Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Cuba, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Laos, etc.

There were several communist societies where mass killings happened that are not mentioned in this article. The ones in the header of this section are prominent examples in my mind, but it's probably also happened in other, more obscure nations. Also, the timeframe of their occurrence is unclear for many of the countries listed; as an example, Romania's entry says that "between 60,000 and 300,000 people may have been killed in Romania beginning in 1945 as part of agricultural collectivization and political repression." Beginning in 1945 and lasting until... when? The start of the 1950s? The death of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej? The execution of his successor Nicolae Ceaușescu and the ultimate downfall of the communist government in 1989? Same thing with East Germany, Bulgaria, and a number of other sections. Plus, the death tolls given are pretty big, but each of them only has one measly reference. We need more than that, especially when dealing with claims like the ones being made; otherwise, our articles are at the whims of biased opinions (academic, yes, but still biased). Actual estimates vary substantially. Finally, there should be a subsection discussing criticism of the anti-communist sentiments described here and the amount of dispute that has gone on between historians.

This article needs a ton of work. It's a shame that the community can't be trusted not to edit war on it. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Claims made in articles need only be single sourced. The policy of reliable sources presumes that the claims have already undergone fact-checking. TFD (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, but there are multiple different perspectives and we're really only giving one side of the argument here. Don't get me wrong, I do not consider the inclusion of verifiable facts to be a form of bias, but we need to also mention other perspectives and bear in mind that this is a hotly contested topic (not only on Wikipedia, but in modern society as a whole). Kurtis ^(talk) 15:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Here are some sources I found that verify the existence of mass graves in Bulgaria: Los Angeles Times (originally published by Reuters), New York Times (also initially a Reuters publication), and an NYT original. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We cannot provide different perspectives because the article is basically synthesis. The closest we can get is articles like Golsan's "Stephane Courtois Historical Revisionism and the Black Book of Communism Controversy. It explains the background to Courtois' introduction and the reasons for its popularity among the right-wing in France and Eastern Europe.[1] TFD (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the article is not synthesis right now; it provides only one perspective, backed up by references to academic but clearly biased third-party sources (i.e. the professional opinions of a small number of people sampled). There needs to be a larger breadth of perspectives somewhere or other in the article, and the end result of providing them doesn't have to lean towards one view or another. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? TFD (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, Kurtis. I don't know how long you have been following this page, but we have been arguing over ways to make progress on the article. There is a workpage for developing the "Terminology" section into something we can all accept, but little participation so far. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for very long, AmateurEditor. I came here out of my own personal interest in the Cold War, but when I tried editing the article to fix an inaccurate link, I found that I couldn't access the text or make any alterations; T. Canens fully protected it indefinitely in November 2011, and I suspect a proposal to reverse his decision would be opposed by the broader community as well as the majority of active administrators. I only took a brief look at the history and found that this page has been subject to extensive edit-warring and is under restrictions as part of the Eastern Europe ArbCom case. Let's hope we can eventually create an article that a) provides the verifiable facts; b) outlines all the different perspectives on the matter; and c) is comprehensive, well-written, and as unbiased as possible in contrasting communism with other brutal forms of despotism (although that should not be a central tenet of this article). Kurtis ^(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC)I'll suggest that you write up or rewrite a section or two of material that you think should be included. When you have it polished up bring it here and we'll see what folks think about including it. I personally will not support removing sourced material because somebody thinks it is biased. Rather I think they should come up with sourced material that will balance out what they perceive as bias. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussions here and elsewhere in Wikipedia and other sites about the article have taught me more about the Cold War than this article every can. TFD (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@AE. Frankly speaking, although I appreciate your absolutely good faith attempt to improve the article, I see no value in working on your workpage, because in present situation that would be simply a waste of your and my time. I agree with Kurtis and many other good faith users that the situation is ridiculous: just a handful minor non-controversial changes have been made to the article during last year, and I have no doubts that no significant changes will be possible to do in future in a situation when some users de facto have a right of veto based on purely formal reasons. The situation is intolerable. Remember that the sanctions were applied mostly as a result of the edit war where one currently banned user had been deeply involved. Most current participants (especially those who came here recently) are sober good faith users with little or no edit war history (and who even weren't warned per DIGWUREN). They are not under any edit restriction, and I refuse to understand why their editing privileges to edit this article have been revoked in advance. I think, it is a good time to request for unprotection of the article, and only after that it makes sense to continue our discussion of the article's concept.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that I'd like to see this page unprotected; if you want to propose it somewhere, then don't let my pessimism get in your way. =)

I would actually be willing to work on this article myself, on a separate page (or more likely, a Microsoft Word document). Granted, I can't guarantee when I'll be done or if my final product would be to the satisfaction of all participants, but I think I might want to give it a shot. Maybe. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you please describe briefly your main concept? --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "main concept". Kurtis ^(talk) 07:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I understand your your perspective on the workpage, having been in that situation myself. I still think it could be useful, but only if all the active editors are participating up front, rather than waiting for time and effort to have been spent and then blocking changes. Regarding the sanctions, I don't think they are helping the article, although they have probably reduced the stress around here. I do think some restrictions are necessary, because disruptive behavior will continue from some editors. I don't know exactly what form they should take, but they should require a high standard of behavior from editors, and quick and reliable penalties for violations. I want everyone walking on eggshells. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely, 1RR must stay (probably, it should be extended to "collective 1RR": you cannot re-revert something to support your fellow editor if you presented no your own fresh argument). Other sanctions are needless and harmful, because just create an opportunity to game system. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support having 1RR. This is what I said at the time the current sanctions were proposed: "I do think that there has been too much talk page bickering and not enough constructive article editing, but I don't know what could be realistically done to change that beyond the 1RR rule. Maybe extending the 1RR for a longer period would help. Maybe blocking edits to the lede for some period and requiring that every edit made to the body of the article has a citation would improve things. But maybe not. I'm pretty sure, however, that requiring talk page consensus for any edit to the article is a recipe for article paralysis and talk page bloat, which is an exaggeration of the current problem."[2] AmateurEditor (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the point of this current discretionary sanction is to force people to work together to create an edit that everyone can agree on. I think you have done a great job in writing up the workpage, but given the apparent refusal of Paul and co. to participate I really don't know how relaxing the sanction would actually benefit. --Nug (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I think Paul's concern is well founded, we don't need to assume things one way or the other. If Smallbones, Collect, and any of the other editors Paul might possibly be concerned about would take a look at, for example, just the "Genocide" subsection as it now appears on the workpage and make whatever (minimal) changes they think are necessary for both them and Paul (and the rest of us) to accept it, then we can demonstrate that this is a productive way forward. Paul Siebert has actually added more there then it might appear. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the article need a terminology section? TFD (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Because our sources disagree with each other over which terms are most appropriate. While genocide and democide, for example, may both be described as "mass killing", the particulars of the definitions may result in different deaths being included in an overall numerical estimate. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you need a source that describes the dispute among scholars of MKUCR as to what terms to use. One that compares what Valentino means by Communist mass killings with Rumsfeld means by Communist democide, for example, along with explaining which terms are most generally accepted. And if you cannot find any sources, then take it out. TFD (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you meant "Rummel", rather than "Rumsfeld"? Discussion about various terms can be found in several of our already identified sources, including Karlsson, Valentino, and Semelin. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We explain what Valentino means by mass killings, which is not used specifically for Communism. But despite the article's title, we do not use his definition. Also, we do not use a secondary source that would explain his use of the term and its acceptance by other writers. It tells readers nothing. And a good article would compare and contrast his terminology, which the section does not do. Also, if you plan to create articles named after all the chapters in Valentino's book, then you would be replicating the terminology section in each and every article. TFD (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Valentino is not the only one to use the term "mass killing" and he is not the only one to define it, as the workpage subsection for "mass killing" currently shows. He is also not the only source to use the phrase in the context of Communism. In fact, some sources use "mass killing" to describe their own terms. It does not matter that the term is not used exclusively for Communism (as I take it you meant when you said "specifically"). If you have additional sources that you want to include, you are welcome to present them. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AE, actually, it does matter that the term is not used exclusively for Communism: current version of the text creates an absolutely false impression that the authors cited there are primarily focused on MKuKR, which is obviously not the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant in principle. If that impression is given in practice, then let us fix it on the workpage. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI

I'm currently in the process of compiling references for a complete rewrite of the article. I can't guarantee it'll be done in the immediate future, but hopefully I'll be able to provide something or other within the next month or so. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good luck. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Response from communists/leftists?

I can't help but notice that most of the authors cited in the lead are well known critics of communism and lean towards the politically conservative side. Should some form of response be added, if they exist, from communists or leftists such as Noam Chomsky?--LucasGeorge (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Noam Chomsky an expert of any sort at all in the field under discussion? I had thought he was a linguist who dabbled in political issues. Collect (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's not up for me alone to decide. However, responses to the accusation of "communism and mass killings" do exist, such as the Black Book of Capitalism, and I'm just suggesting it's a good idea to include some of the more notable ones in terms of NPOV.--LucasGeorge (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The laudably ludicrous set of essays? That does not even rate in the top ten million books sold by Amazon? For which zero actual reviews in English are findable on Questia or Highbeam? Thanks - you made my day. Collect (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a rather anglocentric comment, collect. not being in English does not discredit a work or a review. And I also doubt that the top ten million books sold by amazon is an actual measure of acceptability. I'm also pretty sure that chomsky is not a communist. he may not even be leftist, he is simply critical of US foreign policy.AnieHall (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In one of his innumerable childish propaganda excesses, Chomsky told us: "I don’t think corporations should exist any more than fascism should exist. They are similar totalitarian institutions." He sure sounds like a Leftist to me, and I certainly thought of myself as a Leftist in the days when I was an ignorant Chomsky fan.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that leftist sources are hardly needed here. However, Collect's persistent refusal to bring the article in accordance with what Aronson says is quite notable. As RSN discussion demonstrated, Aronson is among the top quality sources for Wikipedia, much better then highly disputable Courtois is.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I find your hostility rather unnecessary, and what I'm simply suggesting is if any counter-arguments should be brought into the article. For example, several of the authors were involved in a dispute after the publication of the Black Book. Furthermore, I don't know why you're looking for sales and English reviews about a book only published in French.--LucasGeorge (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What you perversel;y call "hostility" is following Wikipedia policies. I am sorry that policies are a problem for you, and that you wish to personalise the conflict between policies and your preferred positions. If you wish to alter policies, then seek to do so, but attacking an editor who wishes to abide by them is inane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you yourself stick with the policy very selectively: thus, you preferred to ignore my argument about Aronson, although our policy requires us to take into account his criticism of Courtois. Therefore, being an experienced editor, who had already had an opportunity to learn our policy (but failed to do so), you hardly have any moral right to teach a newbie (btw, to avoid attacking newbies is also our rule).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your post is a blantant personal attack, and is redacted. Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that is the wrong approach because it is balancing a the right-wing bias of the article with left-wing views. Instead the article should be presented from a neutral point of view, which means that mainstream views should received greatest attention. The basic problem with the article is that it implies a connection between Communism and killing which is not found in the sources. Historians do not find greater similarity between Soviet killings in Chechnya with tsarist and post-Communist killings than with famine in Maoist China. But if one views reality through the lens of anti-Communism, one finds patterns that are not apparent to rational observers. TFD (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that the connection (I would rather say "association") of communism and mass killing is not found in the sources is false, TFD. It certainly is found in our sources, such as these four. How many times must I remind you of these? AmateurEditor (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AE, in my opinion, TFD's assertion was that serious sources are predominantly the single society studies that discuss the events we are talking about in a context of the country's own history, not in a context of Communism. And it is hardly a mere coincidence that those sources prefer not to speak in terms of mass killings. Whereas you correctly noted that some sources exist that draw non-trivial connections between Communism and mass killings, these sources are dramatically overrepresented in this article, and the serious single-society studies are either not represented or are being used to support some ideas that contradict to the major points of their authors.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If TFD wanted to make that finer distinction, I certainly think he is capable of doing so. He chose instead to make a blanket assertion which he must know to be false because he has been corrected on the exact same blanket assertion before. It may only be a coincidence that he chose to re-raise this misrepresentation as part of a thread which includes the participation of a new editor who may be unfamiliar with the topic. Or it may not be a coincidence. As to the more subtle position itself, I don't think it is right to say that sources which draw a "non-trivial connection" between communism and mass killings are over-represented in this article, since the article is about that very topic. How could they not be heavily represented? I do agree that sources which draw different conclusions are not well represented, and that this should be improved. I was hoping that the workpage would be used to assemble such sources. I don't know what you are specifically referring to when you say that single society authors "are being used to support some ideas that contradict to the major points of their authors". That should not happen. As to the earlier point about whether or not sources by declared leftists are appropriate, I would rather we take those on a case by case basis in consideration of their exact use, rather than reject them all outright. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to Amateur Editor, those are comparative study's of Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Kampuchea. None of them have the scope of this article. TFD (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge again that those sources are comparative. How is their scope different than that of this article when Valentino, for example, acknowledges other regimes in addition to those three, and the other sources discuss "communist regimes" as a whole? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear, AE, before saying that the article is about "that very topic", let's specify what the article's topic is. Concretely, is it about the events or about interpretations? Thus, O'Grada writes about the GLF famine, and Valentino writes about the same famine. However, the first author does not use the term "mass killing" at all. Don't you think O'Grada's viewpoint deserves to be represented in the article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the topic is an either/or between "events" and "interpretation". The article must be about both. I assume by O'Grada's viewpoint you mean his downplaying of the scale and significance of the Great Famine in China compared to earlier famines (correct me if I am wrong, I don't have that source in front of me). I try to take a very inclusive view on what should be represented in the article. I'm sure it would include O'Grada's position. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course it should discuss both, according to the following scheme: (i) some event (e.g. the GLF famine) occurred, it caused deaths of in between XX and YY million people, (ii) the causes of those deaths were as follows (opinia of the authors X, Y, Z etc); (iii) some authors (X, Y) consider it as mass killings, whereas others (A, B) describe it otherwise, (vi) some authors ( XX, YY) see Communism as a primary cause of those deaths, whereas others (A, D, E) prefer to put it into the context of the country's history. Something like that. Of course, had the article been limited with only obvious cases of mass killings (Katyn massacre, Pol Pot's genocide, etc) the scheme would be more simple.

Regarding O'Grada, I wouldn't say he "downplays" anything: his sober and academic tone, numerous sources he use, his thoughtful argumentation are in so stark contrast with Dikotter's journalism, that it would be more correct to say about Dikotter's exaggeration of the scale of famine, and about his anti-Communist bias.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your layout scheme would work best with the "Controversies" section entries. Regarding O'Grada, point taken. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Although Valentino says that mass killings occurred in other Communist countries he says nothing about them, and instead compares Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Kampuchea. Curiously he documents Soviet mass killings in Afghanistan as counterinsurgency mass killings. TFD (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

To what TFD writes, I would add that the main concept of Valentino's "communist mass killings" is that the key factor affecting the onset of those killings was the leader's personality. He argues "that genocide is the outcome of decisions and actions taken by a relatively small group of leaders. Mass publics are largely inconsequential to the outcome. Genocide and mass killing, Valentino argues, happen with the passive acceptance of the rest of society, and analysts should not look to particular social structures to understand when and why genocide happens." (Straus, World Politics, 2007, v. 59. pp 476-501; this author uses "genocide" as an umbrella term).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice find. I have added a sentence sourced to it to the workpage. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

One good thought and one bad thought

TTAAC wrote:

"Fein's juxtaposition of the Indonesian mass killings and the Holocaust in Cambodia is nothing short of a farce--academics making false comparisons to obfuscate their past sins."

