Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Think before you revert

regarding the photo and caption:

Cemetery of Buzuluk, December 1921. This and other photos of victims of Russian famine of 1921 as well as the Great Depression in the United States have been used for visual effects in publications and exhibits advocating a theory of intentional starvation of Ukrainian peasants in 1932-33.

of which I had simplified the caption to "Victims of a famine in the Soviet Union"

What can a 1921 photo taken in the Soviet Union have to do with the Great Depression in the U.S.? All the links are broken. Please be more responsible! Smallbones (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You do not remove material based on that. Give other editors a chance to fix the links. That is what talk pages are for. (Igny (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

I fail to see what the connection is between the Russian famine of 1921 and this article. This is not an article about deaths from administrative incompetence or the effects of a civil war. The photo should go.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

But holodomor is to stay? (Igny (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

That's a very good question. IMHO, probably it should, but it should receive much less prominence. The treatment of the holodomor as a deliberate act is, as you know, controversial. Ignoring it could be POV, but overplaying it as had been done before definitely is. For me, it depends to a great extent on how important it has been for comparative analyses. How do you feel about it?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I put this photo into the article, my initial intention was to show the controversies over claims that Holodomor was a genocide. But considering that the scope of the article changed with the title change, I now agree that the picture may be removed. I also suggest to remove the other picture about holodomor as well, since it is not clear that the death of that child was deliberately caused by someone (which I really doubt) rather than like you said due to overall administrative negligence. However one may mention the use of graphic material in attempts to raise the awareness of the famines, possibly mentioning the controversy over picture substituting somewhere in the text of the article. (Igny (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

(reindent) I removed both pictures. (Igny (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC))

Stalin's Labour Work Camps

Thanks for responding. I was thinking may be Stalin's labour work camps might get a mention in the article. They were used to built such massive projects, such as Moscow-Volga Canal & the Belomor-Baltic Canal. During their construction tens of thousand of prisoners died, if not more. Would this fit within the parameters of the article? Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it really fits in this article; those events are not about the direct execution of people.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly no, though thanks for the good faith contribution on talk. This article has been overburdened with untheorised additions of incidents where large numbers of people died. Unless this is specifically talked about in a reliable academic secondary source as part of a theory of generalised communist mass killing (or other equivalent terms used in the scholarly discourse), you can't talk about it. Why? The unity in this article comes from theoretical perspectives on multi-society mass killing, not from an assortment of individual cases of mass killing. If you'd like to help, try one of the secondary source lists above that isn't in the "Academic" section of the article to write a paragraph on if/if not there is a general theory of multi-state or universal communist mass killing. (No, Gulag Archipelago's Orthodox romanticism and Great Russian chauvanism doesn't count as an academic theory generalising the camps). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would fit in case there is a reliable secondary published source that discusses the labor work camps under a chapter 'Communist mass killings' and/or 'Communist genocide'. Saying pr VsevolodKrolikov that not about the direct execution of people would be about the same as excluding people from Nazi genocide /mass killings who were not directly executed but simply died in the concentration camps. shortly put "direct execution" is not the same as "mass killings". Deserters during war times get "directly executed" in many countries including Communist states, such "direct executions" however remain outside of the scope of this article.--Termer (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[side issue comment] Except that you'd need to find an academic RS that manages to argue that the accepted fatality rate from disease, malnutrition, and lack of clothing was actually a mass killing structure—which is a stretch, and would have to be finely argued, and would get into the Excess Deaths demography issue... A fine mess for which you'd want a nice scholarly article, and the less fine type would have a spiral of reviews and recriminations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PS.Other than that I'm kind of tired of this suggestion that political killings in the totalitarian Communist states didn't have a pattern. There was one thing that's common in all totalitarian Communist states: the 'elimination of classes' and the elimination of "class enemies". Please see The roots of evil: the origins of genocide and other group violence By Ervin Staub, Cambridge University Press, 1992 or Hope and memory: lessons from the twentieth century, Part 443 By Tzvetan Todorov, Princeton University Press, 2003 : "The idea that ultimate harmony can only be achieved by the elimination of one part of humanity is present in both Nazi and Communist programs."--Termer (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"in both Nazi and Communist programs" ... exactly the point that many of us have been making here -- there is nothing unique or specific to "communism" that makes "mass killing" imperative or makes it qualitatively different than when it happens under non-"communist" regimes. This notion "that ultimate harmony can only be achieved" through mass slaughter is the actual thing that analysts and researchers who actually study political genocides and mass killings have found to be the object of study, not "communism" per se. Perhaps "mass killings under totalitarian regimes" might be a more appropriate framework for such a discussion? csloat (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :: Termer, you overlook one small thing: mass killings didn't happen in all communist societies. Sloat - one text does not represent the whole of scholarship. Straw man argument.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who brought up the one text; so far nobody has shown how "the whole of scholarship" disagrees with this one text. The problem is it doesn't. Most genocide scholarship that I have come across is simply not focused on "communism" as a specific form. csloat (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a tough one. They were Communist mass killings. My reference would have been Niall Ferguson’s book “The War of The World”. Niall doesn’t quite present his work as theoretical as might be needed for the article, but the other references look more promising. Sir Floyd (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is There were Communists, There were mass killings, Some mass killings were conducted by Some communists. Do the scholars of mass killings discuss a specifically Communist cause for mass killings, or a specific to a sub-set of Communists cause for mass killings. You may personally draw a link "Some communists engaged in some mass killings," but that is OR. You need an academic discourse about "Some communists engaging in some mass killings in a theoretically shared way which is not shared with non-communist mass killings." We're attempting to locate this discourse.

Many of these "scholars," when they single out a theoretical cause, end up like the Black Book stating "Communism is evil, I believe this for ideological reasons, evil makes Communists mass kill in a specifically communist way." I detest the scholarship in the Black Book's introduction and foreword, but I can't dispute that its part of a discourse. Ferguson is not nearly theoretically engaged with genocide studies, nor is he nearly specialised enough. We have included some noteworthy versions of the "evil" thesis, even though I dispute their scholarly nature; but Ferguson isn't even specifically engaged in the debate theoretically. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what are you talking about Fifelfoo "Some communists engaged in some mass killings,"? It's not what it says in for example Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. It says Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union China and Cambodia--Termer (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings communists were not engaged in: anything prior to 1848 (obviously). Others afterwards. Communists not engaged in mass killing: CPA, CPNZ, CPGB, CPUSA; SED. If we take, for example, the RSDLP(b)/CPSU(b) and the Ukrainian famine, we're creating OR. If we summarise, paraphrase and characterise Valentino we're making an encyclopedia article about Communist mass killing. I suggest you read Valentino's early article cited, where his typology makes it clear that Communist mass killings are not a unique category, but one instance of a larger category of his: in his earlier work Valentino claims that there's nothing categorically distinct about mass killings by Communists. I have no time to read his monograph, because I'm working on the Black book. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:VsevolodKrolikov you most likely were referring to the authors above who were missing "one thing" in your opinion, not me. That's fine, feel free to address the issue by citing the whole of scholarship that address the question. And then all those opinions can live happily together in the article pr. WP:YESPOV.--Termer (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement that "I'm kind of tired of this suggestion that political killings in the totalitarian Communist states didn't have a pattern. There was one thing that's common in all totalitarian Communist states: the 'elimination of classes' and the elimination of "class enemies"." The issue is whether communist states that did experience mass killings are a distinctive case separate from other instances, or are just part of totalitarian systems per se (e.g. the view that Nazi mass killings are part of the same phenomenon) or political opportunist factors/ethnic tensions are important (e.g. like Rwanda). That is, is this "pattern" one that applies to communists states alone, or do each of the cases have greater similarity with other non-communist cases of mass killing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The sources were clear about it VsevolodKrolikov. the first one said the Cambodian genocide had roots in Cambodian culture and communist ideology the second one, there is no need to repeat it. Regarding the point you're trying to make, that there are other totalitarian regimes that have committed similar mass killings, that the pattern goes with 'totalitarian' rather than with 'communist ideology'. Than again, this article discusses the mass killings committed by the totalitarian communist regimes in Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, who did justify the killings with the Communist ideology based on The idea that ultimate harmony can only be achieved by the elimination of one part of humanity by eliminating the classes and "class enemies". I don't have much against the fact that similar reasons may have been used by many ideologies, and religions as well to justify mass killings in history. This all however would be part of relevant articles as this one over here is about mass killings committed by the totalitarian communist regimes, not about lets say massacres committed by medieval catholic inquisition. regarding the Communist states that didn't , haven't implemented the idea of eliminating the classes together with the "class enemies", than why don't you just address it by writing a section in this article based on any of the sources you prefer to use.--Termer (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input guys. I'm going to lunch and then to work. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting thought. The Holodomor genocide question is similar to the Labour Camp Deaths in a way that; in both cases the peoples endured State created conditions where people died in their tens of thousands.

