Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Denial of mass killings under communist regimes

I don't get it. Is anybody denying that they occurred? If so, put them on the same bench as Holocaust deniers. If not, what's the hubba hubba on this article? PS. For the record, I am all for creating parent article on Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

its a 'list of blue things.' None of the genocide studies people theorise communism as a category in the cause of killing. Cross cultural genocide studies deals with societies on the basis of broad organisational structures, or comparative two society case studies. Lacking a basis in academic literature this article is SYNTHESIS and OR. That's the only problem. The individual social instances are theorised and well documented and belong in their own articles as they currently do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, you are missing the point. Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers. No one is in denial about that. However that does not mean that there is a category called "Mass killings by Eastern Europeans". We need a theory that connects being Eastern European with being a mass murderer. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What about The black book of communism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed many times, the book was written outside the academic mainstream, and its ideas are not accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to an academic mainstream review with this opinion? You may be right, but I tend to be wary of such unbacked claims (recalling the global warming debate, and how while 99% of scholars agreed that it is real, 50% of mainstream press kept saying otherwise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the theory advanced in the Black Book was never published in academic literature there is no academic literature that rebuts it. I do not understand your reference to climate science. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I went out and read the Black Book for this purpose. There are three chapters containing sections claiming to be multiple society cases: the preface, introduction, and conclusion. The conclusion says, straight out, "This deals with the USSR only" and gives three paragraphs to China, Vietnam and Kampuchea. The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. The conclusion is adequate academic work for a study on the Soviet Union (its narrative is ridiculous, its lack of theory laughable, but hey, it at least deals with the topic), but inadequate as a study in causes of multiple culture genocide. The Preface is laughable, it is short, inappropriate, and fails to meet academic standards—this is expected, its a Preface, its job isn't to theorise. The Introduction deals only with Russia and explicitly advances two claims: the rot set in in 1917; "Communism is inherently criminal (possibly because it isn't Catholicism)". That the rot set in in 1917 is debatable, and a theory with long standing: it is not multiple society. That Communism is inherently "criminal", and, accusations of the failure of a social concept because it doesn't meet the world view of French Catholicism is not acceptable practice in the humanities and social sciences, and hasn't been since 1789. As the editor of the book wrote the introduction and the introduction failed to receive adequate review (collected works are reviewed by their editor); as the theory is laughable; and, most importantly, as the theory is advanced over approximately three paragraphs without evidence to support it, or elucidation of what criminality comprises: we should not esteem this theory. It is FRINGE. The other chapters in the Black Book are adequate single country case studies, the one I previewed (Russia, by Conquest) written by an appropriate specialist (who I don't like, but he's certainly got the requirements). They necessarily can't be used to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing / genocide / democide / etc. I have stated this before, at length, in comments contained in the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I looked into this as well, the work is published by Harvard University Press - "a highly respected in academic publishing", "it was authored by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois" - a French historian, currently employed as research director (i.e. senior research scientist) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique", and all this is fringe, and laughable according to Fifelfoo? I guess we need to take it to WP:FTN than.--Termer (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think he is saying that. He is saying that the book is does not give a basis for the subject "Mass killings under Communist regimes" being WP article because it only contains three, apparently controversial, paragraphs which attempt to advance the thesis that it is a genuine historical phenomenon. In the whole body of historical literature, that does not look very significant. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what I read above "Fringe, the theory is laughable, narrative is ridiculous" etc. And what is this "to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing" all about? For example: The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. So fine, we can use the source for "describing a number of cases" and in case there is "no theory or cause of communist mass killing" i that source, so what. Is there "a theory or cause" to any other mass killings in history? And in this case it should be self explanatory that mass killings under communist regimes occurred because the communist parties wanted to get rid of all its possible and real political opponents. So what's the big deal, I'm not getting it.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

COATRACK, SYNTHESIS, OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That an random descriptive accumulation is not sufficient grounds to indicate a theory; ie: what this article is about; has been well established. To use the placing side by side in a collection of untheorised case studies as the basis of this article is COATRACKING, and is thus SYNTHESIS of external materials without a theory, and is thus ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This has been repeatedly gone over, in a variety of ways, with a variety of metaphors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces "Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"As far s I'm aware of it an "Eastern European" is not a political ideology that needs to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies by the use of something that has been referred to as Communist mass killings, also known as Communist genocide or -politicide, or -democide.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Another question is how come this Theodore Kaczynski was according to The Four Deuces "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"? It says the guys is an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois. Is that a slight mistake in geography perhaps. In case I'm not mistaken Eastern Europe and Illinois are about 9000 miles apart and on different continents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, The Four Deuces.--Termer (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More like 4500 miles, at least according to this; but I guess it depends which city in Eastern Europe. Why is this relevant? csloat (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my question, how is it relevant to this article that someone called Theodore Kaczynski- an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois is "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" according to The Four Deuces?--Termer (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was an example to make a different point here; if you re-read his comment perhaps you will see the point itself. csloat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see a point in an American murderer been called "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" on the talk page of this article. --Termer (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, this is a bit of a tangent. The Unabomber was a Polish citizen as well as a US citizen. But you are concentrating on the validity of the example used instead of the validity of the argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

|}

Organization

I would like to suggest that we reorganize the article to start with historical examples and then causes. We should have two large headers: history and causes, or better yet, a discussion about the individual examples with causes in between. I'm going to try it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive Deletes