This sentence contains two ideas, one is very good, and another one simply contradicts to our policy. TTAAC correctly pointed out that absolute numbers are frequently misleading. This idea (expressed by some scholars, by the way) is totally missing in the article, which, from the very beginning, is trying to make a stress on absolute figures. I think, that should be fixed.
In addition, don't you TTAAC find that juxtaposition of any other Communist mass killings (which were, in relative figures, more of Indonesian rather than Kampuchean scale) with Cambodian genocide should also be made with caution: Cambodia was the only "Communist" state that destroyed such a large proportion of its own population for just four years period. Therefore, Cambodia was more an exception than a rule, and many, if not majority of RS prefer to explain that genocide in other terms than Communism. Accordingly, we should put more emphasis on that.

In contrast, the second idea is definitely bad. We cannot speak about any "past sins" of a scholar, we can discuss only if some concrete source meets our RS criteria. In future, please, avoid such type of arguments, because it is simply a violation of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Two More Sources on Khmer Rouge "fascism"

• Blamires, Cyprian and Paul Jackson. World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, 2006, p. 363: "In the final analysis, several typical features of fascist regimes - such as qualified protection of private property, state toleration of a national religion, and an express rejection of Marxism-Leninism in all its variants - were not in evidence during Democratic Kampuchea, and the regime cannot, as such, be considered fascist."
• Locard, Henri, State Violence in Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) and Retribution (1979-2004), European Review of History, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2005, pp.121–143. "More broadly it was the romantic idea of Revolution, along with the Marseillaise and the Internationale, that teased their fancy. For instance, during his secondary schooling in Cambodia, Suong Sikoeun had been inflamed by the 1789 Revolutionary ideal. 'I am a product of the French Revolution I studied in Kompong Cham College. It is a short step from Robespierre to Pol Pot. They shared the same determination, the same integrity', he said in 1996....The works of Stalin were analysed, in particular his History of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union....Party-approved literature (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Maurice Thorez) was studiously dissected and they learnt to 'purify' the ranks of the party.....Extended contact with French Communists taught aspiring Cambodian revolutionaries about the blessings of 'Revolution' and gave them the absolute conviction that, for poorer and newly independent countries, the key to development lay in Communism. Besides, whatever happened or whatever men did, it was a scientifically proven Truth and certainty that the new vision of History would dominate the world.....Paris provided the ideology and the utter conviction that a Communist revolution was the key to development; Hanoi taught the know-how. What was pure theory (Communism was never tried in France) became practical and feasible under Vietnamese guidance, mainly through sheer violence and deceit....Cambodia has still not faced its past murderous decades. Very little history is taught in schools. A distorted view of what was then termed the Cambodian 'genocide' has prevailed among government circles. Since 1979, the so-called Pol Pot regime has been equated to Hitler and the Nazis. This is why the word 'genocide' (associated with Nazism) has been used for the first time in a distinctly Communist regime by the invading Vietnamese to distance themselves from a government they had overturned. This revisionism was expressed in several ways: the KR were said to have killed 3.3 million, some 1.3 million more people than they had in fact killed. There was one abominable state prison: S-21, now the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. In fact, there were more than 150 on the same model, at least one per district. The eastern region was said to have been a model of humane collectivism in comparison with the rest of the country, led by true moderate Communists. No wonder, since most of the leaders of PRK came from that region. What happened under DK was not similar (if significantly more lethal) to the repression in all Communist regimes, but a 'genocide', or even 'self-genocide', a word coined for the benefit of DK. A Nhan Dan editorial on 7 January 1979 described the crimes of DK as a 'fascist genocide'. But what have the North Koreans been practising to this very day?"
• The current text not only minimizes Khmer Rouge crimes by citing the discredited apologist Vickery, but also gives undue weight to "Khmer Rouge as fascist" revisionist cant. (That's on top of ommitting the most detailed demographic studies, being horribly written and poorly organized, making uncited claims about US support, containing factual errors, and being impossible to make even minor changes to.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article seems extremely POV. First, it barely contains any discussion of the issue(s) other than from an anti-Communist and anti-Marxist point of view. Secondly, it completely decontextualises Communist killings by implying that they can be discussed in isolation from anti-Communism, imperialism, or the histories of each country. For example, how many mass killings were there in Nationalist China? How many people were killed in South Korea and South Vietnam? How many people were murdered in eastern Germany during the regime that preceded the GDR? And so on. Thirdly, it contains no critical discussion of - and thus risks appearing to endorse - the highly POV term "red holocaust", a term which blatantly risks minimising the Holocaust and playing into the hands of far-right forces whose interests this serves. (The fact that one of the two historians cited as promoting this term is German, and that the photo showing the term in use on a makeshift signpost is also located in Germany, is interesting, though I'm sure this abuse of the language is useful to rightwingers across the world and not just in Germany.) 86.163.212.132 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

See Anti-communist mass killings then. BTW, your veiled invocation of Godwin's Law is noted, and your post weighed accordingly. Collect (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think the existence of that article is enough on its own to solve the problems with this article. At the least, I suggest incorporating some of the observations from the "Criticisms" section of Black Book of Communism. 86.163.212.132 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is "anti-communist mass killings" even an appropriate title for that article? It includes the killing of a few hundred suspected communists in Iraq, a couple thousand in Chile, and several thousand in Argentina. That's not "mass killing," that's just killing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas Laos, Mozambique, Angola, Cuba, Nicaragua, Albania, Somalia, Yugoslavia etc don't even count as "mass killings" on the communist page.Stumink (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Did they commit mass killings of non-combatants? I recall I saw good sources that explicitly said that in, e.g. Angola, there was a civil war + foreign invasion; I also saw a source saying that there were no mass killings in Nicaragua. Moreover, Valentino (a core source for this article) says most CR have not engaged in mass killings...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

They all killed many times more people than Pinochet.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was merely saying they had far more mass killings than under "anti-communist" Iraq. And Laos, Mozambique, Angola and Somalia most certainly committed mass killings of non-combatants of considerably greater magnitude than Pinochet and Iraq during the 63 coup. I don't see how there being a civil war and foreign invasion negates mass killings whatsoever. I presume Valentino has certain standards regarding what he thinks constitutes a mass killing.Stumink (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How other articles are written is a subject for discussion at their talk pages not here. TFD (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the TP there already. No-one responded. Thought I'd raise awareness here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Small change to Cambodia section

At the end of Cambodia section there is this line: "Following the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime, the their coalition parters, which included former Khmer Rouge members, received aid and assistance from the United States government." This really needs to be changes because it is so undue. If your going to mention assistance too the Khmer Rouge, you might as well mention North Vietnamese support during the Vietnam War or the fact that China invaded Vietnam in response to the Vietnamese invasion. Why do you mention US backing of a group that involved Khmer Rouge members. It is undue. I mean it isn't even debatable that the Chinese backed the Khmer Rouge during the 80s and that is somehow less important. That is much more relevant assistance but that would still be undue. Of all things you could mention, the page mentions US support for the CGDK. There really is no need for any mention of support, especially tacit diplomatic support for a coalition that involved the Khmer Rouge. Therefore I think the line needs to be removed. There is no need for it. Stumink (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support adding information on Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge, but mentioning the United States is not undue.

In the fall of 1979, the Carter administration faced a symbolic but critical ethical leadership moment concerning the Khmer Rouge. As the thirty-fourth session of the UN General Assembly convened, the organization had to deal with the question of which group would represent Cambodia at the United Nations: the ousted Khmer Rouge regime of Democratic Kampuchea or the Vietnamese-imposed government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. A third option also existed labeling the seat "vacant" until Cambodia resolved its political status.

The ASEAN nations launched the debate when they requested that the Pol Pot/Democratic Kampuchea regime be seated. Vietnam strongly protested this action, defending the legitimacy of the government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. In response, the General Assembly turned the issue over to a special credentials committee. On September 19, 1979, that committee voted 7-3 to recommend that the General Assembly seat Pol Pot's representative. The United States, China, Belgium, Ecuador, Pakistan, and Senegal voted for Pol Pot. The Soviet Union, the Congo, and Panama voted against the Khmer Rouge.

– Peter Ronayne (2001). Never Again?: The United States and the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide Since the Holocaust. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 82.

The United States also supported the Khmer Rouge after 1979, leading Western nations to recognize Khieu Samphan as the legitimate representative of the Cambodian people at the UN. The United States pressured UN humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to the Khmer Rouge in the camps in Thailand. The World Food Program delivered aid that was destined to the Khmer Rouge in the camps in Thailand. The World Food Program delivered aid that was destined to the Khmer Rouge through Thai military facilities. Moreover, the United States provided funds to the Khmer Rouge to finance their weapons purchases, although the U.S. government denied this. During the 1980s the Khmer Rouge controlled large parts of western and northwestern Cambodia, using bases on the Thai side of the border to continue to fight the People's Republic of Kampuchea.

– Lilian A. Barria (2009) "Cambodia". In David Forsythe (ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. p. 236.

The general gist of United States support for the Khmer Rouge isn't controversial; it's the more specific aspects of that support that scholars occasionally disagree on. See Talk:History of Cambodia#Chinese policy allowed.3B US and UK policy deleted if you want more information about that.

Oh, and by the way. I would also recommend writing up a small section about U.S. support of Stalin, particularly in light of revelations like this. Apparently, Roosevelt knew all about the Katyn Massacre, but the Soviet leader remained fondly known as "Father of the Peoples" in the USSR and "Uncle Joe" in the US/UK. That must have been another strategic relationship. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does there need to be mention of support anyway. It is not really relevant to the article. The problem about mentioning US support, is that it is a tiny fraction compared to North Vietnamese support and Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge. If you going to mention support by the US of communist regimes you are going to have to mention far greater communist support for communist regimes, especially early Soviet support for China. I do not think any mention of external support is necessary or relevant to the article. The main reason citing US support is undue is because at present it is the only mention of external support on this entire page which only talks about atrocities.Stumink (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you have it wrong. North Vietnam supported the Khmer Rouge before the Cambodian Genocide, whereas the U.S. (and China) supported Pol Pot after the world found out about it. A single sentence of context in an entire article is not undue. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well North Vietnam supported them when they were an insurgent group and fought with them to help put them in power. The Khmer rouge did commit mass killings during the Cambodian Civil war. Any US support came when the Khmer rouge were not in power just like most North Vietnamese support. Also North Vietnamese support, which was far far greater, came when the Khmer rouge were killing more people.Stumink (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Yale University Cambodian genocide program should be considered among top reliable sources. You might be interested to read what they say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the North Vietnamese supported the Khmer Rouge when they were an insurgent group controlling small parts of Cambodia, but before they were known for the Cambodian Genocide. The United States supported the Khmer Rouge when they were the legally recognized government of Cambodia controlling parts of Cambodia, after they had become known for their genocidal killings. We can include that if you like. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam supported the Khmer Rouge well into the Cambodian genocide. For example, on April 9, 1977, Hanoi attacked the United States for launching "a slanderous campaign against the socialist countries to discredit and sap their influence. Colluding with the Thai reactionaries, the States has conducted several armed attacks against Laos and Cambodia." On April 16-17, 1977, the Vietnamese leadership offered fulsome praise to the Khmer Rouge on the occasion of the second anniversary of the capture of Phnom Penh. Thus a message from Le Duan, general secretary of the Party's Central Committee, to Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot, "....under the leadership of the Cambodian Revolutionary Organization and in the traditions of ardent patriotism and industry, the heroic people of Cambodia over the past two years have upheld the spirit of self reliance and have overcome many difficulties....The Vietnamese people warmly hail these fine achievements of the fraternal Cambodian people....On this great occasion, the Vietnamese people sincerely thank the fraternal people of Cambodia for your vigorous support and precious assistance to our revolutionary cause, and sincerely wish you many more and still greater successes in building an independent, united, peaceful and neutral, nonaligned, sovereign, democratic and territorially integral Cambodia." (Source: William Shawcross, The Quality of Mercy). How does "Western support" relate to "mass killing"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not true. Vietnam and Cambodia were already fighting in 1975. It wasn't a full-fledged war, so they sometimes made friendly overtures. But what you mention can't seriously be described as support – the two countries were skirmishing. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge were attacking Vietnam. Vietnam did everything it could to befriend them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt any serious writer described that as Vietnamese support for Pol Pot (as many do with the United States after 1979), but I welcome your secondary sources establishing otherwise. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who cares if the little US support came after the Cambodian genocide. North Vietnam actually fought with them when they were doing mass killing. Anyway there is no need for mention of support.Stumink (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So, which scholars mention that "North Vietnam actually fought with them when they were doing mass killings"? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on if you count Khmer Rouge forced evacuations and massacres during the civil war as "mass killings;" their rule prior to 1975 seems to have been considerably less lethal. However, in our previous discussion a point of contention was if China gave material support to the Khmer Rouge independently of the US, or if the US encouraged them to do so. Chinese support was far more extensive than Western support, so I again ask why "Western support" is related to "mass killings" as anything other than irrelevant synthesis?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Khmer rouge committed many atrocities during the Cambodian civil war and North Vietnam did fight with them during the civil war. I'm not saying they were present at the atrocities but they did fight with them during the civil war.Stumink (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As Yale Program says, the US did encourage China to support KR (“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” Brzezinski) .--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that quote is bogus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is related because the sources refer to the support of the United States. Again, you might be interested in the sources I have provided and the [Yale University Cambodian genocide program Paul Siebert is referring to. It is pretty solidly established that there was U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam. There was also significant Chinese support, but this is unrelated to the issue of whether the U.S. encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot at a certain point of its own support for the Khmer Rouge or whether the U.S. played no role concerning Chinese support. (Brzezinski is often quoted as having admitted that the U.S. encouraged China to play a supportive role; of course he denies it, but his denial is apparently disregarded by plenty of secondary sources.) I am also in favoring of mentioning the Chinese support and the Vietnamese-Soviet opposition. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention far-Left academic support, for example Ben Kiernan's support.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am not sure it is has been remarked upon by sufficient sources. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So US approval for Chinese aid is somehow more worth a mention than for more extensive directassstance by the Soviet Union, Vietnam and China is more worth a mention. This is completely overstating the US role. If your going to mention US support for the CDGK (they only gave direct support to other two groups) you absolutaly must mention the other far, far more important assistance from other nations. As well as this none of other mass killings sections have any mention of external support. Obviously there are far more important case of foreign support in these mass killings but for some reason only US support for the KPNLF and Funcipec is the only mention of "foreign assistance" in the entire article! It must be removed. It makes absolutaly no sense that this is the only mention. Unless your prepared to add loads of other mentions of foreign support for various other mass killings. Obviously this is unecessary, so we could just remove this completely uneeded line.