Also the sheer numbers of deaths (which should speak for itself), was organized by Communist Political Government. It is a form of mass killings. The work camps had a combined dual role. One was to make use of the prisoners and in the process eliminate "class enemies". For Stalin and the other Communist Government officials this was a perfect combination. These unfortunate people were killed by the conditions that were created by (under) the Communist regimes, and they were on a massive scale. May be it should be mentioned in the article. I think a more theoretical approach is not need here and Niall Ferguson as a reference could suffice. Thanks Sir Floyd (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Ferguson is way outside his field of competence, and reading GULAG as a extermination system is grossly unsupportable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree however I’ll will respect the overall judgment here. The subject is difficult in more ways than one . RegardsSir Floyd (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The holodomor itself is a controversial event in terms of calling it "mass killing"; a lot of the genocide studies material I've come across explicitly excludes it as a deliberate act of killing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless people died in their tens of thousands, (too many to mention). It is said by some, that never in human history have so many people died as a result of a political system. Does it matter if it was on mass or in terms of an event, or a happening that occurred over time? Mass killings are mass killings. Lets not dilute the subject and thank for your opinion. Sir Floyd (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive talk page!?

This page is one of those where it is very difficult for a fresh visitor to separate Talk about old versions of the article from Talk that is relevant to the current state of the page. Would someone care to archive the former (e.g. up to the name being changed) to make the live issues more identifiable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sussexonian (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost Literature of Socialism as a source

Please explain here why The Lost Literature of Socialism is an unreliable source. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Questionable synthesis and biassed extrapolation from quoted material. Have a nice day. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But how does it violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[1] Emphasis on the former. Claiming that calls for class struggle, even violent class struggle equate to calls for genocide most certainly are extremist.Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks quite reasonable to include this. Watson is not a historian, but is a Fellow in English in Bibliography at St. John’s College, Cambridge and editor of the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature. In short an academic source that historians may want to challenge, but a reliable academic source nonetheless. I'll include it. In terms of extremist views, we might refer this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, but I'd think that they'd view the denial of Communist genocide as a fringe theory. Smallbones (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying that titularly communist states have participated in mass killings (as have titularly democratic ones) but to claim an ideological link to genocide is extremist. Simonm223 (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier to take it to WP:RSN since you are claiming the "extremism" makes it an unreliable source. Absent their agreement, please leave it in. Smallbones (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Watson refers to an article from Engels (you can read it here), of which historian Andrzej Walicki has said, "It is difficult to deny that this was an outright call for genocide."[2] AmateurEditor (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Walicki is correct but what is not difficult to deny is the underlying assumption that a particular article from Engels represents an "ideological link" between "communism" and "genocide." csloat (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I have posted to the RSN.[3] BTW would editors please cease and desist introducing all these obscure crackpot sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note to Simon223, the link made between ideology and genocide is not necessarily extremist. We have established that there are a few RS that seek to make that analysis with respect to the USSR, PRC and Cambodia (that they had a particularly extreme form of communist ideology that was a decisive factor). The only way this article can stay encyclopaedic is if we focus on those analyses (rather than just have a list of all the excess deaths caused by governmental actions, which is much more of a POV position.) There are also others that dispute the link, but it is a legitimate question in history and political science.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Source failed verification

George Watson, in his book The Lost Literature of Socialism, cites an 1849 article by Friedrich Engels published in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung, as evidence that "The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history." According to Watson, "In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engel's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found."

The NRZ article does not contain the words "racial trash", nor does it contain "dung". control-F was helpful in this regard, to overcome any error in reading comprehension I may have. The source also conflates 20th century ethno-racial nationalism with 19th century lingo-cultural nationalism. Bald faced deceit and lying in a source means taking it out immediately. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, the source has not failed verification. Engels' article was originally written in German. "Racial trash", is a translation from the German Volkerabfalle (alternatively translated as "ethnic trash",[4] or in the case of this translation from Marxists.org, "residual fragments of peoples"). This issue was hashed out before (see here). The "dung heap of history" bit doesn't come from the Engels article, it's part of Watson's larger point, of which the Engels article is the most prominant support. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, do you have a link to the German original? If the word is 'Volkerabfalle', then "racial trash" sounds like a fair enough translation (although I'd think that "ethnic trash" might be more precise). To be fair to Watson, "dung-heap" isn't used in a direct quotation, so that also seems relatively fair (although, again, not strictly precise). It definitely doesn't qualify as lying... so it seems a little rash to drop the source just over such fine points. --Anderssl (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to find one. Here is where I found reference to the original German word:[5]. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here we are: "Völkerabfälle" [6] AmateurEditor (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed - there doesn't seem to be anything particularly wrong with Watson's translation, though his representation of the larger argument might still be a little tendentious. But for that one should rather refer to the reviews of the book. --Anderssl (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Watson's ludicrous claims are certainly extremist in nature. He couldn't get that nonsense published in a peer-reviewed academic press so he went to a minor press to print his anti-communist screed. It is not a RS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And beyond your own opinion, what are you basing that on? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This quote: "In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engel's article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist, and no exception has been found." It is such obvious extremism I honestly don't know what else to say. Simonm223 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that one example will disprove that statement. If you can provide it, I'll drop this immediately and congratulate you for improving Wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) Please read Wikipedia:No original research#Reliable_sources:

In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

This book just does not meet that standard. There are many books by academics that are not peer-reviewed because they try to reach a wider audience, or write about subjects outside their area of expertise. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're saying his publisher is not respected? Are they somehow fringe? Their book of the month is 50th Royal Tank Regiment: The Complete History.[7] That doesn't exactly smack of extremism. You're saying that a newspaper qualifies, but not this book? That's absurd. This book is well within his area of expertise, "political literature".[8] AmateurEditor (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address either of our points. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm listening. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the source is that it has not entered mainstream academic discussion. Who has checked the facts and who has scrutinized the writing? The book has attracted little interest outside right-wing publications and no academic review. He states for example that Engles advocated genocide. If he were to write that in a peer-reviewed article then we would have replies from academics and there would be a consensus whether or not he was correct. The other issue to is that the book is really a primary source for the author's opinions. But there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss his views. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not adhering to the very policy on reliable sources that you just pasted above. And the book has been reviewed by academics in historical literature such as the Review of English Studies.[9] But even if it hadn't been, it still qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, as you quoted above. As an aside, it's odd that you would use "Engels advocated genocide" as your example, since I provided another source saying essentially the same thing earlier in this discussion (here it is again[10]). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) If there are facts or interpretations in Lost Literature that are also contained in reliable sources, then it is much better to use those reliable sources. (I have not looked into the other source you provided to determine whether it is a RS, but for now just assume it is.) The "review" in The Review of English Studies is actually a 1999 book review by Robert Grant not a peer-reviewed article. I can find nothing about Grant and also have no idea what he said about Watson's book. Lost Literature is just not a notable book and its author's ideas have not entered mainstream academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard about peer review for book reviews before... The review looks mainstream to me. --Anderssl (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Book reviews are not peer-reviewed but the ideas in notable books become the subject of peer-reviewed articles. Take the book The liberal tradition in America (1955). As you can see from Google scholar,[11] which returns 2,710 hits, the theories in the book have been supported, rejected or modified by countless scholars. I don't see that Lost literature has received any recognition. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinions on the appropriate levels of recognition are not the threshold sources must meet to be considered reliable enough for inclusion here, as the RSN showed. Your example of hits on a "classic" work from 1955 would obviously be the upper bound of the scale. This book clearly exceeds the minimum requirements of Wikipedia policy for reliable sources, and until you can show otherwise it will be considered a reliable source. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The claims against the use of this book were reviewed at WP:RSN and rejected by the regulars there. The book stays - it is a reliable source. Smallbones (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to wait for outside editors to comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We have. Both outside editors who commented at your reliable sources noticeboard entry (Kansas Bear and L0b0t) found the source reliable enough for use.[12] AmateurEditor (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed to implement what AmateurEditor claims as consensus, "Since Watson's field of expertise falls into a gray area, why not simply state after George Watson's name[62], his field of study and if appropriate his employment in the academic field?" I dispute AE's claim that that was the consensus of RSN, but the edit did not implement the consensus AE claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How should have it been done? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to do it the way suggested at RSN, then the way I've just done it is the way. Also, as far as the press's quality goes, read this, "It is very expensive for what it is, and poorly produced: type comes from the wrong font, or is cramped, or badly spaced, or not spaced at all." Grant "Review" Review of English Studies 1999 559. This is after, demolishing (and I have been warned on wikipedia that my vernacular Australian English is misconstrued, so I have very carefully chosen demolish), Watson's standing as a historian or historical political theorist. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(similar post as at RSN) I think this is the best way. It's a bit long as it is, mind. My own feeling about this kind of thing is that what Watson is claiming kind of operates as an urban myth about what Marx, Engels etc said. It is useful for the reader to have a brief summary of these kinds of debates to know where good academic researchers stand. (I've been arguing for the book as RS on wiki grounds; personally I think it does look a bit rubbish, but RS is not about what I like.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems Grant is not a fan. I don't have any problem with including criticism in the article. I will read the review when I can get to a library. However, so that people don't think his opinions are universal, and in the interest of the discussion here and at the RSN, I want to reproduce the five blurbs from the publisher's website (which include one from his review):

"A stimulating book and if it sparks genuine debate, it will have done much good."

-Contemporary Review

"George Watson’s stimulating contribution to the problems of political theory is most welcome. It is a pity it is not a longer book."

-The Salisbury Review

"George Watson has devoted many thoughtful hours to the problem of the crimes, privileges, and general behaviour of the socialist elite. He has succeeded in producing a startlingly simple explanation of the otherwise inexplicable. A fascinating, very readable book, filled with deeply satisfying quotations from the perpetrators themselves and their publicists. Lively and fascinating account of current forgetfulness."

-Chronicles

"George Watson has been re-reading this literature as a professional literary critic, with strong interests in both political affairs and the history of ideas. Many of his findings are astonishing."

-Antony Flew, The Freeman

"The merits of Watson's book are its brevity, its admonition to socialists ignorant of what has been done in the name of their creed, and a few discoveries."

-The Review of English Studies

AmateurEditor (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Freeman article is available here. The Freeman is a long running political rag aimed at the general public and I'd esteem it as much, as for example, similar non-scholarly political monthlies that have a fair bit more red on their cover (at my reference date there was an amusing "fatal error" on their About page). The Freeman Review is a relatively academically contentless piece aimed at the general book buying public, rather than an academic review. Flew appears to be dead at the moment (he's not appearing on Reading University's website as staff). Flew's disciplinary speciality was not history. I'm honestly not going to bother to track down what appears to be local newspapers (Salisbury Review, "Chronicles" with no adjectives). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrible review by Flew. "Watson concludes that “it is becoming ever more probable that it was not just the idea of genocide that the Nazis owed to Marx and the Marxists, but its detailed practice too, not excluding camps and gas chambers" is allowed to stand. That from a man whose own country (mine too) invented the concentration camp. Flew, although eminent certainly is speaking outside his subject (philosophy, atheism and logic), and the freeman is not an RS for this kind of thing. As an academic I would not bother with it. As an encyclopaedian? Still no.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Book blurbs are in general notoriously unreliable, and cannot be used to verify anything about a book's reception. I am myself a book critic (of fiction) in a mainstream Norwegian newspaper, and see quotes from my reviews on book covers all the time. No matter how critical I am of a book, they always manage to twist something out of context so it sounds good. For instance, this review, one of the most sarcastic and critical I've written, is quoted by the publishers as saying "...a nice little story about the rules of cricket and immigration." (That sentence isn't even in the review.) The general problem is documented in this article - still in Norwegian, but there is little reason to think the situation is better in the UK. --Anderssl (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I will comment further when I have read the Grant review for myself, but if these blurbs turn out to be invented that would be a serious problem. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying they ARE invented, just that book blurbs alone are not very reliable. It is true that Grant's review is quite damning, but it doesn't appear to be a total dismissal. My take on this is that Watson is worthy of mention here, but should not be given undue weight - meaning, he should probably be given less attention than Gray and Valentino, unlike what is the case in the current version of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I now have access the the Grant review in full. Unfortunately, I have not so far been able to located digital or hard copies of the other three reviews. Here is an extended excerpt:

"In their amorality, cruelty, violence, tyranny, and ruthless utilitarian indifference to human life, the Nazis showed themselves apt pupils of their Communist rivals and mentors. Watson cites the Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess's admiration for the Soviet gulag, which the Nazis had been privileged to observe during their two-year alliance with the USSR. However, in a chapter entitled 'Marx and the Holocaust', all this is substantially, and ultimately, laid at Marx's door. It is true that Marx's historical relativism, like the parallel, 'biologistic' ethics of Nietzsche, did much eventually to lift the normal constraints upon such political measures; but did Marx ever call for genocide in the sense of the actual, literal killing of unwanted or inconvenient populations?

"Watson's evidence seems dubious. He reminds us, salutarily, that even as late as the 1930s 'advanced' thinkers such as Shaw, Wells, and Beatrice Webb (all of them also keen imperialists and eugenicists) were defending, and even advocating, the mass starvation or the (more 'humane') gassing of entire races and peoples, to say nothing of the physically or mentally 'unfit'. (Incidentally, that repulsively glib, sinister maxim, 'You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs' is here attributed to Beatrice Webb; doubtless correctly, but it would be useful to have chapter and verse.)

