Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Lede

Latest comment: 14 years ago56 comments8 people in discussion

It took 6 edits because the page wouldn't save in one go and cluebot tried to "help", but I just made a simple one line POV edit to the lede, as below:

Several historians have made comparative analysis of mass killings occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

DHooke1973 (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Several? Who? Historians? Who? One political scientist is the current list on comparatives. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Change it to that then. Political scientist. It's in the right tone-neutral direction, was the thrust of my contribution.

If there isn't any academic notability, I suggest there isn't any notability at all, and the article should be AfD'd.

Either there are more sources and the lede can be tweaked accordingly (several/many historians/political scientists/popular journalists w/e) or the article has no justification. 13:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHooke1973 (talk • contribs)

The previous revision of lede was based on Valentino, the one made by DHooke1973 is based on nothing. it needs to be reverted.--Termer (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is the NPOV. If there is no field that the topic is pertinent to, then the lede is indeed based on nothing, because the article would then be based on nothing except original synthesis by wikipedia editors.

Please tell me who the several or many are (or which field).

DHooke1973 (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As a start Rummer, Valentno, Totten et al, and so forth. Hence SYN is not the problem. Collect (talk) 15: 28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Several scholars then? DHooke1973 (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case of course that "One political scientist is the current list on comparatives" according to Fifelfoo. Just that different authors use different terms for the subject. for comparatives there is "Nationalist versus Communist Democide" [1] by Rudolph J. Rummel.

Genocide: a sociological perspective By Helen Fein has a chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide. etc. Some authors call it Communist politicide like Manus I. Midlarsky in The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century [2]. And last but not least the whole subject has been referred to simply as communist crimes against humanity. Currently however the article title has been chosen after Valentino [3]--Termer (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Genocide scholar" seems to be an umbrella term. "Political scientists and genocide scholars?" Can that be well sourced (There are at least 3 sources to begin with)? If there are an appreciable number, then it seems to me a start would have been made on sorting out POV disputes. If there are also, for example, an appreciable number of historians who say "this type of analysis is flawed" or whatever, that can go in too. DHooke1973 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, I really wish that I could take your links to Google books as a good indicator of the state of play in research; but, I can't, and nor can I think other article commentators can. You have a habit of noting an article via a deep text search, or title search, and then failing to read and adequately quote, or characterise. Characterisations you have made have missed the core theoretical statements or claims made by the article, and have demonstrated cherry picking. Could you read these sources in full, and summarise and characterise their findings fairly. There are a number of academic habits that help you. Academics normally make their large claims in the first five paragraphs or so, or in the last three paragraphs or so. Academics normally make a claim as an entire paragraph, rather than as a single sentence. I'm glad that you're in favour of high quality secondary sources, but you need to do more than note their existence as if they self-evidently demonstrate something. They demonstrate when used to cite a claim, and you need to move beyond single sentence quoting, and learn how to paraphrase paragraphs and academic claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been talking about, instead of editors exchanging opinions on this talk page, in order to maintain WP:NPOV we need sources that have conflicting perspectives on the subject. And another problem is that existing sources keep disappearing from the article. Also, please consider catching up with previous discussions. A good place to start would be the 3 AfD-s [4], [5], [6].--Termer (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEDE recommends that the lede "needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader, without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Accordingly, since the topic is highly controversial, the lede should start with the statement that the term "Communist mass killings" is not used widely by scholars and there is no common opinion on what should be considered mass killings and what should not. I understand that it would be hard to find a source that can be used as a support for that statement, however, I believe that is a result article's name choice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"we need sources that have conflicting perspectives on the subject." - Such as there are. Can you provide/point me to some?

"And another problem is that existing sources keep disappearing from the article." - If you know roughly when, those sources can be recovered.

I'll have a look at the AfDs and a more thorough look through the article page and this talk. I'll edit the lede again later according to what sources there are on that page and this.

DHooke1973 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"the lede should start with the statement that the term "Communist mass killings" is not used widely by scholars"

I'm hearing you. This can all be sorted - by making the bold edit I have explicitly made it as it should be -about sources not assertion. A lack of sources will be evident too.