And im not here to discuss the alleged US role or whatever, this is not the place, it is just completely undue(considering zero other external assistance is mentioned).Stumink (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The USSR and, especially, Vietnam stopped this genocide (this fact is totally ignored in this article).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Too bad Vietnam put them in power in the first place.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

While I understand the urge to take some compulsory shots at US, how exactly did that support contribute to the topic of this article, you know, the mass killings? Did they extend or intensify mass killings significantly somehow? Or you think that any kind of support to regimes mentioned here needs to be put in? Or what?--Staberinde (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well "direct assistance"(if their was any) certainly didn't "extend or intensify mass killings", but I doubt it I could say the same about China or North Vietnam. And I doubt its because "any kind of support to regimes mentioned here needs to be put in". If that was the case we might aswell mention lend lease to the Soviet Union or something rudiculous like that. That is more important assistance than backing the CDGK but obviously everyone would object because it is rudiculous. I think the US role is mentioned because as you said people need to "take compulsory shots at US". And for that reason the line should be removed. There is no good reason.Stumink (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reviews on Kiernan I read do not indicate he is a far-left author. In addition, in his later works he writes extensively about KR atrocities. In connection to that, I do not understand last TheTimesAreAChanging's comment

Regarding Vietnamese-Soviet opposition, I found illogical that the article just vaguely mentions some "overturn" of KR regime, but ignores the fact that it was overturned by Communist Vietnam, and that RK successors were Communists. Moreover, I found incorrect that the article makes a stress on Communist nature of KR regime, despite the fact that serious authors describe them as "ultra-radical agrarian nationalist Communists". The latter is very important. Consider a following example. When we are talking about some suicide bombing, do we make a stress on the fact that the terrorist was an "ultra-radical Muslim", or that he was as "ultra-radical Muslim"? Obviously, the former is correct, the latter is not. KR were primarily ultra-radicals, and only after that they were Communists. They were agrarian Communists, which is oxymoron for every Marxist. And, importantly, they were strongly opposed by two Communist states, which eventually ended KR genocide (tacitly supported by democratic US). I refuse to understand why the article ignores all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I have no opinion on whether or not they were really communist but saying the genocide had "tacit support" by the US is completelty untrue as far as I can tell.Stumink (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tacitly supported a regime, which was known to be genocidal". Is it better? And, by the way, when you will learn how to use colons? Please, read our WP:TOPPOST rules.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh well sorry about the colons and yes that wording is better. However I still disagree with the basic premise that they "tacitly supported" them although we probably have differing views on what "tacit support" would constitute. Anyway I don't think it is particularily needed discuss the nature of US "support" just that it is not important a enough and also very debated or alleged etc.Stumink (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(You again forgot to add colons; in that case, you should have to add two colons). Why it is important? Because KR regime was a very interesting and unique case: it was nominally Marxist, but it was radically anti-urbanist (which is weird for every orthodox Marxist); it was nominally Communist, but it was extremely nationalist (racist), which contradicts to the main Marxist dogma (internationalism); despite being Communist, it was politically supported by the US (a major capitalist power); despite being Communist, it was openly and actively criticised by the major Communist state, the USSR; despite being Communist, it had been overturn by the Communist power, Vietnam; the successor of this "Communist" regime was also Communist, however, it committed no genocide; although KR killed up to 30% of Cambodian population, and the living conditions of the remaining part were terrible, it still had mass popular support. All of that is unclear from the current text which simply says that some odd Communists came from nowhere, killed more then 2 million people and were overturned by some unspecified (divine?) force. Who they were? How did they came to power? Why did they kill? Why did they have popular support? Who and how overturned them? The article tells nothing: they were Communists (and every Communist is known to routinely eat infants), so this explains everything...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)However, I agree that we must be consistent. To say "the US supported KR" regime would be as misleading as to say "KR committed genocide because they were Communists". The US supported not a genocidal regime, but a regime that opposed to spread of Vietnamese influence in Indochina. That was the main motif of American politicians. Of course, they preferred to ignore the fact that the regime they are supporting was committing mass genocide, however, their primary intention was not to support genocide per se, and we must explain that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

These are all very good points, Paul. Stumink, you've provided no basis for the omission of relevant materials. Usually such a huge oversight would be due to information threatening a particular world view. but perhaps there is some other unknown reason that you can elaborate on. I believe the point of this article is to discuss an particular niche in history where mass killings have occurred (niche being communist states, obviously), and a part of this discussion should be what enabled each instance, what were the causes, who were the actors involved, as well as what happened. and how did it end. If we ignore relevant information that led to the rise of a genocidal power, and only select information that supports one point of view, then we have an article that is polemical, biased, pov, defenceless, ridiculous, laughable, novice, and so on.AnieHall (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No it has nothing to do with a "world view" or other reasons etc. It quite simply isn't important enough especially when considering what has been omitted or the fact that NO OTHER "mass killings" mentions foreign assistance. And we can't add more mentions for foreign support. That would be quite unecessary. As Paul said it is "illogical that the article just vaguely mentions some "overturn" of KR regime". I agree especially since it mentions minimal support by the US for the CDGK. Therefore all I am asking is that you remove one line that is completely uneeded. Why dou you people actually think support for CDGK (ie support for KPNLF and Funcipec) is worthy of a mention when others forms of assistance aren't? I just think it massively overemphasizes the impact on the Cambodian Genocide that the US support for the coaliion government had. Surely you agree? How are these not good reasons. And it's not that it's not relevant, its that it's not relevant enough. Stumink (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no popular support for the Khmer Rouge, as you would know if you read a single memoir from the time.

The very first sentence of the Cambodia section in MKuCR reads as follows: "Helen Fein, a genocide scholar, notes that, although Cambodian leaders declared adherence to an exotic version of agrarian communist doctrine, the xenophobic ideology of the Khmer Rouge regime resembles more a phenomenon of national socialism, or fascism." In other words, the article tries to excommunicate the Khmer Rouge before even mentioning their crimes, and then tries to minimize them by citing Vickery.

Vietnam did not invade Cambodia to halt Khmer Rouge atrocities but to impose an obedient dictatorship led by ex-Khmer Rouge officers. These new rulers enslaved 380,000 peasants at the cost of 30,000 lives.(1) Western aid went to the non-communist forces of Son Sann and Prince Sihanouk, not to the defeated Pol Pot regime. As Cambodia specialist Nate Thayer wrote, there is "no credible evidence" that the US gave "any material aid whatsoever to the Khmer Rouge."(2)

1. Craig Etcheson, After the Killing Fields (Praeger, 2005), pp24, 27.

2. Nate Thayer, "Cambodia: Misperceptions and Peace," Washington Quarterly, Spring 1991. See also Stephen J. Morris, "Vietnam’s Vietnam," Atlantic Monthly, January 1985, "ABC Flacks For Hanoi," Wall Street Journal, April 26, 1990 and "Skeletons in the Closet," The New Republic, June 4, 1990. On the extensive fighting between the non-communists and the Khmer Rouge, see Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988. Vietnam apologist John Pilger, who accused the West of rearming the Khmer Rouge, had to pay "very substantial" libel damages.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As well as that American support did not lead rise of a genocidal power, they were actively fighting to stop them whereas as it is arguable that without North Vietnamese support the Khmer rouge may have never taken power. The US role mentioned on this page has absolutaly noting to do with "the rise of a genocidal power". So isn't it selective to mention US support for the CDGK but not North Vietnamese help in bringing them to power(not that I think it need to be mentioned). The mention of US support is undue and selective as it is the only mention of external support on the entire page. I don't see how this information is relevant enough to mass killings. The line stands out on the page and looks completely out of place being the only mention of external support. Stumink (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see we need to discuss the issue more seriously. In connection to that, would like to get short answers on two questions.

1. You claim Kiernan and Fein are unreliable (despite the fact that they meet all our RS criteria). Which sources are reliable, in your opinion?

2. I proposed a scheme to describe Cambodian genocide. Do you accept this scheme? If not, what concretely is wrong with that scheme and why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who said Fein and Kiernan are unreliable? Fein is redundant, since she just repeats what Kiernan says, but she is a RS. Kiernan meets all our RS criteria. However, you refuse to accept that there are plenty of sources that disagree with Kiernan:

Michael Lind: "In 1970, the CCAS [Committe of Concerned Asia Scholars] complained that the U.S. military effort was preventing the Khmer Rouge, with Sihanouk as a figurehead, from coming to power; after 1975, most on the left floated a new story – the U.S. military effort had caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power." (Vietnam: The Neccessary War, p. 170)

Philip Short: "Even had there been no B-52 strikes at all, it is unlikely that Democratic Kampuchea would have been a significantly different place." (Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare, p. 218)

David Chandler: "The bombing had the effect the Americans wanted--it broke the communist encirclement of Phnom Penh." (Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot, pp. 96–7.)

Craig Etcheson: "It is untenable to claim that the Khmer Rouge would not have won without the American intervention." (The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea p. 97)

Jean Lacouture: "A group of modern intellectuals, formed by Western thought, primarily Marxist thought, claim to seek to return to a rustic Golden Age, to an ideal rural and national civilization. And proclaiming these ideals, they are systematically massacring, isolating, and starving city and village populations whose crime was to have been born when they were." ("The Bloodiest Revolution")

Peter Rodman: "What destabilized Cambodia was North Vietnam's occupation of chunks of Cambodian territory from 1965 onwards for use as military bases from which to launch attacks on U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. Cambodia's ruler Prince Sihanouk complained bitterly to us about these North Vietnamese bases in his country and invited us to attack them (which we did from the air in 1969–70). Next came a North Vietnamese attempt to overrun the entire country in March–April 1970, to which U.S. and South Vietnamese forces responded by a limited ground incursion at the end of April...The outcome in Indochina was not foreordained. Congress had the last word, however, between 1973 and 1975." ("Returning to Cambodia")

The Khmer Rouge boasted that "we will be the first nation to create a completely communist society," hailed Mao as "the most eminent teacher.... since Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin" and drew up a plan to "eliminate the capitalist class" in order to "construct socialism."(Cambodia 1975-1978: Rendezvous With Death, pp221ff, 274ff).

Carney and Jackson cite five reasons for the Khmer Rouge victory, none of which are the American bombing, except possibly the Congressional decision to stop the bombing in 1973.

If US bombing actually played an important role, someone would have noticed prior to 1979. If US bombing actually played an important role, memoirs by Cambodian genocide survivors would mention the bombing. Since they never do, I conclude that Kiernan is trying to rationalize away his enthusiastic support for totalitarian terror and mass slaughter.

I proposed very simple revisions: Correcting the number found in mass graves, adding Sliwinski and Heuveline, adding Etcheson and Shawcross. Zloyvolsheb has repeatedly refused to explain why it is relevant, but I would accept the uncited sentence about US support merely to get these revisions through. Apparently, however, nothing will ever get done on this page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Khmer Rouge were racist, and racist pogroms have been common in numerous communist states. Many of the leaders of the Khmer Rouge were Chinese, and Chinese Cambodians were scarcley killed above the rate of the general population, particularly when one considers that they were the wealthiest ethnic group. The Khmer Rouge stamped out organized religion with great brutality, but they did not treat the Buddhists any better than the Chams. The Vietnamese communists, by contrast, expelled their entire ethnic Chinese community.

The very first sentence of the Cambodia section in MKuCR reads as follows: "Helen Fein, a genocide scholar, notes that, although Cambodian leaders declared adherence to an exotic version of agrarian communist doctrine, the xenophobic ideology of the Khmer Rouge regime resembles more a phenomenon of national socialism, or fascism." In other words, the article tries to excommunicate the Khmer Rouge before even mentioning their crimes, and then tries to minimize them by citing Vickery: Siebert got his way with the text.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, there is plenty of evidence for the Khmer Rouge's extreme nationalism and even racism. I agree with your right-wing POV and don't want to accuse you of bad faith, but such arguments for the Khmer Rouge amount to apologetics. For example, both the U.S.-backed anti-communist Lon Nol government and the U.S.-backed communist Pol Pot government killed many ethnic Vietnamese:

In 1972, the US-backed government of Lon Nol killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese in an effort to deflect Cambodians' attention from its dictatorial rule. After the Vietnamese invaded and occupied Cambodia in 1978, the Khmer Rouge attacked ethnic Vietnamese, claiming many were Vietnamese soldiers.

– Reese Ehrlich (28 July 1993). "Refugees From Cambodia Strain Vietnam's Resources". The Christian Science Monitor.

While Lon Nol's mass killings of the Vietnamese may be outside the scope of this article since they were carried out by a capitalist regime, the Khmer killings of the Vietnamese were communist. Correct? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim that the US supported the Khmer Rouge during the genocide still seems ridiculously weak to me but people still love to mention this "fact".Stumink (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The United States did not support the Khmer Rouge during the 1975-1979 period, which is what is referred to as "the genocide." It did support the Khmer Rouge after 1979, which helped the Khmer Rouge as the internationally recognized government of Cambodia – it only entered into the CGDK coalition later on – maintain a campaign of ethic cleansing and terror in Cambodia for two decades after its overthrow by the Vietnam Army. In fact, the Khmer Rouge proved so adept at surviving the consequences of the Vietnamese intervention that it continued to operate in a similar fashion. Here's one 1995 Human Rights Watch report on a "central tenet of Khmer Rouge policy" sixteen years later:

A central tenet of Khmer Rouge policy and propaganda is that all ethnic Vietnamese are occupation forces who must be eradicated from Cambodia and the method for this purge is slaughter. The Khmer Rouge make no distinction between civilians and the former military occupiers of Cambodia, claiming that civilians are merely soldiers in disguise; nor does the party exempt women and children, on the rationale that women bear children and children can grow up to be soldiers. A typical Khmer Rouge broadcast in January 1995 ascribes to "the people and students" the following opinion:

"[A]rmed groups should be organized to liquidate the Vietnamese, burn their houses, and destroy their boats. Cambodia has to be turned into a Volcano where the Vietnamese can no longer live."

During the UNTAC period [1992-1993], more than one hundred ethnic Vietnamese were murdered, often in highly-organized military-style operations by squadrons of armed men. In most cases investigated by the peacekeepers, evidence pointed to the Khmer Rouge as the perpetrators. Some 20,000 ethnic Vietnamese residents fled Cambodia because of Khmer Rouge massacres during this period.

– Cambodia at War (1995). Human Rights Watch. p. 31.

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well now that you say the "United States did not support the Khmer Rouge during the 1975-1979 period" That is better. I thought you were implying that they did. Although again the claims that they supported them after the genocides seem weak as well. To me it seems they clearly tried to make it clear that they were supporting the other 2 groups. Claims of actual support during the 80s have always be very dubious or alleged. As for the UN vote, all I can gather from that is they disapproved officially of the Vietnamese invasion and were not in favor of recognizing the Vietnamese puppet government, so again US claims of support still seem weak to me. Obviously the Khmer Rouge are terrible do not deserve the UN seat but the PRK are hardly the most legitimate government in the worldStumink (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is so much evidence for KR racism, why didn't anyone notice they were racist prior to 1979? Where can I find this evidence?

Here's a report from the time: "The Khmer Rouge takeover was catastrophic for the Chinese community for several reasons. When the Khmer Rouge took over a town, they immediately disrupted the local market. According to Willmott, this disruption virtually eliminated retail trade "and the traders (almost all Chinese) became indistinguishable from the unpropertied urban classes." The Chinese, in addition to having their major livelihood eradicated, also suffered because of their class membership. They were mainly well-educated urban merchants, thus possessing three characteristics that were anathema to the Khmer Rouge. Chinese refugees have reported that they shared the same brutal treatment as other urban Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge regime and that they were not especially singled out as an ethnic group until after the Vietnamese invasion. Observers believe that the anti-Chinese stance of the Vietnamese government and of its officials in Phnom Penh makes it unlikely that a Chinese community on the earlier scale will reappear in Cambodia in the near future."

In addition, a book review of First They Killed My Father notes: "While ethnic minorities were disproportionately harmed during the Khmer Rouge period, this was not due to a policy of "ethnic cleansing" per se, but one of trying to eliminate religious or cultural differences to create a pure Communist society. As such, some minority groups, mainly the Cham-Muslims of Cambodia, were egregiously abused and victimized; but many ethnic Khmer Buddhist monks were killed as well. Vietnamese and Khmer-Vietnamese were persecuted because of the Khmer Rouge leadership's fear of infiltration and subversion by agents of Vietnam, but even in this instance the Khmer Rouge leadership's paranoia was such that a greater number of Khmers were killed because of it than Vietnamese-Cambodians (many of whom had already fled to Vietnam as refugees by the time the Khmer Rouge began their purges of Eastern Zone peoples). As for the Chinese in Cambodia, however, a United Nations report released in 1999 notes no such persecution within the definition of the Genocide Convention."

One estimate is that out of 40,000 to 60,000 monks, only 800 to 1,000 survived to carry on their religion. We do know that of 2,680 monks in eight monasteries, merely seventy were alive in 1979. As for the Buddhist temples that populated the landscape of Cambodia, the KR destroyed 95 percent of them, and turned the few remaining into warehouses or allocated them for some other degrading use. Amazingly, in the very short span of a year or so, the small gang of KR wiped out the center of Cambodian culture, its spiritual incarnation, its institutions. While this was an act of genocide, it was not motivated by racism, but fanatical atheism. Meanwhile, the communists killed a fourth of the Hmong population in Laos and expelled the entire Chinese population of Vietnam. They also committed racist pogroms against the Montagnards. Fein's claim that the KR were racist, that no other communists were racist, and therefore that the KR were really Nazis, is pathetic New Left revisionist cant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that the Chinese fared slightly better than the Vietnamese Cambodians and were not included in the 1999 UN report on the possibilities of bringing the Khmer Rouge to trial, but you're doing a lot of pretty clear cherry-picking. The 2001 book review you're referring to states

[32] According to legal experts assigned by the UN to report on possibilities for bringing the Khmer Rouge to trial, only the following groups were covered by the Genocide Convention in the case of Cambodia: "the Muslim Cham as an ethnic and religious group; the Vietnamese communities as an ethnic and, perhaps, a racial group; and the Buddhist monkhood as a religious group" (UN Report on Tribunal 16 March 1999).

