Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Were Where We Currently Stand

Thus far with regards to the complaints brought up by two editors.

• That Academic sources do not link mass murder and commies. This has been proven wrong. An overwhelming consensus of historians from a wide range of political viewpoints concludes that the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous And Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide So that`s that issue sorted.

• That there is wp:synth within the article, two examples were given.
  • "the human rights violations of Communist regimes have been enormous" This source rebut`s that issue The Council of Europe The totalitarian communist regimes which ruled in central and eastern Europe in the last century, and which are still in power in several countries in the world, have been, without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights

The second statement which has been called synth is "mass killings under Communist regimes stemmed from Marxist ideology and were specific to Communism" This issue is also covered by R. J. Rummel.

So we have covered the synth issue which was raised. We have a respected scholar who clearly states that there is a consensus that mass murder and reds go hand in hand, do we have any other issues here? mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If sources do link murder and commies then the article should explain that. Go ahead and rewrite the lead to make the connection clear. Part of the complaint of synthesis was that the connection was not spelled out. TFD (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, since you use the term "commie" alot, do you think we should change the name of the article to "Mass killings under Commie regimes"? TFD (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So in fact, you claim that you and Paul says that the article is WP:POV because it claims there is a connection between communism and mass murders, and you claim that it's WP:SYN because it does *not* claim there is a connection between communism and mass murders!?! --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "That Academic sources do not link mass murder and commies." Straw man. Obviously, some sources do link mass killings and Communism, whereas other sources see no strict connection.

Re: "the human rights violations of Communist regimes... " This qoute has been taken from some non-peer-reviewed source so it is irrelevant to the opinions expressed in the academic sources. Try to go to your local library for better sources.

In addition, mixing "murders", "killings" and "human right violations" can hardly make discussion more productive. In addition, if we agree to limit ourselves with "murders", 90% of the article's content should be removed as irrelevent. If we decide to discuss "human right violations", the article must be extended and re-named accordingly.

I also strongly discourage everyone to use Rummel as a main source. The amount of criticism of his works is so significant that the article would become a discussion of the Rummel's views, not of Communist mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to raise a question on that point. What is the notability of Rummel's view, and why does this section seem to suggest that we can safely rely so heavily upon it? Is it considered authoritative? ... mainstream? (And obviously the first link presented in the first post of this thread is not worth much as a reliable tertiary source, as it lists no references for its claim, notwithstanding that the author is a pretty unabashed libertarian.) BigK HeX (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel is a highly respected scholar who has written several books and published papers on this subject, he is certainly an authority on it mark nutley (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Only Rummels numbers are criticized, and he in fact gives numbers from low to high, which are very wide, with a "most likely" number in between. Usually the "high" and sometimes most likely numbers are criticized. So this is not significant for the discussion which has been about the connection between communism and mass murder, not specific numbers. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture it is always WP:SYN for editors to create their own connections. It is WP:POV to present theories as facts. It is however acceptable to present published theories in articles and in fact this happens in many articles. TFD (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see, some clarification is needed. Rummel is known for its mathematical approach to mass killing studies. He used math for two main purposes. Firstly, he applied statistical apparatus to obtain the most reasonable estimates of the numbers of deaths under different regimes (not only Communist), and he used factor analysis to find correlation between regimes' traits and the number of their victims. In actuality, both his numbers and the results have been criticised. Rummel is regarded as very intellectual, controversial and provocative author, so, altough his works are not a pseudoscience, his views by no means can be considered as mainstream.

In addition, one of Rummel's main theses is that the strong connection is between totaliarianism amd democide, not only with Communism.

Anyvay, if anybody wants to discuss Rummel's views seriously, he is supposed to understand such terms as eigenvector, covariance etc. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again you imply that somebody here claims that it's only communist regimes that have this connection. Nobody ever claimed that. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Actually OpenFuture is correct, only Rummels figures have been questioned so there is no synth there, even Byran Caplan says that Others have taken issue with some of Rummel's calculations, but not with his basic conclusions. mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Despite his rich and detailed information and data, Rummel's attempt at explanation seems oversimplified. He introduces but does not review the theoretical literature, and apologizes for his failure to offer attributions." (Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996)

"Evaluation of Rummel's arguments indicates that he does not understand the nature of the Azar data set sonstruction and misinterprets multiple regression and Kendall's Tau B results. Extensive re-analysis further demonstrated a lack of relationship between nonfreedom and conflict in the Azar data set."(On Rummel's Omnipresent Theory. Author(s): Jack Vincent. Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 119-125)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"R. J. Rummel has been one of the more controversial figures in the academic field of international relations in the last two decades. He has also been lavishly supported by funding agencies, and is a prolific researcher and writer." (Understanding Rummel. Author(s): James Lee Ray Source: The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1982), pp. 161-187)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are other scholars who do not agree. This is normal scholarly disagreement. This is *not* in any way an indication that he is unreliable or fringe. This has been explained repeatedly in the above discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"skepticism is aroused by his enthusiasm for "libertarian" political systems. Rummel is understandably confident that when power is concentrated in the hands of a few leaders, as it is in authoritative or coercive political systems, corruption and violence will occur. My skepticism begins when Rummel succumbs to serene confidence that the decentralization of power within libertarian political systems will save a society from the corrupting, violence- producing effects of concentrated power. If the government plays the role of impartial bystander that Rummel advocates (never mind whether this is possible or likely in a capitalist system), there will, of course, be winners as well as losers in the conflicts, including economic conflicts, outside the government. It is a virtual certainty, furthermore, that these victories and losses will not be randomly or evenly distributed across the population of a society. As conservatives are fond of pointing out, some people will win more often because they are more talented, and/or more ambitious. As liberals are prone to argue, some people will accumulate great wealth because of advantages they inherited from rich parents and relatives. The result will be a highly unequal distribution of wealth, as well as power. "(ibid)

In other words, Rummel's views are strongly libertarian, which hardly can reflect majority views.

Re: "This is *not* in any way an indication that he is unreliable or fringe." Good. However, it is hard to see how this your "theory" can be falsified. In other words, what *is* such an indication in your opinion? Every good secondary sources which criticises Rummel can be rejected under the same pretext, because every book and every article just reflects the point of views of another scholar.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, your second ref is not about communism is it? [1] And you are engaging in Or with your last post mark nutley (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, Rummels political views are no more relevant than yours for this article as it has zero influence on how accepted/fringe his research is. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My second ref is about the Rummel's methodology. I added it as a response to the claim that only Rummel's figures are the subject of controvercy.

Re Rummel's political views. Obvioulsy, they are relevant, because he aggressively push them in his books.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No his politics are of no interest here, only his work. Please stop engaging in OR it is not helping anything mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, anyone who criticizes Rummels research because Rummel has political views they don't agree with would automatically disqualify themselves as they would let their political opinions override the science. That's not how scientific consensus works. Science is independent of political standpoints. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not. The quote provided by me states that these Rummel's libertarian views are disputable because (see detailed explanation above), not because they are libertarian. I pointed your attention at the word "libertarian" because such views (as well as Communist) are situated at the very edge of the views' spectrum, so by no mean can be considered "mainstream".--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources explain how they believe Rummel's political beliefs are being pushed in his book, then, it does become relevant. Is this the only RS we have to tie in the concept to the incidents listed in the wiki article? BigK HeX (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not in Rummel's political views, but in if his works can be considered mainstream. The source states Rummel develops libertarian ideas. Libertarian views are not mainstream. Therefore, Rummel's views are not mainstream. Obviously, it is hard to imagine that one scholar will call the works of his colleague "mainstream" or "fringe", that simply violate scientific ethics. Therefore, we ourself have to make such conclusion based on what the sources write.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No we do not, that is engaging in wp:or you are drawing conclusions you want from a source, please stop mark nutley (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations are not helping advance anything, mark nutley, sir. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, are there no reliable tertiary sources from which helps to bring the proper weighting of the views into perspective. I don't see this issue advancing productively until a good tertiary source is presented to establish what the most mainstream views are. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) We have Bryan Caplan another well respected scholar who also says much the same as Rummel [2] This is a reliable source. mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not in Rummel's political views - So why did you bring it up? And why did you then continue to bring it up after I had pointed out to you it was irrelevant?

The source states Rummel develops libertarian ideas. Libertarian views are not mainstream. - Oh, so now the question *is* his political views? Can you make up your mind? Are you deliberately stalling for time and trying to make the discussion OT? The discussion is still why the POV and SYN templates should be on this article. Rummels political views are both irrelevant for this article and this discussion and this whole area of research. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Caplan is an economist at the Cato Institute. The Museum, which is chaired by Lee Edwards has basically taken its information from the Black Book and Rummel. TFD (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will further discuss Rummel's works only with those who understand what his method consists in. Although we cannot interpret sources, we must understand them. Again, my question is what, in your understanding, the Rummel's approach consists in?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I interpret this sudden change of topic as you not wanting to discuss the old topic (if Rummels political views is relevant or not) any longer. This is no doubt because you realized you were wrong. Rummels political standpoints are not relevant for this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say I proposed to return to initial topic, because this dispute has come into an impasse. As I already pointed out (several times on this talk page), to speak about Rummel one has to have some knowledge of math and statistics, because, by contrast to many other scholars the essence of Rummel's approach is factor analysis. Btw, for everyone with minimal math education is obvious that the statement:

"Only Rummels numbers are criticized, and he in fact gives numbers from low to high, which are very wide, with a "most likely" number in between. Usually the "high" and sometimes most likely numbers are criticized. So this is not significant for the discussion which has been about the connection between communism and mass murder, not specific numbers."

sounds not better than "this car runs well, although its engine constantly fails".--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say I proposed to return to initial topic - Well, in any case it's an silent that his political views are irrelevant, and you are right, that does mean we can return to discuss something that actually is relevant.

