Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Third move option

How about "Mass killings under Totalitarian Communist Regimes" Sir Floyd (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've split this proposal to a new section so it will be easier to gage consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not think he meant the proposal to be taken seriously. TFD (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm serious but if nobody is interested, that's OK. :) Sir Floyd (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How about Mass killings under totalitarian regimes? Issues that are specific to communism can be discusses in an appropriate section and a main article Communism and totalitarianism. (Igny (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

• Oppose. "Totalitarian" is redundant, because, according to many scholars, all communist regimes were totalitarian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Second Paul, in case anybody can point out a Communist regime that wasn't/isn't totalitarian, an article about it would make it to WP:DYK big time.--Termer (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To both of you, a counterexample is in Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova who was a ruling party in Moldova from Moldovan parliamentary election, 2001 until very recently. Also Dimitris Christofias' regime does not look too totalitarian to me. See also Vietnam. And even in Soviet Union there was Gorbachev and Khruschev. (Igny (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

FYI, Igny: Moldova is not a Communist state/regime but a republic where the Communist party happened to win the elections. Gorbachev and Khruschev however were both rulers of a totalitarian single party Communist state. And yes Vietnam is still a totalitarian single party Communist state.--Termer (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I am not very interested in your opinion. Care to find sources calling Gorbachev's rule totalitarian? (Igny (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm not here to bore you with my opinions. You just don't understand what a "totalitarian rule" (in your words) vs republic means. It's not about individuals who rule the countries in any given time but about the political structure of the states. You can't have a communist regime in a republic and vice versa. Please read the relevant articles FFI.--Termer (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there's a way we can avoid these debates about what's a "regime" (see above) :-P --Explodicle (T/C) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you can have a communist regime in a republic. Communism is an economic system, a republic is a political system. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Republic merely means not a monarchy. Theoretically, the authority of the government of a republic, even if it is a dictatorship, derives from the public, rather than God. TFD (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, two points of view exists. According to the first one, Communism is by default a totalitarian ideology, so Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's regimes were the pure manifestations of the Communist idea, and every totalitarian leader claiming his adherence to one of another version of Marxism (Stalinism, Maoism etc) is a genuine Communist (and, accordingly, Bukharin, Khruschev, Gorbachev, etc.) were not real Communists). By coincidence, the proponents of this article in its present form seem to share this views.
The second point of view is that Stalin, Mao etc. were the deviations from the Marx doctrine, and they can be considered as a kind of fascist states, and the events that took place during their rule were not immanent to the genuine communism. Interestingly, Helen Fein (already quoted on this talk page) directly states that the most pure example of "Communist genocide" (in Cambodia) was committed by the regime that more resembled a fascist rather than a communist state (and was based on some non-Marxian economic doctrine).
One way or the another, since the words "Communist regimes" are used by many scholars as an umbrella term to describe "totalitarian state that declared adherence to one or another form of the Communist doctrine", addition of the word "totalitarian" is a palliative. To make a title (and the article) fully neutral much more serious modifications are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what is non-neutral about the current title. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Outside radical right-wing circles, the term totalitarian is rarely used these days. It is a relic of Cold War terminology. Ironically the United States during the Reagan administration re-classified China to "authoritarian". TFD (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, what would you think of about an article called Mass killings under Baltic, Ukranian and Polish regimes? We could then discuss how people in these countries collaborated with tsarists, Soviets and Nazis to kill their fellow citizens. TFD (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say: "What are the sources and how do they frame the events?" AmateurEditor (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There will be no problems with reliable sources: in the Ukrainian case it could be, e.g., reliable sources on pogroms perpetrated by Directoria in 1918-20, mass killing of the Poles during WWII, Ukrainian collaborators in Nazi camps etc. (Note, I do not propose to create such an article). All these facts are well documented, all these sources are reliable, and we can create the article on that subject on the almost same ground the present article is created. However, that would be only a part of truth, i.e. a lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that reliable sources could be found for each instance in each country, but I would need to see sources which discuss them as a group before supporting such an article (and I believe this is your position as well, Paul, if I read you correctly). AmateurEditor (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. With regards to the article's subject, three type sources are used there: (i) the works where the authors discuss all cases of XX century mass killings or genocides (both Communist and non-Communist); (ii) the works that are focused exclusively on Communist mass killings (and draw a direct connection between Communism and mass killings); (iii) the works that discuss each case (or each country) separately from the others, and, therefore, draw no general conclusions. As you see, if we omit (ii), there will be no more ground to talk about the Mass killings under Communist regimes article than about Ukrainian mass killings. However, that means that by adding (i) and (iii) to (ii) we do a pure synthesis. We should either expand the article's scope to talk about "Mass killings" as defined by Valentino in his "Final solution" (that discusses Communist mass killings only in one chapter), or about Rummel's Democide (in his works he draws a connection between totalitarianism and democide, not Communism and democide); or to narrow the article's scope limiting it with some marginal writings like the Black Book (or, more precisely, the Courtois' introduction, that is the most provocative and the weakest part of this book, although the most widely cited by anti-Communists), or Rosenfielde's Red Holocaust.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is about creating new facts by blending two facts from two sources to create or imply one new fact. It is not about using all of the three types of sources you listed in one article. Of course that is permitted. For example, if we did not permit sources which discuss only one event, then there would be no counterpoint to those authors which suggest commonalities. Individual explanations will have to come from sources which focus on individual cases. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article "Anti-semitism" in Europe draws attention to these countries for their connection with Nazi and Soviet mass killings.[1] Here is a link to a book the connects these countries. "THE HOLOCAUST IN THE SOVIET UNION" describes activities in these countries.[2] Besides there is no reason for us to draw a connection between these countries and if every section were fair and balanced then there could be no possible POV issues. TFD (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, then you just need to show notability in significant coverage. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There has been significant coverage of mass killings in all these countries. A Google scholar search for example for "mass killings"+poland returns 2,590 hits,[3] compared with nil hits for "mass killings under communist regimes".[4] TFD (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the significant coverage of the topic must be in the individual sources. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) Well it is. The Google scholar search for example showed numerous sources for mass killings in Poland. TFD (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think you have the sourcing, knock yourself out. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And

What about keeping it where it is, and simply work on the article? Collect (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is an ok suggestion for a short term. Another similar suggestion could be "just let it be". Both however lack the long term vision. (Igny (talk) 22:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Collect, since you and others have been working on this article for months, and have not made it neutral, can you please explain what possible work could improve the article? TFD (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There is really no way to fix anti-communist propaganda, any more than there is any way to fix anti-American propaganda or anti-Christian propaganda. Propaganda is unencyclopedic, and as long as such articles exist in Wikipedia, Wikipedia will fall short of the standards of mainstream encyclopedas. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And WP is not based on judgements about something being "propaganda" but whether the article cites reliable sources per WP:V. Collect (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But your "reliable sources", to the extent they are reliable, specifically contradict the title of the article, which implies that the mass killings occurred because the regimes were communist. It does not take a great deal of insight to tell the difference between objective reporting and propaganda. A number of editors have tried to make the article less bad, but the title alone brings shame on Wikipedia -- as outside commentators have noted. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They are specifically "relaible" even through repeated requests at RS/N, soo the "to the extent" bit is inapt for WP. As for aszerting that they are "propaganda" - that arguemnt was rejected at RS/N. In short, your cavils are inapt for WP. Collect (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are reliable. If you think that any of them are not reliable, please take them to WP:RSN but don't expect a welcoming response - most of the sources have already been passed there, and when there is a history of folks taking books from the Harvard University Press there ... well, do you really expect anybody to take that seriously? The topic has been to AfD 4 times now, and has never been deleted - it's about time folks accept that this is here to stay and not try to obstruct the writing of the article. In particular, the claim that this is a "coatrack article" has been rejected multiple times - I've removed the notice about coatrack that was at the top of the article. As far as POV - if you think that a POV has been left out of the article, all you need to do is find a reliable source that says something like, for example, that mass killings under Communist regimes had nothing to do with Communism. Obviously several reliable sources say they do have a relation to Communism, but if you can find somebody (in a reliable source) that says the opposite, it can be included. What cannot be included is your personal opinions that the connection, expressed in reliable sources that there is a connection, is wrong. Smallbones (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the sources are reliable - the objections relation to synthesis and neutrality. It is embarrassing that some people think the only way to expose the evils of Communism is through the same sort of propaganda that Stalin used. TFD (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand Wikipedia's rules on WP:syn and WP:NPOV. Editors are not allowed to synthesize material, but reliable sources that do their own synthesis are definitely allowed. Goldhagen, Valentino, and Werth et al all come up with similar syntheses and that is fairly reported here. If you have some other reliable sources that offer a different synthesis, you may include it. If you simply do not like the synthesis of Goldhagen, etc. you may not delete it. Similarly with POV. Goldhagen, etc. have their POVs, and since they are reliable sources (not Wikipedia editors) their POVs may be reported here, and you may not delete them. If you have a reliable source that has a different POV, under WP:NPOV you may include it. Find it if you can and quit obstructing the article. And please do not compare people to Stalin. Smallbones (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the difference perfectly. You are adding your own synthesis to the article which is the difference between a neutral article and one promoting extremist views. TFD (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFD and suggesting that anyone promotes "extremist views" is quite against WQA as well. Collect (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not suggest that anyone promoted extremist views but that the article promotes extremist views. You may have noticed that editors with a wide range of political views do not consider the article to be neutral. TFD (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - this option doesn't improve the anti-communist POV issues at all. --Explodicle (T/C) 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And II.

The idea to keep the article and to "simply work on it" is quite obvious and reasonable. The only issue is in what direction such a work should proceed.
In my opinion, under no circumstances cannot the article become just a list of crimes committed by the regimes that declared their adherence to the Communist doctrine, and I can explain why. By contrast no Nazism, that openly declared that its ultimate goal is to provide a dominance and prosperity for the German nation, that was supposed to be achieved by deprivation of resources and full or partial elimination of other nations, Communism's declared goals were quite humanistic and could be seen as a logical continuation of the ideas of Enlightenment and French Revolution. Let me also remind you that the first Communist regime, Paris Commune executed only one person. Therefore, although no detailed explanation of the reasons behind, e.g. the Holocaust is needed, the explanation of why the regimes whose declared goals were noble and humanistic committed so many crimes is definitely necessary in each concrete case.
To demonstrate my idea, let me show the example of what I believe is a correct and neutral text and what is not.