But scholarship constantly emphasizes the radical nationalism of the Khmer Rouge. Helein Fein refers to it, John Pilger refers to it, Eric Weitz refers to it. Ben Kiernan, who is perhaps the best-known current scholar of the Cambodian Genocide, refers to it. Maybe you think they are wrong, but they are legitimate scholars and it is our policy to reflect what the sources say. You then ask, "why didn't anyone notice they were racist prior to 1979?" Because we know more now than we did in the past. You might as well ask why it took until 1945 to find the evidence of extermination at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and that would be a preposterously silly argument.

In a very recent work, one specialist on genocide, the German historian Boris Barth, writes that their nationalism and other ideological aspects of the Khmer Rouge effectively negated their Marxism:

The enormous difficulties in distinguishing between killings for political or racist reasons can be demonstrated by the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. I do not agree with the thesis that Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 was ruled by a Communist regime. Too many aspects that have been typical of Communism elsewhere were missing: the cult of the worker, the state's double structure with old bureaucracy and new political party, and the general belief in history as progress. Instead, the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was an amalgam of very different ideological sources, of which communism was only one among others, e.g., indigenous Khmer racism. Such ideological mixtures of indigenous ideas and different European influences are typical of East Asia, but normally not with comparably destructive results. After coming to power the Khmer Rouge started at once to kill systematically not only the Vietnamese and Chinese minorities but also the Cham, a small Muslim people of Polynesian origin. Until today the regime's racism has been grossly underestimated.

– Boris Barth (2011). "Racism and Genocide". In Manfred Berg & Simon Wendt (eds.), Racism in the Modern World: Historical Perspectives on Cultural Transfer and Adaptation (pp. 84-104). Berghahn Books. p. 92.

Zloyvolsheb (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Karl Jackson, Cambodia 1975-1978: Rendezvous With Death, (Princeton University Press), page 241:

"Opponents within the communist movement around the world have tried to deny the Khmer Rouge their communist credentials by labelling Democratic Kampuchea as 'rabidly fascist.'"[3]

--Nug (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a surprising thing. Is Dr. Boris Barth a communist? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Barth's opinion, as well as the fact that most contemporary Communist regimes strongly condemned Kampuchea do belong to this article. The latter fact is very important, because, as a rule, Communist authorities did not discuss (and condemn) the crimes committed by other Communist regimes. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

According to Sophal Ear: "Kiernan reveals that it was the 'humanitarian socialist ideals' of the Khmer Rouge that attracted him to them, not their "systematic use of violence". His point about "nationalist revivalism" sounds familiar, because Malcolm Caldwell confided to a friend that "If it is true that Pol Pot has also killed Khmer Peasants, [it] is a token of fascism." In fact, attempts to commit this senseless act of historical revisionism on Cambodia’s contemporary history have succeeded. The debunked Pol Pot-Ieng Sary regime, it is now said, was more of a fascist cum Nazi regime than a Communist cum Maoist one! Truth may yet be stranger than fiction."

Steven Rosefielde's Red Holocaust states that there is "no evidence Pol Pot sought to exterminate the Khmer people, or even the Cham and religious minorities." Instead, he defines Khmer Rouge killings as "dystopicide": "The no-prisoners-taken pursuit of badly implemented, poorly concieved communist utopia-building."

P.S. John Pilger is not a "scholar".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is one more source on KR "racism": "It is true that over 400,000 Vietnamese were in Cambodia before 1975. However, Lon Nol massacred thousands and expelled about 320,000. By April 1975, about 50,000-100,000 Vietnamese remained in Cambodia, but by December 1975, most, if not all, were repatriated.

There is no proof that the KR leadership had the intent to eliminate the Vietnamese or other minorities based on race/ethnicity. Political killings of a few hundred Vietnamese did occur, after the 1977 attempted coup in which KR leaders blamed Vietnam. The security forces were directed to search for Vietnamese suspected of being foreign/KGB agents.

The allegation that the KR committed genocide against other Cambodia ethnic minorities is also without foundation. Of the eight members of the top organ, the Standing Committee of the Communist Party, only two were ethnic Khmer, Ros Nhim and Chhit Cheoun (Mok). The rest, Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Vorn Vet, Sao Phim are of Sino ethnicity; Son Sen, Ieng Sary are of Vietnamese origin. Kaing Kek Eav (Duch), the notorious Tuol Slaeng Prison Chief is of Chinese/Vietnamese background; Khieu Samphan is of Sino ancestry. This mixed national/race/ethnic composition makes it difficult to argue that the KR leaders intended to kill ethnic minority groups to which they belonged."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I think none of the foreign assistance should be mentioned especially the US role(since it is either limited, debatable or "indirect"). If foreign assistance is mentioned it should be something extensive and non-debatable like the Chinese or North Vietnamese role. However there is no point making the section too long or undue by extensively discussing the Chinese, Vietnamese or US role other than mentioning that Vietnam overthrew them. Extensive views on foreign roles are already on the main page regarding these topics. I have no opinion on the rest of the Cambodia selection. It seems mostly fine to me. Also isn't it important that communist regimes strongly criticized the Khmer Rouge primarily after Kmher Rouge and Vietnam started fighting. As far as I am concerned there isn't much remarkable that the Khmer Rouge were strongly criticized by other communist regimes other than the fact that most communist regimes understandably sided with Vietnam or decided to follow the Soviet position. Stumink (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is called "Mass killings under Communist regimes", the degree of support provided to these regimes by other Communist regimes and anti-Communist and non-Communist regimes becomes relevant. TFD (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there was no US role in bringing them to power, no.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We have a very unusual situation here. Firstly, KR was a regime that was not considered as Communist by the leading Communist state (the USSR), and that was overthrown by another Communist state (Vietnam). Secondly, it was politically supported by the leading democratic state, the US. At least, it was not condemned by the US, and the US officials used their influence of China to encourage the latter to support KR. Thirdly, many sources make strong emphasis on KR's nationalism and even racism, which is seen among primary factors leading to the genocide, which is very unusual for Communists, because their major dogma is internationalism. I think, whereas the US role alone definitely does not deserve mention, it should be included into the narrative describing all above outlined nuances (although I agree that no specific emphasis should be made on that). Regarding the discussion of the foreign influence in Cambodian case, I think such a discussion is definitely relevant, because Cambodia was a small state, and KR's rise to power, their rule, their overturn, and their partisan war were just a part of the bigger game.

BTW, the same is true regarding other smaller Communist states, where a rivalry between superpowers (or regional superpowers) was a cause of many mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the U.S. did at times support the KR before they attained power. Even if they had not, the fact that they downplayed the mass killings and planned to return Pol Pot to power is part of the story. TFD (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are all fairly dubious allegations. Stumink (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To say the least.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not say that situation was so very unusual, although definitely Cambodia wasn't average communist state. Splits between communist states happened repeatedly in cold war then previously dependent state felt that they can do better on their own: Yugoslavia, China, Albania. Cambodia isn't something so unique there. Also its not like USSR started supporting capitalists against Pol Pot or something extraordinary like that, it was just Soviet client state Vietnam vs Chinese client state Cambodia. USSR's role as "leading communist state" was by that time clearly disputed by China that offered different communist alternative.--Staberinde (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to forget Somalia under Siad Barre. Stumink (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support or at least sort of support. -- going back to the very beginning of this discussion, the sentence "Following the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime, the their coalition parters, which included former Khmer Rouge members, received aid and assistance from the United States government." was nominated for deletion. After rereading the Cambodia section, as is, it doesn't really fit. At the very least it should be rewritten. And if it's kept (and rewritten), the entire section could use some expansion, and this exact sentence might do better with its own paragraph. This debate seems to be going off in various directions. I think it would be easier to come to a conclusion (lol, conclusion on this discussion page [yes, lol necessary]) or conclusions (lol, again) if each problem with this section were given its own discussion heading (maybe?) -- ie. inclusion of additional material, rewording of not so well worded sentence, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 07:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC) AnieHall (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As I already said, the role of foreign states (China, the US, Vietnam, the USSR) should be described fairly and proportionally. The US role should be described in that context. Let's think how to do that. I think it makes sense to start from the beginning: to describe how KR came to power. That is relevant, because the pre-history of some regime significantly determines its subsequent policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree with that. Something needs to be done about that section. But as is, the sentence doesn't fit very well. I also support expansion of the section with relevant information.AnieHall (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposed scheme

Ladies and gentlemen,
May I ask you to go back to my question? I outlined a scheme, according to which the Cambodian genocide should be described (in my opinion). I asked your opinion about this scheme. It is very important to discuss that, because, if we agree about this scheme (mutatis mutandis), and re-write the section accordingly, it would be easy to decide if mentioning of the US support (which, of course, was limited), and of the US role in KR's coming to power (which was indirect) are necessary or not. I asked a simple question. Isn't it so difficult to give a short answer?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Cambodia section of this article is terribly written, poorly organized, and inaccurate. I proposed a handful of minor changes, such as correcting the number found in mass graves and adding two highly reputable sources (Sliwinski and Heuveline). Rather than being constructive, you apparently have refused to consider any changes until everyone agrees that the communist agenda of the KR should be more thoroughly whitewashed. (The text already gives undue weight to such arguments--and, as our discussion has made clear, there is no academic consensus that the KR were racist Nazi capitalist Republicans.) I assume there are no objections to my proposal, with the exception of my removing the sentence about US support? As to your question: North Vietnam and China gave extensive support to the KR, and there are numerous reliable sources that challenge Kiernan's revisionist interpretation of their rise to power. There is no evidence of any US material support to the KR whatsoever. If the controversy over US policy deserves mention here, it should be described fairly and accurately. However, the US role in Cambodia cannot be the only case in which the actions of a foreign power are treated as relevant to "mass killings" and not as irrelevant synthesis. We must first decide if the entire article should be rewritten to include all allegations of external support. We should also seek consensus on whether or not to include every denial that a communist regime was really communist. Every communist regime has had its credentials challenged by apologists, who insist that communism has never really been tried. For example, Christopher Hitchens called North Korea a racist, fascist theocracy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The extent to which mass killings were a result of Communism is central to the article. If it were not, then the article would be pointless. Hitchens btw was not a Communist apologist, and his views on North Korea are within the mainstream. TFD (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly - the extent to which killings occurred as a direct result of choices made by Communist regimes is what the article is about, and so named. The article is not Killings caused by Communist ideology at all, and that seems to be the article you wish to address once more. It ain't, and won't be. Collect (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Then it would be tendentious synthesis. TFD (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You have iterated that claim many times -- but WP:CONSENSUS has always been that it is not SYNTH. There is always the chance that it is the one who iterates the same argument many times is the rtendentious one, to be sure. Collect (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you and other editors have argued that MKUCR is a notable topic. TFD (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite the diff where I stated any position other than my current position - I rather think you will be quite unable to do so. The title delimits the content of the article - which is what it is supposed to do. Collect (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Notable - undeniably...Hence, clear Keep. Collect (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)"[4] TFD (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic is "notable" by the Wikipedia definition of the word (WP:NOTABLE). Which is what my post on that AfD was about. Note: See also Anti-communist_mass_killings which was kept at AfD - which I would think obviates your point. You argued Google scholar returns nil hits for the subject which was not considered a "strong delete argument". Also I think most informed editors at the RSN agreed that Rummel's book was fringe. was inapt and contradicts your claim that no one connected any dots. So let's look at Questia results: 100 results for "mass killing" and "communist" of which more than half connect those dots. A non-zero result. Stalin killed Polish communists, even, in his purges ... The trauma caused by this mass killing never left its few survivors. The chilling memory decisively influenced the course of the postwar Stalinist purges and show trials. [5] Aside from the main revelation -- the harsh repression and mass killing ordered by Ceaușescu and approved by the supreme organ of the party -- two points characteristic of communist political manipulation deserve examination... [6] etc. Each year more sources make a connection which we can not make without such sources. Your problem now is mainly that such sources exist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Blatant POV?

I regret that Paul Siebert's contention in the discussion above: "...where a rivalry between superpowers (or regional superpowers) was a cause of many mass killings..." (my emphasis) deserves separate consideration. This puts the blame for mass killings and genocide other than on the actual perpetrators. If regime or insurgency "X" perpetrated mass killings, mass murders, genocide under the mantle of being a communist regime or movement, then "X" is responsible, not someone else. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I regret that Vecrumba's sentence, "This puts the blame for mass killings and genocide other than on the actual perpetrators" doesn't make sense. once more please. Moving on, obviously if x murders people, x is guilty. but when you add y and z into the equation, it is not always so simple. For instance, what if z supplies x with weapons to defeat y, because z thinks x will be a better trading partner? or what if z gives y a loan, and then when y can't repay loan, z forces y to sell grain reserves, and then the following year there is a drought and thousands of people starve as a result of failing crops. Or maybe z doesn't care much for x, and x has a stable state, and is doing a good job, but x's philosophy threatens z's philosophy, so z gives y arms to overthrow x, even though y is an f'ing lunatic, and z knows this, but at least y is not x who has threatening philosophy. The scenarios could go on forever. point being, you've oversimplified things by making an equation with 1 variable. So no, i don't see your point about the blatant POV. AnieHall (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Come now. Paul Siebert states state super-power rivalry caused many mass killings. There isn't any wiggle room to assert that statement did not mean to ascribe responsibility for those mass killings to said rivalry in place of the perpetrators. There's nothing complicated about who killed whom. Yes, there are circumstances and nuances, but they do not change responsibility. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why so primitive? In this particular case I meant Cambodia. You must agree that neither the US nor the USSR were interested in killing of millions of Cambodians. Neither of two parties was interested in support of barbaric Pol Pot's regime. The USSR condemned KR, and the US decided to support them (of course, indirectly), simply following a primitive logic: "an enemy of my enemy ..". Again, it would be incorrect to say that in the absence of US/USSR rivalry no KR genocide would occur, however, it is quite correct to say that it was at least a possibility that the scale of mass killings would be smaller...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

One good observation

TheTimesAreAChanging wrote:

"...Christopher Hitchens called North Korea a racist, fascist theocracy."

Unfortunately, the TheTimesAreAChanging's idea seems to be that, despite the obvious fact that NK is a Communist state, other Communist states deny the fact of NK's Communism. However, a situation is more complex. I don't know why did TTAAC decide that Christopher Hitchens is a Communist (is it a way to discredit an author whom someone dislikes?), however NK itself also does not consider itself as Communist: any mention of Communism, Marxism etc were removed from Constitution and other official documents, and many modern authors, e.g. Patrick McEachern, (North Korea's Policy Process: Assessing Institutional Policy Preferences. Asian Survey, 2009) use the word "Confucianism" but do not use the word "Communism" to describe this country. Therefore, the things that seem obvious to TTAAC are not so obvious for serious scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Try [7] North Korea under Communism: Report of an Envoy to Paradise By Erik Cornell; 204 pages; Routledge; New York; 2002. After the collapse of the Soviet world, North Korea alone has continued on the rigid communist way, in spite of its economic consequences leading the state beyond ruin to famine

[8] Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea By Leon V. Sigal; Princeton. A second shared image is that North Korea was a “rogue” state, the last redoubt of Stalinist-style communism, motivated to build bombs by hostility to the outside world.