Massive deletes of sourced material without consensus is not the Wikipedia way. After three failed attempts at deleting the whole article, deleting massive parts of article could be perceived as an attempt to go against consensus. Please discuss first. Bobanni (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, if you would have cared to read the discussion. Single society instances are not "in Communist regimes" do you note the plural there? Have you observed that none of the single society exemplars theorise connections or fundamental causes? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no "agreed direction." Please do not engage in mass deletions of sourced material. Thanks.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you Read the archives Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you bother to read this very recent section of talk Bobanni? No? Thanks, but you haven't advanced anything, and you obviously haven't read the archives regarding what the current consensus on this article is. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Bobanni on that one. It would be nice if Fifelfoo could take a look at WP:PRESERVE, and in case anything is considered "COATRACK" [1] the article should give wikilinks to relevant articles where the matters are discussed in more depth. Simply removing sourced matreial from wikipedia can't be considered acceptable.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, when people read these articles they want to know what mainstream thought is about these issues. They are not interested in reading POV articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, you do consider the material that has been removed a "POV"? So why does it get removed then? Please see WP:YESPOV: "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"". And again, in case you are aware of any conflictive perspectives to the things you consider "POV". alternative viewpoints should be added to the article instead of blanking out large junks of the article content.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well glory be that you are now admitting that it is POV. Note the keyword "solely". You are supposed to explain mainstream views before explaining minority views, which you did not do. And you are supposed to leave out crackpot ideas entirely. Please see WP:Weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know according to whom exactly you can make a difference between "mainstream views" and "crackpot ideas" respectively in the context? Is there published apaper anywhere perhaps that looks into those questions? I'd need to see it, otherwise there is no way for me to tell on what bases you consider anything a "mainstream view" vs "crackpot ideas".--Termer (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream views are those published in peer-reviewed academic journals, particulary when they are generally accepted. Crackpot ideas lack the intellectual vigor and consistency to be published in academic media and include conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. You can read more about how Wikipedia recommends the reporting of crackpot theories in Fringe. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this text was perfectly sourced. These are mainstream books published by best experts in the field. Were these sources ever discounted as unreliable at WP:RS? No.Biophys (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this article, as discussed and achieved consensus on, as noted above in labelled links, is multiple society theorised accounts of mass killing in Communist regimes. Not mass killing in a communist regime. Or a miscellaneous collection of horrors. The object of research is comparative mass killings. A list of occurances does not relate to the topic of this article. This is not "random list of horrors," but theorised accounts of multiple society horrors. The presentation of a miscellanary is COATRACKing. Conquest, for example, does not theorise about societies other than the Soviet Union. This means that Conquest's scholarship is off topic for this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous academic books written by the best historians, specifically on the crimes against humanity under the Communist regimes, for example Black book of Communism and others cited here, but there are others as well. Thus, the subject was not invented by anyone here. This is well established academic subject.Biophys (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We have repeatedly discussed the black book. Have you bothered to read the archives or the black book? If you had you would know that the book comprises a collation of single society case studies with no cross social analysis or theorisation. That the Introduction and Conclusion provide six paragraphs in total on cross social analysis, none up to the standards of comparative genocide studies (such as Valentino). If you'd bothered to read the archives or the article, you'd be aware of the fact that Valentino does not present a catagory of analysis "Communist mass killing" he presents a superior catagory and discusses communism as a descriptive, or narrative, instance of his catagory: this is insufficient to sustain the case. More over, see the unwrapped discussion above on explaining set theory to editors and why the object of analysis of a theorist needs to be communism in general, or a specific grouping of communist societies, as an explicit explanatory catagory, not a subset. We have gone over the academic literature. What was discovered is already in the article. And a COATRACK of single society case studies is not appropriate as it is not the object of this article. Blue for example, will not contain a list of blue objects. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, I read "Black Book" and a lot of other books on the subject, including books by Conquest (the best Western specialist on Russian history), books by Pipes, by Figes, and so on and so on. I am also well familiar with writings by Lenin, Marx. I passed serious Marxism-Leninism exams (do you want me to cite them right away - I remember some quotes). I also lived in the Soviet society as a practical matter. So, what's precisely your background then? Do you have a history PhD degree?Biophys (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that your field isn't the humanities though, is it? And that your familiarity with disciplinary practice in the humanities is minimal, your M-L course was a state requirement for enrolment in a soviet-style society. The generalist studies you've outlined are single society studies and do not theorise general causes: they are excellent sources for Rights abuses in the Soviet Union, or Mass killing in the Soviet Union, or Accusations of Genocide within the Soviet Union. I suggest that you do go and read the introduction to the Black Book and show me the theorisation of a common cause of barbarous actions across all soviet style societies, rather than just the Soviet Union as is Conquest's object. Perhaps the introduction to the French edition is superior in someway, if it is, please do quote from that with appropriate translation. My field is social history, and if you bothered to look at the article history I have made significant contributions outlining the theory relevant to this field. I would rather not out myself to the name level. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The object of research is comparative mass killings",according to Fifelfoo? Is it me again who is missing something but how would be "comparative mass killings" related to this article? In case you'd like Fifelfoo, you're more than welcome to start up an article about the subject you mentioned. This however is an article called Mass killings under Communist regimes, please limit your comments on this talk page to the current subject only. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:The Four Deuces, in case we're dealing with such a fringe theory in general, surely there should be some sources out there that mention it. I'm more than aware of your opinions that you have clearly spelled out. Please also provide any sources that look into this what you are talking about. In case it appears indeed that we're dealing with Fringe here, no problem, there is also Flat Earth article on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic sources normally do not analyze fringe theories, which is what makes them fringe, they are outside normal intellectual discussion. Since fringe theories are by nature irrational and have an irrational following it is pointless to analyze them. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

well, if you can't come up with academic sources showing that we're dealing with Fring here, there surely should be something out there saying so. You know, we'd need to get your claims veryfied, and then once its established that this is the case indeed, the article can exist happily next to other articles on wikipedia that are written on fringe theories. And all this still is not going to justify removing massive junks of material from this article.--Termer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article

Neutral question: Is it proper to remove historical examples from an article which directly deals with material in those examples?

The material in those examples comprises approximately two-thirds of an article.

That is hardly neutral. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't neutral, and I don't think it is worthy of an RfC, nor would it help to resolve any disagreement here. --FormerIP (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This question shows a lack of engagement with the article, its editorial history, and the consensuses developed here. It also demonstrates an almost perfect example of argument by tautology. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note your position that the entire article should be deleted. (stated below as a direct quote). Collect (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you note the origin of the sections discussing academics dealing with multiple societies published in credible presses, and how myself, and a number of other editors on different sides of the AFD vote, systematically grappled with potential literature in order to improve the article quality. Or do you cherry pick? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November by The Four Deuces who wrote "This article is entirely original research that synthesizes unconnected theories about Communist government in different countries not substantiated in any academic literature. It was originally created by banned editor Joklolk. "

!votes included "Delete: COATRACK, SYNTHESIS => NON NOTABLE, no such research object. I have tried my damned hardest to find multiple society (ie: comparative) studies of genocide/mass-killing/etc that actually claim that there is a unique feature to Communism that causes these. The Black Book on Communism only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. (From reading Conquest's chapter on the Soviet Union, Conquest looks great, but its a single society study without any generalised claims about the causes across societies for communist mass killing). On close analysis Valentino produces a thematic catagory, linking Communist mass killings by the fact they were... Communist... as a subset of politically motivated mass killing in order to strengthen social control by a small elite. (ie: Valentino's type is "politically motivated mass killing"). Anton Weiss-Wendt's analysis of Lemkin shows Lemkin to be devoid of scholarly contribution on the topic, again, like Valentino, Lemkin's category is a superset, and Communism is not a cause. George Watson's catagory is "socialism" which is, on inspection, "Anything other than British Liberalism of the Type Especially Favoured by George Watson." There is no academic object of study to support this article; but merely a political interest in claiming a generalised condition of communist criminality. The individual instances of criminality are supportable, and should exist, as "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in the Soviet Union" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in China" "Mass killing / Genocide / Whatever in [State x]". Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC) "