'this car runs well, although its engine constantly fails - So you are saying that if a car, that goes faster in a downslope, doesn't go as fast in an upslope, then it's engine has failed? Aha. Yeah, that makes sense. Not. Try again.

Do you understand that Rummels high and low numbers are supposed to be unlikely high and low? It's in pracice a sort of minimum and maximum numbers. That his max numbers by others are criticized as being higher than the actual death count is *not* a failure of Rummels research. If his *minimum* numbers where too high, then *that* would be a failure. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Before we continue, could you please explain me how do you understand the term "factor analysis"? I am asking because that is essential for further discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's like asking "how do you understand geometry". It's an open-ended question with no answer. I'm convinced it's not essential to understand this for further discussion, because your and mine opinions and understandnings about Rummels research is irrelevant as none of us is reliable sources.

To get the discussion back to it's relevant start, you criticize the inclusion of Rummels research and try to call him "fringe" so that he can't be used, and you try to show that his conclusions and arguments about why communism and mass murder are related, by trying to undermine his numbers. Again, I agree his numbers has been criticized, but that does not undermine his argumentation about the causes. We can discuss factor analysis till your ears bleed, but it's completely irrelevant. Your attempts to redefine Rummel as fringe is doomed to failure. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To state that understanding factor analysis is not essential for further discussion about Rummel is like to state that understanding of Lorentz transform is not essential for discussion about the relativity theory. Rummel's conclusions are drawn based on computations, not considerations, ant if the people question his numbers, that automatically means that conclusions may be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing Rummel. Rummel is a WP:RS which has a lot of respect, your opinion of his research is irrelevant. But for your benefit and further understanding of the issue, I'll make this OT comment: If his high numbers are too high, this is not a problem for factor analysis. His numbers have to be consistently skewed in respect to some factor for that to happen. This is a very different type of criticism than saying "his numbers are too high". --OpenFuture (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good. That is a first serious argument. The problem is, however, that there is no evidence that the estimates are skewed consistently. Therefore some regimes may be found to be much more deadly that in actuality (and vise versa) For instance, the Rummel's conclusion about the USSR is based on the assumption that more than 60 million people were killed by the regime there. Since overwhelming majority of scholars do not support this idea now (even Conquest decreased this figure to 15 million), the real correlation between democide and Communism must be much weaker than that obtained by Rummel initially. Note, even initial Rummel's calculation gave more statistically significant linkage between totalitarianism and democide than between Communism and democide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a first serious argument - That we rely in WP:RS should not need to be a serious argument, it's a part of policy and you should know it. Your opinion about Rummels research is still irrelevant.

The problem is, however, that there is no evidence that the estimates are skewed consistently. - No, you see, a *consistent* skewing is what would cause problems. That would indicate systematic errors, and that would invalidate the statistics. But enough about this, if you want to learn about statistics and how to draw conclusions based on statistics this is not the right place, and I'm not the right man.

Note, even initial Rummel's calculation gave more statistically significant linkage between totalitarianism and democide than between Communism and democide - This is the third or fourth time you imply that we claim that communism is the only ideology inclined to mass murder, or that we claim that it's *more* inclined to mass murder. Nobody has said that, stop it with the straw man. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "That we rely in WP:RS should not need to be a serious argument" If you think that you can take a fragment from some reliable source and to insert it into the article without clear understanding of the source's main idea your understanding of how WP works is seriously flawed.

Re: "No, you see, a *consistent* skewing is what would cause problems." Since two linearly dependent matrices have the same eigenvectors, any consistent skewing poses absolutely no problems. I (and, importantly, all serious scholars) would have absolutely no objections against Rummel's theory had the skewing be consistent. The sole problem is that we have no idea on how mush the data have been skewed in every particular case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "This is the third or fourth time you imply that we claim that communism is the only ideology inclined to mass murder" I imply that the article implies that Rummel implies that that communism is the only ideology inclined to mass murder.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your view here, that you have a bigger right to interpret Rummel because you understand him better, is that I don't think you do. That's why you have to rely on the reliable source, and not, like you do, rely on your personal opinion of thet reliable source. Regarding the consistent skewing, you misunderstand me, so I won't use the word consistent skewing. The correct word is "systematic error", and unless you can show that there is a systematic error, your criticism against his methods are incorrect.

I imply that the article implies that Rummel implies that that communism is the only ideology inclined to mass murder. - As usual, the implications you see simply do not exist. The article doesn't imply that in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Saying "Mass killings under communist regimes" does *not* imply that only communist regimes are responsable for mass killings. In fact, it's the exact opposite way around, it implies that other types of regimes *also* make mass killings. Otherwise the "under communist regimes" would have been pointless. The article on Wheel is not called Round Wheel as that would imply that there are other types. The Kensington Runestone does not imply that this is the only runestone in the world, in fact if it did it would be called The Runestone.

Re: "The correct word is "systematic error"" No. The systematic error in the Rummel's data sets and in Rummel's estimations couls hardly affect significantly the results of the factor analysis. I would say, random, non-systematic error is more dangerous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong, but it's off topic, so I'm dropping it. This is not the place. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now if this article contained only communist mass killings, and it was called Mass Killings that would imply only communists did them. Calling the article Mass killings under communist regimes in fact implies that NOT ONLY communist regimes did them. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you're thinking of a different online museum. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm ... that webpage itself is most certainly not a reliable source; there's no indication of the sources from which Caplan has surveyed. Also, while I have no problems with citing Bryan Caplan as a (usually minority) perspective on meta-economic studies, I'm less sure of his credentials on historical matters. Anyways, we need a real tertiary source here. I've mentioned this months ago, so I'd be a bit surprised if there still weren't any made available. BigK HeX (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because Wikipedia is the only tertiary source in the world that has an article on this subject. TFD (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then my initial perception of this article as a possibly-POV patchwork of sources receiving questionable amounts of weighting is likely to persist in the article, then... sad. I haven't had time to read the latest versions, but I hope it does a far better job of giving a clear indication of the major mainstream views of the topic. BigK HeX (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of topics which WP is the only tertiary source in the world to cover. Don't know why I'm pointing that out, since I think the existence of this article is a terrible reflection on WP, but there it is. --FormerIP (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK Hex, what is the problem with the weighing? Can you be specific? As evident in the debate above, the problem here is that those who want to keep the tags can't point to anything specific that's wrong with the article, but just exhibit a general malaise about the article. The lack of sources that claim that there are no connection between communism and mass murder comes not out of bad weighing, but because nobody has been able to produce a RS that claims there is no such connection, so that is certainly not a problem of weight. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see that every specific statement in the article may be reliably sourced and verified and yet the whole presentation is POV and SYNTH? (Igny (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes I do see them, don't you see the answers? It is not enough to claim that an article is POV or SYN, you have to explain why and how. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I do not have much time now, but in the next 1-2 weeks I can attempt to rewrite the whole article. It would also have sourced and verified individual statements, but their presentation would differ from this current version significantly. Is it ok with you? (Igny (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Wouldn't it be better if you could explain what is wrong with the current "presentation" first? Unless you do, you really don't have a case. These vague accusations of POV and SYN with not one single explanation or example is getting quite ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For starters, I could rename the article to Mass killings under totalitarian regimes, trim the communist part significantly by moving details into the corresponding main articles, add other examples of totalitarian regimes, and then I would like to see how you'd argue against that presentation. (Igny (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I notice that you don't answer the question. There is still no explanation of what is wrong with the current presentation. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In essence, this article is a POV fork of genocides in history attempting to present the theory that mass killings occurred under communist regimes are somehow a result of communist ideology as a well-established fact. (Igny (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

The sources use the term communist regimes. The article does not push the ideological cause explanation. And certainly not as fact. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In current form is does. (Igny (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Then you should have no problem with providing quotes from the article where this occurs. The POV tag requires you to do this. Per WP:NPOVD: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." AmateurEditor (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read through the main articles about the incidents described in this article, they all discuss historical and political background, possible causes (such as Stalin's drive to power or simply crimes committed by individuals), and in some cases even justifications for example, for incidents during the war time or policies aimed at avoiding bigger catastrophes. Now we have all these incidents put on one coat track under one title, as if the incidents were caused by ideology, and forgetting or diminishing other factors (those described by most of the main articles about incidents). If one wants to keep this list of misdeeds happened under a particular regime, one should not leave out significant details such as possible causes or background. And it would become a huge hundreds of kb article filled with points and counter-points. In current form, the article places a lot of weight on one particular commonality of the incidents that is that they occurred under a communist regime. By doing so (that is eliminating the background and discussion about possible causes about each and every incident), the article in current form implies that communism ideology contributed significantly to (or even resulted in) the mass killings, which is point of view mostly shared by anti-communists, usually cultivated during the Cold War. There is nothing intrinsic in either communist nor capitalist ideologies which could lead to the mass killings. Thus, the article is clearly POV. (Igny (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

