe, nor death by government mark nutley (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The article lists three theories that exist in the literature: totalitarian, revisionist and post-revisionist. Any theory outside that is fringe. (See: WP:FRINGE.) I have no source that the claim that the Communists were secret aliens preparing the world for extraterrestial inhabitation was fringe either. But would you argue that means it is not fringe? TFD (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A much better example than my green cheese one. That one sounds rather like a 1012 conspiracy! --Snowded ^TALK 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus that`s funny, so we have one document which discusses theory`s and anything not discussed in this one document is fringe, pull the other one it is having bells on it. And the BBOF is mentioned in that pdf btw, and not in a bad way mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And rummel says it`s ideology right? However, individuals, collectives and states that have defined themselves as communist have committed crimes in the name of communist ideology page 6 There are three different paradigms to speak of, if we understand this term as reasonably well-defined and coherent interpretations of the origins and driving forces, key figures and structural conditions of the Soviet communist criminal history, linked to various theoretical and – particularly in the case of a ‘sensitive’ subject such as this one – basic ideological perspectives page 112 tell me again how this does not support ideology as a factor? mark nutley (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Any theory outside that is fringe. - There is nothing in the book to support that claim. You can draw the conclusion that these three theories are the mainstream, absolutely, but nothing else. I think your love of "fringe" means that you think that everything that is not the majority view is fringe. That is not correct. Then it has the problem that it describes a historical development rather than the current state, but I guess that's better than nothing. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether fringe or not, we now finally have a RS that looks at the field as a whole. It identifies three main types of theory and we can use that in the summary. They are as you say established a mainstream. The article also has some commentary on what is or is not a minority view and the degree to which those theories are time or context linked. If material other than that is to be included, then we need a similar source to justify it. --Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The authors claim that there are three schools of analysis of the topic. If they are wrong you should find a source that contradicts them. Notice that by applying the laws of deduction, we may conclude no more than one of these schools can be "the majority view", and since I say we should discuss all three, it does not mean I consider everything outside the majority to be fringe. However theories that receive no recognition in academic writing are by definition fringe. (See WP:FRINGE.) TFD (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. Note that the source in question is not the only academic writing in existence, so again your claim that any theory that is not mentioned in this source must be fringe, doesn't hold up, because those theories may have received recognition in other academic writing. This is the only summarizing source found for this topic, and hence the only one that can be used to determine due weight. But that's all it can determine. It can not determine if something is fringe. It's clear that the theories mentioned are not fringe, but that does not mean that all other theories are fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Without another equivalent source then the various items are either examples of those three schools (several of the quotes fall into that category) or they are non-mainstream. If you want to argue that is not the same thing as fringe then I think its a push, but the net effect is the same. The good news is that we have something objective to work from. The most obvious solution is to rewrite the whole section on cause as a summary of this paper with some illustrations. The argument for the long list, if it ever had value is now lost. --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Would someone please tell me were exactly in the pdf it say`s there are only three schools of thought on this matter please? mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The table on page 47 is not a bad place to start, or the summary. But you may be posing the question in the wrong way. The paper identifies three schools of thought. If you want to argue that there are more then you need to find an equivalent source. --Snowded ^TALK 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, it appears TFD has made an error in his evaluation, this paper is looking at new trends in research, that is what is being analysed here, this document does not discount older research at all, and most certainly does not make it fringe, given it actually discusses those also mark nutley (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that one at least of the theories covers the cold war period I don't think you can say it only covers modern material. --Snowded ^TALK 22:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I`m just saying what the source says, and that is what it says. But like i said it also discusses ideology as a factor, i just do not think declaring stuff as fringe based on this one document is the right thing to do. mark nutley (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Then find another source that lists another group of paradigms. Unless you do, we have to go with this one. TFD (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. mark nutley (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A sensible reply. Because you will find that fringe theories are usually ignored in mainstream sources and debunked if mentioned at all. TFD (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And again we have to do this the hard way, ok what is rummel`s theory and why do you think this document makes it fringe? mark nutley (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not advocating the insertion of Rummel's theory it does not matter what it is. If you cannot find any reliable sources that discuss it then that is what fringe means. TFD (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But we have plenty or reliable sources for it, so that`s a non starter. So tell me, what makes you think it is fringe based on the pdf? mark nutley (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the pdf outlines the theories accepted in academia and omits the ones you keep bringing up. So they are fringe. One possibility of course is that academics do not know what they are talking about, which is why ISI was set up. But until the revolution, we have to go with the mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You`ve not read it have you :) Rummel`s theory`s (he has a few) i need to know whic hone you think is fringe. If you don`t tell me then you can`t say he`s fringe. And a source for his work is right here [4] No mention of fringe in there at all mark nutley (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found another source that lists another group of paradigms as TFD asked, i`ll post it once i get JSTOR access mark nutley (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(out) Yes, I have read the intro, the afterward and the Soviet section and Rummel is mentioned several times. It says, his "figures are based on an ideological preunderstanding and speculative and sweeping calculations". However in the China section, it says, "It could, quite rightly, be claimed that the opinions that Rummel presents here (they are hardly an example of a serious and empirically-based writing of history) do not deserve to be mentioned in a research review, but they are still perhaps worth bringing up on the basis of the interest in him in the blogosphere". So to that extent he could be mentioned in this article. TFD (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know, but then again two academic guys disagreeing does not a fringe argument make. There are enough sources to show rummel is not fringe. And i really wish you would give a reply, which theory of his are you saying is fringe? mark nutley (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, I do not know what you mean. According to the source, Rummel's theories are popular only in the blogosphere. If there are any theories of his that make sense and are respected then please provide sources. TFD (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It says nothing of the sort. What it does is that it mentions that Rummel says *on his blog* that Maos mass starvation was intentional. Now, what he says on his blog is not exactly something peer-reviewd, and hence it doesn't really belong in a scientific paper, and that's what they point out. But they say they mention it anyway, because he has garnered a lot of interest in the Blogosphere. So, in Wikipedia terms, his blog is not a reliable source, but popular enough to still be notable.