The example of the good text:

"Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Main article: Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Although it is frequently considered as an example of communist genocide, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan represents a borderline case, according to Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago. This state, that was invaded in 1979 by the USSR followed by installation of the puppet government of Babrak Karmal there, was never clearly stabilized as a communist regime, but rather in a constant state of war. By 1987, about 80% of the country's territory was permanently controlled by neither Soviets nor by the armed opposition. To tip the balance, the Soviet Union used a tactics that was a combination of "scorched earth" policy and "migratory genocide": by systematically burning the crops and destroying villages in rebel provinces, as well as by reprisal bombing of entire villages suspected of harbouring or supporting the resistance, the Soviets tried to force the local population to move to the Soviet controlled territory thereby depriving the armed opposition of the support. By the time the Soviets withdrew in 1988, 1 to 1.5 million people had been killed, mostly Afghan civilians, and one-third of Afghanistan's population had been displaced. M. Hassan Kakar argued that "the Afghans are among the latest victims of genocide by a superpower.""

This text explains what was a connection between the described events and the Communist regime (in the USSR), what was the reason for mass killing perpetrated in Afghanistan, and what was the purpose of the perpetrators. It is clear from the text that the described events were, in actuality a counter-guerilla warfare (similar to what occurred in Vietnam).

The example of the bad text:

"People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia"

Main article: Red Terror (Ethiopia)

Amnesty International estimates that a total of half a million people were killed during the Red Terror of 1977 and 1978 During the terror groups of people were herded into churches that were then burned down, and women were subjected to systematic rape by soldiers. The Save the Children Fund reported that the victims of the Red Terror included not only adults, but 1,000 or more children, mostly aged between eleven and thirteen, whose corpses were left in the streets of Addis Ababa. Mengistu himself is alleged to have killed political opponents with his bare hands."

From this text a reader can learn that some regime, whose connection with Communism is unknown, but whose evil nature is obvious and needs in no additional proofs or explanations, committed mass murders for some obvious, although unnamed, reason. In my opinion, the above text, as well as other similar fragments serve as the major reason for numerous article's AfDs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should explain how these killings differed from mass killings by tsarist, British, American and indigenous non-communist warlords. Notice that although Valentino has a chapter called "Mass killings under communist regimes", he groups Afghanistan and Ethiopia under "Counterguerrilla mass killings".[5] Ironically most of the events listed in the article were mass killings by anti-communists. Unless we can explain this, these sections should be removed. TFD (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? Seems that the title limits what the article is about, so trying to tie in all the other stuff would, indeed, by SYN. Collect (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I am not suggesting that we make the connection but that we report the connection made in reliable sources. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (my emphasis). No one is recommending that. TFD (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And again - it is not required that the connection be in the article title. Nor is it required that only sources which make such a connection be in this article. Collect (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. TFD (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The title doesn't limit what the article is about. Titles are descriptive, not prescriptive. I now regret suggesting other improvements along with the proposed name change - it has served only to complicate the matter. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, it does (see WP:COAT). However, not the title is the major article's issue (we can live even with the present title), but the way the article is written: as a catalogue of mass killings with only scarce attempts to explain the origin of all these sometimes unrelated events that happened in different time, in different places and, as a rule, for different reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Collect misrepresented what I said because I never said there is a requirement that the connection be in the article title or that only sources which make such a connection be in this article. My advice to Collect is to stop misrepresenting other editors and to address the actual issues that we are discussing. TFD (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AGF. You have commented often about WP:SYN being implicit in the title of the article, and stated that the title somehow must be used as a term in sources, among other things. Kindly refer to the issues and not to other editors, please. Collect (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentation may be deliberate or accidental, and am not assuming that it is deliberate. Your remark that I said "WP:SYN [was] implicit in the title of the article" is correct, but that is not the same as saying it is "required that the connection be in the article title" (my emphasis). TFD (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Another move request

I'm about 90% sure the Classicide move suggestion above isn't going to pass, so I'd like to suggest something a little less controversial - we should move this to Communism and mass killing. Here's why:

• It's fairly similar to the current title, so we don't need to debate about whether it's classicide, politicide, mass murder, capital punishment, etc.
• It's similar to the existing Communism and homosexuality, Communism and religion, and the many other "%Philosophy and %Thing" articles (frequently politics and religion).
• The current name sounds like the title of a list. This isn't (and shouldn't be) just a list; the article should go into depth as to why there's a correlation. We should add communist thoughts on the issue and retain the outside perspectives on communist violence (currently dominating the "Causes" section). I think this can be done without degrading into a pro and con list.

This is an important topic in communism, and I think a new title in keeping with a de facto Wikipedia standard will go a long way towards covering it in a neutral way. Please consider this not as a magic wand to fix everything, but whether or not it's a step in the right direction. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• • And that would explicitly require making connections which the current title does not require. Not much reason for such a move, in other words. Collect (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The connection has already been made. It's described in the "Causes" section, and the very nature of an article about X and Y implies that X and Y are connected. Several reliable sources document this issue. You can't say that there's enough of a connection to justify an article, but not enough of a connection to actually elaborate on it. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication that the "Causes" section describes a consensus mainstream view. There is some question whether the views are even above a "tiny minority" threshold. BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's definitely questionable and clearly not comprehensive. I think minority views are substantial enough to mention, though, if they're from notable sources like John N. Gray, R. J. Rummel, and The Black Book of Communism. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that no books or articles have been written about the subject is a good reason to delete it. But if there is an article then we have no choice but to use whatever sources are available. TFD (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually floated this idea back in October, but it didn't catch on.[6] I'm comfortable with the current title, but I would support this move. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Agree "American terrorism" was changed to United States and state terrorism and it is possible that that article can be written in a neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Such a title is absolutely neutral and allows us to look at the issue from several different points of view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• No way - This article is about mass killings under Communist regimes, not a general discussion about Communism and the idea of mass killings. I'd expect an article entitled "Communism and mass killings" to say something like "Communists are against mass killing." That may well be the case in theory, but in practice 100 million people were killed in organized killings under Communist regimes. And that topic deserves its own article. In effect you'd be deleting this article and substituting a wishy-washy marshmallow topic. The 4th deletion request has been closed as keep, and none of the deletion requests have had a majority. If you don't like the current topic, please just go somewhere else - there are many other articles that you can edit. Smallbones (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Re:none of the deletion requests have had a majority. The very first AfD was ~25 delete and ~11 keep. (Igny (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC))
• A couple problems with that:

• First of all, the article does include a general discussion about communism and the idea of mass killings. It's in the Causes section.
• Second, I propose removing nothing. IMHO 100% of the text currently in the article should stay. I'm only proposing we add communist perspectives for neutrality, and I suppose all neutrality is "wishy-washy".

I realize this is a very sensitive topic, but it's important that we try to handle this calmly and impartially. --Explodicle (T/C) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. It is not clear for me why the the opponents of the move are so eager to avoid any discussion of the interrelation between Communism and mass killings.:

"This article is about mass killings under Communist regimes, not a general discussion about Communism and the idea of mass killings." (Smallbones)

"And that would explicitly require making connections which the current title does not require." ( Collect)

Frankly, the very fact that this article exists (and survived three AfDs) already means that the idea about some interrelation between mass killing and Communism is supported by many scholars. The new title gives us an opportunity to discuss all aspects of such a connection, and I believe such an approach (to discuss all aspects, not some selective aspects) it is the only possible way to do that neutrally.

Re: "I'd expect an article entitled "Communism and mass killings" to say something like "Communists are against mass killing." " Correct. The issue should be considered and from this point of view. Let me remind you that at least three cases of mass killings were stopped due to Communists and by Communists: Jewish pogroms in Ukraine in 1918-20, Holocaust, and Cambodian genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. One more aspect should also be covered: Communists as the victims of mass killings (e.g. by Nazi or in Indonesia). To summarise all said above, a really neutral article that combined "mass killing" and "Communism" must discuss three major points:

1. Communists as perpetrators of mass killings;

2. Communists as victims of mass killings;

3. Communists as preventors of mass killings.

That would be an example of a fully neutral approach to the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can all agree that widening the scope of the article would not help us achieve consensus. In fact, it would dramatically reduce that possibility. I'm having second thoughts about a name change at this time, and about this name change in particular. The three points you list are each distinct topics, the first two of which already have separate articles. The third strikes me as very problematic because of the counter-factual nature of getting credit for preventing something from having happened in the first place. Neutrality in a Wikipedia article is between sources, not between topics. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The third strikes me as very problematic because of the counter-factual nature " I see no problems here: Communists was the only force that openly and effectively fought against Jewish pogroms in Russia; Communist (or "Communist") Stalin's USSR was the only factor that made the conquest of the Greater Germany (and, therefore, cessation of the Holocaust) possible; intervention of Communist Vietnam put an end to the Pol Pot's regime. All these facts are well known, and I can provide reliable sources to support these statements.
With regards to "widening a scope", I am not sure such a consensus exists: some fraction of the editors seem to have nothing against widening the article as much as possible provided that the new material will have at least a tangential relation to Communist mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Even with sources for communist prevention of mass killing, it is clearly a separate topic with separate debates and my point was that I would hope we could all at least agree that widening the scope of the article is a recipe for wider disagreement (and bloat). As far as tangential sources, I think that is presently a containable problem, but one that will only be made worse by widening the article's scope. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. We'll get better results if we handle this incrimentally, otherwise we'll never agree on everything. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Suggested Communism and mass killing is a different subject, could include for example the doings of the Red Brigades. This article is about what is known as Communist genocide, or Communist politicide or Communist democide referring to the genocidal activities of Communist states, not to "Communism + mass killing".--Termer (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see why we couldn't expand to include those; there have been cases where whether or not a communist group is a "regime" is ambiguous, like when the Khmer Rouge had UN recognition but little actual control over Cambodia. --Explodicle (T/C) 11:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "This article is about what is known as Communist genocide..." In other words, the article is supposed to be a kind of "All bad things about Communists" articles. That is exactly what is prohibited by a neutrality policy. If we write about mass killings committed by Communists during a civil war, neutrality requires us to add that the Communists themselves were the victims of similar mass killings perpetrated by the opposing party (and prevented some mass killings perpetrated by their opponents). If we write that one conditionally Communist regime (in Cambodia) committed what is considered one of the most pure example of genocide, neutrality requires us to add that this genocide was stopped by the intervention of other Communist regime.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"All bad things about Communists"? I have no idea what are you talking about. "bad" and "good" belong to fairy tales, in case you'd add the ugly, it 's a movie title. This article should be not about the good, the bad and the ugly but about facts.--Termer (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Termer, the literature distinguishes between mass causualty terrorism and mass killing. Even then I do not think that any left-wing terrorist group ever made an attack that met that description. TFD (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Even 9/11 events by their scale do not fit the Valentino's "mass killing" definition ("50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less").--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Red brigades was over the top and a bad example. it doesn't change what this article is about: not "Communism + mass killing" but "Communist states + mass killing".--Termer (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you name any Communists who committed mass killings (50,000+ over five years) whom you believe should be excluded from this article? TFD (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point - specifying "regimes" is redundant if all communist mass killings were perpetrated by regimes. The expansion in scope I suggested in response to Termer's original comment would not be required. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support --TIAYN (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as being fully unwarranred. Collect (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How can the title "Something and something else" be unwarranted? Everything can be considered in the context of everything. Although you have a right to have (and express) your opinion, your rationale is completely obscure for me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - As of this writing, this option (as opposed to leaving it unchanged or the other two active move suggestions) is the only one with majority support and a rough consensus. Before I move the article, are there any new comments, pro or con? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I no longer support this move because I get the feeling that it will simply offer an opening to editors who wish to make drastic and disruptive changes to the article. Every point of consensus achieved thus far would then be unsettled. I think the current title is fairly neutral and descriptive. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "drastic and disruptive" and what is not is a matter of one's taste. In my opinion, disruption is an attempt to introduce the anti-communist bias into the article, or to provide a one-sided view. One way or the another, I prefer not to use such wording, and suggest you to do the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When I had raised the possibility of making this exact name change before, this was the first response: "So you think the article should include Soviet serial killers, Kennedy murder conspiracy theories, Nazi killings of Soviet citizens and Soviet killings of fascist invaders." [7]. That's the kind of thing I am thinking of, not your suggestions above, which I respectfully disagree with. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We're defining "mass killings" as 50k over 5 years, so the first two examples wouldn't count. The Nazi killings would go here. Soviet killings of fascist invaders, if they meet the 50k criterion, would be appropriate for this article. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviet killing of Axis invaders do not meet this criterion (50k of non-combatants over 5 years or less), unless we are talking about mass killings of German civilians. However, I think it is hardly necessary to include them here, because there were obviously no connection between Communism and these excesses, at least no (or negligible minority of) authors list these victims among the victims of Comunism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone makes a drastic/disruptive change with which you disagree, why not just revert and bring it up on the talk page? I don't think we should retain the existing title just to avoid discussion and preserve the status quo. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Drastic/disruptive change can hardly be prevented by the article's name choice, so it is not the reason for not changing a less adequate title to the better one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But I see no consensus that this name change is not also seen by some editors as a change or expansion in topic. That is, if some editors are agreeing to this name change because they believe that it will justify expansion of the topic itself, then changing the name is a bad idea. The current title leaves much less room for topic interpretation (although content describing communist views is already appropriate under the current title), and so much greater potential for consensus. If everyone agreed that the scope of the topic itself (which is really best described as "mass killings under communist regimes") was in no way changed as a result of this move, then that would be one thing. But I have no appetite for endless argument. We need to nail down the scope of this article and this doesn't help us do that. For example, is 50k+ killings within 5 years actually the standard for inclusion in this article, because I think only Valentino uses it. None of the other sources that I have seen specify a cut-off (most talk about the big three - USSR, China, Cambodia - without addressing the smaller cases) but Valentino himself does mention "mass killings on a smaller scale" below his rather arbitrary cut-off. The article does not say that is the standard at the moment. On the other hand, perhaps it should explicitly say that his criteria is the criteria of the article for the sake of practicality. I agree with Paul Siebert that "soviet killing of fascist invaders" would not be appropriate because the sources are talking about killings of non-combatants. But it would be much, much more difficult to disprove appropriateness of inclusion under the new title. The other title examples given by Explodicle (Communism and homosexuality, and Communism and religion) are issues of political philosophy, while this article is an issue of historical events and their analysis. It is more like the many examples given in the recent AfD, such as Witch trials in Early Modern Europe or Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor seems to feel that the name change will allow different points of view to be presented, which is hardly a reason to prevent a name change. TFD (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote myself: "content describing communist views is already appropriate under the current title". AmateurEditor (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality is not achieved by balancing anti-Communist views with pro-Communist ones, but by presenting "all majority and significant minority views". Incidentally, while the definition of the term "mass killings" may be problematic, it is already part of the name for the current article. TFD (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "For example, is 50k+ killings within 5 years actually the standard for inclusion in this article, because I think only Valentino uses it." Yes, however, please, keep in mind that the very term "mass killings" has been coined by him, as well as the term "deprivation mass killings". The latter term allowed us to discuss famines, deporation and disease deaths in this article. Note, that, although many scholars consider the victims of these events as the victims of Communism, they do not consider them as the victims of "mass killings" (if the latter term is understood in a commonsensual, not Valentino's way). And, obviously, "victims of Communism" is much a broader term than "victims of Communist mass killings".
Let me reiterate it again: the whole article is based on the Valentino's concept of "mass killings" (that includes "deprivation mass killings"). If we reject a part of this concept and add the materials that do not fit the Valentino's definition, we perform synthesis. If we reject the Valentino's concept, the article must be deleted, because the major framework disappears that holds different parts of this article (that have been already described in Genocide, Democide, Great Purge, Red Terror, Soviet war crimes etc) together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Then we should explicitly state that in the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea to state that the article is based primarily on the Valentino's concept of mass killing (similarly to the Democide article that is based mostly on the Rummel's concept) is quite reasonable, and if I am not wrong, I already proposed that (or planned to propose). However, please, keep in mind that both Valentino and Rummel didn't write about Communist mass killing, and , accordingly, Communist democide, because the terms they invented embrace all XX century coercive mass deaths (both related and unrelated to Communists). In connection to that, neutrality requires us to convert the present article to the "Mass killing" daughter article (or to extend this article by adding non-Communist mass killings and to rename accordingly).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

George Watson

The following para needs in some attention:

"Literary historian George Watson argued in The Lost Literature of Socialism that analyses of the writings of Engels and others shows that"[t]he Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."

He also claimed that from 1840 until the death of Hitler "everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found.". Watson's claims have been criticised by Robert Grant for "dubious evidence", arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is [...] at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question." Grant also claims Watson's concept of 'socialism' is "at best nebulous...and at worst, anything at odds with his own classical liberalism." "

In his review (Robert Grant. Reviewed work(s): The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson. The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 50, No. 200 (Nov., 1999), pp. 557-559) Robert Grant argued that Watson's conclusions are dubious:

"Watson's evidence seems dubious. He reminds us, salutarily, that even as late as the 1930s 'advanced' thinkers such as Shaw, Wells, and Beatrice Webb (all of them also keen imperialists and eugenicists) were defending, and even advocating, the mass starvation or the (more 'humane') gassing of entire races and peoples, to say nothing of the physically or mentally 'unfit'. (Incidentally, that repulsively glib, sinister maxim, 'You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs' is here attributed to Beatrice Webb; doubtless correctly, but it would be useful to have chapter and verse.) But the case is not so clear-cut with Marx and Engels. To be sure, they were imperialists and, it seems, racists too, believing in the historic mission, and privilege, of 'advanced' nations. 'Germany takes Schleswig with the right of civilization over barbarism, of progress against stability', wrote Engels in 1848 (a statement attributed to Marx on the cover, but to Engels in the text). And Marx (or Engels) wrote also that 'dying nationalities',s uch as the Czechs and Poles, ought to accept 'the physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbours'.

Such attitudes were wholly normal for their time, and by no means confined to socialists. By today's standards, of course, what Marx and Engels are calling for is not very amiable, being at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question. The ease and suddenness with which Watson slips from the above quotations to 'racial extermination' is not reassuring. There is a world of difference between losing one's physical life and losing one's cultural identity. Losing one's cultural identity, after all, can be perfectly acceptable and comparatively painless, so long as one simultaneously acquires another, as the history of American immigration testifies. We ought, if we value truth, to be absolutely clear as to which of these things we mean. Actually, in his preface Watson is clear: 'they wanted whole races to be killed'. But he nowhere shows that they did."

In connection to that, and because I found no other reviews on the Watson's book in the jstor database (which implies a low notability) I propose to either delete this paragraph completely or to supplement it with equally long description of all fallacies found by Grant in the Watson's statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Watson should be deleted from the article. I do agree that the paragraph needs attention. It should be reduced so as not to be given undue weight. But supplementing it with an equally long counterpoint from Grant is what has given us much of its current excessive length. This source has been criticized before, and the current paragraph - with its inclusion of Grant's criticism - is largely a reflection of the rough consensus which resulted from those previous arguments. Maybe it is time to revisit this. I should point out, though, that Grant's statement that Watson "nowhere shows" that Marx and Engels "wanted whole races to be killed" is wrong. Watson does show where Engels (at least) does. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the previous argument, if you're interested. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The only fragments Watson's claim is based on are

"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary.", and

"The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."[8]

I concede, these phrases taken out of a context can be considered as a call for genocide. However, after re-reading the Engels' article I have to agree with Grant's conclusion: Watson's statement is no more warranted that, e.g. the statement that Engels' doctrine requires mass killing of bourgeoisie. The Engels' idea is that since the logical development of the events in Europe will inevitably lead to disappearance of some nations (not due to physical elimination of their representatives, but by their assimilation), it is natural to expect that these nations would join a counter-revolutionary movement that, nevertheless, will not help them to survive. In other words, the only thing Engels can be criticised for is his idea (that was quite common during those times and was shared by the overwhelming majority of his progressive contemporaries, and later by, e.g. Theodore Roosevelt) that smaller and less developed nations must disappear and be assimilated by more developed ones.
One way or the another, since this concrete Watson's idea (on the genocidal nature of Marxism) is not shared by even a considerable minority of scholars and has been criticised and debunked quite persuasively by others, it should be removed. That does not mean that other Watson's writings should be rejected. My point is that this concrete Watson's idea is completely unwarranted and cannot be derived form what Engels wrote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Upon meditation I realised that even if taken out of a context these fragments do not support the Watson's idea. "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples" implies that "reactionary people" would disappear on the same manner as "reactionary classes and dynasties" would do, i.e. as a social entities, not as human beings. Therefore, Engels' "The Magyar Struggle" is completely irrelevant to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The present article's text states that Watson analysed "the writings of Engels and others". That is a false claim. Watson explicitly writes that his conclusion is based on the Engels' "The Hingarian Struggle" article only. Interestingly, the article contains no words "racial trash", "kill" or "exterminate", and by no mean can be interpreted as a call to physical elimination of anybody.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One more point. Watson writes not about Marxism, or Communism, but about socialism as whole, including Western socialists, not Communists. Therefore, his writings are hardly relevant to this concrete article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We should follow the instructions for fringe theories. We should not directly quote Watson at all, but rely on the review of his book. TFD (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Watson's statement that "genocide was an idea unique to socialism" should be removed completely for several reasons:

Firstly, it is irrelevant, because he wrote about Socialism, not Communism. Watson's writings do not explain why alleged Marxian idea of "extermination of small nations" was implemented only by a small part of socialist regimes, and only by those where the Marxian concept had been distorted in a greater extent;

Secondly, Watson's claim about the "Engels' fundamental idea of extermination of small nations" is simply a blatant lie: Engels simply do not use such a wording and he describes a process of disappearance of some reactionary peoples as inevitable historic process that would be a step forward. However, neither Marx nor Engels never proclaimed that such a process would be artificially accelerated by Communists (and performed via physical extermination of anybody), and nowhere in his book did Watson provided a direct quote from Marx or Engels that would serve as a support for his claim on a genocidal nature of Marxism, or on the Marxist origin of the idea of genocide.