Among many recent publications making clear an association of "communism" and "North Korea" which eludes you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitchens was not a communist. He was a far-left polemicist; a Marxist; an admirer of Lenin, Ho, and Che; an extreme secularist; and a believer in "permanent revolution". I never called him a communist.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitchens was a former Marxist. So by the way were Courtois, Furet and many other anti-Communist experts. If you want to ignore their views, then let's start with them. TFD (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD: This is really an irrelevant side conversation, but I am willing to correct you yet again. Hitchens never abandoned Marxism: "In a 2006 town hall meeting, Hitchens commented on his political philosophy by stating, "I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist". In a June 2010 interview with The New York Times, he stated that "I still think like a Marxist in many ways. I think the materialist conception of history is valid. I consider myself a very conservative Marxist"....Hitchens was an admirer of Che Guevara...commenting that "[Che's] death meant a lot to me and countless like me at the time, he was a role model." Hitchens also praised the Viet Cong mass murderers as "valiant guerillas," expressed solidarity with the Sandinistas, and hailed Lenin as a "great man"--even though Lenin was responsible for the deaths of several million innocent men, women, and children. Of course Hitchens was no party-line Stalinist, but he was a Marxist to the end. Moreover, he was not a scholar, but a polemicist known to frequently make shockingly false claims in the service of his ideology, from asserting that America imposed a dictatorship on Greece in 1967 to implying that Saddam may have been involved in 9/11. His description of North Korea is better understood as an anti-religious rant than as a serious analysis of North Korean politics and society. My question was simply if we should make this article about splits in communist ideology, or mass killings by communist regimes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, again, you are going in a wrong direction: we do not split authors onto Marxists, Freudists, liberals or existentialists, we divide the sources onto reliable and non reliable, onto primary, secondary and tertiary. I strongly suggest you to stop: you are violating our policy.

And, by the way, you seem to ignore my major point: not only Hitchens, but many other scholars do not describe NK as Communist (at least, they do not make emphasis on that). I am ready to agree that Hitchens' description of NK was incorrect, however, the same cannot be said about other authors, who also see more commonality between juche and Confucianism than juche and Communism?

Regarding "mass killings by communist regimes", again, what regime can be considered "Communist regime"? Do you know, for example, that Ho was more nationalist than Communist?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I am only correcting TFD because he is wrong, not because Hitchens' Marxism makes him an unreliable source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your point about Ho is, yet again, false. The Viet Minh collaborated with French colonial forces to massacre supporters of the Vietnamese nationalist movements in 1945-6. When the Viet Minh went to war against France they continued their campaign to wipe out the nationalist groups. Sources: Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press, 1975), pp57-9, 67-9, 74 and "Myths of the Vietnam War," Southeast Asian Perspectives, September 1972, pp14-8; also Arthur J. Dommen, The Indochinese Experience of the French and the Americans (Indiana University Press, 2001), pp153-4.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "yet again" mean? What else was false? Meanwhile, you proved nothing: sometimes, different nationalists collaborate with occupying power against their political rivals (a typuical example is Partisan/Chetnik clashes in Yugoslavia during WWII). Ho was a pure nationalist (see, e.g. Robert D. Schulzinger. A Time for War:The United States and Vietnam, 1941-1975, p. 274), who, during earlier stages of his career could decide to collaborate with the US, however, for tactical considerations, preferred to align with the USSR. (in future, use proper indentation, otherwise it is easy to miss your responces.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And, as noted, many scholars do regard North Korea as communist. And I do not know how one categorises anyone as "more nationalist than communist" when they self-identified as "communist." Questia finds exa ctly zero articles making your claim that NK is not communist. Zero. Less than one source from a recognised scholarly search. HighBeam finds [9] Government leaders said the march was a threat to national security and students were playing into the hands of the communist North with the interesting sentence: The students, a small but powerful minority, claim they are not communist but insist Korea must be reunited and say that ideological differences are secondary. which does not bolster any position that scholars find North Korea to not be communist. NPR, not generally considered a right wing source, has [10] Supporters of the king argue that the future of the monarchy is such an important issue that it should be decided by a public referendum. They also believe that abolishing the monarchy is only the first step in a Maoist plan - a plan to turn Nepal step-by-step into a communist state run along the lines of North Korea. Sorry Paul - too damn many sources agree that North Korea is "communist." (I think I have now provided over a dozen reliable sources on this over time - each time it appears they are "not enough", so I am piling them up. By the time I get to a hundred sources you should give in. Collect (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, that is a pure logical fallacy: I am sure you will hardly be able to find a source saying that NK is not Hinduist, so what? I never wrote many authors claim NK is not Communist, I wrote many authors prefer to describe NK not as a Communist regime, or not to focus on NK Communist roots. Of course, I meant serious single society studies...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You made an assertion that scholars say NK is not communist. I disproved that assertion. I have now given more than a dozen scholarly sources over time, Paul. Cheers - now drop your stick - it is made of marshmallow at best. Collect (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I made an assertion that many scholars prefer to discuss NK not in a context of Communism, but in a context of Asiatic authoritarianism, Confucianism, etc. By providing few sources that use (occasionally) the term "Communism" you by no means disproved this my statement...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: "Many?" Who? How is the North Korean regime seriously an instantiation of Confucianism as opposed to communism? You take nuances (Confucianism) and elevate them to the prime motivator. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, as a rule, serious authors are not obsessed with the idea to reveal evil nature on Communism. They simply study some concrete country. Their primary goal is not to find a connection between some evil and a Communist doctrine, they simply analyse why one or another thing happens. When they see a connection between juche and Communism, they write about that, when they see more connection with, e.g. Confucianism, they write accordingly. See, e.g.:

"Neo-Confucianism having been the state ideology of the feudal Choson dynasty (1392–1910) and Kim knowing more about Confucianism than Hegelian and Marxist philosophy,1 it would seem reasonable to conclude that his emergent juche ideology was a political adaptation of Neo-Confucian thought. Historian Bruce Cumings, for instance, uses the phrases ‘‘Neo-Confucianism in a communist bottle’’ and ‘‘Chu Hsi in a Mao jacket.’’ Other studies point to the structures of authority, bureaucracy, hierarchy, familism, filial piety, man-centeredness, mentalism, moral education, patriarchy, and respect for elders as confirmative of Neo-Confucianism in North Korea. That, however, is not Neo-Confucianism, but generic Confucianism." (David-West, Korean Studies, Volume 35, 2011, pp. 93-121)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, then the "bottle" (vessel) is still communism. That NK communism has usurped Korean traditions in service of the regime does not change the fundamental nature of the situation. Communism exploting existing societal structures and belief systems for its purposes is not unique to NK. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

When a killer poisons his victim, does it matter what the bottle was made from? It is a content of the bottle that matters, not the bottle itself. And I do not understand where you took the idea that NK communism usurped some traditions. I think the author is clear enough: it is the Confucian tradition which (initially) took a shape of Communism, and then got rid of even mentioning of it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that the author states Confucianism turned into Communism at all. That Kim adapted traditions he was most familiar with to his needs is a matter of implementation. "Communist bottle", "Mao jacket" make that differentiation clear. And what is "generic Confuciansim"? It can only mean Confuciansim stripped of its symbolism and belief system; all that remains is a shell of social conventions. "Usurp" is an apt editorial description of "political adaptation", after all, a Confucian belief system is not being practiced. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, odd, I don't recall the latest NK Dear Leader mentioning the "members of the Worker-Peasant Red Guards and the Young Red Guards" being Confucianists. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know what "generic Confucianism" means, read literature. Regarding "Red Guards" etc, terminology is not an evidence: thus, division onto Right and Left started since French revolution, however, you cannot seriously claim that Communists are Jacobins...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No more bizarre than the belief that Juche, which contains no Marxist principles is still Marxism. And of course Sung Myong Moon's ideology is often seen as influenced by Juche, so by your reasoning we can include anti-Communism as a communist ideology. TFD (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant as this article isn't about Mass killings under Marxist regimes. The objective was communism, dictatorship of the proletariat, the means to that end was via Juche. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure dictatorship of proletariat is the part of Juche? By the way, state property of the major mean of production (i.e. irrigation system) is a key feature of most old Asiatic societies. Do you seriously imply that Han empire was Communist?...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I believe, all that matters is what is published in reliable sources:

"For almost 60 years, since the division of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea has been run by a totalitarian Communist dictatorship."[11]

--Nug (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quoting a high school textbook, which would not normally be considered a reliable source. Instead of searching for sources that support your pre-determined views, you should search for good sources and write article to conform with them. Your high school source btw explains how Juche has shifted away from socialism and developed its own identity. But then you obviously did not read it, just picked a soundbite. TFD (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:RS mentions high school textbooks specifically. The main criteria of a reliable source is that it has been vetted per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Me thinks that high school textbooks are sufficiently vetted as representing the mainstream, unless you are suggesting that US High Schools generally tend to teach fringe views. --Nug (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Nug but no editor of a serious encyclopedia would conduct his research using high school textbooks. Is there any reason why one should? The fact that they are American has nothing to do with it and I request that you not insult the United States of America or any other nation. TFD (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please point out what actual changes are suggested to article in relation to North-Korea? I must have missed it because otherwise editors here have just wasted time in some random directionless discussion--Staberinde (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul and TFD appear to suggest that NK is not "communist" and therefore is not properly in this article. Others demur. Collect (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect could you please stop misrepresenting me. You are confused in any case. TheTimesAreAChanging began the discussion by saying that the view that North Korea was other than communist was a fringe view, I corrected him by saying that view was "within the mainstream", and Nug and Collect missed the point and began finding sources that North Korea was communist. Perhaps Collect could explain what relevance his comments have to the article. TFD (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As you iterate your belief that it is "mainstream" that NK is "not communist" I rather think I cited your position accurately. AFAICT< it is "fringe" to assert that the deaths in NK were not under a communist regime. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Earlier you presented the source, Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the Looming Threat of North Korea which says that Juche was a return to 3rd century (i.e., pre-Communist) ideology (pp. 66,74) and you have previously defended Hitchens' writings as a reliable source. It is not good research practice to search for sources that support your views, then reject them as fringe when other editors actually read them and find they do not support your assertions. Incidentally that a view is within the mainstream does not mean that it has consensus or even majority support. There are many disputes in social sciences. But why do you keep discussing this? TFD (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Can you show me where I cited Juche in any post by me? My only cite from "Rogue Regime" was The statistics that Hwang Jang-yop obtained before he escaped support a 3 million–plus death toll. Various other North Korean defectors also believe this is likely. The writer Choi Jin-I was told that 300,000 people had died by 1996 in Kangwon province, which borders South Korea. Or where I "defended Hitchens' writings"? I think you must have conflated my posts with those by others at this point. And all I am doing is responding to the sometimes outre posts above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You introduced Rogue Regime as a source. You are not supposed to Google mine for snippets that support your views, but to present reliable sources and present what they say, rather than those parts that conform to your individual opinion. You presented Christopher Hitchens writings at RSN.here. When Hitchens supports your views, he is a reliable source, when they contradict them he is fringe. TFD (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

HUH? Your post above makes no sense whatsoever with regard to the posts I have made. And at RSM - Hitchens is considered a "reliable source" for his own opinions on terrorism. Which was the question posed there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments were quite clear. If you think a source is reliable then it is reliable, not just where it supports your personal opinions, but where it does not. Of course Hitchens is reliable for his own opinions on terrorism, as is David Duke, that does not mean we add them. TFD (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Pure and utter straw man argument - Hitchens wrote about "terrorism" and is a notable author on that topic, and his opinions, per the RSN discussion, are citable as his opinions. Duke, as far as I can tell, has not written on "terrorism" so you are playing with a straw man argument akin to saying I would cite Hitler in an article on "fine wine." It ill-suits editors to present such outre arguments on an article talk page. Collect (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If Hitchens is notable on terrorism he is also notable about Communism, which brings back the point - what are you arguing about? TFD (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"If George Gnarph is an authority on wine, he is also an authority on meat." What a strange pseudo-argument that is! Collect (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

TFD previously wrote: "Hitchens was not an expert on terrorism or anthing else for that matter". I agree! This was precisely my argument: "He was not a scholar, but a polemicist known to frequently make shockingly false claims in the service of his ideology....His description of North Korea is better understood as an anti-religious rant than as a serious analysis of North Korean politics and society."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

However, this was not the issue I was trying to clarify. It seems to me that, regardless of if Hitchens is a RS, there are sources that deny NK's communism--and sources denying the communism of many communist regimes. There is no consensus about the inclusion of such denials. I agree with Collect that this is not Mass killings caused by Marxist ideology, so there doesn't have to be universal consensus the mass killings were caused by or consistent with Marxism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Staberinde. I see a situation as follows. The article is currently is written based on the assumption that there were significant commonalities between the Communist regimes and between mass killings that occurred under those regimes. In other words, a predominant POV that is being pushed in this concrete article is that all Communist regimes pursued essentially the same goal, and that they committed mass murder similar to the Holocaust. In contrast, I (following what good single society studies say) maintain that each regime had its own historical background and its own national specifics, and the differences between these regimes were so significant that many serious authors prefer to make a stress not on their declared adherence to one or another aspects of Communist ideology, but on specific national and historical traits of those regimes (in other words, the term "Communist" is mentioned only tangentially in those studies, and the explanation of the mass killings is seen not in Communism but in something else). Similarly, mass mortality cases under Communist regimes varied widely, from starvation of small percentage of country's population to direct executions, from anti-guerrilla warfare to direct genocide. Accordingly, only few examples of MKuCK can be considered as twins of the Holocaust.
Currently, all these considerations are missing from the article, which looks like a piece of Cold war propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Cambodia section looks like New Left propaganda to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You brought up Hitchens as a strawman argument. It is irrelevant to whether or not the theory he espoused has support in mainstream writing. But it violates policy to have articles that make an implicit connect, in this case between Communism and mass killings, without explicitly discussing the connection. Hence the article Jewish Bolshevism is not a list of Jewish people who happened to be Bolsheviks, which would implicitly support the theory that Bolshevism was a Jewish movement, but explicitly explains who supported the theory, why and the degree of support it had. The article "Jews and money" otoh was deleted, even after it had been renamed, because it appeared to be impossible to write it from a neutral point of view (although in fairness Collect supported the article). And the article reads more like New Right than New Left. It's the sort of thing one would find on a World Anti-Communist League website. TFD (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Your argument mixes apples and oranges. The article is not about ideology espousing mass murder, so Jewish Bolshevism is not applicable in any way to making your point. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to write a neutral article

TheTimesAreAChanging believes that the Cambodia section looks like a piece of leftist propaganda. As far as I understand them, their main arguments are that the authors I use are leftist revisionists, discredited abologists, etc. (Accordingly, the sources TTAAC use are assumed to be good mainstream sources). In contrast, I think that the sources used by me meet all criteria our policy applies to high quality mainstream reliable sources, and, importantly, I do not claim the sources used by TTAAC should be totally excluded from the article. In other words, I see two differences in my approach and the TTAAC's approach:

1. I do separate sources onto peer-reviewed and published in scholarly journals or by university presses, and others; TTAAC separate sources onto "discredited, apologists, leftist, rightist" etc, and really good sources (I am not sure I can adequately describe criteria TTAAC uses for that separation);
2. I do not propose to write the article based exclusively on sources found by me; TTAAC seems to insist of usage of mostly their ("good") sources (again, I am not sure if I fully understand what does TTAAC mean under the term "good" in this context).

In connection to that, I propose you TTAAC to do the following. Let's try to identify a set of sources we both consider reliable. By "we both consider reliable" I mean not a set of mutual concessions ("I agree your source X is reliable, in responce you agree to include my source Y"), but a set of sources selected according to absolutely neutral procedure. I see this procedure as follows:

1. Each of us define some keywords or search phrase (for example ""Khmer Rouge" + genocide"); the search phrase should not cause each other's objections;
2. Using there keywords, each of us performs google scholar search.
3. From the lists of results we select first N sources that have a direct relation to the Cambodian genocide issue;
4. We limit ourselves only with the articles in reputable peer-reviewed journals or with books published by top university presses; if some of us doubts about reliability of a concrete publisher (not a source!), we may remove this publication from the list (if another party has no objections) or ask the question of RSN.
5. Only the articles that have been cited more then 10 times by academic or scholarly sources (3 times if published after 2010) can be accepted. Self citations are not counted.
6. If some book got more than 2 strongly negative reviews in peer-reviewed journals and zero positive ones, the source should be rejected;
7. If some book got no reviews in peer-reviewed journals, the source is considered as fringe;
8. If some book got almost equal amount of negative and positive reviews in peer-reviewed journals, the source should be considered as highly controversial, and should be treated as minority views;
9. If some book got many positive reviews and was highly cited by peer-reviewed sources or university presses, it is considered as mainstream.
   
