Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

content forking

Just so you know, it is really hard to follow the copy pasted material, as it is done here. I thought that is what wikilinks are for. (Igny (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

Yes, my bad. I actually thought of adding a wikilink, but it seemed there is no reason to have a link to this article, on the general topic of communist mass killings, in an article on the broad topic of land reform movements. So someone looking into land reform movements in China might not even see this article on communist mass killings, and therefore miss out on some relevant and important stuff, such as Mao's attitudes towards population losses prior to the event, which was extremely bloody with at a minimum hundreds of thousands of killings. As the information is good and well sourced, I put relevant portions in the section on China's land reform, where it belongs, giving what I think is a more accurate picture of the attitudes and actions which led to such a massive loss of life. In truth, any mention of killings during this period was entirely omitted in the article before I started adding material, with Philip Short's biography as the primary source, quite some time ago. And I've noticed that even in genocide scholarship the killings during China's land reform tend to be glossed over in a sentence or two or just ignored altogether, as opposed to other Maoist bloodbaths, like the GLF and the GPCR. In hindsight I should have perhaps reworded it. But I also added other information not located in this article as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The land reform was launched in 1946, 2 years before Mao showed his attitude toward it. (Igny (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

True, but the massive killings didn't start until after the founding of the PRC, no? Like Phillip Short stated, it lurched violently to the left around the time of the counterrevolutionary campaign.[1]--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made clear in the article now that 1948 referred to the publication date of the study materials, per Rummel. (There most likely was a time lag involved.) This gives an outline of the land reform timetable. It started earlier in some places than others, and there were phases of different intensity and moderation. According to this (Cambridge University Press) source, 1948 actually marked a temporary softening in the approach. --JN466 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

TO DO

Besides obvious calls to delete this mess, it may be possible to fix this article. Let me start a great debate of things to do by section. Please be as brief as possible.

China

• Develop Land reforms in China

To the unknown editor -- as this article is not "land reforms in China" the suggestion that we should work on that article makes little sense. as for bringing up yet again the claim that the article should be deleted, that has been settled. So try working to improve the article, please. Collect (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

We'll have to decide at some point whether we are going to spell "communist" with a capital C or a lower-case c. I could live with either, but the constant change from one spelling to the other is irritating. Suggest following prevalent use in the article Communism, which has lower case. Any objections? --JN466 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be straight forward, in case its part of a proper noun, its capitalized; in case its about communism in general, its lower case. And in that sense there is no need to invent anything, in case a source uses capitalization, so should it be in the article and vice versa.--Termer (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. a good example of the difference is given in The New York intellectuals: the rise and decline of the anti-Stalinist left By Alan M. Wald p.15:The capitalization or noncapitalization of the letter c makes a qualitative difference in the meaning of the term... where "Communism" is used while referring to the Stalinist regime and "communism" to general ideas of Marx and Lenin etc.--Termer (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Termer's distinction. It is the same thing as the differences between Republicanism and republicanism in the United States, where the first refers to a political party while the second refers to a political idea. We really need to determine which concept we are using. All theories that attribute mass killings to communist ideology refer to the ideology, while the mainstream writers who discuss mass killings refer to the brand name of the government party. Note that "Communist regime" should be capitalized because there is no agreement that these regimes were actually "communist". They called themselves "socialist", while their detractors often accused them of corrupting Marxist theory. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lede again

I am not sure the recent edit to the lede reflects consensus. Since the editors both on this talk page and there[2] still got no clear proof that the word "Communist" in "Communist mass killings" is not just an adjective, like "New York" would be in the phrase "New York crime statistics"", there is no sufficient ground to place the statement like "the terms used for such killings under Communist regimes include "Communist genocide", "Communist politicide" or "Communist democide"." in the lede.
Again, I am still waiting for a quote from scholars who allegedly introduced such definitions. Please, provide a quote like:
"Taking into account unique nature and distinctive features of mass killings perpetrated by Communists I put these killings into a separete category that I call "Communist mass killings" ", or any other equally clear definition.
I revert this edit and ask Termer not to re-introduce it until needed proof is provided.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Some phrases may be used colloquially without a formal definition, as google search shows. Many modern politicians use that phrase in their agenda. The problem with placing the statement regarding such usage in the lead implies that the mentioned scholars introduced and defined this new concept and the related term formally, which is not true. (Igny (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually, it implies no such thing. The lede is a precis of the succeeding prose, and, as such, reflects the words used in that prose. See WP:LEDE and Lede (news) "Leads in essays summarize the outline of the argument and conclusion that follows in the main body of the essay. Encyclopedia leads tend to do define the subject matter as well as emphasizing the interesting points." Collect (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "Some scholars used the term 'Communist genocide' etc..."Not only does it imply that the scholars defined the concept formally (which is not true), it also implied that there is something inherent in Communism causing genocides different from non-Communist genocides. It is also an exercise in tautology (like "'Communist genocide' is genocide in Communist states"), and as such does not add anything to the lead, it is also redundant because the section right below the lead goes into details on the terminology used. (Igny (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Just for the record, the lede has turned once again into a complete original commentary [3], it should only state the facts and be based on the sources, not reflect opinions of some wikipedia editor(s) like it currently does.--Termer (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

+ for unclear reason Paul Siebert keeps removing the terms used by scholars, the terms that define the article from the lede: [4], [5], [6].--Termer (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You say it like all scholars use these terms, and Paul did not provide a very clear argument why he removed the redundant tautological statement. (Igny (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Re: "the lede has turned once again into a complete original commentary" No. Lede should summarise what the article states, and I believe that in its present form it does this job well. If you disagree, please, point at concrete omissions. In addition, if you know a single RS that comprehensively and neutrally summarises everything what scholars wrote on that account, please, let us know. Otherwise we have to do it by ourselves.

Re: "for unclear reason Paul Siebert keeps removing the terms used by scholars". The reason seems to be unclear only for you. I would say the opposite: for some reason you keep to re-introduce the terms allegedly used by scholars without providing (per WP:burden) a sufficient ground for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

For unclear reason, Termer forgot to notify us about yet another relevant discussion on RS.

What would be reason to notify editors whose opinions are already more than clear on this talk page is very unclear for me. Other than that, after the recent edits for the first time I find WP:SYNTH and OR tags justified. None of the sources provided in the article say what the lede etc. has ended up being about.--Termer (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You formulated your RSN post as it was the reliability issue. I am sure, you expected a couple of replies supporting the reliability. On that ground alone, you would probably revert the recent very justified edits, claiming some nonexistent support at the RSN. This issue is not about reliability but interpretation of the sources. Apparently you and I interpret these source very differently, and the proper way is to seek a third opinion at RfC. (Igny (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Our job here is not to interpret the sources unlike the current version of the article has ended up being but simply say in articles what the sources do say.--Termer (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, not a single source literally say that, e.g., Rummel used term "Communist gemocide", that was your interpretation of what Rummel wrote (These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs...). (Igny (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

what are you saying, Rummel doesn't use the term "communist democide"? Rummel uses the term communist democide, its not an interpretation its a fact.--Termer (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
PS. I'm going to remove anything from the lede that reads like personal commentary using misleading WP:WEASEL words. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish personal essay like analysis on subject.--Termer (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Then your should also remove this part:

Intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants, as a rule, for belonging to a particular social group, occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries that declared adherence to a Communist doctrine. These killings, that took place mostly during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents or counter-revolutionaries, mass terror campaigns, or land reforms may fit a definition of mass murder, democide, politicide, "classicide", "crimes against humanity", or loosely defined genocide.

