Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

SYNTH tag

Can someone clearly identify where and what the SYNTH is here that warrants an article level tag, otherwise I will remove the article level tag in the next 24 hours. Per WP:TAGGING "'Tags' should be used to clearly identify problems with Wikipedia pages to indicate to other editors that improvements are needed." --Nug (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If you can't contribute in any meaningful manner then you are just a part of the problem you describe here. --Nug (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

And by the same logic, if you agree with what I wrote there (else why quote it?), so are you. As should be self-evident from this facile (or troll-like) attempt to erase any acknowledgement that the recent AfD concluded with synthesis being cited explicitly as grounds for deletion by a great number of participants. The article is riddled with synthesis from start to finish. This talk page, and its history, is likewise riddled with attempts by participants to synthesise mutually-acceptable content. The recent 'dispute resolution' efforts were likewise built around trying to synthesise a mutually-agreed article to project a single unified understanding of whatever the vague and disputed terms 'mass killings' and 'communism' are supposed to mean. As always, the attempt failed. As it will again here, as long as people keep insisting that Wikipedia can decide for itself how to label, and structure, a complex and diverse discourse within academia (and beyond) where almost none of the terms of reference are agreed, and a great number of participants see no useful purpose in engaging in grandiose generalisations at all. The article is built entirely around the principle that Wikipedia can synthesise a single narrative out of multiple sources which (when they aren't engaging in political polemic) agree over almost nothing at all. It stinks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you that as a Wikipedia reader I want to discover the same things as you want to discover when reading this article. There is certainly a lot of noise on this talk page and one of the problems is that discussions always go off tangent before we can focus on a resolution some specific issue. With respect to the AfD, an admin recently said: "Based on that AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) the question primarily raised was not about NPOV, but about synthesis of the topic ("there are communist regimes", and "there are mass killings", but the combination was put into question of whether that was synthesis by editors. My quick scan of the AFD shows that there appears to be no synthesis involved since there were plenty of sources to point out that the intersection of the topics have been discussed by social science academics, but the writing approach to our article probably needs some work."[1] So on that basis I'm proceeding with this thread. --Nug (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Since when does 'an admin' (one who's opinion you presumably share, else you wouldn't quote it) get to decide such things? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Shrug, admins generally have a better understanding of policy as demonstrated by their respective RfA, so their opinions carry some weight. As I mentioned, one of the problems here is the noise and discussions being derailed, if you can't stay focused then please stop. --Nug (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

At least for me, this is SYNTH on the basis that the article is supposed to be fully factual due to its premise (The lead paragraph + the title indicates that the article is entirely fact-focused), but in reality - this article is comprised of gossip, debates and opinions. This fabricates a narrative that none of the sources advanced, that the sources themselves are to be taken objectively, and this is partly my issue with Davide and Paul who really want to add more scholarly sources because it does not and will not fix the central problem of the article, that being those sources being mistaken for statements of fact. This is something I had made mention of several times, but stated this much with different wording each time. You may check the archives. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should note, however, that whatever that reason may be to the addition of the tag, I do not believe you can remove it "just because". I think this may at least require consensus regardless. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that is more a structural issue, right? Am I right in interpreting your stance that issue of synthesis doesn't lay with the intersection of the two facts "there are communist regimes", and "there are mass killings" because that intersection has been discussed by social science academics? If you could in-line tag those statements that are mistaken for statements of fact, that would be really helpful. --Nug (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Which of the points in WP:WTRMT do you think are met here? As far as I can see none of those reasons for removal apply to this tag except maybe 9, but in that case that would be grounds for article deletion. (Also points 2, 3 and 4 of WP:WNTRMT are clearly met as well.) BSMRD (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

We can't read your mind, tagging is pointless without the associated talk page discussion. Maybe section level or in-line tags are more appropriate, who knows if you don't tell us. So please list the issues in point form so that other editors can address them. --Nug (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The AfD summarized it thusly: "The principal argument for deletion is that the article collects together incidents of mass killing by communist regimes that reliable sources normally treat individually, not together under the umbrella of 'communist mass killings'. Wikipedia editors are not permitted to 'synthesize' disparate bodies of information in this way, because it is considered original research that violates our commitment to verifiability and a neutral point of view."

The counter-argument was summarized as this: "The principal argument for keeping the article is that the topic meets the 'general notability guideline', our basic criteria for including a topic in Wikipedia as a standalone article. They contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight."

Bottom line: "To the extent there were substantive attempts to engage between the two sides, the discussion centered on whether the references given in support of the article actually represented a significant, mainstream view in reliable sources, or were 'cherry-picked' examples from a non-significant, 'fringe' minority. A subsidiary debate concerned whether the sources presented were correctly interpreted. In our analysis, these questions represent the core of the dispute, and are critical to deciding whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, we can find no consensus on them, and consider it unlikely that further discussion in this forum will produce one."

In short, whose reading of sources is 'correct.' This could be easily determined if we follow Siebert's source analysis proposal. Davide King (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And how is that comment related to keeping the SYNTH tag? I think main problem here is that people derail discussions by placing comments irrelevant to the subject of the thread. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Nug that the label should be removed unless someone can provide a specific example of WP:SYN on the page. It seems that some participants do not understand our policies. The synthesis is very frequent in RS, but it is fine to include such synthesis on the page for as long as this is not a synthesis by wikipedians. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• It is very relevant because WP:NOR (including WP:SYNTH) is interlinked with WP:NPOV. As noted by TFD, "to remove editor synthesis, you need to identify those sources [which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight]." No matter your personal thoughts about it, The Black Book is not a good counter-example per what Siebert wrote below, namely that "[it] cannot be a foundation for this article, because that source is highly controversial [as confirmed at RSN and its own article]. You cannot use it as a main source per NPOV." In the post you just replied to, I provided examples of SYNTH, and Aquillion and others also said the article's structure (A and C) are OR/SYNTH precisely because the synthesis is done by us, and many sources are synthesized or misrepresented. That you disagree with this analysis does not entail removal of the tag, especially when several users have provided examples, that you decided to ignore for no good reason other than thinking the article is perfectly fine, and support it. Davide King (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, it seems you want to question the closing statement made by the admins panel after the last AfD. The panel clearly articulated what the synthesis consists in, according to proponents of the article's deletion, and there is no indication that this argument was successfully addressed by proponents of keeping the article. Since no significant changes have been made to the article after the AfD, there is no reason to expect the synthesis problem has gone. Therefore, I find your question disruptive.

I can outline a condition that may allow us to conclude that the fundamental problem with SYNTH has been resolved. This condition is as follows:

• At least one RS must be presented that defines ALL events discussed in this article as "mass killings under Communism" (or variations thereof), AND discuss them separately from other mass killings. In other words, it must discuss ALL mass killings that are listed in this article, and it must clearly separate them from other mass killings.
• This source must be a core source for this article.
• This source must be notable and represent a majority POV (otherwise we get a POV fork)
• This source cannot be Rummel (because the article will be a POV-fork of Democide)
• This source cannot be Courtois (because the article will become a POV-fork of The Black Book of Communism)
• This source cannot be Valentino: Valentino does not include Afghanistan, Angola, WWII killings in the USSR and some other cases.
• This source cannot be Bellamy, because it discusses atrocities perpetrated by two opposing camps during the Cold war, and the volume about Communist states does not cover the topic fully.
• This source cannot be Harff, Semelin, Mann or other genocide scholars: they do not discuss "Communist politicide" as a separate topic, and Mann does not link Communism with mass killings, his "classicide" refers to Cambodian genocide and some smaller events in China and Soviet Russia (such as Great Purge).

I believe I explained the reason why the tag must stay. I expect you will not return to that issue until some significant changes will be made to the article, or until some new source will be identified (which is highly unlikely).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"At least one RS must be presented that defines ALL events discussed in this article as "mass killings under Communism" (or variations thereof), AND discuss them separately from other mass killings." Is this a constraint that is applied to the rest of wikipedia or only a rule we came up with for the special universe which this particular article inhabits? Selective application of arbitrary constraints upon articles is Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it territory. AShalhoub (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• And that is incorrect understanding of WP:SYNTH. No, one does not need a single source that covers everything on the page. One only needs every piece of content (for example, something for country X) to be sourced, meaning several RS explicitly describing/defining an event as a mass killing under a communist regime. And no, of course one can use Rummel and especially Courtois. One can use same RS on multiple pages. That does not mean creating a POV fork. And no, a source should not necessarily describe the subject of a page as a separate topic or chapter. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• That is, in fact, very SYNTHY. It would be like creating similar articles about capitalism, colonialism, liberalism, and fascism by using works about Nazi Germany and country experts, who are not writing within the context of mass killings under capitalism, colonialism, or fascism, but about mass killings in Nazi Germany and each individual country, with the only connection being that they were nominally capitalist, colonial, or fascist, which is as weak as a connection about Indo-European languages, European geography, or Christian religion. Aquillion and others also gave very valid reasons in the RfC about the article's structure for why it is OR/SYNTH, so I have to agree with Siebert that this thread is disruptive. The primary reason why the article was not deleted is not because our arguments were not convincing enough but that the ratio was too strong in favour of 'Keep', which is an unfortunate and bad reason not to delete. Davide King (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Paul, please don’t spin the Admin’s panel conclusion in the AfD. The Admin panel only paraphrased the delete proponents’ case of synthesis, it didn’t endorse that argument. If it had endorsed it because the keep proponents failed to address the delete proponents’ arguments of SYNTH, as you suggest, then the article would have been deleted per reason 6 in WP:DEL-REASON. But it wasn’t deleted, because the deleted proponents failed to convince the Admin panel that synthesis is the issue.

Your conditions are contrived. I doubt any book exists that defines ALL aspects mentioned in the article World War II. But assuming one existed, say Beevor, the next argument would be then say it:

• This source cannot be Beevor (because the article will become a POV-fork of The Second World War (book)).

And then we could go through all the other sources cited for World War II and dismiss them in the same fashion:

• This source cannot be Roskill, his source The War at Sea 1939–1945 doesn’t include the air war
• This source cannot be Glantz, his sources doesn't include the Pacific War
• Etc,

Hence you could argue almost any article is a synthesis of multiple sources with that kind of logic, and any article not synthesis by your criteria would then need to be deleted as a copyright violation! —Nug (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In their closing comments, the administrator said the keepers "contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight." Therefore, to remove editor synthesis, you need to identify those sources and use them.

And no, good articles do not contain editor synthesis. They report what reliable sources say in accordance with the weight those facts and opinions have in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, I can accept your arguments about Coirtois. Other examples do not work.

Beevor never proposed any specific concept of WWII: in his book, WWII is defined in the same way as in books by Churchill, Overy and many other authors. All those authors implicitly or explicitly agree that WWII was a conflict between the Axis and the Allies, which started at 1st of September, 1939 and ended at 2nd of September 1945, and which involved some concrete belligerents, etc. In contrast, Rummel proposed a concept of "democide", which is not universally accepted. The same can be said about Valentino and others: each author discuss different categories of deaths, they provide different explanations, different figures, and group the events differently. And, importantly, whereas when Beevor or Glantz write about Eastern Front, they always keep in mind that EF was just one theatre of WWII, and the discussion of EF is placed into a bigger context (WWII). In contrast, most authors who write about, e.g. Great Chinese famine do not put it into a context of "Communist mass killings". In other words, your example (WWII) perfectly demonstrates that this article is a blatant SYNTH. Even the concept "victims of Communism" is vague and depends of political views of each concrete authors. The same can be said about "genocide", "mass killings", "politicide", etc, and about a degree and a nature of their linkage with Communism. You have NO sources that adequately define the topic as it is described in this article, and that is why this article is SYNTH. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

But even if we accept Courtois, he cannot be a foundation for this article, because that source is highly controversial. You cannot use it as a main source per NPOV. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What is acceptable about Courtois to us? ~ cygnis insignis 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtois combines all excess deaths under Communist rule into a single category and draws a linkage between them and Communism. He definitely sets the topic, so, formally speaking, Nug is right, and there is no synthesis here.

However, if we look at the examples provided in WP:SYNTH, we can see that by adding other sources (Mann, Valentino, Wheatcroft, Werth, and many others) to this article, we engage in an improper editorial synthesis, because we imply that those authors implicitly support the views expressed by Courtois. That is not true: some authors (e.g. Werth) openly disagree with Courtois, other authors describe his views as very controversial and provocative, and other authors ignore him.

Therefore, the improper editorial synthesis is still present in the article, and that is the problem of the article as a whole, so the tag must stay. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My position on npov reckons that accords with devolving the page title to a redirect to that work, the Black Book, based on factual content critiquing the Courtois pamphlet that wrapped around those disgruntled contributors and provoked the controversy in French literature, or credible rejoinders to those like Courtois (or Tombs) that are "running with the wolves". ~ cygnis insignis 17:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

24 hours is what: 23:38, 17 January 2022 minus 13:56, 18 January 2022. How long is that until the preordained removal of the offense to common decency? ~ cygnis insignis 13:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I checked with a reliable source and they said "about ten hours now", but it was a while ago and might need updating while we watch this happen. ~ cygnis insignis 17:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I backdated the tag, this was previously reverted by someone who later said they weren't bothered and @Nug: without an edit summary, because heroes don't need 'em. ~ cygnis insignis 17:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand why you are doing this. This explicitly states that the article had synth issues SINCE 2009, but the tag was removed a long time ago as that problem seemed to have been solved. The issue was later reintroduced in 2021, and then the tag was added ensuing the AfD due to the reintroduction of synth back into the article. Does this really matter to you this much that the tag is backdated? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You, and you too, are well advised not to personalise discussions. If a revision satisfied synth concerns then present it. ~ cygnis insignis 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The tag was removed, it was gone for a while. Again, I do not grasp why you wanna backdate the tag because the synth issue today is not the same as it was a decade ago. This is a misuse of a heading tag. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, you are formally right (the tag was removed many years ago, then the article was fully protected, and after that I added the tag, which was later remived again, under a pretext that the talk page discussion became dormant). However, the synthesis issue is essentially the same as in 2009, and it had never been resolved since then.

We have much more serious topics for a discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the generalized SYNTH argument made in the AfD, but consider this: why is Tiananmen Square included yet Uyghur genocide is not? I propose this as a thought experiment for those that have actually read the sources, and not for talk page discussion here or inclusion in the article (which in my opinion trivializes these episodes). WP:SYNTH is narrow in it's definition and examples, and WP:SYNTHNOT especially WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH would lead to a conclusion that the article is tagged incorrectly. Consider the quote in that section: "In many cases, the distinction between original research and synthesis of published work will require thoughtful editorial judgment." along with the tortured discussions of sources above in which a call for a WP:BESTSOURCES approach falls on deaf ears. Is there a tag that says there is no SYNTH, but we lack thoughtful editorial judgment that would be a good replacement? fiveby(zero) 17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: The AfD argument was not well written, and your disagreement is understandable. This article is SYNTH because it takes one or few sources that make some general claim (about a linkage between Communism and mass killings), and then selectively cites other sources that either disagree with that claim or totally ignore it, and combine these sources in such a way that an impression is created that the linkage between Communism and mass killings is supported by most sources cited in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:, will try and differentiate the different SYNTH arguments that i think have been put forward:

1. The article can not discuss Communism and mass killing because there are no sources or only fringe sources which do so. The differing nature of the regimes and episodes discussed make the article invalid.
2. Because of Rummel, who said something along the lines of "totalitarianism subsumes all other causes" the article should not combine with such sources and Valentino and Mann, who disagree to a greater or lesser extent yet still make observations concerning Communism and mass killings.
3. Because of Courtois and/or the VoC narrative the article should not combine with sources not part of that narrative, supporting or criticizing.
4. I think restating the two above, the article requires "core source(s)" which define the scope and source selection. Since the genocide works may only be partially concerned with the topic and the observations as to Communism not the core of their arguments, then by default the core must be Rummel/Courtois.
5. As you have described above, selective citation, incomplete presentation or misrepresentation of sources.

I am sure that list could be expanded or clarified, it's just a list and not trying to frame your arguments. #1 is the most prevalent argument on this talkpage and during the AfD, but detracts from and lessens the more nuanced arguments. #4 i see and am sympathetic to the underlying problem. In my mind it goes to a rearrangement of sources, considering multiple articles and deciding on the best or a workable presentation of "all the significant views". But the AfD has mostly precluded such a solution. From some of your comments above i would say you think the RfC result will lead to a better shaking out of the content. Maybe it will, maybe some editors will be encouraged to look at content in other articles. But there is no Rummel/Courtois, that is SYNTH as much as anything. What i see resulting is some monstrous hybridization of Communist Studies#Controversy and VoC with a different definition of "Victim". An article which gives free reign to the most extreme voices and lets some editors engage in the capitalism vs. socialism arguments they are here for. Please don't take that as describing your intentions but just guessing as to what the content would look like.

As to #5, yes, of course. But i think that is outside the narrowness of WP:SYNTH and that WP:BESTSOURCES and "editorial judgment" are a far better framing of that problem. The AfD panel recommended continued dispute resolution along with source analysis. Neither are happening, look likely to happen, or look likely to succeed if attempted. To the extent you see any viable solution that does not have a major change in scope, but may include an extensive rewrite i would like to support.

Basically i think it preposterous to think that an iterative community driven process can generate content at this level. But part of WP is refining that process as you go, so maybe it will work. Anyway good luck. fiveby(zero) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The 30,000' view of proponents advocating keeping the tag seems to be that the article is inherently synthesis, including impossible-to-meet standards for showing that it is not so or impossible to meet standards for resolving the stated issue. That would be something to be / have been considered at the AFD, and the article was kept, with further specific to come from the RFC. Tags are for realistic improvement of the article, not to paint an eternal scarlet letter on it's mere existence. If it's shown to be the former, I'd keep the tag, if it's not, I'd say remove the tag. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

North8000, First, the article was not KEPT: it was concluded that there is no consensus about its deletion. There is a big difference between keeping an article (which implies everything is pretty much ok with it), and not achieving a consensus about its deletion (which implies the article has some severe problems).

Second, what " impossible-to-meet standards" do you mean? Can you name some other article that does not violate NOR and that cites no generally accepted non-controversial source defining the topic? Nug attempted to give such an example (WWII), but he just proved my point: it is quite easy to find many good and non-controversial sources that summarize what is "WWII", and other source seem to implicitly or explicitly support that summary. Can anybody provide similar sources for MKuCR? During last 8 years, this article was edited by proponents of the MKuCR views, and they faced no serious opposition. Despite that, they failed to find any source that meets these quite clear criteria, which directly follow from our core content policies. Actually, I myself tried to find such sources, but my search usually yielded the same set of sources (Rummel, Courtois, etc) that are always cited here. Keeping in mind that I am very good in finding sources (that is a part of my professional skills), my inability to find peer-reviewed sources (or their equivalents) that would define the topic of this article strongly suggests that no such sources exist. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right in pointing out that for my description of the AFD result I should have used the word "not deleted" instead of "kept" but that would not have changed my point. On the rest of your response, I think that you are confirming my point rather than refuting it. If you will forgive my overly brief selective paraphrasing, IMHO the essence of your argument is "sources can't be found to allow / justify the existence of this article" leaving AFD as the only choice, but we just went through that. To refute my point you would need to make the case that the stated problem is really/realistically fixable, not that it is unnfixable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You de facto imply I was not fully sincere when I claimed I was "neutral" regarding the option A-D of the ongoing RfC. Please, AFG: if I believed the article could not exist, I would not have initiated this RfC (remember, it was me who started this process, and who participated in writing the RfC questions).

Your paraphasing it is too selective and too brief, so my main idea almost disappeared from it. My idea was: "sources can't be found to allow / justify the existence of this article in this form and with this structure, therefore, significant changes must be made to fix this problem." Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: If you would take my comments at face value, you would see that I did not say anything about intentions, nor is there anything to make one think I intended or implied that. My post was just asserting what the inevitable (even if unintended) logical conclusion of what such an assertion would be. North8000 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Unfortunately, printed texts do not transmit emotions. Of course, my "please, AGF" was just a sarcasm.

Speaking seriously, by taking my words out of context you unintentionally misinterpreted them. I reiterate: there is a big difference between the statement "sources can't be found to allow / justify the existence of this article" and "sources can't be found to allow / justify the current structure of this article". The second statement, which nobody has been able to refute, does not imply the article cannot exist, and it was the rationale for placing of the SYNTH template into the article. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The keep argument was "that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight." If that is correct, then it should be possible to write an article without synthesis. The problem I see is that the sources do not exist. TFD (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A shorter version of my response to Paul above. I believe that you are in essence arguing for the deletion of the article. So where does that lead to? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The simple answer to that is that the article needs to reach a state where it has, broadly, consensus that it accurately reflects the sources without synthesis. Many editors, yes, do not believe it is possible, and therefore think should be deleted; other editors think it is possible, or even that it already reflects the sources without synthesis. But neither side in that dispute has sufficiently prevailed to the point where they can claim a consensus. Therefore, for now, the article remains in this state - it exists, but tagged to indicate the ongoing dispute over synthesis and neutrality. These are not necessarily eternal scarlet letters; if you want to remove them, all you need to do is figure out a way to address the underlying disputes, either by changing the article in a way that convinces sufficient people, or by making strong enough arguments to convince them or to sway the closer of an RFC, or by holding an RFC for the purpose of calling in outside voices if you feel the people here are hopelessly deadlocked or too intransigent to reach a compromise. But up until now none of those things have worked and the dispute remains unresolved, so obviously the tags will stay - and arguing "well, you failed to delete it, so how are these tags meant to be resolved?" isn't going to change that. It isn't enough to just have deadlocked discussions and let the article languish in a state with no clear consensuses on key points - something needs to push us to keep trying to find a solution (and hopefully continue to attract voices who can add new ideas and opinions that point towards a solution.) The tags are part of that. --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion, you are entirely correct. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion:The first 80% of your post is of course a correct statement about everything related to the tags. My post was more along the lines of pragmatic questioning of it's purpose. Your last 20% provided an answer to that which I overlooked when focusing on just arguments which seem only lead to AFD. And that is to take step back, presume that there is a way, and then the tag provides the push towards a solution. North8000 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This dispute is not worth our time. It is very obvious that the RfC result means a significant rewrite of the article anyway, and that's obviously going to come with a reexamination of sources. If we all wanted to be productive, we would just move ahead with implementing the RfC result (starting by identifying the major sources around which the article will be rebuilt), but something tells me that some of us will not agree what the result of the RfC is until the RfC is closed, and if that's the case, we wait. Levivich 21:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Should I open the inevitable 'the RfC result doesn't actually apply because reasons' thread now, just to save time? I'm sure there will be one, complete with rehashes of every argument we've already seen for keeping this POV essay in article space, exactly as it is (or with added synthesis, just for kicks...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you really think these expressions of WP:BADFAITH really help? --Nug (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that a little introspection from you, after reading the guideline you have just linked, might. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: that is unkindest personalised comment I have seen on this page. ~ cygnis insignis 15:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, I do agree but it is telling in that how can we even work together to rewrite it? I am concerned if we can actually do engage in a rewrite, as I expect never-ending edit warring, and we still have the one-revert rule. In such a case, I would suggest to either avoid editing the article, or more preferably reducing it to a stub for the time being (though I am sure this is going to be edit-warred over, so I am not sure), and do the rewrite at the sandbox or creating a draft. We are also going argue about what exactly the structure should look like, and have different understanding: should B be discuss genocide scholars' views, be about what Ghodsee, Neumayer, and Torpey, maybe both? There is also the issue that some users are unaware of that what those scholars say is the real notable topic or that they believe in it. Davide King (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King: I would go (1) scope -> (2) major sources -> (3) table of contents -> (4) section-by-section. The RFC determines #1. #2 is done in the sense that the sources have already been identified (on the source subpage) and it'll be a matter of identifying which of those matches the scope determined in #1. #3 would be the first big change to the article, and #4 will undoubtedly involve some significant changes to each section. I'm not sure stubbifying would work here for the reasons you mentioned, but I also don't think developing a sandbox-replacement will work, either. I would almost rather get to #3, and then "stubbify" each section if needed, before expanding it back out. Levivich 17:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If I might gently interject, I don't think step (2) will produce any progress. The haggling over which source is good and which is not will eat up the rest of the year, easily. I think instead progress would best be made if we proceed directly to proposing alternate ledes based on the outcome of the current RfC, and then after a period of discussion (hopefully) settle on one via a new RfC. I believe this sort of slow, narrow, point-by-point, RfC-sealed campaign is the only way lasting changes will come to this article. 2601:5CE:8100:6940:3091:8F0E:4310:38E7 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree on the IP, especially when there is so much distance between some users and lack of understanding about sources. You are free to participate, and if you create an account, you may be help to contibute to improve the articles and in general. Davide King (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

SYNTH tag date

I've reverted User:cygnis insignis's disruptive change of the SYNTH tag date to 2009 [2],[3],[4],[5]. There were no SYNTH issues after 2009, as evidenced by the subsequent 2010 AfD resulting in a keep: "This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia.". --Nug (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What an utterly juvenile thing to argue over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, disruptive behaviour is juvenile. --Nug (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Then stop engaging in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have evidence, or should I take this as a PA? --Nug (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have evidence. This thread. I suggested that arguing over the date of the syth tag was juvenile. You agreed with me. After engaging in said argument yourself, by (a) edit-warring over the date, and (b) starting this thread, to argue about it further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, the tag was originally dated September 2021, back dating it to 2009 is misleading and WP:POINTy. --Nug (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Backdating tags in this way is disruptive, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:POINTY, and pretty much unheard of on Wikipedia. If anyone doubts that, please see WP:CIR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact a tag did not exist or that the article was kept does not mean there was no synthesis. If there was no synthesis then, but there is now, then Nug could tell us where the synthesis crept in. Also, the outcome for 2009 should have been no consensus based on the discussion. We could of course ask for a reconsideration at AfD Review, but I think it would be a waste of time for a trivial debate. TFD (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading from left to right, tip to toe, it bothers me that a hat note indicates a concern on the topic as synth that apparently only emerged recently. I assume that is also why those who prefer all the preliminary disclaimers be removed would also be opposed to revealing that discussion of another forking of atrocities to a preferred version as another list of 'killed by communism' has been going on that long. I've requested a non-synth revision before the thread was widowed by this section, although my scepticism on rationales earlier removals of the tag is based on a conclusion it was always pointy and ought to be deleted; my bias is reinforced when I kick over stones in the sources and see fascists, apologists and fellow travellers commemorated as 'victims of communism'. Hurt and wounded by responses to my contributions here, I cheered myself up by viewing the VoCommunism Memorial Foundation's gallery of posters and comic book covers celebrating 100 years of Dissent. They are arguably cv, but inclusion in commons:Category:Victims of communism is notable by virtue of their presentation there. ~ cygnis insignis 12:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If the article had synthesis since 2009, it would be grounds for speedy delete per WP:WTRMT point 9. If so, why did no one of you suggest the article to be removed on the basis that it is unfixable? The AfD would have concluded with the article's deletion. And while we are at it, why not backdate the POV tag too, clearly the article had POV issues back in 2009. This is seriously silly Cygnis, and I still fail to understand why you are doing this.