There is a possibility that these positions relate to the removal of two thirds of this article. Neutrality of any edotor is an exercise left to the reader. Collect (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They relate to the topic of this section, as stated. Is any of the material false? Any fabrication of a quote or the like? I would gladly correct any misquote, to be sure. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collect. You are incapable of editing in a discursive field because of your stated opinion regarding the validity of opinions and the universality of facts. Also, at the time of your edits to fascism which won you a barnstar, the article was, at the time of the award, for the purposes of literature survey (ie: weight) sourced through a single literature review from Transaction publishers, who have a number of questionable features. The article also omitted mention of the major publishers on Fascism Trotsky, Gramsci, Benjamin. Do you have a secret capacity to engage in discursive fields which you haven't revealed, or are you limited to launching argumentum ad hominems and failing to read article archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:NPA and WP:AGF to start. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to state what the personal attack above amounted to? My good faith towards you evaporated when you engaged in attacking the person. Are you capable of reconciling AGF with this statement "Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, please be more specific. I asked "What does any of that have to do with the subject of the RfC?" You replied: "They relate to the topic of this section, as stated." How does it relate to the topic of the section? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Question regarding removal of all historical examples from an article" is the title of this section. Where a person has stated that they believe an entire article should be deleted, it is at least possible that the major deletions from the article may have a basis in their opinions. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are simply limited to argumentum ad hominem, and failing to read archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect, it is only the title of this section because you named it that. Whether or not Fifelfoo voted to delete this article is irrelevant and you should assume good faith. Although the outcome of the discussion was "no consensus", it is still possible to present the arguments for the theories concerning mass killings. It is unneccessary to add countless examples which have already swelled the article well above the suggested size and certainly examples that cannot be connected to the concept of mass killings should not be included. Incidentally all the examples mentioned are discussed in detail in other articles. It would be helpful if before commenting further you read the discussion threads so that you could provide informed comment on this issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) I would surely gladly remove any inaccurate quotes from anyone. As I started this section, the title is what I named the title. BTW, I read all the AfD discussions, and most of the article talk archives. Thank you most kindly, but your point may be taken amiss. Collect (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone placed a notice that "article is in need of attention from an expert", and here I am. Perhaps some of that belongs to article Communism. But one needs good secondary sources to do it well. Great place to start would be the book "Communism" by Richard Pipes.Biophys (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, the Cold War is over and you should really read books by respected historians, not neoconservative polemicists. The findings of Team B were absolutely inaccurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, are you an expert in Communism, the History of Communism, or the institutional "Marxist Leninism" and history of Marxist Leninism of a limited geographic area in a certain time period. This is fairly important. The best expert for this article would be someone from genocide studies. The reason being that I could, with about forty minutes, COATRACK Krondstat, GULAG, the execution of the Vietnamese Trotskyites, and Hungary 1956 into a claim that "Communist regimes engage in a kind of mass killing to eliminate opponents from their own sector of the ideological spectrum, and to thereby ensure their hegemony over left wing discourses and their justification for rule as the agents of social liberation in history." Actually going out and finding these generalised accusations in credible (probably) Trotskyist academic writing would take a fair bit longer. Even worse, shoe horning this in is extremely problematic, as it only explains one kind of mass killing, its a non-viable theoretical contribution because it fails to explain population dislocations of ethnic groups and death by starvation (for example). This kind of generalised theory of all causes of mass killing, across a number of "communist" societies is what's asked for here. Not the history of a particular "communist" state or its ideological motivations. If you've got recent ready access to this kind of work, please bring it forward. I'm stalled in a number of generalised survey texts on Genocide, looking for survey reviews of the change in the field since the Democide-type people began publishing. So far we've exhausted Valentino's existing work, and the work around Lemkin's initial work has demonstrated Lemkin's a dead end (he stopped acting credibly as an academic, in attempts to garner support for his general convention). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

List article?

Just a thought, would it be a viable compromise to create a list article called List of mass killings under communist regimes or something equivalent, with a brief description of each atrocity and links to main articles where they exist? And then the present article can be cut down to appropriate size or even deleted. --Anderssl (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind personally if this is going to bring an end to massive blanking and this discussion that isn't going anywhere and just keeps going in circles. I think it could be a solution.--Termer (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't think deleting it would be necessary, there is no good reason to get rid of the articles history, therefore a redirect would do just fine.--Termer (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists suggests not as, "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." [at ¶1]. The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious. A category hierarchy, "Abuse of rights in Soviet-style societies" followed by sub-cats "Abuse of rights in the Soviet Union"…etc. would be a viable category grouping. Categories do not appear to be covered by article obligations, unlike lists. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The link between a generalisation that all Soviet-style societies are identical, and a list of abhorrent behaviour (whatever the naming of it), is an original generalisation; disputed in the academic literature, dubious and contentious." Wouldn't this be possible to fix with some appropriate qualifications in the article? Seems that some reasonable modifications would do. --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like hedging to me. The fundamental aim of a list like that is to associate a series of societies and to claim by association a common structure behind their behaviour. The theorisation simply isn't present for that. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

See Tables of vampire traits for how problematic these list articles are, and for how association by proximity in a list produces a Synthesis. There are three good sentences in that article, and six screens of worthless cruft which has not been explicitly compared anywhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't find this argument particularly convincing. Obviously a list would need some sort of definition of "communist regime", but that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist". Such a list wouldn't have to omit the fact of large differences between such societies. It would be a list of facts, and that's it; theoretical discussion and interpretations could be dealt with elsewhere. --Anderssl (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "that wouldn't be hard - it could simply be regimes that called themselves "communist"" Some of these regimes called themselves "Democratic" or "Socialist" - is it a sufficient ground for creation list articles "Mass killing under democratic/socialist" regimes? (The question is rhetoric)--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but I think the regimes calling themselves "socialist" could be included, depending on some consensus. I am not an expert on the subject matter. But I think it should be possible to make some reasonable clarifications of the terms, and then just make a list of the historical events that fit those terms. Btw it should probably be "Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes", not under - to limit the range a little. (And I definitely think a list of mass killings by democratic regimes would have substantial content - think of what the US did to its natives, or the Belgians, the British and the French to their colonies, etc.)

The point would be to get us out of the current impasse, in which one side is complaining (justifiably so) about the lack of theoretization, whereas the other seems to just want to create a list of events. I really don't see the problem with providing this kind of list - it is a useful way of collecting links to further information. This seems to be perfectly in line with the purpose of Wikipedia, as far as I can see. --Anderssl (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a little bit odd that you see no problem in such a name ("Mass killings by communist or socialist regimes"). Socialist regimes (e.g. Sweden or France) are very vegetarian forms of social organisation and very mentioning of them in a context of mass killing is not more justified than mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death of, e.g., American Indians. I believe the very idea to collect various bloody dictatorships into the single list and to connect them to some single word ("Communism" or "Socialism") is deeply ideologically motivated, and, therefore, unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Fredrik Reinfeldt would be quite surprised to find his country described as a "socialist regime". Sweden is a constitutional monarchy and has never described itself as socialist (surely you are aware that social democracy is a quite different ideology). As for my motivations, shouldn't you try to be open to the possibility that I just want to allow for the broadest possible presentation of knowledge, as an inclusionist Wikipedian? Have I said something earlier to disturb your assumption of good faith? It is a generally accepted fact that many communist regimes have committed these atrocities, why would it be POV to make a list of them? And why is the "mention of democratic regimes in a context of mass death" so problematic? I will acknowledge one problem: It is hard to distinguish clearly between different types of regimes, so the precise classification needs to be discussed and qualified (i.e. communist vs socialist, socialist vs democratic etc). But that doesn't speak to the heart of the matter, which is whether such a list, with appropriate qualifications and definitions, would be appropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was coming here to ask the same thing - how about listyfing the article? I am afraid that at the current stage we - Wikipedia editors - are simply not ready to develop a reliable, high quality and stable article on this subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. Any list, with a reasonable working definition fitting Cold War OPFOR, will fail to mention "negative" cases, such as the failure of the HSWP to implement large scale starvation in Hungary. In effect, the production of a list is the production of an argument. In discursive fields, like history, political science, sociology of genocide, genocide studies, there are no "clear" facts separable from opinion, and most importantly, these fields demand the articulation of opinion by skilled academics. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(These restrictions *largely* flow from the fact that Lists are part of article space). As far as Categories go I couldn't find anything that says that Categories actually have to be legitimate etc. Perhaps someone can ask the Cat people. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I have to disagree on this point. I think you are stretching the concept of "original research" too far. By this rationale, one couldn't have list articles within the humanities or social sicences at all. (And I'm not really sure what would constitue a non-discursive field, strictly speaking.) I would suggest to anyone who is hell-bent on collecting these historical "miscellany", to make a list article - and then we can discuss that article when it shows up. (I may make it myself, whenever I have time and the weather is bad - i.e. January. ;) Happy holidays, everyone - I'm off! --Anderssl (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo: The problem with listification is that placing "facts" side by side in a discursive field of history is original research, and is corrupt research practice. according to whom this is so?
There is no simple definition of what a "communist" society was. disagree, its pretty straight forward: Please see Communist mass killings by Benjamin A. Valentino, Published by Cornell University Press, 2005 FFI. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Miscellany in a thematic article dealing with cross cultural theorisation

Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After an AFD, and, as a result of a long discussion a consensus was developed on the way forward for this article being theorised accounts of mass killing across more than one society. Given that this article is about theorisation of multiple society incidents eg ("All communists do X due to Y") should a series of individual case studies be included. Relevant recent arguments include this example. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The wording of this Rfc does not match the scope of the article. Though there is nothing indicating it was not made in good faith, the text appears like a rather blunt attempt to receive the desired answer. For example, there is no "cross cultural theorisation" necessary in the article. It appears to be a rather straight up historical article discussing the oft-written about topic of large numbers of killings in communist regimes over the past century. If there is some confusion, maybe a simple renaming to "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes" would be in order, in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.

In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article. Not once, but four times in seven hours: here, here, here and here. After being reported for 3RR here, you then reverted and did not phrase the question as "should we delete the two thirds of the article discussing the history of mass killings in Communist regimes" but instead phrased the RfC as (not particularly relevant to this article) "Should a miscellany of single society case studies be included in an article discussing the theoretical structures common across multiple societies?" Mosedschurte (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the archives which were explicitly pointed out to you describing what the article is yet? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the link you posted earlier to your own "summary_of_the_consensus_editorial_direction", though doing so is certainly not worth wading into now. Suffice to say that the scope of the rather plainly worded article is what editors, including those in response to this or more appropriately worded RfC's, determine it to be. As mentioned, if there is some confusion, some attempt to delete the two thirds of the article discussing the actual history of such killings could be headed off by a simple renaming it to something like "The History of Mass Killings Under Communist regimes", in some regards like History of antisemitism, though I'm not holding that out as a flawless analog.

Re: "WP:AGF much?" I assumed nothing, though I just stumbled across this rather revealing rant you just posted about those who disagree with you titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes": "The differential in administrator willingness to let wild, grossly incivil, anti-encyclopedic editing run wild even when they have discretionary editing to hand; the habit of non-humanities twonks with a personal vendetta about their precious special "I experienced this" BITING humanities specialists; and, the inane repetition of cookie-cutter anti-communists with no more than a high school grade humanities education; all this has irritated me sufficiently to the point where I am not going to attend unless WP:ANI actually grows cahones, or a particular editor continues baldly in the past conduct and makes me to to Arbitration's sanction request page." (Fifelfoo) I suggest cutting down on the bile a bit.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all the article doesn't and shouldn't discuss "the theoretical structures common across multiple societies", Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.etc.--Termer (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but if you believed that, you would be pushing for AfD on this article. csloat (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not posed in a neutral manner. As such, this RfC may be quite useless. I suggest this one be clasoed forthwith, and a proper NPOV question be posed. Collect (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you think it should be phrased? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• This RFC seems to have been split up in many parts, including my input to it, which sort of came in the section above. So just for the record, my proposed solution is this: Make a list article which lists events described as "mass killings" in mainstream reliable sources, and which occurred under (or were perpetrated by) communist regimes (defined as regimes described as 'communist' in mainstream reliable sources). The discussion leading up to this can be seen above, under "List article". --Anderssl (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The article should examine the concept of mass killings under Communist regimes rather than provide a list of events." It is possible to do only if such a concept would really exist, in other words, if various examples of mass killing can fit into a single scheme and explained by a single reason, directly connected to the word "Communist". I doubt if it is really possible. For instance, mass killing perpetrated by African Communist and non-Communist regimes share many common features and differ from mass killing in other places.
A serious reason is needed to combine absolutely different events, and the word "Communist" is not sufficient for that.

Re: "In addition, left out -- and perhaps of interest to editors as to what might happen following answers to this Rfc -- is that you just cited a similar rationale to delete nearly two thirds of the article." The article combined the examples of excess mortality and mass murder under the name "mass killing", that is hardly justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede

In my opinion, the lede section is an example of unjustified generalisation. The first sentence:

"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. "

seems odd. Khmer Rouge regime had collapsed as a result of the actions of Communist Vietnam, so it was not a typical example of Communists' rule. Maoist China can hardly be considered a pure example of a Communist state, especially taking into account that the periods of the Great Leap forward and cultural revolution was the time of the most severe opposition (especially ideological one) between the USSR and PRC. In the USSR during a Stalin's rule most Communist ideas were quietly dropped (and their carriers were eliminated). Therefore, we can speak only about some Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. Otherwise I see no reason for not writing the article named Mass killings under Capitalist regimes that would include genocide of native Americans, famines in India, Ireland, extermination of Australian aborigines etc (of course, it is just a reductio ad absurdum).

The last sentence:

"One common factor posited in Communist mass killings is the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation of society resulting in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people."