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you.--Termer (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Paul you should see "the talk for details" before making such edits.[7]. I was hoping that the first part is going to be changed into more encyclopedic style but since you disregard the comments on talk here I'm going to restore the original lede until any possible new consensuses can be found. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "since you disregard the comments on talk here" Which comments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you missed it: I agree with The Four Deuces about the removal of everything that reads like personal commentary from the lede, which means everything in current form.--Termer (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

excess preventable deaths

The term excess preventable deaths is a obscure term not found in political or historical articles - There are a few references of this term in health related articles. We need to find a more commonly used term to define this concept. Any suggestions? Bobanni (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ellman uses "Excess deaths" ("During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly in 1918-23, 1931-34 and 1941-45) were not repression but war, famine and disease.", see the next section on this talk page.). Obviously, "preventable" just specifies that the article talks not about all premature deaths, but only about those deaths that were a result of someone's commission or omission.
If someone could propose another term that would combine "genocide" (the latter is not accepted for killings of social groups), "democide", "classicide", "politicide" (these three are not widely accepted), "mass murder" ("mass executions do not fit this category), "mass executions", or "repression" (is not applied to famine victims), "excess deaths" (too wide and redundantly neutral), it would be great.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What about "these deaths"? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Its straight forward , the most commonly used terms to define this subject include "Communist genocide", "Communist democide", "communist politicide" and "Communist mass killings": FFI please see

• Helen Fein, a chapter on "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide" in Genocide: a sociological perspective; "Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides". Sage Publications. p. 75. ISBN 9780803988293. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• R.J. Rummel on "communist democide" in Totten, Samue; (2002). Pioneers of genocide studies. Transaction Publishers. p. 166. ISBN 9780765801517. These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link);
  

Rummel, R.J. (2007). China's bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900. Transaction Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 9781412806701. Next to be considered is the communist democide... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Manus I. Midlarsky on "communist politicide" in Midlarsky, Manus (2005). The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 310. ISBN 9780521815451. Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Benjamin A. Valentino on "communist mass killings" Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings:The Soviet union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 91. ISBN 9780801472732. Understanding communist mass killings is of vital importance not only... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer, I repeatedly asked you to provide anything else, other than the chapter's name as a proof that the word "Communist" in "Communist genocide", "Communist democide", "communist politicide" and "Communist mass killings" is not just an adjective, and that these scholars really introduced these definition to describe a separate category. I am afraid next time I will have to comment on a contributor...--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to "comment on the contributor" any time, I don't mind, it just tells me that there are no reasonable arguments left. Other than that, chapters in books are more than fine for the purpose of WP:Verify. But in case more is needed, no problem: Google books gives 468 returns on Communist genocide and 64 on google scholar. True it's not as many has the "New York City Police Department" with its 1,514 returns, but its more than enough to have an article about it on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Denial

Since denial is an important aspect of the subject, we need a chapter on it in the article. For now, the most important piece of information for the reader would be the fact that the denial of "communist genocide" is a criminal offense in Czech Republic. The section can be expanded later on.--Termer (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than begin with examples, it is better to look at the these laws in general, using reliable sources. We should explain why these laws were introduced and provide information about prosecutions. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Since neither Communist genocide nor Communist mass killings in Czechoslovakia are being discussed in the article, this statement hardly belongs to it. In addition, since the section in actuality tells not about "denial", but about sanctions for denial, this text belongs to the "Legal sanctions and accusations of "genocide"" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First of all Czechoslovakia is not Czech Republic, and even this edit [8] by Paul Siebert clearly speaks about the denial of Communist genocide.--Termer (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer, can you please provide more details about Communist genocide denial laws. Why is this a crime and who has been prosecuted? Is it outlawed to deny the concept of communist genocide or merely to deny separate incidents? Why is holocaust denial included in the law and are the penalties the same? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry The Four Deuces, even if I had answers to all your questions, which I don't, it would be not my place to comment on such legal issues on wikipedia talk pages. In case you're interested in such questions and would like to add any possible answers and/or related facts to the article surely there should be relevant sources out there that look into it.--Termer (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No one expects you to be an expert. However if there is a section about "communist genocide denial" then it should explain why it is a crime and how it is enforced. While the article about the holocaust does not have a section about holocaust denial it has a link to that article where those questions are clearly answered. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well...

I noticed Termer massively reverted my edits without providing any serious rationale under a pretext that the changes look like a personal commentaries. Let's see if it is true.

By this revert [9] Termer re-introduced a verbatim article name into the lede's. However, WP:LEDE does not requires that in descriptive articles

"If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. Similarly, where an article title is of the type "List of ...", a clearer and more informative introduction to the list is better than verbatim repetition of the title."

Since Termer failed to provide a proof that such a category as "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is not just a descriptive term, the guidelines do not require verbatim repetition of the title.

My conclusion is: this edit was in accordance with the guidelines, was not a personal commentary and, therefore, revert was unjustified.

Termer also removed the statement:

"Nevertheless, direct causes of most of the excess preventable deaths under Communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease. Although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others. "

Let's compare what the sources state with what see if it is true.

1. The first sentence is "Nevertheless, direct causes of most of the excess preventable deaths under Communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease. "

The sources state:

"During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly in 1918-23, 1931-34 and 1941-45) were not repression but war, famine and disease." (A Note on the Number of 1933 Famine Victims Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1991), pp. 375-379. Clearly, under "repression" he, as well as Wheatcroft, means mass murders, mass executions and camp mortality)

"A 1980 survey of Cambodian refugees in Thailand concluded that 50 percent of the 1.5 million to 2 million Cambodian dead between 1975-1979 were killed by execution, 25 percent by starvation and 25 percent by disease."(Genocide by Attrition 1939-1993: The Warsaw Ghetto, Cambodia, and Sudan: Links between Human Rights, Health, and Mass Death Author(s): Helen Fein Source: Health and Human Rights, Vol. 2, No. 2 1997), pp. 10-45)"

"Famines took the lives of perhaps seven million people in the Soviet Union, thirty million in China and seven hundred thousand in Cambodia"(Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell studies in security affairs. Author Benjamin A. Valentino Publisher Cornell University Press, 2005. ISBN 0801472733, 9780801472732. p. 93.)

2. The first part of the second sentence is:

"Although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll..."

The sources state:

"IT HAS LONG BEEN DEBATED whether the victims of the Soviet famine of the early 1930s died due to a conscious policy of starvation or whether they were unintended victims of unfavourable natural conditions and policies aimed at other goals.