The main articles will go into background and more detail on individual incidents more than this article can, which is why it provides main article links to them. There's nothing inherently wrong with providing info on the mass killings which are the point of the topic. However, I completely agree with you that the article needs more content, including proposed individual explanations for the incidents that are not common to multiple regimes. In fact, I tried to split the causes section that way and I haven't given up on that, and I proposed to Paul Siebert that individual explanations be incorporated into the list. It would not make the article too long. But this deficiency is completely covered by the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag, making the neutrality tag redundant on this point. The article "places a lot of weight on one particular commonality of the incidents that is that they occurred under a communist regime" because that is exactly the topic, whether you like it or not, found in multiple reliable sources. This wasn't made up by editors here, as a showed with the four examples I gave at the last AfD. The article is not about - and does not imply with the title - and "intrinsic" connection to communist ideology. Perhaps the Communist regimes were not following ideology when they made these decisions. But to assume that the opinion of anti-communists during the cold war was incorrect and try to impose that view on all Wikipedia articles is to insert your own POV. We must all stick to what reliable sources say and, where they disagree, include both. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Igny: The article makes no such claim at all. It makes the claim that loads of mass murders happened under communist regimes, which nobody contests, and lists the proposed reasons for this. That the ideology is a major cause (because the ideology is totalitarian) is not treated as a well established fact by the article, but as a proposed cause. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

agree, no evidence to keep tag Darkstar1st (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your history of willful POV pushing aside, there is plenty of evidence to keep the tag --- primarily that the editors have not met a burden of proof regarding whether the amount of weight they've assigning to potentially isolated viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

confused about weight, do you mean too much emphasis has been placed on non-combatants who were executed by communist? would you have share your rewrite of a more npov. do you think the page should be deleted instead? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which tag are we talking about here? Weight has nothing to do with synthesis, and only some to do with neutrality. Weighting issues are already covered by the "may not include all significant viewpoints" tag which was not going anywhere anyway. The burden of proof in on those who added or readded the tags. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@igny, instead of changing the name, why not create a new page called "mass killing under totalitarian regimes", or even "mass killings under capitalist regimes"?(see: Wounded Knee Massacre) Darkstar1st (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what WP:POVFORK is all about. There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever in communism or capitalism as ideologies what may lead to mass killings of non-combatants. (Igny (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I understand that you think that, but the article is not about an "intrinsic" connection, it's about the connection that reliable sources make. What are your examples of a NPOV violation? AmateurEditor (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Since statistically significant correlation exists between mass killings and authoritarian (not only totalitarian) regimes, I already proposed to create the article "mass killing under authoritarian regimes" and to move all general considerations there. I'll probably do that in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The sources use the term communist regimes." The sources use this term along with others. For instance, only one chapter of Valentino's book is devoted to communist regimes (to be specific, to only three regimes), whereas the rest of the chapter explains why other regimes did not commit mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino's other chapters are on topics already covered by other articles, such as Ethnic cleansing and counter-insurgency. His explanations of communist regimes which did not commit mass killing by his definition can also be included in this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul can you in fact name one commie regime which has not committed mass murder? And as we have several sources which say all commie regimes did this what exactly is your issue? mark nutley (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, can you name one major non-commie regime that did not commit mass killings? TFD (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You require the Mass Killings Under Democracy this is about commies. Did you mum never tell you it is rude to answer a question with a question? Please answer mine mark nutley (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, mark, my family may not have provided me with the same lessons in politeness that yours did. TFD (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Commies"? Can we please drop this loaded language. The tags are clearly required as this article falls far short of our criteria, as outlined by TFD. Verbal chat 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD is incorrect, and has yet to provide any justification for the tags mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Paul can you in fact name one commie regime which has not committed mass murder?" Thank you for deliberately making your proposition weaker. It is easy to name the regimes that committed no mass "murders", because murder is much narrower then "killings". Hungary, Bulgaria, probably Cuba, Poland, DDR. With regard to the USSR, some scholars argue that even Stalin's purges were not "murder" but "executions" because they were performed according to some legal procedure (by contrast to what took place in Nazi Germany). In that sense, even the USSR committed no mass murder.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? >pg=PA22>dq=mass+murder+in+cuba>hl=en>ei=2qs4TNb5B9ChnQey7pGsDg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20cuba>f=false Mass Murder in Cuba >q=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>hl=en>ei=6K44TPX-IdjNjAeGuNTjAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA Mass Murder in Hungary >pg=PA112>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Bulgaria>hl=en>ei=L684TIj0OJCQjAfhzL32Aw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q>f=false Mass Murder in Bulgaria >pg=PA259>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Poland>hl=en>ei=e684TI7KBoGRjAf-x_XtAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20communist%20Poland>f=false Mass Murder in Poland, any others you may think have not committed mass murder? Now back on topic, we have sources which link commies to murder, and none which refute it. Please explain your issue with the POV of the article mark nutley (talk)

Not only is the POV of the article a huge problem, but the unbelievable (I guess I'm naive) POV of the comments here is not helping resolve this problem. Verbal chat 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What part of this article do you think violates NPOV? mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The title, for one, and then most of what follows due to the title and context of the article. Unfortunately. Verbal chat 21:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just what do you think would be a better title? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Really? >pg=PA22>dq=mass+murder+in+cuba>hl=en>ei=2qs4TNb5B9ChnQey7pGsDg>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CE4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20cuba>f=false Mass Murder in Cuba >q=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Hungary>hl=en>ei=6K44TPX-IdjNjAeGuNTjAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA Mass Murder in Hungary >pg=PA112>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Bulgaria>hl=en>ei=L684TIj0OJCQjAfhzL32Aw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=1>ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage>q>f=false Mass Murder in Bulgaria >pg=PA259>dq=mass+murder+in+communist+Poland>hl=en>ei=e684TI7KBoGRjAf-x_XtAw>sa=X>oi=book_result>ct=result>resnum=9>ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage>q=mass%20murder%20in%20communist%20Poland>f=false Mass Murder in Poland, any others you may think have not committed mass murder? Now back on topic, we have sources which link commies to murder, and none which refute it. Please explain your issue with the POV of the article." Please, do not present crude results of google search next time. It is your job to analyse them, not mine. Of course, by typing mass murders in Communist Bulgaria you will be able to find many books that contain the words "mass", "murder", "communist" and "Bulgaria". However, that proves only that these books contain these words, not not that these words are contextually linked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

:Mass murder in Essex returns 39,200 hits, while mass murder in Bradford returns 37,600 hits. Mass murder in Guildford only returns 8,590 hits, but of course it is a much safer place. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC

hard to deny facts supplied by the oldest regime in the world. Communist regimes have killed the most people in this century, followed by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union killed 54.7 million between 1917 and 1987, and China killed 35.6 million between 1949 and 1987. http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st211.pdf Darkstar1st (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting radical right-wing American sources, like this one from the National Center for Policy Analysis. Don't you ever read mainstream stuff? This is from the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein could nuke the U. S, within one hour and was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Or do you still believe that?) TFD (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

apologies, as soon as i figure out how to put line thru words i will or u may. i always thought saddam had the weapons of mass destruction he bought from us during the iran war. see picture of rumsfeld shaking his hand the same trip he sold saddam gas for kurds? the numbers associated with communist mass killing are secondary to the debate over whether it actually happened, which you think did not, or was not directly a result of a communist. not ethnic, not combatants, not religious, but enemies of the state, peasants, women, children, animals, cities paved over. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. Just because I am opposed to using mindless American thinktanks does not mean I support Communism. There is a wide range between the two groups, they are called people who think. And the debate was not whether Saddam Hussein had WMDs in the 80s but whether he had them in the 2000s, and if he had them whether they posed any threat to the U. S. Of the U. S. arguments made no sense and only irrational people believed them. TFD (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

correct, your usage of mindless and thinktank describing the same person confuse me. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line: What viewpoints have been peer-reviewed and established as the major view(s) of experts?

This article seems to rely pretty heavily on assertions which seem to trace back to 3 or 4 major sources (to include Rummel, Valentino, etc). Obviously, there is a pretty strongly implied causal link between "regimes labeled as 'Communist'" and "mass killings" in this article -- an implication beginning with the article title. This implication has been challenged by a variety of objections since the article's inception. Not many of the editors here seem convinced that the mainstream academic view has been described clearly (and there's even a question of whether a link has been acknowledged on any level by relevant scholars in academic journals).

Per RS policy, which states "Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." I requested such meta-analyses months ago. Is there still no one who can present scholarly peer-reviewed tertiary sources which discuss the academic consensus of this implied link?

Obviously, this topic has drawn contention. Without such a meta-analysis, the most relevant guideline may the following. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance explains that "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

Per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories, where is evidence of the critical review of this implied connection between "mass killings" and "regimes labeled as Communist"?

The article makes its assertions matter-of-factly, mostly presenting information as if a causal link is an accepted premise. With the rather authoritative description of this link and no real text given to opposing views of this link, per Wikipedia:RS#Academic_consensus there should a work which backs the implication that this link reflects a consensus.

Over the months, this article has been challenged by numerous editors as a type of POV coatrack. If editors supporting the heavy reliance of this article on a small handful of isolated sources cannot justify this unusual weight, then recommended remedies include trimming the excessively weighted content or possible deletion.