In no way shape or form whatsoever do they claim that Rummel's theories are popular only in the blogosphere. So in fact you claim pretty much exactly the opposite of what it says. Did you read that section at all, or only skim in and draw the incorrect conclusion because a couple of keywords like "Rummel" popped up? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As I just said to mark nutley "I have read the intro, the afterward and the Soviet section". But you seem to be changing your approach to scholarship. Before you said that Rummel was a reliable source and that we could use everything he wrote. Now you say, "Now, what he says on his blog is not exactly something peer-reviewd, and hence it doesn't really belong in a scientific paper". Do you now accept that it is only his peer-reviewed writings that are reliable sources and that his polemical writings, such as Death by government are not? TFD (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything like that. Please read more carefully. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But somehow, only me seems to be interested in that (for example when it was repeatedly claimed that Rummel was not RS, I took that to RS/N, learned a lot about that process, and in the end it was clearly shown that Rummel was a reliable source, and the claim went away.... --OpenFuture (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC) quoted by TFD (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, this time at least I can see how you can misinterpret that, so that's an improvement. But a bit of context: You have claimed that Rummel is not a reliable source. Ever. After this was taken up on RS/N, it was shown that he very well can be. But all reliable sources are context dependent, Rummel is for example not a reliable source on nuclear submarines or flowers. A reliable source is reliable only for a quote. And for the quotes in this article, the texts by Rummel used to source things are reliable. And what I wanted to say above is that claims, like yours, that "Rummel is not a reliable source" stopped after that RS/N, since he has been shown to be used as a reliable source in this article. Nowhere have I ever claimed explicitly that all of Rummels writings are reliable sources always. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Rummel is a reliable source, all his books are, his blog is, his papers are. wp:rs wp:sps wp:v all say this mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