"The causes of the excess deaths in 1930-34 can be divided into three groups. First, deaths caused by exogenous non-policy-related factors. Examples include the 1931 drought and, in the interpretation of Davies & Wheatcroft, adverse weather in 1932. Second, deaths which were an unintended result of policies with other objectives. Examples of such policies are the tribute model of rapid industrialisation, the rapid and complete socialisation of livestock, and the emphasis on sown area at the expense of crop rotation. Third, deaths which were intended. Examples include the shootings policy of 1930-31 and the starvation policy of 1932-33." (The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934. Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 57, No. 6 (Sep., 2005), pp. 823-841)

"To be more specific, in international conventions and the general literature, genocide has been defined in part as the intentional killing by government of people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other indelible group membership. Cold-blooded government killing, however, extends beyond genocide so defined: as starving civilians to death by a blockade; assassinating supposed sympathizers of antigovernment guerrillas; purposely creating a famine;..." (Democracy, Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder Author(s): R. J. Rummel Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 3-26)

3. The second part of the second sentence is:

"...the validity of such an approach is questioned by others. "

The source tells:

"In this reply we first summarise our own approach to the famine and then discuss Ellman's assessment of the role of deliberate starvation. Ellman's account of our views is extremely distorted."

"In 1930 and 1931 support collectivisation, kulaks and other opponents of collectivisation were ruthlessly persecuted, but these measures were seen as compatible with and a prerequisite for rapid agricultural development. These erroneous policies and assumptions played a major part, together with 'structural and conjunctural factors', in bringing about the agricultural disaster of 1932-33."(Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to Ellman Author(s): R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633)

In other words, there is nothing in the deleted text that has not been said by some scholar.
My conclusion is: this edit was in accordance with the guidelines, was not a personal commentary and, therefore, revert was unjustified.

PS. Since WP:LEDE do not recommend to overload a lede with citations (because these citations, as a rule are in the main article) I usually do not introduce them there. Don't see a need in citations in this lede as well.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer also reverted the edit that summarised different scholars' opinions on the lack of common terminology, removed the source added by me (Wheatcroft) and restored the version that present a single scholar's (Valentino's opinion). He restored a biased and weasel description ("the most widely-used") of Rummel's writings, thereby giving undue weight to a certain scholar's opinion.
He also re-added the words that give a distorted description of Semelin's writings ("Jacques Semelin prefers "crime against humanity" when speaking of the violence perpetrated by communist regimes"), because Semelin used this term in general, not only to describe Communist regime's actions.

By removal of the para:

"Stephen Wheathcroft notes that most of the above terms, as well as "the terror", "the purges", "repression" (the latter mostly in common Russian) colloquially refer to the same events. The most neutral of these terms are "repression" and "mass killings". The latter term has been defined by Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants," where a "massive number" is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less. This definition is applicable to the excess mortality cases in Stalin's USSR, PRC under Mao and Cambodia under Khmer Rouge, history's most murderous Communist regimes, although mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa. "

and its replacement with:

"Valentino uses the term "mass killing," which he defines as "the intentional killing of a significant number of the members of any group of noncombatants (as the group and its membership are defined by the perpetrator)," in his book "Final Solutions: The Causes of Mass Killings and Genocides." In a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China and Cambodia", He focuses on these three as "history's most murderous Communist states," but also notes that "mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa.""

Termer removed a statement that belongs to a reputable scholar and is well sourced. By restoring a vague definition given by Valentino in his earlier work, he removed more strict definition that the same scholar made latter.

My conclusion is: the edits reverted by Termer were well sourced, they neutrally and precisely tell what the sources state, they were not my personal commentary and, therefore, their revert was completely unjustified.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware of it by now Paul that wikipedia talk pages are not a place to publish essays on the subject. Please attempt to find a consensus with other editor before boldly changing the entire article according to your opinions or your conclusions. The problem with the current version of the article is that it reads like a original commentary, has statements in it that are not supported be any of the sources.--Termer (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer, it gets ridiculous: you yourself asked me to provide explanations and sources. I did that - you accused me in "writing an essay". Note, if you have no fresh arguments, your opinion means nothing. Provide your arguments and sources, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue, the issue is that you edit the article boldly according to your opinions without even attempting to find a consensus on the talk first. It is my suggestion as a compromise, revert the article to a state where it didn't use the terms "communist genocide" etc in the lede (For ex. revision 338894772) by keeping the terms in the article body like its clearly spelled out by the sources.--Termer (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion as a compromise, please, tell us what concretely is wrong with my edits, provide sources your opinion is based on and let's discuss. The statement "look like a personal commentaries" (if you do not explain what concretely do you mean) is equivalent to "I don't like it". It is not an argument.
The concrete problem with your proposal (to revert to the revision 338894772) is that the newer version has the lede that better summarises what the article says, some weasel words and statements that give undue weight of certain scholars' opinions are removed and new sources are added. You didn't explain what concretely is wrong with these edits, so I don't think to go back to the version revision 338894772 is a good idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

everything is well explained at Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Lede_again and not by me only. Sorry that you keep missing it.--Termer (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Lede_again contains different (opposite) opinions of several editors. Your arguments are unclear and inconclusive for me (and for some other editors). I have a serious ground to think that you interpreted the sources incorrectly, and you failed to prove the opposite. You should either explain your point clearly or refrain from editing WP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you should try to reach a consensus before proceeding editing this article. Other than that the consensus up there on "the lede that reads like personal commentary using misleading WP:WEASEL" words is pretty clear, please read it. I didn't think removing all this that reads like a personal essay was necessary at first but later agreed, all of it needs to go. Your reverts [10] [11] [12] went against this discussion. [13], [14], --Termer (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You again provided no explanations, no fresh arguments, no new sources. In that situation, your proposal to "reach a consensus" is in actuality a request to "obtain your permission" before making any changes. That is not how a consencus procedure works ("opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you.").--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. let me spell it out again: this discussion [15], [16] resulted the removal of your essay which you reverted [17] [18] [19]. On wikipedia this is called edit warring, not consensus building and making bold edits alone in a controversial article - not a good idea. Please revert your bold edits to this revision by Paul Siebert and we can put this issue to rest and take it from there. thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Communist genocide", "Communist democide", "communist politicide" and "Communist mass killings"

Repeated attempts to re-introduce the terms "Communist genocide", "Communist democide", "communist politicide" and "Communist mass killings" into the article forced me to raise this question again. Since all what I read on that account belongs to books and articles where genocides perpetrated by Communists are being discussed either in a broader context (along with other genocides), or case-by-case (i.e. separately for each state), I see no evidence that the word "Communist" is not just an adjective. In other words, "Communist genocide" is not more a separate category than, e.g. "New York police" (it is just police in New York state, not a separate law enforcement agency type, like FBI). Please, provide any evidence of the opposite, otherwise I will treat any attempt to re-introduce these "definitions" as WP:DE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest any such attempt by you based on this talk page would be DE on your part instead. Please recall the need for reaching consensus here, before making any such vague threats of editorial disruption. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please explain your position. It seems that Paul siebert's postion is reasonable. Am I missing something? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

His position on reverting goes against AGF. If anyone provides sources using specific terms, and cites them properly, they should be allowed in. Saying one will revert any attempt to add such is pretty much going against how consensus works. Collect (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you don't seem to have read Paul's comment properly. He does say "Please, provide any evidence of the opposite, otherwise..." etc. (my emphasis). So he is not making any threats against properly sourced claims. The disagreement seems rather to be about the relation between what the sources say, and how they are represented in the article. --Anderssl (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The assertion is that if an RS uses words as an "adjective", then it is not citable. As it is, the word in the phrase is always an "adjective." Then he says one must prove it is not used as an adjective in order to cite an RS using it. I find that a strange requirement that we be able to determine intent of word usage from an RS, and saying that if an adjective is an adjective then using it in the article will be reverted as "disruptive" is contrary to how consensus works -- if an article is RS, the words used in the article are also RS. Sorry, I will not bite on that category of Catch-22. Collect (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If a word is used as an adjective in a source then it should only be used as an adjective in the article. If someone wants to present it as a distinct concept then they must provide evidence. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Might you show me anywhere in any WP discussion that such an argument has been made? Adjectives are used as adjectives - even in phrases. If the phrase is used in a RS, it can be used in an article. Collect (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Second Collect , nothing much more to add...other than even if an example about "New York police" vs Police would be relevant, there is an article about Police and New York City Police Department on wikipedia. Following the logic by Paul Siebert, all reference to New York in the article about New York City Police Department would need to be removed?--Termer (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow from Paul Siebert's argument. What follows from his argument is that a statement of the kind "New York Police is a common term for New York City Police Department" would have to be removed, unless a RS could be found which supported that statement. The fact that someone might have the term "New York Police" in the title of a book chapter would not be sufficient.--Anderssl (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly.