Let's be fair here, if the article still had issues from as far back as 2009, then neither Paul, Davide, nor anyone else would have stated this much: We should revert the article back to the start of 2021 when none of the issues it has right now are present. I remember that very well, it was said in around September of last year. Nobody would have suggested to revert the article back to a certain point if the article always had, or had longstanding synthesis issues. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Link the revision that we all remember so well. ~ cygnis insignis 14:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I only came to this article in 2020, and going back to 2009, it still had SYNTH issues and should have been deleted after there were three consecutive 'No consensus' results, which should have been seen as presaging the mess we are in, especially when the article was first created by a banned or sockpuppet user in an attempt to troll. The fact that this article has been kept despite all this is beyond me. Anyway, I thought the date of the tag was to updated to highlight that today the issue has not yet been solved, rather than when it was first stated; certainly, if the current dating is used to argue the article did not have the SYNTH issues back then, it should be disregarded. By the way, I think Siebert explained well the current SYNTH issue here, so I hope this question does not come up again and again. Davide King (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Davide, this was posted in 2022, and I had read the comment already. This goes in line with my prior statement that the sources are treated as statements of fact because of the premise of the article which is inherently synth. What I ponder is how was this article synth in 2017, 2014, 2012, etc - because our friend Cygnis here thinks this article suffers from synth since 2009 instead of the given 2021 date. To me the 2009 synth and 2021 are different, and unrelated and was solved once around 2010, therefore, the synth issue was reintroduced in 2021. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I checked the 2009 year version of the article, and I can confirm that the core neutrality issue was already present in that version. The NPOV violation can be summarized as follows: (i) all mass killings were considered as significantly linked with Communism and Communist ideology, (ii) an existence of some common terminology, or at least of some serious attempts to develop it was stressed, (iii) majority of country-specific sources are either ignored, or their views are understated, because the structure of the article creates an apparent hierarchy.

It is easy to demonstrate that this core neutrality violation never disappeared from the article (in contrast to the POV tag). Therefore, although you are right from the point of view of our policy's letter, your opponent is right from the point of view of the policy's spirit. It seems you guys have more important topics to discuss. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The thing is that Communist genocide was essentially deleted and Mass killings under communist regimes was its rewrite, hence why the tag may have been removed after it was kept in 2010 ("This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia" sounds more the closure's personal opinion than a neutral consensus close); however, the SYNTH issue (NPOV has always been the bigger one, and it has never been just SYNTH; the fact it has had both NPOV and SYNTH issues just makes the whole thing worse) remained, and you do need to consider that the article was essentially blocked from editing due to a few years. If you go through the years, you will see that the SYNTH was always there, perhaps sometimes it was much more subtitle, but it was still there; so perhaps you are right that the SYNTH was there in 2009, resolved in 2010, and reintroduced in 2011, and even if you ignore 2012, 2014, and 2017 (just because there is not a tag, it does not mean the issue was actually solved or was not there anymore; again, the article was effectively blocked from editing, so it could not have been possible to fix it) — that is still almost ten years of SYNTH since 2011. That is why the AfD was a mess — if one had knew that this article was created by a banned user or sockpuppet, that it had NPOV and/or SYNTH issues since 2009, and that users repeatedly tried to fix it or find some consensus, perhaps it would have gone different.

• 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021a, 2021b.

In the end, I do agree with your statement that "the sources are treated as statements of fact because of the premise of the article which is inherently synth" but I do not understand why you think it was not SYNTH in some years; if I did understand you correctly that it is the premise of the article makes it inherently SYNTH, it has indeed been POV/SYNTH since 2009, as you can see the structure remained largely the same throughout all those years. Whether we put 2009 or 2021 as date is not relevant to me; however, if someone argue that the article has been SYNTH only since 2021, that is problematic because it goes way deeper than that, especially if someone thinks that the whole premise is SYNTH, as you reasonably argued. Davide King (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is less of a sourcing problem and more of a structural problem. The sources here also appear in other articles on Wikipedia, but here, and specifically here, they are controversial due to being given too much weight inadvertedly - this is true for every scholarly sources present here. This is why I had suggested to focus the article's content on tertiary sources because they make good fact-checkers, and more often than not, summarizes well the information about their topic of research. Changing the title to something like "Deaths under Communism" or "Discussions of democides within Communist regimes" would already partially solve the aforementioned issue because the reader would be expressly told that the information therein the article is opinionated. In that sense, yes this is an issue that plagued the article ever since it was titled "Mass killings under communist regimes", but I thought we were talking about the sources themselves here since this is emphasized in WP:SYNTH. The arguments being made on this talk page mostly consisted of Courtois this, Rummel that, although Courtois is still a considerably reliable source, in spite of the clear bias. Courtois is not the issue, it is the article's presentation that is the real problem and unless this is addressed which I believe can reasonably be addressed, the issue will persist even after we bleach the article of all controversial scholars and historians. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"although Courtois is still a considerably reliable source" … "Courtois is not the issue" … in the absence of replies to cited and damning critiques of that authority, what remains as encyclopaedic content beyond concretised memorialisation and anti-socialist propoganda? ~ cygnis insignis 18:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, TFD repeatedly pointed out that if such tertiary sources actually existed, there would be no issue. The only tertiary source about this topic is Karlsoon 2008, and is (1) dismissive of both Courtois and Rummel as controversial, and (2) heavily relies on country experts, whose usage has been dismissed by the other side as SYNTH. For the topic TFD, I, and other propose, there are actually sources that are also tertiary and that define the topic, like Ghodsee, Neumayer (a full book about it), Torpey, and others about the same topic but in line with NPOV. Davide King (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Karlsson 2008 is not "dismissive of both Courtois and Rummel as controversial", that is a misleading reading. Karlsson doesn't use the term "controversial" when describing Courtois or Rummel. What Karlsson is describing as controversial is the comparison of nazism and communism which a number of authors do, including Courtois (who is a former communist according to Karlsson). In respect to Rummel, the criticism here is in context of Rummel's identification of extreme intentionality in Mao, and that his number represent the higher end of estimates, but he is never described as "controversial". Beyond these details, Karlsson isn't dismissing that mass killing occurred under communist regimes. In regard to Karlsson's use of the term "crimes against humanity", he includes "mass killings" "the term ‘crimes against humanity’ constitutes a highly useful analytical tool. Firstly, it is a legal term that is well suited to describing the broad, multifaceted state terrorist activities that were carried out by the communist regimes that have formed the focus of this research review. These activities included the direct mass killings of politically undesirable elements, as well as forced deportations and forced labour, partly based on economic considerations, and affected collective groups that can be defined politically, socially, ethnically and religiously." So certainly Karlsson's research review shows that the topic of mass killings under communist regimes is certainly not SYNTH and that the Black Book of Communism, despite the notorious introduction, is a significant source "of the global criminal history of communism. In practice, the analysis covers communist crimes, terror regimes and histories of oppression on four continents, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, with the largest space given to the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia". --Nug (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is an excellent scholarly review by Karlsson, and exactly on the general subject of this page, even though he focus on the two most "charismatic" communist regimes, i.e. USSR and Cambodia (the later implemented some ideas of Trotsky). Karlsoon fairly discuss views not only by mainstream historians like authors of BBC (as you cited), but also views by revisionist historians like Getty. It can be used on the page, sure. But I should object to defining the Intro to BBC as "notorious". I would say the Intro is merely humanistic; the author just shows a compassion to victims of political represssion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well maybe my term "notorious" isn't the best description. The fuss surrounding Courtois' introduction to BBoC was about his comparison of communism with nazism, not that he grouped the repressions of communist regimes together into a single volume. Werth knew he was contributing to a book that collated all communist regime repressions into one volume, his objection was limited to Courtois' comparison of those repressions to nazism in the introduction. --Nug (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If obtaining tertiary sources is not possible due to their lackluster presense, it would still be constructive to address the elephant in the room - that being the article's name. Once the other RfC concludes and is implemented, then I am considering opening an RfC for the purpose of changing the article's name. Does that sound good? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds familiar, but good. The latest suggestion is Killed by communism, but my first preference, that could fork and widow this synth via verifiable content about VOCommunism propaganda, was smothered by new sections. ~ cygnis insignis 22:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, colleagues: I usually try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages, but this thread makes me want to file at Arbcom. This is by far the worst WP:Bludgeoning I've ever seen in three years, and I've seen a lot of it. How in the world is it possible that in a subthread about the date of a tag (not even the tag itself!), we are once again met with walls of text about fucking Courtois and Rummel et al.??? How could it possibly be relevant? Like how many times do we have to analyze the same. damn. sources?? Nobody has anything left to say about Courtois and Rummel and the others that hasn't been said before. For the love of God, shut up already. If you have posted on this page multiple times a day, every day, for the last month, please take a week off! </rant> Levivich 21:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You can't talk about synthesis without reference to authors, that's the very core of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". If we have a tertiary source that accepts mass killings, forced deportations and forced labour occurred under communist regimes as historical fact in it's analysis of the literature, like Karlsson's "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes", then there isn't any synthesis. Mention of Courtois and Rummel really is just a distraction from that. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Karlsson adopts a C approach to his survey, listing the all the events as well as discussing the analysis around the cause of those events. --Nug (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am just going to link to this. Also you complained that Karlsson 2008 does not have many citations, so ironically it just proves that C, and this article as currently structured, is not notable. Please, make up your mind about Karlsson 2008, and remember that you cannot use the citation argument anymore. Davide King (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This thread is about synthesis, ironically you jumping to the issue of notability (which is firmly established by other sources) proves that you implicitly agree Karlsson establishes that the structure of MKuCR is not synthesis. --Nug (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really. You said that same source was not notable ("What level of acceptance is there of the K & S review? I can't seem to find any other reliable source that actually cites it. For example, Valentino's work is cited by 73 others."), and if it is not notable, it is SYNTH to rely on it for your favoured structure; you also totally ignore the fact that, no matter how you think and see it, we are not actually following that structure in a neutral way, which is the bigger issue. Anyway, I agree with what Levivich wrote above, so I will try to disengage, and hope that they give you a more satisfying answer. Davide King (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I should note that the synth issue stems from the article's structure which insinuates that the sources are statements of fact, whereas it's mostly gossip à la "He says, she says". Other than Robert Tombs (Editorialism), and the Victims of Communism memorial (Non-RS), none of the sources cited here are unencyclopedic because all the sources presented are of equal strength - everyone here is either a scholar or a historian. In fact, most of these sources appear on other Wikipedia articles, in which nobody has attempted to get rid of them since those sources are WP:RS. The only other source I can think of that violates a Wikipedia guideline is the Black book of communism, and it violates WP:FRINGE specifically. The other issue is that a good encyclopedic article attempts to present as many viewpoints as possible as long as it is not undue, so removing all sources that are, and I quote from someone else "Anti-Socialist propaganda" will not make a good article either way, and the article could still be accused of POV-Pushing. I do not play favorites here, so unless a source is so bad that it violates a Wikipedia guideline I'll oppose its removal, I have done so for Watson which presently violates none of Wikipedia's guidelines. Ideally, an additional guideline should be added to this article to narrow down the scope and ensure everybody is in agreement with the content therein the article. For example, the guideline could be that only tertiary sources and sources cited by Karlsson are allowed to be used, no other source is allowed including those which are not controversial. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Karlsson cites the Black Book of Communism as an anthology in which "six leading historians come together with the ambition of providing a comprehensive analysis of the global criminal history of communism. In practice, the analysis covers communist crimes, terror regimes and histories of oppression on four continents, Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, with the largest space given to the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia.", and that Courtois made an "explicit link in the introduction of the book between its contents and Nazi criminal history". To clarify are you saying the whole book is fringe or just Courtois' introduction? --Nug (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely the introduction, as the figure of 110 million is contested by a majority of people, most particularly by other scholars and historians. I can see a few pages from the book being competently written enough for citation, but I would still be wary about it considering the introduction.

However, if a statement was cited by Karlsson, said statement would be a noncontroversial addition to the article since it was verified by multiple experts. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for your info, BBoC was discussed several times on WP:RSNB, most recently here [6]. The most recent consensus seem to be BBoC is an academic/scholarly RS, but to be used with attribution. As about the number of victims, sure, everyone provides different numbers, there is no scientific consensus here, and the numbers are counted differently. Some are much bigger, such as ones by Rummel. There is nothing so special about it. This does not discredit any sources that provide different numbers (they are usually "apples and oranges". My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I should not be giving you attention, but I'm gonna do it just this once to highlight how ridiculous your comment is: The link you provided above shows that the RSN leans toward unreliability, hence you made a point for not using the Black Book of Communism. Additionally, the fact that everyone provides different numbers is irrelevant to policy, 110 is by consensus exaggerated, and exclusively cited by Rummel, Courtois and a journalist who likely got the number from the book. The 70/15 million figures are closer to realistically be the numbers of deaths caused by Communism and agreed on by universally all experts, and this is not up to debate. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the consensus seems to be as I said, but there was no official closing, so anyone can argue whatever. And no, there is no academic consensus that the number in the book was exaggerated. Actually, if one looks at specific countries (like USSR), some sources provide similar estimates, others (even such as Guinness World Records) even much greater numbers. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The RFC on the Structure of the Article

In case anyone hasn't noticed, User:Legobot removed the RFC tag from the RFC, a little more than 36 hours ago, because the RFC was started a little more than 31 days ago and so has run for 30 days. This means that the RFC is ready for closure. I will post a request for closure. However, I think that the closure may have to be done by a panel again. I suggest that the wisest course of action is to defer any quarreling that may be changed by the result of the RFC. Unfortunately, it appears that a few editors would prefer to quarrel first, and then ask what you are quarreling about.

So I advise working on small things, such as copy-editing, until the RFC is closed, although I do not expect my advice to be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) User:GoodDay has already requested closure of the RFC. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have tabulated the !votes in the RFC and have listed the count in a note to the closer at the bottom of the RFC. I haven't assessed strength of arguments and am not planning to do so, so that I am not closing the RFC. I am trying to remain neutral for the next dispute that will probably arise over how to rework the article in accordance with the RFC, after it is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've extended the RFC in order to get clearer consensus. You should remove you comment here as it looks like an attempt to influence the closer. --Nug (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit. You have 'extended the RFC' because you don't like the way it went. Self-revert immediately, or I will do everything in my power to see you permanently topic-banned from this subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is disruptive to re-open the RfC, considering that at least 25 editors have participated. Also, attempting to influence the closer is the whole point of participating in an RfC. The request for close is still open. TFD (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they should self-revert, there has been no new comments and it will be up to arguments, so I see no reason to continue the agony and bludgeon the process to fix and improve the article. AndyTheGrump and Robert McClenon, I do not know what are the rules when the RfC expires and if there are exceptions, but they also edited their !comment after the RfC expired (for the record and transparency, I did the same here but mainly to note their change of mind — both can be discarded), and Volunteer Marek also !commented after the RfC expired and only for A. Should additional notes and/or new !comments after the RfC expired be discarded and ignored? I think so but I am not sure, you probably know better than I on this. Davide King (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WP:ANI. [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It should go to AE. This editor began his participation in order to push a point of view, conspired with similarly minded editors to pursue that objective, was blocked and reinstated based on an assurance that he would change. Arbcom blocked and reinstated him and wrote the discretionary sanctions. That sseem the appropriate forum. TFD (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

At this stage, taking it straight to ArbCom may be the most sensible option. There are broader conduct issues involved here than just Nug's behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

My Very Best Wishes changed their !comment on C long after the RfC expired and also edited Robert McClenon's post to reflect that, but it has to be seen whether their change of !comment after the RfC is valid and can be accepted, and even if it is, they had no right to edit their post, since they made it clear it was their own review and not a general one, in which it may have been more acceptable to do so. Davide King (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• 00:49, 23 January 2022 post by My Very Best Wishes

• So what you are saying is you purposely changed your !comment because you think being 11–9 rather than 10–10 means there will be consensus for C? I do not think it changes anything because the OP made it clear it is to be based on, and determined by, arguments. With all due respect but yours, which essentially amounts to "I like it" (claiming it is in the top 30% of best articles), has no relation to reality, the history of this article, and the longest-ever AfD. Davide King (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Everyone can vote or modify their comments in RfC for as long as it has not been closed. Yes, I frequently change my votes and comments in various discussions (not only here) after reading comments by other contributors because I may be wrong. But yes, I do believe this article is well written and very informative in the current state by WP standards. Yes, I think it belongs to to 30% of pages, absolutely. It does not matter if a page was a subject of disputes. It only matters if it is informative and objective enough, and it is good in these regards I honestly believe. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So it's one of the top 2 million pages? :-D Levivich 02:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is that important - for people who spent a lot of their time to improve the page. Why else they would be doing this? Same apply to all other pages. Of course most of these pages are not important at all - objectively speaking. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess there are a lot of different criteria for assessing the importance of an article. Certainly the AfD was the biggest ever. We have the pageview graph linked at the top of this page, is there somewhere where all the wikipedia pages are ranked? --Nug (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

At less than 2k views/day, it's not a popular page (though not totally dead). It did pop 45k/day when it got press coverage, and that's about what you'd get for an article on the main page (Zara Rutherford got 35k yesterday by comparison). Communism gets more than twice as many visitors, for another comparison. Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin gets less than 500. This talk page gets about 500 views/day. This is a relatively obscure article, but I guess about normal for where it is in the "tree of topics". Levivich 03:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I guess Zara Rutherford being in the recent news accounts for the spike. --Nug (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Option B - Has been adopted. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King:@Paul Siebert: MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish that the topic and structure were much more clear before the AfD because if we cannot even agree on the topic and on how to structure it, including among those who supported 'Keep', I do not know how we can get consensus on anything (we appear to agree there is something notable to it, and that is why it has been hard to get consensus to 'Delete', but we disagree on how to present it, and that is why AfDs were fruitless because they lacked such nuances about the topic and structure) or writing a NPOV article. Fortunately, the RfC found some rough consensus for once in a very long time. I am especially curious to hear Siebert's analysis like they did for the AfD.

There are various possibility:

• A: using the best scholarly sources that discuss the link (e.g. structure would be similar to Race and intelligence) — this will depend on source analysis
• B: discuss why the Right is 'obsessed' with it, the Holocaust trivialization implications, and explain the cause of victims of Communism and its memory politics
• C: amalgamation of A and B, as B is clearly relevant and we have a full book dedicated to the criminalization of communism and academic articles about the cause
• D: other

Davide King (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Davide, IMO your post is mostly introducing "B" as a topic. What not agreeing with the word "obsessed", I'd like to make a note on that general point, and also note it is a two-way street that it is. In real-work contests/conflicts, each side wants to maximize visibility and consciousness of the negatives aspects and events of the "other" side and the positive aspects and events of their own side. And in some venues which they think might be biased, they get more riled up if they think that the areas they want covered are being suppressed. This is just a universal simple fact, not a major area of study and content for each of the zillions of article topics where it comes into play.

I also don't think that treatment of race and intelligence is a good parallel. IMO this article is a much broader and more complex area. I'm mostly noting this now so that we don't ignore indirect effects, and don't tangent / narrow it. We're talking about communist regimes, and only indirectly or doubly indirectly about the the effects of communism. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, IMO the closer did an excellent job on the particular challenge which is fully dealing with the large complexity of this. Time to accept and utilize the result of the process and move forward. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• According to closing, Individual regimes should be mentioned only when used as evidence by specific sources. Yes, sure, no one ever objected to this. However, all countries currently included in this page are justified by multiple RS that mention them as examples. There is no WP:OR on the page - after so much of work and discussions. Does it mean that entire sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 must now be removed from the page? This is not at all clear. It would be better if someone frame an RfC more clearly, i.e. option X: "remove sections 5-8". In my view, that would be ridiculous: i.e. removing all factual materials/data and keeping only debates/speculations. Of course that could be fixed by creating a supplementary list of events that have been described in multiple RS as Mass killings under communist regimes. Would that contradict such closing? This is also hard to say because none of the options said anything directly about Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, MVBW, the RFC means sections 5-8 are not going to be remain like they are now. We're not going to list each communist regime and then what crimes they committed. We're going to talk about them in the context of the debate, when, as, and how, they are discussed by the sources. That's what the RFC decided. We're not going to have a second RFC about this, by the way. I understand you disagree with the result, but now the time for debating it has passed, a decision has been made, and next we're going to move forward with implementing that decision. Levivich 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"We're going to talk about them. OK. But who are "them"? We must define who they are per RS, exactly, and explain why. The current organization of the page simply follow organization in RS, such as BBoC. The RS specifically on such general debate? I did not see any academic books dedicated specifically to such strange subject. All of them are discussing historical facts at first. After removing sections 5-8 this page will indeed be ripe for an AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

BBoC is too old to be one of the best sources for this scope of this article. It's time to let go of that one :-) I know this article, as it is currently, follows BBoC. That's what's changing now. You're right, if there aren't enough sources about the new scope, then this article may need to be deleted. But I don't think that's the case; I think the consensus around B means that editors do see sources that support the B scope. We're going to try and implement that now. As to what sources specifically? That's the next step, see next section. Levivich 17:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Timing of the publications is irrelevant. For example, we are not going to dismiss works by Hannah Arendt. The only way to avoid WP:OR is to follow structural organization found in academic sources. If people can find any other academic RS on the general subject of political repressions under communist regimes, we can follow the organization of materials in such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an article about political repressions under communist regimes. Levivich 17:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I predict (can't say for certain, but predict) the lead of this article will read like when we're done, something like this: For many years, scholars have debated whether there is a connection between mass killings and Communist regimes. Most scholars believe [summary of the mainstream view]. Other scholars argue [summary of significant minority views]. Levivich 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Then, to avoid WP:OR you would need academic RS saying that for many years, scholars have debated whether there is a connection between mass killings and Communist regimes. From what I read, the history of this debate (if there was really such general debate) would be framed in RS differently. Just to clarify, the debate about what? There is no serious debate that mass killings (along with other political repressions) did happen as a matter of fact under nearly all communist regimes (as described in sections 5-8). The debates are about the causes (which are partly different for different countries), the connection with Communism ideology, and about the numbers of victims and how they should be counted. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

Since the rough consensus is to not do summary style for this page, then where does that leave the Crimes against humanity under communist regimes page? Should we restructure that article in a similar way to this one? X-Editor (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged IMO, so it's one article in line with the RfC result. My impression is that most sources that discuss mass killings and Communist regimes do so in the course of discussing broader crimes by certain Communist Party regimes (USSR, China, Cambodia). "Mass killings" is a subset of "crimes against humanity". Levivich 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging the two articles does seem like the best approach. X-Editor (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think that is a bad idea. The " Crimes against humanity..." just discusses crimes against humanity perpetrated by Communist regimes. In contrast, this article should discuss (and the RfC is clear about that) the idea that mass killings may be linked to Communism. In other words, whereas "Crimes ..." is devoted to a description of events, this article should discuss some theoretical concept. These are two totally different things, and by having merged these two articles together, we would undermine the decision made during the recent RfC. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

So what's the idea? There are a set of sources out there that might begin with something like: "not all communist regimes", "not predetermined", "not in the DNA". They may even attempt an explanation and discuss topics such as "revolutionary leaders", "rapid radical social change", "utopian vision", etc. Are these the sources to be looking for, or are they outside the idea? fiveby(zero) 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fiveby: The idea is clear: that Communism killed 100+ million. And it did so because it was Communism. This idea is advocated by Rummel (who concluded that based on his statistical analysis of his own data), by Courtois (who ascribed those victims to Communism because ... because he decided to do so), and by several politicians, political journalists and writers. It is this idea which must be a subject of analysis in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, have fun everyone. fiveby(zero) 22:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying but the thing is that it is really those more extreme views that are notable and discussed; we have Neumayer et al. writing a bunch of academic articles and a full book about this cause and narrative. I believe Levivich's comment here is correct, and in light of Siebert's comment about Strauss 2014 and Kuromiya 2017, and Verdeja 2012, it is why I think you and North8000 may overestimate the kind of scholarly sources that there are about the correlation limited to communism and not to ideologies in general, which would be a much more notable topic and for which Kuper and other sources you cited indeed be very good and useful; of course, I could be wrong and source analysis will prove it, but I believe the first option should be what Siebert summarized above, and the good thing is there are plenty of secondary sources about Courtois, Rummel, and the likes that we will not even need to use their own works, avoiding the "he said, she said" bad approach mentioned by Levivich and also noted by myself. Davide King (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King:, i think it's probably a valid topic you are working towards. But i was on this talk page because i thought there were issues that needed addressed and were not by a simple keep in the AfD. Changing the topic to the idea makes those issues go away, or at least i have no interest in "source analysis" for Communist Death Toll. As you hint at, there is plenty of room elsewhere in the encyclopedia if significant views are dropped from this article. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: I think it should be deleted/merged because it has similar problems to this article, so much so that even defenders of the previous status quo supported a deletion or merge. Another issue is that many criticism for this article's proposed structure may just as easily applies; for once, it mixes up some events which have either been tried or found guilty of crimes of against humanity, with events on which some authors say they may constitute as crimes against humanity, where the same charge of OR/SYNTH for A may apply; just because they happened under a nominal Communist regime, it is not clear in what other ways they are related, like for MKuCR.

Finally, it has the same issue of MKuCR in that it attempts to push a POV of its parent article (in this case Crimes against humanity — again, we do this only for Communism) to state as fact a correlation between communism and crimes against humanity; like Mass killing, Crimes against humanity tells a different, more nuanced story and already discuss some of those events that went to trial, e.g. Cambodia and Yugoslavia. Indeed, I am pretty sure that Siebert's comment about this article that majority of sources about the topic do not write within the context of Communism (e.g. Cambodia and Yugoslavia are discussed in their own context as crimes against humanity period, not as crimes against humanity [that happened] under [a] communist regime[s], which is our own synthesis that is likely not to be supported by majority of sources on the topic).