The bottom line to all of this is that the article makes rather definitive statements about the causal link implied within the article --- this basic premise is obviously a huge source of contention, and accordingly I suggest that it could curtail a LOT more wrangling in the future if supporting editors would please show here that the implied link between "mass killings" and "Communist regimes" is reflective of a broader academic consensus (per Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance). BigK HeX (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Obviously, there is a pretty strongly implied causal link between "regimes labeled as "Communist"" and "mass killings" in this article" Incorrect. Strictly speaking, the essence of Rummel's work is to find correlations, not casual linkage. (Statistics by definition deals with correlations, not with casual linkages). He found (not implied) a correlation between totalitarianism and democide (which is pretty close to what Valentino calls "mass killings"). The correlation between Communism and democide is somewhat less pronounced (by ca 10%). Taking into account that Rummel's estimates of the scale of mass killings in Yugoslavia and the USSR were found to be a gross exaggeration (see, e.g., Dulic's works for Yugoslavia; the BB and Conquest give the total number of killed in the USSR lesser than 15 million whereas Rummel states 60 million were killed), the correlation between Communism and democide/mass killings would be even less pronounced had the Rummel's approach been applied to the more realistic data set. One way or the another, despite Rummel attacks Communism on his own web site or in self-published sources, his in peer-reviewed works he draw a connection between democide and totalitarianism as whole, not Communism.
Regarding Valentino, he stated that some Communist regimes committed mass killings, however, he conceded that these mass killings were not designed by their leaders from the very beginning, and he explained these mass killings by the peculiarities of concrete Communist regimes and their leaders.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what BigK HeX was stating is that this WP article implies that there is a causal link between Communist regimes and mass killings, not that there is a link or that any of the sources show a link. Certainly anyone reading the intro would come to that conclusion. TFD (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct. So I propose to stop to argue about sources and to start resolving the issue. The main issue is that after reading the article the reader would come to the conclusion not explicitly stated in most sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good way of stating the problem. --FormerIP (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, TFD and Paul Siebert. It seems the first and foremost thing that a reader should learn from the article is the mainstream viewpoint, and yet this is never explicitly described by the article, but worse, a causal link is left strongly implied. BigK HeX (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please clarify this for me. Just what does "should document (with reliable sources) the current level of the [article idea's] acceptance among the relevant academic community" mean in a practical sense? How many academic sources are needed which expound on the idea of "mass killings under communist regimes" before acceptance by the academic community is seen here by skeptical editors? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with AmateurEditor. I do not see how that can be done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be that some of the skeptics will never accept this article idea, but I thought that the four sources I gave at the last AfD (diff) would have been sufficient to demonstrate "acceptance" of the idea in the academic community. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The ref to Courtois is hardly a proof (for reasons already described here), I already agreed regarding Semelin, Valentino's "... most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." can hardly serve as a demonstration of your point, Mann's conclusion on commonality between Campuchea and the USSR contradicts to the opinion of Fein and sounds odd, taking into account that the USSR condemned the Pol Pot's regime, whereas the USA supported it, the interference of Communist Vietnam helped to end this genocide and eventually lead to the Sino-Vientam war.

One way or the another, I fully agree that some scholars see a commonality and a linkage with ideology, however, it is not sufficient to state that these ideas are accepted by majority of them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Coutois was not one of the four references. Courtois was referenced by the actual authors of the quote: Daniel Chirot and Clark R. McCauley. Inconveniently, "(Coutois)" just happened to be at the very end of the quote I selected from them, which can be confusing. The Valentino quote must be read with the understanding that Valentino defines "mass killing" more strictly than the common usage: nothing involving less than 50,000 killed within 5 years meet his definition for the term. He does acknowledge elsewhere in the book, however, that "mass killings on a smaller scale" than his definition appear to have also taken place in other communist countries. As for Mann and Fein, when reliable sources disagree we include both. But Mann does discuss the topic in that source. The article does not state that the "majority" of scholars accepts this idea of communist mass killing (they may, but I don't have a source which says that). That is why so much in the article is explicitly attributed to the authors of the statements. Per WP:RS/AC: "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." AmateurEditor (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Just what does "should document (with reliable sources) the current level of the [article idea's] acceptance among the relevant academic community" mean in a practical sense?"

The guideline offers a few ideas. It suggests finding a meta-analysis, so you simply would provide a citation to a work which discusses theories such Rommel's in relation to the conclusions found in multiple other scholarly works. I've called for supporting to editors to present such a source many months ago, and even now there seems to be difficulty in providing even one. If supporting editors neglect doing this, then the guidelines instruct us that these viewpoints should not presented as prevailing views. BigK HeX (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But the views in the article are not currently being expressed as "prevailing views". Each view is explicitly identified with its author, per WP:RS/AC. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In this article, the idea that Communist regimes are worthy of logically being singled out for mass killings most certainly IS being suggested as a prevailing view. From the introduction alone, I don't see how any layman reader can take ANY other understanding. Further, I believe there is ZERO text given to express that the connection implied in the article title should be regarded as something less than a prevailing viewpoint. I've made the point before, but if this article is going to stand on views that are NOT proven to reflect a significant mainstream understanding, then it would be just as valid for someone to create an article entitled NASA and all of its moon landing hoaxes and to then dedicate itself to only describing the conspiracy theories that have been published. BigK HeX (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article purports to explain the "Mass killings under Communist regimes." Would you be interested in providing at least ONE source that gives us insight into the mainstream understanding of the relationship between "Mass killings" and "Communist regimes"??

If there is no intent to suggest a relationship, then this article fails miserably in that regard. If the intent of the article is to cover a few unestablished theories, then it does an exceedingly poor job of conveying the proper weight.

As the article stands though, the mainstream understanding should be covered, and I'm interested in a source [meta-analysis] being provided. BigK HeX (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Prevailing" means majority view. There isn't a source for such a statement at this time, so no such statement is made in the article. The existence of the article only means that this idea ("mass killings under communist regimes") is in fact an academic topic. The four sources I linked to above show that this article's idea is "accepted" in academic publications, not that it is "prevailing". It could be full of nothing but criticisms of the idea and still be a valid article on Wikipedia. Because we do not know whether it is prevailing, the views are each attributed to their particular authors, per WP:RS/AC (which does not say to state that the idea is "regarded as something less than a prevailing viewpoint"; that statement would be original research unless you could source it). Are you aware of the Moon landing hoax article on Wikipedia? Once I find a source which says "The mainstream view is 'X'", then I will present it here. (However, it may be the case that this concept is too obvious for the sources to think to do that.) As far as meta-analysis, you may be interested in the "research review" prepared on behalf of the Swedish government that I recently added to the referenes section of the article: "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes", found here. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Valentino defines "mass killing" more strictly than the common usage: nothing involving less than 50,000 killed within 5 years meet his definition for the term." In actuality, he defines them more loosely: Valentino's "mass killings" include famine, disease and deportation death that are not usually considered mass killings. Moreover, these death constitute a lion's share of Communist mass killings. If we exclude them, any basis for calling Communist regimes "the bloodiest regimes of XX century" will disappear. I finished for today. Good morning/night.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just agree that Valentino's definition is "different" than the common usage of the term "mass killing"? AmateurEditor (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that after reading the article the reader would come to the conclusion not explicitly stated in most sources. - And what conclusion is that? You are beginning to be vague again. Concrete criticism, please. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Why don't we just agree that Valentino's definition " I have no problem with Valentino unless we do not mix it with "conventional" mass killings. It should be clearly stated in the article that it is based primarily on the Valentino and Rummel's concept according to which the deaths caused by famines, epidemies and deportations (which constitute a majority of victims of Communism) are considered mass killings/democide by these authors, otherwise the reader would assume that all these people were murdered by Communists like Nazi murdered Jews. In that sense, the article is quite misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Valentino (and Rummel) are not the only sources which discusse intentional killing from famine, etc. in their discussion of this topic. I do not agree that this article is "based on" Valentino in that way (or on Rummel, who was not one of the four examples I gave earlier). We have a controversies section precisely to accomodate your concern about mixing "killings" that not all sources accept as such. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As the article largely relies on views which have not met the burden of proof to be treated as widely-accepted theories, I've softened the text to reflect writing from a minority perspective. BigK HeX (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you require a tertiary source looking at the field to show what the mainstream opinion is, when nobody can even find an opposing opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the fact that no one shows an opposing opinion coupled with the fact that no one can show the the regard of these assertions in academic consensus basically would only indicate that the views are receiving neither endorsement or rejection --- which basically means its value is being ignored by the broader academic community.

But, as for your question, I ask for sourcing because it would do much to clear up the heavy contention that these assertions have drawn. Many supporting editors have argued that NPOV is being respected, so my hope is that there's ample evidence that a whole article isn't being written from the minority perspective (which would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV). Since the onus lies with the supporting editors, I created this explicit place for them to meet that burden of proof that they have not created a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Still no RS provided?

That noone shows an opposing opinion explains why nobody bother to check what the consensus is, because it's obvious. You won't get any tertiary source regarding what is the mainstream opinions on the existence of gravity either, because everyone agreed. There are no opposing opinions. IN short: There isn't one single serious scholar/reliable source that claims that communist regimes have *not* been involved in mass killings. It's therefore impossible to balance that opinion, because there exists no balance. The opinion is in itself balanced. You are therefore in essence requiring something impossible: That non-existing opinions get to balance the article.