Re: "Might you show me anywhere in any WP discussion that such an argument has been made? " Look there: [20] ("There are two questions. First, is "communist" is an adjective, like "New York" would be in the phrase "New York crime statistics", or is "communist mass killings" a subject different from other mass killings. Second, is this a mainstream view, and is there a commonality between the various authors cited above, or is it just Valintino's view, in which case it belongs in an article on Valintino.") The statement was made by uninvolved editor.

Re: AGF. The WP:AGF has a section named "Dealing with bad faith". We all have to assume good faith, however, that doesn't mean that we can (and have to) do that always. I would say, by doing that always we become vulnerable towards disruptive editors. AGF, as well as any good thing can be abused.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The "New York Police" is a short form that may refer to either New York City Police Department or New York State Police, how is that relevant to the 468 returns on google books and 64 on google scholar on "communist genocide". True it's not as many as the "New York City Police Department" has with its 1,514 returns, but its more than enough to have an article about it on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010

Correct. This is enough to have an article about it on Wikipedia, however, it is not enough to tell about New York City Police Department as a separate law enforcement agency type (like FBI). By analogy, you can have an article on mass killings under Communist regimes on Wikipedia, however, the proof provided by you is not sufficient to calim Communist mass killings to be a separate category of mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure from where are you getting all this? Who says that the "New York City Police Department is a separate law enforcement agency type like the FBI'"?
The Police in New York city is called the New York City Police Department. The Police in New York state is called New York State Police. Exactly like the mass killings committed by communist regimes are called by Helen Fein "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide" in Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides; Valentino calls the killings under communist regimes "communist mass killings" in Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century etc. Rummel calls the killings in the Communist countries "Communist democide". What has the FBI to do with anything here?--Termer (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Termer, if you don't understand arguments that have been explained and explained again a hundred times, you should ask yourself: Is this really a discussion where I can make a useful contribution? The fact that you disagree with the argument is not a problem, but when you just don't seem to understand what the argument is about, it really is a problem. Are you honestly doing everything you can to work from the best possible interpretation of other people's comments? Do you honestly feel that you are contributing to bringing this discussion forward?--Anderssl (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Et tu? Collect (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me summarize what I am not understanding. Termer's argument - in brief - is that "communist genocide", "communist democide" etc can be described as scholarly terms for the topic of this article because they are used in the titles of certain book chapters, and because they give a bunch of hits on Google Books. If that is not the essential argument, then you are right, I am completely not understanding Termer and I am blocking constructive development of this discussion. But so, it seems, are quite a few others, so for the benefit of us all, can you clarify what we are missing? --Anderssl (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources use a term, that term can be used in articles, citing the source. Collect (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not an answer to my question. Your comment ammounted to an accusation of disruptive editing on my behalf. Please either clarify what you meant, or take back your accusation. --Anderssl (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I got no evidence so far that these terms are used in reliable sources. The chapter name and the term are two quite different things. Let me explain again what I mean. We can speak of "mass killing" as a term, or category, because this term has been defined by Valentino as "the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants," where a "massive number" is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less. Can you (or anybody else) provide similar clear and unambiquous definition for the term "Communist mass killing" (obviously, I speak about a definition found in a reliable, preferrably peer-reviewed source, that has been used by at least two reputable scholars)?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Your comment amounted to an accusation of disruptive editing on my behalf." Since refusal to get a point is a sign of disruptive editors, an accusation in WP:DE should be directed to Termer and Collect, not to you. I believe, some WP:WL also takes place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good to know what you mean about Paul. How was all this what you mean about chapters and terms etc. related to Wikipedia content guidelines remains however unexplained.--Termer (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "an accusation in WP:DE should be directed to Termer and Collect" - I guess you are right, Paul. I will consider doing that. --Anderssl (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing attempts to put lipstick on the pig.

Since this article is, by its very nature, biased, attempts to make it less biased are doomed to failure. It is a shame that Wikipedia has an artilce of the form "bad thing" done by "group". Should we have an article "Wars started by Republican Presidents" or an article "Evil people who happened to be Christians"? Maybe we don't have the votes to get rid of the article, but we shouldn't pretend that the subject is acceptable in an encyclopedia, or that the article can be fixed. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually we do have an obligation to make this the best article it can be. If you wish to work on other articles which you feel are more deserving, do so. Meanwhile, I try to improve it. Collect (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think his point is that "improving" an article is a project doomed to failure when the article topic itself is non-encyclopedic. I thought the examples he gave were good ones; pretending to misunderstand his point is really not a helpful reply. csloat (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood his "point" and pointed out how WP works. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you have the slightest idea of how WP works. I am so terribly sorry for you. (Igny (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Unfortunately I have to agree with Igny. I think it would help if you read WP:SYN which everyone is referring to around here. This article reeks of it, and your approach has generally not helped move us away from that problem. csloat (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the topic is encyclopaedic if it is presented as a part of a more general "mass killings" topic. Unfortunately, such an article does not exist, because mass killing redirects to mass murder (for some unclear reason). As a result, the topics that belong to the "mass killing" article (a whole "terminology" section that discusses terms used for mass killing of non-combatants, a material that discusses a connection between power and democide, and the discussion of the place of mass killing under Communists among XX century mass killing) appeared to be added here, not to a non-existing mother article. That leads to an impression that the article is a synthesis, and that impression is, at least partially, correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point Paul I agree that a mass killing article would be very useful; perhaps we can just change this one? csloat (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So this is yet another deletion discussion? no problem, just that why would it be necessary to "present the topic as a part of a more general "mass killings""? I mean, according to examples above should we also present the New York City Police Department as a part of a more general Police article? There are enough sources out there on mass killings that were committed in the name of Communist ideology. Did I remember to mention that Helen Fein has written an entire chapter under "Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides" called "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide"? And then there is Benjamin Valentino who says under Communist mass killings that Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. well, if the word communism really shouldn't be mentioned in connection with mass killings on wikipedia despite the sources do, the article should be called according to Valentino the most deadly mass killings perhaps?--Termer (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "why would it be necessary to "present the topic as a part of a more general "mass killings"""? There are two reason for that. Firstly, the first lede's para of the New York City Police Department article has a link to the police article. We cannot do the same here, because mass killing redirects to mass murder.
Secondly, a considerable part of the present article is devoted not to mass killings under Communists, but to the definition of the term "mass killing", to limitations of the term "genocide", etc. Obviously, all of that should be moved to the mother article (that does not exist so far).