"But the case is not so clear-cut with Marx and Engels. To be sure, they were imperialists and, it seems, racists too, believing in the historic mission, and privilege, of 'advanced' nations. 'Germany takes Schleswig with the right of civilization over barbarism, of progress against stability', wrote Engels in 1848 (a statement attributed to Marx on the cover, but to Engels in the text). And Marx (or Engels) wrote also that 'dying nationalities', such as the Czechs and Poles, ought to accept 'the physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbours'.

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

Watson does show where they did. A quote from page 77: "The proletariat may have no fatherland, as Lenin said. But there were still, in Marx's view, races that would have to be exterminated. That is a view he published in January-February 1849 in an article by Engels called "The Hungarian Struggle" in Marx's journal Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and the point was recalled by socialists down to the rise of Hitler."[13] It's actually quite explicit in the 1849 article. After reading it, it really is "hard to deny that this was an outright call for genocide." I recommend everyone read it for themselves. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is clear-cut on either side, but it's also not our job to referee in a disagreement between Grant and Watson - that would be OR. Either way, the "nowhere shows that they did" claim disappeared in my cleanup before. --Anderssl (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're drawing a poor comparison, and it speaks poorly that you used Grant above to support Watson's Reliability without reading the review. You are conflating genocide as the cultural assimilation with genocide as the mass killing; this kind of conflation is tendential reading: something to leave to the sources themselves, Watson to conduct, and Grant to savage him for. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have read the review, and the relevant portion of Watson's book, and the Engels article (several times, very carefully). I really don't want to get into this again, as I have explained very thoroughly why the genocide advocated in the Engels article is not cultural assimilation here (ctrl+f AmateurEditor). Please read that thread if you want my explanation. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not a diff, and the link doesn't point to an argument. What you want to hold personally is fine; but Grant specifically bashes Watson for not citing that it was physical extermination, and if you wish to edit on the basis of your reading of Watson, I will wish to edit based on my reading of Watson being an insane old boy. This is why we use RS and NPOV and characterise from RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I was merely responding on the talk page to Grant's claim about Watson not citing evidence, not proposing to change what is currently in the article. The thread I linked to ranged over several days, so a diff might not be the best way to show it. I have copied the relevant portion to this page so it can be more easily read, if you're still interested. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it (as in, I cannot make the connection between the quotes about the perishing of the nation, and the physical liquidation of the constituent members of that nation); but thanks for the link. I think those two para are appropriate now. I also agree with below about UNDUE; but this should be through expansion of other topics in the section, not contraction (I think it would be harder to characterise Watson / Grant in any less space). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleaned up the paragraph with Grant's review a little - more neutral language, and more accurate representation of his review. Probably both this paragraph and the one about Watson's book should be shortened more, to avoid giving Watson's views undue weight - any improvements welcome. --Anderssl (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that more space should be given to Gray and Valentino than Watson. I hope the balance will come from the Gray and Valentino sections filling out, rather than reducing the text explaining Watson's position, as it is a short paragraph of four sentences. The Grant criticisms are nearly as long. If it's necessary to reduce article space for undue weight issues in the short term another option might be to note in a sentence that Grant takes issue with Watson's conclusions and move Grant's quotes to the footnotes, so that we do not have to delete any information, but I will not do it myself without a consensus. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree partly, let's leave it as it is for now though, and see how it fits in when more material has been added about the other sources. --Anderssl (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the publisher has provided me with pdf copies of the three reviews blurbed on their website which are not available online (from Contemporary Review, The Salisbury Review, and Chronicles). I have verified that the blurbs taken from these three are accurate and representative of the positive nature of the reviews. I can provide them to anyone who is interested. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Salisbury Review and Chronicles are not objective sources. Perhaps you could briefly summarize what the Contemporary Review said, who wrote the piece and whether it was a book review. The passage quoted says: "A stimulating book and if it sparks genuine debate, it will have done much good." The Four Deuces (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can reproduce the Contemporary Review book review in its entirety (the other two are much longer):

"The author, Fellow in English in St. John's College, Cambridge, begins his book by arguing that 'The literature of socialism is lost in the sense that it is unread.' His aim is 'to open doors to a new debate by studying revolution, class and race through largely forgotten texts' in the years after the 1840s. He argues that socialism in its heyday 'above everything a claim to virtue,' a sacred cow whose milk was so pure it needed no pasteurisation. A close examination of what socialists actually wrote shows that they sometimes advocated genocide and frequently opposed those things which would later be called their creations (like the NHS in Britain). This is a stimulating book and if it sparks genuine debate, especially among the weak-minded, it will have done much good.

On the same page are similar length book reviews of The First John Murray and the Late Eighteenth-Century London Book Trade With a Checklist of his Publications by William Zachs, Mr George Jones, President: A Fairy Tale by John Retallack, and 1066: The Year of the Three Battles by Frank McLynn. They continue from the previous page and continue through the end of the page I have. The name of the reviewer is not mentioned. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW the reference to Hoess seems exaggerated. The review says:

In their amorality, cruelty, violence, tyranny, and ruthless utilitarian indifference to human life, the Nazis showed themselves apt pupils of their Communist rivals and mentors. Watson cites the Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess's admiration for the Soviet gulag, which the Nazis had been privileged to observe during their two-year alliance with the USSR.

Hoess actually wrote:

The Kommandants received extensive composite reports from the Gestapo about the Soviet concentration camps. Escaped prisoners had made reports about the conditions and organization of these camps down to the smallest detail. They emphasized that by using forced labor methods the Soviets were annihilating entire nationalities. For example if the inmates of one camp were used up during the building of a canal, they just shipped thousands of new kulaks or other political prisoners who, after a time, died the same way. At the time I wondered if the reports were meant to slowly prepare the Kommandants for their new tasks, or whether they were being used to desensitize them against the deteriorating conditions which were slowly growing in the camps.[14]

He did not say anything about admiration of the gulags, did not even use the term, and does not claim that the Nazis observed the gulags.

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be an exaggeration/misreading on the part of Grant in his review, rather than by Watson in his book. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(I have replied in a new section below.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic and literary analyses