A possibility may be to turn it into Communist crimes and discuss it as a proposed legal concept (its B counterpart), like we do for Communist crimes (Polish legal concept), or a disambiguation linking to the later and other possible legal concept proposed in Central and Eastern Europe, if they are notable. Davide King (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging mass killings and crimes against humanity

Should the articles on Mass killings under communist regimes and Crimes against humanity under communist regimes be merged? X-Editor (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. First of all, you would need to prove using multiple RS that "mass killings" (as described on this page) unequivocally represent crimes against humanity. That is actually a matter of debate in RS (I personally agree they were crimes against humanity). Secondly, even if they are, then they represent a sub-page or a subtopic. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I would flip the merge direction listed in the mainspace. Mass Killings are a subset of Crimes against humanity, not the other way around. BSMRD (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• None of the communist leaders (even such as Pol Pot) was officially tried for the crimes against humanity. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• No - Are we serious here? Fix the article first, and then we can consider an option like the one here. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as merging or changing the title of this article, a definite NO. We just went through a massive additional AFD and the set then course for a big change in contents at an AFD. The last thing we need is to start a firestorm by what would seen by many as a backdoor article deletion of this article. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The title is a major cause of SYNTH on this article, and needs to be considered for a change eventually. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wait until the Mass killings under communist regimes article is sorted out and close this discussion. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Better to be discussed at its own talk page — wait until this article is sorted out, close this discussion, and move any further discussion and proposals at Talk:Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, where it is more appropriate to discuss. Though I think the OP did a good thing to point this out, so that other users are aware of this, especially when CaHuCR got so few attention and maybe this thread will improve it, we should focus on fixing this article first. Davide King (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Davide King: Agreed. I was mainly trying to point out the implications that changing this article would have for the other article, but I'd rather wait until this article is fixed before doing anything with the other article. X-Editor (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• No. Fix here first (if possible). AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Idea for discussion: Participants in the re-structure of Mass killings under communist regimes

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.

---

Paul Siebert, Davide King and myself have dominated the talk page discussion for the last couple of months. This has probably discouraged other editors from fully participating. I'm willing to step back and recuse myself from further participation for a while if Paul Siebert and Davide King also do the same. So the RFC options are:

• Yes, you three please recuse yourselves for the next few months;
• No, we are okay with being bludgeoned.

--Nug (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yeah, er, no. Neither Improperly formed RfC, at the very minimum... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• No That's a private matter between the three of you. RfCs cannot impose restrictions of specific users since Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#Do Away with RFC/U. Also, since Paul Siebert says that this article can be written in conformity with neutrality and no original research or synthesis, and the close of the recent RfC, he should be allowed to attempt that. Furthermore, RfCs should only be attempted if the suggestion has already been discussed on the talk page. I suggest this RfC be closed. TFD (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• No - I think you 3 deserve a warning at most, Nug for WP:TEND, Davide for WP:VERBOSE and Paul for WP:BLUDGEON. However, if you'd ask me, some of the more problematic users have already left the discussion or have been blocked. Additionally, neither of you 3 are constantly disruptive, therefore, you 3 should still participate as much as possible to improve MKUCR. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Suggest two things, and the first will lead to the second. First, (if it is the case with anybody) don't let any anti or pro communism real world quests influence your efforts here, drop any metric or goal on whether the page makes communism look good or bad. Everybody just make it your only goal to make a quality informative article on the topic of the RFC result. It also makes it a lot more fun that way. And what that leads to is to not bludgeon any discussions. Bludgeoning usually stems from trying overly hard to "win" on a debate topic, include repeating your stance too many times and responding on / working to refute every post that supports an opposite viewpoint. North8000 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of the editors have been pro-Communist. The original dispute was between editors concerned with the dispute between Russia and Poland, the Baltic States and Ukraine. But unlike other Eastern European articles, the communist genocide narrative draws broader interest because of its association with right-wing ideology. TFD (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Since real world advocacy is only a minus if it affects wiki actions, to put it in the context of my post, I'll take yours to mean no editing/discussing here influenced by that. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Read WP:RFC Issues of user conduct should not be handled via the RfC process. Also even if they should this grossly fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. BSMRD (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Improper RFC. Discuss article content, not article creators. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This is an original RFC question, to say the least. I don't believe I've ever seen an RFC about editors behaviour. They're suppose to be about solving content disputes. As mentioned above, the RFC/U method has been abolished years ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It probably should have been brought up as just an idea to get discussed, not an RFC. And although some possible conduct issues were mentioned, the operative part of it isn't a finding on conduct issues, nor does it have the ability to be binding, in which case it's feedback on the idea of the listed 3 editors taking a few-month break from this article. North8000 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was my intent, I've renamed the section. --Nug (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There really is a procedure for requesting that editors be topic-banned from a topic that is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. That can be done at Arbitration Enforcement, which doesn't have to wait for 30 days of editor comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2022 (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.

Anti-Communism and Anti-Communism

User:North8000 wrote (in a closed discussion): "First, (if it is the case with anybody) don't let any anti or pro communism real world quests influence your efforts here, drop any metric or goal on whether the page makes communism look good or bad." TFD wrote: "I don't think any of the editors have been pro-Communist". I agree. But, in my opinion, some editors have been arguing that communist regimes have committed atrocities, while no one is saying that communist regimes have not committed atrocities. It is a waste of time to argue in general against communism, because point B should be the focus. The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC implementation

I suggest starting by identifying the best sources for the scope of the article: the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept. We already have a good list going on the source page, time to filter it by the scope. Once we've identified the top sources, let's look at how they structure their coverage to see what our table of contents should be like. Levivich 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point, if it is going to be implemented, then it needs to be implemented correctly. The result of the RfC still leaves sources up to be used incorrectly which is center point of the WP:SYNTH issue here. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Recommending a good gradual evolutionary way implement the RFC result

The "Proposed causes and enabling factors" section somewhat covers much of the scope of what was decided. (although it doesn't cover simple correlation study and maybe some other areas) One way to gradually implement the decision would be to start expanding this section, and where sources utilize instances of killings when covering the topic of "B", incorporate those instances into that section, as those sources did. And if sources study/cover other things under "B" that don't fall under this heading (such as study of simple correlation) make new sections for those. Then as these grow, they eventually become the whole article, gradually phasing out the "simply listing of instances" sections. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not a bad approach: to sort of expand that subsection and more or less cannibalize the other sections as we go, until that section grows into the full article. The problem I have is that the current section isn't very good: it's a string of "he said/she said", like "Scholar A says '...'. Scholar B believes '...'. Scholar C writes '...'." This isn't NPOV, and it's not useful for the reader. We need to identify what the mainstream view(s) is/are, and what the significant minority view(s) is/are, and present it accordingly, not just string together what everybody says, as if it's all on equal footing. Still, our best sources no doubt include at least some of the sources already cited in that section, so it's a good place to start. Levivich 17:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• First of all, we should not let this AfD to go to archive: it will have a deep and long lasting effect on the article's scope and structure. Unfortunately, it seems we cannot add it to the "Article milestone" table (there is no such a parameter as RfC), so I propose either to add a "do not archive" label, or to add the permanent link to FAQ.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I extended the DoNotArchive time till Feb 2023. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two things I believe we can quickly implement: (1) remove information about mass killings that are not part of the discussion of the topic and (2) re-write the lead based on the study that Nug presented explaining that this is a little studied subject. TFD (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest the "debates" (option B) still should be organized by the country because the countries (and events there) were so much different. For example, current version in the Soviet Famine section say: "While there is still a debate among scholars on whether the Holodomor was a genocide ..." (the whole second paragraph is "debate"), so that should stay on the page. First paragraph? It should also stay because one needs to say a few words about the famine prior to describing the debate. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the "Other States" section as it was a simple list of mass killings at odds with the format chosen by the RfC. If any of the content was worth saving, it needs to be folded into the larger debate regardless. BSMRD (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I added back the first paragraph that is more about general discussion. Thanks for thanking me! X-Editor (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The title of this section is my recommendation. And I'd recommend recognizing that there will be multiple opinions and angles on this amongst sources. So I'd just find a handful of reasonably good looking sources and put / keep them in...but then I'm always the one looking for (good) shortcuts. Either way you folks are moving into the "big work" phase. I don't plan to get in as deep as you main editors are (thanks for your work!), I've been mostly been just jumping in where I though I might be useful on navigating the process here and structural questions. So / since I don't plan to watch this closely at the moment; please ping me if you think I might be of help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus sought for removal of fringe source (Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro et al)

Source [93] though being recent, has not a single citation in google scholar, and is the work of a scholar of geography without any notable reputation in this subject or anything connected. In viewing the list of his publications, there is a strong appearance of ideological bias. This inclusion of this source in the article clearly undercuts the other rules we've established regarding sources and is an example of a lopsided application of these rules regarding the viewpoint that the source supports. I suggest we remove this source, since it is clearly a fringe viewpoint, if those established rules are to have validity regarding other sources. AShalhoub (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

We just had this closure stating "[t]here is a clear consensus ... an agreement that there is still a lot of work to do here, and the tag should remain on the top of the article for now", and you think this is the problem? We still have Watson, who is true WP:FRINGE for falsely claiming that Nazism and Nazi concentration camps were a form of socialism, that Hitler was a Marxist, and that Marx and Engels invented genocide, and you think this source, which was published by the academic press (unlike Watson and several other sources) is the problem? We discussed it at the RSN, and XOR'easter's comment "[a]n academic journal that serves a particular community and thus embodies its biases does not sound very different from a news website with an editorial slant, as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES is concerned" is spot on. It is one thing to remove it from "Comparisons to other mass killings", though TFD is right that it is a double standard, and a whole other to remove it outright, even when it represents a mainstream position and a good tertiary source about the death toll at "Estimates." I would have appreciated if you replied back to me here. Davide King (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Davide King, one of your arguments seems to be that a "worse" source exists, so this source should be withheld on the basis that it was published in an academic journal. Whataboutism aside, the extensive discussion to this point has established that being published in an academic journal on its own does not clear the threshold for inclusion in this article. If that were true, it would open the door for other sources, with contrasting conclusions, that meet that bare minimum threshold. Further, I can't see how diverting to a discussion about another source regarding a completely different point of the article is doing much but convoluting the discussion and resolution of a discrete issue, which is a acknowledged problem with this talk page. Finally, this issue is best addressed to a larger audience and not resolved between two or three editors, so I think it's better to resolve it here rather than at the link you posted. AShalhoub (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop this whataboutism fallacy, when I clearly showed that Watson is fringe, was not published by the academic press, and yet it is still in the article and you seem to have no problem with it, while this source is not fringe, was published by the academic press, and you seem to have issues with it, even though a RSN discussion said otherwise. "... the extensive discussion to this point has established that being published in an academic journal on its own does not clear the threshold for inclusion in this article." But apparently news sources and popular press books do clear it? You cannot dismiss that discussion, it was posted at the WP:RSN, and the onus is on you, not on me. This source is currently used like all other sources; a minority view and properly attributed. Davide King (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with your claim that "the other rules we've established regarding sources" is that

(1) we have not actually established it (only Levivich, Siebert, and I have proposed this) and are not following it anyway in the article (we still rely on Courtois and Rummell as core sources, even though Courtois' introduction is extremely controversial and Rummel is outdated and is much better to use through secondary coverage like Harff and others rather than his own works), so why take it on this source, and

(2) Siebert and I have repeatedly proposed a common approach and criteria to sources but no one has been following us.

As I said many times, this article requires a total rewrite, which the RfC's structure results will confirm and help us to achieve this, and I do not think asking removal of single sources is a good way to actually improve the article; for every one bad source removed, there is always another one remaining or that it is not used correctly, and removal of any source that does not reflect this rightist POV just makes the current NPOV issues even worse. To play devil's advocate, this source represents a significant minority view (it is mainly a tertiary source that summarizes the Black Book and the 100 million's controversy, and does not propose any new original research — Le Livre noir du capitalisme already did that) and is properly attributed, in line with the whole article. You should join Siebert and I, and our calls for a rewrite, because only that will remove such bad sources and this source will likely not make the cut, though it is still too soon to dismiss it outright. Davide King (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If I recall right, the expectations put forth by you and Siebert are that the sources should reflect a majority consensus viewpoint, be written by domain experts, be recent, and not contain ideological bias. Why should these expectations be selectively applied? AShalhoub (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole article already fails all this; it has been acknowleged by even its defenders that this article mainly represent minority views. The problem is that Engel-Di Mauro and Ghodsee are also perfectly fine according to the current criteria, so why should we remove them if we are not going to fix the article and rewrite it? We cannot remove them but keep Courtois, Rummel, and Watson because they all represent minority viewpoints, and unlike Courtois and Rummel, Ghodsee and Engel-Di Mauro are not outdated, and unlike Watson, they are not fringe either. Davide King (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not that particular source is included has absolutely no bearing on this source, which is why discussion of that separate issue in this space is whataboutism. If that source is fringe, then of course the same standards should be applied, but this is not the place for that discussion. AShalhoub (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It is appropriate because you previously questioned Ghodsee; it seems as though you have something against left-wing perspectives by scholars or that have been published in the academic press, especially since your argument is mainly due to WP:BIAS, and WP:FRINGE does not apply to Engel-Di Mauro (a fringe author would not edit an academic-published handbook) or to his article in full. That you opened new threads about both Engel-Di Mauro and Ghodsee but not about Watson and other questionable sources is certainly interesting and is not something you should be so defensive about. Davide King (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

IIRC the wikipedia guidelines are to respond to arguments and not make inferences motivations of editors. To be sure, I have my views about the status of this article, but the pressing concern is the lopsided application of rules sources are expected to follow. If your vote is that this source should remain, despite that it has no citations, is written by a non-domain expert, and is ideologically biased, then you should apply those constraints to sources you disagree with as well. If you identify a source from the "other side" that falls under this description (most important to me is the number of citations), I'll be happy to support it's removal. AShalhoub (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough but since when is the number of citations the be-all-end-all of WP:RS? Can you actually cite a Wikipedia policy about having to rely on citation counts? They are more useful for notability, not reliability alone, especially when academic sources such are Karlsson 2008 and Engel-Di Mauro 2021 are mainly tertiary sources. If we followed your criteria, this article should have been deleted long ago because the only source that comes close to the topic is Karlsson 2008, and has only 8 obscure citations. Davide King (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To counter your likely response that we have Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (CaHuCr), if one actually reads Karlsson 2008, we will see that, despite using crimes against humanity, it is essentially this topic (MKuCR), and not CaHuCr. This discussion may be of interest. Davide King (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The real issue with Di-Mauro is not what he said or believes in, it is that he currently fails wp:Notable. The black book of communism itself is extremely fringe, so removing all mentions of it would be a start. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There was already lengthy dispute about this book which looks to be inconclusive. For me the academic standard is, and has always been, citation count, which is why I think this source should be removed. The black book of communism is a seminal work which is controversial, not fringe, and has already been attributed as such. AShalhoub (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

MarioSuperStar77, notability should not be the be-all-end-all if it is published in an academic journal; many reviewers in academic journals are not notable on their own, that does not mean we cannot use their review published in peer-reviewed academic journals. AShalhoub, citation count is a sign of notability, not necessarily of reliability, and we do not base academic sources on that. Authorship, publishers, and other criteria are just as equally, if not more, important. Davide King (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviewed papers published in academic journals are not "fringe sources." In fact Wikipedia:Fringe theories is not about evaluating sources at all. Furthermore, there is nothing in rs that says the number of citations of a work have any bearing on its reliability. Gibbon's classic The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire has thousands of cites, but is too old to be considered reliable. OTOH, a recently published university textbook on Roman history that summarizes known information to date may have no cites but is considered reliable enough to be used as a university textbook.

It would be helpful if the editor who created this section accurately cite policy.

TFD (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, this was better concise than I could. Davide King (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren't the statements that "peer reviewed papers published in academic journals are not fringe sources", and "Wikipedia:Fringe theories is not about evaluating sources at all" contradictory in terms of being relevant to this removal? I'm confused about what you mean by fringe theories are not about evaluating sources. Wikipedia:Fringe theories says "Reliable sources are needed for any article in Wikipedia. They are needed to demonstrate that an idea is sufficiently notable to merit a dedicated article about it. For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." obviously this article doesn't have those, because it hasn't been cited anywhere. The page also says, "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe the source fails on this count as well. To avoid running afoul of my own arguments, I will avoid outlining why the inclusion of this topic runs afoul of the arguments made against Rummel and Courtois and avoid an unnecessary sidetrack. Just know that the primary concern for me here is that there is an inconsistency in the constraints applied to various sources, depending on the overall point they're making. AShalhoub (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• support ~ cygnis insignis 15:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of source per TFD's well reasoned argument above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  that’s true, from an in-universe pov ~ cygnis insignis 15:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Engel-Di Mauro is editor-in-chief of the journal where his paper was published, he is responsible deciding what papers get included in the journal, so effectively his paper is not peer-reviewed. His area of expertise is geography, not genocide studies or even communism. Engel-Di Mauro's paper where he states that "Capitalism's war-related death toll so far exceeds 150 million," citing Wikipedia. "The data are mainly from Wikipedia," the author explains, specifically citing our List of wars by death toll. --Nug (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  If we consider Di Mauro's articles non-peer-reviewed, what can you tell about the articles published by the members of the US Academy of Sciences in PNAS?

  Furthermore, whereas I agree that we cannot use sources that mirror Wikipedia. However, that is not what Di Mauro says. He took some data from Wikipedia (which seems pretty legitimate if they are properly sourced) and concluded that capitalism lead to 150 million war deaths. That statement was not taken from Wikipedia, that is the author's conclusion.

  Therefore, that your argument is not valid.

  The second question is if Di Mauro's opinion deserves attention. In my opinion, there are some problems with that.

  - First, to take data from Wikipedia without criticism is not good: it is a demonstration of author's unfamiliarity with source criticism.

  - Second, by arbitrarily attributing these deaths to capitalism, the author makes a very liberal assumption, which is hardly universally accepted.

  - Third, I am sure this interpretation (that capitalism was responsible for those deaths) will hardly be accepted by professional historians.

  Therefore, I would be very cautious with Di Maurio, and I think, in that aspect you are right.

  However, I propose you to think about the following. Doesn't this guy (Di Mauro) remind you somebody in terms of his approach? I mean: (i) uncritically collect some data about death toll, (ii) arbitrarily attribute them to some political system (iii) make a conclusion that is not accepted by country experts.

  I believe, you remember our previous conversations, and "i - iii" is a portrait of Rummel. Indeed, by his approach, Di Mauro is a leftist twin of Rummel. The only difference is that Rummel lived in a pre-Wikipeida world, so he collected data by himself. But his data are even less reliable than current Wikipedia data (as my comparison of Gulag deaths demonstrates)

  In connection to that, I am wondering why you apply double standard to leftist and rightist sources? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's definitely not WP:FRINGE; it's an article in a Routledge-published academic journal, written by the EiC of that journal. His expertise might be geography but his CV shows expertise in Marxist geography (e.g. in 2019 he was on an American Association of Geographers panel called The Geographer Marx, he teaches "Geographies of Socialism" at SUNY where he's a tenured professor). The paper is reviewed, the acknowledgments reads ... Danny Faber, Mazen Labban, Maarten de Kadt, Judith Watson, Marco Armiero, Leigh Brownhill, Adi Forkasiewicz, and Troy Vettese showered great attentiveness to and provided crucial correctives on this most trying of writing endeavours, a most heart-wrenching and stomach-turning subject matter. Without their generous disposition to debate and openly criticise, this work would have been far from presentable and much murkier on the issues raised. Any remaining errors are solely my responsibility. So it's certainly an WP:RS, it's legit scholarship.
  But, an EiC publishing in his own journal is ... meh... it's reviewed by outsiders but of course it'll be accepted for publication. And citing Wikipedia for statistics is... embarrassing, for lack of a better word. Those are two strikes against the source, and for this reason, while it's an RS, it's by an expert, it's in a legit journal, I don't think it's one of the best sources for us to use, and I think there are better sources out there (sources that don't cite Wikipedia, that aren't by the EiC of the journal where they're published, would be better than this, and there are lots of sources like that). So I think it's OK to include but sparingly, and I think it's pretty sparingly used as it is, so I don't really see a problem with how this source is used in the article, even though it's not the best (but not fringe either). Levivich 00:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• WRT "And citing Wikipedia for statistics is... embarrassing" Not really. If we apply Barbara Harff's logic, it is quite ok to use this type data for generalizations of that type. Like genocide scholars, Di Mauro didn't need too precise data, so raw data from Wikipedia are quite acceptable for is purpose. At least, Di Mauro looks not less legitimate than Rummel (although it is not more legitimate either).
• What is more problematic, it is the idea that those deaths can be attributed to capitalism. However, it seems to me Di Mauro is trolling supporters of Rummel's views, and in that sense he is quite correct. IMO, they (Di Mauro and Rummel) are both questionable, and should be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• I already proposed that, and I repeat my proposal.

Let's get rid of all questionable sources from this article Let's leave only those sources that passed a serious peer-reviewing procedure and monographs that were authored by renown experts in the field that specifically discuss this subject (not just mention it in passing). In other words:

• If some source is an op-ed - remove it;
• If some source is published in some peer-reviewed journal with impact-factor below 1 - remove it;
• If some source is a book devoted to some other subject - remove it;
• If the author has an h-index below 4 - remove it;
• If the source is more than 30 years old and was cited less than 10 times - remove it;
• This list may be expanded.

That would immediately resolve a significant part of conflicts. What do you think, Nug? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is a completely different subject, but #1 - the citation indexes and impact factors are completely irrelevant (some of the most reliable sources, like X-ray crystallography articles, have citation of zero); #2 no, many older publications are classics (should we dismiss books by Hanna Arendt?), #3 no, one should look at the publications at the case to case basis - exactly as explained in WP:Verifiability. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. The only reason I oppose removal as things stand is that it is no worse than many others sources, some of which even core, we currently use. If we actually rewrote the article by merging Siebert's proposed structure with TFD's and my topic, we would not even need to discuss here and would indeed be relying on the best sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Davide King (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal. Here is why. I do not know if the publication was "fringe", but the views and the numbers by the author [8] are at least questionable. His numbers ("Capitalist Wars’ Death Tolls") are misleading as s comparison of apples with oranges: the numbers of war victims are compared with numbers of civilian victims of political repressions. Furthermore, he counts the number of victims of Russian Civil War as victims of a "Capitalist war". But very same numbers appears as victims of the Soviet communist regime (Red Terror, etc.) in books by Rummel and others. Same numbers are included to the both sets for comparison. That is misleading at best. Moreover, he counts victims of Nazi during WWII as victims of "capitalism regimes" in general. Is not that a "trivialization" of something? Putting Nazi Germany and typical "capitalist" countries like Britain and USA to the same "box" - is not it a manipulation? My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• First, this is not a RfC. Second, does that not remind you of something? They have counted fascists and Nazi collaborators as victims of communism on par with ordinary citizens. As I said many times by now, Engel-Di Mauro is better seen as a way, like Le Livre noir du capitalisme, to show how flawed and fallacius the Communist body-counting is, or to quote Siebert above, "Di Mauro is trolling [not sure if 'trolling' is the right word but you get the point] supporters of Rummel's views, and in that sense he is quite correct." Like TFD said, he is at least better than Rummel in that as a recent source he is aware of recent scholarship and the literature. If we actually totally rewrote the article in line with NPOV and no OR/SYNTH, in full respect of WEIGHT, we would not even be discussing this. Davide King (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• The article by Di Mauro does remind me Soviet propaganda. In fact the aricle is classic Whataboutism. No, the Black Book of Communism is very different. This is an excellent and famous book by several academics. Except that the book does not say anything really new and unusual. This is just a big review/compilation based on a large number of other sources. As about Rummel, he simply counts different numbers (not the same as in the Black Book), his numbers are for the democide. Other than that, I think Rummel is a good researcher of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I do agree with MarioSuperstar77 below that it is better to disengage but I do not think that this should go unchallenged any longer.
• That you think an academic article published by the academic press is Soviet propaganda [sic], even though it clearly says "[a]mong the former [of repugnant] are examples like the USSR under the Stalin faction of the Bolsheviks, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, and Albania under Hoxha", makes me question, in good faith, your competence about the topic, especially when you say the Black Book is "excellent" (e.g. your personal view, which totally ignores all its scholarly criticism, which is, ironically, all about this topic, e.g. the introduction and not the individual chapters, especially Werth's, which contradicts Courtois about Marx).
• Rummel has certainly been a good researcher for the democratic peace theory but not for Communism, whose estimates are so outdated and fringe, apart for the Cambodia genocide. But back to the article, it says: "Comparing the deadliness of social systems provides no moral compass and, politically, travels a road to nowhere. Murder is appalling and its systematic prevention must be a rock-solid foundation of any form of socialism." So no, it is not a classic example of whataboutism, and your comments about the Black Book may equally apply to Le Livre noir du capitalisme, Le livre noir du colonialisme: XVIe-XXIe siècle : de l'extermination à la repentance, and Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus: ein Abgesang auf die Marktwirtschaft, also "excellent ... book[s] by several academics." But "I like it"/"I don't like it" is not a good argument. The bottom line is that the article does not say anything particularly new or fringe, and your charge of whataboutism and Soviet propaganda are clearly unfounded and overblown. Davide King (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&diff=prev&oldid=1064890466 Disengage. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this idea as much as I support nuking the proposed causes and estimates section to possibly start over. This article has many issues which would have been swiftly taken care of with this approach. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So I'm moving towards the position that "fringe" is less applicable to this source. However, I think it fails verifiability, as in the following link: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Is this article self-published, seeing that the author is the editor of the journal it was published in?

I also think this source fails reliability for two reasons. First, according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." I don't see this journal as a reputable peer-reviewed source for history or genocide studies. Also the lack of citations raises red flags, as in the following: "Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ." Second, the journal probably runs afoul of the stipulation from the same link that "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals"

Since many of you drew comparisons to the works by Rummel and Courtois that are still in the article, maybe the most neutral way to go about this is to put this source through the RFC process those sources have gone through. AShalhoub (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The lack of citations is not a good argument for this source at this time — come back in a few more years and let's see it if it still has 0 citations. We also need to clearly distinguish two usages: (i) criticism of the body count and The Black Book of Communism, and (ii) attempt to prove how flawed such an approach is by applying it to capitalism to show that, by using the same standard of Courtois and Rummel, capitalism can be indicted with an equal or even greater number of victims (in this, I disagree with Siebert of him as a "twin Rummell" because he recognized how flawed that approach is but is merely showing the double standard). For i, it is perfectly fine and reliable, for ii it depends but I do not see how it is fringe at that, and it does actually cite its own sources, none of which are fringe. Those works did the same thing for colonialism and capitalism:

• Bordier, Roger; Frémion, Yves; Perrault, Gilles (2001). Le livre noir du capitalisme. Montreuil: Le Temps des cerises. ISBN 978-2-84109-325-0.
• Beaufils, Thomas; Ferro, Marc (2003). Le livre noir du colonialisme: XVIe-XXIe siècle : de l'extermination à la repentance. Paris: R. Laffont. ISBN 978-2-221-09254-5.
• Kurz, Robert (2009). Schwarzbuch Kapitalismus: ein Abgesang auf die Marktwirtschaft. Frankfurt: Eichborn. ISBN 978-3-8218-7316-9.