...I'll read those AfD's now...DHooke1973 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with sources is that some of them use the term (i) "Communist mass killings", some of them use (ii) "Communist genocide" and some of them use (iii) "Victims of Stalinist repression", or even (iv) "Excess mortality", and these sets do not intersect. In connection to that, you may take only category (ii) sources and write the article that would look well sourced, however, this article would be quite far from neutrality (because other sources and definitions are either left beyond the scope or presented just as alternative, if not revisionist, POV of some scholars).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(avoiding "mass killings")

Whatever the name, if you have sources for academic discussion of the overarching concept of mass killing by Communist regimes, then they will not be excluded on the basis of employing euphemisms. Your point is specious. It is not up to an editor to complain that the sources are hiding their content! 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHooke1973 (talk • contribs)

Several historians have made comparative analyses of political killings of large numbers of people occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Collect (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, by saying this we limit the article's scope with the events like Great Purge or Cultural Revolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As there us already a large amount of material dealing with other cases than those two, it is likely that such a limitation would artificially restrict the develoment of the article. IMHO, such an artificial restriction would not be helpful. Collect (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps its just me but I don't see how dropping "mass killings" borrowed from Valentino is going to help really. It was a compromise to avoid words like genocide, politicide or democide in the article title, which I personally think are much more clear. Communist crimes against humanity (see google books) would be an alternative title to the article but considering previous discussions, I can't really see how this could get enough support behind it either. So the "Mass killings under..." is not perfect but its' the best currently available that refers to a WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look around and I found out the following things:

It seems to at best be a fringe topic area in academia - this should definitely be mentioned in the lede.

Only 9 papers for communist mass killings on Google Scholar.

63 for communist genocide. Almost all specific to certain regimes.

Communist democide 8 papers.

Totten mentioned in this section of talk as a major source, but his academic credentials on this topic - has an education degree, :works in an education college, is a prof of Instruction & curriculum.

The burden of proof (the burden of providing sources) has to be on those who argue it IS academically mainstream.

When it is brought up, it's use as a concept is controversial - This should be in the lede too

Heavy criticism for Black Book of Communism, criticism of Valentino for using it. John Gray is controversial.

Suggested lede something along these lines:

The term "Communist mass killings" is not widely used in academia, but a few historians and political scientists have made comparative analyses of killings of large numbers of people occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Such analyses are controversial.

DHooke1973 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything would be good as long as such things are clear: "Such analyses are controversial" according to who and "not widely used in academia" where exactly and according to who?--Termer (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not widely used according to the paucity of academic sources. You will not necessarily find a source to say that a little used term is little used - but the burden is on those who say otherwise. If the sources exist, they should be brought forth.

Such analyses are controversial - according to sources I mentioned (I'll put them down below in another post explicitly. Controversial/has been heavily criticized... something like that).

One problem is that the article was lucky to survive the first AfD. There is an argument to keep based on hits in Google Books, which is dismantled in comments. Then, apart from specious and irrelevant assertions, such as "Strong Keep. The occurrence of these mass killings is a fact." ,"Certainly there are actions of communist regimes which qualify as genocide", and numerous references to Marx,

there is only this:

Weak keep and only because the article points out, correctly, that there are laws that use the term "communist genocide" specifically (the Czech law referred to in the article

and

Communist genocide is an accepted fact by most post-communist Eastern European governments. And there are instances of charges of communist genocide as in the case of Arnold Meri. Estonian charged with Communist genocide. [5] Several countries have laws which explicitly make it illegal to deny communist genocide. It proves communist genocide is an accepted fact by many governments.

Since the article's name change that reason to Keep is no longer pertinent.

For all the discussion, not many academic sources have been forthcoming, and there are only 9 papers for the specific term on Google Scholar, so it cannot be stated as other than the the term is not widely used.

I'm not insisting the article should be deleted, but the sources do not show that in academic terms it is anything other than a fringe concept.

- DHooke1973 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

the deaths caused by the communist regimes is a fringe concept? A little like flat earth? That's not a problem in case its so indeed. The only thing needed is a source that says so.--Termer (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Key point - It is not a question of whether deaths under communist regimes happened, but whether examination of a casual link is mainstream academic analysis and uncontroversial analysis. The fact of it is that there is a lot more academic treatment and support for the hypothesis that there is a link between totalitarian regimes and crimes against humanity.

It is a matter of academic debate whether, say, "all communist regimes are totalitarian". We certainly can't claim this is itself uncontroversial and we cannot do our own synthesis. Sources, sources, sources.