10. The sources are selected in the order they appear in the gscholar list. If one or another source was skipped, the person who excluded it must be able to provide exhaustive explanations (non-relevant to the subject, outdated, non-scholarly, low citations, etc), and these explanations should be accepted by other side.
11. The list is considered to be completed when the total amount of sources amounted to 2*M (M from each search phrase). I propose to set M=20.
12. After that, each of us spend some time reading these sources, and propose the text that reflects what all mainstream sources from this list say.
13. When we finish with mainstream sources, we may start to think about adding minority or controversial views.
    

As you can see, the procedure proposed by me is absolutely transparent. I am totally honest, because I do not know in advance the results of this search, and I cannot predict which sources will appear to be more trustworthy according to these criteria. However, I think, that is arguably the only reasonable way out of impasse.

If you believe you are right, and your edits reflect mainstream views, I don't see a reason for not accepting this my proposal. If you accept it you will demonstrate your good faith and your will to write a really neutral good quality content. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
PS.If you disagree with some details of this procedure, please, feel free to propose your amendments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
PPS If other users are willing to join this work, they are more than welcome to do that. My only conditions is that by joining this work they take an obligation to accept the list of sources we will eventually select independently on whether this list will satisfy them or not: remember, we discuss only a procedure, and, as soon as a procedure of the selection of the sources will be approved by all parties, the results of selection must be accepted by everyone, and that is non-negotiable. Please, note, I am in equal conditions with everyone else, because I do not know in advance what the search will give.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to reach a good faith resolution of this dispute, but I think that limiting ourselves to the first articles that pop up on a Google scholar search is somewhat limiting. Of course, the results of such a search should be taken into consideration. I searched for "khmer rouge" "genocide" "cambodia" and went through over 100 results; I found no mention of Vickery. I would argue that this confirms my stated position that Vickery's work is untenable in light of more recent scholarship. Kiernan (of course), Etcheson, Heuveline, and even Rummel all show up in the first 20 results. One of the top results is "Selective Mortality During the Khmer Rouge Period in Cambodia" by Damien de Walque (cited by 27), which states that "the most careful exercise of demographic reconstruction, comparing the population structure before and after the mortality crisis, has been performed by Heuveline." Heveline's "Betwen One and Three Million" has been cited 80 times; his "Approaches to Measuring Genocide" has been cited 17 times. Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia (cited 43 times) which I used earlier for Banister and Johnson's estimate of civil war mortality, is second only to Kiernan's Pol Pot Regime. When I searched "Cambodian" "killing fields", Etcheson's After the Killing Fields was the top result, cited 63 times. (Etcheson's Rise and Demise is the top result for "Democratic" "Kampuchea", cited 100 times). When I searched for "Pol Pot", the top result was Chandler's Brother Number One, cited 195 times. The fourth result was Short's Pol Pot, cited 87 times. Remember that Chandler tells us "The bombing had the effect the Americans wanted--it broke the communist encirclement of Phnom Penh" and Short writes "Even had there been no B-52 strikes at all, it is unlikely that Democratic Kampuchea would have been a significantly different place." "Cambodia 1975-1978" (not very surprisingly) gives Rendezous with Death (cited 116 times) as the top result, a work which details the Marxist ideology of the Khmer Rouge and the role of US bombing in preventing their rise to power.

As for Sliwinski, his demographic study is the most complete available, but it has unfortunately not received as much attention in the English-speaking world as it has in France. Nevertheless, it has been cited 35 times. The sixth result for "khmer rouge" "genocide" "cambodia" is Kiernan's "Demography of Genocide" (cited 52 times), which cites Sliwinski as one of the best sources on the genocide.

As for my approach: The survey of 20,000 mass graves by Etcheson, the demographic analysis of Heuveline, and the house-to-house survey conducted by the PRK all strongly suggest a death toll in excess of 2 million. Both the laws of probability and the forensic evidence suggest that Kiernan's estimate is too low. Vickery's denial that the death toll exceeded one million is based on extraordinarily careless scholarship, and, I submit, his past sympathy for the Khmer Rouge. That Vickery is a fringe source, heavily criticized by Kiernan, and now totally discredited by the findings in the mass graves, is also clear from the search results.

As I have always conceded, Kiernan's argument that US bombing killed 100,000 Cambodians and boosted the KR is mainstream--although debatable and in my opinion false--and his 1.6-1.8 million estimate for the genocide is the most widely accepted--although probably too conservative.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I accept your sources at this point as a basis for discussions per WP:CONSENSUS. Collect (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TTAAC, may I ask you to use this section only to discuss a procedure? It would be great if you collapsed the content that is not directly related to this topic. The reason is simple: other users may be distracted from the main topic. (We may discuss everything you found little bit later).

You seem to miss some important points. Firstly, I did not propose to "limit ourselves to the first articles that pop up on a Google scholar search". Please, re-read the procedure. If we select the sources according to the criteria outlined by me, those sources are not necessarily "first ten". In your case, I would exclude sources ##2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 as irrelevant (judging by titles). Secondly, gscholar ranks the results according to citation number and relevance, so more reliable and more relevant sources are more likely to be in the beginning of the list. And, thirdly, to get an impression about mainstream views we do not need to look through all relevant results: when the sample is big enough it becomes representative: top 20 (or 30, etc) sources reflect the mainstream views quite adequately, however, if you want, let's increase the sample size. I have nothing against an increase of sample size, provided that we both will agree: the sample of N sources is representative, so no extra source will change a picture considerably.

And, finally, you missed the most important point. I propose to do blind search: we identify sources only based on formal criteria (peer-reviewed, publisher, number of citation, relevance of the title). I propose you do not look at the source's content until the set is complete and endorsed by both sides. That means that you cannot reject a source from my list because the author is "discredited apologist", and I cannot reject your source because it is a "Cold war propaganda". I think that would be the best way to maintain neutrality.

Regards,

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, proposing a contest of Google searches while simultaneously deriding an opposition editor attempting to categorize sources by POV is probably not the path to neutral content. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, if you have some comment, suggestions, improvement on the above procedure, please, propose, otherwise, please, do not distract us from productive dialogue. Concretely, could you please point at possible reasons of why this procedure can be biased?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It is biased because any clever editor (I would consider both of us clever, there is no pejorative here) can create a Google search to prove their point. It is the classic case of knowing the lab results and working backwards to get the results. A discussion of any source has to be about what it says and the POV (again, no pejorative) of the author. Even the most "objective" author has a POV. You can only create a cogent narrative on the basis of assembling those reputable/reliable POVs. Your approach to content is, empirically, that it's a contest about inclusion and exclusion of sources, which is what your proposal accomplishes. And the longer and more tedious your "formula" is, the more likely it is to be abused. I do hope we avoid past accusations of violations of policy because editors don't agree with your self-constructed self-described "neutral" approach. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What a blatant assumption of bad faith!! Did you read a procedure? Each participant creates its own google schoolar (not google, the difference was explained to you many times) phrase, and does search only if this phrase is approved by another party (#1).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. I did not state abuse is intentional, abuse is simply an outcome of the system you propose. And in every one of these exchanges you eventually accuse editors of not playing by the rules.

If you really want this content to improve, the editors who are interested in this article should agree on one or two seminal sources for the entire topic and for significant aspects thereof and take it from there. Google searching to create a compendium of sources pulls in as much gold as drek. Well, actually, I find that a majority of sources on anything that can be sensationalized are drek. Your idea, in particular, to only look at content of a source after agreeing to use the source (your blind search) is so howlingly misguided I don't even know where to start.

And that you propose "scholar" is not a universal stamp of reliability. Just to make that clear. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, you totally misunterpret my two major points: the blindness of search means that we select sources based on some uniform formal criteria outlined in WP:V, not based on what they say; and the transparency of the search means that the search phrase is disclosed by both parties, and if someone has reasonable objections, this phrase should be modified). For example, if I attempt to identify mainstream sources about Cambodia using the phrase "US support for authoritarian regimes", you may object to that, so I'll have to chose more neutral search keywords.

Re gscholar, I do not propose jstor or questia because they are not accessible for everyone. However, gscholar is really good. I use gscholar more frequently then jstor, because it works better. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your "two seminal sources", how can we chose them? For example, for someone the BB is seminal, for others it is a crap. For someone Kiernan is seminal, for others he is a discredited revisionist and apologist. No, the only way to objectively identify seminal sources is the procedure outlined by me: to blindly and transparently select a representative sample, and only after that can we identify seminal sources: they either will be within this sample, or they will be the most frequently cited by the sources from our sample. That is a direct consequence of the Six degrees of separation and of the PageRank algorithm: if a source is seminal, it will be very frequently cited by the most popular sources (i.e. by the sources in the beginning of the gscholar list), so it either will be on the top of this list, or it will be cited by most top sources.---Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, could you please identify the "one or two seminal sources [your emphasis] for the entire topic". TFD (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sure Vecrumba will be able to do that. the problem is that not everyone will agree with him, because his procedure of the choice is not transparent and not neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Siebert, you are incorrectly assuming my position. I think Kiernan is unquestionably a seminal source that must be used in any discussion of the Cambodian genocide. My seminal sources would include Kiernan, Heuveline (whose work Kiernan has praised), and Etcheson. My objection was to Vickery, whose scholarship is obviously very weak. Of course, if we wanted to discuss Pol Pot's ideology and how he came to power (rather than just provide the best estimates of the death toll), then I would think that Chandler's biography is quite clearly the seminal resource at our disposal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide an article written by Kiernan about "mass killings under Communist regimes". TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is where any changes keep getting derailed: Namely, we cannot agree on what this article should cover (death tolls, ideology, historical context, foreign support, ect.), or even if it should exist at all. The answer to your question is, of course, no.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

TTAAC, firstly my goal was not to transmit your position, I just described a standard situation when people cannot agree about "seminal sources". However, let me point out that, since the criteria you use to select "seminal sources" are not clear for me (non-transparent), it is quite possible that your choice reflects your personal tastes (of course, that conclusion is equally applicable about every participant of this dispute).

Secondly, please, stop that. Although your opinion about Kiernan et al is important and valuable, it does not belong to this concrete section. In this section I propose just to elaborate a neutral, blind and transparent procedure to select mainstream sources. In connection to that, again, do you have any concrete objections against that procedure? Do you think it can be improved, and if yes, then how concretely? And, if you have no concrete objections, do you agree to try to test this procedure using Cambodia as an example? Please, respond, and if the responce will be "no", please, provide rational explanations of your refusal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Siebert, I feel like I've already answered your question. What we search for depends on what we are trying to cover in this article. Is it Pol Pot's ideology, or his rise to power? Then I would search for "Pol Pot," and Chandler would be my top result, followed by Short. Is it the death toll? Then Kiernan of the Yale Genocide Project, Etcheson of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, and Sliwinski and Heuveline for their demographic studies (which are widely cited and well received by peers) are the clear way to go. Kiernan is seminal because he is near the top of every list; Vickery is not mentioned within the first 100 search results, and has no experience other than being a "Khmer-speaking Westerner," so he should go. Are we searching for the role of the US, Vietnam, China, or the UN? Then we might have different seminal sources, like William Shawcross. The process you propose--of only using sources we haven't read, each editor conducting their own searches based on differing criteria, and creating a master list of a couple dozen sources--is needlessly convoluted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't answer my question. What I propose is to try to develop a universal procedure that would allow users to identify mainstream and seminal sources on almost every hot and controversial topic, and to do that in such a way that no party could blame others in tendentious selection of sources. Again, currently I am more interested in the procedure, than in this particular topic. You seem to have a strong POV, but you seem to be honest, so for me it is interesting to see if two users sharing opposite POVs are able, using a procedure outlined by me, to identify the sources that adequately reflect some controversial topic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What are we searching for? Do we want to know about the mass graves? Then we would search for "Cambodian" "killing fields", and Etcheson (who surveyed 20,000 mass graves) would be our top result. Do we want Pol Pot's rise to power and ideology? Then we would search for "Pol Pot", and Chandler's biography would be our first choice. Do we want a broad overview of the "genocide"? Then we would search for "khmer rouge" "genocide" "cambodia", and Kiernan would be our number one. Do we want demographic studies? Then we would search for "khmer rouge" "demographic" "analysis", and Heuveline would be our first relevant choice. That sounds like a good list of sources to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not very familiar with Etcheson, but, regrettably, I agree that Chandler and Kiernan are key sources. I wrote "regrettably", because to test my procedure we need to select a topic that causes most significant disagreement. Probably, such a topic could be the role of Communist ideology in the KR genocide. However, this topic is too narrow. Do you have a better idea?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if we are discussing US, Chinese, or Vietnamese policy--or debating the Communist credentials of the Khmer Rouge--we might use very different keywords.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cannot agree. If we want to analyse US involvement it would be misleading to select sources using ""Khmer Rouge" "US support"" or similar phrases: by doing that we select only the sources claiming that the US supported KR and the sources that criticise such an idea. That is definitely will not be a representative sample. To find what a mainstream view is, we need to read sources that discuss all parties who supported KR and all parties who opposed them. By doing that, we will be able to see a whole picture, and to determine what was a relative contribution (if any) of the US in KR's rise to power, to the atrocities they committed, and to their ousting. Therefore, the search phrase ("khmer rouge" "genocide" "cambodia") should be the same, although I think the word "cambodia" is redundant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You asked for input. You rejected all such input. Either you have the "absolute truth" on your side, or else this discussion was pointless from the onset. Two choices. Collect (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked for the following: I need a user with whom I have a strong disagreement about some concrete issue. Using the procedure outlined above (or its modification, if someone have a better idea) we simultaneously and concurrently identify sources that reflect mainstream views on that issue. Then, we create a combined list. Since we both use the same transparent and blind procedure, no cheating is possible, because each party sees how the search is being done. You, for example, always can say: "Don't use the keywords X, Y and Z, because that may lead to a bias towards an opinion A", and I can say, for example, can say "I don't understand why did you skip the source X, which was cited 15 times and which was published by Cornell University Press". Since these arguments are purely formal, and they are based on what the sources say, I see no reason why all of that can cause serious disputes. Later, when the list has been assembled, we can start to write the text based only on the sources we found (since core ("seminal") sources are in this list, we hardly need anything else). If clarification of minor issues, non covered in these sources, is needed, we can look for additional sources, but that should not affect the overall picture.

I proposed to use Cambodia as a test for this procedure, but I see that we have not much disagreement with TTAAC about the sources. Before we (TTAAC and I) continue, I need to read Kiernan and other sources in full (I haven't done that yet, and I am not sure I'll be able to to that soon). However, I am ready to test this procedure on something else. In connection to that, I want to propose the following. You Collect seem to disagree with almost everything I write, so you are an ideal partner for this test. Could you please propose some MMuCR related topic (whatever you want), and we together will identify the core mainstream sources on that topic (of course, using the above procedure)? Let's imagine we read nothing about that, and let's start the search de novo. Agreed?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You make claims about me which are untrue and designed to derail discussions here. The disagreement I have here is that when you ask for input and then refuse to accept such input that others might view the refusal as being in the nature of failing to follow WP:CONSENSUS at all. By the way, I fail to accept the premise that there must be one source used for a topic. In the case at hand, we already have a large number of reliable sources, and Wikipedia posits that such sources should be used and not discarded. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I probably didn't understand you: which input did I refuse to accept?