is hardly correct, because the main reason for Stalin to start his Great purge was just to seize a power in the USSR, to eliminate his major political opponents and to establish a regime where no opposition to existing authorities was able to develop. I believe, the same is true for most Communist genocides.
This odd statement can be partially explained by the fact that the article artificially mix real example of mass killing (e.g. Great Purge, Khmer atrocities) with examples of excessive mortality due to poor management (e.g. Soviet famine in 1932-33). Although the latter can be explained by "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes", it can be better explained as a result of inadequate management and criminal neglect. Famines, as well as all similar events must be removed from the article, because they simply do not fit the definition of mass killing ("the act of murdering a large number of people").--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not our task to "know" anything - rather it is WP policy that material found in any reliable source may be, and should be, used in articles. See WP:RS and WP:V. Collect (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...provided that it is (i) relevant, and (ii) reflects majority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly show me anywhere that WP policies or guidelines make that sort of statement. The aim is NPOV, not to make articles conform to any specific POV <g>. Relevance is, indeed, part of ongoing consensus. As this is not a BLP, it is difficult to see what in this article, precisely, is "irrelevant" to the topic. Collect (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First, WP policy encourages editors to use common sense. That means that only relevant information should be used in articles. Obviously, population losses cannot be combined with mass murders in the article named "Mass killing".
Second, WP:NPOV requires "that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly". I don't think the idea of "the revolutionary desire by radical communist regimes to bring about the rapid and total transformation" is a majority POV, however, such an interpretation is presented as the sole and well known driving force behind Communist mass murders.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to assert specialist knowledge here. The mass removals and famines appear to be removable, but I daresay reliable sources disagree with what you "know." If a reliable source makes a claim, it can be in an article. Clearly if you have RS cites that the population losses were not caused by any deliberate acts, those cites should also be in the article. That is how NPOV is reached. Not by requiring that "majority POV" be the determining factor. Collect (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"The Stalinist regime was consequently responsible for about a million purposive killings, and through its criminal neglect and irresponsibility it was probably responsible for the premature deaths of about another two million more victims amongst the repressed population, i.e. in the camps, colonies, prisons, exile, in transit and in the POW camps for Germans. " (Weathcroft The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings 1930-45 Author(s): Stephen Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353)
From the article's title I conclude that the article's subject is just purposive killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article was titled Mass murder under Communist regimes, then I would agree that it should only be about purposive killings. But "killings" is a broader term which also includes those perpetrated via criminal neglect, which Weathcroft argues caused the excess deaths. Hence I think your removal of the text is not justified. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say, you interpret it as a broader term. Mass killing is "the act of murdering a large number of people". "Murder" is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought). What relation does it have to "criminal neglect"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Mass killing is merely a re-direct to Mass murder. Intent or malice aforethought are synonyms for "purposeful". People are killed every day, accidently and through neglect, they are not necessarily murdered, i.e purposely killed. Criminal neglect is the failure to use reasonable care to avoid the consequences of their actions. However this failure to use reasonable care could be purposeful, which many authors like James Mace, Michael Ellman and Robert Davies argue in the case of the famines. --121.223.166.233 (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We discussed this issue previously. The term "killing" does not imply human agency or intention. If we want to use the term killing in its widest sense then all nature events must be included, such as earthquakes, not to mention wars, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is an example of single society case studies, and wikipedians generating arguments from their personal analysis thereof. We use "Mass Killings" because, at the time of the name change, the only theorist with credibility discussing the points of commonality across multiple societies then discovered was Valentino, who described them as "Mass Killings." This is why the article cannot move forward as a result of wikipedian's synthesis of single society case studies: when we are editing wikipedia we lose any offline capacity we have as experts to generate new and original analyses from interpretations of evidence—and, it goes around in the same tired circle. Our task is to honestly and faithfully record relevant theorisations of general causes (ie: causes pertinent to more than one society) of mass killings or other similar "mass" actions as reported by Reliable Sources, and as balanced by WEIGHT. If you discover excellent single society theorisations, why then take Robert Conquest and go to Human Rights abuses in the Soviet Union and describe that there. Or take it to the Great Purge. Given that this article discusses general causes "under Communist regimes" society specific theorisations are off topic. And of course as this is an academic object of study, the RS which ought to be used are high quality reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to sign this statement [2] by Collect with my 2 hands.--Termer (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert when he says that :"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes including the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. " seems odd. Its because its not what Valentino in his Communist mass killings says. He says that he focuses on "histories most murderous communist states, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia" but he also refers to mass killings by communist regimes elsewhere -North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa. So the article lede currently clearly misleads the reader.--Termer (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you please define mass killing. If it does not have any special meaning then we should start to include information about killings from natural disasters, car accidents and serial killers. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not what Termer defines as mass killing, it is what Valentino defines it as. --Martin (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, how does Valentino do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is not to define anything, but edit articles according to WP:RS. and how exactly for example Benjamin Valentino Ph.D. in Political Science defines Communist mass killings in his book published by Cornell University Press can be read by anybody who has access to internet or to a local library. The question that we need to deal with here is how to ensure that article is written according to this source and any other WP:RS that has been written on the subject. And that seems to be the problematic part. the lede is misleading and large junks of material just keeps disappearing [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8] from the article.--Termer (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And yes, unlike according to your opinion [9] Paul Siebert, Benjamin Valentino in his book considers famine as one of the primary vehicles of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. p. 93--Termer (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

They were deleted, you were present while we were discussing while they were deleted, they were deleted because they're not relevant to the argument contained in RS that theorise multiple society causes as they're uncontextualised individual case studies replicating full articles elsewhere, effectively, they're little itty bitty POVforks. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, Google's reset my preview rights on Valentino, Final Solutions Cornell 2005. From 66-67 he outlines his theory of cause of mass killings:

"I contend that mass killing occurs when powerful groups come to believe it is the best available means to accomplish certain radical goals, counter specific types of threats, or solve difficult military problems. From this perspective, mass killing should be viewed as an instrumental policy calculated to achieve important political and military objectives with respect to other groups—a "final solution" to its perpetrators' most urgent problems." [Valentino 2005 66-7]

This leaves his typology [68-73ff, my preview ended at 73, includes Table 1] indicating Communist Mass Killings are specifically a subset, and a descriptive subset at that of Dispossessive mass killings (esp at 72-73). Valentino's 2005 work does not support this article's existence. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: "Our job here is not to define anything..." Incorrect. Before writing some article (obviously, based on RS) we must define what this article is about. Therefore, we have to agree what do we mean under "mass killing", and which RS definition is more appropriate. We ourselves, and noone else can and have to do this job.

Re: "... but edit articles according to WP:RS" WP:RS recommend to "try to cite scholarly consensus when available." The source presented by me demonstrates that Valentino does not express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "And yes, unlike according to your opinion..." There is no my or your opinion, only Valentino vs Wheatcroft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let me remind you Fifelfoo that this talk page is not for a discussion about articles existence, Such matters are only relevant to Afd-s. And please let the reader decide what Valentino says in his book, there is no need to add any commentary like you do to his statements. Not at this talk page nor in the article. And please kindly restore the relevant sections from the article that you have removed. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Paul Siebert do not hesitate and try to cite scholarly consensus on the subject. Nobody has ever claimed that Valentino does express the whole scholarly community's opinion.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. on Valentino vs Wheatcroft, so why don't you Paul add Wheatcroft's opinion instead of removing Valentinos?--Termer (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Administrator intervention regarding Termer's disruptive conduct escalated

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Termer Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article is becoming excessively long, now standing at 61 KB. Any suggestions on what to do about this? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut out the historical details since it's supposed to be about theories as to causes? I could cut all that out right now and I don't think there would be an ounce of difference to the article. Examples should be coming from the scholarly work, not "here's a bunch of horrible things Communists did and here's what some scholars think" with no connection. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, stop with the excessive quoting and actually start to think about the root causes the scholars are discussing. It's intellectually lazy just to put a bunch of quotes out and not even attempt to show similarities or differences in their views. That's difficult, I know, (especially with the god awful way citations are incompletely linked and separated all over the place) but that takes actual work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both. Cull the litany. Comparative discussions of views must be founded in and grounded in... Reliable Sources. There is no meta literature survey of attempts to classify the behaviour of the soviet-style states in mass abhorrence. Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Watson1998 is appropriately summarised and characterised, but overlength ("Watson was batshit insane and working outside of his field of academic competence" is an adequate summary). The Black book is adequately summarised and characterised. [was accidentally unsigned] Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, create a new section for each source and let's discuss whether or not it's reliable. Otherwise, yeah, doing some comparative work is synthesis but it's also WP:UNDUE. It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis here. Are you telling me the last featured article had an actual source that compared the interpretations like that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"It's a lie we don't allow any synthesis" -- please see WP:SYN. If you have identified synthesis in another article, remove it, rather than using that as a reason to add it here. csloat (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I culled the litany under COATRACK. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