Now, here is evidence that the topic is controversial-

From Black Book of Communism page:

Amir Weiner of Stanford University characterizes the "Black Book" as seriously flawed, inconsistent, and

prone to mere provocation.[18]

The methodology of the authors has been criticized. Alexander Dallin writes that moral, legal, or political

judgement hardly depends on the number of victims.[19]

It is also argued that a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an

examination of colonialism and capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. In particular, the Black Book's

attribution of 1 million deaths in Vietnam to Communism while ignoring the U.S. role has been criticized as

a methodological flaw.[20]

From article on Democide

Accusations of mass killings by a government are relatively common. Less

common are well-documented cases with enough evidence to support the accusation. Almost all accusations are

disputed to some degree, although the evidence in some cases is stronger than in others.

(Rummmel is the ref for the article)

From this article:

Benjamin Valentino states that "No generally accepted terminology exists to describe the intentional killing

of large numbers of noncombatants."

According to Anton Weiss-Wendt, academic debate regarding the common features of mass killing and other

legal measures in communist countries originates in the political advocacy of Raphael Lemkin in advocating '

the genocide convention.[111](p557) According to Weiss-Wendt, Lemkin's hobby-horse was the international

ratification of a Genocide Convention, and he consistently bent his advocacy towards which ever venue would

advance his objective.[111](p555-6)

...Lemkin's broad application of his term in political lobbying degraded its usefulness, "Like King Midas, whatever Lemkin :::touched turned into “genocide.” But when everything is genocide nothing is genocide!" states Weiss-Wendt.[111]

The Black Book of Communism's correctness has been disputed based on claims of serious methodological,

interpretive, narrative and (to some commentators) ideological flaws.

Also [110] -Grant, Robert (Nov., 1999). "Review: The Lost Literature of Socialism". The Review of English

Studies (New Series) 50 (200): 557–559.

Refs and further reading largely do not appear to be relevant to the overarching hypothesis.

So, all that can be sourced, and also that the topic is controversial summarises content in this article.

Mention of this controversy/these criticisms must be included in the lede. Any objection?

DHooke1973 (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Your point is specious." I am not sure you correctly understand my point. I do not "complain that the sources are hiding their content". My point is that by taking as a base a terminology used by limited amount of scholars it is hard to write a neutral article or even a lede. 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. I believe you have no objections against i-iii.
However, we cannot follow this scheme in this concrete article for two reasons. Firstly, to do that we need to rename the article into something more general (e.g. "Victim of Communist regimes"). Secondly, we even cannot write that "controversy exists among scholars on which of these cases can be considered mass killings and which cannot" because the "mass killings" concept is not too notable to be a subject of serious debates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Let me reiterate my point. Since even one of the inventors and advocates of the "mass killing" term concedes that no generally accepted terminology exists on that account, the article's name cannot contain the words "mass killings". It can be either narrower ("mass murder") or wider ("victims of Communist regimes". The advantage of following a second way is that the article would discuss both classical cases (mass murders and executions) cases and more controversial ones (famines, etc.), and it would be quite possible to discuss different terminologies and to present different concepts of various scholars, including "mass killings", "genocide", "politicide", "dispossessive mass killings", "population losses" etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

oic. I agree to write "controversy exists" about the phrase would be misleading. Rather it has to be along the lines of ::::"The phrase is not widely used, but such as it is used the term has met criticism".

It seems the case that the article is simply poorly conceived. However, let's say we make do with it for now (seeing as it has ::::survived 3 AfDs), then the best that can be done in the lede, I suggest, is something like:

"However, several historians and political scientists have attempted to investigate a purported casual connection between Communism and genocide, democide, policide (etc). These being concepts related by the notion of intentionally caused fatalities significantly above ?the norm?"

Help me out here: that's too wordy. Hopefully you see where I'm going.

DHooke1973 (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "seeing as it has ::::survived 3 AfDs" It survived because the fact that mass murders and mass executions were perpetrated by Communist authorities is indisputable. However, the fact that mass killings took place doesn't mean that one can write the article based on the "mass killings" concept sensu lato. In my opinion, these attempts eventually lead to (justified) AfD nomination. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So, do you think a rename is the necessary first step? -- 06:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHooke1973 (talk • contribs)

The article has, indeed, been renamed in the past. Would you support "Intentional killings under Communist regimes" ? Collect (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what do we plan to include into the article. Since there is no consensus on whether all famines and deportations were organized to kill people, this name would not be good. In that case "victims of ..." would be a solution, because no one doubts the famine and deportation victims were the victims of Stalinism, Maoism etc. However, if we do not plan to include them, both "Intentional killings under Communist regimes" and the present name are adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support anything that a neutral lede can be written for that is supported by the literature and does not

require editor synthesis. So I think "Intentional Killings" is not great. I mean, that would come out in the lede as something like "...genocide, democide, policide and - more controversially - deaths arising from 'state neglect'..."