So TFD is right about the double standard and that this article is summarizing the literature of the Communist body count, while also showing how flawed it is by attempting to do the same capitalism. The thing is that this source was actually already taken at least once at WP:RSN like Courtois and Rummel. You are free to take it again there but I do not think your argument about lack of citations is strong because it is still too recent and the source is clearly fine for i. Davide King (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How it fails verifiability? It is an editorial of an academic journal published by the academic press, so your other claim which applies to predatory journals fails, and there was clearly some fact checking and editorial control by them. Only for WP:BLP are self-published sources not allowed, even if written by an expert per WP:SPS. The only relevant issue is the lack of citations, but that is still too recent too tell, and it does not apply to i, for which it is a tertiary source, but only to ii, which I argue is still supported by the scholarly criticism of the Black Book and the aforementioned books by academics about capitalism and colonialism. Davide King (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@AShalhoub:

• First, a peer-reviewed journal is not an SPS.
• Second, I agree that this journal is not a top reliable source for history or genocide studies, as well as many other sources cited in the MKuCR article. I already proposed to remove them, so, maybe, we will return those sources first?
• Third, a "no citation" argument doesn't seem completely sincere, keeping in mind that the article is very recent and the topic is not too popular. The article contains sources that have about 20 citations in 20 years (one citation per year), and this article is just one years old. Let me reiterate: I am not sure we need to keep this source, but I am objecting to applying double standards, so let's remove the sources that we already discussed previously.
• Fourth, WRT " A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs" Again, this might be a good argument if it is applied universally. Are you ready to check other sources using the same approach?
• Sixth, Rummel and Courtois never passed an RfC, they were discussed at RSN, and the conclusion was that they are unreliable for figures. The fact that the figures are still in the article is an indication of a failure to implement community's verdict, so this your argument is simply wrong. In addition, RfCs are not a universal method, and starting an RfC about every source may be considered as forum shopping. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Your claims about Rummel and Courtois are untrue, the conclusion on Rummel is that he is reliable with attribution for his theories around Democide and his figures can be used in the context of his theories, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_329#Rudolph_Rummel. Similarly the conclusion was Courtois is reliable with attribution as well, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Black_Book_of_Communism --Nug (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, there is absolutely no contradiction between what you and I say. The real problem is in different understanding of the words "reliable with attribution for his theories". My analysis of sources demonstrates that Rummel's "democide" theory (and Courtois's view too) is not a majority view point, so they definitely should be included into this article, but they should be in the "Controversy" section, along with their criticism. I am not sure if Di Mauro belongs to this article, and if Rummel, Courtois & Co will be moved to the appropriate place, I will probably support removal of Di Mauro (although I am not 100% sure).

  The problem is that, from one hand, you oppose to moving minority (anti-Communist) views into a proper place, and from another hand, you are advocating removal of an anti-capitalist minority view, which is hardly consistent with your adherence to the NPOV policy.

  As I already explained, I am very skeptical to the approach (which, unfortunately, is prevailing in this article) when users make a focus on extreme anti-Comminist and anti-capitalist sources, whereas more balanced sources that reflect the actual scholarly consensus play a subordinated role. I find this approach deeply flawed, and that is why I proposed to perform a comprehensive source analysis (the proposal that you repeatedly reject).

  I have not much hope that this my post will lead to anything productive, because you have an unpleasant habit to disappear every time when you have no counter-arguments (are re-appear again in a different section with essentially the same, debunked, argument). Please, disappoint me: prove that that my expectation is wrong, and my words about you are false. In that case I will gladly apologize. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

no, RSN was clear with respect to the reliability of Rummel and Courtois. Comparing these two highly notable scholars with a nobody like Engel-Di Mauro is creating a false equivalency. Your proposal of putting Rummel and Courtois into a "Controversy" section breaches MOS:LABEL. You need to demonstrate sources that contradict them are relatively equal in prominence and then describe the opposing views clearly. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue are WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. They can certainly be used with attribution, but WP:DUE must always be kept in mind, and I thought that you wanted this article to be about facts; I do not think attributing stuff, when we are citing it to their own works and not to secondary coverage to assess how much weight their views hold in the literature, is a good way to write a good article, and at the very least the structure must be changed to B, if we are going to provide opinions about facts and attribute everything due none of them being majority views. I do not think the onus is on us (you are asking us to prove a negative) but is on you to prove that Courtois and Rummel are the majority view and are uncontroversial, and I believe we have already demonstrated again and again why they are controversial and not a majority view; you really need to decide on whether Karlsson & Schonehals 2008 support the existence of this article or not because it certainly supports Siebert's view about Courtois and Rummel. Also notability does not necessarily affect reliability if it is published in an academic journal by the academic press, and is reviewing the literature about the body count and The Black Book of Communism, for which it is a good source precisely because it is new and aware of shifts, as noted by The Four Deuces. Davide King (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying "they are controversial and not a majority view", please articulate what the majority view is. --Nug (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Dallin, Alexander (Winter 2000). "Review. Reviewed Work: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy, Mark Kramer". Slavic Review. 59 (4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press: 883. doi:10.2307/2697429. JSTOR 2697429. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss.
• David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1). Bloomington, Indiana: Slavic: 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. S2CID 159716738. Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger.
• Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008). Crimes Against Humanity under Communist Regimes – Research Review (PDF). Forum for Living History. p. 8. ISBN 978-91-977487-2-8. The same is true for the extremely extensive and ideologically biased discussions on the number of victims.

This, plus country experts (Ellman, Wheatcroft) and the two short paragraphs at "Estimates" that we dismiss as criticism are, in fact, the majority view. Ellman has commented on how politicized is even the category of victims of Stalinism and how difficult it is, so imagine doing this for Communism as a whole. Again, the onus should be on you to prove that your views are actually supported by majority of scholars and are not controversial. Prove that Courtois, Rummel, and the like are not controversial and the majority view; it should be very easy to prove if I am wrong. Do you have any equally reliable sources that discount the ones I cited? I am sure Siebert can cite many, many others. Davide King (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

One could engage in the same mind reading exercise and question your sincerity regarding Rummel citations. Naive indeed would the individual be who can read this discussion and conclude that you actually believe he should be removed because he's not a domain expert, or because ideological bias is to be avoided in a general sense. Twice the amount of poor content is better than poor content that come to the wrong conclusion, obviously. AShalhoub (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, your interpretation of the outcome of RSN discussions is incorrect. There was no consensus about reliability of Courtois and Rummel for facts. "Use with attribution" is a typical approach to op-ed and similar materials, and that makes them different from really reliable sources (for which no attribution is required). "Use with attribution" means the source is reliable for author's opinion. but not reliable for facts. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A few lines from two book reviews of BBoC and a single line from Karlsson is hardly expressing a viewpoint "equal in prominence" as required by WP:NPOV. I was expecting a complete paper if not a monograph. In the first book review, the line "Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss." just means the authors of BBoC don't discuss the question of a single essence sufficiently, the reviewer isn't expressing an opinion on whether lumping them together is valid or not. But what is significant is that is shows that reliable sources do in fact lump these regimes together, the second review confirms it, so thus there is no longer a the question of WP:SYNTH when lumping these regimes together in this article. --Nug (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you correctly identified the problem: we need some common criteria for prominence. In addition, we need common criteria for reliability, because "prominence" and "reliability" are not the same: thus, David Irving is definitely a prominent author, but that does not make his books reliable.

Can you propose some criteria of reliability and prominence that will allow us to analyse and check all sources used in this article? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt's book, Denying the Holocaust, and the subsequent libel suit was a very prominent rebuttal of David Irvine. But first can we agree that at a minimum, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are generally grouped together in reliable sources that discuss mass killings? Davide King agrees with this, do you? --Nug (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug, you are discussing facts. The only source of facts are reliable sources (sorry for tautology). Therefore, by starting to discuss facts before having discussed sources you put a cart before the horse. I propose to put the horse before the cart, and you cannot deny this is an ironclad logic.

Using a purely formal logic, the following list of approached to this issue (MKuCR) can be proposed:

• Communist states are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them;
• Communist states are grouped together, BUT significant differences between the are noted and extensively discussed;
• Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND other Communist states;
• Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND they are contrasted with other Communist states;
• Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND the differences between are noted;
• Communist states are discussed separately from each other, and comparative studies reveal significant differences;

This is not a comprehensive list of approaches, and we don't know so yet which of them is generally accepted by majority of scholarly community. To give an answer, we need to analyze a representative set of sources. This analysis may demonstrate that you are right, or it may show that DR is right, or it may show that you both are wrong, and some other approach is a majority view. We cannot answer this question by bringing one, two or a dozen of sources, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that the source presented by you or by DR express a majority view.

Therefore, if you want to continue to argue about that ad nauseum, feel free to do that. At some point, that behaviour may be sufficient for accusing you of filibustering or stonewalling.

With you, or without you, we are going to perform the analysis of sources and to decide which viewpoint is a majority view. I would prefer if yo you joined this process, but if you decide not to participate, we will survive. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Irving is an extreme example (I just gave an example of a highly notable but totally unreliable source). I do not claim any of sources we are discussing is directly comparable with Irving.

And, with regard to your question {"can we agree that at a minimum, the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are generally grouped together in reliable sources that discuss mass killings"), as I explained, in contrast to you guys, I do not consider myself to be sufficiently familiar with this topic to give a definite answer (see Dunning-Krueger effect). In addition, I do not understand what does "reliable sources that discuss mass killings" mean: should we include such authors as Werth, Conquest, Ellman, Getty or Suny into that list, of we speak only about such authors as Rummel, Valentino of Courtois?

Again, I can give a definite answer only if I analyze at least 100-200 sources that I found but had no opportunity to read yet. But I am somewhat skeptical about that activity, because if I will be doing that alone, some POV-pushers may reject my conclusions, which means my work will be a waste of time. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

After 12 years of dominating of this talk page are you now seriously suggesting that you do not consider yourself to be “sufficiently familiar with this topic”? You have had a large input into current state of the article, it was your suggestion that we needed a section that discussed the connection between communist ideology and mass killings (hence the “Proposed causes” section ) and you said that it was as important as the “Terminology” section.[9]. And yet the existence of these two sections you previously suggested we needed is now presented as the core of this dispute. Davide King on many occasions stated that the sources show that mass killings occurred in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, that it is something he does not dispute. Yet you seem somewhat equivocal about this basic point. Back in 2009 you said ”In my opinion, a good lede should start with obvious and non-controversial statements that (i) Excess mortality was common for most Communist regimes during certain periods of their history. (ii) These excess mortality cases were a result of mass murders, mass executions, famines and deportations, etc. (iii) A "mass killings" term is being used by some scholars to describe some of these cases, although this terminology is not commonly accepted.”. You no longer support your own statement? —Nug (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have never disputed that, and I do not think Siebert have disputed that point either; I think the issue is that you have not yet understand the grouping issue, and I do think you misread what Siebert is saying because I do not think they no longer support that statament, and I do not think they are contradicting anything, if that is what you think but I will let them clarify this. It is not whether they happened or not, of course they did, but whether the grouping is done by a majority of sources in the way that you support it, which I do not think they do. It is not sufficient that they happened under a nominally Communist regime, which no one is disputing and is not the issue, but the way it is done, and what weight it holds in relation to other Communist grouping types.

I kindly ask you to carefully re-read Siebert's statements about the grouping:

"[1] Communist states are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them;
[2] Communist states are grouped together, BUT significant differences between the are noted and extensively discussed;
[3] Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND other Communist states;
[4] Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND significant commonalities are noted between them AND they are contrasted with other Communist states;
[5] Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia are grouped together, AND the differences between are noted;
[6] Communist states are discussed separately from each other, and comparative studies reveal significant differences;"

The current version and your favoured structure fail in explaining this and focus too much on generalizations (e.g. the first category, which at first analysis is clearly a minority view and is done by Courtois and Rummel). Chirot, Karlsson, Jones, Mann, Valentino, and others fit much more the other categories, and when scholars disagree, we cannot do the grouping unless it is the majority view and is not controversial, do you better understand our point now? This is why we do need to engage in source comparison between those group types; if you did engage with us on this, you could actually prove whether Siebert and I are wrong.

I also kindly ask you to consider the comparison with genocide of indigenous peoples I made here. There is no Mass Killings under Communist Regimes: A Critical Bibliographic Review or Communist Mass Killings: A Critical Bibliographic Review, which is the reason why that article is not even controversial like this one. It simply has a much clearer and bigger literature about the topic as a grouping and as a whole than MKuCR does not even come close to it. Of course, there are plenty of country-specific works but this article is about Communism in general, and you have refused to rewrite the article according to each country-specific literature, and I can kind of agree with you on this but completely disagree on the conclusion one should take from this, e.g. that an NPOV article cannot be written without them, and if we cannot have a NPOV article, it should be deleted and only recreated in the future when such issues would no longer be present.

Anyway, if you are up for some compromise, I would propose to remove the sections about all other states other than Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, and only leave the short paragraph at "Other states", would that be fine? I still think the article would have issues (we would need Karlsson 2008 to represent the majority view about the grouping in regards to USSR, PRC, and DK), and we are going to disagree about this, but it would be an improvement in refocusing the topic away from the global Communist death toll towards universally-recognized Communist mass killings. Davide King (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nug:,

• First, I am frequently seeing your references to someone's overall contribution to this talk page. In most cases, the context of these references implies that you are implicitly accusing other users of bludgeoning. That may be considered as a personal attack, and I respectfully request you to refrain from this type arguments in future, otherwise I may stop assuming your good faith. Deal?
• Second, you may be surprised to read that, but, although I (as well as all other users) do have some POV, it is not something immutable and rock stable. It is gradually changing when I find some new sources, or when my opponents present some convincing arguments. Obviously, my position significantly changes since 2009, and there are several reasons for that.

- I compared this article with "daughter articles", and I realized that they tell totally different facts, provide different interpretations and present different figures, which means this article is a huge POV-fork. My 2009 proposal cannot resolve this problem.

- I started to systematically look for sources, and I found that there is a lot of country-specific sources, that are of much better quality, they contain much more trustworthy figures, and they provide much more insightful and nuanced interpretations of the described events than the sources used in this article do.

- I realized that, during 12 years, the article's supporters failed to identify fresh and high quality sources on the topic that support the main article's concept, and many sources this article currently uses do not support the article's statements, or directly contradict to them.

All of that are my recent observations, and each of those three arguments, taken separately, are sufficient to reconsider my 2009 POV.

With regard to my current point of view, I will discuss it with you after I get your answer to my invitation to join the analysis of sources that I am going to start soon (as admin's panel recommended). Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"I realized that, during 12 years, the article's supporters failed to identify fresh and high quality sources on the topic that support the main article's concept, and many sources this article currently uses do not support the article's statements, or directly contradict to them." There are plenty of fresh, high-quality sources such as this one or this one that discuss current genocide under communist regimes, which as I gather was the original title of this page. It's clear recent research is important to you, so perhaps it would make sense to revert the article back to that title. Otherwise, it seems far more likely that the passage of time is only going to yield a favorable ideological shift, and scant new evidence regarding 80 year old massacres. The question is, is that what we want the article to reflect? I don't think an encyclopepic article only which is informative regarding the biases of whatever time period it was written in will have much credibility. AShalhoub (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Uyghur genocide does not involve mass killings while few if any of the mass killings under Communist regimes met the definiton of genocide. Also, we need sources about the topic MKuCR, not just isolated examples. TFD (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A few lines from two book reviews of BBoC and a single line from Karlsson is hardly expressing a viewpoint "equal in prominence" as required by WP:NPOV. I was expecting a complete paper if not a monograph. Again, I think you are being unfair because the onus should not be on me but on you to prove that I am wrong. They do clearly show that Courtois and Malia are controversial or do not represent a majority viewpoint, and that the grouping is not as easy as you would like it to be; grouping Communist regimes just because they were nominally Communist, and ignoring their background and differences, is not a good way to do a grouping, which applies to the MKuCR article.

Perhaps this answer your point: there are no complete paper or monograph, though Siebert may find them, because this "generic Communist" grouping is such a mainority and controversial viewpoint that does not warrant them. Finally, you did not provide any new sources in return to prove me wrong, and David-Fox was actually chosen to write for The Cambridge History of Communism, so they are clearly mainstream and not fringe. Dallin did question the "generic Communist" grouping, or else what do you think deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist? Again, as for reliable sources do in fact lump these regimes together, neither of Siebert or I have ever disputed that some sources have done the grouping, the issue is what weight they hold in the literature; they are clearly a minority view, and since they are controversial, we cannot do the grouping as fact, which is what this article does, implicitly or explicitily. The SYNTH issue is merging Courtois and Rummel (Category 1) from all the other scholars (Mann, Valentino, and the like) who do the grouping in a different category and context (Category 2–6). Davide King (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You say "I think you are being unfair because the onus should not be on me but on you to prove that I am wrong", no the onus isn't on me to prove your assertion wrong, it is on you to prove your assertion is right. You assert there is some majority view not expressed in the article, WP:PROVEIT. --Nug (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That, however, would surely also equally apply to you, for I am not the only one making assertions, you are doing the same and saying the article has no significant issue and that Tombs' views are proof of this. It is not just that some majority views are not expressed in the article, it is that they are dismissed as criticism, or where the views of country experts like Getty, Fitzpatrick, Wheatcroft, and others are misused as if they are writing within the context of MKuCR when they are writing mainly within that of the Soviet Union, and not as part of a Communist death toll. Can you tell me to which group source of category (1–6) do Chirot, Courtois, Harff, Mann, Rummel, Valentino, and the like belong? Do you think that it does not matter that they are different group types of sources, as long as they are grouping nominally Communist regimes, even if in very different ways and disagree about which specific country include or not (e.g. Courtois and Rummel do it for Communism as a whole, many others only for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, or highlight differences or compare them to non-Communist regimes, and 18-cases study), is fine? Davide King (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the discussions and votes above, there seems to be a rough consensus to remove.My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was also the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Peer-reviewed_sources_that_use_Wikipedia_as_a_source_of_raw_data: "the Engel-Di Mauro paper would not be reliable for a statement like 'Capitalism caused X million deaths'". --Nug (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (which I note involved less participants than this one) revolved around the citation of the source for one specific statement. It wasn't a discussion concerning the reliability of the source as a whole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus to remove here, no, neither by nose count nor strength of arguments. First, it's important to note that the basic premise here is false - Mauro does have relevant expertise (he's has a certificate in Russian, Central, and East European Studies and has published extensively on the topic in peer-reviewed journals.) Furthermore, a number of people in the discussion above referred to the black book itself as fringe, which means that if we reference it at all then per WP:PARITY we can and must cite sources of similar weight refuting it; and a peer-reviewed publication by Engel-Di Mauro, an academic who has published extensively on the history of communism and who does have relevant expertise, seems to easily meet that bar. I am not sure why people are referring to him as a "geographer" as if that is his sole expertise; as mentioned, his expertise also includes Russian, Central, and East European Studies and particularly the interaction between ideologies and the environment, which makes him as specific of a subject-matter expert as we're likely to fond on the numerous famines that the Black Book uses to reach that 100 million total - ie. he is a better expert on the attribution of those famines than anyone writing for the Black Book itself. --Aquillion (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

He was replaced by a much better source discussing the same topic, so where's the problem? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get this renewed interest in Engel-Di Mauro either. There are a ton load of better sources available. Maybe the reason Engel-Di Mauro keeps getting brought up is that he may an editor here, so I guess there could be a COIN issue as well, I don't know. Sure Engel-Di Mauro holds a certificate in "Russian, Central, and East European Studies", but he also has a certificate in Hungarian language, that doesn't make him an expert on the Hungarian language. Some of topics that were available in Russian, Central, and East European Studies have nothing to do with communism or even political science (which has its own school at Rutgers). To say the Engel-Di Mauro is an "expert" in the Soviet famines is laughable. --Nug (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As noted by TFD, it is because it is a recent enough source that can summarize changes in the literature. Did you really just accuse one of us of being Engel-Di Mauro in incognito? That you think it is 'laughable' is your own opinion but I will take Aquillion's opinion; they have analyzed and argued based on rationalism and evidence, which I do not think your post debunked, though I will let Aquillion respond. Davide King (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Or even an admiring current/former student of his, who can really know as there are dozens of editors, but stranger things have happened in the past. Another problem is that Engel-Di Mauro is Editor-in-Chief at the journal that published his paper, and according Francis&Taylor publication policy, a journal's editor has the ultimate responsibility on which articles get published, so effectively Engel-Di Mauro has self-published his opinion. --Nug (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Or, you know, it could just be that Aquillion is right and the source is fine? Please, stop that self-publishing stuff; it was co-written and fact checked by others. Trust me, if you think it is me, I am not, and I do not think Siebert, or anyone else is: it is just your little conspiracy theory. Please, drop the stick. Davide King (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have here in my hand a list of 205 editors—a list of names that were made known as being current/former students of Engle-Di Mauro and who nevertheless are still working and shaping prose in the MKUCR article. Levivich 22:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, ha, a list of Engle-Di Mauroists, I guess you want us to check for reds under our beds too. Seriously though, Davide King is flat out wrong if he thinks the article was co-written, it is clearly cited to Engel-Di Mauro as saed (2021). --Nug (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant more to say that there was some form of editorial control or/fact checking and was reviewed with acknowledgments (hence et al., though I agree my 'co-written' wording was not the best one but I can be forgiven after you went out of your way to imply there must be Engel-Di Mauro's students here or even Engel-Di Mauro himself! In fact, I had no idea who he was until I found the paper through Google Scholar and added it at The Black Book of Communism), as noted by Levivich here. The thing is that you do not appear to consider it reliable at all, while Levivich does whilst pointing out some reasonable critical analysis with which even I can perfectly agree with. Davide King (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the contentious part has been removed and has not been re-added, so Nug where is the issue? Perhaps Aquillion thought that it was removed in toto (it was, but I re-added it for non-contentious claims), or they think the removed part should be re-added too — perhaps they may argue that per parity and weight, if we cite the Black Book, that paper is a good counter-example for capitalism because it used the same standards adopted for the Black Book, and that the added better references just makes it less fringe. Davide King (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Best sources

B. The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept

I think the two best sources for that scope that I've seen so far are:

• Kuromiya, Hiroaki (2017). "Communism, Violence and Terror". In Pons, Silvio; Smith, Stephen A. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Communism: World Revolution and Socialism in One Country 1917–1941. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. pp. 279–303. doi:10.1017/9781316137024. ISBN 978-1-107-09284-6.
• Strauss, Julia (2014). "Communist Revolution and Political Terror". In Smith, S. A. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602056.013.020. ISBN 978-0-199-60205-6.

Both discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept. (For example, both discuss BBoC directly.) Are there any others that are as recent (last 10 yrs?), as reliable/mainstream (Cambridge, Oxford), and as on-topic (discussing directly "the concept of a correlation...including proposed causes and critiques..."), or close to it? By the way, in searching for sources, I think no modern scholarship about this topic would not discuss BBoC (in the same way any modern discussion of race/intelligence will discuss The Bell Curve, whether positively or negatively or whatever), so I find looking for scholarship that cites BBoC to be a useful way to search for modern scholarship about this topic. Levivich 21:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no access to this book yet, and I am not sure I need to. First, this volume discusses the period 1917-1941, when only one Communist country existed, so it can hardly shed any light on some general correlations. Second, one review on this book ( Main, Steven J. Europe-Asia studies, 2019-08-09, Vol.71 (7), p.1251-1252) says:

"In this reviewer’s opinion, despite the length of the work, it could have included a number of other chapters, at least one dealing with the overall ‘experience’ of communism in the first half of the twentieth century: can any general lessons be teased out of the history of the practice of an ideology which, as outlined early on in the book, enveloped a huge section of the world’s population?"

From that, I conclude that book hardly contains generalizations that may serve as a core of our article.

WRT Strauss, that book is also too narrow. Obviously, just a small fraction of deaths discussed in our article relate to terror: majority of them were a result of war, famine and disease. Therefore, Strauss, as well as Mann, Harff, and other authors can hardly serve as a good starting point. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, from the abstract of the article by Strauiss, I conclude she belongs to what Karlsson calls "postrevisionnist" school, which is a synthesis of "totalitarian" and "revisionist" schools, and which essentially rejects the main idea of the former (that communist mass killings were one-way, hierarchical processes in which a despotic leadership exercised violence on a defenceless and passive population). Paul Siebert (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree Kuromiya focuses a lot on the USSR and probably isn't one of the best sources on which to base the rewrite for this reason. I don't really agree about Strauss, though. She isn't talking about terrorism, she's talking about political terror (same term Kuromiya and many others use), which is more than (not less than) mass killing, and also includes mass imprisonment, displacement, torture, etc. She covers USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and several other Communist states. She talks about the historiography directly, along the familiar dichotomy of "lumpers" (those who include "excess deaths" e.g. starvation, in which she includes BBoC) and "splitters" (those who do not, in which she incudes Kuromiya). She directly addresses how increased access to archives has changed the scholarship over the past 25 years. So, I think Strauss 2014 is directly on point, not too narrow at all. Anyway, that's one. :-) I have a longer list, see below. Levivich 01:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• In connection to that, I have a question. Karlsson (the source that is cited in this article) provides a good summary of sources on Communist crimes, and he separates them on three major schools of thought, which he places in a chronological order. The first school ("Totalitarian") is an old Cold war era school, which emphacised totalitarianism as a major factor. The second school is a "Revisionist" school (this word implies no negative connotation, for, per Suny, every new school of though emerges as a result of revision of previous knowledge) emphasise local factors and leaders personalities. The last school (most modern one) is "Postrevisionist", which proposes more nuanced approach. Clearly, the current version of the article emphasizes the old ("totalitarian") school, which is by ad large considered obsolete.

I think Karlsson's analysis may be a good starting point, because, per the RfC decision, we must write the article not about the events (mass killings and mass mortality in Communist states), but about generalization attempts, in other words, about different schools of thought. In that sense, Karlsson is a very good starting point.

I see two problems with Karlsson. First, he is mostly focused on the USSR, so I am not sure how his generalizations are applicable to Communism in general. Second, he is not widely cited. Can anybody find similar source that is more broadly cited and that discusses Communism studies in general (but in the same vein)? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• My another question is to @Davide King: I recall I posted a reference to some article where "genocide scholars" were discussed as a separate school of thought. The author said that this school of thought is working in separation from mainstream historians. It seems you quoted this article, do you have a link to it (or at least a reference)? this article would we a good source for making a claim about relative weight of different schools of thought.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are you referring to Verdeja 2012? If so, I found this source thanks to you and I paraphrased it like this:

  "Despite growth in recent decades, it remains a minority school of thought that developed in parallel, rather than in conversation, with the work on other areas of political violence, and mainstream political scientists rarely engage with the most recent work on comparative genocide studies. Such separation is complex but at least in part stems from its humanities roots and reliance on methodological approaches that did not convince mainstream political science; in addition, genocide studies is explicitly committed to humanitarian activism and praxis as a process, whereas the earlier generations of scholars who studied genocide did not find much interest among mainstream political science journals or book publishers, and decided to establish their own journals and organizations."