Re: "should we also present the New York City Police Department as a part of a more general Police article?" No. It has already been done. Look at the first lede's para of the New York City Police Department article.

Re: "Did I remember to mention that Helen Fein has written an entire chapter ..." If this chapter is devoted to a separate category of mass killing, please provide us with a quote that defines this new type of mass killing. To facilitate your work, I can provide some examples.

"Mass killings" The strict definition was made by Valentino. See above.

"Democide" Rummel defines it as follows:

"To cover all such murder as well as genocide and politicide, I use the concept "democide." This is the intentional killing of people by government. It excludes the killing of those with weapons in their hands or those indirectly killed as a result of military action; it excludes judicial executions for what are normally considered capital crimes, such as murder and treason (unless such are clearly excuses for the executions, as the Stalin show trials in the 1930s)."(Democracy, Power, Genocide, and Mass Murder. Author(s): R. J. Rummel Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 3-26)

"Genocide" Genocide is "destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" "Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the opressed group; the other, imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."(Raphael Lemkin. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law. Publisher The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2008. ISBN 1584779012, 9781584779018 ).

Based on that, we can state that the terms "mass killing", "genocide" and "democide" are being used by scholars to describe blah-blah-blah... Can you provide a similar proof for "Communist democide" or "Communist democide" etc? Your references to chapters titles is not sufficient: "The scholar X in the chapter named "Estonian government" introduced a new category of a government body that he named an "Estonian government", and defined it as follows: "Estonian government is a government bogy of Estonia"." Why cannot you understand that it is just a pure tautology?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course Estonian Government is a perfectly good title for an article. It seems to me that you are arguing for the deletion of this article and editing - not to improve the article - but to improve the chances of deleting it. Please correct me if I am wrong. The question of deletion belongs at AfD, and the article has gone through this 3 times. Smallbones (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the discussion carefully. A proposal to create a mother article (and to move some material there) is not a proposal to delete the article. Since that will improve the article's quality (irrelevant information is removed) such a proposal aimed to protect this article against future AfDs.

Re: "Of course Estonian Government is a perfectly good title for an article." I am afraid you simply do not understand the discussion's subject. Of course, Estonian Government is a perfectly good title for an article, but it is neither new term nor category. The same is true for "Communist mass killing". This is my point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: "a considerable part of the present article is devoted not to mass killings under Communists, but to the definition of the term "mass killing" Its only so because someone has added not relevant SYNTH to this article. It should be written on the subject only according to relevant sources and all this original essay like commentary not related to the subject should be removed, I've always said that.--Termer (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Its only so because someone has added not relevant SYNTH to this article." Absolutely agree. I believe, under SYNTH you mean allegations about "Communist genocide/democide/politicide" definitions?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. any concerns on "a pure tautology" perhaps should be taken to relevant authors, nobody can really answer this here why do they speak about "communist genocide' [21] [22] [23], or and "communist mass killings" [24] "communist democide" [25], [26] "communist politicide" [27] etc. Our job here is not to Analyze This but simply cite the sources. Here is an opinion of Yehuda Bauer on 'Communist genocide' who somewhat disagrees with the concept by excluding Cambodia [28], it would be something to use for an alternative perspective perhaps.--Termer (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for my part, believe that this article might have justification if it is reformulated so that the topic is the theories themselves, rather than the events described. In other words, an article about the (possibly fringe) theory that mass killings are inherent to communist regimes. There are many articles about fringe theories in Wikipedia - see for instance Flat Earth - it just needs to be treated as such. --Anderssl (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas for you, that is not the stated topic of the article. And as long as reliable sources use the terms ascribed to them, this article is properly following WP policies and guidelines. And statements of actual killings can hardly be called "fringe." Collect (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "And as long as reliable sources use the terms ascribed to them, this article is properly following WP policies and guidelines." Sure. However, you haven't proved that the reliable sources use the terms.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul S should feel free to write his new article on Mass Killings - but that does not mean that any material here needs to be removed. There seems to be a group of editors who do not like this article at all - calling it a pig among other things. They should feel free to come up with their own version of the article - perhaps using user space. If you can't come up with an acceptable version - then take it to AfD - hopefully you'll abide by the decision of the AfD this time. I'll suggest that all these editors quit editing this page - how can you edit in good faith if your intention is to delete the article? - and allow editors who want to improve the article to edit it here. Smallbones (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...but that does not mean that any material here needs to be removed." Of course, it does. The article doesn't need to have a discussion of the definitions of the words "genocide", "mass killing" etc. It is quite sufficient to tell that some scholars apply these terms to Communist mass killings. By contrast, the discussion of applicability of these terms to different cases of excess mortality under Communists does belong to this article (as I proposed earlier), however, such a proposal encountered a strong opposition of those who proclaimed the desire to (allegedly) improve the article.

Re: "I'll suggest that all these editors quit editing this page - how can you edit in good faith if your intention is to delete the article? - and allow editors who want to improve the article to edit it here." That looks like an attempt to take the article's ownership.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "any concerns on "a pure tautology" perhaps should be taken to relevant authors" Absolutely not. The "relevant authors" just applied the words "genocide", "democide", "mass killing" or "politicide" to coercive (or preventable) mass deaths under Communists, and this constitutes no tautology. There is no tautology in the "Communist mass killing" chapter's title, however, to claim that such a title sets a new definition ("Communist mass killing is mass killing perpetrated by Communist") is pure tautology. It is you who made such a claim and it is you who has to be blamed in tautology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not guilty to the attempted ownership charge. But frankly I think we have to have a serious discussion about editors who want to delete the article editing it. How can you edit an article in good faith - which means improving it - when you are trying to delete it? I suggest that those editors withdraw to avoid an impossible situation. Smallbones (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a problem if you assume good faith. It is fully possible to hold as a primary opinion that the article should be deleted, but seeing as that it is not likely to happen any time soon, in stead working secondarily towards improving the article. --Anderssl (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Paul("Communist mass killing is mass killing perpetrated by Communist") is pure tautology. It is you who made such a claim and it is you who has to be blamed in tautology.

In case you insist that "chapter's titles" are not "terms", fair enough, we can call those "chapter's titles" instead of "terms" than, no problem. Other than that please provide a diff to show that I've made such a claim. I have made no claims on this talk page other than wikipedia content guidelines should be followed instead of publishing original commentary into the article space and onto this talk page. In the current state all references to related sources have been deleted from the article and the text is mostly replaced with WP:SYNTH. The lede is literally -a combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In case "There is no tautology in the "Communist mass killing" why did it get removed from the article? In case the word "term" doesn't apply in the situation it should have been replaced with "chapter title" if you like instead of deleting directly sourced facts from wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me explain it in another way. The fact that one chapter of Valentino's book has a title "Communist mass killing" is not sufficient to state that Valentino used the term "Communist mass killings" (he never proposed such a term), however, it is quite sufficient to state that Valentino applied the term "mass killings" (coined and defined by him) to excess preventable deaths in some Communist countries.