That is, it is synthesis to put those together I think. There isn't much academic support for putting them together

(famines etc) that I can see.

So, I think "Mass murder" would be much less ambiguous and lead to something that it would be tenditious to call synthesis. ::::::: Lede would be "...genocide, democide, policide..." I think.

There just doesn't seem to be much academic support for "mass killings" or "intentional killings" - they seem too nebulous.

I would change my mind if I saw sources supporting that categorization of course.

I am inclined to think we should try to put together a joint lede/rename proposal that might conceivably find some

consensus.

My main thrust is to get whatever article comes out saying "Some historians/ w/e do or say X" rather than "X is the case"

:-) - DHooke1973 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I think "Mass murder" would be much less ambiguous" Yes, it would be less ambiguous, but it would narrow the article's scope, because neither most famines nor deportations fit this definition. I see no problem with that, although I anticipate it will create problems, because some people will continue to add more and more controversial examples of alleged mass murders into the article, that will lead to WP:COATRACK. In connection to that, let me propose the following solution. (i) Write a lede, as well as the article itself, primarily about mass murders (Great Purge, Cultiral Revolution and similar events); (ii) Discuss scholars' opinions on whether these mass killings were nation-specific or Communism-specific; (iii) Make a reservation that numerous attempts are being made by some scholars to qualify these events as "genocide", although this POV is not generally accepted; (iv) Make a reservation that majority of excess mortality cases under Communist rule were a result of not mass murders, but famines, wars and deportations, and that some scholars believe that these cases also have signs of intentional mass killings (discuss famines etc. here). Since the main focus will be made on absolutely non-controversial subject, and since all controversial subjects will be moved to a separate section, the problems with the article's name and lede's structure will be resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That seems eminently practical. Certainly as an interim solution, at least.

How is this for a draft:

lede draft (dec 21)

(Contd from above) DHooke1973 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Several historians and political scientists have written comparative analyses of mass murders occurring under various Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Scholarly opinion on how to analyse these events varies. Whilst many scholars treat these events as regime-specific, others analyse them as pertinent to Communism. Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as 'genocide', this broad use of the category is not generally accepted. Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide.

A minority of scholars take the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines also indicate intentional killing, but this opinion is controversial.

DHooke1973 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence is problematical, it is too general and reads as if this view is fringe. "Controversial" is the wrong word, "debate" is better. The debate is about one particular famine and whether the excess deaths were intentional. In fact the minority view holds that the excess deaths were entirely natural, while the majority view is that they were a consequence of policy. --Martin (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be incorrect that it is a subject of debates. I didn't find any evidences that scholars like Wheathcroft participate in debates with Valentino, Rummel etc. They simply seem to ignore each other. I believe, last words ("but this opinion is controversial") can be omitted. With regards to the rest, I have some problems with the first sentence. Did anybody do real serious comparative analysis of such different events like Great purge and Khmer massacres?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, chap 4 of Valentino, at the least. Perhaps better to say comparative analysis of the regimes? DHooke1973 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not "Deaths as a consequence of Communist policy". The relevant point is whether the deaths are considered to be intentional. IOW, need more sources to be able to say this is not the minority view.- DHooke1973 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You need a positive source to assert "minority." WP editors are not the ones to make that determination. We need an RS saying it. Collect (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

We need an RS according to what policy?

What word would you use that doesn't allocate weight?

DHooke1973 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If we do not have a source stating "minority", we should not try making that statement ourselves. We can not simply assert "this is a minority view" on our own without having a sound basis for use of the word. If one does not even have a source with a contrary opinion, it is absurd to claim the opinion is a "minority opinion." Therefore, if you can provide sources which contradict the statement that mass killings have been intentionally caused under Communist regimes, then provide them. Claiming "minority" otherwise makes no sense at all. Collect (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"If we do not have a source stating "minority", we should not try making that statement ourselves."