  Is this correct and what were you referring to? Davide King (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. In other words, we have a number of sources that discuss correlations between mass killings and Communism (most of them are "genocide scholars"), and we have a source saying that these authors is a minority school that work in isolation from mainstream historians.

  That is sufficient for making a non-WP:SYNTH statement that will be in accordance with NPOV. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is, because the text doesn't mention Communism or Communist mass killings. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." It doesn't provide an exception if we use good reasoning or make conclusions about what is implicitly stated. It's not just a technicality. Why should Wikipedia articles make observations that are not explicitly mentioned in any reliable sources? TFD (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed they are, Levivich, and I explicitily referred to them MKURSA (you may find this, which includes some relevant quotes and passages useful), though I also do agree with Siebert's analysis that they do not make generalization, and is precisely why I believe TFD is correct that we should focus on the narrative, which was correctly summarized by Siebert: "The idea is clear: that Communism killed 100+ million. And it did so because it was Communism. This idea is advocated by Rummel (who concluded that based on his statistical analysis of his own data), by Courtois (who ascribed those victims to Communism because ... because he decided to do so), and by several politicians, political journalists and writers. It is this idea which must be a subject of analysis in this article." This seems very clear to what The Four Deuces is referring to by victims of Communism, so the main disagreement seems to be about the name, which should be overcome later on. That is why I remain convinced that Levivich is also correct that the current scope (North8000's) may not notable enough because it is not limited to communism and we should broad it to genocide/mass killings and ideology in general1 but I could be wrong, and it will depend on how it is structured and which sources we are going to use. As things stand, I remain convinced that Siebert's summary, plus TFD's understanding of the topic, is the way to go, and I hope that you guys can put your issues about the name and work on the structure. Davide King (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on anything, here, but I could access both sources presented in this section via WP:TWL: Cambridge, Oxford. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Unfortunately, I can only access to the latter and not the former, for which I get an Online Computer Library Center logo error saying: "We are sorry, but your account does not have access to this resource. If you think you have reached this screen in error or have questions about the resource you were trying to reach, please contact your library." What does that mean and do you know why this appears? Davide King (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe one has to apply to get the Cambridge resource. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, here is a longer list, pulled from WP:MKUCRSA, recent talk page archives, and my own research. I believe each of these meets the following criteria: (1) scholarship, (2) from the last 20 years, (3) about Communism or Communist Parties and mass killing or mass murder or similar:

Contains historiography

1. Neumayer 2020: Neumayer, Laure (2020). "Bridges Across the Atlantic? Intertwined Anti-Communist Mobilisations in Europe and the United States after the Cold War". Revue d'études comparatives Est-Ouest (2–3). Presses Universitaires de France: 151–183. Retrieved 7 December 2021 – via CAIRN.
2. Radonić 2020: Radonić, Ljiljana (2020). The Holocaust/Genocide Template in Eastern Europe (E-book ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781000712124. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
3. Neumayer 2019: Neumayer, Laure (2019). The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (E-book ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 9781351141741.
4. Jones 2017: Jones, Adam (2017). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-53386-3.
5. Neumayer 2017: Neumayer, Laure (November 2017). "Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism' in the European Political Space: Memory Entrepreneurs in Interstitial Fields". Nationalities Papers. 45 (6). Cambridge University Press: 992–1012. doi:10.1080/00905992.2017.1364230. ISSN 0090-5992.
6. Graziosi 2016: Graziosi, Andrea; Sysyn, Frank E. (2016). Communism and Hunger: The Ukrainian, Chinese, Kazakh, and Soviet Famines in Comparative Perspective. University of Alberta Press. ISBN 978-1-894-86547-0.
7. Shafir 2016: Shafir, Michael (Summer 2016). "Ideology, Memory and Religion in Post-Communist East Central Europe: A Comparative Study Focused on Post-Holocaust". Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies. 15 (44). Universitatea Babes-Bolyai: 52–110. Retrieved 7 December 2021 – via JSRI.
8. Ghodsee 2014: Ghodsee, Kristen (Fall 2014). "A Tale of 'Two Totalitarianisms': The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism" (PDF). History of the Present. 4 (2). Duke University Press: 115–142. doi:10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115. JSTOR 10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115. Retrieved 7 December 2021 – via Scholars at Harvard.
9. Strauss 2014: Strauss, Julia (2014). "Communist Revolution and Political Terror". In Smith, S. A. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199602056.013.020. ISBN 978-0-199-60205-6.
10. Owens, Su & Snow 2013: Owens, Peter B.; Yang Su; David A. Snow (2013). "Social Scientific Inquiry Into Genocide and Mass Killing: From Unitary Outcome to Complex Processes". Annual Review of Sociology. 39: 69–84.
11. Wayman & Tago 2010: Wayman, Frank W.; Atsushi Tago (2010). "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing, 1949–87". Journal of Peace Research. 47 (1): 3–13.
12. Karlsson 2008: Karlsson, Klas-Göran; Schoenhals, Michael (2008). Crimes against Humanity under Communist Regimes (PDF). Forum for Living History.
13. Sémelin 2007: Hoffmann, Jacques Semelin Introduction by Stanley (2007). Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-51237-4.

Does not contain historiography

(or does not contain recent historiography)

1. Saucier & Akers 2018: Saucier, Gerard; Akers, Laura (2018-06-01). "Democidal Thinking: Patterns in the Mindset Behind Organized Mass Killing". Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal. 12 (1). doi:10.5038/1911-9933.12.1.1546. ISSN 1911-0359.
2. Bellamy 2012: Bellamy, Alex J. (2012). "Massacres and Morality: Mass Killing in an Age of Civilian Immunity". Human Rights Quarterly. 34 (4): 927–958. doi:10.1353/hrq.2012.0066. ISSN 1085-794X.
3. Chirot & McCauley 2006: Chirot, Daniel; McCauley, Clark (2006). Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-3485-3.
4. Mann 2005: Mann, Michael (2005). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing.
5. Valentino 2004: Valentino, Benjamin A. (2004). Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century.
6. Harff 2003: Harff, Barbara (2003). "No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955". The American Political Science Review. 97 (1): 57–73.
7. Horowitz 2002: Horowitz, Irving Louis (2002). Taking Lives: Genocide and State Power (5th, revised ed.).

Discussion (sources)

Please feel free to correct any mistakes in the citations directly (and thank you). Additions? Subtractions? Levivich 01:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Update: List refactored per Paul's comment below to split sources containing historiography from those that don't (and to correct a few citation errors I noticed). Levivich 17:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: I have a question. Did you read those sources, or you just selected them based on their title? What criteria did you use for source selection?

In my opinion, at the first step, we need some "metasources", which provide an overview of all important viewpoints. Remember, the new article's topic is not a discussion of the events: the article is supposed to discuss some very concrete points of view, concretely the views that discuss a linkage (or lack thereof) between Communism and mass killings.

In my opinion, two sources from this list meet this criterion: Karlsson and Strauss. Other sources are either too broad, or they propose some specific theories, which means we can return to them later, when an agreement will be achieved about the overall structure of the article.

In connection to that, I invite everybody to check me and to verify that I haven't overlooked other "metasources" in this list.

Below, I start the list, and you guys are welcome to continue it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Definitely not selected based on the title :-) But some of these are full-length books, so I haven't read every page of everything. I've at least skimmed each of these and read some parts, enough to see what they had to say about mass killings and Communist regimes. The criteria for selection is at the top: scholarship from last 20 years talking (in some depth) about mass killings and Communist regimes.

I agree with starting with the sources that cover the historiography of the topic. I've refactored the above list to split historiographical sources from non-historiographical sources. I may have missed some historiography in the non-historiographical list, or editors might disagree with my classifications anyway, so I encourage others to review/comment on the list/organization. Levivich 17:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Karlsson. He outlines three schools of thought: "totalitarian" (mostly Cold war era sources), "revisionist", and "postrevisionist" (I am not going to summarise them, you can read this source by yourself).
• Strauss divides all authors onto "lumpers" and "splitters", and it seems the former are closer to what Karlsson describes as a "totalitarian" school, whereas "splitters" are revisionists/postrevisionists. You can get an access to this source via WP:TWL (thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for a good advice; I encourage everybody who haven't used this resource yet to do so, registration is easy). I am leaving no signature, just add more "metasources" right below this line.

@Levivich:, the list is a good, Just a few comments, I think some of the more recent sources tend to be focused on Europe and more concerned with issues of Memory politics, which is kind of a derivative of the mass killings that occurred, but that said, if they contain a good general overview of the historiography, all well and good. Also, in regard to recent sources, maybe 2019 and 2020 may be a bit too recent. Academic journals publish original research, so we don't really know the degree of acceptance or impact this research has within the field until atleast a few years has passed. --Nug (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, some of these have a broader geographical scope than others (and that may be another way to filter down the list). No doubt that we usually cannot determine the impact of very recent scholarship (unless like it wins a prize, or something), and should be cautious about how much weight we give to new theories in very recent scholarship. However, I don't think it's as much of a problem for recent historiography, for example, a recent literature review would be better than an older one, unless the historiography is also something novel, like a new way of categorizing historians, or something like that. As always, it depends on the specific content that a particular source is being used for, but your point about recentism is well taken. Levivich 19:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think, to make our prospective discussion well organised and productive, we should do the following.

• First, we must agree on some common criteria for source selection;
• Second, we should select sources on some concrete topic;
• Third, each participant must explicitly support every intermediate conclusion/agreement.

That will help us to avoid incessant and repetitive disputes about each source. It will also make discussion more focused, so a new random source presented by some participant will not drive a discussion in a wrong direction. Finally, if we all explicitly endorse every intermediate conclusion/decision, that will help prevent raising of same argument again (which happens too frequently on this talk page).

Concretely, with regard to recentism and the publication time in general, I think we should follow our guidelines. In addition, I propose the following criteria:

• If some source is older than some threshold age, it should be used only for information of the previous state of knowledge, unless some evidences are presented that fact and opinia from that source are still considered valid. An example: Rummel for Chinese Cultural Revolution should be considered as a historical source, because Walder wrote that Rummel reviewed the data available before 1991, and made estimates. Walder analyzed a broader set of more recent data, and provided more accurate numbers. Clearly, similar to what we do in GULAG, we should use more recent and better sources for facts, and, if necessary (but only if it is really necessary), we should use older sources for additional information about the history of our knowledge of the topic.
• With regard to some threshold age, I propose to use some concrete events that changed our knowledge of the topic. One of those events is "archival revolution" of early 1990s, which made enormous amount of historical documents, books, etc available. I mean not only Russia, but also other post-Soviet states. Thus, some information avout Vietnam became available after documents from Hungarian embassy became available. Another example is Kuromiya, who obtained a lot of valuable information from declassified Ukrainian archives. Therefore, for most post-Soviet states, it would be correct to consider "Cold war era" sources as outdated.
• WRT very recent sources, I propose to accept the sources that are published in top rank journals (OUP, Harvard, etc) and/or authored by renown experts in the field. If we consider the articles authored by Kuromiya or Strauss in 2014 reliable, there is absolutely no reason to reject the articles by those authors if they were published in 2021 in some OPU journal. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

At least using Harward, etc would guarantee that the source has its information thoroughly verified by peer-review. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I sort of agree about your three steps but I also think we're past them.

1. Common criteria for source selection is decided for us already by the global consensus of WP:RS, including WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RSAGE, etc. etc. We don't need to re-debate these issues: we're going to prefer recent scholarship over older scholarship where available. There's no question that for something like, say, how many people were killed by the Chinese Communist Party 1966-1971, Walder 2015 supersedes earlier sources like Rummel 1991. That's already a matter of global consensus documented at WP:RS.
2. The RFC decided the topic: "concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments". So, for example, it seems to me neither Walder 2015, nor Rummel 1991, are about that topic.
3. I don't think that "each participant must explicitly support every intermediate conclusion/agreement" is something that can be required or is necessarily desirable. What happens if someone doesn't support something? We already have global consensus about this that already settles the matter: WP:CONSENSUS says consensus is not unanimity, so not everyone has to support everything. But I don't think that's what you meant, anyway? I think what you mean is that when consensus has been reached on intermediary items, it shouldn't be revisited repeatedly. I agree with this, but it's also a matter of global consensus that is already documented at the WP:CCC part of WP:CONSENSUS ("proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive").

So I think we know what the source criteria is and what the topic is, and frankly we all know how the consensus process works (notwithstanding that everyone can point to times in the past where they've felt that process wasn't followed, we all know how it should work). I think the 12 sources on the historiography list all meet the source criteria and are on-topic--though I recognize it may take some time for other editors to review it and so there may be additions/subtractions yet to come, and that list may change. But I think if we have a workable set of sources to begin with, we start taking a look at how the historiography sources organize the historiography. (Which, I think, is chronologically, with generally four periods: 19th c. [pre-Communist regimes], early 20th c. [up to 1945], late 20th c. [up to 1989], and post-Cold War [1990-present].) Buuut... if you or others think there's something we should discuss about the source criteria or topic, I don't want to steamroll ahead. Levivich 22:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that Karlsson mentions the three schools of totalitarianism, revisionism and post-revisionism, does anyone have access to this 2020 chapter Totalitarianism and revisionism in the book Debates on Stalinism where it is argued "the chapter shows how different authors of these different approaches to the study of Stalinism both learned from each other and forgot or misrecognized this process of learning by declaring themselves new and superior to the previous generation of scholars." Seems to me from the recent discussions on this page that we may have fallen into a similar mindset in deprecating particular schools. --Nug (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• While a few sources above are fine (""Communism, Violence and Terror" or "Crimes against Humanity under Communist Regimes"), most of them are not on the subject of this page, but about Holocaust or genocides in general, anticommunism, "left and right", whatever. They are not good sources for this. Some other sources, such as "Handbooks", are tertiary, they are not the best sources. My very best wishes (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  I believe each one talks about "mass killing". Don't judge them by their frickin' titles, folks. :-P Levivich 03:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, each source talks about "mass killings", but most of them are not specifically about such killings by communist regimes. If a source does not specifically discuss the question of mass killings by communist regimes (and preferrably in general, rather than for a single specific country), it should not be used.My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, like which one have you read and you say doesn't cover mass killings by communist regimes?? Levivich 16:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking a random source available online, such as [10], yes, it tells about something related to the subject of this page (as framed in the RfC), such Double genocide theory, but that is another page. What is the hypothesis out there about Mass killings under communist regimes (as the RfC requires)? I am at loss. Apparently, author has a concern about the rise of ring-wing movements in Europe. Yes, this is a reasonable concern, but it is not really about the actual Mass killings under communist regimes, and certainly there is no hypothesis. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For this work, the hypothesis is double genocide theory. On pages 136-137, the author says double genocide theory is A hypothesis that was deemed a dangerous fringe view in Germany in the 1980s, and was continuously challenged by scholars throughout the 1990s, has gained increasing traction in the United States and may end up influencing American foreign policy. This work talks about both the hypothesis, and challenges to the hypothesis. Levivich 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this authot calls double genocide theory a hypothesis, but this is another subject for another page we already have. Any serious discussion of the "correlation" (as RfC closing say) in the source? I am not sure. Author does not seem to dispute that such correlation exists, but she says so little of substance and in so uncertain terms about it, even that is difficult to summarize. Not a good source on this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Double genocide theory is one of the hypotheses about the correlation between mass killings and communist governments. Specifically, the theory (or an "aggressive version of it", as our Wikipedia article describes it) is that the correlation between mass killings and communist governments is Jews. This theory (or this more aggressive version of it) is, of course, discredited (but you wouldn't know that from reading our Wikipedia article about it...) Levivich 18:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, the "theory" (or rather an antisemitic canard) that "that the correlation between mass killings and communist governments is Jews" is known as Jewish Bolshevism, and that is yet another subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh no, Jewish Bolshevism is the theory that Jews are responsible for the Russian revolution. Double genocide theory is similar, but slightly different, in that it's about Jews being responsible for, or complicit in, genocide committed by the USSR. These are two different but related things. Levivich 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how much content about Jews should be mentioned on this page. "Red holocaust" is just a slogan, and hardly such a notable one. It should be mentioned only briefly. Of course Jews were one of ethnic minorities persecuted under Communist regimes, particular in the USSR, as was mentioned by Hanna Arendt and others. That included execution of the chairman of Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, Night of the Murdered Poets, Doctor's Plot, etc., so potentially something for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not the complete picture, double genocide theory is in essence about group A justifying counter-genociding group B because group B was complicit in genociding group A. Specifically it arose from some Lithuanians seeking to diminish or excuse their complicity in the Holocaust by claiming Jews were complicit in the killings of Lithuanians. That view isn't that prevalent outside Lithuania, and maybe Romania. --Nug (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true, double genocide theory is a collection of theories. Levivich 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Neumayer 2020, Radonić 2020, Neumayer 2019, Neumayer 2017, Shafir 2016 and Ghodsee 2014 are more focused on the memory politics surrounding mass killings, which is a different topic to what the remaining sources are discussing, which is the mass killings. Just like Armenian genocide denial (not suggesting these authors are denying anything) is memory politics topic compared to Armenian genocide. --Nug (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Stretching the example out, would the research someone who is writing an article about Armenian Genocide denial does about the Armenian Genocide be suitable for the article Armenian genocide? Genuine question, I don't think it's necessarily fair to dismiss a source in its entirety because it is overall about a slightly adjusted topic. Someone writing a book about Armenian genocide denial is going to have to do research regarding the Armenian genocide in order to establish a baseline on what is being denied and what actually happened, would it not be fair to say that what they say about the Armenian genocide could be used as a supporting source at Armenian genocide even if overall the source is about Armenian genocide denial? BSMRD (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In general, participants agree that the article should cover the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources. The article should cover the main hypothesis, proposed causes for the correlation, and major challenges to the hypothesis. Memory politics is a part of the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes and a part of the main hypothesis or challenges to the hypothesis. It's not surprising that the sources that cover historiography (the body of historical work on a subject) also cover memory politics (the politics of history), especially when the subject is mass killings and Communist regimes, which is the intersection of two extremely contentious topics in history. The RfC determined that the topic is the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, and not just "mass killings and communist governments". This article is about a concept. Paul was right that historiography is the place to start, and it's not surprising that the best RS about the concept (aka the best historiographical sources) consider memory politics to be a relevant part of this concept. Levivich 06:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What's so contentious, let alone "extremely contentious", about "Communist state" or "mass killing", when we have articles on both? And as far as a correlating factor between the two, Valentino defined it as a combination of agricultural collectivisation and political terror, something that is relatively unique to communist regimes. I don't think anyone disputes that. It is hard to imagine all this academic debate would exist at all if that intersection was just a hoax. As far as I can tell, a large part of the political debate is related to the comparison of communist and nazi mass killings and who killed more, not about the intersection between communist regimes and mass killings. --Nug (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Read the sources I listed, they explain it. Alternatively, read this article in a month or two, it'll explain it, too. Levivich 14:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As closing of the RfC say, "The article should cover the main hypothesis, proposed causes for the correlation...". Do the source X formulates any kind of a hypothesis [about Mass killings under communist regimes]? What is that hypothesis, exactly? I do not see it in most of the RS above. If they do, the hypothesis must be explicitly cited from the source. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is very simple. Just cite the hypothesis from the RS, and it should be on the subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you posted the same point twice, but I answered above. Levivich 17:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The signatories to this Declaration proclaimed that the 'millions of victims of Communism and their families are entitled to enjoy justice, sympathy, understanding and recognition for their sufferings in the same way as the victims of Nazism have been morally and politically recognized' and that there should be 'an all-European understanding ... that many crimes committed in the name of Communism should be assessed as crimes against humanity ... in the same way Nazi crimes were assessed by the Nuremberg Tribunal.'" This is the victims of Communism narrative, and why the scholarly sources about the Holocaust and memory politics are so important. Please, actually read or re-read this and this by TFD. Davide King (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's another topic, like Holodomor in modern politics compared to Holodomor. --Nug (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• As another suggestion, one can simply do Google books search. Here is it: [11]. All these books (two first pages of the search) are good and precisely on the subject. Let's use them. Google scholar [12] is also great, but produces a lot of false-positives. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure "communism death toll" is the best search string for this subject. I looked through the first two pages of results at gbooks and didn't find anything on this topic by academic publishers from the last 20 years on this list. However, the list did include Coronavirus – Communist and Marxist Uprising, which exposes the reality that China's real disease is NOT Covid-19 but indeed "COMMUNISM." Levivich 04:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I found this on the fifth page of the gbook results: Graziosi 2016: Graziosi, Andrea; Sysyn, Frank E. (2016). Communism and Hunger: The Ukrainian, Chinese, Kazakh, and Soviet Famines in Comparative Perspective. University of Alberta Press. ISBN 978-1-894-86547-0.. From the first page of the introduction: "In fact, with the exception of the 1943 Bengal famine with its approximately two million victims, all of the other major famines of the twentieth century are directly connected to socialist “experiments”: in 1921 and 1922 in Russia and Ukraine (1 million–1.5 million deaths); in 1931, 1932, and 1933 in the USSR (6.5 million–7.5 million deaths, of which 4 million were in Ukraine and 1.3 million–1.5 million in Kazakhstan); in 1946 and 1947 in the USSR (1 million–1.5 million deaths); from 1958 to 1962 in China (30 million–45 million deaths); from 1983 to 1985 in Ethiopia (0.5 million–1.0 million deaths); and from 1994 to 1998 in North Korea (estimates vary from a few hundred thousand to more than 2 million deaths)." --Nug (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Which chapter(s) describe famines as mass killings (or similar)? Levivich 05:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t have access so I can’t check. I found another book Genocide published in 2014 by William Rubinstein where he writes: "The central example of the Holocaust demonstrates that it is, classically, an ethnic or religious minority which is slaughtered in a genocide. Yet probably most (Rubinstein’s emphasis) victims of deliberate mass murder by totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century were not members of an ethnic minority but those perceived as belonging to an allegedly dangerous political or social class group of those defined, by their killers, as belonging to such a group. Most of the millions who perished at the hands of Stalin, Mao tse-tung, Pol Pot and the other Communist dictators died because the party’s leaders believed they belonged to a dangerous or subversive social class or political grouping.". It has a chapter "Genocide in the Age of Totalitarianism, 1914 - 79", but again I don't have access to it either. --Nug (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oh yes, the comparison of different types of genocides is a legitimate content (not anything FRINGE). It appears in many RS and belongs to this page as far as genocides by communist governments are included in such comparisons. There could be a debate if something (like Holodomor) was a genocide. Such debates also belong to this page per the RfC outcome. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason to dismiss any books older than X years per WP:Verifiability. Yes, the book on coronavirus and another by David Satter are not on the subject, but all other 8 books on the first page of the Google search are all valid books by academics: Paul Kengor(2020), Norman Naimark(2011), BBoC(1999) by a group of academic researchers, Jon Halliday(2011), Robert Conquest(2008), Rudolph Rummel (2017), etc. Excluding their views would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I found a 2017 book by Norman Naimark published by Oxford University Press called Genocide: A World History. It has a chapter titled "Communist Genocides", so I think that would be an excellent source. --Nug (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to debate WP:RSAGE. Conquest 2008 is a reprint of Conquest 1990; Rummel 2017 is a reprint of Rummel 1997; those are too old to be one of the best sources for this article, and in any event, 1990s scholarship is discussed in detail by subsequent scholarship in the 21st century; there are better sources to cite for Rummel's views than Rummel's 1990s books. Similarly, BBoC is something the article discusses in the prose. It's not so much a source for this article as part of the topic of this article; there are over a dozen academic sources from the past 20 years that discuss BBoC, many on the list above, and more cited in our Wikipedia article already. BBoC isn't a source the article relies on, it's something the article talks about. Kengor 2020 is not by an academic publisher, it's by a "traditional Catholic publisher" (TAN Books), not one of the best works for this article, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Halliday 2011 is only about one communist regime (Mao) and thus, like works that focus just on the Soviet Union, not one of the best sources for this article (this is a point discussed ad nauseum on this page, including in this thread). I've seen Naimark's work discussed by several of the sources (the ones I contend are the "best"). Naimark's written a lot about genocide; 2011 seems to be about Armenia, but 2017 (originally published in 2016) is obviously global in scope. I haven't looked at it but I will. It seems similar to Jones 2017: recent scholarship, academic publisher, and while a slightly narrower scope ("genocide" instead of "mass killing"), I found Jones 2017 to nevertheless have on-topic info, and so I'd expect Naimark 2016 would, too. Levivich 17:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. Significant procedural objections have been raised to this RM and very little discussion about the proposed title has occurred. There is an ongoing RfC to determine if the article should be renamed, and if so, to what title; discussion about the article title should continue there. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 07:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Mass killings under communist regimes → Mass killings by communist regimes – I think the proposed title is more succinct than the current title without substantially changing the title's meaning. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: Have you even read BSMRD's comment here, whcih specifically warned with good reasons not to have yet another RfC? The proposed change is not a good one either because it implies the structure is A or C rather than B, for which we should follow examples like Race and crime in the United States or Race and intelligence, hence we should really debate whether it should be Communism and mass killing, or Communist state and mass killing, and whether it should be plural or which should go first; I think it should not because the examples are also singular. Davide King (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. The title must be changed precisely because we must "substantially [change] the title's meaning", as the topic and structure should be the debates and theories around them, not the events and mass killings themselves. Davide King (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To be completely fair, it is possible he was already typing up the RM before I made my comment, considering the closeness of the time stamps. I do have to ask why Mhawk10 decided on this title in particular, when nothing in particular seems to suggest it over any of the other proposals above. As Asilvering said, 3 letters isn't really worth an RM. BSMRD (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've previously quoted the lede of Race and crime in the United States, "In the United States, the relationship between race and crime has been a topic of public controversy and scholarly debate for more than a century. Crime rates vary significantly between racial groups." There is a cascade of concerns arising from at least one licensed premise, it's only an example of what not to do. ~ cygnis insignis 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The proposed change is exactly the same number of words. It is three letters shorter than the current title. That's worth an RM on a highly contested article? Come on. -- asilvering (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that the proposed title is worse than the current title? The reason this is a requested move rather than me just boldly doing it is because the article content is so hotly disputed by some editors that any move is likely to be contested. If you don’t like changing “under” to “by” (I think the change in title renders it more natural in addition to being more concise), then make an feel free to make an argument as to why the proposed title is not better than the current title. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not getting drawn into that. You proposed the move: it's on you to show that the destination is better. Your reasoning given was that the title is more succinct; given that we're talking about three letters and zero words shorter, I don't think that holds any weight whatsoever. I am willing to assume you did this earnestly and in good faith, having (correctly) observed that unilaterally making this move would be controversial; but I think trying to continue this RM and spin it out into a full discussion would be nothing short of vexatious. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Very simply, my argument is that the title is both more natural and that the title is more concise (albeit marginally). — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Bad idea to have an RFC here now. And IF there were to be an RFC, given the history and activity here, any RFC should be the result of a group effort. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It makes no sense to propose a move while editors are deciding on what the name should be. I don't think that changing "under" to "by" makes the title substantially more succinct. TFD (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If only there were an ordinary process for gathering community input on a proposed change for the name of an article… In any case, I don’t really see how changing this in the intermittent would be anything but a small improvement over what is currently there. If you think that the change makes the article title less natural and less concise, feel free to argue on substantial grounds. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There is, the request to move that brought me here.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear user @Mhawk10:, I want to very personally thank you for examplifying why I used the RFC template instead of the RM template. Because the subject of the article is very contentious, any suggestion to rename the article to something else will either result in: "No consensus" because everyone wants the article to be given a different name, hence my previous point "Nobody can agree on anything here" is to be taken into account once again; Or, as shown here, the result is "oppose" due to everyone thinking the new name is bad/not good enough. @A. C. Santacruz: @Nug: @Levivich: Read my comment carefully, and think about what your suggestion caused. We need to agree on a name before WP:RM should be ever considered, if it should be considered at all. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"My" suggestion (and others') was not to do this. Levivich 18:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nug and the user above who made that move request did. Reading the context of the discussion, Santacruz agreed to it too, and it seemed you did so too since you replied right after Nug. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@MarioSuperstar77: Was the option to not remove a chunk of article [13] considered before you went ahead and did that? ~ cygnis insignis 19:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think anything prevents us from having a RM with multiple options, although we might need to tweak or fiddle with the templating. But I also think the question of whether it is an RFC or an RM is a bit silly to get caught up on. --Aquillion (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• No to this specific suggestion; several of the names suggested above seem superior and there's no reason to think they wouldn't get a stronger consensus behind them if we put them all forwards at once. And I somewhat object to an up / down RM on one specific name when so many names are under consideration; there's nothing that I can see that would make this option better than the ones above, so why should it be given particular consideration? --Aquillion (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a needed or useful move. But a redirect from that wording might be appropriate. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2022 (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.