Re: "content guidelines should be followed instead of publishing original commentary into the article space" Firstly, do you know what is the difference between guidelines and policy? Secondly, after you accused me in writing an essay, I provided the quotes from reliable sources demonstrating, concretely and persuasively, the direct correspondence between the text written by me and the sources. You seem to completely ignore that and continue your unsubstantiated allegations on WP:SYNTH. Please, provide your arguments or stop it.

Re: " In case "There is no tautology in the "Communist mass killing" why did it get removed from the article?" Because it is not the way WP articles are being written. No one writes "In his book named XXXX, in the chapter with the title YYYY scholar ZZZ writes that..." One has to write simply: "According to ZZZ, ..." Who cares what was the title of the chapter where Valentino discusses Communist mass killings? Only those who would like to create an impression that Valentino did invented such a term (although it is, obviously, not true: neither Valentino nor Rummel invented a special term for Communist mass killings). To fight against Communist propaganda using its own tools is not the best idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To fight against Communist propaganda? is that whats going on in here, there is Communist propaganda involved here that needs to be fought against? And I've had an impression that communism has been dead and buried for about 20 years or so. Even China has given up on it and now suddenly there is appearing something about Communist propaganda on wikipedia talk pages? Other than that, nothing much made sense. All needed according to wikipedia content guidelines is not the truth but WP:Verify, call it whatever you want , either terms, a chapter titles or whatever, there is no excuse to remove directly sourced material from wikipedia by replacing it with an original political commentary.--Termer (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced materials from Wikipedia is possible and desirable if the sources are not correctly interpreted or are used for WP:SYNTH. To claim that the chapter title "Communist mass killings" sets a new term is a direct misinterpretation. In addition, I did not remove this source from the article (as you try to present it). I just brought the text in accordance with what the source states, and added a newer source written by the same author.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could check on what WP:SYNTH is all about, its -"a combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". There is no original conclusion present in citing the sources on communist mass killings, "Communist+Genocides++and+'Democide'"&dq= communist genocide, communist democide or communist politicide.--Termer (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wrote "if the sources are not correctly interpreted or are used for WP:SYNTH". Obviously, under "incorrectly interpreted" I meant WP:OR. To claim that by naming a chapter in his book "Communist mass killing", or by writing the words "Communist genocide" a scholar defines a new term is a pure original research. A correct way to say is that a scholar applied a term "mass killings" to what took place under Stalin's or Mao's rule. That is what I did in the present article's version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

genocide

I think the suggestion to rename this article "mass killing" may be workable, but I wonder if it doesn't really belong under genocide. Were any of the killings in this article not aimed at any particular group of people, mere random culling of the general population? Rick Norwood (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The current title was chosen as an alternative to the more problematic "genocide" which, under international law, does not cover acts by governments presented here. As this article is currently restricted by its title to "under Communist regimes" your suggestion would render most of the material inapplicable. If you wish to start a new article "Mass killings as a result of government actions", try it. Collect (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There was quite a bit of discussion of this during the discussion that lead to the name change (from the previous "Communist genocide"). I think the main arguments against having 'genocide' in the title was that many of the events discussed (such as the famines in Ukraine and China, deaths due to sickness etc) did not show clear intentionality - i.e., genocide scholars were reluctant to call them genocides because it wasn't clear that they were intentionally orchestrated by the regimes. Secondly, the UN definition of genocide also does not recognize as genocide killings or persecution of political groups. --Anderssl (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"the UN definition of genocide"? Again, the UN doesn't have any definitions on genocide. the UN convention covers not genocide but the Crime of Genocide concerning ethnic, racial and religious groups. The definition of genocide however can be found in any dictionary: Merriam–Webster for examples tells: genocide -the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.--Termer (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Lemkin, an originator of the term, defined it as a crime, and he did that with a concrete purpose: to use it against Nazi criminals. Definition of genocide given by Lemkin is "destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" "Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the opressed group; the other, imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor."(Raphael Lemkin. Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. Publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law. Publisher The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2008. ISBN 1584779012, 9781584779018 ). Since "genocide" is not only a scholarly, but also a judicial term, UN defined it accordingly. Later, Lemkin, as well as some other scholars tried to expand this definition, however, according to Ellman, such "loosely defined genocide" became something not so outstanding and unusual (for, instance, a loose definition of genocide is applicable to many US actions).--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't "killing" imply intent? Is starvation "killing"? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Wheatcroft, "mass killing" is one of the most neutral terms that combines "mass murder", "mass executions", mass manslaughter, famine or disease mortality etc. Therefore "mass killing" does not imply intent.
Starvation, when the condition for that were artificially created, is "killing". However, depending on the absence or presence of intent artificially created starvation may be qualified either as "murder" or as "manslaughter". For instance, starvation of Jews in Warsaw ghetto and starvation of civilians in besieged Leningrad was purely intentional, and may be qualified as "mass murder". Artificially created Soviet 1932-33 and Chinese Great leap forward famines are more complex issue. Some scholars believe they were intentional, others see no intent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all "Mass killing" is not a term of any kind naturally, "mass killing" is what it is, literally "mass killing", it has nothing to do with any kind of terminology on its own. It has not been coined as a term by Valentino or anybody. And Lemkin didn't originally define the word "genocide" as claimed above of of course. It was the veto of communist states in the UN at the time excluding social groups from the convention. Other than that please see Genocide definitions FFI, there is no single and universal concept about the meaning of genocide unlike the straight forward UN convention on the Crime of Genocide.--Termer (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. The word genocide implying we're dealing with a crime is another story, its self explanatory exactly like it's with the word "rape" or "murder" etc. The word "(mass) killing" however doesn't necessary mean the deaths were intentional, and there is the difference. And the reason for this in the context is there are some revisionist scholars out there whose views are supported by some wikipedia editors claiming the deaths by starvation weren't a result of intentional policy of the Communist governments. And there is your answer Rick Norwood, "killing" doesn't imply intent. Since its very possible to get killed by starvation, or falling down the stairs...by your own fault.--Termer (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend to read more on the subject. Meanwhile, a couple of quotes:

Termer: ""Mass killing" is not a term of any kind naturally, "mass killing" is what it is, literally "mass killing", it has nothing to do with any kind of terminology on its own. It has not been coined as a term by Valentino or anybody."

A source: "Our term, ‘mass killing’, is used by Valentino (2004: 10), who aptly defines it as ‘the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants’. The word ‘noncombatants’ distinguishes mass killing from battle-deaths in war, which occur as combatants fight against each other. The ‘massive number’ he selects as the threshold to mass killing is "at least fifty thousand intentional deaths over the course of five or fewer years"" (FRANK W. WAYMAN, ATSUSHI TAGO, Journal of Peace Research, 2009, p. 1-17)

Termer: "Lemkin didn't originally define the word "genocide" as claimed above of of course."