We make determinations on weight all the time. "Some" is to allocate weight.

The sound basis is the lack of proponents (via sources). viz Flat Earth for example.

WP:Weight seems unambiguous on this to me. If it isn't a minority view you should be able to provide sources.

Again, we need an RS to say "minority" according to what policy? What word would you use that doesn't allocate weight?

DHooke1973 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Any disputable statement must be supported by a RS. Collect disputed the statement about "minority views". Therefore, although I personally agree that that is a minority POV, the source is really needed. In my opinion, this issue can be resolved by replacement of "A minority of" with "Some": by doing that we show that that POV is not generally accepted, although it is supported by some scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Except it is disputed, not genuinely disputable. That is, the way to dispute it is with sources.

There would not likely be a source to affirm it is the minority view because it is a minority view.

To say "some" gives undue weight. We are talking about a handful of scholars. Or at least that is what the current sources suggest. I'm not sure why it is disputed - if the sources exist then they should be presented.

As I said, WP:Weight is unambiguous:

*If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts *If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

DHooke1973 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) To assert "minority" of a viewpoint requires a sourced assertion of a contrary "majority" viewpoint. So far, no such references have been given at all. I am perfectly happy to have all sorts of RS views in the article. Asserting that a totally unrepresented view is "majority" is, however, not credible. Collect (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, familiarize yourself with previous talk page posts (e.g. [7]) For instance, one of sources mentioned there states (with regards to 1932-33 Soviet famine):

"However, whether these two items of evidence can be interpreted as meeting the specific intent criterion is doubtful. An analogy may make the legal problem clear. Was the policy followed in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first by the British Empire and then the USA, towards the Native Americans, an example of genocide? Many of them were killed by settlers, their land was expropriated, their population declined, and their way of life ended. A specialist in human rights law has argued (Bassiouni 1979), however, that this was not an example of genocide because of the absence of proof of specific intent. If the deaths were largely just a by-product of the spread of disease and agriculture, the deaths would remain a fact but would not constitute genocide."--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I already have used the word "intent" a few times. Where a source states that a reason was used by a government for elimination of any group, then "intent" is rather easy to prove. In the case of official US policies regarding Indians, the "intent" is generally absent, to be sure. The case where "intent" can be found is wrt the Spanish actions, not the British actions. The issue of "intent" is rather harder to quantify in the case of the Irish Potato Blight - where things get a bit muddier due to Acts of Parliament which could be seen as being official "intent" for their results (removal of food supplies from areas where people were likely to starve). The Soviet Famine is quite parallel to the Irish case with regard to acts concerning the food supply. Acts by settlers, however objectionable, do not appear to fall into the category of government intent. This article, moreover, is limited to intent by official government purpose, not random acts by individuals. Do you see the point about official government intent being involved? Collect (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question is unclear for me. The dispute started over the statement:

"A minority of scholars take the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines also indicate intentional killing, but this opinion is controversial."

You requested to provide a source supporting this statement. I provided a quote from the mainstream scholar who clearly states that there is not enough ground to speak about intent. I believe all other considerations over Irish famine or "the point about official government intent being involved" are irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the minority of scholars, is several scholars an acceptable compromise? (Igny (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

Re majority:

There are several sources of non-ascription of intention re famine, as well as non-inclusion of famine,

within the article (eg Weiss-Wendt, Wayman&Tago)

but I will also repeat my comment from the inappropriate article name section of this Talk:

Just by looking at the Black Book of Communism article, I can see that J. Arch Getty, Mark Tauger, and

Dallin all noted that famines should not be counted as if they were equivalent to intentional murders and

executions.

I will add

Ervin Staub, "Genocide and Mass Killing: Origins, Prevention, Healing and Reconciliation" in

Political Psychology Vol 21,No.2, 2000

P Huth, D Balch-Lindsay, "Draining the Sea": Mass Killing and Guerrilla Warfare International 2004 Cambridge Univ Press

(Incidentally, the last two might be of some use to the main article)

I think it's okay if we put it in terms of "the majority don't ..." and compare to "some", or "several"

but I do think the relative weights should be properly represented.