the section in its current form doesn't belong to Wikiedia pr. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Since the section clearly reflects someones original research on 'Academic and literary analyses' and it is an essay that's defined by the chapter, it would need to go in the long run. Meanwhile, whoever has put it together, please improve/rename and rewrite the section, make it encyclopedic by sticking to facts available in any relevant WP:RS's. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Without this section, the entire article is SYN, as it merely notes different instances of untowards behaviour without having a conceptual frame work. Lemkin's genocide, Valentino's mass-killing, concepts of democide etc, are the only things providing this article with a notability beyond SYN. Perhaps you didn't see the agree'd basis of moving forward with this article lying in multi-society analyses, rather than a list or miscellinary of events. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read what WP:SYN means: "A and B joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position". There is nothing like that in the article, there is no "conclusion C" anywhere. At the time when there are more than enough sources out there that tie the events together. And onlything needed in this case is WP:VERIFY.
The section under discussion however needs a rewrite, in current state it pretends to be an original "Academic analyses on the subject" and wikipedia is not a place to publish such analyses. Which doesn't mean that many authors cited in the section shouldnt be used to give an overwiev to a reader how is the subject studied, (and or desmissed as a legiment subect) by different scholars. The bottom line The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples etc.--Termer (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Termer, Yyou're arguing a contradiction: that grouping scholarly opinions is synth, but your grouping together, without academic analytical support, of every single violent death under Soviet rule as inherently "communist", is not (your method also breaks WP:NPOV and WP:POVFORK). Fifelfoo is correct - without the RS analyses grouping things together, there are no criteria for inclusion that do not constitute an attempt to content fork. If you think wikipedia should not include reporting of academic syntheses, then you've got a lot to do across the whole encyclopaedia. As for citing WP:NOTGUIDE (which doesn't apply here, as the article is not putting out questions for the reader to answer) it suggests you've got things a little round the wrong way. You seem to be searching through policy to find things to support what you want to do, rather than consider policy and ask yourself what you should be doing. There are other avenues to have your own research published, you know. (Do it your way, and this article will just get deleted.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now the proper content for this article is anything that has to do with "Mass killings under Communist regimes." It is not synthesis to include an example of mass killing under the Soviet Union, or any other individual Communist regime. Some editors want to include a provision that everything included here must support the idea that there is some sort of commonality between these mass killings (other than simply happening during Communist regimes). I don't see any reason under Wikipedia rules that that condition can be imposed. It is certainly not WP:SYN, quite the opposite. Imposing such a condition would be imposing a certain POV. Not allowed. Smallbones (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, you say that "Some editors want to include a provision that everything included here must support the idea that there is some sort of commonality between these mass killings (other than simply happening during Communist regimes). I don't see any reason under Wikipedia rules that that condition can be imposed.". I am one of those editors. The basic rule applying here is WP:POVFORK, which forbids the creation of several articles on the same topic. There are already articles on the historical details in each country. If you don't like those articles' content, then go and edit them, rather than re-create them here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No. From the guideline "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." There's nothing in this article meant to highlight positive or negative viewpoints. Bring in all the documented viewpoints that you want. This article is not even a content fork. There is no single article covering Mass killings under Communist regimes other than this one. You might say it is a compilation of subjects covered by other articles, but that is not considered a content fork. The proper content for this article is anything that has to do with "Mass killings under Communist regimes." Anything different from this would be to impose one POV on the article. Smallbones (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For Fifelfoo - Black Book link

Knock yourself out: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3398379/Black-Book-of-Communism VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Thanks" ;). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I loathe and detest the traditions and low quality of French public scholarship. The introduction at least has been interrogated. It does not speak into any academic discourse of Communist causes of mass killing in general, unless we're going to accept the Catholic anti-liberal reactionary historiography going back to the French Revolution as commenting specifically on 20th century Communism in a meaningfully academic way. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is some of the most disturbingly poor scholarship in conducting a review of a field of literature I have ever read. Just because its Reliable Source, and of the Highest Kind (according to our standards in History, and FAs), doesn't mean the source is academically any good, or well written for that matter. I'll be posting a summary of the Blackbook's theories of causation soon. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Courtois establishes a corrupted cradle theory: that bolshevism perverted the communist movement. ⁽⁷²⁷⁾ He proceeds to elucidate two general reasons for barbarity: Russian exceptionalism and the War Experience; neither, as he observes, "explain the Bolsheviks' propensity for extreme violence." ^(727-735). Courtois retreats from analysis and conducts a moralism of Lenin claiming simply that power was Lenin's aim and his ideology was fundamentally voluntarist, and universally totalising both intellectually and in social conflict. ^(727-741) Ultimately, Courtois' conclusion falls into the error he accuses Trotsky and Lenin of, "a strong tendency to develop general conclusions based on the Russian experience, which in any case was often exaggerated in [Trotsky's] interpretations." ⁽⁷⁴²⁾ Courtois treatment of East Asian communism is cursory, and follows his corrupted cradle thesis, drawing no distinction between Vietnamese re-education structures and Kampuchean mass killings, and does not address other communist societies or parties.⁽⁷⁴⁸⁾ Courtois acknowledges but dismisses this deficiency in his theory, "a linkage can always be traced to the pattern elaborated in Moscow in November 1917." ⁽⁷⁵⁴⁾

While totally within the RS guidelines for Wikipedia, and meeting FA & History project best practice, I dearly hope I never have to read another Courtois paper on history every again. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost Literature of Socialism as a source - continued

Here is an example of why books like The lost literature of socialism are unreliable sources. Below are shown respectively passages from the primary source, Valentino Watson's book and the book review in the Contemporary Review:

(Hoess) The Kommandants received extensive composite reports from the Gestapo about the Soviet concentration camps. Escaped prisoners had made reports about the conditions and organization of these camps down to the smallest detail. They emphasized that by using forced labor methods the Soviets were annihilating entire nationalities. For example if the inmates of one camp were used up during the building of a canal, they just shipped thousands of new kulaks or other political prisoners who, after a time, died the same way. At the time I wondered if the reports were meant to slowly prepare the Kommandants for their new tasks, or whether they were being used to desensitize them against the deteriorating conditions which were slowly growing in the camps.[15]

(ValentinoWatson) Awaiting execution in 1947 in a Polish prison, Rudolph Hoess composed his memoirs, and in Commandant of Auschwitz he recalled how even at the height of the Nazi_Soviet war of 1941-5 his Nazi colleagues had respected the Soviet example of an exterminatory programme based on forced labour. The Nazis had known that programme in 1939-41 as Soviet allies, if not earlier, and after their attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941 they grew more impressed than ever by the sheer scale of its camp system, in evidence gathered mainly from escapees: so much so that Nazi camp commandants were sent detailed reports, Hoess recalled, admiring above all the Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through forced labour:

If, for example in building a canal, the inmates of a camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.

The reference is tanatlisingly thin, but the Soviet example was evidently felt to inspire, even to justify, as a precedent, what Hoess at Auschwitz did.

Since 1945, however, little has been heard of the Nazi debt to the Soviet camps....

That revelation makes it easier to realise that the totalitarian idea knowingly grew from a common source, attracted (often enough) the same thinkers, and exchanged ideas and even techniques, both as allies and as opponents in war. Anti-semitism is one aspect of a far wider issue here - the issue of genocide, or killing by category. Its move from Left to Right in France... has been well charted....[16]

(Contemporary Review) In their amorality, cruelty, violence, tyranny, and ruthless utilitarian indifference to human life, the Nazis showed themselves apt pupils of their Communist rivals and mentors. Watson cites the Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess's admiration for the Soviet gulag, which the Nazis had been privileged to observe during their two-year alliance with the USSR.

ValentinoWatson clearly writes like a conspiracy theorist, embellishing upon Hoess's writing. And while Hoess' account is known for its detailed accuracy, he would have had no way of knowing if the Gestapo, who were not known for honesty, were telling him the truth. The book review makes no attempt to check Valentino's book for accuracy.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lost Literature of Socialism has been vetted at WP:RSN and has been found to be written by an academic (was it Cambridge or Oxford) writing in his own field, i.e. an exemplary reliable source (in Wikipedia's terminology). You don't have to accept it as reliable for your own uses, but for Wikipedia's uses it should be included, and cannot be excluded just because you don't like it.