Recent removal

This edit is an important step towards implementation of the RfC result. Indeed, the article's scope is

"... potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources. The article should cover the main hypothesis, proposed causes for the correlation, and major challenges to the hypothesis"

Obviously, the discussion of this topic includes a discussion of those views that see no correlation and (or) criticise the claim that such correlation exists. Clearly, a separate section that discuss some common terminology creates an apparent hierarchy, because it implies that the schools that see a correlation is by default a majority school. That is not necessarily the case (at least, no evidences has been presented so far that that is the case). Let me re-iterate it: specific terminology for Communist mass killings is used mostly by those authors who sees a link between Communism and mass killings. Those authors who do not see it, as a rule, use no specific terminology that needs to be explained in this article. Therefore, any discussion of a common terminology must be linked to the discussion of the views of the authors that see some significant correlation. For example (that is not an actual wording, that is just an idea):

"Rudolph Rummel collected a database of all human life loss that were a result of actions taken by Communist authorities, including the acts of commission or acts of omission. He found a significant correlation between totalitarianism (and Communism) and what he called "democide". He estimated the scale of "Communist democide" to be as high as XXX milliuon"

Therefore, I request all users to respect the results of the last RfC and not to restore this section. Some of its content will be re-added later into the article what its new structure will be created. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the Terminology sections goes right to the heart of the historiography and "the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments" per B, so it should be kept pending the sources review. --Nug (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The process of source review is too sluggish. Per your request, I decided to make a pause and to minimize my participation in the talk page discussion, and what we get? Actually, there is no progress in a discussion, and it creates an impression that some participants are engaged in a pro forma activity to preserve the article in its current state. Let's remove this section (which has obvious problems), start a real and productive discussion, and then re-add its content into a rewritten article. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The agreement above concerning the implementation was to proceed incrementally, there is no consensus for deletion of the article which you are effectively doing. --Nug (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not deleting the article. I removed one part, and I clearly explained that a significant part of the content should be added back. I even explained how it should be done. The problem is that the article is not ready for the re-addition of this content. Instead of throwing baseless accusations, you should better accelerate a discussion of a new structure of the article. For example, I explained how the information about terminology should be reorganized. Do you have any comment on that? Any counter-arguments, criticism? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you selectively deleted or replaced sentences rather than entire sections your claim "I am not deleting the article" would be more convincing. Please revert your disruptive edit since other editors were planning to edit this terminology section. --Nug (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I asked that user, let's see what he says. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of the terminology section? Only a minority of these terms are used further into the article, so it's not to help the reader there. They aren't shared between authors, so it doesn't help someone trying to do their own research. The paragraph preceding this list rejects correlation between authors, so it's not really "going into the heart of the historiography". Unless editors can give a compelling reason for the inclusion of this list of related (in their opinion) terms, there is no reason for it to stay. BSMRD (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, when we discuss correlations, there is one more consideration. Some authors do see correlations between Communism and mass killings, but they see correlation between just some categories of them. Thus, killing of "class enemies" is linked to Communism by many authors, but counter-guerilla mass killings is not.

Second, as soon as correlations are discussed, we should talk about negative correlations too. Thus, Mann claims that Communists were efficient in suppressing some ethnic mass killings (for example, in Yugoslavia or USSR). Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD: If we are discussing the "the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments" then of course the paragraph rejecting correlation, i.e. "negative correlation" between authors is relevant. --Nug (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "rejecting correlation" and "negative correlation"? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Positive, negative or in User:BSMRD's terms "rejecting correlation", it is still a part of the historiography. --Nug (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Both the terminology section (which is important for the historiography), as well as the structure that discusses the killings by Cambodia, USSR, and China (which are discussed in sources as being linked to their governing ideologies) seems better kept in the article itself as-was. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not hard to imagine that terminology for each event needs explanation, I don't blink twice at that within the context of articles on those topics, however, a contentionious part of the page is what is claimed to be pov forking via the juxtaposition of two broad terms, that is, a fallacious correlation. ~ cygnis insignis 15:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Be careful whenever you revert over multiple editors, you could inadvertedly revert a positive addition to the article. My very best wishes did that and I had to scold them. In your case, you first reverted over Paul Siebert and Davide King, both of whom you contested, so that is fair, but one person that got caught in the crossfire was Greyhound1982 whom thankfully was a vandal and not a good-faith editor. Next time, consider undoing edits one by one, I do not think it affects the 1RR rule. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This series of difs modified the changes to the lead that I had challenged and removed tags at the top of the page noting content was disputed. Reverting over their edits was on purpose, though I didn't feel a need to explain it given that I thought it was plainly obvious. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, because it happened once with an experienced editor, I thought about warning you. If that was fully intended, then good job. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless articles about MkUCR routinely mention provide a glossary of terms, it violates weight to include it. Also, it is implicit synthesis since we cannot know if the sources use the same definitions. For example, Karlsson says "genocide is the killing of a category of people," while in Uyghur genocide, it doesn't necessarily mean killing at all. The best way to handle WP:JARGON is to define terms when they arise. For example, in Paul Siebert's example of Rummel, we should mention that Rummel uses the term and provide his definition. TFD (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with restoring older version by Mhawk10. For example, this removal [14] goes explicitly against the conclusion of the RfC. It was to include the academic debate on the subject. But the edit removes such debates. Perhaps this could be rephrased or reorganized, but not removed. Same with most other removals. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• The section says, "Classicide – sociologist Michael Mann has proposed classicide to mean the "intended mass killing of entire social classes." Classicide is considered "premeditated mass killing" narrower than genocide in that it targets a part of a population defined by its social status, but broader than politicide in that the group is targeted without regard to their political activity." Wouldn't it make more sense to move this information to the discussion about Mann's analysis? TFD (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Many of those terms have variable meanings including in how sources use them. Probably not a good idea to try to nail down an article-wide definition. Better to say how the particular source is using them when putting material in from that source. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Debates start from defining the subject, and different researchers define it differently: Classicide, Democide, Politicide, simply "mass killing", etc. So yes, making such section from the beginning makes a lot of sense. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• So if there was only one definition, there would be no debate? TFD (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure there would be debate. But this is the case when there is a debate about what exactly needs to be debated. Same with other subjects. For example, one must define what is time (fortunately there is one accepted operational definition in physics), etc. My very best wishes (talk)

• Authors often discuss the terms other authors use, and it is mostly around scope: mass killing of classes, mass killing of political groups, mass killing of ethnic groups, etc, and the threshold of killings to be considered "mass killings", 1 for Rummel, 1000 for Tago&Wayman, 50,000 for Valentino, etc. Nothing really controversial about that. --Nug (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a terminology section is attempting to nail down an article wide definition, it is just summarising the various definitions authors use in one place. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy, and mere juxtaposition of statements isn't SYNTH either. See WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

First, that creates an apparent hierarchy, second, it is an unneeded back and forth discussion. Both are strongly discouraged by our policy. Please, stop this type argumentation, you are literally proposing us to violate our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Who in the world came up with this "correlation" terminology? Is this based on sources or is this original research by someone here? Correlation has a pretty specific meaning. What you guys are talking about here is simply "relationship". Obviously there is a correlation between communist regimes and mass killings (hard to think of one that didn't do it). The question at the heart of the discussion is whether there is *causation* - were the mass killings caused by the communist ideology of the communist regimes or was there something else that did it. Until we start using words correctly a lot of this discussion is simply irrelevant. Volunteer Marek 00:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes. The suggestion about "correlation" is mostly WP:OR. This is like asking: do we have a correlation between Nazi Germany and Holocaust? Well, that was not a correlation, but an official policy of extermination devised by Nazi based on their ideology. Same with Red Terror, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Marek. You are right, "correlation" has a very specific meaning, and I raised exactly the same argument during the process of preparation of this RfC. In my 17th statement, I proposed this version of "B": The article should discuss the concept that links mass killings with Communism as a primary causative factor, including critiques of the concept. I argued that the word "correlation" gives an undue weight to Rummel, Harff and few other authors. Unfortunately, due to a joint opposition of Nug and Vanteloop, this proposal was not accepted, and that is why we have the word "correlation".

With regard to you second point, yes, the word "correlation" is based on sources. Specifically, several authors did factor analysis of global genocide databases, and some of them (mostly Rummel, Harff and few others) found some correlations between Communism and mass killings. Rudolph Rummel was the one who pioneered this type studies, and application of factor analysis to social sciences is his major scientific contribution (and that is why he is broadly cited).

One way or the another, we had the RfC, and the outcome of this RfC is pretty clear: the article does not discuss the events (mass killings), it discusses the concepts that link mass killings to Communism, as well as the criticism of those ideas. I agree that "B" was poorly formulated, but that is not my fault: you should thank Nug and Vanteloop for that. However, we must respect the outcome of this RfC, and one important consequence of this RfF is that the article must be significantly modified, which include removal of a significant part of its content followed by its partial re-addition after a new structure will be created. In connection to that, I find the action of those who reverts significant recent changes highly disruptive: it looks like some users who voted against "B" are trying to filibuster and block any attempt to implement the RfC decision. If that will continue, that may be a reason to request for severe sanctions per DS. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the RfC consensus was actually entails the literal statistical meaning of correlation. I don't really see all that many arguments in it regarding linear statistical relationships between a the variable "communism" and a variable "mass killing" (Is this frequency? Total killed? Total killed per capita? Raw quantity of mass killings? It's not very well defined.). If anything, the consensus is for the relationship between communism and mass killings, rather than the strict correlation of communism in a particular controlled statistical linear model with some variable of mass killings. If we're limiting this to a limited set of quantitative analyses, we're ultimately going to wind up violating WP:NPOV by excluding the scholars who talk about a qualitative relationship between communism and mass killings and any scholar who talks about a quantitative non-linear relationship between communism and mass killings. I can ask the closer for clarification on this point, since I imagine that several editors would like definite clarity, so here's a ping to Wugapodes. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You almost literally repeated my arguments. As I said, I opposed to the word "correlation" (for the reason that I am not going to explain again). In my responce to Marek, I just explained to him that the word "correlation" is a pretty legitimate term in this context, and it was not an invention of some user.

With regard to the rest, I am not going to repeat myself, just read the arguments that I already presented in this section. There is nothing in my arguments that you refuted, and there is nothing is your arguments that justifies your revert. Consider self-reverting, or at least explain your position properly. In your responce, keep in mind that:

• This article is NOT discussing mass killings (the events) anymore, it discusses the claim that those mass killings (or some part of them) were linked to Communism.
• This article does NOT present a linkage between Communist and mass killings as a fact: it is just an opinion of some fraction of authors, the opinion that some author support other authors reject, and majority of authors ignores.
• There is no single school or single theory that links mass killings with Communism: different authors see different linkage between different versions of Communism and different categories or subcategories of mass killings. Therefore, and attempts of generalization can be made only if they are supported by ironclad evidences and sources.Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• You are arguing for an option discuss the concepts that link mass killings to Communism, as well as the criticism of those ideas that was never offered in the RFC. What was selected was The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept, I don't see how you can discuss a correlation without mentioning the events, and nowhere does the RFC closer mention anything about events, let alone prohibit the mention of them. The RFC closer does state that "option B does not prevent citing specific regimes as evidence where sources already do so." Certainly option B could have been worded better as "concept of a correlation" makes no sense: The article should discuss the correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques--Nug (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Nug, I am not sure you have a moral right to write that. Look: (i) VM wrote that "correlation" looks like a bullshit or someone's original research; (ii) I agreed with him and explained that there are some problems with the word "correlation" (thanks to you), and, yes, it would be more correct to speak about a "linkage" (and "correlation" being a subset thereof); (iii) you are insisting on the literal interpretation of the wording of "B", despite the fact that overwhelming majority of users agree that that literal interpretation is not what they voted for.

  WRT the rest, "Individual regimes should be mentioned only when used as evidence by specific sources", and, therefore, they should be discussed only in a context of some specific point of view. Thus, we cannot collect all terms into one section, then collect all estimates in another section etc. Yes, the events can and should be mentioned, but ony in a context of some concrete theory. This is an example:

  "Rummel estimated the number of deaths caused, directly or indirectly by all Communist regimes, combined them into a category that he called "democide". According to him, the scale of Communist democide amounted to 110 million victims. Based on the results of factor analysis of the obtained data, Rummel claimed that there is a direct correlation between democide and Communism. Various aspects of Rummel's theory, including the quality of the data and validity of his approach were analyzed by Dulic, who noted numerous methodological flaws that may significantly affect Rummel's conclusions."

  Other authors and views should be presented in the same way, which I am going to do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I take the broader definition of a relation existing between phenomena occurring together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone, so I don't know what the problem is, unless you, Marek and MVBW are suggesting that the RFC was malformed and thus invalid. In any case we are not exclusively discussing concepts that link mass killings to Communism as you suggest. --Nug (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I was pinged here to clarify the close, and Merriam Webster's definition of "correlation" cited by Nug is how I understood the term. This discussion is the first time I've seen anyone mentioning factor analysis or taking the hard-line stance that "correlation" = "statistical correlation". Participants seemed to be using the ordinary meaning of the word, not the technical one, and in most cases where someone talked about "correlation" they were also talking about relationships, causes, and links broadly rather than number crunching. "Relationship" or "causal relationship" or "links" are all reasonable ways to paraphrase the point if "correlation" is too confusing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

'Who in the world came up with this "correlation" terminology?' Unanswered, although it is mentioned on this page over 100 times, perhaps in reference to RFC that is pinned at the top of this page; it's not pretty but it is happening. ~ cygnis insignis 11:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Correlation can have different common meanings including simple mathematical correlation plus possible or actual cause-effect relationships. I would consider it to unthinkable to believe that the RFC result was to exclude any of those. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Correlation means a relation between things that tends to vary in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone. {Merriam-Webster)[15] In this case it would mean that had the Communists not been in power then the number of victims would have been lower. The White Russians, Nazi invaders, Nationalist Chinese and Japanese invaders would have killed fewer people. Or had Communists come to power in European countries in the inter-war period, they would have killed fewer people than the right-wing groups that actually took power. TFD (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Correlation means a relation between things that tends to vary in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone Ugh. That is a horrible definition (shame on you MW). Spurious correlations, purely on basis of chance, happen all the time. I think as the ensuing discussion shows, this word only serves to confuse the issue and should probably be avoided. Volunteer Marek 18:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant "Or had Communists come to power in European countries in the inter-war period, they would have killed more people than the right-wing groups that actually took power." Case in point: the defeat of the Bolsheviks by Estonian nationalist forces during the Estonian war of independence saw the flourishing of minorities which was brought to an end with the repression of these minorities by Soviet authorities after the Soviet occupation. But that's beside the point, User:North8000's comment has raised a troubling issue, if many of the participants were misled by their understanding of the wording of the RFC, then that calls into question the validity of the RFC itself. --Nug (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

nowiki to piped links in example: "Case in point: the defeat of the Bolsheviks by Estonian nationalist forces during the [[Estonian war of independence]] saw the [[History_of_the_Jews_in_Estonia#Jewish_autonomy_in_independent_Estonia|flourishing of minorities]] which was brought to an end with the [[History_of_the_Jews_in_Estonia#Soviet_Occupation_in_1940|repression of these minorities]] by Soviet authorities after the Soviet occupation." ~ cygnis insignis 11:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, I don't agree with your statement which in essence implies that correlation is automatically an assertion of causation. IMO a review of either should not be excluded here. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with VM and you. Sources on this subject do not use wording "correlation". Hence this is WP:OR. They do not use such wording because "corelation" has specific meaning in science. Correlation does not imply causation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That led me to learn logical meaning of "imply" and that it is different than the common meaning. Just clarifying I was using the common softer meaning of "imply" meaning in my previous post. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources on this subject do not use wording "correlation". ???

• Hassner 1999 p. 284:

  The studies in part 2, by contrast, strongly reinforce this interpretation. Except to a certain extent in the case of Hungary, where the corps of historians, according to Paul Gradvohl, seem to have resisted overpoliticization more than elsewhere,they show that most often in the transposing of debates on relations between fascism and Communism, and especially between the Holocaust and the Gulag,it is really about the self-justification of the peoples concerned. Andrzej Paczkowski, in a chapter that is both a contribution to our knowledge of the specificities of the Polish regime and its development as well as to our understanding of what forms of acceptance and refusal concerning the past characterized the population, also shows the correlation of these factors with positions adopted on the problem of the equivalence, and thereby exposes the strategies of forgetting and sidestepping guilt.

• Das 2008 p. 107:

  Many political scientists have used existing data sets, such as the Minorities at Risk data set, to argue that a significant correlation exists between settlement patterns and the likelihood of tensions between an ethnic group and a state turning into violent conflict.

• Jones 2008 p. 243-244:

  The frequent and often massive correlation between male victimization and the most annihilatory genocidal excesses may merit a fundamental rethinking of the prevailing ‘gendered’ framing of many of these issues.

• Wayman & Tago 2010 p. 7:

  When we graphed the number of geno-politicide deaths in the world per year, we noticed that it was very different than the pattern for democide (Rummel, 1998: 4). There is a surprisingly big difference between the two datasets in terms of numbers killed per year, and surprisingly low correlation between the two datasets.

• Owens 2013 p. 4:

  Variable-centered approaches generally take the form of quantitative studies that use statistical methods to identify correlate associations between hypothesized explanatory factors and the incidence, timing, and severity of genocide and associated outcomes (e.g., Hagan & Rymond-Richmond 2008, Harff 2003).

• Jones 2017 p. 821:

  Unfortunately, perpetration of genocide on a national territory often correlates with underdeveloped and compromised legal institutions.

• Radonic 2018 p. 512:

  The notion of a “double genocide” – perpetrated in the Baltic states first by the Soviets in 1940, then by the Nazis, and then by the Soviets again after 1944 – constitutes a form of “Holocaust envy,” given that the conceptualization of the Holocaust as a singular “rupture in civilization,” though highly disputed, has rendered it the ultimate predicate for victimhood in the era of victims. As the “universalization of the Holocaust” has progressed, various victim groups have begun to claim that they too have suffered “just like the Jews” – sometimes by emphasizing factual similarities, sometimes by blatantly inverting the roles of the actual historical victim and perpetrator.

  The second major question is how these concepts correlate with the ways in which “our” and “their” victims are represented with the help of texts, photographs and objects?

• Saucier 2018 p. 87:

  To provide one index of severity, we used estimates, provided by Rummel’s 1994 volume, of the total number of deaths involved in each (acknowledging that precise estimates are hard to establish). To examine whether distribution of any of these themes was confounded with severity of the case (number of million estimated to have died, capped at 3 million to eliminate positive skew) we calculated pointbiserial correlations between severity and presence versus absence of each of the themes. The allowed Type I error rate was defined by 99% confidence intervals, given the many correlations. With 20 cases, only large effects (r > .50) will fall outside a 99% confidence interval, and none did. The highest among the correlations were in the .40s (positive associations of dehumanization and racialism with severity), suggesting the possibility that, with a larger number of cases and thus higher statistical power, effects of severity might be found.

They use the word in both the mathematical and non-mathematical sense. It is a common word, after all. Levivich 17:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Ummm... Levivich, which one of these actually uses the word "correlation" in context of mass killings and communist regimes? What you've mostly showed here is that sources ... use the word "correlation". I mean... yes. It's a word. As a word. It is used. By sources. Sometimes. ? Question is whether it's used in this particular context. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The closer talked about "potential correlation between mass killings and comunist (sic!) regimes". That is what I was talking about. The quotations above say mostly about something else: "these factors" (which factors?), a correlation "settlement patterns and the likelihood of tensions between an ethnic group and a state", "correlation between male victimization and the most annihilatory genocidal excesses", etc. My very best wishes (talk)

It's nice we all agree that no RS says there is a correlation between mass killing and communist regimes. Levivich 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No RS say there is no correlation between mass killing and communist regimes. Probably because it's an awkward word to use in this context. Which was the original point. Volunteer Marek 18:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Correlation

In a response to Cygnis insignis question ("Who in the world came up with this "correlation" terminology?"), let me explain that once again to put an end to this ridiculous discussion. There are two answers to this question.

• First, the word "correlation" was proposed during the DRN discussion about the RfC questions by Vanteloop on 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC). Later, this proposal was supported by Nug at 20:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC).
• Second, the scholar who started to study global correlation between violence and regime type was Rummel. He collected a global database of mass killings, which contained ALL published data that he could find. This database contained figures of totally different reliability (from very reliable to obviously unreliable), which was noted by several authors. Rummel's idea was that unreliable low and high figures will cancel each other, so the median value gives a realistic number (a flawed approach, as noticed by several authors). Using his database, Rummel performed factor analysis of the data obtained, and he found that the scale of democide strongly correlates with few parameters, and especially with totalitarianism, and especially Communism. To explain this correlation, Rummel proposed existence of some strong causal linkage between Communism and mass killings. His hypothesis is based primarily on numbers and on the correlation that he obtained. Besides Rummel, some other authors also study global correlations between parameters of some society and the degree of violence in it. Most of them are genocide scholars like Harff. They use either the Rummel's data set or they work with their own data. Again, those studies are focused mostly on correlations.

Other authors discuss a causal linkage (or a lack thereof) between mass killings and Communism. I think that we should stop a discussion of "correlation", and return back to the main topic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, this is the answer I was looking for - however since it pertains to one particular sources rather than the literature as a whole (yes, there is a more general literature on violence and regime type), I would still advise against using that word. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

More specifically, we should avoid using this word when describe the views of those authors who, without using statistical methods, make a conclusion about a casual linkage (or lack thereof) between Communism and mass killings. However, for those authors who do see some correlation (in terms of eigenvalues, correlation coefficients etc), usage of this term is quite justified.

We just have to clearly separate the former from the latter. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of people's interpretation/misinterpretation of the term "correlation", the RFC closer User:Wugapodes confirmed Participants seemed to be using the ordinary meaning of the word, not the technical one, and in most cases where someone talked about "correlation" they were also talking about relationships, causes, and links broadly rather than number crunching. "Relationship" or "causal relationship" or "links" are all reasonable ways to paraphrase the point if "correlation" is too confusing. So I think we are all in agreement that the article isn't going to focus on the term "correlation" and that the terms "Relationship" or "causal relationship" or "links" are equally valid, right? --Nug (talk)

The article should not focus on correlations sensu stricto when it describes the view of those authors who discuss a linkage between mass killings and Communism from historical or sociological perspective, and the article should discuss correlations (a statistical category) as soon as the views of the authors who were using primarily statistical tools are described. A relative emphasis on these two approaches depends on their relative weight, which can be determined by an analysis of a representative sample of sources.

And, again, the very word "correlation" appeared in the RfC text because of you. During the RfC, I already pointed at possible problems with this word. Instead of openly conceding that your position was silly, you continue to argue as if you were the opponent of that word from the very beginning. I found that position not completely honest. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Now you are misrepresenting my position, but I take it as you agreeing with VM that the scope covers "correlation", "relationship", "causal relationship" and "links". --Nug (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you explained you position during WP:DRNMKUCR, and it was clear. It is that you post which lead to the word "correlation" in the final RfC text. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

So what? You agree with VM that the scope of B covers "correlation", "relationship", "causal relationship" and "links", right? --Nug (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I can explain you "what". The "VM's scope" is actually the scope proposed by me during the DRNMKUCR. I pointed at possible problems with "correlation", and proposed not to use this word. You disagreed, and that lead to adoption of Vanteloop's formula for "B". As I expected, it became a source of misunderstanding, and to a long discussion (see above) that distracted many good faith users from more important problems. The person who should be "thanked" for that is you, and it is not completely honest to pretend that you have no relationship to that, or that my vision of "B" was inconsistent with VM's vision. That casts a doubt on your good faith, and on a possibility to conduct a fruitful dialogue with you.

I agree that that is a petty incident that does not deserve a serious attention. However, such petty disputes are too frequent in discussions that involve you, which make them long and sometimes senseless. Unless you true goal is to preserve the article in the current state (thereby preventing implementation of the RfC decision), I recommend you to switch to a more productive way to collaborate. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Good, now that you are done attacking me personally and you agree you are aligned with VM, can we discuss the next issue, being whether the article discusses the nexus between mass killings and communism or the nexus between mass killings and communist regimes? There is a distinction. --Nug (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nug Yours "done attacking", "aligned with" may be an indication of of a profound battleground mentality. I think you should abandon that approach. I am not "attacking" you, my point was different. I want you to concede (or at least to think about) the following: (i) I proposed not to use the word "correlation", because I anticipated some problems with that, (ii) you yourself seem to agree that the choice of that word was a mistake, however, since the idea not to use this word came from me, you objected to that. That means for you is more important not what is proposed, but who is a proposer. That is highly unproductive. Similarly, you said I "aligned with" VM, but I do not think in these categories: in reality, VM and I just share a common point of view on this concrete subject. We may disagree (and we usually disagree) about many things, but in this concrete case our POVs coincide, and I see no problem with that.