61K is nowhere near a "long page" -- Number 1000 is over 120K in length. 61K is, in fact, under the median when stubs are excluded (stubs now being somewhere around 40% of all articles). Collect (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Article size: "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". It is a rule of thumb but the article continues to expand. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read it many times -- and note some editors have a propensity to cut articles they dislike by up to 75% -- from (say) 11K to 8K, or from 16K to 4K, or from 44K to 16K in one fell swoop. This article is not excessively long by any measure. Consider one article we have in common -- Sarah Palin currently at 144K. Or Fascism at 127K currently. This article is short considering its scope. Collect (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the consensus direction of the article from the archives? The bottom of the barrel has been scraped on theorised comparative studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "consensus direction" in the archives, and certainly not here just reading everyone's replies following the mass deletion. Please refrain from the mass deletion of sourced material on Wikipedia without consensus.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The link is below. Go back and read. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Ricky81682:Making a comparative evaluation between sources not grounded in an RS is SYNTHESIS and OR. Completely agree with this. I mean, I'm not sure if it is necessary SYNTHESIS and OR but the section reminds me of WP:NOT PAPER for sure. I have brought it up before [10] but it made no difference.--Termer (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your position was explicitly rejected at the link you indicate. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Fifelfoo, that's why I left the diff here to show that the section considered SYNTHESIS and OR by Ricky81682, that similar position by me has been "explicitly rejected" by you and 2 other editors.--Termer (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reasonable way to make that interpretation from edits by User:Ricky81682, your poor conduct is continuing. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Termer is referring to this unsigned edit by Fifelfoo. However, Termer's point - that we should cut out all the academic analysis and just leave in the sections on individual historic cases - doesn't seem to have much in common with Fifelfoo's, and seems to contradict his own statements. --Anderssl (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to apologise for the unsigned post, I've just signed it. I find it even more difficult to interepret my post as meaning the current academic approaches section is currently SYN/OR. Especially given the immediate context of User:Ricky81682 criticising the current "A says, B says" and arguing for a comparative approach. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

>60 applies to "readable prose" - WP:LENGTH This article is well bellow that according to [11]. Removal of "External links, Further reading, References, Footnotes, See also, and similar sections; Table of contents, tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting" and it is closer to 30kb (sandbox). Article length is fine. Summary style might be a concern but that is different.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Benjamin Valentino writes that mass killings strategies are chosen by Communists to economically dispossess large numbers of people."

Benjamin Valentino either has a serious problems with logic or he never wrote this. Such a statement is in a direct contradiction with his own words:

"Dispossessive mass killings are the result of policies that, by design or by consequence, suddenly strip large groups of people of their possessions, their homes, or their way of life. These kinds of policies do not aim at mass killing as such, but in practice their implementation often leads to it."

In other words, according to him "dispossessive mass killings" were just excessive mortality as a collateral result of a policy of economic dispossession. By contrast, the article in its present form implies that the major Communists' goal was extermination of some categories of population and economic dispossession was chosen as a tool to achieve that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that might be the case, however, what Valentino also gives for the reasons of such mass killings in communist countries is by quoting Isaiah Berlin on pp 92-93: "if a final solution to the worlds problems were possible, surely no cost would be too high to obtain it: to make mankind just and happy and creative and harmonious forever - what could be too high a pprice to pay for that? To make such an omlet, there is surely no limit to the numbers of eggs that should be broken - that was the faith of Lenin, of Trotsky, of Mao...of Pol Pot.".

Just that wht the article says sounds a bit different:"philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, if one could find a 'final solution' to the world's problems, surely no cost would be too high to obtain it." and that's it. I think there is a clear difference in the full quote vs. what the article says. The full quote describes "the faith of Lenin, of Trotsky, of Mao...of Pol Pot" but the article implies like it's Isaiah Berlin who thinks so that "no cost would be too high..."--Termer (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "for the reasons of such mass killings" We can speak about reason only when we discuss someone's intentions. Since "dispossessive mass killings" were in actuality just a collateral effect of large scale social transformations, we can speak about their causes, not reasons. In addition, if the main goal of some of "dispossessive mass killings" was to kill people, these examples should be placed into separate category.

Re: Berlin. The attempt to combine Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot into the same category hardly reflects scholarly community's consensus. I know no examples of peacetime mass killing perpetrated by Lenin's - early Stalin's government (war time Red Terror was complemented with its twin White Terror and it is impossible to say which one was a response to which). New Economic Policy was a time of considerable liberalisation of the Soviet society (e.g. death penalty was limited to a very narrow category of crimes, the percentage of population sentenced to death didn't exceed that in contemporary USA, camp population didn't exceed few tens thousand and penal labour was prohibited).

In summary, the article's attempt to combine absolutely different phenomenae is misleading and ideologically motivated. The sources this article relies upon do not reflect a scholarly consensus. Presenting other sources can hardly fix a situation, because the very idea of such a generalization is highly questionable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work, but Valentino is not referring to excess mortality due to dispossession. His "mass killing" is restricted to the "intentional killing of noncombatants".(page 6) AmateurEditor (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against using this definition, although I doubt this is Valentino refers to. Otherwise it is not clear where did he take so astronomical numbers of Communism's victims: if we subtract famines and deportation deaths the number of victims drops dramatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul, you seem to be confusing mass killing with genocide, genocide is the deliberative killing with the aim of eliminating a group, where as mass killing also includes those killed collaterally as a consequence of policy. You seem to be arguing that mass killings must necessarily be deliberative, that consequential or collateral deaths don't count. But Valentino makes no distinction: "Dispossessive mass killings are the result of policies... by design or by consequence". You wonder why Valentino numbers are so high, it is because he does consider famines and deportation deaths fitting the criteria of "mass killing". You criticism of Valentino's work and subtraction of these numbers, in the absence of supporting sources that criticise Valentino's work, is WP:OR. --Martin (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The very term "Dispossessive mass killings" is something not being commonly used. I would not be surprised to learn that it was a Valentino's own invention. However, the primary reason of starting this concrete section is unjustified mixing of cause and consequences: whereas Valentino wrote that "dispossessive mass killings" was a (collateral) result of a certain policy (aimed to achieve some other goal), the article states that Communists achieved their goals via mass killings (in other words, these collateral deaths were planned by them from the beginning).

Re: "You wonder why Valentino numbers are so high" I do not wonder why the numbers are so high. I wonder why he adds famines and mass execution into the same category "intentional killing of noncombatants", whereas other scholars prefer to use the term "population losses".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Martintg, Valentino's "mass killing" includes "most commonly accepted cases of genocide, but also encompasses a broader range of events distinguished by the large scale, intentional killing of non-combatants."(p.6) Of famine, Valentino says "Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state."(p. 93) I don't think Valentino includes accidental or collateral deaths - that it, excess mortality - in his estimates. In the sentence quoted by Paul Siebert above, the "by design or by consequence" refers to dispossession, not to mass killing. Valentino is saying that the regimes' goal was dispossession, and they resorted to mass killing as a tactic to achieve it. But this does not contradict the inclusion of at least some deaths from famine in Valentino's totals, if the regimes used famine to destroy their enemies (which could include entire populations). AmateurEditor (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "if the regimes used famine to destroy their enemies (which could include entire populations)" I cannot imagine how a regime whose enemies include entire population can be viable.