The latter statement is not my original research, I simply re-read the Watson's "Lost literature ..." to check if Grant missed anything, and I found nothing that would allow us to state that Grant's opinion on Watson was unjustified.
Since the Watson's views on Socialism in general are only marginally relevant to the article about Communist mass killings (and conclusions are based on virtually nothing), this para should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course Watson's views are nonsense. But that is beside the point. The article should explain who makes the connection between mass killings and communism, what connection they make and the degree of acceptance. Clearly the people who make the connection are fringe and this article should not be a platform for their beliefs, as it is at present. That is why we should use reliable secondary sources (in this case the book review), not primary sources like Lost literature. TFD (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why did you decided that "Lost literature" was a primary source. Of course, it is a secondary, although irrelevant and highly dubious. It can (and should) be mentioned in the articles discussing a connection between Socialism and Nazism, Socialism and Genocide, however I see no reason to devote any space here to the Watson's views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No it is a primary source because it presents the type of theory that this article is about. Again, can you please read "WP:Fringe". The confusion between primary and secondary sources in this article is the main reason for issues of bias and synthesis. If this article were about socialism then it would be a secondary source, but of course it would not be reliable. TFD (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is Watson directly connected to communist mass killings? Just writing about the subject does not make someone a primary source. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, we've been down this road of re-interpreting the interpretation of sources before. It gets very close to original research on our part and should be avoided. The choice you proposed - either deletion or counterbalancing with criticism - also echos the earlier discussion. I don't think we could reach a consensus to delete (I certainly wouldn't support it) and the current text is essentially already your alternative. But in response to your point that Watson is way off base in reading Engels as praising the physical killing of those peoples, and assuming that you didn't go back and read the earlier discussion I linked above, I will re-post a link to another author (historian Andrzej Walicki) who draws the same conclusion from the same Engels source: "It is difficult to deny that this was an outright call for genocide."[9] And while it is true that Watson writes about socialism as a whole, and not everything in his book is relevant here, he also talks about communism, which he calls "its more violent extreme" (p. 64). Certainly we cannot say that when his writing is explicitly about Marxism it is irrelevant to this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Walicki actually cites Watson in that passage. But we cannot make our own judgments on these different theories, and must rely on how they are treated by reliable sources. If there are people who believe that writers such as Watson are valid, that is their right and we cannot provide our own views on their veracity. WP has many articles on theories that range from generally accepted to fringe. TFD (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You continue to confuse secondary sources which discuss this article's topic, such as Watson's book, with tertiary sources which would discuss the secondary sources, such as the reviews for Watson's book. However, it's progress that you now believe "we cannot make our own judgments on these different theories". Deleting Watson from the article would be doing just that. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Watson by no mean is a primary source, however, his statements, baseless and dubious, are only marginally relevant to the article's subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research means adding the materials to Wikipedia articles that are not attributable to a reliable published source. I see no connection between my posts on the talk page and OR. We can and even have to analyse sources to decide if they deserve to be added to the article. In connection to that, could you please show me the quotes from Engels or Marx that can be interpreted as a call to any kind of mass killings? Please, keep in mind that, even a statement on alleged genocidal nature of Marxism does not make such works automatically relevant to this article because the term "genocide" is simultaneously wider and narrower than the term "mass killing": from one hand, not all mass killings fit the UN definition of genocide, and, from another hand, genocide is not limited with physical elimination of some ethnic entity. Even if Engels' writings fit the definition of "cultural genocide" (which is incorrect, in my opinion) that had no relation to this concrete article that is limited with only physical elimination of non-combatants.

And, finally, one more Grant's argument remained to be non-addressed: there is no proof that Engels' position was more genocidal than that of his "average" European educated contemporaries, in other words, that Engels didn't express the mainstream point of view. Again, Engels' position towards East Slavs did not differ from Theodore Roosevelt's position towards native Americans, or Rudyard Kipling's idea on the "White man's burden".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with your first three sentences. I will discuss this with you as much as you want, but please do me a favor and read two earlier threads. One: the discussion I linked to above (here's a link again) and two, the exchange between me and another editor about the validity of Watson's interpretation of Engels' article (I copied the thread to my userpage here). AmateurEditor (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Below is a different interpretation of the same "The Magyar Struggle":

"Working outward from Western Europe, Marx assigned specific roles to certain large European nations and, in many cases, no roles at all to the smaller ones. Both Marx and Engels were clear and consistent on the principle, although they recognized exceptional cases. In the Neue Rheinisch Zeeitung Engels wrote that only three nations in the Austrian Empire were "standard-bearers of progress . . . -the Germans, the Poles, and the Hungarians". Therefore, they are revolutionary."As for "the other greater or lesser tribes and peoples, they first have the mission of going under in the international revolutionary storm. For this reason they are counter-revolutionary." At whatever cost Marx never relented in his drive toward the great objective." (David Felix. The Dialectic of the First International and Nationalism. The Review of Politics, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan., 1983), pp. 20-44)

Obviously, "The Magyar Struggle" does not belong to "lost" literature (it is being discussed and cited), although nobody else sees there any mention of any elimination or killing of any people. And the reason for that becomes obvious form the second quote (from the same article):

"The Manifesto had made the distinction: "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must raise itself to the status of a national class, must constitute itself as a nation, it is itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." The last phrase had saved the proletariat from mere nationalism by a deft Hegelian splitting, Marx going on to promise that proletarian nationalism would mean the end of all national hostilities."

In other words, since one of the Marxism's goal is to eliminate nations as a phenomenon, by no mean can it consider any particular nations as a possible target of mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the earlier threads, however, in my opinion, my questions have been neither asked nor answered there. First question is: show me concrete mention of the need to physically eliminate any ethnic entity made by Engels anywhere in his works. Direct comparison of Engels' text with Watson's interpretation demonstrates that the latter does not follow from the former, so Grant is 100% right.

Second question is: show me the difference between the Engels' views on small nations and that of other educated post-Enlightenment Europeans (including those times' American leaders).

Third question is: in the case if some Engels' writings can be interpreted as a call to one or another form of cultural genocide (someone calls it "assimilation"), please, explain me what relation all of that has to mass killings (the article's subject)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, when you question the conclusions drawn by Watson (or in any source) you are conducting original research. TFD (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP policy tells nothing about conducting original research, just about adding the OR results to the main article space. I am free to express my concern about reliability and validity of one or another statement, especially when such a concern is directly supported by the reliable source (in this particular case, Grant).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Then your comments about the validity of Watson's theories have no relevance to the discussion. TFD (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course they have. We have three options: (i) to describe in details Watson's views supplementing them with a short Grant's commentary (what we have now); (ii) to briefly mention the Watson's point of view and explain in details why, according to Grant, these views are incorrect, and how other scholars interpret the same "The Hungarian Struggle"; (iii) to remove all of that as a marginally relevant material. Formally, none of these three options are a violation of WP policy, and the question I raised is aimed to choose one them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(i) is WP:OR: we should use reliable sources describing Watson's theories, not provide a soapbox for them and (ii) is WP:SYN: we should not make comparisons between different theories unless those comparisons are found in reliable sources. The only possible reason to exclude Watson is lack of notability. TFD (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Cannot agree. Neither (i) nor (ii) are original research; both of these cases fit WP:NEUTRAL: if two points of view exists on some subject, both of them should be presented in a proportion reflecting their relative notability. The only issue is to decide if each of these views are notable enough, and how this interpretation of Engels relates to the more conventional interpretation ("Marx assigned specific roles to certain large European nations and, in many cases, no roles at all to the smaller ones." with no mention of "genocide" or similar nonsense). The aim of the present discussion is to clarify this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SYN can be neutral but that is beside the point: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Which single conclusion can be reached by combining Watson and Grant? In addition, I didn't mean that (i) and (ii) are not a synthesis because they are neutral. My point was that, since no conclusion is reached by combining Watson and Grant, the reference to WP:OR is irrelevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment about relating "how other scholars interpret the same "The Hungarian Struggle"", not Grant, who wrote about Watson's theory. TFD (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) AmateurEditor, commentaries on communist mass killing theories are not WP:TERTIARY (" Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources), they are secondary sources. ("They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them.) When we have articles about theories, whether mainstream or fringe, the documents relating those theories become primary sources. The problem with this article is that we are merely reporting the primary sources for the theory, rather than relying on their description in secondary sources. We are making personal judgments on the validity of the different theories and synthesizing them. I wish you would read the guidelines for writing articles. We do not use the article conservatism for example as an excuse to repeat the views of conservatives but rather to explain their theories as described by reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of nonsense being written here. This has been taken to WP:RSN before and nobody - other than the usual folks who want to delete the whole page - came close to saying that Watson is not a reliable source. See - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_45#Communist_genocide Other nonsense: did Paul S. really say that Watson, when writing about Engels, was not referring to Marxism or Communism, but just about socialism? You either have to express yourselves better, think more clearly, or just refrain from writing. Then there is the part about Communist genocide in Afghanistan not being caused by the Communists, but rather by the Soviets! Please just stop the nonsense. If you want to claim that Watson is not a reliable source, please just take it to WP:RSN - I have no doubt that nobody there will say that he is unreliable. Smallbones (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your description of the discussion is inaccurate, it attracted little outside input and no consensus was reached. Basically it is a fringe theory by an academic writing outside his area of expertise in the non-academic press. But I am not for excluding it, just saying that we should use reliable sources for this particular theory. TFD (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just read (note, I do not write "re-read", because obviously you didn't read it) the Watson's book "The lost literature of socialism". On almost every page the words "socialism" and "genocide" are being used in each others context. With regards to RSN, it is not my intention to question the validity of the Watson's book in general. The issue is quite simple: in his review (published in highly reputable scientific journal) Robert Grant demonstrated that Watson's statement about Engels as a proponent of physical extermination of some people was based on nothing - and I am asking if anyone can answer my three questions to decide if we need to devote more space to Watson, or to Grant, or to remove both of them. If you have answers, you are welcome to present them here, otherwise it is not clear what concrete idea your post carries.