With regard to your last question, it is a quite legitimate concern: I have no idea what does "correlation with communist regimes" mean. I know that several authors wrote about a linkage between Communism and mass killings, whereas some other authors wrote about a role of some concrete Communist regime in mass killings, but I am not familiar with the works where the authors draw a connection between "Communist regimeS" (plural) and mass killings. What do you think about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I started this section because the attempts to bring the article into accordance with the RfC decision were reverted. I propose to return to the main topic of this section. Please, do not return to the "correlation" issue in this section: this derails the discussion. Please, stay focused.

Let me reiterate my main points. A support of B means that the article is NOT about the events (mass killings), but about the linkage between those events and Communism.

• Therefore, any facts should be mentioned only when they are needed to demonstrate some theoretical claim. For example, when we discuss Rummel's views, we should explain that, according to his data, Communism killed 110 million people, and, based on that, Rummel claims a strong linkage between Communism and mass killings exists. Similarly, when we discuss views of Courtois, we mention his claim that Communism killed 85 million, and so on, and so forth. That means, no separate "Estimates" section should exist in this article (which could probably be appropriate for an "A"-type article).
• Furthermore, a discussion of terminology should not be separated from the discussion of the views of each concrete author. If Rummel called all those 110 million "democide victims", a discussion of this term must be moved to the section that discusses Rummel's views. If Mann applies his "classicide" to mass killings in Cambodia (and, to a much lesser extent, to some outbursts of violence in China and USSR), we should discuss that term when we discuss Mann's views. That means, no separate "Terminology" section should exist in this article
• The opening sentence in the lede says "Mass killings under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century". This sentence directly contradicts to the RfC decision: the article does not discuss mass killings as facts, it discusses the opinia about their linkage with Communism. The opening sentence should explain that some authors proposed significant correlation or causal linkage between Communism and mass killings, which took place in some Communist states. This was done in the new version, and the revert violated the community's consensus.

I would appreciate if in your posts you guys will focus on these (and related) topics. To summarise, since each author provides different estimate of the number of victims not only because they use the data of different reliability, but because each of them includes different categories of deaths (as noted by Ellman for the USSR), therefore, each estimate is strongly linked to the author's theoretical concept, and directly linked to the terminology used by them. Therefore, "Estimates" and "Terminology" must be removed, the "Causes" must be totally rewritten and significantly expanded, and a major focus should be made on the role of ideology and on alternative (including country-specific) explanations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your first bullet point. A typical journal article that discusses a link between two variables will often first present "summary statistics" for the underlying data before moving on to discussing how the variables are related. Presenting the estimates in the article, before discussing how they relate to communist regimes is analogous. Perhaps it should go into a "background" section or something but there's nothing wrong with including it. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If we are speaking about some typical journal article, then, yes, you are right. The problem is, however, that a typical journal article is dealing with a single, well defined data set. If some article is dealing with different data sets, these sets a subject of some comparative study. This Wikipedia article is not about facts, and, therefore, it is not supposed to discuss different figures. In reality, the topic of this article is the views of different authors, who use different data for different subsets of the events in Communist states draw different conclusions about a linkage of violence to Communism. Thus, Rummel include famine victims in his data set ("democide") and conclude that Communists killed much more people than other regimes, whereas Harff limit herself with political violence only ("politicide") and she sees not much correlation between "politicide" and Communism. What is the reason to separate the figures and the conclusions made by the authors from those figures? It seems the only reason is to give an undue weight to the POV that links mass killings to Communism, for majority of authors who see no such a linkage do not provide global estimates (which is quite understandable: there is no reason to provide a figure that describes different, poorly linked events). Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with all these points. Speaking of the first, yes, "any facts should be mentioned only when they are needed to demonstrate some theoretical claim". Yes, facts and data must not be just mentioned, but described in all details to support any theoretical claims. And what is the first main claim here? That mass killings/politicides did happen under all communist regimes. Should the same underlying data be repeated many times after each claim? Of course not. That should be a large separate section. But I agree that the work by Rummel is one of a few cases when the correlation (as noted in the RfC closing) indeed has been debate. Hence, the research by Rummel must be prominently described on this page.My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about the 2nd point, no, terminology is the key here.

Speaking on the 3rd point, no, one should say mass killings under communist regimes did occurred throughout the 20th century to define the subject of discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That's quite literally synthesis what you're describing, but go on with your concerns very concerned individual. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I did not imply that correlation=causation. Correlation means that as one variable increases, so does another. TFD (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Four Deuces Thanks for the post. I didn't intend to imply that you were asserting that correlation is causation. I was saying that your post seemed to imply that people noting correlation were inherently asserting causation. Probably too abstract to worry about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The revisions discussed above should be restored for the reasons stated, it is in accord with the outcome of RFC to remove those sections and expand "causes". ~ cygnis insignis 16:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead

I have made a first attempt at rewriting the lead to be more in line with briefly summarizing the topic as chosen by the RfC. I expect debate/discussion, so making a post now. BSMRD (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The new topic is not about mass killings (as facts), but about the role of Communist regimes in them. Therefore, the first sentence should contain that claim. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I decided to preserve the “Mass killings under communist regimes have occurred…” wording so as to avoid accusations of denialism. I suspect if it is to be removed it will require community consensus, and I was unwilling to strike it when I was already rewriting the lead WP:BOLDly. BSMRD (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We already have a rough consensus that the article is about the claim that mass killings in Communist states are linked to Communism/Communist regimes. Our policy discourage too frequent usage of RfC etc. We must return to a normal mode: achieving consensus through editing/talk page discussions. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a preferred version of the first sentence you would like to see? A concrete example of how you envision it would be helpful. BSMRD (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes, also referred to as victims of communism, is a canard used in anti-communist propaganda. The hypothesis attempts to equate the inherent violence and atrocious consequences of states under totalitarian systems, primarily associated with Stalin and Mao, as inevitably arising from socialist or humanitarian philosophies and economic systems. Initially promoted by agencies such as the conservative Heritage Council in the US, it was adapted to the hyperbolic statements within alt-right ecosystems of the early twenty-first century. Something like that ~ cygnis insignis 09:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

[edit] I notice now that the sentence fragment as title has 'killing' as plural. ~ cygnis insignis 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"Mass killings under communist regimes" isn't an anti-communist canard though, because no one but us really uses that phrasing. Frankly I'm not sure how to phrase the first sentence in an alternative way without forgoing mentioning the title entirely. Also, as much as I may agree with some of what is said in your version of the lead, it definitely isn't neutral. BSMRD (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Pardon, that was a back-of-envelope assessment, 80% of which is easily verifiable, concerning an article that ought to be deleted. ~ cygnis insignis 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your proposed lede is extremely biased in the other direction and is backed up by zero sources. X-Editor (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

"biased in the other direction", it was not an attempt at 'balance': framing this as a dialectic or political scale is a bit … marxist ~ cygnis insignis 13:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

But we're supposed to have a neutral description. X-Editor (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The lede looks better now in terms of neutrality, now we just have to do the rest of the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I've copy edited User:BSMRD's update. The last paragraph "The concept of connecting disparate killings connected by the communist status of the regimes committing them and trying to ascribe common causes and factors has been met with academic criticism, with some viewing such a connection as overly simplistic, or rooted in anti-communism. Additionally, there is debate over whether or not famines can be considered to be mass killings in the first place." is quite tortured in its phrasing. Given that the lede is meant to be a summary or overview of an article, per WP:LEDE, based on sources that I seriously doubt User:BSMRD has read in detail, I don't think we should be preempting the final form of the lede until the body of the article is properly developed. --Nug (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate parallel capitalist page

It appears biased that this page discusses mass killings under communist regimes but not those of capitalist. Would things such as the Zong Massacre not count to have their own page and accurate describe multiple sides? 24.236.76.42 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It might be possible to have a separate page discussing a possible link between capitalism and mass killings or capitalism and genocide, but I'm not sure if there are enough reliable academic sources for that. X-Editor (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There are more reliable sources than for this article. And if we used the same logic used to defend this article, we could say that there is far more literature about mass killings in different capitalist countries from the Native American genocide to the War in Yemen. However it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under capitalist regimes (2nd nomination) and salted so that it can never be recreated. TFD (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh … the humanity!! That is as bad as MKuCR denial. ~ cygnis insignis 12:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

"Sorry for removing the comment, I thought you were trolling again— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSuperstar77 (talk • contribs) good bot, thanks ~ cygnis insignis 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly reading that AfD has me more convinced than ever that this article needs to incinerated and cast into the dustbin of digital history. That is exactly the same conversation with several of the exact same participants, occurring over a decade ago. No forward progress has been made in that time. Frankly I would be a little embarrassed if I had been litigating this issue for a decade with nothing to show for it. BSMRD (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

My favorite line from that AfD: "there is no capitalist impetus to kill off anyone to improve profits" 😂 Levivich 14:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Not the attempted comparison between mass starvation and famine during collectivization in Soviet Union and Steinbeck's Oakies travelling to California? Volunteer Marek 01:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The topic is only salted under that specific title. It could still be recreated under a different title. X-Editor (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That would be a pretty blatant violation of both WP:POINT and WP:POVFORK and would probably end up with someone getting blocked. Especially after you kind of give the game away explicitly like that. Volunteer Marek 01:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD: I guess it is all about how it began. Unlike Marx and Engels, Adam Smith never was a genocidal racist calling for the ruthless extirpation of ethnic trash völkerabfälle who were allegedly doomed to extinction by virtue of superior European historical dynamism. Let's face it, in common with the radical right, the Leninist left embraces an illiberal, totalitarian ideology, and a millenarian eschatology dedicated to political terror as a means of establishing a vanguardist one-party dictatorship. Communist revolution has typically led to the establishment of a brutal imperialist oligarchy with a red veneer, closely resembling fascism in both theory and practice. And so it isn't surprising that it ends in communist mass killings. --Nug (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

[16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice try, but no explicit call to annihilate the savages though. --Nug (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that in practice a country being under a communist regime constitutes a much broader range of things than a country merely using the attributes of an economic system which we describe as "capitalism". And that such leads to the answer to the question. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If we wrote Wikipedia articles according to what random contributors 'think', everything would be so much simpler... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

IMO it was an observation of obvious relevant differences, softened with customary deference (as with the IMO at the beginning of this post). And either way, this is a talk page, where people state their opinions on the discussion topic at hand. I never said anything about it being a way to write articles, and so you saying that in response to my post was a mis-characterization at best. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever. Debates about whether articles should exist are off-topic anyway, since they can't be resolved here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That is true. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

There's Anti-communist mass killings which has a an overlap with the suggested article. Example: Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 ... you'll find this in the body: "The massacres were also crucial to the expansion of capitalism in Indonesia,[166] with Suharto rapidly implementing the economic policies of the "Berkeley Mafia", whose training had been funded by the Ford Foundation, to liberalise the economy". tw^sabin 20:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• Not to be an ass, but what does that have to do with this article? It seems fairly clear an WP:OTHERSTUFF type deal. PackMecEng (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and this has also been said above. North8000 (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A big problem is that the list would be far too long, there have been more capitalist dictatorships than communist ones and the article would have mass killings that have nothing to do with capitalism like Darfur (done in the name of ethnic nationalism), Rohingya (ethnic nationalism), and Bosina (ethnic nationalism). If we just want to do mass killings in the name of capitalism there is already an article for that Anti-communist mass killings.--Garmin21 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems logical that if the article discusses the idea that Communism/Communist regimes) are more prone to mass killings than other states/regimes/ideologies, then we should make some comparison with other states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that X-Editor has since created Capitalism and genocide.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: made it clear how such an action would be recognised, but what prompted a notification here? ~ cygnis insignis 12:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• An "appropriate parallel capitalist page" is an example of whataboutism in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note As someone personally opposed to the basic tenets of capitalism, I am sympathetic to this concept, and I do believe that the continued conflation of "Marxism–Leninism" with "communism" is not helpful. However, we need reliable sources that connect mass killings directly to capitalism before we can make such an article, as we would run the risk of original synthesis. Because the anti-communist movement has already swooped in with books like The Black Book of Communism, a page like this is possible. Having said all that, I think it might be productive to include a section of prominent theorists who have pushed back on the claims that communism is singularly destructive.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I can save y'all two years

Or at least avoid tangents now like "does communism inherently tend cause mass killings". The answer is no but in practice communist regimes generally including the following which tend to cause or enable mass kilings:

• Totalitarian government, nationally and locally
• Creation of a state that is less or not at all controlled by the people
• The need to completely change or control the populace to life under communism
• The ostensible need to completely change or control the populace to life under communism, which can justify killings and similar bad actions.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It all boils down to totalitarianism and the belief that enough suppression can make people "think correctly". (Thanks modernism.) As you said, these factors aren't in and of themselves a 'communist thing'—it just so happens that many Marxist-Leninist states (i.e., states that are freely and loosely glossed as "communist nations") were totalitarian and thought that way.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 17:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty well consensus that "communist regimes" groups the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia, which were all ruled by self-titled entities of Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of Kampuchea. It's more than just mere totalitarianism that groups these states together in terms of mass killings, it is also the fact that the majority of deaths occurred under agricultural collectivization, which is a 'communist thing'. I don't think other totalitarian states like Nazi Germany practiced collectivization. --Nug (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not denying that label isn't used, I'm just saying, it's a broad label that has been narrowly applied for lack of nuance. Also, the Nazis didn't, but they also had their own mass killings. See, that's why I blame modernism: as a paradigmatic worldview, it inspired a number of philosophies that said humans could perfectly control the world through force and organization. That definitely drove many Marxist-Leninist states, as well as many fascist states.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 22:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

My post was mostly to help folks avoid tangents in a quest to move forward with the article. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

All's quiet?

Haven't been around for a while. Appears things have stabilised on this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure if the problems have been fixed. X-Editor (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Is synthesis still a problem?

User:Oopsemoops recently removed the synthesis template from the article, but I'm not entirely sure if that problem has been solved. I'm also wondering if the neutrality problem has been solved. X-Editor (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, synthesis is still a problem. And no, the article isn't neutral. None of the changes made since the inconclusive AfD discussion ended in December last year have properly addressed the many concerns raised. And given the long history of forum-mongering, stonewalling and general going-around-in-circles evident since then, I very much doubt they ever will be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

What about Iraq and Syria?

Iraq was a formerly socialist country under Saddam Hussein. And Syria is a socialist country today. So shouldn't we include these two on the map for ex-communist/socialist and current communist/socialist countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:201:200:7AE0:8868:9440:4B69:C910 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The map is of former Communist run states, so would not include Iraq and Syria. TFD (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Christain Gerlach

Is Christain Gerlach's argument worth using as a source? The three examples given do not seem to confirm his conclusion. Paris Commune predates the idea of Marxist Communism which is the principle ideology being discussed. Spanish Civil War also ignores the ideological diversity of the Republicans and the deaths caused by infighting. Indonesia seems the be the most legitimate example, but its also only one example and is comparable in impact to regimes like Cambodia in terms of body count. 76.121.93.158 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

While it's true that Communists were not the only victims of "white terror," it is no reason not to mention it. The Jews for example were not the only victims of Nazism, yet we are allowed to refer to their persecution under Nazism. Marxist Communism of course existed from at least the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. And we don't reject arguments presented in reliable sources just because there are other possible arguments. TFD (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

New title name for the article

This article's title has been subject to demands for a change to another name that is more appropriate, often due to complaints of synthesis.

Therefore, I voluntarily opened a RfC to rectify this issue.

The purpose of this RfC is to address and hopefully resolve the highlighted issue above, or, at the very least, narrow down to only a few choices of names that are appropriate for the article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedure

Eligible editors may support or oppose any if not all options presented below by adding their comment to them and stating whether they support the option(s), abstain from them or oppose them.

In order to avoid disruption, in addition to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, this RfC is subject to a few additional guidelines.

Additional guidelines

• Because this article generates an enormous amount of ire for one reason or another, there is the additional guideline that oppose votes count for -2, whereas support votes count for +1. In other words, this is not a popularity vote - this RfC instead focuses on which option is the least contentious. To examplify this: If option 1 has 9 supports/2 opposes, but option 2 has 6 supports/0 opposes, option 2 wins because it is the least controversial of the two while still managing to be substantially supported.
  • To properly assess the quality of an option, it must have a minimum of 4 votes (Either positive or negative) to qualify.
• Canvassed or single purpose accounts must be tagged.
• Any user that is not autoconfirmed may participate in the RfC, but must give a detailed reason for their vote, this is to avoid what happened in the AfD last time.
  • As for everyone else, discussions on the topic are encouraged per WP:Vote. So, avoid leaving empty or short comments when picking an option to support or oppose.

Once the RfC has run its course, any uninvolved editor may close the RfC and give a verdict unless the consensus is clear, in which case the RfC can be closed prematurely.

Closer: Pick which option(s) is the ideal one based on the results of the RfC, if multiple options win, and are compatible : C + D, then both should be nominated and applied together : "Excess mortality under communism". However, if multiple options win and are incompatible : A + F for example, then the RfC must be closed with "no consensus" and with the two winners highlighted, this is for the purpose of opening a requested move with only those fewer options included.

The new name for the article

Any person may add their own choice to the list, and when that happens the RfC must remain open an additional 3 days to make sure everyone has enough time to vote if the RfC is close to ending:

• Option A – "Mass killings under communist regimes" (status quo)
  • Oppose - The title does not properly convey the scope of the article and in effect tells the reader that it is mainly focused on facts whereas it mostly consists of gossip. Additionally in principle, the lead paragraph should feature the name of the article, plus a small description of the article. It currently reads "Mass killings under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century." which is an assertion and a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    • That's the etymological fallacy, that terms must mean literally what they say. "Victims of Communism" has a specific meaning - it refers to people who died because of Communism. Similarly, Siamese cat does not mean a cat from Siam, although that is where they originated. TFD (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - The title properly relates that it discusses the broader topic as as well as killings within specific regimes, until the article is restructured to not include both this title properly conveys the topic. Bgrus22 (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - The current title addresses the issue. The other titles skirt the issue. Titles should refer to the subject matter. Some of the alternate titles proposed as are as euphemistic as if we called the "Cancer" arcticle "cellular overdrive growth". Yeah, sure, the euphemism technically and in an partial and roundabout way kind of refers to the issue, but when cancer is killing you, do you tell people you have runaway cell growth? XavierItzm (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option B – "Deaths under communist regimes" (proposed by MarioSuperstar77)
  • Support per proposal - A far more encompassing title for all deaths relating to or directly caused by Communism. After all, the article features famines which may be caused by incompetence or genuine malice. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option C – Remove the word "Regimes" from the title (proposed by MarioSuperstar77)
  • Support per proposal - "Regimes" is redundant and adds very little to the title. It could be mentioned throughout the article, however, I am not sure whether this should be in the title as it. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option D – "Excess mortality under communist regimes" (proposed by Paul Siebert)
  • Support - Other Wikipedia articles use a similar title and this covers deaths in excess that Communist regimes could have avoided. In effect, this is better than the current title. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option E – "Democides within communist regimes" (proposed by MarioSuperstar77)
  • Support per proposal - I would say that using 'democide' is significantly better in a title than what the current title is, as it puts emphasis on the issue rather than use a word what amounts to an umbrella term. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option F – "Debates about the democides within communist regimes" (proposed by MarioSuperstar77)
  • Support per proposal - Highlighting that this article focuses on debates would effectively fix the synthesis issue that this article is notorious for. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option G – Remove the word "Communist" from the title (proposed by 82.11.45.175)
  • Oppose - I have stated it in a comment, but will reiterate it here, but if this article was about all regimes in the world and Communism was only part of the bigger picture, then it would end up growing so big that it would need to be split and then we would have another "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes" article. This fixes nothing, if anything this will result into a WP:POVFORK. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option H – "Communism and mass killing(s)" (proposed by Davide King and Paul Siebert)
  • Support - Shorter and much more concise than the current title. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option I - Replace "Under" with "By" (proposed by Mhawk10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioSuperstar77 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Doesn't change much about the title, at least not in a positive manner. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option J – "Communist state(s) and mass killing(s)" (proposed by Davide King)
  • Support - Concise title, and the terms appear in reputable scholarly sources. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option K – "Victims of Communism" (proposed by The Four Deuces)
  • Oppose - Unless we define what a victim is, then it is hard to consider that a good choice. A victim of Communism could be someone who lost their land by the Soviets, however, the article and its structure currently focuses on the deaths caused by Communism. In other words, "Victims of Communism" is way too broad. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Option L - "Mass killings and Communism" (proposed by The Four Deuces)
  • Support - Clear, concise and rectifies the synthesis issue mentioned earlier. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Upon the RfC's closure, you cannot change your vote nor add more options to the list. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not think anyone cares to justify any of these suggestions. This is like throwing a bunch of almost random titles. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (title)

I think you may be misinterpreting MOS:FIRST, which is only a guideline anyway. As for changing the title, it definitely needs doing, though I'm not sure an RfC is really the best approach for now - we may need a better idea of how the revised article is going to be structured before arriving at one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note. As can be seen by consulting the the revision history for this talk page, [17], my comment above was a response to something else entirely. As indeed are most of the comments below. Given that making such substantive changes to posts after they have been responded to is contrary to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and given that the (entirely undiscussed) 'Procedure' & 'Additional guidelines' sections added appear to be an attempt by a single contributor to impose their personal preferences regarding resolving a complex and controversial issue, and turn it into a simple vote on only limited arbitrarily-selected options in a manner contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, I would have to suggest that this RfC is malformed, and invalid. As can readily be verified by looking at responses below, there seems to be no real evidence for any consensus that the article title needs to be renamed right now, before fundamental issues of article structure are resolved, and absolutely no support for this arbitrary limited-choice poll, and accordingly the only appropriate course of action will be to immediately close this malformed 'RfC' down. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the tag for those reasons. ~ cygnis insignis 12:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

All of these titles are even worse than the current one. H is a grammatical failure, G "Mass killings under regimes" is a worthless title even synthier than this, F is rendered redundant by E which is effectively the same as A except picking a different word to describe events. B is hopelessly broad and just invites all sorts of bad faith death counting and C does nothing except slightly broadening the scope to include mass deaths prior to communists taking power. Finally, none of these titles solve the issue of introduc[ing] synthesis into the article due to it implying that all the subjective and opinionated sources are objective, factual and extensively researched by experts, although the article features very few tertiary sources.. (As an aside, even if any of these options offered anything, there are far too many of them, and if you intend to add more it will only be even worse. Only one can be chose, and having this many option practically guarantees a 'No Consensus' close with how split the vote would be.) BSMRD (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There a joke that goes "I've had this axe for 20 years.....though I've replaced both the head and handle. So the AFD result was "not delete" and the RFC said to replace the head. Changing the title is replacing the handle. You need to be careful that any choices aren't in essence a deletion. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Originally, that is a ship of Theseus apory.

Frankly speaking, I find this RfC counterproductive. First, most of the options are incompatible with the outcome of the recent RfC.

Second, by starting another RfC we just postpone the work on the article. Is our goal to preserve this (extremely POVish) version as long as we can? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What stops you from fixing the article? I waited 3 days since the last RfC to create mine, there were no edit for a full day and thought that nobody actually wanted to edit the article. I am not the one to blame for this, I had pushed for a name change since the AfD and promised on a previous diff earlier this week that I would make this RfC once the other one concludes. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid my edits will be immediately reverted, so I would prefer to achieve a consensus on the talk page first. And the best starting point would be to do source analysis, as I proposed months ago, and Levivich did that again few days ago. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would not present the RfC unless it was down to two or three choices. But if we agree on one, then there is no reason for an RfC. TFD (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But if we agree on one, then there is no reason for an RfC. Except that nobody can ever agree on anything here. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with AndyTheGrump and BSMRD. Since the topic is about correlation, I find it absurd that much better and simpler titles like Communism and mass killing, or more accurately Communist state and mass killing, which are in line with how like-minded articles are titled (those are probably the best titles for what Fiveby and North8000 are referring to), are not even listed. Of course, Victims of Communism remains the best title in The Four Deuces' and mine's view because it is the common name per Neumayer et al. (as Levivich included those sources), and it is how Courtois and Rummel understand it (this is in line with Paul Siebert's summary), and if we write a good article and make it clear that the scope is anti-communism and is not a scholarly discourse or consensus, it will be the least of the problems. We need some more work before changing the name.

In short, the issue is only going to come if we actually were to use Courtois and Rummel as secondary sources, when they are the primary ones for the topic, and tried to prove their thesis rather than explain and describe it; if we use the best secondary sources and make clear what is the context, and treat it as a theory proposed by Courtois, Rummel, and a few authors, including all the mainstream and relevant critcism, I think there should be no issue. Davide King (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sounds reasonable. Indeed, if the article is discussing the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept, the current title is somewhat misleading, for it implies that the article's topic is a discussion of mass killings themselves.

I propose to remove options A-G as obsolete, and replace them with "Communism and mass killing".