If there is a difference in opinion about the topic, then the article can be balanced. We don't need a tertiary source to prove that the articles viewpoint is mainstream, we can instead balance that viewpoint. But that requires that opposing viewpoint exist. If they don't, then this viewpoint is the mainstream. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to reverse the burden of proof does no good. (In my opening post of this thread, I show quite clearly where policy places the burden of proof.) While you (and other supporting editors) don't have to meet the burden of proof, we then are instructed to treat these theories as outside of the academic acceptance, per the quoted policy in my opening post of this thread. If we take the theories that are fundamental to this wiki article and treat them as being outside of academic acceptance, then that leads us to directly to the problem that this article currently exists as a POV fork. Meeting the burden of proof precludes this problem. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that no-one but no-one believes other than communist regimes engage in killing on a massive scale. The reason there is no other viewpoint from academic on this is because they would be laughed out of the profession. To show academic acceptance is easy enough, how many books or papers have been published which deal with the subject? And how many which say the opposite, that communist regimes do not engage in mass killing and massive human rights abuses? mark nutley (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not reversing the burden of proof. The problem is that you are conflating several separate issues into one, and using the wrong burden of proof on the wrong issue. That's understandable, this is confusing and I only myself started to understand this thanks to the discussions on RSN prompted by this debate. The issues are:

1. Is this viewpoint WP:FRINGE. There those who claim it is *not* fringe has the burden of proof. It has been shown that the sources in general are published by academic sources and/or has many quotes in academic sources. Hence, the sources in question are conclusively proven to *not* be WP:FRINGE.
2. Then you claim it's not the "mainstream view", and that this article shows a view that is in a minority. This is in essence a claim that the article gives WP:UNDUE wight to one standpoint. Here the burden of proof lies on *you*. You need to show that there are other standpoints. These can then be included to bring back balance in the article. You refuse to do that.
3. Is the balance of the article between opposing standpoints correct? This is an issue that can only be relevant if there *are* opposing standpoints. Here you probably need a tertiary source to show what the mainstream view is.
4. The last issue is if, the sources in question WP:RS. If you feel that they are not, feel free to bring it up on WP:RSN.

These issues are separate, and must be treated as such. My understanding now is that you require a tertiary source to show that the sources aren't fringe, and that's just wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My request is not wrong. It's a mirror of what is CLEARLY spelled out in the policies, as quoted at the start of this thread. As the supporting editors have merely continued to try to shift away from the burden of proof that is explicitly spelled out, at this point I'm just repeating myself, so I'll just shut up now. Either editors will provide the RS, PER THE QUOTED POLICY, or they won't. Following policy, the current status quo of NOT having the requested RS would place this article as a POV fork, which just gives more ammo to use in the process to address the litany of other policy violations here. BigK HeX (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I explained to you exactly how it is wrong, in what I think is as a clear and pedagogic style as I'm capable of. Your response is not to argue against me, but to just say that you aren't wrong. That's not helpful. Yes, RS recommends a tertiary source to show that the article is not giving undue weight to one side in an argument. You have failed to show that there is more than one side, which you must do first. There can not be undue weight to one standpoint if that's the only standpoint that exists. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually before I go ... you said, "You won't get any tertiary source regarding what is the mainstream opinions on the existence of gravity either"

It took me about 6 seconds to find this 2007 article stating, "Einstein's general relativity is now the mainstream theory of gravity" and I'm sure I could do much better than this, if I cared to. In any case, you appear to err in thinking that the RS have to be recent. (Of course, this doesn't even begin to address how you err in creating a false analogy between recent Communism theories and theories on gravity... an attempted analogy that I suspect you would reject as ridiculous.) In any case, I don't think I can add anything more here ... cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the mainstream theory of how gravity *works*. Not whether is *exists*. Because there is no opposing opinion there. Everybody agrees that gravity exists. Now please show that there are reliable sources that claim communist regimes have not been involved in mass killings, or stop claiming that this article gives undue weight to those who claim they have been involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Another source tying communism to mass killings by Frank W. Wayman of The University of Michigan & Atsushi Tago of the University of Tokyo at Komaba This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions How many more before you guys admit this is the consensus view btw? mark nutley (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns with the article

I am a neutral and uninvolved editor in this discussion and I would like to attempt to aide the consensus-building process here and avoid any further edit-warring which many editors appear to have been involved in. I've put a nice clear changes to make here, and invite anyone who has a specific idea of how to improve the article to make suggested changes in that box. Please do not put "keep the tags" or "remove the tags" in the box, that's not constructive. Please number each suggestion and then discuss each suggestion under a level-3 header below. I'm hoping that this layout will improve the flow of ideas and make it clear what the issues are.

Please do not leave any comments for or against any issues in the box, discuss them instead in a relevant section below. I've left a layout to make it clearer what I mean. I'm not acting in any "official" capacity here, but I think this discussion desperately needs improved organisation so I hope that all will agree that this is a sensible way of organisation the discussion.

Please try to keep all comments relevant and constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for discussion

1. The biggest change needed is that a "baseline" needs to be established. This is the most fundamental issue that I see with this article. One (or more) good tertiary sources needs to be drawn from so that we can establish which points of view are prominent. Right now, the article stands on a small handful of isolated works, which I think were intended for popular audience, and not scholarly review. The article (beginning with the title itself) makes a pretty definitive link between "Mass killings" and groups claiming a political ideology (in this case, communism), which, in this article, is effectively strongly implying a causal link between "Mass killings" and a political ideology. There is no problem with such a link, unless it is a small or tiny minority viewpoint which is ignored within or even contradicted by the broader academic community. The article does not explicitly establish the mainstream thought, and instead weaves together isolated studies --- the article could easily be a legitimate reflection of the significant viewpoints, but what is known for certain is that the burden of proof to establish that has not been met. The voluminous talk page archives seem to indicate that various aspects of the fundamental assertion made by the article have been challenged ... with issues ranging from which killings should be counted, up to whether the link is actually assignable to "Communists," "communism," "totalitarianism," etc. Given how authoritatively this link is proposed in the article, I think the burden of proof should be met that the link asserted in this article is reflective of the most significant viewpoints in the academic community. If it is, then great. If it is not, then this article is no more NPOV than a hypothetical NASA and all of its moon landing hoaxes article. A good tertiary source can establish the basics, and once the fundamentals are in place, we can work from there. I'll be explicit that I'm not saying the article is not valid, only that the use of the sources currently imply an authoritativeness to the basic claim which seems stronger than the handful of isolated sources justifies, resulting in a potentially broad SYN problem. BigK HeX (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Courtois' introduction to the Black book of Communism and Rummel's Death by government were published outside the academic mainstream and not subjected to peer-review. Neither of these sources are directly about mass killings under Communist regimes: the first one was about the evils of Communism in general, while the second was about mass killings by governments in general. There are numerous good sources for each of the events discussed in this article, but none that connect the killings in the various countries as having a common cause. (These seem to be potential SYN issues described by TFD)
3. BigK Hex's Synthesis issues: The title. The "Proposed Causes" section. The lede (though to a lesser extent now). --OpenFuture (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 1

You want a tertiary source, but of what is unclear. That many mass killings has been done under communist regimes is uncontroversial, so that's not it. Do you want a tertiary source of what these mass killings are? There we have both R.J. Rummel and the Black Book of Communism, who both are exactly that: Tertiary sources of mass killings under communist regimes. Or do you want a tertiary source for the discussions of the reasons for why communist regimes so often do mass killings? I don't know of that, but that is only in regards to one section, and you seem to criticize the whole article.

The link between communism and mass murder is not given authoritatively. It's one section with several different scholars ideas of what that link may be. That's hardly an authoritative link. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Many "mass killings" have been done under all manner of regimes. This article does little to establish whether mainstream thought isolates Communist regimes in particular, or whether the Communists were differentiated from authoritarians for specific reasons, etc. Is is even established clearly what is generally regarded as a "mass killing"? BigK HeX (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does little to establish whether mainstream thought isolates Communist regimes in particular, or whether the Communists were differentiated from authoritarians for specific reasons, etc. - And? What's your point? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What is my point? Well, I'm trying to point out that the most fundamental thing that a person should learn from the article is not described by the article. First and foremost, a person should get a fair grasp on the mainstream understanding of the relationship between "mass killings" and "Communist regimes" in an article entitled Mass killings under Communist regimes.

The most fundamental thing a person should learn from this article is missing, if my point is still somehow not clear. BigK HeX (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles name is not "The link between communist regimes and mass killings", so no, that's not the fundamental thing you should learn. You are welcome to start such an article if you think it's important that Wikipedia teaches people about what communism leads too, but I think the section in this article is enough. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are 3 more wp:rs confirming communist mass killings

• The Aggressors: Ho Chi Minh, North Vietnam, and the Communist Bloc By Martin Scott Catino. page 17
• The russian revolution and the soviet state, 1917-1921 by Martin McCauley page 188, 189.
• Mao's China and after: a history of the People's Republic By Maurice J. Meisner, page 136

i will continue to add sources as needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No one questions whether there are reliable sources for mass killings in different countries. We need sources that provide a causal link between Communist ideology and mass killings, otherwise the article is POV synthesis. TFD (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

after you have had a chance to re-review the 3 sources, you will find the link between communist ideology and mass killing. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have WP:RS that provides such a causal link. They are referred under Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Proposed_causes --OpenFuture (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please briefly summarize what the causal link is? TFD (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, sources differ on the role ideology played in these events. That's why there is a "Proposed causes" section. But the premise of your comment is wrong: we do not "need sources that provide a causal link between Communist ideology and mass killings" to avoid POV and synthesis. The title is "...under Communist regimes" specifically to avoid assuming ideology was the cause. It would be non-neutral otherwise. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet this distinction is NOT clearly described in the article itself, further contributing to the problems. BigK HeX (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any improvements you can offer would be appreciated. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor. Cannot agree. The article title implies a connection with ideology, because Communist ideology was the only common trait of all regimes discussed there. One way or the another, many readers (including myself) would understand the title in that way. In addition, some sources (Semelin, Rummel (in his self-published books, Rosenfielde) do see a connection between ideology and mass killings, so it would be not fully correct to mix these sources with all others. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is only if you accept that all the "Communist regimes" which existed or still exist practiced actual communism (the ideology). The word is capitalized in the title precisely to make it clear that this is a proper noun, referring to regimes which were called "Communist", and not an adjective. This is made even more clear in the terminology section on just what is meant by "Communist regimes". Any implication people may see should be swamped by this prominent explicitness. If you like, this can be made even more prominent by explaining it in the lede. Ideological explanations from sources are segregated under the appropriate section of "Proposed causes". AmateurEditor (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, people may react with "Oh, is there a connection between communist ideology and mass murder?" when they see the title. And indeed there may be, and there is a whole section devoted to discussing that and having some proposed links. So what is the actual problem? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 2