As far as Valentino, see his webpage at Dartmouth. [17] Ph.D at MIT, Associate Prof at Dartmouth, book published by Cornell University Press (another forthcoming from Princeton University Press). You cannot exclude such a scholarly source simply because you don't like it. Get over it. Smallbones (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect that it was vetted. There was very little input. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

TFD, in criticizing Valentino's scholarly writing you are essentially doing original research. If you want to pursue this, you should try to have your criticism published in an appropriate channel for academic publishing. Or, you can look for that kind of criticism which has already been published, and work for its inclusion here. --Anderssl (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the point is that Valentino Watson should have his criticism published in an appropriate channel for academic publishing. This is no [academic] kind of criticism which has already been published, because academics do not review non-academic fringe theories. Therefore neither I nor anyone else could have my criticism published in an appropriate channel for academic publishing, Furthermore, the whole point of using reliable sources in the first place is so that we do not have to do original research. We can rely on published academic writing that has been peer reviewed. Articles about 911 truth, faked moon landings, ancient astronauts and Kennedy conspiracy theories do not get criticized in academic publications either. Anyway the passages are there for anyone to read. No reasonable person would have formed the conclusions that Valentino did based on his sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see Valentino's book is published by Cornell University Press: [18]. Are you saying this is not "an appropriate channel for academic publishing"??? On what grounds? --Anderssl (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::I had not been aware that it was also published by Cornell. However, it still does not expose his theories to review by other academics, so we have no way of knowing how reliable his facts are and how credible his theories are. Note that the book featured on the front cover of their Fall Catalog is Counter Culture an illustrated book by a former waitress about America's diners.[19][20] So it seems they publish more than just academic textbooks, collections of peer-reviewed articles and books by academics about their field of expertise. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Right - a former waitress which now has an MA and is "an award-winning visual artist". What is your point, that Cornell publishes books about the arts and is therefore not a good academic publisher? When looking for arguments to explain why the press of an ivy league university does not count as an appropriate channel for scholarship, try to ask yourself whether it is possible that you are so hell-bent on winning this argument that you have forgotten to be open to the possibility that you may be wrong about some things, if not all.

Apart from that, when taking a closer look at your "dialogue" above I noticed that your reviewer was talking about Watson, not Valentino, so you probably have just mixed up the authors. However, Watson, as you know (because it's in the article we're discussing), has actually been reviewed. In a journal published by Oxford Journals. I hope that counts as an appropriate channel? --Anderssl (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. ...

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

If anybody wants to remove material published in academic presses based upon WP:RS, please take it to WP:RSN. But leave it in this article until you get a definitive response from regulars there that you can remove the material. Smallbones (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referring to Watson. Anyway, read his source and his conclusions and see that there is no rational connection, which is why he published the book as a popular polemic rather than as an academic work. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wherever Watson is citing Hoess, he says so in the sentence. It would be nice if every sentence had an endnote. But to dismiss him as writing like a conspiracy theorist is ridiculous, and I think you're smart enough to know that. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying is that Watson must have had another source that he does not mention, although the editors of Contemporary Review seem to have thought he got the information from Hoess. It seems a major omission for the chapter in a book about Lost literature that no reference is made to any other literature supporting his position. Rudolph Hoess knew more about the camps than anyone, gave a reliable account, and would have known if he was imitating the Russians and he never mentioned admiration for them. In any case this shows the problem of relying on popular books. There are problems in sources provided and interpretation of the text, and no peer review to point out errors. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You say "no reference is made" in the chapter to anything supporting his position in that sentence, but unless you have a full copy of the book, you can't know that, as several pages are not included in the Google Books preview. For example, pages 88-89. Page 90 begins "...and suggestive, and they point not just to Soviet collaboration in genocide with their Nazi allies but, still more chillingly, towards a practical Nazi debt to Soviet techniques of extermination, including gas chambers." I would at least want to know the content of page 89 before making such a blanket statement as "no reference is made to any other literature supporting his position." Also, perhaps you read it too quickly, but Watson does not attribute admiration for the Soviet camps to Hoess. It is attributed to the reports Hoess received. I'm sure you can understand how a book reviewer might make a similar mistake. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There was peer review, the review in an English lit journal. The review was not favourable. And that was a review conducted by a lit crit, rather than a historian. If Watson were alive, he should be ashamed. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The review wasn't as bad as you let on. The biggest criticism, that Watson nowhere shows that Marx and Engels advocated genocide (defined as "killing by category" by Watson) I addressed in the earlier talk page section. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On Valentino and sources

Below is what I posted in response to specific sources over at the AfD. The arguments were about deleting the article but some of the issues apply to the sources being discussed here so I include it below for discussion:

• Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801472733.

Does not argue for this category nor does he discuss a preexisting academic debate over "communist mass killings." He uses the title but does not define them nor indicate how a mass killing differs from other mass killings by being "communist." In fact, one of your own sources, the conference paper you link, admits as much -- it doesn't disagree with Valentino as you assert, and it doesn't treat "communist mass killing" as an idea being debated in scholarship -- quite the opposite, in fact: it takes Valentino to task for using a category ("communist" mass killing) that is inconsistent with his own arguments and that therefore invalidates his conclusion. The authors of this paper never study "communist mass killing" and they do not debate the question of whether such a thing exists; they are taking Valentino to task for sloppy scholarship, and his use of that category is one example of how he is sloppy. This is no more notable or encyclopedic than any other scholarly errors a random scholar makes.

• Kiernan, Ben (2007). Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300100983. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XR91bs70jukC.

I don't see any evidence that Kiernan studies a category of mass killings referred to as "communist mass killings." You appear to be claiming that because he mentions several examples cited in the article he is endorsing the concept? That begs the very question that remains to be proved.

• "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing:The Effect of War, Regime Type, and Economic Deprivation on Democide and Politicide, 1949-1987". International Studies Association. March 2005. http://hei.unige.ch/sections/sp/agenda/colloquium/Wayman_TagoJPR0903.pdf.

See above, this is the source you claim argues with Valentino and treats his category as legit but in fact they dismiss his category summarily and they don't bother to discuss it; they simply use it as an example of his poor scholarship.

• Chirot, Daniel; McCauley, Clark R. (2006). Why not kill them all?: the logic and prevention of mass political murder. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691092966. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZqabSztRd_sC&pg=PA19

I don't understand this one. The page you link to discusses the "four main motives" for "mass political murder" but never mentions communist mass murder. The motives have nothing to do with communism in fact -- convenience, revenge, fear of pollution, and we never get the fourth in the preview you link. Nothing about "communist mass killing" here.

• Gray, John (1990). "Totalitarianism, reform and civil society". in Ellen Frankel Paul. Totalitarianism at the crossroads. Transaction Publisher.

I don't see any evidence that Gray argues for a theory of "communist mass killing," though all we have is the one quote in the article from a third party. But what we really need here is not just one source that argues thus but some kind of evidence that this is part of an ongoing scholarly debate on a particular issue or topic. That simply is not the case here. You cite these articles as proof that this is not just "a random collection of anti-communist diatribes" but that is not what the issue is. It's not that they are diatribes; it's that there is no group of academics actually studying this concept in a visible way.