There is no consensus among scholars about the extent at which famines were used by Communists as a tool to achieve certain political goals, so Valentino's opinion is only one POV out of a broad spectrum of POVs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The solution then is to include these POVs from the other scholars per WP:YESPOV, we should be informing the reader of all sides of the debate, with due weight, if there is no consensus among scholars on particular issues. --Martin (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through the recent AfD discussion and I found that we seem to almost literally reproduce arguments from there. Obviously, it is impossible to delete this article because a considerable amount of editors personally hate Communism. They will vote against deletion and they have a number of sources (right wing political writers and philosophers) to substantiate their opinion. In addition, I personally don't think the article deserve deletion because some examples of mass murders perpetrated by Communist authorities in different countries (e.g. Stalin's Great Purge and Mao's Cultural Revolution) do share some common features and it is not just a pure coincidence. However, only some of them really share common features, and my major concern is that the article tends to become a collection of all facts of excessive mortality in Communist countries and these fact are presented in such a way that they are implicitly (and sometimes even explicitly) attributed to intrinsically malicious intentions of Communists.
In my opinion, the only way to convert the article in something reasonable and neutral is not to add as many POVs as possible but to remove all historical facts that are nation-specific and whose interpretation is questionable.
Alternatively, if we decide to keep (and extend) all facts of excess mortality under Communist rule, let's change the article's name, lede and style accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"because a considerable amount of editors personally hate Communism" what was that all about Paul Siebert? Perhaps you'd like to withdraw this statement because its not the first time I've seen you commenting on contributors. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

PSThe sources this article relies upon do not reflect a scholarly consensus pr Paul. I've already asked for this once: [12] Please Paul, refer to any sources that would clearly spell out the scholarly consensus on the subject. And please keep it straight to the point. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that by saying this I offended anybody of those who hate Communism. The fact is that the amount of people (in general, and Wikipedians in particular) who hate Communism is high, so my words is the observation, not accusation. With regards to sources, you yourself wrote that "nobody has ever claimed that Valentino does express the whole scholarly community's opinion". (I would add, because no consensus exist on that account, and you should perfectly know that). In connection to that, you request ("Please Paul, refer to any sources that would clearly spell out the scholarly consensus on the subject.") sounds odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Paul Siebert, if no consensus exists like you say, why to complain about "...do not reflect a scholarly consensus"? Regarding if anybody may have got offended because of your comments on contributors, then you must have misunderstood this completely, in fact I see it quite the contrary. I'm most positive that nobody has any reasons to get offended to such a thing if someone in a debate has run out of reasonable arguments and therefore as a last resource in an attempt to make his/her case chooses to comment on contributors instead of the content.--Termer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "if no consensus exists like you say, why to complain about "...do not reflect a scholarly consensus"?" That is simple. Valentino introduced the term "dispossessive mass killings" that in not used by other scholars (google scholar gives only five results, excluding self-citations [13], one of these works is just a master thesis, other two discuss Valentino's writings). That means that by including all cases of excess mortality under Communist regimes into a category of "dispossessive mass killings", and by discussing these cases in the article named "Mass killings under Communist regimes" we follow a single scholar's concept. Therefore the very article's concept is deeply and intrinsically biased.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, these points have been addressed already, please see [14].--Termer (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have just blocked one user for long term edit warring over this article. I notice that several users, whether or not they have broken 3RR, have also been engaging in such disruptive behavior. I shall be watchlisting this article, and issuing blocks to any user who insists on repeatedly inserting contentious changes without talk page consensus. Let's try to resolve the issues here calmly if we can. NW (Talk) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But not sanction anyone for contentiously removing sourced material? --Martin (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No one else had been edit warring like that user had. I was most concerned about the fact that the material had been removed by several other editors and the the user readding the material had not attempted to engage in talk page discussion. NW (Talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed who exactly has been the leading editwarrior here, there have been simply too many to keep track of. The removals/readdings of sourced materials from this article however has been actively discussed above, without a clear answer so far why exactly this or that needs to be deleted from the article. It is my opinion that as the result of those massive blankings and constant edit warring the article keeps making less and less sense and has become unreadable like mentioned below.--Termer (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

To throw another spanner in the works

I have to say, this article is completely unreadable. It jumps around incoherently from place to place with no attempt to show the reader where it is going other than the section headings. I would jump in and edit, but I really don't want to get involved in an article where there's so much in the way of warring going on. All I can suggest is that someone take a good close look at the structure, provided this is a subject that can exist as a decent stand-alone article - which I have to say I doubt. Brilliantine (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of edit by committee (designing the horse - resulting in a camel). It is, alas, a failing of almost every controversial topic on WP. There is, in fact, lots of data available on this topic, but the way WP operates, it is quite difficult to place it in a readable format. By the way, even non-controversial articles can get this way. Collect (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem are the abundant attempts to synthesize original research. csloat (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the style problems are from SYN. Nor is there any significant OR in the current article -- just problematic writing. Collect (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Second csloat. This article is a perfect example of synthesis by collation of unrelated subjects without reference to appropriate RS for such a collation. Appropriate academic sources for non-tautological commonalities in incidents of democide-genocide-mass killing are currently insufficient, debated, and under exploration by editors. The article's quality has been improving since the AFD which caused a return to appropriate secondary RS that discuss commonalities. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on the problems, let's try to elaborate a reasonable article's structure. Does anybody have any idea on that account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Brilliantine could offer some ideas for structure here, providing a fresh set of eyes. --Martin (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit too tired to suggest anything very useful right now, but I will bring my eyes back here sometime in the next couple of days to see if there's anthing at least vaguely helpful that I can think of. Brilliantine (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As one suggestion -- try listing the nature of each listed event as to cause and predictibility of result (intent). Then see if the causes are connected to governmental decisions in any way. And thus progress through a flow chart to see similarities and dissimilarities as viewed by the sources given. Collect (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

agree with "unreadable". I've actually gave up editing the article about coupler of moths ago when after attempting to sort things out every time returning to it the article had turned more or less into a nonsense. As it is now, the article is not in a better shape much. But I'm glad that there are some new names around here who hopefully can take their time and help to sort it out.--Termer (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

This, "Professor R.J. Rummel, however, now considers the famine to be democide. ((ref)) R.J. Rummel. Stalin Exceeded Hitler in Monstrous Evil; Mao Beat Out Stalin. Hawaii Reporter, 2005 ((/ref))," is unacceptable for three reasons:

1. Academics are not referred to by occupational titles when discussing their contributions to their field of research. This is a courtesy due to international differences in titles, and the fact that their contributions are weighed in a world of ideas. "Rummel" considers...
2. "however, now considers" implies that the previous and subsequent academics opinions are incorrect. I suggest to you very strongly that Rummel's opinion, and the democide school in general, are outliers within the academic consensus, are not the basic position, and are attacked by some members of the academic community. Correct would be to say, "Rummel considers the famine to be democide".
3. Your citation is appalling. You are citing his opinion as an academic. Academic opinions are subject to peer review. Quoting Rummel in the hawaiireporter is unacceptable. Particularly as Rummel has published his opinion extensively in academic presses. Academics who publish in non-academic modes (and I am not accusing Rummel of this), often use the non-academic mode to publish material that would be refused by their peers. The citation is bad because: non-academic mode used to support academic claim; poor citation given Rummel has extensively published in appropriate modes; and, unnecessary slur due to custom and practice against Rummel that he promulgates this opinion outside of peer discourse.