Regarding one source, I totally agreed (not only I agreed, but I myself expressed the same idea). However, although we already have a large number of sources, we still have no agreement if this set of sources is a representative sample of mainstream literature. That is why I propose the "control experiment" (described above) to check if an unbiased de novo search will produce a similar (not necessarily identical) set of sources. If yes, I am ready to accept the result of this experiments, if no, we will have to modify the article depending what new sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

To return to the discussion thread topic "A proposal to write a neutral article". Democratic Underground has an interesting page called "Republican sex offenders". (One can Google it.) All the information in it appears to be accurate and each case is described in a neutral manner. Yet there is an inherent bias in the presentation. If it were neutral it would provide evidence on the connection between being a Republican and being a sex offender. It seems that if we just list mass killings without explaining how they relate to Communism, it is no different from the DU page. TFD (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk about wandering far afield! If you wish to start an article "Republican sex offenders" kindly do so. We already have a "list of state and local political scandals in the United States" after all ... and a host of other articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

North Korea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While nobody here has been able to even try to defend the use of such a fringe and unreliable source as Vickery for Cambodia--or the exclusion of far more reliable sources like Heuveline and Sliwinski, or the out-of-date number found in the mass graves, or the general incoherence of the Cambodia section which was sufficient to get AnieHall and myself on the same side of an issue--it still seems unlikely that even minor changes will be made to this article anytime soon. Perhaps I'm just hopelessly optimistic, but I've also proposed even simpler revisions to the North Korea section here. The current version states: "Rudolph Rummel estimates that from 710,000 to slightly over 3,500,000 people have been murdered in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea between 1948 through 1987." This is a curious figure. After all, Rummel also estimates that between 700,000 and 3.7 million people were killed by the communist government of Vietnam, and he provides "low" and "high" estimates for every country he studies. Why are his "high" estimates cited only for North Korea? Rummel's "mid-value" estimate includes 500,000 democides committed during the Korean War; he puts Kim Il-Sung's domestic democide at just over one million. I would suggest the following sentence instead: "According to R.J. Rummel, forced labor, executions, and concentration camps were responsible for over one million deaths in North Korea from 1948 to 1987;[53] others have estimated 400,000 deaths in concentration camps alone.[54]" I would also mention the figures given in The Black Book of Communism: "100,000 executions, 1.5 million deaths in concentration camps, 500,000 deaths from famine, and 1.3 million killed in the Korean war." Finally, I believe we should consult a less politicized source regarding the 1990s famine (which is not even mentioned in the current revision). The best source I could find was Population and Development Review's "Demographic Changes in North Korea", which suggests that 240,000 to 420,000 people died as a result of the famine and that there were 600,000 to 850,000 unnatural deaths in North Korea from 1993 to 2008. Higher estimates--ranging from 3-4 million--are probably wild exaggerations promoted by North Korea to get more food aid and by South Korea for propaganda (although all estimates of North Korean democide are highly uncertain). (Repression in North Korea seems to be comparable to that in most other communist states; the recent left-wing revisionist attempts to demonize and caricature the regime as some sort of hideous aberration, the very personification of evil comparable to Pol Pot's Cambodia, and a right-wing "fascist" "theocracy" to boot, strike me as absolute nonsense.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a well thought out, concrete proposal. I'll suggest a couple of small changes, which you might want to take into account. But I think when somebody comes up with a concrete proposal like this, we owe it to him, to Wikipedia in general, and to ourselves, to take a serious poll on whether to include it. I've included the section below which is proposed to replace the current section on "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Further information: North Korea

According to R.J. Rummel, forced labor, executions, and concentration camps were responsible for over one million deaths in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea from 1948 to 1987; others have estimated 400,000 deaths in concentration camps alone. Pierre Rigoulot estimates 100,000 executions, 1.5 million deaths through concentration camps and slave labor, 500,000 deaths from famine, and 1.3 million killed in the Korean war. Estimates based on the most recent North Korean census suggest that 240,000 to 420,000 people died as a result of the 1990s famine and that there were 600,000 to 850,000 excess deaths in North Korea from 1993 to 2008. The famine, which claimed as many as one million lives, has been described as the result of the economic policies of the North Korean government, and as deliberate "terror-starvation". In 2009, Steven Rosefielde stated that the Red Holocaust "still persists in North Korea" as Kim Jong Il "refuses to abandon mass killing."

• General support - with minor quibbles 1) Section title should be as previous "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and as previous should be followed by

"Further information: North Korea". 2) The sentence on Kim Jong Il seems a bit dated - it should be changed or slightly expanded to mention his sucessor. Perhaps just "In 2009, Steven Rosefielde stressed that the Red Holocaust "still persists in North Korea" as Kim Jong Il refused "to abandon mass killing."[4] " Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've altered it slightly in response to your suggestions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• make that Support then. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any suggestion in "Demographic Changes in North Korea that the famine was a mass killing or that the "excess deaths" were unnatural. Rather it ascribed them to "deteriorated living conditions" and includes famine victims. TFD (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The paper does not describe the famine as "mass killing", or even argue about its intentionality, because that is beyond the scope of demographic analysis. However, only North Korea suffers from famine, while South Korea is well-fed and properous. Plenty of reliable source describe the government as responsible for the mass deaths, for example Famine in North Korea (2009) by Stephan Haggard, Marcus Noland, and Amartya Sen, p.209: "This tragedy was the result of a misguided strategy of self-reliance....The state's culpability in this vast misery elevates the North Korean famine to a crime against humanity." Rosefielde, one of our key sources, describes the deaths as intentional "terror-starvation" rather than "famine" (p.109). Rummel states that "the North Korean famine is intentional--the very communist totalitarian policies that created the famine continue despite their mortal consequences for the North Korean People, and with what must be Kim's clear knowledge of this". If every source had to explicitly describe mass deaths as "mass killings under communist regimes," then we wouldn't have an article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article attributes the famine to the decline of Russian provision of energy, spare parts and fertilizer, inability to purchase imports, high debt and a "series of natural disasters". If there are a variety of views, then we need to mention them. Do you have any complaints about the political views of the writers or the publication? TFD (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to read the source as though it explicitly exonerates the North Korean government, go right ahead. I agree that alternative views should be presented, although I am aware of no serious argument to the effect that the differences between North and South Korea are solely due to natural disasters. As to your question, I will not dignify it with a response.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

TTAAC, actually, we have two authors, Rummel and Rosefielde (regarding Courtois, I doubt his introduction is a good source at all), each of whom develops his own concepts ("Democide" and "Red Holocaust"). Rummel discusses NK primarily in a context of mass killings under totalitarian regimes, and that material fits into the (already existing) Democide article. Rosefielde's book is a views of just one author, and these views are also described in the article specifically devoted to this book.

I didn't read Rosefielde's "RH", but, taking into account that that scholar is a specialist in Russian, not NK history, it is highly likely he took his information from somewhere else, most likely from Rummel. With regard to Rummel, the situation mirrors the Porter's story: do you know that during the Soviet "iron curtain" era he estimated Gulag death toll to be 40 million? Do you know that current consensus (expressed by Conquest) is that 14 million passed through Gulag (and about 2 million died there during 1927-53)? That example is a good indication of validity of Rummel's estimates in a situation when reliable information is lacking (his estimates for Nazi mass killings are much closer to reality simply because this subject is much better studied).

Regarding "alternative views", how do you propose to include them? How do you propose to discuss the sources that say that KN regime is more a continuation of centuries long Confucian tradition then of Communism? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Rummel estimated 40 million deaths under Stalin from all causes, including 30 million gulag deaths. "The Dead of the Gulag: an Experiment in Statistical Investigation" (1995), Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, estimates up to 17 million gulag deaths. Rummel's estimates for individual periods of Soviet history seem to be largely accurate at least with regard to order of magnitude. For example, Rummel estimated 10 million Stalinist democides during WW2, counting war democide. Rosefielde's demographic analysis (which usually yields a conservative result) suggested that the Soviet Union lost 31 million people during WW2: 23 million killed by Hitler and 8 million killed by Stalin.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The JRSS article deals with the data provided by others, and the data set does not include any post Cold war studies that lead to considerable change of our views of this issue. Therefore, this article is of only historical interest. Regarding Rummel, 30 vs 2 or 40 vs 2 , is it really important? Please, go back to the main issue. I responded to your last argument about NK famine. Please, respond.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never mentioned Courtois' introduction. Nor did I cite Rosefielde for any estimates of NK democide. I was suggesting that we add sources besides Rummel. Do you really have to derail simple changes by demanding that we "discuss the sources that say that NK regime is more a continuation of centuries long Confucian tradition"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just commented on the references from the reflist.

I do not propose to derail anything. I propose you to test a neutral and unbiased procedure to select sources. And I have absolutely no idea why do you refuse to participate in this experiment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you compare the current version with the one I proposed? The current version only cites Rummel and Rosefielde. I added Pierre Rigoulot, Population and Development Review, and Famine in North Korea. You responded with an incoherent rant about how Rummel is fringe, Courtois is unreliable, and Porter (the guy who said Pol Pot killed a few hundred) is the ideal reliable source. Then, you argued that Rummel is only reliable for Nazi democide and asked me why I failed to cite sources to the effect that North Korea is "a continuation of centuries long Confucian tradition". What you wrote bore no resemblance to my proposal. If you want to propose other sources about NK, go right ahead. However, I don't see how you could feel my revision makes the NK section worse.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said Porter is the ideal reliable source. What I know about Porter is that one scholar found some his conclusions correct (although he disagreed with his numerical estimates), and that that scholar's conclusions (but not Porter's ones) are generally supported by peers.

Regarding Rummel, I simply pointed your attention that the arguments you used to reject Porter are equally applicable to Rummel.

Going back to your text, I find it totally unsatisfactory. You follow the approach that has been severely criticized by serious authors. Concretely, instead of discussing the events, their historical context and causes, you are focused on bare figures. Again, the text is totally unsatisfactory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What should a "serious" North Korea section look like? Don't leave me in the dark! Why don't you propose an alternative version, as I did, since we both must agree that the article as written is deeply flawed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I already proposed a scheme for Cambodia section. IMO, the same scheme mutatis mutandis can work for other sections. However, you almost ignored this my proposal. Regarding alternative versions, the reason I didn't do that has been well described by AmateurEditor: " I still think it could be useful, but only if all the active editors are participating up front, rather than waiting for time and effort to have been spent and then blocking changes."

The only way out of an impasse is that the users representing different parties have to take an obligation that they will not oppose to addition of the jointly developed text if it will meet some general criteria, which should be defined (and endorsed) in advance. One of these criterion should be that the basic list of the sources should be created before we will start to work, and no user will question the sources from this list (and their relative weight) as soon as the work on the list is finished. Let's create a list, establish what mainstream view(s) is(are), and only after that can we start writing. And, importantly, no user should have a right to approve/reject what we will write. The idea that some users are working and others decide if they like that or not is totally unacceptable: such a category of Wikipedians as supervisors or approveers does not exist. If someone wants to join a work - they are more then welcome to do that, however, I am not intended to tolerate the "waiting for time and effort to have been spent and then blocking changes" approach anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think about testing my procedure using NK as an example?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesTheyAreAChanging accuses a mainstream source of "exonerating" North Korea. There is no change that he will cooperate in a neutral article. TFD (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

TFD: You claimed that North Korean government policy was totally unrelated to the famine. As reliable sources like Famine in North Korea say otherwise, I asked you for a mainstream source that "exonerates" North Korea, suggesting that both perspectives could be included. You refused to provide any source to that effect, and instead have lobbed yet another ill-informed personal attack. During the time period I have been watching this page, you have contributed little of relevance: Instead, you have falsely but sensationally claimed that the US "planned to return Pol Pot to power," and refused to provide a source; told Nug not to "insult the United States of America or any other nation," when he had manifestly done nothing of the kind; accused Nug, without proof, of not reading his sources; suggested that if Hitchens' opinions on terrorism are notable, then he is also an expert on communism; insulted Collect on the grounds that he is supposedly "on the same side" as "tendentious sockpuppets and meatpuppets," while removing comments from him that barely qualified as uncivil; and repeatedly raved about Republican sex offenders. You have not proposed any revisions to the text or cited any sources of your own; you have made it abundantly clear that your only goal is to see this article deleted. It seems to me that your behavior might be uncharitably characterized as trolling.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary of the above - a couple of editors think "more stuff could be added, other stuff should not be added" Absent any concrete suggestions, this commentary is irrelevant to the question proposed - should we include THIS specific wording. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good; we should not, for example, retain factual errors and blatantly unreliable sources (according to Siebert's own criteria) in the Cambodia section, merely because there are some unspecified imperfections in the text which I failed to resolve. Contra TFD, I think it is clear that my revisions make the North Korea section more neutral and mainstream, not less.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your examples show the problems that are involved in developing an NPOV article. It is abusive to ask me for a source that "exonerates" North Korea and to accuse me of trolling. I have only suggested that the mainstream, neutral source you presented is probably the best interpretation. These interpretations of yours that advance beyond what sources say are an impediment to producing a neutral article. I did not claim that "North Korean government policy was totally unrelated to the famine", that is merely your interpretation. The U.S. by the way tried to return Pol Pot to power, it was not "falsely but sensationally" but the official policy before the U.N. I did not say that Hitchens was an expert on anything, that was Collect, Nug's suggestion that "US High Schools generally tend to teach fringe views" is an insult to the U.S. I did not "rave" about "Republican sex offenders", merely drew a comparison between that concept and this article. Collect btw sees nothing wrong with that article although I would not create one per {{WP:POINT]]: just because one article should not exist is no reason to create a similar article to make a "point". And yes, this article was created by a tendentious sockpuppet of a banned editor (User:Joklolk), and was strongly supported by sockpuppets of the EEML. TFD (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug said the exact oposite: "Me thinks that high school textbooks are sufficiently vetted as representing the mainstream, unless you are suggesting that US High Schools generally tend to teach fringe views." Either intentionally, or unintentionally, you seem to have a habit of misreading what your opponents say.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more of an insult to claim, with no evidence, that because the U.S. did not recognize the murderous puppet dictatorship led by ex-Khmer Rouge officers, it must have been secretly planning to restore Pol Pot to power. As Cambodia expert Nate Thayer says, "there is no evidence that the US gave any material support whatsoever to the Khmer Rouge."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So Famine in North Korea is a fringe, anti-communist propaganda tract?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. recognized the Khmer Rouge Pol Pot regime after it had been overthrown by Vietnam. Nug's comment was particularly insulting. I wrote, "You are quoting a high school textbook, which would not normally be considered a reliable source." (Notice no comment about the country.) He replied, "unless you are suggesting that US High Schools generally tend to teach fringe views." My comments were not specific to any country and it was a personal attack to bring up the U.S. "Famine in North Korea" is not "fringe, anti-communist propaganda", on the contrary it presents a viewpoint that you happen to oppose. TFD (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"This tragedy was the result of a misguided strategy of self-reliance....The state's culpability in this vast misery elevates the North Korean famine to a crime against humanity." (Famine in North Korea, p. 209). Do you read sources before commenting on them?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"....it was a personal attack to bring up the U.S." How so? You were discussing an American highschool textbook. Perhaps U.S. textbooks are more mainstream than, say, Saudi Arabian textbooks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I assumed you were referring to the article you linked to, "Demographic Changes in North Korea" which says, "Living conditions deteriorated markedly during the 1990s and early 2000s as the Soviet Union began to cut economic aid, and in the wake of floods and famine in the 1990s and the collapse of heavy industry."[12] If you think that is a fringe view, then you should not have presented it. I merely criticized high school textbooks, not American high school textbooks. Nug brought in that they were U.S. I suppose as a personal attack against Americans. Now you have broadened the attack to include Saudis. The point is that we should not rely on high school textbooks. It may be that the countries where you and Nug attended high school have better standards than the U.S., but that is no reason for you to attack the American educational system. No country's high school textbooks, or even introductory level university textbooks, meet the standards one would expect for serious scholarship. No one should attack other editors on the basis on nationality. TFD (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The study does not analyze the causes of the famine, although it includes one sentence of background material, and that sentence does not explicitly blame North Korean government policy. Nowhere do the authors say anything like "North Korean policy was totally unrelated to this completely natural famine". There were natural disasters, but natural disasters do not seem to threaten South Korea with mass death. Famine in North Korea discusses how the socialist food distribution system collapsed, and how this was compounded by the regime's failure to formulate a quick response--including the blocking of desperately needed humanitarian relief. BTW, Nug could not have been attacking Americans, because he was arguing that U.S. textbooks are reliable sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug wrote, "Me thinks that high school textbooks are sufficiently vetted as representing the mainstream, unless you are suggesting that US High Schools generally tend to teach fringe views." That is a totally gratutitous comment, considering that the origin of the textbook had not been mentioned. It is the same as saying, "Where I come from textbooks are reliable but in your country maybe not." I would remind Nug that the U.S. has a relatively high standard of secondary education. No need btw to add Saudi Arabia to the list of countries we are attacking. TFD (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:V says that the reliable sources, besides academic, peer-reviewed and some respectable non-academic sources, "include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." High school level text books are not in this list.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll note that none of the above arguments have anything to do with the proposed insertion of text into the article. So far I count 2 for the insertion of the text and 0 against. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a contradiction between saying the famine was the "result of the economic policies" and "deliberate "terror-starvation"", unless the economic policies were deliberately promoting starvation. You need to explain which view is more widely held, preferrably by using a source that compares the various views. Also, when various estimates have been made over a period of time, you need to explain whether earlier estimates are still valid. Usually they are made on less evidence and may be revised upward or downward. TFD (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's why I only used more recent estimates. 240,000 to 1 million is now considered more reliable than earlier estimates of 2.5-3 million. As for the deliberate or accidental nature of the famine, you have a very good point, but I'm not aware of such a source. I think it would be easy to find sources that say North Korea redirected aid to the military and the elite, but not that Kim actually sought mass death. Rummel argues that the famine was democidal because the regime must have known what the consequences of its policies were, but refused to change them. However, I understand that Rummel is not exactly the most mainstream source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then it is not "mass killing". That I believe is the major problem with the article - a vagueness of scope. We could say for example that since the U.S. death rate is 0.8% higher in Canada, that there are 25,000 excess deaths per year, which could be attributed to government policy. But we would not combine them with genocide against aboriginal people to create an article "American mass killings". TFD (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rummel and Rosefielde do characterize it as "mass killing," either as "negligent homicide," "terror-starvation," or simply "democide." However, if this is a minority view, then we should make clear that other scholars disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Re "However, if this is a minority view, then we should make clear that other scholars disagree." That is a blatant misunderstanding of what the policy says, and a blatant logical fallacy. A disagreement of mainstream authors with some view is not a necessary trait of minority views. As a rule it is fringe/minority author who criticises/challenges mainstream ideas, whereas mainstream authors prefer simply ignore fringe views. By saying that, I do not claim there were no mass killings in NK, my point is that one of the authors you are talking about is obsessed with the idea of totalitarian (not Communist) mass killings, and another author is a specialist in Russia, and he did no his own studies of NK.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Famine in North Korea says "The state's culpability in this vast misery elevates the North Korean famine to a crime against humanity." In other words, the authors agree with Rummel. Where is a source that says the regime is not cuplable?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I do agree that NK regime brings innumerable sufferings to its own citizens for only reason: regime's own survival. I also believe that its existence is not dictated by any objective need. However, I also believe that our content policy, as well as formal logic rules, must be observed in any event. For example, if an author X says the event Y was a crime against humanity, this author does not say it was a mass killing. Did Noland say the famine was a mass killing? And what is a mainstream views of NK famine. I am not familiar with the subject, but I doubt.