So I posted the above as an argument for deletion; I still think the article should be deleted but if we are to make it acceptable for Wikipedia we need sources that establish that this concept discussed in the article is actually discussed in some RS material, preferably academic as it is clearly framed that way. We need to do better than these sources. If the defenders cannot show that these sources actually give academic notability to the concept this article is about (or even define it clearly!), they should not be used here (regardless of "reliability"). csloat (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two questions that must be ask about any source: is it reliable and is it relevant. I believe that all the above sources are reliable except for Valentino Watson (for reasons discussed above). Whether they are relevant is another question. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi csloat. Thanks for pasting your material. Sadly, AFDs operate in a heated interpersonal mode, and (hopefully) this talk page operates less so. Perhaps editing out the accusative "you"s might help? I'm an editor here who believes the article should probably be deleted, but that it should have a little bit (4 weeks from the end of the AFD sounds okay) period to actually substantiate that a category exists which is specifically applied to Communists / Communism / "Communist" governments, per Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#A_summary_of_the_consensus_editorial_direction.2C_and_warning_about_content_lying_outside_of_that_consensus. Valentino's scholarship is adequate, except for his production and formation of categories which is, to be blunt, juvenile. The Black Book is a fucking mess (though from appearances their chapter on the Soviets seems decent, haven't read the lot). I still have to read the bloody conclusion of the Black Book... but I'm not holding out much hope there. Outside of worthless polemic, the other main tendency would be the Democide mob, of whom Valentino is an example (if modified). The issue is, broadly, that the article should be sent to AFD in the best possible state it can be in, or with committed editors from the article recommending an AFD as a group. Given the poor quality of scholarship on cross-cultural causes of abhorrent state behaviour in Communism labelling the causes as specifically Communist; this is the direction I have felt the article has always been heading. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's our role to evaluate sources independently of the RS view of them - which is what you appear to be doing, fifelfoo. While I've seen criticism of Valentino, there's nothing I've seen that calls it "juvenile", and I've seen praise, and it's cited a hell of a lot. That you don't like the democide "mob" is irrelevant; do RS authors see them as a "mob" (or whatever encyclopaedic language that translates to)? I agree that some of the sources that have been quoted here (Watson is the best example) struggle to qualify as RS, but you have to remember to step back and set your own opinion aside. We don't take sides, we do our best to represent the field (and with Watson, he's given undue weight). I agree that achieving a decent article is difficult because of the nature of the sources, but that's more to do with how much they talk directly to each other. What does need honest investigation is the number of RS sources on individual countries that explicitly reject or accept any connection (and the question seems - unsurprisingly - to come up in the forewords rather often. Forewords usually being less blocked on google books). That, I think is a potential weakpoint for this article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reread what I've said. I'll actually stick by Valentino's formation of categories being juvenile. (His category of Communist killings is a subbranch without an analytical discriminator from the general type.) Democide seems to be the best place to investigate next, as is the forewords as you note. Of course, there's a difference between scholarly and non-scholarly introductions, and some introductions (Blackbook) are such a mess in terms of analysis that they don't adequately state their thesis. I was seriously surprised to find that the Black book's thesis rested on catholicism, but there you go. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'll go on a little bit: that Valentino's analysis is juvenile, doesn't make it any less encyclopedic for wikipedia. It is light years ahead of Watson, even though its less on point than Watson. But Watson's scholarship (as noted above) is so tenuous as to make him border on Fringe, and IMHO, be well over the edge into vanity, self and fringe. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your personal textual analysis is, it does not invalidate a reliable source. Watson has been vetted at WP:RSN and found to be a reliable academic source.

From WP:RS "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. ...

• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

If anybody wants to remove material published in academic presses based upon WP:RS, please take it to WP:RSN. But leave it in this article until you get a definitive response from regulars there that you can remove the material. There's no need to discuss this any further, whatever your personal textual analyses are. Reliable sources - as defined by Wikipedia - are allowed. Smallbones (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not their reliability. It's that they are being used to synthesize original research. The quotes do not show what their advocates claim, as demonstrated above pretty conclusively. csloat (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, csloat, what you seem to be not understanding is that you have spent a whole bunch of time offering your own personal opinion on facts. You have read books and interpreted them. Fantastic. That is the foundation of independent thought. However, that is not what Wikipedia is about - here, we show what other books state. Now if, for example, in a book entitled "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century" you cannot find any evidence of genocide, please do not put an article up for deletion. Just ask, and I will help you. Don't just tag this article. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Horlo. You appear to be the one misunderstanding. I am not "interpreting books"; I am showing that the books don't actually say what the Wikipedia editors advocating them wish they said. This is a very different issue. csloat (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On a point of fact, Sloat has not put this article up for deletion. He believes it should be deleted, which is a different matter. The objection is that there is simply not a coherent body of RS identifying communism as a causal factor in the mass killings. (I and others disagree, believing that people should be given time to re-write the article, arguing that there at least is a prima facie possibility of an NPOV, non-synth article on this topic.) One chapter isn't enough to establish a topic by itself as notable, which is why we're gathering more sources, and seeing if they can be put together without breaking WP:synth.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is correct Vsevolod -- and if you can show this without synthesizing original research I will feel much less uncomfortable about this article. I think you will have plenty of time to rewrite this article as it's not likely to go up for deletion again so quickly. csloat (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

csloat is not offering personal opinion but examining all the sources to see whether any of them are relevant to this article. Also to examine what they actually say. This article exists because an argument was made that there are reliable sources supporting a theory that Communist ideology dictates mass killings. The alternative view is that there is no notable theory, and mass killings of people in countries under Communist rule are better explained by conditions specific to those countries. Eastern European countries after all had poor human rights records both before and after Communism. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fugheddaboudit - nobody gets to remove reliable sources just because they don't fit in with their personal theories. The proper subject matter for this article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes" and anything that fits under that heading fits in this article, whether it fits in with your personal theories or not. Anybody who wants to delete the article is best advised to leave it alone, and not obstruct the writing of the article. After a several repetitions, AfDs, name changes, request for mergers, etc. etc. just become harassment. Please just leave the serious writers alone. Smallbones (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But reliable sources must fit in with the subject of the article and not be inserted just because they fit in with editors' personal theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones you should probably read this informative piece of writing. csloat (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, the title does not over-ride issues of WP:POVFORK - which includes unintentional content forks. Titles are not the only arbiter of content, and the last AfD clearly showed there are concerns about forking, and that the article is synth without RS analyses to bind it together. Secdonly, while disruptive editing is unwelcome, voting for delete does not disqualify someone from trying to improve the article. (The proper reaction to the AfD by all sides is either stay away or improve the article.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's get agreement on avoiding forks

I think that while the sections explaining briefly how many deaths there were in each instance are of course necessary, we should avoid going into too much detail; instead the hatnote links to the main articles can deal with that.

In other words, enough information to support the paragraphs on academic analyses, and no more. If there is good material beyond that, it can always be put in the main articles.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So no info on Stalin's Labour Work Camps. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think so in this article. If you want to add material, you could look at Gulag.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since editing this article is a waste of time, sourced facts simply get boldly removed, like one of the key factors about the article: the killing of an estimated 60-100 million, or even up to 110 million people by the communist regimes, see Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century p. 91, Cornell University Press, 2005. The only option left is just keep citing the sources on the talk page in hopes that some day some reason is going to return to editing of this article. This time I leave citations from page 72

The most deadly mass killings in history have resulted from the effort to transform society according to communist doctrine

and a table on Communist Mass killings in the Twentieth Century on page 75.