There are no tertiary sources for this article and the only sources that provide a link, Courtois' introduction to the Black book of Communism and Rummel's Death by government were published outside the academic mainstream and not subjected to peer-review. Neither of these sources are directly about mass killings under Communist regimes: the first one was about the evils of Communism in general, while the second was about mass killings by governments in general. However, the authors were scholars and these sources are occassionaly cited. Several peer-reviewed articles have been written that are highly critical of the Black Book and the numbers in these sources have been widely dismissed. There are however numerous good sources for each of the events discussed in this article, but none that connect the killings in the various countries as having a common cause. TFD (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not "outside academic mainstream", that's just your usual claim that anyone that doesn't agree with your extreme POV are "fringe". In this case you are claiming this about Harvard University Press, which is patently absurd. The requirement that the sources are *only* about mass killings under communist regimes is completely without basis, and in the case of the Black book of Communism incorrect. It's exactly what it is about. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re: "One (or more) good tertiary sources needs" I doubt tertiary source to resolve the issue, because WP generally relies upon the secondary ones. In addition, who can guarantee reliability of this tertiary source?

With regards to the rest, I fully agree, although I would say that not only the article does not explicitly establish the mainstream thought, it even cites selectively some of those sources that allegedly support the article's main idea. See the Harff's article on politicide as an example. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly semantic, but I'll note that this talk page previously has made a pretty big stink about differentiating rather sharply between "communism" and regimes labeled as "Communist". BigK HeX (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harvard was not the original publisher of the Black book, but re-published the book after translation. Therefore it did not go through the usual publication process of fact-checking and peer-review. Also, it is a collection of articles. Most books like that contain articles from a wide range of sources, and each article should be separately assessed for its acceptance by the academic community. Usually most of the articles in collections are re-publications of peer-reviewed articles or are based on them. I have repeatly asked for articles that have been published in academic journals but none have been provided. TFD (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You think harvard would not have fact checked the book beforehand? And please try to remember, not all sources need to be peer reviewed. Plenty of sources have been given linking commies to mass killings yet you persist in saying none have. What is your issue with the sources already provided? mark nutley (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please point out any changes Harvard made to the book before re-publication. And if there are "plenty of sources" Could you please point out an article in a peer-reviewed journal that makes this connection. TFD (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, sources do not need to be peer reviewed, please read wp:rs and wp:v. The sources which link the two are in the above sections and frankly i am fed up of pointing them out to you only for you to ignore them and then ask the same question over and over. Please look in the section i started titled synth mark nutley (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the article supports a theory that is not recognized in the academic literature, and therefore is fringe. TFD (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Something does not need to be in academic literature to be recognised. The fact that Rummel Caplan and scully (All Academics btw) all say the same thing, That all Communist regimes commit mass killings means it is mainstream. As stated, WP polict is wp:rs and wp:v we have sources which state what the article is about. That is all that is required of us as editors mark nutley (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The premise where "3 academics (including at least one of whom is speaking outside his academic field) have presented a certain POV" is a sufficient criteria for a viewpoint to be mainstream is entirely dubious. It's not that difficult to find a small handful of academics who make claims counter to the actual mainstream thinking on a range of topics, such as Global Warming, if I had to present an example. BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

BK, you are incorrect i`m afraid. All three are writing within their areas of expertise. Scully is looking at it from an economic viewpoint, not ideological one. mark nutley (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You cited Caplan. His academic credentials are for economics. BigK HeX (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Harvard was not the original publisher of the Black book, but re-published the book after translation. Therefore it did not go through the usual publication process of fact-checking and peer-review. - Oh really? Citation Needed, please. Tell me where their requirements on translated books are lower than non-translated books. You are just making things up now. Please provide reliable sources that Rummel is fringe, or stop claiming it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The material cites Rummel rather heavily. The burden of proof is on editors supporting this use of the text to provide the evidence that this weight is appropriate. Oddly, though it's been months since I requested this burden of proof to be met, it doesn't seem that anyone has this answer available at the present. BigK HeX (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A new pattern in this debate is emerging. You are now starting to claim that it's up to us to prove that nothing is wrong. This is self-evidently incorrect. You need to prove that something *is* wrong. You can not prove a negative fact. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Our policy is The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material; prove, therefore, your material sound. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Those templates are "material" as well. Sentences in the article are "proved" by their citations. The templates require explanation on the talk page. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would separate Courtois' introduction, the BB proper and Rummel. Introduction to the BB is highly criticised whereas the Werth's section on the USSR is generally accepted positively. Rummel is a brilliant thinker, although it is generally accepted that he is a very controversial writer. In addition, as I noted above, although we cannot interpret the sources, we must understand them. For instance, if you want contribute to the Special theory of relativity article you must know what Lorentz transforms are. Similarly, to discuss Rummel one must know what factor analysis is. If someone claims the knowledge of this subject is not necessary to discuss Rummel's views, (s)he thereby concedes (s)he is not ready to speak seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) The book was originally published by Éditions Robert Laffont. Here] is a link to their website. As can be seen they are a general publisher, publishing everything from novels to academic books. The English version of the Black Book acknowledges that it was published by them first and was translated into English. TFD (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Rummel's Death by government was published by the academic press Transaction Publishers To suggest it is outside the mainstream is incorrect mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Although Transaction Publishers began as a publisher of social sciences, they do not have the same review process as academic publishers like Routledge, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westview Press, Wiley-Blackwell or university publishing houses, and include many popular books. TFD (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And many reprints (they feature three books as I type; two are from 1961 and 1965, from commercial publishers); they are the private effort of a single Rutgers professor in suburban Piscataway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Routledge is the publisher of Rosefielde's Red Holocaust (2009 book), an analysis of "peacetime communist mass killings and related crimes" (from introduction). I'm assuming because it's so new is the basic reason for it being ignored in these discussions regarding a scholarly consensus of Communist mass killings. Rosefielde is a respected academic as far as I can tell, and has published a multitude of books and articles on Soviet and Communist repression/killings. People really need to take of the ideological blinders I think, because if you look at the references/notes section you can plainly see that this article contains a plethora of scholarly citations (150+ at this point) that are not just Rummel, Valentino, and Courtois. Communism across the globe has a blood-soaked record and that this is not some fringe viewpoint akin to holocaust denial or skepticism about the moon landing, as these citations prove (almost every one is either an academic source or mainstream media source). I think it should also be noted that the Anti-communist mass killings article contains no scholarly sources (let alone any kind of scholarly consensus) whatsoever linking "anti-communism" and "mass killings," and yet for some odd reason it is not hit with deletion requests again and again along with requests for peer review like this one is.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "this article contains a plethora of scholarly citations..." most of which deals with some separate cases and do not connect the killings directly to ideology.

Re: "Communism across the globe has a blood-soaked record" Taking into account that during XX century most populated countries (excluding India) were Communist, and that most brutal wars (including civil wars) occurred there, it is not a big surprise that mass mortality is associated primarily with Communism. However, only in some cases the casual linkage with ideology is obvious.

Re: "Anti-communist mass killings" It is impossible to demonstrate the linkage with some single ideology because, strictly speaking, anti-communism is not some positive and uniform ideology. For instance, both Hitler and Churchill were anti-communists. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. Again, I have no objection to collect into the article all sources that draw a connection between Communism (not totaliarianism as whole) and mass killings, and to discuss these theories. However, it is incorrect to combine 150+ citations where one or another events of Soviet or Chinese history are being discussed without a connection with Communist ideology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "most of which deals with some separate cases and do not connect the killings directly to ideology" Um, the title of the article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes", not "Mass killings as a result of Communist ideology." All the data and related citations deal with "mass killings" that were committed by "Communist regimes." Now, that being said, if the article contained the latter title (or something like it), then it would make sense that killings of class enemies in various land reforms and collectivizations would be included, but off hand massacres, such as Tiananmen Square Massacre or the Novocherkassk massacre, would not be, as these killings were carried out simply to suppress protest and rioting.

Re: "It is impossible to demonstrate the linkage with some single ideology because, strictly speaking, anti-communism is not some positive and uniform ideology. For instance, both Hitler and Churchill were anti-communists." That being the case it sounds to me that that particular article is far more worthy of deletion requests and the like than this one is.

Re: "However, it is incorrect to combine 150+ citations where one or another events of Soviet or Chinese history are being discussed without a connection with Communist ideology." Again, considering the title of the article (and the article itself) relates to communist regimes and not strictly ideology, the citations that pertain to mass killings under governments that called themselves Communist, be it the PRC, USSR, Cambodia, etc., seem entirely relevant to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re "he title of the article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes"" Not only the article cannot convey any ideas not explicitly stated in the sources, it even cannot imply them. The article's name implies that some connection with ideology exists. If there is no connection, then the material cannot be placed there. For instance, I do not understand the relevance of the Afghan section, because this event should be grouped based on quite different trait, counter-guerilla warfare (together with Vietnam and Algeria, what many scholars do, btw.) By the way, in this fragment:

"it would make sense that killings of class enemies in various land reforms and collectivizations would be included"

you adequately described my vision of this article, although massacres such as Tiananmen Square Massacre or the Novocherkassk massacre, also should be included because they were an indirect result of the Communist policy.