Use a library. The most apt Rummel text for your claims found in twenty seconds of scholar search would be China's bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900, 1991. I would note that Rummel published this through Transaction, a group whose ideological coherence appears to be a central part of their mission. Checking Transaction texts against reviews in scholarly journals is generally appropriate to make sure they're still up to disciplinary standards (I would recommend the same, for example, of any book put out by Telos in the 1970s). Rummel may have published in other appropriate forums post 1991, hawaiireporter.com isn't one of them. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"The article provides a critical analysis of the quantitative method used by Rudolph J. Rummel in order to estimate the democide rate for various political systems in the 20th century. The first part shows that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito's Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. The second part shows how the data have influenced the mid-estimates Rummel uses for further statistical analysis. A comparison with demographic research in former Yugoslavia shows that Rummel's mid-estimates for Tito's mass killings are much too high and contravene his data for the population deficit in Yugoslavia. The author also criticizes a key assumption in Rummel's method of 'reasonable approximation', namely, that overestimations tend to be taken out by underestimations. It is shown why such a proposition is problematic, particularly in this case where there is a wide discrepancy between high and low estimates. Although the article concentrates on communist terror in former Yugoslavia, the results may have wider implications for Rummel's research if he uses similar sources in other case studies. If so, Rummel would need to revise the method and exclude unreliable estimations in order to obtain useful data." (Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 85-102)

"R. J. Rummel has been one of the more controversial figures in the academic field of international relations in the last two decades. He has also been lavishly supported by funding agencies, and is a prolific researcher and writer. In this five volume work, Rummel builds on his own research and writing, as well as that of others in the fields of psychology, sociology, and political science in order to develop a comprehensive explanation of conflict, violence, and war. He does so in a manner not calculated to endanger his controversial status. In this essay, I will first describe and criticize briefly the contents of each volume. Then I will step back from the five volumes, figuratively speaking, and offer some concluding comments about the work as a whole."

"It would also be unfortunate if the field as a whole ignores Understanding Conflict and War. This is partly because such a significant portion of the resources available for research in international politics in recent years has been invested in R. J. Rummel. He is intelligent and thorough, and both those qualities are evident in his work. Even if his conclusions are debatable, or just plain wrong, they are also thought provoking. If the fundamental contribution of Understanding Conflict and War consists entirely of provocative mistakes, that in itself would make it a contribution to science. Whether or not Rummel's work constitutes a great contribution is a question that can only be addressed equitably by a community of scholars that has read it." (Review: Understanding Rummel. Author(s): James Lee Ray Reviewed work(s): Understanding Conflict and War by R. J. Rummel Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 161-187)

" Rummel is at his least contentious when dealing with collectivization and purges. Although he is unaware of Wheatcroft's work, and not everyone would accept Conquest on the Ukrainian famine, Rummel's summary gives the familiar litany of horror. On other periods of Soviet history his account is incredible. Passing over the 6,872,000 victims of democide between 1954-87, a figure computed largely from his estimate of camp deaths, let us consider his approach to the 'bread war' between 1918 and 1922. We are told that this 'bread war' was 'fiercely fought over the full length and breadth of the Soviet Union from I9I8-22'. (In reality there were repeated requisitioning campaigns in the same few areas.) From this false picture of widespread war he makes fantastic deductions: he assumes that in each peasant rebellion against requisitioning 625 people were killed, and since there were 344 recorded rebellions in the first eighteen months of Soviet rule, that is 625 x 344 = 215,000, plus a few more because the civil war lasted longer than eighteen months and you get 250,000 killed in the 'bread war'. In reality a 'rebellion' could mean anything from two peasants refusing to deliver grain to an insurrection on the Tambov scale: an average of 625 multiplied by 344 is a nonsense."(Author(s): Geoffrey Swain Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)

"Despite his rich and detailed information and data, Rummel's at- tempt at explanation seems oversimplified. He introduces but does not review the theoretical literature, and apologizes for his failure to offer attributions. His essential theoretical argument is what I would call a categorical imperative, namely, "that power kills, and absolute power kills absolutely" (I9). This proposition is a variant of the familiar and time-bound argument that democracies rarely fight each other, or-in the genocide literature-that the duration and strength of democratic experience minimizes state reliance on coercive control. From this standpoint, authoritarian regimes are more likely to use repression than their democratic counterparts. However, "power" is, at best, necessary but not sufficient to explain the multifaceted phenomena of genocide, not to mention other forms of state terror" (Author(s): Barbara Harff Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)

I believe the article cannot pay much attention to such a controversial scholar's wrinings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, sorry WP:TLDR. The question if an article where a scholar expresses his views on the questions could be used as a source of reference here in the place that speaks abouh his views on the question, than...even though a secondary source would be preferred in such a case, there is nothing wrong with using it as a source that verifies what the guy has to say about the question. in other words: Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims. And thats exactly the way the source has been used here. In any case nothing that has been said here above justifies the removal of any material from wikipedia. If anything it should be tagged with "clarification needed" or "additional references needed" etc.--Termer (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: TLDR. Are you joking? You repeatedly asked me to provide sources, and after I did that you complain I provided too many. You should be consistent. Try to read at least the text in bold. With regards to your other comments, a content of a web site, that has not been wetted by scientific community, is not a reliable source. In addition, I didn't write that Rummel must be removed completely, my point was that we must reflect the fact that this writer is highly controversial and his conclusions are questionable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No joke, I've always thought its a problem if article talk pages are used to publish original analyses on subjects. And I also have asked you to keep it straight to the point please. So please, if you know of the source that has relevance to the subject, just please add the material to the article. We not here to comment on the subject or have a general discussion about it but simply edit articles according to sources.--Termer (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Termer, you are once again completely off track. The distinction between primary and secondary sources have nothing to do with this, as none of the sources in question are primary sources.--Anderssl (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you Anderssl for sharing your opinions about myself. I have to disagree however, in the context where Rummels views are referenced with an article that's been written by him, it is a primary source about his views, and nothing on Wikipedia prevents using such refs for making descriptive claims, like the current one: "Rummel considers the famine to be a democide".--Termer (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "it is a primary source about his views" So all reviews on someone's work are primary sources? I believe by saying that you clearly demonstrate your WP:IDHT.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is clear, Rummels viewpoint keeps dissaparing from the article [15]. [16] [17] with latest comment by you Paul "Questionable source removed". How is an article written by Rummel himself [18] where he discusses his views on the subject "questionable", remains unexplained.--Termer (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't have an article on "democide" (a word I editorially contend is a manufacture and does not yet appear in any mainstream dictionary and therefore is not encyclopedia-appropriate where WP is concerned) which is based on Rummel and then dismiss him as useless in another article. The best writing about history considers all sources and positions them appropriately in narrative.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii reporter is not the appropriate forum for academic publication. Rummel already has access to a somewhat academic press, Transaction, where he is able to publish in an academic mode. Rummel also, I'm assuming here because his thoughts are interesting and argued, has access to other academic presses. Find it in his published works. I'm agnostic regarding the value of Rummel; but, in relation to the place in the narrative, there is a place you don't mention Vercrumba, which is the absence of place. Discussion on the social structure of Portuguese fishing in the 15th century are interesting, they don't belong here. For example, Watson, given the savaging, out of speciality context, inappropriate press (Lutterworth), and lack of contribution to theory (his theory of commonality is an inherent criminality due to not being classical liberals supplemented by a corrupted cradle of Marx); Watson is probably given 3/4 of a paragraph too much. Watson's appropriate place in this article is to not be in this article. Rummel, while contentious, has not received a savaging in nearly the same terms as Watson's chapbook did. I also suspect that Rummel may advance a specific (limited set of societies) or general (all communist societies) theory for mass killing that has an origin specifically in Communism. ie: Its probably worth reading Rummel for his elucidation of theory. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a column written by an academic about that academic's views as a source on that academic's views. If there is a better source it can be swapped out when it is found, but there is no cause for deleting this one as an inappropriate forum. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)