Your references to WP:RSN are quite irrelevant, because the discussion there didn't come to any consensus. In addition, the quotes from the reviews on this book confirm that the book is provocative, that its aim is to "spark debates", etc. Since here we discuss not the book as whole, but one certain Watson's conclusion, the question raised by Grant must be addressed to decide if we really can devote some space to Watson's "findings". BTW, note that other work exists that discuss "The Magyar Struggle" and that mention no calls to genocide there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was clear. We report Watson's theory based on the Grant review and any other reliable sources that reviewed his theories. We do not use the article as a vehicle for promoting Watson's theories. TFD (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear TFD, I believe you understand that my recent post is addressed to Smallbones, not to you. With regards to your proposal, try to modify a text as you see it and let's see.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "other than the usual folks who want to delete the whole page" The opinion of these "folks" has the same weight as that of other Wikipedians. And the fact that these "folks" are constantly trying to delete this article is a sign that something is fundamentally wrong with it, so you have to establish a dialogue with these "folks", not to reject their opinion under a ridiculous pretext.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I think you have a point about the book reviews not being examples of tertiary sources, as I had written above. Because they comment solely on Watson's book - and may contribute analysis of their own - they should also be considered secondary sources. But your insistence that Watson's book is a primary source for Watson's ideas is irrelevant to our discussion and to this article in general. Watson's book is a secondary source for this article's topic, not a primary source. That is, the article is not "Watson's theories on mass killing under Communist regimes", which is what it would have to be for your comments to even start making any sense. As I reminded you during the most recent deletion discussion, the topic is not theoretical, it's literal. The various causal explanations put forward in reliable sources (such as Watson's book) are appropriate for inclusion as secondary sources on that literal topic: Mass killings under Communist regimes. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to ignore a more important question: we have three secondary sources, one source states (allegedly based on the Engels' fragment) that Engels was a proponent of genocide, other source states that the first source failed to demonstrate where did Engels say that, and the third source gives quite different interpretation of the same Engels' words. In connection to that, the question is what relative space should be devoted to these three secondary sources, and what concrete wording should be used for description of what they say (if any)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The consensus until now has been to simply cite Watson's view and Grant's criticism of it. (Obviously Grant was mistaken that Watson "nowhere shows" where Marx and Engels advocated genocide because Watson explicitly tells us where: "The Hungarian Struggle" essay written by Engels and published by Marx. But I do not propose to inject a statement like that into this article.) If the third source does not relate, then it shouldn't be included at all except perhaps as an example that there are in fact alternate readings. As far as how much space should be used, that is a good question; I would say no more than is currently used. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In an article about mass killings in Kampuchea, Watson would be a secondary source although not necessarily reliable. The sources describe the events. But when we write an article about a connection between things (in this case communism and mass killings), where there is no consensus that any connection exists, then we describe the theories. This is most obvious with fringe theories. If we write about the New World Order for example we do not use books supporting this belief as secondary sources, then present criticisms and finally alternative theories of history. We rely on mainstream books describing the theory. The same applies to any theory in social science or history. (I left a note on SB's page asking for further information on Grant's review.) TFD (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, about your three questions:

• 1. Asking for verification of Watson's claims regarding whether or not Engels wrote that certain peoples should be killed is certainly appropriate. If Watson's citations did not warrant his claims, then I would be against using the source myself.
• 2. Comparing Engels attitudes on certain small nations with the attitudes of other people about other nations is irrelevant to what Engels' attitudes and opinions were. That is, it doesn't change the content of Engels' position to say that others did or did not advocate genocide of small peoples.
• 3. If Engels can be shown to have been writing solely about cultural assimilation (or "cultural genocide") as opposed to mass killing or physical genocide, then I would agree with you that it would be irrelevant to this article.

I think investigating the first and third questions are legitimate because knowing the evidence regarding them is required for us to evaluate Watson as a source and the kind of "genocide" that is being talked about, but they are really the same question: does Engels talk about the physical killing of these peoples or merely assimilation? You are right to point out that the term "genocide" can mean something less than physical killing. It can also mean a kind of cultural erasure, although this is a meaning for "genocide" rarely used outside of a strictly legal context. There is no question which kind of "genocide" Watson means: he states on page 77 that the Marxist theory of history required that entire races would have to be "killed". And this is also the meaning that Andrzej Walicki intended because when he used the term he was actually citing Watson, as The Four Deuces pointed out earlier. Of course, the Engels article "The Hungarian Struggle" (or "The Magyar Struggle" depanding on your translation) itself does not use the word "genocide" because it hadn't been invented yet. It was also written in German, which means we have to be careful not to mistake a translation for the original text. The English translation I use is the one from marxists.org. Here are the best examples I can find from that article which demonstrate that physical killing was what Engels was discussing:

• "...these residual fragments of peoples["Völkerabfall", alternately translated as "ethnic trash" or "racial trash"] always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution."

Here Engels actually differentiates between killing and cultural assimilation. This alone disproves that he is only talking about assimilation. It also shows that he knows how to clearly express references to simply cultural changes.

• "Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm."

Here Engels notes that some but not all nations (meaning "peoples", rather than "states") will "perish" in the coming world communist revolution. This cannot refer to the elimination of state or ethnic divisions in a post-revolution communist utopia, because he specifically says that some will not perish. It also cannot refer to any gradual historical development wherein one nation is eventually culturally assimilated into another. It is clearly a sudden occurrence: a "world storm".

• "But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations [referring to the Sonderbund nations], down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."

Here Engels removes all doubt that he is talking about violence, not assimilation. It will be a "war" in which one group of nations will "wreak a bloody revenge" on another group of "petty hidebound nations" and wipe them out down to their very names, resulting in their disappearance from the earth in addition to the disappearance of classes and dynasties. That is, this would be genocide of the physical killing kind, and Engels calls it "a step forward". I don't think any straight reading of this essay by Engels (that is, without bringing in any of our modern preconceptions about what it is that early communists "really" believed) can come to any better conclusion than that of Watson. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing we should avoid - conducting our own original research into what Engels said. We should rely on informed sources to evaluate Watson's theories. TFD (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you AmateurEditor for concrete and detailed answer. Unfortunately, all your conclusions are not convincing, because all the events Engels was talking about were supposed to happen before the Communist would take a power, so Engels was in a position of an side observer, not a participant. If Marxists saw some event as positive that meant that this event was a step towards the world revolution, not that that step was something Marxists were ready to do themselves after taking power. To demonstrate my thought, let me remind you that Marx was a vehement supporter of slavery in the US, because he believed that the USA was the most progressive state in the world, and slavery (during those times) was one of necessary condition of the USA's existence. I believe you will not claim that Communists planned to introduce slavery in a Communist utopia?

In addition, both you and Watson seem to misunderstand one important point: the events Engels is writing about were bourgeois, not communist revolutions; according to Marxists these events just pawed a way for future Communist revolution, and Communists were not supposed to play any leading role there. Nothing in Engels' or Marx' writing can serve as a support of the idea that any kind of mass killing would be conducted by Communists after taking a power (or for taking a power).

With regards to my second question, it also is legitimate. If the position that now is (supposedly) considered as a genocidal was shared by all educated contemporaries, we cannot speak about some specific genocidal attitude of Engels. For example, George Washington owned some black slaves and saw that to be normal. Can we conclude that the idea of American slavery emerged as a result of the American revolution?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If we really must analyze Watson's theory, the fact is that whatever he may have been advocating, no Communist country has attempted to kill all the members of an entire nation, least of all tried to kill all the Slavs. (This contrasts with all other major European nations.) Further, the Engels passage is taken from the "lost literature" of socialism. Presumably later Communists were unaware of its existence. Watson is suggesting that Party cadres read the secret writings not available to the rank and file which guided their actions decades after the original instructions were written. This is bascally a conspiracy theory, which unlike mainstream thinking, ignores the role of personalities, interest groups, history and external events in influencing government action. TFD (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the Engels passage is taken from the "lost literature" of socialism. Presumably later Communists were unaware of its existence. " As Grant pointed out, the literature was "lost" only for Watson. In actuality, "The Hungarian Struggle" was not lost, so all later Communists were perfectly aware of it, as well as of other Marx and Engels' writing on progressive nature of slavery, feudalism, or capitalism (at certain steps of the society development). That is a key point: in his "The Hungarian Struggle" Engels described (and predicted) the historical process that (along with antique slavery and medieval feudalism) would pave a way for future proletarian revolution, but that was not a proletarian revolution per se, and that these events were not supposed to be lead by Communists.

And one more point. One of Watson's key conclusions is that Hitler was a pure socialist. This is a very important point, that completely debunks all what Watson writes (as if someone told you a very convincing story of a conversation between Pontius Pilatus and Jesus Christ and added at the very end that he himself was a witness of this talk). I insist that in the case we decided to leave Watson's writing in the article, this Watson conclusion must be added too to demonstrate that this book is a complete nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, while we could probably go back and forth on this for a long time (why do you say he talks only of bourgeois revolution when he talks about a "revolutionary world storm" and an "uprising of the French proletariet"; what Grant referred to as common at the time was the cultural domination part, not the killing part; etc.), I am not going to present myself as more of an expert on this subject than Watson, and it simply doesn't matter whether we agree with a source or not. Watson is a reliable secondary source. So is Grant. The discussion should be how to incorporate them here and what language to use. We were able to achieve consensus earlier by relying on direct quotes, rather than trying to choose our own language to describe his position. AmateurEditor (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should insist on making a WP:POINT. The basics needed are in the current paragraph, but I think it goes on a bit long. It should include 1) that a reliable source (Watson) claims that Engels said genocide was necessary for communism, and 2) (briefly) that Grant thinks he is mis-interpreting the source. Smallbones (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

He is not a reliable source, although the review is, and therefore I suggest using the review only. But I agree that we cannot try to discredit his theories, merely report how they have been received. Incidentally, that it is not WP:Point, it is OR. TFD (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP policy prohibits disrupting Wikipedia to demonstrate a point. I don't think by adding the Watson's opinion on Hitler we disrupt Wikipedia; at least, such an addition would tell more about Watson than the current "literary historian..."