Re: "That being the case it sounds to me that that particular article is far more worthy of deletion requests..." Disagree, because in this case a commonality is quite obvious: the victims were Communists. This commonality is so strong that there is no chances that any AfD will have any success. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:"because in this case a commonality is quite obvious: the victims were Communists." The commonality for this article is also quite obvious: the killers were Communist governments. Hmmm... perhaps we should just re-name the article "Communist mass killings" so as to include killings by Communists not in power (i.e. Shining Path, Maoist guerrillas pre-1949, Red Army Faction, etc.). The other article, which includes "anti-communist" killing by both governments and terrorist groups, has given me this idea.

Re:The article's name implies that some connection with ideology exists. If there is no connection, then the material cannot be placed there. Oh that's just an excuse to delete the article and you know it. There seems to be a blatant double standard to allow one article to exist that lists any alleged killings by anti-Communists (the Holocaust - the extermination of European Jewry - is included for God's sake) with few scholarly sources but an article that is specifically titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes," with content that relates to the title and nothing else, not to mention the 150+ scholarly sources - that's a "no no." I call total BS on that.

Re: "I do not understand the relevance of the Afghan section, because this event should be grouped based on quite different trait, counter-guerilla warfare." Do you not know that many of those murdered by the DRA's security forces were imams and other religious figures, along with those branded arbitrarily as "counterrevolutionaries" if they opposed the socialist reforms of the new government? This from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan article:

Between April 1978 and the Soviet invasion of December 1979, Afghan Communists executed an estimated 27,000 political prisoners at Pul-e-Charkhi prison six miles east of Kabul. Many of the victims were village mullahs and headmen who were obstructing the modernization and secularization of the intensely religious Afghan countryside.

How is that not relevant to ideology?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The commonality for this article is also quite obvious." Disagree. Whereas all victims of anti-Communist mass killings were killed because they were Communists, there is no proof that all killings committed by Communist government occurred because the regimes were Communist. I see no difference, for instance, between Soviet migrational genocide in Afghanistan and Amegican genocide in Vietnam.

Re blatant. The anti-communist mass killing can be a list article, because the connection with political beliefs of the victims is obvious. Re Holocaust, the main article do include killing of Communists. If the main article includes it, why the anti-communist mass killings cannot?

Re: Afghan. As Wayman and Tago noted, Afghan regime had never became a real Communist regime. It was a clan war that started after deposition of Daud and that lasts until today. Obviously religious leaders had an enormous effect on the course of the events (which, btw, takes place in Afghanistan even now), so they hardly can be considered a neutral party in the war. Anyway, strictly speaking, the Afghan regime was just a "regime that declared its adherence to a Communist doctrine".

Re How is that not relevant to ideology?- You answered by yourself. They were killed for obstructing the modernization and secularization of the intensely religious Afghan countryside, not for anti-Communism. Not every modernization and secularization is dictated by Communist doctrine. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There are dozens of ways that it could have absolutely nothing to do with ideology. The bottom line is that there is an objection that the sources are being misused here.

Trying to bring up the "Anti-communist" article as an analogy is pretty useless since "anti-communism" certainly is NOT seriously regarded by anyone as an actual ideology. Not only is your attempted analogy fallacious, but even if the concepts in the two article were equivalent, it would still be fallacious to expect that this article should receive a pass on its problems because you think another article has. BigK HeX (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The article's name implies that some connection with ideology exists. - No it does not. You may misunderstand it as such if you do not understand the difference between ideology and regime, but it does not imply this. For anyone that understand the difference, the title is quite clear. For those who don't the difference is made clear in the terminology section. And besides, the connection between ideology and mass killings is discussed in the article, reliably sourced. So what is the problem, really? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I cede the point, reluctantly, that a connection between the ideology and the killings should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, and actually it is to a significant extent in the section "proposed causes" (I recently added some material myself from Rosefielde and Goldhagen). But it seems unreasonable to expect that every single source in other sections should explicitly link the ideology and the killings. For example, in the section "Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial" the first sentence mentions that Mengistu, the Soviet-backed Communist dictator of Ethiopia, was tried and convicted of genocide. But as this is a pretty recent event, the primary source material is most likely going to be news reports - and these might not mention explicitly the role communist ideology played in the killings. Does that make it unacceptable? It would seem me that, being the only Communist leader convicted by a court for Genocide and mass killings, details of his conviction certainly warrant a place in an article on Communist mass killings, no? Or what if it is already established that Stalin's purges can be linked to ideology ("states where mass killings occurred" section), then adding materials on mass graves from the era, using as sources mainstream news reports of such macabre discoveries which mention Stalin's role but nothing about ideology, would also be unacceptable because the sources don't explicitly connect the ideology to the killings that occurred there? Seems ridiculous to me.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you have now twice mentioned the "original publisher". Explain why this is relevant. I've asked you before to show a RS that explains how translated or republished books somehow is not a reliable source and only the original edition is counted. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read peer review and academic publishing for an overview of how the process works. Here is a link to a reliable source describing the peer review process. Harvard states that the book is a translation of le livre noir. Do you have any reason to doubt them? The original publisher is relevant because that is where peer review is done. I suspect you do not understand the concept or you would not be asking these questions. However it is useful to know, because it helps us to distinguish between reliable sources and fringe theories. TFD (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere there does it say that peer review is done only at the original publisher, and that academic publishers who normally publish only peer reviewed books will publish books that has not been peer reviewed if they are translations. Again you are just stating things with no support for your statemens. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again your response shows that you do not understand the peer review process and I would suggest you read the sources I provided. The suggestion that the book was submitted to the peer review process by Harvard is ludicrous. TFD (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I've read them and there is nothing in there to support your statements as far as I can see. Be explicit, and stop making bare assertions. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't you think the Harvard version would have mentioned had any revisions been made to the original book? TFD (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You are presuming that: 1. The book is incorrect. 2. That is was not peer reviewed originally, and that 3. Peer reviewers caught the errors. None of these assumptions have been shown to be true. You have not shown that Harvard Press does not apply the same quality requirements on translated books as other books they publish. You need to do that, or drop this line of debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, none of those comments make sense and I strongly suggest you read the sources I provided in order to understand academic publishing procedures. TFD (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read them. You refuse to support your case. Duly noted. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, no one has objected to Red Holocaust as a source. Paul Siebert even mentioned it as a reliable source. No one is objecting to sources because of "ideological blinders" but the use of unreliable sources and the misuse of reliable sources. If there are people with "ideological blinders" it is those who come here with pre-conceived ideas and then data-mine for sources that back up their views. TFD (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of 3. BigK Hex's Synthesis issues

Note: Synthesis is when you take two or more sources and draw or imply a conclusion from them that doesn't exist in either source. It's a form of original research.

1. The title

The title "Mass killings under Communist regimes" only needs sources that claims that Mass killings have happened under Communist regimes. There are many sources for this in the article, hence this is clearly *not* synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The "Proposed Causes" section

The Proposed Causes section takes up several researchers view of the proposed causes. No conclusions or synthesis is done of these causes. Not synthesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1. The lede (though to a lesser extent now)

I can see no synthesis in the lead. Can you explain what exactly is synthesis in the lead? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate has died: Time for action

The few attempts to justify the tags has been answered. No more arguments for the tags have arrived. This must reasonably mean that we have reached consensus now, and the tags can be removed. We also have reached a consensus for how to move forward See Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#A_way_forward. So the tags can be removed. Bets would be if somebody who once reverted back the tags can remove them, both to show good faith and because it then would be a self-revert and not count towards 1RR. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Answered"? ... not quite. A reply isn't the same thing as a (substantive) answer. Your continued attempts to declare a premature "case closed" are not helpful.