Location, Dates	Description	Deaths
Soviet Union (1917-23)	Russian Civil War and Red Terror	250,000-2,500,000
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (1927-45)	Collectivization, Great Terror, occupation/communization of Baltic states and Poland	10,000,000-20,000,000
China (1949-72)	Land reform, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, and other political purges	10,000,000-46,000,000
Cambodia (1975-79)	Collectivization and political, ethnic repressions	1,000,000-2,000,000

--Termer (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why all the deaths in a civil war should be attributed to one side (and which RS does this)? Can you give sources as to why bad economic policy is equated with deliberate persecution? Can we take away all the people who didn't die under communism because of universal health care (that's a fairly hefty number too, if you compare infant mortality rates with your typical capitalist countries at the same income level without such provision) and improved longevity rates, which were comparatively high for countries at a similar GDP level (something discussed in studies of the impact of health care and reduced income inequality)? This article is not about the overall impact of communism on population mortality rates. That is why I removed your bald statement of the number of deaths in the lede because it comes from a certain POV that blames everything bad on communism and calls it killing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is not to explain anything but cite what do the sources say on the subject -in this case Communist mass killings. And I don't see how is the removal of sourced facts from wkipedia by you justified by any means.--Termer (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to the chart. WHAT?! You cannot seriously count what the Wehrmacht did as Stalin's fault. Nor can you count what the "Allies" did to the Russian Empire, i.e. attempted to dismember Russia and kick it some more while it was down, as Lenin's fault. That is just absurd. You have 1921-1941 (until the USSR was invaded) and from May 9th, 1945 to 1989. That's it. Don't even try to argue that getting invaded by Hitler was Stalin's fault, when Neville Chamberlain did everything in his power to help Hitler out. He practically gave Hitler Czeckoslovakia and a path to Eastern Europe. Nor can you count the Russian Revolution as Lenin's fault. Revolution isn't the fault of an ideology, it is the fault of the previous government. And your China numbers, are, well very screwed up. You cannot use authors who can tell the difference between 10 million and 40 million? I mean it's not that complicated. In terms of Campuchea, don't forget that it was the Communist Government of Vietnam that the US tried to crush with Agent Orange, that put a stop to Campuchea's reign of terror. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, what's going on here?

Hello,

The first section, entitled "Academic and literary analyses" begins with the sentence "Mass killing is defined by Valentino as "the intentional killing of a significant number of the members of any group of noncombatants (as the group and its membership are defined by the perpetrator)"!. What does this have to do with communism? What does this have to do with academic analyses of killings under the guise of communism?

This is not a philosophical debate - no establishment of terms is necessary. Everybody knows what mass murder means, what murder by the state means. What this section is supposed to provide is an expose of academic analyses of communist mass murders.

I suggest that the pattern laid out in the lead: soviet union, communist China, and Cambodia under the khmer rouge be followed in this section as well. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not original research. And this article is not a miscillany. The agreed basis for moving forward with this article is here. The basis of moving forward is academic RS theories which attribute mass killings to fundamental causes within Communism, or specific Communist tendencies being more than one state. The remainder of the article is illustrative. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, that's why there is a whole lot of stuff written about OR and WP. Perhaps you are not aware with the fundamental ideas of Communism.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, this could be interesting; do tell, what are the fundamental ideas of Communism? Are you aware that a fundamental idea of Communism, Community Property, is a concept under US Law? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings does not have the same definition as mass murder. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Genocide

Since some editors are confused: Genocide refers to mass killings of a single race, with the intent to wipe that race from the face of the Earth. This article is not just wrong, but is an insult to everyone who survived real genocide, in Cambodia, and from Hitler's hands. According to the logic of certain editors here, Hurricane Katrina committed "Genocide" against those living in New Orleans. When you redefine terms, you alter history. When one alters history to fit his or her POV, one must realize that the same will be done to his or her ideas, because what goes around, comes around. So to repeat - Genocide is the intent to wipe one race from the face of the Earth, carried out by brute force. Stalin didn't intend to wipe out Ukrainians; even the crazy scholars argue that he was only going after Ukrainian Nationalists, and I doubt there's much proof to that as the direct cause, as the "genocide" coincided with a severe famine. Similar with Mao. The sad thing, is that articles like this are exactly the reason the Internet is banned in China, and the Chinese can justify it. Genocide doesn't apply to political groups, or political parties. It applies to "genes" or things that average people cannot alter. Nor is Nationalism the same as Patriotism. But if you want to keep this article, I propose we make another article: Capitalist Genocide of Africans. Or perhaps that one thing the British did in India, the Raj or something. Keep this article open, and you'll be opening a Pandora's box. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia is built out of Reliable Secondary Sources. If you'd care to read the review article on Lemkin, who coined the term, you'll observe just how slippery and open to definitional warfare it is for the experts. Part of this article (in fact, the primary part) is the scholarly argument over definitions. Lemkin, after he had deceitfully inveighed upon the Soviet aligned block to accept his convention on the basis that it could not be used to attack the Soviet Union, proceeded to sell his convention to national groups in exile in the United States on the basis that it could be used to attack the Soviet Union. That's if the article can be sustained at all. Which I am still unconvinced of. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The term genocide is not the dominant term used in this article, because its definition is actually problematic; it's not only used to mean the physical destruction of an ethnic group. See Raphael_Lemkin#Post-War for an example of the various uses "genocide" can be put (quite a few people have followed Lemkin in that tradition of broadening the concept of genocide). The holodomor question is not entirely bogus, at least not in wikipedia terms. That is, there are people with due opinion who do consider it to have been a deliberate act, although as far as I can see they are a minority amongst specialists in the area. (And the term genocide in some people's hands could be used to apply to the holodomor as a deliberate attempt to remove mass numbers of nationalist Ukrainians). However, I'd favour not giving it undue weight here because of the reluctance of most historians to include it in the comparative category of mass killings. It was a horrible event, but that doesn't mean we have to go on about it at length in every article where it merits a mention.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Communist genocide redirects to this article, it needs to make it clear to the reader what is the meaning of the term.--Termer (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Broadening any term will lead to propaganda. For instance when I say Genocide, I think of WWII and Nazis. However, in their attempt to broaden the term, a New York Times Blog called $150 million caused by marauders, in property damage "ethnic cleansing, a form of genocide". http://topics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/ethnic-cleansing-in-south-ossetia/ HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Edited to just be giving an example. I wanted to elaborate, but I guess I can't do that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Remove the "Red Terror" Section

The title of the article is "Mass Killings under Communist Regimes". Can someone explain to me, how something can be a mass killing under Communist Regime, if there's a Revolution?! You do realize that during a Revolutionary War, there is no regime in charge. That villages and cities switch hands so many times, that it is impossible to ascertain who committed the Terror? The whole point of the Red Terror, and I don't care how many books are written on this topic, is to scare little kids into believing that Communism was inherently evil. No ideology is inherently evil. Who controlled Chukotka during the "Red Terror"? See you don't know. Neither do I. It's impossible to ascertain.

Furthermore, during a Revolutionary War, both sides try to blame each other for atrocities, real or imagined. The Whites were much more literate then the Reds, a product of the Tsarist Regime which boasted a whopping nine percent literacy rate. As such, there are going to be more documents, real or imagined, left of the Red Terror, then of the White Terror. Now here's the kicker: today the descendants of the Reds and the Whites, have made friendships with each other, and have even intermarried. Most accounts of the Red or White Terror are exaggerated for propaganda purposes. So while the kids of the people who, allegedly, brutalized each other live in harmony, certain "scholars" use their parents' actions, which were impossible to ascertain with accuracy, for their very own propaganda needs. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This kind of argument is inappropriate for a tertiary source such as Wikipedia, whose task is to describe current secondary sources. Take your argument to a peer reviewed journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, HistoricWarrior007, your points are well noted. Please note, however, that this article does not really focus on the revolution per se, but actual systemic killings by communist regimes.

So, please do remove sections about the actual revolutions, because that is not the focus of the article. This article is about things like the Holodomor, where millions of Ukrainian lives were simply snuffed out.

However, please make sure that A) everything you add to this article has been written not by you, but in a reliable source; B) you do not focus attention on any one theatre of communist influence; C) you DO mention include things which were not directly part of the revolution. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)