Re: "Incidentally, that it is not WP:Point, it is OR." Neither the former nor the latter. By saying that a literary historian, anti-socialist and prominent Liberal Party intellectual George Watson, after the analysis of the works of XIX century socialists concluded that they served as a theoretical basis for XX century genocide (including the Holocaust), so most mass murderers, including Hitler were just genuine followers of the socialist idea, we simply reproduce what the source says, so my proposal helps to avoid selective quoting of the Watson's book, thereby preventing OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It should include 1) that a reliable source (Watson) claims that Engels said genocide was necessary for communism, and 2) (briefly) that Grant thinks he is mis-interpreting the source." At least one more reliable source exists that claims that Marx and Engels, as rule, ignored small nations ("Working outward from Western Europe, Marx assigned specific roles to certain large European nations and, in many cases, no roles at all to the smaller ones. Both Marx and Engels were clear and consistent on the principle, although they recognized exceptional cases." see a more extended quote above). In other words, other sources directly contradict to the Watson's statement that genocide was necessary for realisation of Marxian utopia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed the passage to one based on sources secondary to Watson. Unless other writers notice Watson's views, whatever validity they have as a source, they are by definition non-notable. Notice that the two sources I used were, unlike Watson's book, published in the academic press.[10] TFD (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And that is still ridiculous. Does anyone else agree with you that Watson should be treated as a primary source here? AmateurEditor (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just saying "this is still ridiculous" is not an argument and is frankly abrasive. Could you please limit your discussion to the issues and provided reasoned arguments. TFD (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I changed most of the paragraph back - of course you can cite a reliable source directly. As I've repeatedly asked - if you don't think Watson is a reliable source, please take it to WP:RSN. I've stripped the paragraph to its basics. Too much theorizing and posturing (as above) just clouds the 2 main points. Smallbones (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the revert was unjustified: both the Watson's and Grant's views have been transmitted adequately in the new version. Note, TFD text was based on what the reliable sources say. In addition, the direct quote from Engels allows the readers to decide who was right in that dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, take also into account that other sources (quoted on this talk page) directly state that, as a rule, neither Marx nor Engels assigned any specific role to small nations, so the mention of the Slav nation in "The Hungarian Struggle" was the exception rather than a rule. In connection to that, the TFD's version seems to be more neutral and balanced.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have posted an enquiry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[11] TFD (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is redundant because the question is not reliability/non-reliability of the Watson's book, but in the way his thoughts have been transmitted. IMO Walicki and Grant do that adequately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have withdrawn the posting. TFD (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get into an edit war over this passage. Please post your suggested change on the talk page so that we can come to a rough consensus before moving it to the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "(why do you say he talks only of bourgeois revolution when he talks about a "revolutionary world storm" and an "uprising of the French proletariet"; what Grant referred to as common at the time was the cultural domination part, not the killing part; etc.)" Firstly, nothing in Engels' writing suggests that "uprising of the French proletariet" would lead to killing of any nation. Engels' "The Hungarian Struggle" addresses specifically a situation in Austro-Hungary, and the source presented by me (see the above section) explicitly states that that situation was treated by him as an exception. The events he was talking about was a bourgeois revolution, and he told nothing about a specific role of Communists there.
Secondly, Grant referred only to the cultural domination part because he simply saw no evidences that Engels insisted on physical extermination of any nation as a necessary step that Communists would have to do for taking a power (and this is consistent with what David Felix wrote ("Marx assigned specific roles to certain large European nations and, in many cases, no roles at all to the smaller ones. Both Marx and Engels were clear and consistent on the principle, although they recognized exceptional cases." Since, as a rule, no role was assigned to small nations, including, obviously, the role of victims, the Watson's claim about essential role of genocide in the Marxian doctrine directly contradicts to that.)
Thirdly, it is quite necessary to transmit Watson's idea in full, namely, that not only Marx and Engels, but all European socialists were the advocates and promoters of genocide, so not only Stalinism, but also Nazism must be considered as a logical continuation and implementation of the ideas of XIX century socialism. By omitting that, you create a wrong impression that Watson wrote only about Communism that is obviously the false statement and constitute WP:SYNTH.
Fourthly, it is quite necessary to quote the Grant's opinion that Watson is not only a scholar, but also a politician (that means that he is not neutral), and that his book had the aim to attack his political opponents.
And, finally, it is strange and weird that so exaggerated importance is given to the words of one politician about some minor fragments of Engels' writing, whereas far more detailed and resent Marxist literature is available that described their vision of the national issues, for instance, the Lenin's books, where he insists on positive discrimination of small, oppressed and backward nations, Lenin-Wilson doctrine of national self-determination etc. Based on all of that, I conclude that the paragraph is one of the most blatant examples of bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense that when we mention a long, obscure book that was not published in the academic press that we rely on writings from the academic press to describe what was in the book. Here is what I posted:

The Cambridge literary historian and former Liberal Party activist, George Watson, wrote in his book, The lost literature of socialism, that although socialism was essentially the same thing as conservatism, that socialists differed from conservatives because only they had called for genocide. He observed that Friedrich Engels' comment that "the next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth... of reactionary peoples", whom Engels called "residual fragments", referring specifically to small Slavic nations, was a call for genocide. This made Engels an ideological predecessor of Hitler, whose debt to Marxism had been neglected. The Soviets were blamed for the Holocaust because, he claimed, the Nazis had observed the Soviet gulags and the Auschwitz commandant, Rudolph Hoess had shown admiration for them. He also claimed that Adolph Hitler was a socialist. However, Robert Grant, who reviewed Watson's book said that it was not obvious from the readings that Marx and Engels had called for mass killings, and more likely meant that smaller cultures would be assimilated. He also observed that the racial and imperialist language used by Marx and Engels was wholly normal for their time and by no means confined to socialists.

Here is the version that I and object to as biased:

In The Lost Literature of Socialism literary historian George Watson states that the writings of Friedrich Engels and others show that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."(Watson - no page cited) Watson's claims have been criticised by Robert Grant for "dubious evidence", arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is [...] at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question."(Grant)

TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

TFD, James Clarke and Co Ltd is the academic publisher [12]. The problem is quite different: the book has been written by a political activist, who is pronouncedly anti-socialist (so it is not neutral); the book blames all socialist (not only Communists) in genocidal intents (so omitting the mention of socialists is a synthesis); the book claims that both Stalin and Hitler were inspired by the alleged Engels' idea about genocide (so the para does not give a full picture); the book failed to analyse Engels' writings in a historical context, namely, it ignores the fact that Engels' language was wholly normal for their time and by no means confined to socialists; and, finally, the para ignores the fact that Marx, Engels and their followers wrote a lot about national issues, and that literature (according to numerous reliable sources) tells directly opposite to what Watson writes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

But Clarke did not publish the book, Luttworth did.[13] While they are associated companies, Clarke publishes academic books while Lutterworth publishes popular books. Political activists are allowed to publish in academic journals, but their theories are subject to peer-review. TFD (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this [14] the book was published by Clarke.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an error on the Google books website. If you look inside the book or search for it on the Clarke and Lutterworth websites, you will see that Lutterworth published it. I have written to Google books to correct this. TFD (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what they say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

One way or the another, the Watson's idea that "it is becoming ever more probable that it was not just the idea of genocide that the Nazis owed to Marx and the Marxists, but its detailed practice too, not excluding camps and gas chambers" should be presented in the contested para, because, although formally the section discusses only Communism and mass killings, this statement provides the details of the Watson's general concept the reader should be aware of. Let me demonstrate that using the following example: let's imagine that the witness X testified that he saw that John killed Smith. Is the fact that the same X also insists that John also killed Kennedy, Lincoln and crucified Christ relevant to the X's testimony about John? Formally, no, because these words have no direct relation to the murder we consider. However, in actuality the fact is very important because it allows us to make a conclusion on the overall validity of X's testimonies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You're stretching it here - are you asserting that Watson is crazy? If so then he wouldn't be a reliable source. As I continue to have to repeat - if you think Watson is not a reliable source take it to WP:RSN. This is almost as bad as saying that when Watson quotes Engels he is not writing about Communism. What's next? That Marx was not a Marxist? Please just stop this nonsense. Smallbones (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

While Waton's claims about Hitler's debt to Engels may discredit his theories to you, that is not why I included it (although it may be why Grant included it). I thought it was important to fairly present his theories as they were described in academic writing. TFD (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only Grant, but also Antony Flew in his generally positive (although non-academic) review [15] mention these words. One way or the another, in your version these words may be redundant, however, in the present version (that gives obviously undue attention to Watson's views) it is quite necessary to mention them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: " are you asserting that Watson is crazy? " I am asserting that selective citing is not acceptable in WP. According to Watson, a direct linkage existed between socialist movement as whole and the Holocaust or similar genocidal events. Watson's book is an attack of socialism as whole, not only Communism, and this reservation must be included into the article on Communism, otherwise the wrong impression will be created that, according to Watson, only Communist doctrine required genocide of small nations.

Re: "when Watson quotes Engels he is not writing about Communism" Yes, he isn't. He wrote about socialists, not communists (just do a simple search).

Re: "That Marx was not a Marxist?" Good point. You, probably unintentionally, reproduced the Marx's own words (by the end of his life he noticed that if some of his self-declared followers call themselves "Marxists", he refused to be a Marxist).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposed phrasing, incorporating Watson's view of Hitler and his association of genocide with "socialism":

In The Lost Literature of Socialism, literary historian George Watson cites an article written by Friedrich Engels and published in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1849 as evidence that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history." Watson also asserts that "genocide was an idea unique to socialism",(p. 85) and that "it is becoming ever more probable that it was not just the idea of genocide that the Nazis owed to Marx and the Marxists, but its detailed practice too, not excluding camps and gas chambers".(p. 93)
Watson has been criticized by reviewer Robert Grant for citing evidence that "seems dubious", arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is [...] at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question." Historian Andrzej Walicki, talking about Engels' 1849 article and citing Watson's book, has said, "It is difficult to deny that this was an outright call for genocide."

AmateurEditor (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposed text is definitely an improvement, however, some modifications are still necessary. Firstly, Walicki's opinion should be moved to the middle, because he neither mentions nor contests the Grant's opinion. In present form the text looks like Walicki disputes the Grant's conclusion that is obviously not the case. Secondly, a Grant's opinion that Engels' wording was quite normal for his times should also be presented there. Thirdly, the Grant's notion that the Watson's book was directed against Watson's present days political opponents also has to be mentioned.