DHooke1973 (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WRT famines - that is unimportant to the use of "minority" in the lede in reference to all examples -- I would suggest that the question of minority depends heavily on the famine being discussed. A lot of scholars blame deliberate decisions by the Soviets with regard to food distribution for a number of deaths -- just as the British decisions impacted Ireland. Collect (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The relevant point is how many scholars say this constitutes intentional killing. In effect, the difference between murder and manslaughter.

DHooke1973 (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Where intent is implied in any way, it is murder. Law generally includes any acts which one could reasonably think might cause a death as intentional. Did you look up the Irish situation? Particularly Boyle's opinions? Collect (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Where the sources say there is intentional killing, we shall say the sources say there is intentional killing.

If you have more sources that treat of famine under a Communist regime as intentional killing, then please present them.

- DHooke1973 (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I addressed your question with a specific example. This talk page is not set up for asking folks for cites where they have addressed the questions raised several times now. Rather, do you regard the Irish Famine as "intentional" as an example of a famine death possibly being regarded as caused by a government? The claim is that the deaths were not a direct act, but an indirect result of government acts which could have been foreseen. Is that sufficient for you as it is for Boyle? Collect (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Collect, could you please explain me why do we need to discuss Irish famine here when the source provided by me clearly and explicitly states that proof of intent is doubtful in the case of Soviet famine? What other sources do you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

From Reliable sources policy

"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.^[1] Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.^[2] Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and citations directing the reader to those sources are needed to give credit to authors and publishers, in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. " Bobanni (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be more helpful if you cut this down to whatever you think is relevant to the issue, as well as telling us which issue and how it is relevant. DHooke1973 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

DPRK

Latest comment: 14 years ago44 comments8 people in discussion

[8] Dictionary of genocide, Volume 1 By Samuel Totten, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs, staes that Kim Il-Sung killed vast numbers of people for political reasons. Collect (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Something that might interest those who have been after theoretical questions concerning the subject: [9] Accounting for genocide after 1945: Theories and some findings by Helen Fein, Institute for the Study of Genocide, New York, U.S.A: -"...as expected, unfree, authoritarian and one party communist states are most likely to use genocide...One-party communist states are 4.5 times more likely to have used genocide than are authoritarian states."--Termer (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, you've previously demonstrated cherry picking. Please supply an appropriate academic citation when quoting sources, and make attempts to quote the thesis of an article. The absence of author, title, journal name in your quote above makes it entirely uncontextualised and irrelevant to discussion except to cause drama. Additionally, you're quoting a throw away line within a piece, not a statement of thesis, for all we know this could be an agronomy piece by an opinionated agronomist. More and better context please. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your citation should be something along the lines of Helen Fein, "Accounting for Genocide after 1945: Theories and Some Findings," International Journal of Group Rights 1, 1994: 79ff. And you're quoting from the Abstract. Go read the article before you bring it up here, and identify the key theoretical claims, they're usually in, or immediately following the introduction. The core claim will be at a minimum of about a paragraph in length. We'd also want evidence that this article was reviewed. In the place where authors in sociology and law usually thank the journal's peer reviewers, they don't, its a first issue and Ulrich's only claims the title is refereed under its new title. TOC might help there, or bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you object to the Totten ref above? BTW, it is best to avoid making any personal comments as a rule. Collect (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Totten et al ref. I'm highly suspicious of "Dictionaries of". The fact that you haven't included the publisher, or the specific dictionary entry (article, article's author), is not a good sign. Wikipedia has rules on the use of Tertiary sources. They need to be aimed at an expert public (dictionary of genocide sounds possible), the articles need to be written by and signed by an expert (no indication in your citation so far). Having checked the link, no Totten et al is not acceptable. The dictionary entry, KIm Il-sung is not signed by an author; its a source very clearly on the same level as Britannica or Wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardcover: 288 pages Publisher: Greenwood (November 30, 2007) Language: English ISBN-10: 0313346429 ISBN-13: 978-0313346422 . Samuel Totten Paul Bartrop Yeah - significant authors. It is not a Wiki, so that cavil is invalid entirely. Secondary source is reliable source as it is ascribable to specific authors. Collect (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