you don't often see a blog accepted as a RS or all papers or books for that matter. Have you got a dif to support your "all say this" statement? --Snowded ^TALK 02:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it only applies to Rummel. TFD (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"his blog is" ... lol wut? With no indication of a known review process? Those claims are just getting ridiculous now. Weak understandings of policy, as evidenced by comments of this sort, are the largest hindrance to progress on this page. BigK HeX (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes Mark, and no. It depends on context. If something is RS or not depends on what is being quoted. Rummel, including his blog, is perfectly useful as a reliable source in some contexts. But his blog is not a scholarly publication, and can't be used as a reliable source for claims that need that. It works fine to document his opinions, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish ChefPaper

I've read more now, but far from all yet. But, I can see that this paper is already being used to claim various things that it can't be used for.

. The paper takes up three main paradigms. They are not theories as such, but paradigms, with attitudes, assumptions and research practices. They could possibly be used as theories anyway, in lack anything better.
. These three main views refer to Russia/Soviet union *only*, and hence can in no way be claimed to be the only non-fringe theories behind *Communist* mass killings.
. In fact, they aren't theories about how communism caused mass killings, but academic perspectives on the criminal history of the Soviet Union.
. It never claims that these are the only paradigms/theories that are "mainstream" or that everything else is fringe. Any other theory on the causes of the Soviet mass killings published in a RS would still be non-fringe. Not that this matter for this article, since it's not about the Soviet mass killings, but Communist mass killings in general.
. Yes, TFD, the three paradigms follow each other in time, so they can all be majority paradigms. They can even be all THE majority paradigm, but at different times.

I think it seems to be a very useful paper for this article. But I don't think it's useful for the question of NPOV when it comes to the Proposed causes section. But that doesn't mean we can't use it as a basis to organize the section around anyway. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your response makes no sense. You are mixing up the three research methods and the analysis paradigms. There cannot be theories about Communist mass killings that do not apply to the Soviet Union. They cannot all be majority paradigms. (This is introductory arithmetic.) When it enumerates academic thought, the theories it ignores or trashes are outside the mainstream and therefore fringe. Please read WP:FRINGE for an explanation of fringe. Incidentally there is nothing wrong with a theory being fringe or for one to believe in it. It may be true, but it just means it merits no weight in WP articles. Fortunately there are other websites devoted to these theories. TFD (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read more carefully, TFD, it's no good for a debate when I have to correct you all the time.

You are mixing up the three research methods and the analysis paradigms. - How am I "mixing them up"? The paradigms are taken up in the paper, and each of the paradigm has it's research method analysed. None of them are a theory of cause, although that's in there somewhere too. So if anyone mixes them up, it's the paper. Probably because they *are* mixed up.

There cannot be theories about Communist mass killings that do not apply to the Soviet Union. - Did I say that? I said that theories about Soviet history is not theories about communist mass killing in general.

They cannot all be majority paradigms. - Yes they can, and I told you why above.

Please read WP:FRINGE for an explanation of fringe. - I have, now *you* read it. Carefully this time. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please then say which reasearch method matches which paradigm. It did not appear to be obvious to me in reading the paper then any direct connection was made. TFD (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please read it more carefully. Each of the three paradigm has it's own section on "Research practice". So the paradigm includes things as research practice. They are also linked to various ideological perspective (this is noted in the paper). So they are more than just theories of causes, they are also research practices and ideological perspectives. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the article appears to be incorrect. Could you please show evidence that the writers made a connection between research methods and paradigms. TFD (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, research practice is taken up as a part of the paradigms. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please indicate where the paper says that. From my reading there is no connection between research practise and paradigms. TFD (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, in the sections on the paradigms, research practice is taken up. You can see it even by looking at the table of contents, where you see that the two first paradigms has their own sub-headings on research practice. (Page 28 and 31). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The article says that there are three paradigms:

1. totalitarianism
2. revisionism
3. postrevisionism

It also says there are three research perspectives:

A. cumulative
B. evolutionary
C. revolutionary

Could you please match up the three paradigms with the research perspectives. Please choose one of the following:

(i) 1. A, 2. B, 3. C
(ii) 1. A, 2. C, 3. B
(iii) 1. B., 2. A, 3. C
(iv) 1. B., 2. C., 3. A
(v) 1. C., 2. A., 3. B
(vi) 1. C, 2. B, 3. A

TFD (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed these three paradigms match up with these three research perspectives. I pointed out that the paradigms are not just theories of ideology, but also contain things as research practices. I'm sorry that I can't help you when you refuse to read both what I write, and the paper in question. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IOW, your comment, "In fact, they aren't theories about how communism caused mass killings, they are paradigms of reseach into Soviet history" is false and your analysis of the paper is wrong. Please correct your comments at the beginning of this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That conclusion is completely non sequitur. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that response is but it is fairly typical. Instead of dealing with a difficult issue you simply respond with a statement.--Snowded ^TALK 07:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then explain the logic behind that statement. There is absolutely nothing difficult with the issue. The paradigms mentioned are not just theories of causes, but include other things, such as research practices. What is difficult about that, in your opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry OpenFuture, but the logic is self-evident its just you are uncomfortable with it. its becoming increasingly obvious here and elsewhere that we have behaviour issues preventing progress rather than content. Given that you/Mark have raised an RfC we need to let that run, but as you will have seen I have suggested that examination should extend to your behaviour as well. --Snowded ^TALK 08:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid insults and ad hominemns in the discussion. It's not a constructive way forward. Your input is appreciated, but only if you answer the question. Now please explain the logic. If it's self-evident, it must be very trivial, and easy to explain. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Its neither an insult or an ad hominem OpenFuture, its a legitimate statement of concern and there is no derogatory language. If you don't like something then you profess not to have understood and make endless requests for re-explanation. This is disruptive and to be honest whether you appreciate my input or not is of increasingly less concern to me as you consistently refuse any real engagement. I strongly recommend you think about those comments, and I'm happy if you want to bring in some mediation to make it more objective--Snowded ^TALK 08:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Now you claim it's disruptive to ask you to answer a simple question. Can't you just answer it instead? If you feel there is a problem with me, then take it up in the correct channels. Stop bringing it up here and stop threatening me with RfC's etc when all I do is ask you to explain something you said. Now explain the logic. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Its disruptive to keep asking for answers when they have been given. And as to proper channels, well there is one RfC in place which involves you, I have suggested it extend to your behaviour on this article as well. I'll wait and see what happens there before doing anything else --Snowded ^TALK 09:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You continue to refuse to explain the logic that you say is self-evident. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, TFD, can you please explain exactly what you find is wrong with section 3 per the discussion we had above? Do you have the sources you are referring to with Furet and Nolte? Can you maybe summarize their views as expressed in WP:RS as asked above? Can you please post here just what it is from Brinks and Wheatcroft that you want included in the article as you were asked earlier? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained what is wrong with your comments that began this discussion thread. Since the paper we are discussing relegates Furet, Nolte, Courtois etc. to the fringe, discussion of them is for the time being moot. TFD (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for at least finally dealing with part of the questions, even if you didn't actually answer them. But you have not explained exactly what you find is wrong with section 3 per the discussion we had above. You are welcome to do so. It would be a good display of your serious intentions in the discussion if you for once answered the questions posed to you when you suggest something that seems constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Totalitarianism, revisionism and postrevisionism are not paradigms of research into Soviet history, they are theories about how Communism caused mass killings. Cumulative, evolutionary and revolutionary are not theories about how Commumism caused mass killings, they are paradigms of research into Soviet history. The statement, "In fact, they aren't theories about how communism caused mass killings, they are paradigms of reseach into Soviet history" is therefore false. As you said, you "never claimed these three paradigms match up with these three research perspectives". They are two separate things. TFD (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Totalitarianism, revisionism and postrevisionism are not paradigms of research into Soviet history - According to the paper the paradigms are three different academic perspectives on the criminal history of the Soviet Union.