A source:"The term and a concept of genocide has been developed by this writer in his work "Axis rule in occupied Europe"" (Genocide as a Crime under International Law. Raphael Lemkin. Source: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 1947), pp. 145-151)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Your opinion may be interesting, however, this is not a forum. Let's stick with sources. The reliable sources clearly state that (i) mass killing is a term; (ii) this term was defined by Valentino; (iii) the term "genocide" was proposed by Lemkin; (iv) "genocide" is a judical term. Please, provide sources (not your conclusions) that state the opposite, otherwise your participation in this discussion just distracts others from productive work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Our term, "mass killing" - Nothing prevents anybody taking any phrase or word including "mass killing" or lets say "useful idiot" etc. and define it as "Our term" in a specific context. On alternative definitions on the term of genocide, including Lemkin's, again please see Genocide definitions FFI.--Termer (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Let's stick with sources, sure:
(i) mass killing is "our term" by WAYMAN etc;
(ii) this term was defined so by Valentino according to WAYMAN etc;
(iii) the term "genocide" was proposed by Lemkin; sure who has questioned it? Its the Genocide Convention that is not fully following the ideas of Lemkin.
(iv) "genocide" is not only a "judical term". exactly like rape or any other word implying crime.--Termer (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We are writing a Wikipedia, and while it is not an encyclopedia, the articles and topics have to be encyclopedic nonetheless. For generic words and phrases, Wiktionary is that a way. (Igny (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Re generic term. The same word can be simultaneously a generic term and a scientific definition. For instance quality may refer to a colloquial word, to oscillator's property, thermodynamic characteristic of vapour, to philosophic category etc. In that concrete case "mass killing" refers to a concrete scientific definition, and should not be mixed with how common dictionaries treat it.

Re Termer. Wayman and Tago confirmed that Valentino defined the term "mass killing", and this is a fact you can question only based on other reliable source. BTW, here is an original Valentino's definition from another reliable source:

"Mass killing is defined as the intentional killing of a massive number of noncombatants

A “massive number” is defined as at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less." (B Valentino, P Huth, D Balch-Linsday.“Draining the Sea”: Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare. International Organization 58, Spring 2004, pp 375–407.)

Again, it is a scientific definition, and it has been defined by Valentino. Your unsubstantiated claims just demonstrate your ignorance.

Re: "Its the Genocide Convention that is not fully following the ideas of Lemkin." False. "It was also Lemkin who drafted the resolution on genocide"(Josef L. Kunz. The United Nations Convention on Genocide. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 738-746). A direct comparison demonstrates that unequivocally:

Lemkin:"destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group"

UN resolution: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" Clearly, in the UN resolution Lemkin just clarified his own words in judical terms.

Re: "the term "genocide" was proposed by Lemkin; sure who has questioned it?" You. According to your own words: "...Lemkin didn't originally define the word "genocide" as claimed above of of course.", so not only you questioned but directly denied this fact. Cannot speak seriously with a person who blatantly denies his own words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, even though I sort of can see what you mean by twisting my words around, just to spell it out, nobody said "Lemkin didn't define the word "genocide"" but "Lemkin didn't originally define the word "genocide" as claimed above of of course.". in other words, You gave a citation on genocide according to Lemkin, just that it wasn't the way Lemkin originally defined it.--Termer (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. here is what I'm talking about: Defining genocide in 1943, Lemkin wrote:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Wash., D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944), p. 79.

PPS. I'm glad someone found a definition on "mass killings". However its self explanatory such a narrow definition is valid only in the specific context, and the term covers much broader subject than the current article in the first place; and it's the same either kept in the context of the book by Valentino or taken out of it: lets say mass killings occurring by the Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Thailand what has it to do with the single use of the term "mass killings". So how is this discussion about "mass killings" in general related to the article talking specifically about the killings justified by the communist doctrine, sorry but I'm not getting it.--Termer (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "However its self explanatory such a narrow definition is valid only in the specific context, and the term covers much broader subject..." The term "quality" also covers a broad subject when is used colloquially. However, in physics it means a quite specific thing, namely, how much energy dissipate in an oscillator. Similarly, an intuitively clear term "mass killing" becomes a strict statistical term after Valentino defined it, and one should not mix these two.

With regards to Lemkin's considerations, of course, he wrote much more than just a definition of genocide. However, it is not clear for me what concrete idea (in addition to already mentioned ones) the quote provided by you is intended to demonstrate? That these his words do not coincide verbatim with the definition from his later book? I see no considerable difference between the quote provided by you and the Lemkin's definition of two phases of genocide ("Genocide has two phases: one, destruction of the national pattern of the opressed group; the other, imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor.").--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

wonderful, you just accused me of "directly denying Lemkin defining the word/term genocide" and then again this is not about just "genocide" (and how Lemkin originally defined it) but about the definition of "two phases of genocide"? In case there is no considerable difference between discussions about defining "something" vs. defining the "two phases of something", we're certainly not on the same page here, and this seems like includes anything concerning the discussion about "mass killings". And most interesting is that Valentino has defined "mass killings" in his book, but like claimed not the chapter called "communist mass killings" that has remained undefined?--Termer (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Genocide of political groups

I replaced

"Although crimes committed for "political" motives were included in its original (1946) form, pressure from Stalin's Soviet Union resulted in they being removed."

with

"Protection of political groups was eliminated from the UN resolution after a second vote, because many states anticipated that clause to apply unneeded limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances."

for following reason. Firstly, the source used in the previous version is devoted not to the convention per se, but to Japanese history in a genocidal context. Secondly, this refers to another source that is just a IIAS's newsletter. Thirdly, other sources that are devoted primarily to circumstances of signing of the UN resolution do not mention the USSR as the sole or primary opponent of this clause. For instance, Josef L. Kunz (The United Nations Convention on Genocide. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1949), pp. 738-746) just notes that protection of political groups was eliminated "after long debates", whereas Beth van Schaack (The Crime of Political Genocide: Repairing the Genocide Convention's Blind Spot. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 106, No. 7 (May, 1997), pp. 2259-2291) states that the discussion was initiated by Iran

"The Iranian delegate acknowledged the political motivations behind this stance: "Certain States feared that the inclusion of political groups in the convention might enable an international tribunal to intervene in the suppression of plots or insurrection s against which they had to defend themselves." Their delegates anticipated that states would not ratify the Convention if it extended protection to political groups, because states would reject "such limitations to their right to suppress internal disturbances"."

and the elimination was supported by majority of countries, including Latin American and Eastern Bloc countries. I believe replacement of book on Japan (that quote some newsletters) with the article from The Yale Law Journal, that is specially devoted to a subject, will rise no objections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article should mention earlier versions of the resolution at all. That all belongs in the genocide article. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is part of the world-wide conspiracy of the Communists. (Igny (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

I disagree, the debate about genocide against political groups is obviously relevant to this article.--Anderssl (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is only important if it is discussed in the sources that discuss "communist genocide", otherwise inserting it is original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary of Genocide, p 203 says Helen Fein coined the term ideological genocide and defines it as "a particular ideology, myth, or an articulated social goal which enjoins or justifies the destruction of the victims". Additionally Fein has published under 'Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides' a chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocide and Democide but it seems it's not related to the subject?... since all references to it get removed from the article.--Termer (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This might be also interesting and might even be related to the article, you never know, the same Dictionary of Genocide, p 203 By Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs says "it was...Lenin... who gave the ideology (Communism) its modern expression as an intolerant, repressive, and potentially (when not actually) genocidal political force in the modern world"--Termer (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, do not mix a strict legal definition and a colloquial word. Although they look identically, they may mean quite different things.
With regards to history of the Genocide convention signing, the explanation why political groups were not protected is relevant to this article, because, as a rule, the victims of Stalinism, Maoism etc were persecuted for belonging to certain political or social groups, not nations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously untrue and amounts to historical revisionism. Joseph Stalin's regime specifically targeted numerous ethnic groups, both in the Soviet Union and in other countries, that were subject to genocidal policies. Virgil Lasis (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of some ethnic groups by Stalin is only a minor part of his repressive policy. Many scholars do not characterize it as mass killings or genocide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Which scholars? Revisionist/communist scholars? Virgil Lasis (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, familiarize yourself with the discussion on the talk page (including archives) during last months. I cannot spam this page with sources and quotes that are already here. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained category

What has Category:Historical revisionism (political) got to do with this article? (the only connection as far as I can tell is the attempt by some communists to deny communist crimes - however this article should cover the crimes as such, possibly we could have a separate article on denial of communist crimes). Virgil Lasis (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

The version of the lead section preferred by User:Igny[29] is unencyclopedic and extremely badly worded. Additionally, it does not comply with the manual of style, in as much as it doesn't even include a name of the article (even though there are several established terms that describe the events covered by it). It also opens with an extremely long sentence, which makes the introduction hard to read.