IMO, the question should be:

"Keeping in mind the outcome of the recent RfC, do you think the article title "Communism and mass killing" is more adequate for the article that discusses the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I forgot they were even mentioned on this talk page in the first place, if they were. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• The problem with the proposed title "Communism and mass killing" is that it excludes other causes of mass killing beyond communism, and that is already violating the spirit of "The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept." --Nug (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not think that is a problem because the focus will be the theories, not the events, so where is the issue and how it is violating that? Indeed, it may appear that you are the one violating that spirit by wanting to move it beyond communism when the summary of the topic is clear, or are you proposing a general article of mass killings and their causes? Because Communist mass killings are just one prominent case, and they would be a subsection of such an article. Either way, I do not see how the title itself excludes them; in fact, we may use such sources to contrast them with Courtois' and Rummel's overgeneralizations about communism as the primary cause, so thanks(?) Davide King (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The RFC option was "The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept.", not "The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communism, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept." The causes of communist government mass killings could well include reasons not related to communism. I can't believe there is already an apparent shifting of the goal posts so soon after the RFC. --Nug (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I was cautioning against doing anything that would be seen as a "back door deletion". Even if the title isn't perfect / could be improved, it's the one that went through AFD, and the RFC defines the scope, why not just proceed with those for now? North8000 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem with proceeding with the old title, although DK's proposal sounds really good. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I also think that DK's idea might be an improvement. But my comment was from a process side. Avoiding starting a third giant debate at this moment. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The AFD closed with no consensus, so I don't feel it's reasonable to cite its outcome to determine anything about the article's future. Your argument would make sense if it had closed as keep, but a no-consensus outcome doesn't carry any particular force beyond the fact that we couldn't agree on what to do with the article at that particular point in time. --Aquillion (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

...The concept of genocide is ambiguous in scope. Sometimes it is taken to include murderous suppression of political opposition and sometimes not (as in the 1948 United Nations Convention, based on Lemke’s well-known compromise to resolve an impasse in the convention). Some have remedied this gap by conducting studies of genocide plus politicide.[8]

Here, we adopt Rummel’s broader term (democide), to be clear that political suppression is not artificially excluded. By this definition, democide is “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, or mass murder.”[9] In our view, Rummel’s definition is too extensive in taking the murder by government of a single individual (e.g., an assassination) to be democide; it would be better to restrict the term to systematic killing of large numbers of noncombatant (civilian) individuals. This definition does not require the stated purpose of eliminating an entire group. Our slightly adjusted definition of democide ends up similar in scope to Valentino’s preferred terminology referencing “mass killing;”[10] a difference is that Valentino used 50,000 deaths as a minimum threshold, whereas to take better account of democide against smallscale societies (with, in fact, often fewer than 50,000 lives to lose) we employed a lower threshold.
— Saucier & Akers 2018, p. 81

That's just one source. These labels mean different things, and the differences matter. Without collecting what sources say on the subject, asking editors "what do you think the title should be?" is nothing more than conducting an WP:OR survey. Levivich 19:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep that comment to yourself please, the RfC was not open yet, there is no survey, only a discussion at the moment to solidify how the RfC must be run. There was no consensus for which new title would make a good title before I made this section, hence multiple choices that I collected throughout the discussion of this article. The only consensus, particularly from participants in the AfD is that the current title is bad and needs changing. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

But none of the options are tied to any sources. It's a bit of a tell that your list of options identifies the editor who proposed each option, but not the source(s) that support it. Sorry, but that's a sign of OR, not RS :-) Levivich 19:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

OR and RS are for sources and paragraphs within an article. We can always attempt to find which sources use which terminology the most. If any comment should be made on the article's title, it should be made in the context of a title, not the body of text as you did, for example WP:CRITERIA could be used to determine which title is ideal. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, here's an example of a source analysis table to determine an article title: Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 4#"Syrian Kurdistan". That's what it took to convince editors in that debate what the title of that article should be. The reason that no one agrees about anything here is because we have many editors just sort of talking to each other, but relatively few tables of quotes from RSes that show what RSes are saying about this, that, or the other thing. At some point soon, we'll go through the list of sources and say what each one says about the topic: what terms they use, what countries they talk about, what are the leading scholars/works in the field, etc. Levivich 19:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that style will work here. First of all, we must summarize each source, because separate quotes taken out of context may be misleading. Example: this article cites Mann's "classicide", however, if you read Mann, you see that (i) Mann did not apply this term to Communist states in general: he spoke mostly about Cambodia, and about few events of much smaller scale in China and USSR; (ii) Mann considered "classicide" a result of perversion of socialist democracy. In other words, by taking a correct quote from Mann and by ignoring the overall context, an absolutely distorted and biased text was created. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As an example, take a look at Table 2. This style is not perfect, but it may be a good starting point. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Levivich, we should base the article name on the sources as far as possible. There are many sources that discusses Mann's definition of classicide, so I don't think there is any chance of misinterpretation. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be closing this RfC immediately and moving this article in order to change its name if you folks can come to an agreement regarding the title right now, right there. Otherwise, I will continue as planned, and may invoke uninvolved editors to close the RfC. I had previously stated "nobody can ever agree on anything here", prove me wrong. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't normally use WP:RFC for discussing page moves, WP:RM is used instead. --Nug (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with N8k about avoiding starting a third giant debate at this moment. Levivich 22:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:MarioSuperstar77 - I see a contradiction here between the categorization at the beginning as a draft RFC, and the statement that you will be closing the RFC if the editors can come to agreement on the title. I will also ask rhetorically why anyone thinks that we will come to agreement on a title by informal discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with Nug's claim that an article about "Communism and mass killings" would not mention mass killings carried out by Communist states that had no connection with Communist ideology. For one thing, the scholars that Nug cites say that all these killings were a result of ideology, that they were planned in the "lost literature" of Marx and Engels. But even if they were not, a reasonable article would report any opinions that certain mass killings, such as those in Afghanistan, were not ideologically motivated. TFD (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I also disagree on why 'Communism and mass killing(s)', or 'Communist state and mass killing(s)', would somehow preclude that per TFD's well-reasoned explanation above. I also ask them to refrain from making accusations.123 None of us are shifting the goal posts, I think you are creating a huge issue where there is none. Davide King (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The consensus of the community per the RfC is that the scope of the article should be "the wider concept rather than individual regimes." It should "cover the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources." Whether or not any of us agree with that, we are bound to follow that. We are of course free to change the title with consensus (and any editor can challenge a move} if we find a title that better reflects the topic of the article. In fact the article was previously moved from "Communist genocide" after the first AfD. TFD (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I have considered adding title proposals from the AfD which occured throughout the page. For example, this proposal by Dream Focus which is similar to 'A' As someone there brought up, you can rename this mass deaths under communists regimes since they didn't kill people directly sometimes. However, due to the pushback of adding too many options, which I can understand would make the RfC more obtuse to judge, implement adequately and might result into no consensus, I decided not to. As for the pre-existing options, I wondered if it would be constructive to have preliminary votes to remove the titles that are unpopular, except perhaps for A per my understanding that RfCs have a requirement for a status quo choice. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's probably a bit early to start voting on a possible candidates when we haven't really explored the universe of potential names yet. One possible name could be "Extirpation of reactionary peoples on the path to shining communist utopia", but somehow I don't think it would get any support ;o)). --Nug (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Most of the suggested titles are potentially valid titles/subjects for WP pages. But most of them are simply not about Mass killings under communist regimes, but rather something else (like excess mortality, death statistics, victims for whatever reason, Communism, etc.). For example, Communism and "communist regimes" are very different things. This is not renaming, but creating new and potentially valid pages on various other subjects. They probably could be created right now and would not be POV/content forks of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

10 options? I doubt you'll be able to a consensus for any one of them. Just too many. BTW - Where's "Option I"? GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Mass killings of anti-communists, since we have already have Mass killings of communists? --Nug (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There are three issues:

• It is Anti-communist mass killings, not Mass killings of communists, so it should be Communist mass killings
• Many victims of Communists were, in fact, communists themselves and other leftists, or not anti-communist
• It seems a more suited name, despite all its aforementioned flaws, for A and C (e.g. the events themselves) rather than B (e.g. theories about them and their correlations)

Victims of Communism is the correct name, we disagree of our understanding of this. My understanding is supported by Ghodsee, Neumayer, et al. Yours, I do not know, I guess the Prague Declaration. Davide King (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC) [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a different topic again, maybe Historiography of Anti-Communist Literature, this is a good source published by New Direction, a think tank patronized by Margaret Thatcher. --Nug (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not an RS because it isn't independent, it's a right-wing political advocacy group. Levivich 19:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

My issue with "Victims of Communism" as a title is that it's a term of art and thus WP:JARGON. This term is used in the scholarship without doubt, and means something specific to those scholars, but to an average reader, unfamiliar with this topic area, they will think it means Communism is a crime or a natural disaster or some other bad thing, similar to victims of murder, victims of a hurricane, victims of poverty, etc. The term "Victims of Communism" is probably notable in its own right as a term, but I'm not sure it's the best title for an article about the concept of a correlation between MK and CR. Levivich 19:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you here. It is also a bit vague and broader in scope, as conceivably most people living under a communist regime could be considered a "victim". --Nug (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that is exactly the really notable topic that is in line with NPOV and B. What you and MVBW do not seem to understand is that the topic itself is anti-communist (per Neumayer et al., not Davide King), and is the same topic, not different topics. TFD's "victims of Communism" and Paul Siebert's summary of "generic Communism" (Courtois and Rummel) are, in fact, the same topic. I do not know or understand what you are trying to prove by linking a book published by a right-wing think thank. This is not the first time either, as you previously linked me to a book published by the far-right WorldNetDaily Books.

Levivich, indeed that is how TFD and I understand the topic because we have actually read the scholarly literature. I do not disagree with you but

• POV titles are acceptable if they are its common name as in this case, and I fail to see how the current name is any less POVish, it is not notable even.
• That is why I prefer 'Communism(s) (state) and mass killing(s)' et similia as title for the rewrite. I do think that if we can actually write a good article about it that explains and describes it, 'Victims of Communism' would still be best name because that is how it is used in the scholarly literature and the topic is about this scholarly literature and discourse, and the fact many users are not aware is just one more reason to do it so that they understand this. However, when we still disagree about what the topic actually is and some users are completely unaware of such literature, the name change is certainly not my biggest priority right now. Davide King (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just as a note, isn't the proper way to retitle a page by just opening a move request? Why open an RfC when there's a specific process to move the name of a page? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on this. I've found myself back into this page after a few weeks out of curiosity and saw an RfC about user conduct followed by an pseudo-RfC on a page move. While I don't plan on participating in the discussions (this topic area is somewhat outside my comfort zone), I'd at least expect making other editors have to discuss wiki procedure so often is derailing work on the article somewhat. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: does the response by @Please ping me!: answer the question? ~ cygnis insignis 13:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis my username is not "Please ping me!" :P A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  :oops, sorries to @Asterism: ~ cygnis insignis 13:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  What I mean, and probably should've just said explicitly, was that contributors in this discussion should be able to go about their business without RfCs for quite a bit. The most negative of editors have left this thread and the most contentious issue was resolved in the RfC closed by Wugapodes. RfCs are not only a bit heavy-handed but also not the solution to all problems one may see in this article. If one just wants to gauge the opinions on a possible future move request one does not need to be overly formal about it. Everyone remaining here is in good faith and from my impression based on the names are plenty experienced. Editors discussing the ins and outs of wiki bureaucracy every thread is unnecessary and somewhat unhelpful because of the distraction it causes, in my opinion, although not necessary hurtful or disruptive. As editors we have a tendency after very contentious discussions or long, month-long disputes to try and (if you'll allow the metaphor) make the nest pristine, even if it is unnecessary for the birds to hatch. At this point, I think the storm has passed and we can be a bit less formal in my opinion. Of course, those are just my two cents. Note, I'm not commenting on whether discussing the title or not is a good idea, as that is beyond the scope of my comment above. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  My point is that there's an already set way to propose an article title be changed. A person can directly propose it, the community can debate it, and then a resolution can be found based on consensus achieved. An extended discussion on how to set up an RfC on this is misguided, especially since RfCs are not for moving pages (see WP:RFCNOT). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the amount of options on display show the need for some discussion to narrow it down prior to an RM, which will be a mess without a clear destination in mind. An RfC may not be the best way to get that discussion though. BSMRD (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• MarioSuperstar77 What on Earth is this nonsense? Everyone in the discussion prior to opening this noted how there were too many options and how and RfC as structured would likely not be the best option. Beyond that, what is this arcane "Procedure" section you have devised? This was not discussed in the draft at all and is absolutely not how RfCs work, which are WP:NOTAVOTE. I seriously recommend you close this now before it spirals out into a mess. BSMRD (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I added those "procedures", so that it does not spiral out of control. Additionally, I encouraged discussion on that same RfC per WP:VOTE rather than just voting alone. I encouraged for a ull sentence. Technically speaking, the previous RfC was a vote. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yup. The 'procedure' section seems to have come out of thin air, and is an entirely unjustifiable attempt by one specific contributor to assert authority over how consensus can be arrived at. We have seen far too much of this sort of nonsense already, and we don't need more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Further to this, I'd note that the section was added after the comments below it, giving an entirely misleading impression as to what was being responded to. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. This 'RfC' is malformed, and invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  We can discuss about this now. This was added to make sure there's no disruption and everyone is happy with the results. Considering that if you, BSMRD and a few other editors all voted oppose for 1 option that ultimately received more support than any of the other options, you would have a fit and make sure the result does not get implemented (Case in point). Therefore, I decided that it was best to make a special rule for this RfC to make sure everyone is happy with the results. Furthermore, the additional guidelines in regards to non-autoconfirmed users does not prevent them from interacting with the RfC, just that the nonsense that had happened in the AfD does not occur again. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  If you think imposing arbitrary rules all of your own on an RfC that there seems to be next to no support for is a way to avoid 'disruption', I can only suggest that your experience of how things work is different from mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Changing the article to meet the RFC

I've changed the lede of the article and the title of the article to more accurately reflect the consensus of the RFC. I want to remove the information about specific countries, since this is about the general academic debate and not about the events of specific killings that are documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure if there is content in those sections that is worth preserving elsewhere in the article. X-Editor (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted these changes as I don't think they accurately reflect the outcome of the RfC. The new title was also... weird. The "and" phrasing in place of the "under" phrasing in particular seems to kind of skirt around the main point of this article. Volunteer Marek 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Why do the changes not reflect the outcome of the RFC? What changes do you think should be made to the article instead? X-Editor (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If anyone wants to rename this page, please start an RfC specifically about renaming with new suggested title(s). And please explain why do you think this must be title "X". This should be 1-3 versions of a title, not 10. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a requested move rather than a request for comment? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If the lede is to be changed, a sign of good faith would be to provide citation for nearly everything in the new lede. The lede isn't chock full of citations now because, presumably, everything in the lede is covered later on. But if the lede is to change, we don't have that guarantee. Therefore, I would oppose any new lede that isn't fully cited. schetm (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Holodomor Genocide

Is the Holodomor mass killing a genocide or just a mass killing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepanthersfan201 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. See Holodomor genocide question. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Generally, genocide scholars do not consider the famine a genocide because it was not directed against ethnic Ukrainians. Ukrainian nationalists and their political supporters, who use the term holodomor, see a deliberate attack on Ukrainians similar to the Holocaust. TFD (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't true. While the question is debated, there are most certainly scholars who consider it a genocide. And yeah, it was directed against ethnic Ukrainian. And "Ukrainian nationalists and their political supporters" is a weird way of saying "pretty much all Ukrainians, most Eastern Europeans and lots of people who have studied the question". Volunteer Marek 05:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

In terms of modern historical scholarship, that the Holodomor constituted a genocide is a minority position. Endwise (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed. Nicodene (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a minority position. Thepanthersfan201 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, weight is determined by general acceptance in academic writing. Genocide scholars generally reject the view of the famine as a genocide. Most of the "scholars" who claim it was genocide are not genocide scholars and often are published outside academic publishers. Note the description by Andrea Graziosi: "Leading historians and other scholars, such as James Mace, Robert Conquest, Timothy Snyder, Norman Naimark, Anne Applebaum, who have devoted significant time to studying the Holodomor and have published extensively on the subject have all concluded that it was genocide." However Conquest later changed his mind, and none of these writers are genocide scholars. TFD (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course they are. What exactly is a “genocide scholar”? Do you have to have a PhD in “genocide studies” and a regular history PhD is not enough? Volunteer Marek 07:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the article

@Paul Siebert:@The Four Deuces:@Davide King: IMO, the main thing preventing myself or others from fixing this article based on the RfC is the different reference style from other articles making it hard to translate refs from different styles and making it hard to do refs in the first place. Would it hurt to change the reference style for this article to be consistent with the one used normally for other articles? X-Editor (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References

The title

The page for Communism states: Several academics and economists, among other scholars, posit that the Soviet model under which these nominally Communist states in practice operated was not an actual communist economic model in accordance with most accepted definitions of communism as an economic theory, but in fact a form of state capitalism, or non-planned administrative-command system. Therefore, I think the title of this article should be changed to 'Mass killings under Marxist-Leninist regimes' - with the article reflecting this change - in order to adhere to WP:NPOV

While it is true that some dispute the communist status of these regimes, some might object to this per WP:COMMONNAME. I think it would be better to rename this article "Mass killings under communist party rule" to match the article "Criticism of communist party rule". X-Editor (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I had recommended that the word communist be capitalized as Communist, since most reliable sources do that. Capital-C Communist regimes refers to states run by Communist parties. TFD (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: That does seem like a good idea, but would we still need consensus for a change that small?

Ridiculous. The usual attempt at a whitewash of communism. Let's face it, communism since Marx at least was always about utterly destroying the enemies of communism... this would have always happened even without Lenin and co. The Mummy (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your response (although interesting as an opener to a discussion about the history and interpretation of Marxism) doesn't match the comment by X-Editor. Please remember, this is not a forum. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass killings under capitalist regimes

Like Belgian Congo, The Holocaust, Rwandan Genocide,Zaire, Russian war crimes in Ukraine, ...

Only fair both sides have a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.175.107 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The article was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under capitalist regimes (2nd nomination). Notice the arguments used by some of the regulars in this discussion page which could equally apply to this article. (Many of these editors have since changed their names.) TFD (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I never reallyu figured why. Genocide in several continents is a key part of the history of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That topic could probably be supported as there are actual sources about the connection between capitalism and genocide. But not all mass killings are genocides and not all genocide includes mass killings. TFD (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Implementing the RFC result.

The RFC above was closed almost a year ago, but very little was done to actually implement it. By my reading, the conclusion is that we should remove / rewrite the sections on specific regimes, removing any sources, and anything cited to them, that does not discuss the broad topic of mass-killings under communist regimes as a whole (ie. any sources that discuss a particular regime without relating it to the discussion of whether mass-killing is a fundamental aspect of Communism.) Individual examples can remain only when cited to sources discussing them in relation to the broader topic. To be clear, this means that the bulk of the sections "Soviet Union", "People's Republic of China", "Cambodia", and "Other states" need to go, as well as all subsections - the consensus was clear that we wouldn't have those sections and would avoid citing sources that only talk about specific regimes without relating them to the core topic, yet currently, by my reading, nearly half the article is still goes against that. Is there anything in those that particularly needs to be retained (ie. because the source directly relates it to the topic of Communist regimes as a whole?) --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I must admit, I didn't expect this page's many discussions to come to a virtual halt, once the RFC was closed. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead. TFD (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• All right, I've removed the sections in question for now. Given the drastic nature of the removal I imagine some people might have objections, but it seems to follow directly from the RFC conclusion and at least it will get the ball rolling; anyone who wants to retain stuff from there can edit it to be compliant with that by elaborating on how the sourcing discusses its relation to the larger topic. Other stuff could possibly be moved to sub-articles specific to those regimes, though I think in most cases we already have them and they're already fairly complete. --Aquillion (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Ficaia: Since you reverted, you'll have to explain in detail how you feel retaining those sections is compliant with the RFC's outcome, which clearly said we should avoid focusing on individual regimes. The closing statement says that Individual regimes should be mentioned only when used as evidence [for the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes] by specific sources; editors must avoid naming specific governments when sources do not cite them as examples as this constitutes original research via improper synthesis. Those sections basically don't mention the correlation at all. If you insist on going over this sentence by sentence we can, but since this is implementing the RFC's outcome I'm going to remove it again if you don't provide a more clear rationale for how retaining those sections is compliant with it; I know removing such a large amount of text at once is a shocking, but we need to move forwards and right now nobody has provided an explanation for how having such sections could avoid violating the RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  From the RfC: "Individual regimes should be mentioned only when used as evidence by specific sources; editors must avoid naming specific governments when sources do not cite them ..."

  Clearly a lot of the information you removed is mentioned by specific sources, but you just removed everything. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you are reading the RFC outcome out of context. Its outcome is that the article should not focus on specific regimes or governments (an article which discussed the wider concept rather than individual regimes), with individual regimes only mentioned in the context of the arguments that cite them; it is not enough for something to be mentioned in some source somewhere in any context - it can only be included here in the context of a specific argument about the correlation between mass killings and communist regimes. Which specific parts of the existing regional sections do you feel directly discuss that, so I can retain it when removing the rest? If there are parts which you feel could be rewritten to reflect that, you are going to have to actually commit to doing that rewrite, since the RFC is clear. I want to actually move forwards on implementing the outcome, so you will need to point to specific sentences, in the sections in question, that you feel are directly about the correlation between mass killings and communist regimes, or commit to rewriting things so they are complaint with the RFC's outcome, in cases where the argument is not currently stated in the article but could be reasonably pulled out of a source and placed there. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

My point isn't that nothing should be removed, but you literally removed everything that was under national headings. There's clearly information in those sections which treats on the historiography and could be used elsewhere: e.g. Mass killings under communist regimes#Cultural Revolution. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? That is, could you provide the specific quote from that section that you feel discusses a sourced argument about the relationship between Communism and mass killings, relying on a source that directly makes that connection? I read the section carefully before deleting it; I didn't delete it blindly. I didn't see anything in there that discussed a cited argument about the relationship between communism and mass killings. And more broadly, part of the point of the RFC's conclusion is that we need to avoid WP:SYNTH - it being something you feel "treats on the historiography" isn't enough. Per the RFC, the purpose of this article is specifically not to be a general histography of all mass killings in any Communist regimes; it is solely for discussing sourced arguments or threads of scholarly thought about the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes. It is completely unacceptable (and obviously WP:OR) to use the historiography to argue for such a connection. If you want to say "X people died in Y, and this implies that there is a connection between Communism and mass killings" (which is the topic of the article), you need a source specifically stating that; you cannot include something in this article that just says "X people died in Y" without that context. Reading the section you pointed to again, I'm still not seeing anything in that section directly discussing the connection between Communism and mass-killings, so unless you can point to a specific quote from there I'll remove it again. (Of course, if you think it can be rewritten to focus on such an argument from one of the sources, by all means - but you have to actually perform that rewrite, or point to a specific sentence where it directly discusses the article topic. If your point is that it could be used elsewhere, then use it elsewhere, don't just restore stuff that violates the RFC as it stands.) EDIT: I've tagged that specific section as off-topic per the above (although obviously I feel that the entire regime-specific sections are off-topic, we can start small to try and work out how to approach the rest.) Can you explain how you feel it's on-topic for an article about the scholarly debate over the connection between Communism and mass killings, without delving into any sort of WP:OR? --Aquillion (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This source is clearly looking at the Chinese example in the context of "communist" doctrines on page 98 and elsewhere, and is cited in that section I linked above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It says the Cultural Revolution "cannot be explained by the communist doctrine of a classless society." It then briefly explains how some writers have attempted to make a link. But none of that is mentioned in this article and p. 98 isn't cited. There is nothing in the section IOW that should be kept. If you want to include the author's analysis, then you need to blow it up and start again. TFD (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

By all means, implement the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If the community voted for the option "B", then @Aquillion:'s action was completely justified. The "article should cover the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources", which means that:

• All facts should be presented only in a context of those debates, for the article is NOT a "summary style" article for the topic "mass killings under communist regimes". Therefore, all facts, figures etc must be removed, and they should be re-introduced only if we demonstrate that they may serve as an illustration for one or another aspect of some scholarly dispute.
• The article must clearly state that its topic is not some set of events, but various controversies and debates about those events, which means the whole style should be changed.

In my opinion, Aquillion's interpretation of the RfC's outcome is correct, so anyone who restores the material removed by them is acting against consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition, this revert is made under a totally wrong pretext. Yes, all this material is reasonably well sourced. However, per WP:ONUS, does not guarantee inclusion, and this RfC demonstrated that that material, despite the fact that it is sourced, does not belong to this article. I think it should be removed. We must respect the outcome of this RfC. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Sometimes the "broadsword approach" is the necessary first step before we can move on to more refined tools. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• All right, since almost everyone seems to agree that the removal reflects the RFC's outcome, I've re-deleted it. Note that the relevant text is of course still in the history and anyone who wants to pull stuff out of it and integrate it back into the article in a way that reflects the RFC's outcome is welcome to do so; I just feel we need to move forwards, which requires taking it out until / unless someone has come up with a way to change bits in ways that reflect the RFC and avoid WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. I deleted the "Legal status and prosecutions" section as well, since it seems to be largely a list of country / regime-specific facts rather than arguments; there's, however, a few sentences in there that might be salvageable (In 1992, Barbara Harff wrote that no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide. In 1993, the United States Congress unanimously passed Public Law 103–199, which is current United States law that says communism is "responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 victims." In his 1999 foreword to The Black Book of Communism, Martin Malia wrote: "Throughout the former Communist world, moreover, virtually none of its responsible officials has been put on trial or punished. Indeed, everywhere Communist parties, though usually under new names, compete in politics.") but I'm unsure where to put them; it seems like a disconnected list of opinions, albeit possibly relevant opinions in this case. Also, the "memorials and museums" section is perhaps largely tangential (it doesn't really address the debate at all; it just seems to list a bunch of memorials and museums that exist), though I didn't delete it just yet. --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Implementing the RfC decisions.

The RfC decision is that In general, participants agree that the article should cover the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources. The article should cover the main hypothesis, proposed causes for the correlation, and major challenges to the hypothesis. In connection to that, let me remind you that the very idea to combine a large number of deaths from many different causes under a "mass killing" category, is a "theory", and it should not be presented as a fact. By saying that, I do not claim that those deaths never took place, I just remind you that the very idea to combine those deaths into a single category is a concept, which is the topic of this article. Therefore, a correct starting sentence should be a description of the topic (i.e. a group of hypotheses, theories, etc), rather than a description of events. It should be something like:

Some authors believe that mass deaths including executions, mass killings, civil war and famine deaths, and deaths during deportation or incarceration in prison camps, should be considered as mass killings, and, to some degree, attributed to Communism.

Furthermore, since we are discussing not the universally accepted point of view, but the views of some concrete authors, we should briefly name the most prominent authors, (Valentino, Rummel, Courtois, and few others), and briefly summarize what they say. Objections? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that your two sentences after your quote of the RFC result are confusing. After that IMO it looked pretty good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

North, what exactly is not clear? I can elaborate on that if necessary. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the DPRK listed as a former Communist country?

On the map of current and former Communist countries, North Korea is listed as a former Communist country (light-red) rather than a current one. I wasn't sure if this was intentional or not, I was just pointing it out because it's incorrect. The Constitution of the country remains committed to Communism, the Worker's Party of Korea participates in meetings with other Communist and Socialist Parties, and the country is also recognized as a Communist country on other pages here on Wikipedia, including this one:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state 2600:1700:3F7A:53C0:688C:F4BF:FF24:21E5 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It does seem to be an error - probably born out of the fact that DPRK removed mentions of Marxism-Leninism from its constitution in the 1970s - but that doesn't mean they're not communist. Indeed, in 2021 they did reaffirm their commitment to communism. — Czello 16:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @GOLDIEM J: who created the image to see if they have any input, and if they can amend the image. — Czello 16:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1700:3F7A:53C0:688C:F4BF:FF24:21E5: @Czello: Cheers for pointing this out, guys. I based my information on Communist state#Current communist states; North Korea is not listed as current there, and it kinda made sense to me at the time since the country's built on Juche, but I realise now that my map is in error. Will amend once I get the chance. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@2600:1700:3F7A:53C0:688C:F4BF:FF24:21E5: @Czello: done👍 GOLDIEM J (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Memorials and museums section

The section as it stood doesn't really reflect the RFC outcome; certainly a big list of monuments doesn't relate to the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources. It did contain part of one paragraph from scholars criticizing the push for such museums, though on its own that paragraph is a bit one-sided. I think that it might make more sense to rework what's left of the section into a brief summary and discussion of double genocide theory rather than a discussion of monuments, since that is largely what the parts of the text that focus on the academic debate talk about - of course, that has its own article, but a brief summery here would be appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)