They are two separate things. - I never said differently. What I pointed out is that the paradigms, totalitarianism, revisionism and postrevisionism, includes things like research practice.

So although I understand how you could have misunderstood me in the beginning I've now explained what I meant several times, and even pointed to the pages in the paper. Note how I did *not* mention the "analytical perspectives" on page 8, but the "research practices" on page 28 and 31. It's relativele easy to confuse the analytical perspectives with research practices, but the page numbers are very hard to mix up. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Then could you please correct your statements at the beginning of this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They are not incorrect, and can hence not be corrected as such. I have however now clarified and removed any ambiguity. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source

"Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." (not signed)

Which clearly does not bar stuff which is not "peer-reviewed" at all. Collect (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The best guide is common sense. There are a variety of different topics in WP, in fact all possible topics. Local newspapers are good sources for local news stories, the popular press is a good source for sports and celebrity sources. We would not demand peer-reviewed sources for them, because none exist, but we would demand that the sources have some form of fact-checking. On the other hand, we would not find a local paper a good source for the life of Julius Caesar or the Sun to be a good source for thermodynamics. Imagine you were an academic who was writing for an encyclopedia and imagine what sources your employers would expect you to use. TFD (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with common sense that so many, especially people with extreme viewpoints, simply lack it. But otherwise you are right, and on a scholarly topic, we should clearly use scholarly reliable sources. But as we have discussed before, that does not mean excluding everything except peer-reviewed articles, which you have required them to be before. Again, I would claim that there are few or no sources that are not reliable here. Since this article has been subject to intense scrutiny that is hardly surprising. So again, if you think any source is not WP:RS take it up on WP:RSN. But since nobody does, we can assume that they all are reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Self declared Communist regime"

To my best knowledge, no country ruled by a party named Communist ever declared itself "Communist", instead using formulations like "people's democracy", "socialist", "multilaterally-developed socialist society", while the "communism" was seen as a form of society that would have eventually been reached by those states at a time in the (distant) future. Thus the lead is simply wrong.Anonimu (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The word used to be "communist" for this article, but someone then capitalized <g> it. Collect (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No country ever called itself "Totalitarian" either, but many still were. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please either explain the reasoning of this non-sequitur or remove it. This talk page is not here for witty ripostes, but for discussion to improve the article. TFD (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not sure it's clear who you're talking to there, TFD. In any event, I don't get the impression that anyone posting in this section is trying to be cute). --FormerIP (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

If you were here to discuss the content of the article rather than trying to make a political point you would have noticed that the lead talks about "self-declared" or "self-identified" Communist regimes, the problem here being there was no such self-identifying regime ever. The article doesn't talk about "self-identified Totalitarian regimes", so OpenFuture's reply proves either he doesn't have a basic understanding of English language or he is just trolling.Anonimu (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blokhin's role wasn't a cause

C. J. Griffin's recent edit [5] seems to have put historical material on Vasili Blokhin in the wrong part of the article, since it confuses a notable detail with a historical cause. The subsection "Personal responsibility" is part of the section on proposed causes suggested as explanations for the mass killings discussed. Though he's certainly mentioned as "the greatest executioner in history" by C.J.'s source Michael Parrish [6], there is no discussion of Blokhin as a person as a cause of the mass killings – though no doubt personally responsible as an executioner, he was in the larger perspective only an able instrument eagerly following the lead of his superiors -- not actual organizer like Stalin, Beria, or Yezhov. Since the section's sources discuss the personal factors at work in the cases of Stalin and Yezhov, whereas they simply document Blokhin's personal involvement in the violence but do not theorize about him as a cause, mentioning him is hardly relevant (and to me personally it amounts to something of a distraction), and I am going to remove him from the section. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

concur --Snowded ^TALK 10:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, is their another section it can go? Although such a thing would not really belong in this article, perhaps Worst Mass Killers or similar? mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)