I have rewritten the lead section slightly to comply with the manual of style, including bolding the article name and including two other established terms covering these events with sources. The introduction could still be expanded upon. Lead sections of featured articles are generally longer.

Please do not remove sources or content with discussion.

As for the maintenance tags, three similar tags is unnecessary. Virgil Lasis (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should work toward concensus on your proposed changes. Your intro appears to violate policies on neutrality and synthesis. Also the comparison of killings in Communist countries to the Holocaust has been condemned as a type of anti-Semitism that trivializes the Holocaust and therefore should not be presented without comment. Also, do not remove tags from pages until the issues have been resolved. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Re: "it does not comply with the manual of style, in as much as it doesn't even include a name of the article" WP:LEDE#First sentence does not require the name of the article to be in the lede "if the article title is merely descriptive". Since this article is merely descriptive (no such a term exists is actuality) your reference to the manual of style is incorrect.

Re: "It also opens with an extremely long sentence, which makes the introduction hard to read." Good point. Fixed.

Re: "Lead sections of featured articles are generally longer." So why did you delete a second part? BTW, lede is not the biggest article's problem.

Re: "I have rewritten the lead section slightly to comply with the manual of style, including bolding the article name and including two other established terms covering these events with sources." You added a very controversial first sentence that hardly complies with WP:LEDE better than the previous version, and has a number of issues:

1. The terms that are being used very infrequently by scholars appeared to be introduced into the lede thereby giving undue weight to this POV.

2. The sentence relies upon extensively criticized Black Book that gives very unreliable numbers (for instance, according to the BB, all civilian deaths during Vietman war are a result of Communist actions), thereby giving undue weight to one, very controversial source.

3. The number of 100 million (if it is correct) is a number of all excess deaths, not only of the victims of mass killings. The article is about mass killings, so it is incorrect to include this number here.

4. "including deliberate genocides" may refer of Cambodia (that is a very exotic version of poorly agrarian "Communism", and resembles more a fascist rather than Communist state, according to Fein). In other cases, genocidal intents are questionable (see, e.g. Ellman's or Wheatcroft's works)

You also removed the following text: "Nevertheless, direct causes of most of the excess preventable deaths under Communist rule were not murders or executions but war, famine and disease. Although some scholars argue that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion add a considerable part of these deaths to a total democide or genocide death toll, the validity of such an approach is questioned by others." although it summarized different scholars' opinions. I already provided a rationale on this talk page recently, and I strongly recommend you to read it before moving further.

In addition, although it is not a violation of WP policy, it would be hardly polite to start working on the article from the claim: "The version of the lead section preferred by User:Igny[30] is unencyclopedic and extremely badly worded."

In addition, the tags can be removed only when the problem is resolved. It is not resolved so far, so I restored the tags.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Spamming an article with huge amounts of maintenance tags is disruptive. I don't see any reason for why we need three rather similar tags, some of which don't seem to be totally justified either. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Creation of the Communist Holocaust article is a pure WP:CFORK. I propose you to re-consider your decision on creation of this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PPS. Since the BB is already in the article, I didn't remove the source from the article, just from the lede. If you want to start the "Number of victims" section (or something like that) I will fully support this idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you removed several sources, which is unacceptable. It is a fact that the events covered by the article are widely referred to a the Communist Genocide, Communist Holocaust or Red Holocaust. Hence this belong in the introduction. The attempt to make the introduction unreadable and clumsy, including the attempt to remove established terms describing the killings, serves no other purpose than to obfuscate the events covered by the article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1) I wasn't aware of this article when I created Communist Holocaust. 2) It's not a content fork 3) I redirected it to this article when I became aware of this article because they cover roughly the same topic (although Communist Holocaust/Red Holocaust was intended to focus on the terms). I don't see why I should "reconsider" my creation of an article that I have already "reconsidered", i.e. redirected to an existing article that covered the same topic. Virgil Lasis (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article. Hence, it should in any case give the reader an idea of how many that were killed. For instance, like this:

"While the figures are subject to some debate, many scholars agree that around 100 million people perished as the result of repressive communist policies including deliberate genocides"

If you want to include other sufficiently established figures that would also be ok.

The introduction also needs to mention the two terms Communist Holocaust and Red Holocaust that are widely used and established terms, as these terms are names of the events covered by the article (per manual of style). Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is no need. (Igny (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

You haven't provided a rationale, so your comment is essentially irrelevant. There certainly is a need because these are well established terms and I'm not going to let historical revisionists erase them from the introduction. The same goes for the figures. The article on the Jewish Holocaust should serve as good example of how this article should be in several aspects: It has a lead section that is easy to read and that addresses the number of victims already in the first section - very much unlike this introduction which seemingly deliberately obfuscates the topic (for instance by unnecessary long sentences and the absence of a name or names of the article) and hides important facts (like the number of victims). Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As you might have noticed I did not erase it from the article. It is still there in terminology section. It does not belong to lede per undue weight. Is my rationale clear enough for you now? (Igny (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

It belongs in the introduction per the manual of style, as sufficiently well-known terms that cover the entire topic the article is dealing with. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not sufficiently well known to overcome WP:UNDUE. (Igny (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Says who? That's complete nonsense. They are extremely well known terms - much more well-known than "mass killings under communist regimes". Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't commented on the number of victims, I suppose you don't object to its inclusion. Or are the 100 million victims not sufficiently many to overcome WP:UNDUE? Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

100 million would be totally sufficient to overcome anything if it were true. However statements that "some scholars believe that up to [some ridiculously high number] were killed" or "some scholars believe that as low as [some ridiculously low number] were killed" may not overcome WP:UNDUE. That does not mean of course that discussion of the range of the estimates is not welcome in the body of the article. There is no reason to put that "actual number of killed is unknown" to the lede either.(Igny (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Again, this figure has two issues. First, it is not clear how correct it is. This number seems to be partially derived form old Conquest data, although he himself reconsidered them after Soviet archives have been declassified. Some of these data were a result of very rough approximations or extrapolations, validity of such an approach has been questioned by other scholars. Second, this is a number of population losses, not of those who was killed. Along with those who was executed, murdered, or died in camps, these population losses include famine victims, although there is no unequivocal proof that all of these famines were intentionally created, those who died from epidemia, etc. This number deserves a discussion in main article but it cannot be placed in the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)