To check that, I did a simple thing. I typed "north korea famine" in gschoalr and I got this. then I looked through first three relevant results (by coincidence, these were the articles authored by Noland). I didn't select anything, so my search results were not affected by my viewpoint, so we can safely conclude Noland (in contrast to Rosefielde or Rummel) is likely to reflect mainstream views. Noland's article "Famine in North Korea: Causes and Cures" says:

1. Prior to the division of Korea, its north part was less fertile, so it was buying food from South. Partition of Korea made that impossible.
2. The decline of domestic agricultural output started in 1989, it occurred in a context of overall economic crisis.
3. Attempts to intensify agriculture on NK low fertile lands lead to several environmentally unfriendly steps that caused additional soil depletion, deforestation, and, as a result, erosion, flooding etc.
4. These effects were exacerbated by centralised planning, a stress on large farms, although some reports points at the attempts of authorities to introduce more incentive compatible system (although in unknown scale)
5. The resulted food shortage could not be compensated by the help from (now non-existent) USSR, and disillusioned China.
6. August 1995 catastrophic flood made a situation even worse. in 1996, the flood (although of somewhat smaller magnitude) repeated.
7. Despite a decline of food production, the famine was primarily due to a systemic crisis and decline in income.
8. Vulnerable groups of population lost the access to food as a result of political decision, so, whereas some groups appeared to be almost unaffected, others have to rely almost exclusively on black market.
9. No reliable information exists about NK food balance, so it is absolutely unclear how much food does NK have and how much does it need.

Noland's conclusion is that the problem cannot be resolved neither through bare increase of domestic production, nor by means of international aid. The only solution is deep reformation of NK economy (that means regime's fast death). That is how Noland describes caused and mechanism of the famine. I found not a single word "killing" (and a word "Communist") in this article, and I don't think Noland's opinion is compatible with the "Communist mass killing" concept. In connection to that, the text you are proposing is a pure synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. On 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC) TTAAC asked me:

"Why don't you propose an alternative version, as I did, since we both must agree that the article as written is deeply flawed?"

I explained (on 01:05, 6 February 2013) that I propose a scheme for the section, and explained that I see no reason to move further until at least a preliminary agreement about the scheme, and about the core sources, will be achieved . TTAAC ignored my responce. Moreover, Smallbones declared that no user (except TTAAC and themselves) came out with any concrete suggestion. If the suggestion about the general scheme for the section is not concrete, I even don't know what to say. I don't think by ignoring reasonable proposals from other users you will achieve anything... --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To recapitulate. I think the text that is focused almost exclusively on figures is absolutely unacceptable. If you want to re-write the section, let's do that. However, good section must contain a description of the historical context, the reasons the country's leaders decided to chose the policy they conducted, etc (see my comments in the Cambodia section). If you are ready to participate in such a work, please, let me know. If not, I am not going to support any expansion and minor modifications of desperately biased content.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the change. Instead of concentrating on details we need to concentrate first on the main issues. Could someone please provide an authoritative source about MKuCR that explains the relative significance of excessive deaths in North Korea in the 1990s. TFD (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Support After reading all the cavils which cover positions made at multiple AfDs, and multiple multiple times on the article talk page, those arguments carry no more weight that they did before, and it is past time to move beyond them. Collect (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the analysis of the core source regarding NK famine, presented by me on 7th of February, is absolutely fresh. That means that you simply haven't read the thread you are commenting on. That fact, as well as the absence of any logical arguments in your post demonstrates that your opinion has a zero weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WooHoo! Your tactic now is to claim that I have not read the last few hundred thousand words when I most certainly have done so. Do you really feel you advance your position by making such incredibly inane assertions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You call my assertion "inane". Let's see. (i) I performed an unbiased search for mainstream sources about NK famine (I think you will not claim I was cherry-picking?). That the result of my search were unbiased are confirmed by the fact that I found the same author (Noland) TTAAC came out with. Now we can be sure that that author reflects mainstream opinion. (ii) I performed analysis of how this author described the discussed events. This analysis demonstrates that the author's concept does not fit the MKuCR concept. (iii) I concluded that by using Noland TTAAC performed a synthesis to advance his own position. Please, point at the archive discussions where I already wrote about these things. If you will not be able to do provide needed diffs (and you will not, because I never read this source before, and I was physically unable to discuss it), you need to provide another plausible explanation on what your inane statement about repeating arguments (that actually have never been put forward in past) was based on.

In the absence of such arguments, my conclusion is that you simply do not bother to read the posts you are commenting on...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What in interesting view you have of collegial discussion per WP:CONSENSUS - simply accuse everyone who demurs with your off-stated positions that their opinion is of no value at all, and therefore does not affect WP:CONSENSUS. Interesting, indeed. But wrong. Collect (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong? That I provided a detailed analysis of the source used by TTAAC and demonstrated that it does not support the proposed wording? You carefully avoid commenting on the essence of my arguments, and it is your position which is blatantly wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Noland does support the claim that there were a large number of deaths from starvation in North Korea, and that these deaths were caused by the North Korean government (which refused to change its policies). His description matches Rummel's definition of "negligent homicide" and "democide". Rummel, Rosefielde, and the Black Book all include the deaths as part of North Korea's mass killing. Not all sources explicitly describe the famine using the phrase "mass killing," nor do all sources describe North Korea as "communist" (you have even argued that North Korea is "part of an ancient Confucian tradition" of totalitarian Stalinism), but I don't think they have to. (BTW, if there were any communist states influenced by Confucianism, the Soviet-installed North Korean gulag state would not be my first choice. I think China and Vietnam were far more influenced by Confucian doctrine, with more of an emphasis on "reeducation" rather than total extermination of class enemies, and with their systems proving capable of reform.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Noland (a mainstream source) says the large number of famine deaths were caused by several factors, and one of the most important factors was government's policy. Rummel (reflecting minority views) says it was a democide. Consequently, the facts and opinia should be presented accordingly: (i) to describe the events, as they are seen by mainstream authors (Noland et al); (ii) to add that some authors (Rummel, Rosefielde and Courtois) call it "Democide", "Red Holocaust" or "Communist killings", accordingly; (iii) to add mainstream criticism of those views (as far as I know, Aronson and Kuromiya criticized Courtois for adding together direct killings and famine victims). That is the way this material should be represented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's basically how it is presented, except that there is no criticism, which I invited you to add.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The way it is presented is absolutely wrong. You must start with the views of mainstream single society authors (Noland et al), and to neutrally describe a situation in NK by the moment Kim came to power. You should describe the reason he started executions and other mass killings. Then you should describe the reasons of the famine. And only after that can you add opinia of some authors who believe that all those events fit the definition of "gemocide" etc.

By the way, as far as I know, another author (in addition to Rummel) who created a comprehensive database of geno/politicides is Barbara Harff. Her table does not list NK at all, which implies she does not consider the events there as geno/politicides. How do you propose to deal with that situation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support A neutrally written well sourced piece of text. --Nug (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What about the fact that the source does not support the proposed text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

support the same old argument is getting old, begone revisionist trolls. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you to withdraw your personal attack and apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

i strongly recommend you find a different article to edit, your argument is becoming tendentious to the point of being disruptive. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Update

Continuing on from where I'd left off one month ago, I am still in the process of gathering references. It is actually much more arduous than I'd originally anticipated; I have completed a solid chunk of Poland, most of China, a good chunk of Romania, East Germany, and several other nations. At the moment, I'm looking into South Yemen and North Korea. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

This came up on DAB-solver: Red Holocaust; the only good disambiguation being a circular-reference to this same article. Please de-link it, and put quotation marks front and back. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Do you want the disambiguation page deleted? That disambiguation page references three books and the only wikilinks for "Red Holocaust" in this article are when it is used to refer to a book. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Just kill the link in this article. It is un-needed and redundant (as it is simply another name for this article). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013

Article contains a bad link: [[Red Holocaust]], which is a circular link back to the article. This link keeps popping up on DAB-Solver. Can an administrator please simply remove the brackets (de-link)? This is my second or third request. Thank you. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 02:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

ThanX. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion re. Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, categorization of Red Army campaigns, etc.

All right, so I'm still chugging along, gathering up references and organizing them. I've begun work on an additional segment (pertaining to South Yemen). As I work on gathering up references for the Soviet Union, questions begin to arise in my head regarding what ought to be done with that particular segment. To list some of the areas I'm stumped on:

1. As I'm sure most people familiar with communist dictatorships would attest, the most prolific mass killer by far was Joseph Stalin — massacres under his regime were so commonplace that things like the wholesale slaughter of 157 political prisoners detained at Oryol Prison are seen as relatively minor occurrences. This kind of death toll would make any present-day dictator an international pariah. The large number of mass killings under Stalin's regime were obviously most prominent during the Great Purge and World War II. The question is, should we list in modest detail some of the significant massacres (say, 50+ killed at a time) from each period, or just limit it to broad generalizations without getting into any specifics?
2. Arguably just as bad as Stalin's repression at home was the brutality he imposed over Eastern Europe and much of East Asia. He had a hand in the mass killings of Poland, North Korea, Mongolia, etc. The question is, how much of this should be covered exclusively within the realm of the Soviet Union's subheader? Mongolia's own version of the Great Purge (concurrent with the one up north) is listed under the Soviet Union, but Mongolia was nevertheless a nominally independent state ruled by totalitarian dictator Khorloogiin Choibalsan. Shouldn't independent countries have their own sections? I propose having both independent country headers detailing mass killings that were committed in large part by the Red Army itself and detailing it under a "foreign policy" subsection of the main Soviet Union header. This would also apply to the Korean War, the Hungarian Revolution, the Afghan War, and several others. Anyone else agree with this approach?
3. The other question I have pertains to the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II. Should we list the events of each individual country under its own header, or should it all be categorized as an act of Stalin? Perhaps the expulsion of Germans should have a section all its own?

Thoughts? Kurtis ^(talk) 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 1), I think the threshold for inclusion in this article was 50,000 deaths, given that Valentino used that figure in his definition of "mass killing". So listing individual episodes of 50 killings would quickly overwhelm this article given Stalin's prolific record. 2) I think that approach you describe is okay. 3) If the expulsion of German civilians from Eastern Europe involved mass killing of a significant number of people, then why not. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, Kurtis. Short answer for all three: I would defer to how your sources approach this. 1)In my own opinion, smaller incidents ought to be used as examples of the larger-scale phenomenon but not be the focus themselves at that scale. The 50,000 within 5 years threshold is really a matter of convenience, rather than a meaningful boundary, and I don't think all our sources observe it. I am ambivalent as to whether or not we should for this article. 2)I'm fine with your approach. 3)I agree with Nug here. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The way to determine the extent to which each country should be covered is to look at books and articles about the general topic, i.e., mass killings under Communist regimes. Most of these sources do not provide any detail on Yemen, if they mention it at all. The term "under" is deliberately vague, does it mean by regimes within or without their realm and if it was without, does it only apply if the territory was also ruled by a Communist regime? Do we include combat deaths of Axis soldiers Western soldiers in the Korean and Vietnam wars and other conflicts? TFD (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mass killing" has only ever referred to killing of a large number of non-combatants; we don't include combat deaths. Otherwise, you're right: any vagueness should be resolved by reference to sources. We follow their lead. It is only where they conflict with each other that we need to exercise any editorial judgement, and there we would need specifics.AmateurEditor (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, everyone. I haven't checked this page in a month, and I've gotten sidetracked with other things. I'm inclined to agree with AmateurEditor on all points; at the moment I'm looking into Cuba under Fidel Castro, but I think it should also be noted that his capitalist predecessor was even more brutal. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: "most people familiar with communist dictatorships would attest, the most prolific mass killer by far was Joseph Stalin"

Yeah, except Stalin was so blatantly anti-Marxist that it's very very dubious to group him together with properly-Communist mass killers when assessing the total number of victims of so-called "Communist regimes". See here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/stalins-fight-against-international-communism/

When Stalin's attitude toward Marxism and Internationalist Communism and his reasons for killing people are fully taken into account, I think it becomes obvious that he's better lumped together with Hitler under "Fascist Mass Killers" or "Nationalist Extremist Mass Killers" than with the Communists.

D0nj03 (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The general consensus among academic sources is that Stalin was a communist dictator; whether he adhered closely to the Marxist model is irrelevant to his inclusion here. His regime even described itself as "communist". Kurtis ^(talk) 02:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)