And, let me point out at one general flaw of this, as well as some other sections of the article. The article combines only the opinions of those scholars and political writers who make a stress on the connection between Communist ideology and mass killings. That reminds me an anecdote that dolphins are believed to push a drowning man towards the shore, because those drowning men who were pushed to high sea cannot tell about that. Indeed, we cannot add the authors who see no connection between communist ideology and mass killings but who do not dispute the views of Conquest, Courtois, et al directly, because that could be a synthesis. However, such authors do exist. That is why the whole article's structure should be reconsidered to make possible to include different opinions on the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem switching the order of the sentences on Grant and Walicki. There's no problem on adding sources who claim that Communist regimes committed mass killing for non-idealogical reasons. There is a problem in claiming that the article is a coatrack because there is no ideological connection between Communism and these Communist regimes, using the coatrack claim as a reason for deleting the article, and then trying to delete or obscure direct evidence from a reliable source that there is such a connection. There is a problem using arguments like "Engels was not a Communist" and "Marx was not a Marxist" - the only requirement is that these folks have a connection to the Communist regimes. Nobody cares about your personal labeling system, and nobody would believe a claim that these Communist regimes are unrelated to Marx and Engles. Smallbones (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article coatrack issue stemmed from the fact that the article discussed all mass mortality during Communist rule, although the article's name was "Mass killings..." The issue has been partially resolved now (and I believe it will be fully resolved in close future) so the coatrack claim is not relevant now. With regards to "Engels was not a Communist" and "Marx was not a Marxist", I have no idea where did you take the first quote. The second quote is the Marx' words (he wrote that:"If they are Marxists, then I am not a Marxist". Under "they" he meant some of his followers). Obviously, these words are not sufficient to claim that Marx was not a Marxist, however, it is clear that Marx was definitely not satisfied with how his ideas were interpreted by some of his followers. And this is a reminder that not every ridiculous interpretation of Marxism are a logical development of Marx' or Engels' ideas.

Re: "...trying to delete or obscure direct evidence from a reliable source that there is such a connection." We have several reliable sources, some of them see such a connection, others directly state that conclusion is wrong, and the third type sources simply ignore the issue and write about a progressive national policy of Communists: about Lenin-Wilson idea of self-determination (the example of which were the treaties between the Baltic states and the USSR, which were more progressive than similar treaties of those times), about Lenin's idea of positive discrimination of small/oppressed nations (that not only had been declared, but also implemented in early USSR), etc. In my humble opinion, by including the opinions of scholars like Watson or Courtois only you obscure the subject at even greater extent. Obviously, the idea that, since Communists were evil, then every bullshit about them can be included if it would help to demonstrate their evil nature, is hardly encyclopaedic. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If we want to present Watson as a reliable secondary source for his theories, then those theories must be presented properly. I would look through his book and try to follow his "reasoning". And let us not censor the views of people trying to connect communism and mass killings. TFD (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue has not been completely clarified so far: if your statement that Watson's book was published not by academic publisher is correct, no quotes from Watson are needed at all: two academic sources (Walicki, pro, and Grant contra) would be quite sufficient. Let's wait for the response from google.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why must we wait for them? Here is a link to the "Book overview" page that says: "Publisher James Clarke & Co., 2001, ISBN 0718829867, 9780718829865". Here is a link to the book that says it was first published by Lutterworth 1998 ISBN 0 7188 2983 2. If you search the sites for Clarke and Lutterworth, it appears under Lutterworth only. Clearly this was an error. TFD (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You probably are right, according to Amazon this edition (ISBN 0718829867 978-0718829865) was published by [16] Lutterworth Press. In connection to that, I really do not understand why two academic sources that discuss the book published by non-academic publisher are not sufficient for the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to [17] James Clarke and Lutterworth are affiliated publishers, so the source can be considered academic, although, if I understand Grant correct, he would disagree with that ("It is only by a species of optical illusion that the present review belongs in an academic literary journal, for Watson's title is misleading (which is not his fault) and ambiguous (which is)."). One way or the another, the Watson's views that not only Communists but all socialists as whole prepared a soil for XX century genocide should be presented in the article (whatever uncomfortable such a statement would be for present-days socialist governments in majority of contemporary European countries), as well as the Grant's conclusion that the Watson's book was also the attack of his political opponents in the UK.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if we include Watson, the whole sub-section has to be renamed to "Influence of leftist ideology"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News and The Sun, has now bought the Wall Street Journal. That does not elevate the Sun and Fox to the level of the WSJ. TFD (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the publisher is academic or popular is not so important. Lutterworth publishes non-fiction as dry as any (just look at their book of the month[18]). Watson is himself an academic writing about an academic subject within his area of expertise. Wikipedia policy in any event permits inclusion of reliable sources from "non-academic" publishers. David McCullough's 1776, for example, was not published by an "academic press" but it is used as a source in Wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Academic writing does mean writing about history, etc., but subjecting one's writing to peer review. Non=academic writing lacks the degree of reliability because, as is painfully obvious in Lost literature, it is not subject to fact checking and bizarre theories may be presented with negligible evidence. TFD (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your problem seems to be with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. This source meets it. And it was peer-reviewed, although Wikipedia policy does not require that. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Your problem seems to be with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy." I am not sure it is a TFD's problem. WP:V states: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. " In other words, if peer reviewed academic sources are available, the preference should be given to them. In that sense, the TFD's position is quite correct: we have two scholars, both of them discuss Watson's theory, one of them supported one Watson's claim (that some concrete Engels' word contained a direct call for genocide; note, it is not clear form Walicki's words that he shares the Watson's point of view as whole.), and another completely debunked it. That is quite sufficient and is in a direct accordance with WP:NEUTRAL.

I also have to concede TFD is right with regard to Lutterworth/Clarke. The book was published by Lutterworth, however the copyright seems to belong to Clarke, that is why google referred to the latter . The book seems to be published by a reputable, but non-academic publisher, Lutterworth, so I simply don't see why do we need to use it as a source if two very reliable academic sources are available. Please, take also into account that the latter source, Grant, directly question the academic nature of the reviewed work ("It is only by a species of optical illusion that the present review belongs in an academic literary journal...", I already quoted these words.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote you provide from WP:V does not support ignoring Watson's book as a source on the views Watson elaborates in that book. The quote merely makes the common sense point that if you have two sources available to cite for a given piece of objective information, use the academic publication over the non-academic publication. That is not the situation here. We are not dealing with an issue of fact. We are dealing with an issue of opinion. In this case, we are looking for the best sources on Watson's subjective views in "Lost Literature of Socialism". The very best source for that is, of course, the book itself. Grant's review is not a good source on Watson's views in the book. It is a merely a good source on Grant's interpretation of Watson's views (that is, it is only a good source for Grant's views). Likewise, Waliki's citation is not a good source on Watson's views, it is only a good source on Walicki's thoughts about one of Watson's views (that is, it is only a good source for Walicki's views). If we use (primarily) a critic of Watson's view to describe Watson's views, or anyone else's commentary on Watson's views to describe Watson's views, we are completely abandoning neutrality. There is no more reliable source on Watson's views than Watson himself. Regarding the Grant quote about whether his review belongs in an "academic literary journal", the key word there is "literary", not "academic" or "journal". He was making the point that The Review of English Studies, being a literary journal, may not be the best place for Grant's review because the "literature" discussed in the book is not "imaginative literature" regarding socialism, but is on literature "about" and "in defense of" socialism. He was not saying that Watson's book was not worthy of review, or questioning its academic nature, or even that Grant is not qualified to do the review. He is only making the point that he believes the historical literature nature of the topic is more historical that literature. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You miss one important thing: the section is devoted not to Watson's views on the connection between Marxism and genocide, but to connection between Marxist ideology and mass killings (in general). On regard to Marxism and genocide, it is hardly acceptable to present a detailed point of view of some political activist, who published his fringe views in a non-academic book, and to fully omit a mainstream point of view presented below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But including this does not prevent us from including anything else (and I don't think it is a non-academic book, because if that was the case, it wouldn't have been reviewed by Grant in the first place). But if other views are presently omitted, it is not because they have been deleted from the article or suppressed, but simply because no one has added them. I hope you are willing to do that. I'm willing to help. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I need some time to collect the sources, and after that we can start.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I have updated my proposed language to accomodate Paul Siebert's suggestions:

In The Lost Literature of Socialism, literary historian George Watson cites an article written by Friedrich Engels and published in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1849 as evidence that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history." Watson also asserts that "genocide was an idea unique to socialism",(p. 85) and that "it is becoming ever more probable that it was not just the idea of genocide that the Nazis owed to Marx and the Marxists, but its detailed practice too, not excluding camps and gas chambers".(p. 93)
Historian Andrzej Walicki, talking about Engels' 1849 article and citing Watson's book, has said, "It is difficult to deny that this was an outright call for genocide." But Watson has been criticized by reviewer Robert Grant as ideologically biased and for citing evidence that "seems dubious", arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is [...] at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question."

I did not change to incorporate your suggestion of Grant's "normal" point because Grant is not actually referring to the 1849 Engels article when he says that. In his review, he gives two quotes from other Marx/Engels articles (one from 1848, cited on p. 78 of Watson's book, and one from 1852, cited on p.86) which demonstrate racist and imperialist attitudes that he says were "normal" for the time. But the 1849 article is never mentioned (it may simply have been overlooked on Grant's part, as Watson doesn't quote text from the 1849 article in the book as he does for the other two). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear AmateurEditor, please accept my sincere apologies however, upon meditation I came to a conclusion that the para is quite unsatisfactory. Watson's views are obviously a fringe theory (published by a non-academic publisher), that is almost ignored by scholars. The mainstream view on the connection between Marxism and genocide is that they are almost mutually exclusive things (I mean the Marx' theory, of course). The virtual absence of criticism of Watson's views is explained by the fact that his theory is almost completely ignored by a scientific community (like a "flat Earth" theory). In connection to that, if we want to discuss a connection between Marxist theory and genocide in a really neutral way, we have to write the following:

1. That one of the pillar of a Marxist theory is a proletarian internationalism that rejects an idea of any racial suteriority

2. That that idea was developed by Lenin who insisted on the self-determination of all nations, and conducted a new type of national policy in the USSR, namely the positive discrimination of small opressed nations.

3. That this idea came into a contradiction with a totalitarian practice, so many Communist regimes turned to a new form of imperialism, that lead to suppression of some minor nationalities in new Communist empires, although the absence of a racial ideology served as a brake for nation-directed repressions under Stalin's rule, preventing the unfolding of a full-scale genocidal program and providing the opressed nation with some provisions, although minimal.