Without a retraction of the objections, then obviously, any changes should be based on consensus. Clearly, you don't have any reasonable claim to consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

They have been answered multipile times now. Lets try this, which part of this article do you think is Synth? mark nutley (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The title. The "Proposed Causes" section. The lede (though to a lesser extent now). This is incidental to my primary objection though, but in any case, I'll not entertain any further requests to rehash my objections for the Nth time. If you're underlying goal is to "win" some argument by exhaustion, then it might be better not to waste your time, as my future responses will be that you please review my previous posts, most especially the one requesting a burden of proof that has obviously not been met as policy describes it should be. (Though your good faith attempts to try meeting that burden are appreciated, even if not quite on the mark.) BigK HeX (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to rehash it, if your objections exist somewhere on this page you can just link to them or the diffs where you made them. But you have just as little right to declare your objections unanswered as we have to declare them answered, so you *must* engage in debate about the issues. When you refuse to debate or "rehash" them all you do is show that you have no arguments, and then the issue is no longer an issue. Your stated opinions of Synthesis here does *not* appear in the "Specific concerns above". We can then only draw the conclusion that this isn't an issue, and that you are simply filibustering. But I'll do your job and add them above. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please add explanation of what is SYN in the lead. The others are answered. Again. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is incidental to my primary objection though - And what is that, exactly? Your states issue before is that you wnat a tertiary source, but you could never explain what needed a tertiary source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BigK: Your constant attempts of claiming there are issues, and refusing to state or discuss them isn't particularly helpful either. Above in the "Specific concerns with the article", there has been listed two concerns. They are in my opinion answered. If you don't think they are answered, why do you not discuss the issues under it's respective sub section? If you have other concerns why have you not, after repeated requests, not added them to that section? And if you do not agree with the proposed way forward, why did you not say so? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"In your opinion" ... now we're getting somewhere. Do you think you have a reasonable claim to relevant consensus for this OPINION of yours? BigK HeX (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this where I say, "No, you don't" and where we return to the massive talk page failure thing? Clearly, you've decided to just try to "win" your way through exhaustion and repetition instead of true reconciliation. I'd rather see reconcialition, personally ... and in "putting my money where my mouth is", I have this page. BigK HeX (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone judges others by their own pattern. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not everybody so readily engages in projection, as you seem to be suggesting here. BigK HeX (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Besides, according to you when is it *not* premature to declare the discussion over? Apparently it's too early to say so when people have stopped discussing. Is it only not premature when *you* say so?) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Or ... better than to ask me suggestive questions, perhaps, let's AGF a bit. BigK HeX (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done that all the time. I'm happy to hear you will do the same. Maybe you can then retract your accusations that I'm trying to disrupt the debate and win by exhaustion? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. well let me clarify, then. Let's AGF a bit when the alternative is baseless speculation. In case it's not clear, in contradiction to your baseless speculation, I have given ZERO indication that I would grant to myself the right to declare an end to a discussion with claims of "consensus" given what we're describing above. Contrast this to your statements here that there's an effective consensus to remove the NPOV violation tag. BigK HeX (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, you are clearly not going to AGF. Too bad. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since my AFD comment, which I think gets to the nub of the problem, is now hidden in a collapsed section, and is a call to action beyond the AFD, I repeat it here.

here's the nub of it, beneath much smoke and mirrors:

as PaulSiebert said: " Let me consider Democratic Kampuchea as an example. I found that, although reliable sources do draw a connection between KR's Communist beliefs and genocide there, at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them: a very strong Khmer nationalism and national tradition of revenge. Since both of these things have no roots in Marxism (and directly contradict to it), the really comprehensive analysis of the issue must include a discussion of mutual interaction and relative contribution of these factors."

The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing. It should be merged, split, turned inside out or whatever - whatever it takes to allow an appropriate analytical approach which neither downplays (for those concerned with this above all) the views of some about the role of Communist ideology in these cases, nor the role of other attendant factors specific to each; nor precludes inclusion of cases of mass killings where Communist ideology is not a plausible factor. That is why a Merge to mass killing is the only encyclopedic outcome. However, should this increasingly messy AFD not end with that, I hope somebody goes and expands mass killing appropriately, turns that into a good article which puts this one to shame and ultimately makes even its current supporters see the wisdom of a merge. Rd232 ^talk 10:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. So far, I've seen roughly 5 pretty good suggestions of alternatives to the present state of affairs. If nothing else is decided, I hope to go over the alternatives later. BigK HeX (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them - Yes. And that means that Democratic Kampuchea is in itself, seen isolated, not any proof that Communism is related to the mass killing. And the same goes for all other cases too. What exactly do you mean is the problem with this? You are unclear on that in your comment above. If you say it is WP:SYN, I would agree I agree it would be SYN if this was just a collection of mass killings under communist rule. But it is not just that. It has many academic reliable sources in mainstream debate that directly connects communist rule and mass killings. And these theories are discussed under the "proposed causes" section. So it's *not* SYN, so that is not the problem (and you don't claim it is, I just want to clarify).
2. The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing - Why? It looks like you somehow arrive to that conclusion from your previous comment, but I don't see a connection. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Debate's alive, but it IS time for action! JOIN MEDIATION!

We are clearly at an impasse here. I'm not sure how this could be more clear. Everyone here means the best for the project, so let's take the next step towards forward progress -- click here to take that step. BigK HeX (talk) 08:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone clarify to me, what purpose of this mediation is? Is it going to be about NPOV tag debate, or about ways to fix POV, or what? How does the mediation work, anyway? Did anyone here have success/experience with mediation before, or it is just that you presume mediation is some sort of a panacea? (Igny (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

It's still not exactly clear what the foray into mediation will focus on, but I am hoping a break in the impasse on any significant issue will allow us to reach consensus on many other issues. We have a pretty well-clarified list of issues on the AfD page. Most of the issues are varieties of NPOV, so it'll likely be one of those. BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not support the idea of mediation for the reason described below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Iterated attempts to delete have failed - this page is to work on the article, not for infinite debate about settled issues

Clear enough? Collect (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those two (or three) observations of the obvious! BigK HeX (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD's positive result

The last AfD had one positive result, namely that several editors agreed that it would be useful to convert a Mass killing article into a full summary style article, and after that to return to this article as Mass killing's daughter article, and to bring it in accordance with the former. In connection to that I propose to stop any work on this article for a while and to switch to the Mass killing. I am busy for next three or four weeks, so I'll join this work later. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Cough* This was agreed on *before* the AfD. See "A way forward" above and notice how little arguments against there is. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think mediation to be neither helpful nor useful here, because noone will be able to carefully analyse and take into account all numerous arguments put forward by all parties. However, creation of more general and concise article ("Mass killing") will make future mediation (if it will be still needed) technically more possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the accusing party just lays forward their complaints with the article in a clear, concrete and concise manner you will see that the defense will be perfectly able to do the same, and which case 99% of the compaints will be readily dismissed and we can discuss the few (if any) that remains. I agree with AmateurEditor that option for using spokespersons is a good idea, since that will avoid the general fuzzy "I don't like it therefore it's OR" complaints that so much of the stated "issues" are. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of how many times you suggest that "you don't see the objections," they've been detailed quite clearly. You say that you are ready to answer these objections, but one of the things that is most clear in your responses to the threads is a conspicuous attempt shift the burden of proof, even though it is clearly spelled out in the policies quoted for your convenience. If you really are serious about answering the objections then please refer to the above thread and follow the Wikipedia-prescribed method for showing that the viewpoint is not one outside of academic acceptance. Anything less than an RS is not a useful answer to the objections detailed. BigK HeX (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul: if what BigK Hex describes is accurate, then mediation should help to iron at least some of that out. For example, an IDHT attitude would be harder to sustain in mediation (OpenFuture, I am not accusing you of this, just using it for the sake of argument). I agree that mediation may run into difficulties in taking into account the varied POVs presented here (a reason, actually, why representatives may not be a good idea - can any one editor speak for any one "side" of the case), but I think it could deal with some of the obstacles to productive discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation will hardly resolve the issue because the issue is simply unresolvable in present terms (delete vs keep). Remember, initially the article was created under the name "Communist genocide", and both the name and the scope of the article were quite legitimate: the article described the only confirmed case of genocide committed by the regime that declared adherence to a Marxist doctrine (I mean Kampuchea). The problems started to appear when the article became a collection of all mass mortality events under Communist regimes (and was renamed accordingly). The article's major issues are that it is based on minority views (the article's core is the views of scholars who see a commonality between these different events), whereas other views (e.g. the views of scholars who prefer to discuss each regime separately, and not in connection to Communism) cannot be included per SYNTH. Since this problem is theoretically fixable I see no reason to delete the article.

My conclusion is that no mediation is needed to decide if the article should be kept or not: the article should be kept. However, it should be profoundly modified to comply with NOR and NPOV. However, it will be much easier to do that when (not if) a full "Mass killings" article will be created, because it will allow us to look at the "Mass killings under Communists" article from different point of view. "Mass killing" is definitely a notable concept, it leaves much lesser space for POV, because most general sources cited in "Mass killings under Communist" in actuality tell about "Mass killings" in general, so I see no problem with the latter article. I'll start to work on it on August.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killing is a disambiguation page you will need a consensus to do as you suggest, an RFC on the talk page and posted on the articles linked to from it i think will be necessary mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of constructive arguments from you is just appalling. I do not need consensus to move the disambig page to mass killing (disambiguation). (Igny (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Of course you do, if someone types mass killing into the search the disambiguation should be the first to come up, not mass killing (disambiguation). Also, comment on content not editor. I was making a suggestion on how best to proceed on this course. However carry on, I do oppose any attempt to bury this article in it though, and a consensus for that will most certainly be needed mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The very existence of mass killings under Communist regimes warrants creation of the parent mass killing. There is actually no need for the mass killing disambiguation, because we already have genocide (disambiguation), holocaust (disambiguation), which link to the articles genocide or holocaust may refer to. What other article the mass killing disambig might link to, in your opinion? (Igny (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

I would also recommend reading WP:DAB guideline. WP needs disambiguation for ambiguous terms only. For example creating a disambig bad deeds with a link to bad deeds by some evil entity is a big no no, as partial matches are not a reason for disambiguation. And you are wrong again, the google search should come up with the main article on the subject, not a disambig page, as you suggested. (Igny (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

In actuality, disambiguation page should not be used here, because it is needed for ambiguous terms, e.g. for "the word "Mercury", which can refer to an element, a planet, a Roman god, and many other things". In this particular case, different mass killings are in actuality different parts of the same phenomenon (and some reliable sources explicitly state that, e.g. Valentino's book on mass killings contains a chapter on mass killings under Communist regimes); a summary style article is definitely needed, because the present disambiguation page creates an absolutely wrong impression that the subjects presented there are totally unrelated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)