4. That it is necessary to discriminate between the genocidal states and the states that committed genocide during some period of their history (most Communist states, along with many democratic states belonged to the second category).

5. And only after that can we present Watson's view (as an alternative point of view in Marxism) in a form you proposed.

The ##1-4 are supported by reliable mainstream sources. The source for #3 and #4 is Eric D. Weitz. "Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges", Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29. I am ready (as usually) to present the sources for ##1-2 upon request.

I am convinced in your good faith and your sincere desire to come to a consensus, however, the proposed text in the present form is not encyclopaedic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you have no need to apologize. Honestly, it has been a relief to be able to discuss these issues with an editor who is actually seeking consensus. However, I take your comments to mean that the paragraph is unsatisfactory not because of anything within the paragraph itself, but because of an undue weight problem given the present absence of other material. My question to you then is this: if the other material were written, would the Watson paragraphs be acceptable as written above? That is, supposing that your 4 points were in the article to your satisfaction, would you still have problems with the above proposed wording on Watson? AmateurEditor (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, fringe theories, especially if they were proposed by reputable scholars, can be added to WP. However, that requires us to add a detailed and extended analysis of mainstream views. If such an analysis is presented, I see no reason for ignoring the Watson's views, so this para can be added. I have some comments on the paras (such an extended quote from Watson is not necessary, it would be better to move it into a footnote, Grant is not a reviewer: there is no professional reviewers in peer-reviewed journals, because the very name of this procedure implies that the reviewing in made by peers, i.e. by scholars, most frequently by professors, etc). However, we can return to that after the rest part of the text is written. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate to balance theories that connect Communism with mass killings with those that do not. Notice the Flat earth article never once states that the Earth is round! Rather we should concentrate on the fringe theories that connect communism and mass killings as they are reported by the mainstream, providing mainstream criticism of them. TFD (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is at all a fringe theory to think that multiple Communist regimes killed tens of millions because of their Communist beliefs. It would be a fringe theory to say that these were just random events that had no relation to the perpetrators' Communism. Is that what you are trying to put in here? Is that what you think? Does anybody else think this? Who? Smallbones (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We discuss not Communist mass killings in general, but the connection between genocide and Marxist theory. As a rule, Communist regimes killed peoples for belonging to some social group, not for their nationality, and that is in a full accordance with the Marxist doctrine. Although the fact that Communist regimes killed people is a well established fact, it is well known that the Marxist doctrine didn't allow the authorities to unfold a full-scale genocide, i.e. mass killings of a certain ethnic groups. Internationalism was one of few undeniable positive sides of Communism, so any claim that XX century genocides stemmed from Marxism is obviously a fringe theory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, it is a fringe theory and that is why it is not supported by any reputable sources. That is why we are using obscure books like Lost literature. Notice that in the article Gravity, which is a certainly not a fringe theory, no one argues about whether or not to accept Victorian bibliographers as equal scholars to physicists. Timothy Leary btw claimed that gravity was volatile when the Pyramids were built, which explains why they were able to construct them. TFD (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear - you think the following is a fringe theory "that multiple Communist regimes killed tens of millions because of their Communist beliefs," and the following is NOT a fringe theory "that the multiple Communist regimes killing tens of millions were just random events that had no relation to the perpetrators' Communism." There's lots of evidence of the former already in the article. Is there any evidence of the latter? If you think the 1st statement is a fringe theory and the 2nd isn't, I don't think you'll have any support here or at WP:FTN. BTW, it's high time you accept that Watson is a reliable source. You've taken it to the WP:RSN twice and they are not about to say that he is not reliable. Smallbones (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The only writers promoting theory number 1 are fringe. (Of course no one writes books about unconnected events to show they are unconnected. You can find plenty of sources e.g. that connect sunspots and the Dow but very few books that prove they are unconnected.) Incidentally Watson is the fringe of the fringe. The most common theory is that Communism was in the tradition of the French Revolution, and extremists group fascists with them. But Watson's view (he was a Liberal after all) is that socialism developed from conservatism and was a rejection of the values of the French Revolution, and he groups fascism with them. If you read about the history of Russia and China before their revolutions (or Russia after 1990) you might find that the desire to occupy Poland, Georgia, Chechnya, Tibet, Sinkiang, etc. did not begin with Communism and did not end with it. TFD (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally I do not see from the RSN noticeboard any consensus that Lost literature is RS, just you and other editors who support this article repeating your arguements. I think we can all agree that Watson is a reliable source for his own views. Whether or not he is an expert on the Holocaust is another issue. TFD (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we probably won't find books written about a lack of connection between these events (unless perhaps written in response to one of the sources which do argue a connection). What we can find, however, are books which discuss an event individually - such as the Cambodian genocide - and give an individual cause. That is, the counterpoint to sources which group these events is the sources which do not group them and treat them individually. And why do you say that Barnabypage and Itsmejudith are prior supporters of this article whose responses to your RSN can be disregarded? They don't show up on the contributors pages for the article or its talk page. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnaby page said, "You might need to dig into him a bit further to be sure that this is within his usual sphere of expertise" (it is not), while Itsmejudith said, "so may not be suitable for conclusions of fact" (which btw is what reliable means). You forgot Elkevbo who said, "Being the subject of a review post-publication is most certainly not equivalent to "peer review". But to your main point - we do not rebut theories by about Communist mass killings by citing authors who make no connection. That is original research pure and simple. We use sources that directly discuss the theories. While Watson's book has joined the lost literature of conspiracy theorism, the Black Book has received considerable attention and needs no mainstream versions of events for balance. TFD (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Both editors affirmed the source met the RS standard. That Barnaby quote refers to the use of the source in the article, which has been extensively discussed in the appropriate place (here on the article talk page). As for Itsmejudith, Watson is used for his interpretation, not for "conclusions of fact", so that concern is irrelevant. Watson's book is quite in keeping with his previous work, which I provided a link to at the RSN. I saw Elkevbo's comment, even if true it doesn't change that Watson's book meets wikipedia's RS standard. You may have noticed that not one editor stated that the source failed to meet the standard for RS. How in the world would it original research to cite a source on the Cambodian genocide who attributes the cause of that event to something unique to that event? That would be the opposite of original research.AmateurEditor (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you do not have the same comprehension of peer-review, secondary sources and fringe theories as described in WP and in normal English dictionaries and are unwilling to enlighten yourself, this discussion is unlikely to lead to any agreement. My position on Watson is that although the events he describes have received substantial coverage (and that is a gross understatement), that relying on a book published outside the academic mainstream, presenting fringe theories that even fringe theorists reject and receiving almost no attention, is certainly not the way to write any serious article. TFD (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

These ought to be our areas of agreement: 1. Watson's book exceeds the minimum standards for inclusion in Wikipedia (fringe or not, academic press or not) 2. Any description of Watson's views are best sourced to him, not to Grant or Walicki, although those two certainly may be included. 3. It is not original research to cite in this article a source on the Cambodian genocide who attributes the cause of that event to something unique to that event. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

With so many folks (see our Causes section) saying that the mass killings are related to Communist beliefs or ideology, it is not reasonable to assume that a "mainstream" view holds the opposite and would not answer these folks. I have no patience with TFDs argument - call a mainstream view a "fringe theory" and say that the opposite side does not have to address the issue because it's a fringe theory! With that type of logic you could prove anything. If TFD wants to respect the answers given by the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, he should take the issue there - they've seen this type of reasoning before. If he doesn't want to respect their answers, he should leave the project. Smallbones (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources that draw a connection were published outside the academic mainstream and are written by people who belong to a very narrow spectrum of political belief, e.g., the New Right in Europe and neoconservatives in the United States. Notably none of the mainstream scholarship on genocide and mass killings draws any such connection, which is where one would expect it to be found. TFD (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "With so many folks (see our Causes section) saying that the mass killings are related to Communist beliefs or ideology, it is not reasonable to assume that a "mainstream" view holds the opposite" Try to realise the following: we do not discuss a connection between "Communist beliefs or ideology" and "mass killings". We discuss a connection between Marxist theory and genocide. These are quite different things, because "Communist beliefs or ideology"=/= Marxist theory' and "mass killings"=/= genocide. Whether the mass killings are related to Communist beliefs or ideology or not, it is simply beyond the scope of this concrete thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing the relation between Communist beliefs or ideology and mass killings. You must be on another thread. Smallbones (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The discussion started over the concrete Watson's claim that Marxism theory served as a theoretical basis for XX century genocide. The words "theory" and "genocide" are critical here. However, if you want to discuss the relation between Communist beliefs or ideology and mass killings, I will gladly join such a discussion; just create a separate thread for that to avoid confusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. To avoid misunderstanding in future, please, specify what do you mean under "Communist beliefs"? By contrast to Christianity, Communism is not a religion, so "Communist beliefs" sound somewhat odd...--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, it is quite rude of you to tell me what I may discuss here. Please stick to substance and don't try to order me around. An apology is expected. Smallbones (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is always rude to tell someone what he may and may not discuss (see, e.g. "We are discussing the relation between Communist beliefs or ideology and mass killings. You must be on another thread."[19]). Incidentally, let me point out that my words should be understood just as a gentle reminder that the current thread is devoted to the concrete claim from the concrete book. I believe, based on my numerous grammar and stylistic errors you already understand that I am not a native English speaker, so if something in my posts looks rude, please accept my sincere apologies. It was not my intention. Nevertheless, let me reiterate again: this thread is devoted to the discussion about Watson's views and the connection between Marxism and genocide (not mass killings in general). If you want to broaden the scope of the discussion, please, create a new talk page's section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not tell you what you may discuss, only what TFD and I were discussing. I find the distinction between Communist mass killings and Marxist genocide to be purely academic, especially when Marx is supposedly not a Marxist!. Apologies accepted - and perhaps I get a bit tetchy myself if sometimes. Now I'd like to continue with substance, and yes we do need a new section, if only for editing convenience. Smallbones (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually, when two editors want to discuss some subject privately, they do that on someone's personal talk page. If you discuss something here, be ready that someone else can join the discussion. In addition, this page is not a forum: if the thread was created to discuss Watson, please stick to the discussion's topic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Smallbones, the world disagrees. Genocide is aimed at ethnic, racial, religious, or national groups, which makes it a specific type of mass killing. In their attempts at holocaust trivialization, the European New Right attempts to put the holocaust on the same level as mass killings elsewhere, or even to claim that the Nazis were not the only people guilty of genocide for example by talking about the "holodomor". This is done not to condemn Communism, which has disappeared, but to rehabilitate Eastern European collaborators and to villainize Jews and Russians. TFD (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)