... This is frustratingly disappointing, Collect. I'd suggest you bone up on the difference between secondary and tertiary sources. WP:RS/N has been requested to deal with it Fifelfoo (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly work, signed by notable figures. Secondary source. Not a dictionary like Random House. Collect (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you retract your accusation that taking a disagreement about the reliability of a source to a reliable source notice board is forum shopping. I strongly suggest you do so now. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The source is a secondary scholarly work by people noted in the field, and hence is properly citable here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[[10]] Wikipedia:TERTIARY. Apologise please. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I've quoted and going to quote only anything that's relevant to the article. For the rest, the link is there for purpose and anybody can read what it says.--Termer (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you read in full the article from which you quoted a section of the abstract? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has rules on the use of Tertiary sources. They need to be aimed at an expert public (dictionary of genocide sounds possible), the articles need to be written by and signed by an expert (no indication in your citation so far)." Your rules appear to be made up. where does this "They need to be aimed at an expert public" rule come from? Where does this "signed by an expert" rule come from? Chapter and verse please - since it appears that you're just pulling these rules out of thin air. Smallbones (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History deals with this. Its a rule that's been applied on WP:RS/N and in relation to Featured Articles to test if the Tertiary Source is the equivalent of the highest quality reliable sources. A number of Tertiary sources include what are effectively journal article quality literature reviews or review articles. Sadly, the Dictionary of Genocide is not written in that vein. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not cite essays as if they were policy or guidelines. ANYBODY CAN WRITE AN ESSAY! Your actions are equivalent to making up the rules as you go along. Your "rules" have no meaning here and I will call you on it every time that I see you trying to pull this garbage. Smallbones (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What is really nice is that the essay specifically states "Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses like W.W. Norton and Greenwood which emulate the university press standards." In short, the essay specifically states that sources from this publisher are reliable. Amazing. Collect (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source examples quoted above contains following caution:

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Bobanni (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and its been taken to WP:RS/N for specific inquiry. Hopefully from non-involved editors (though so far that doesn't look so good). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo. So what do you want to know exactly. What's the bottom line of the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Helen Fein's work that's relevant to the article? You can read it by her own words from here: most genocide scholars have acknowledged the greater likelihood of communist states than other authoritarian states to commit genocide since 1945 (this was one finding of my article "Accounting for Genocide after 1945...--Termer (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm asking you to do Termer. You've located a potentially wonderful source, and instead of reading it and discussing it, you've quoted one sentence from the abstract. You're also making the claim that this one sentence is representative of the research findings of the work as a whole, without having read the work. We don't cite abstracts, we cite the article itself, and you haven't read the article itself. You should improve your research behaviour, selective quotation has previously resulted in you mischaracterising the research findings of works. You can do better. Try your local library for interlibrary loans services. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

- The IAGS are an open membership organization. I could join. Membership is no indication of academic stringency or reliability.

It is far more relevant that Fein is a Phd historical sociologist at Harvard.

I have a problem with Totten as a source, in that his field and qualifications are in Education.

DHooke1973 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bio from Greenwood Publishing Group "SAMUEL TOTTEN is a genocide scholar based at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. He is also a Member of the Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem, Israel).In 2005, Totten was named one of the inaugural chief co-editors of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, which is the official journal of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). Among the books Totten's edited/co-edited on genocide are: First-Person Accounts of Genocidal Acts Committed in the Twentieth Century (Greenwood, 1991). In July and August of 2004, Totten served as one of 24 investigators on the U.S. State Department's Darfur Atrocities Documentation Project. Most recently, Totten has conducted research in Rwanda on various aspects of the Rwandan genocide." Bobanni (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with Totten as a source, in that his field and qualifications are in Education.

None of what you put makes him a credible historian or political scientist, or anything of the sort.

At Arkansas, he is a professor of Instruction and Curriculum.

DHooke1973 (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong. 1) Academic appointments are primarily on the basis of a responsibility to teach into an area. Research requirements are usually "free", in the sense that anyone may research anything if conducted credibly (but you're going to face trouble getting a physics lab in an English department). 2) Being an editor, a journal editor, a government specialist, or a member of an institute doesn't mean squat about their research credibility. Authored works in the field matter, and their review. The fact that Totten has a background in education is a dangerous sign, but not an excluding sign. Monographs and journal articles which have been favourably reviewed by appropriate experts in appropriate journals is the key here to establishing an "authority." Examine what his research programme has been by his publications in appropriate RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Samuel Totten is a genocide scholar, Professor of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville[1], a Member of the Council of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem. In 2005 he became one of the chief co-editors of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, the official journal of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS).[2] rather seems to indicate specific credentials on the topic. So much for trying the physics analogy. It is more like saying a physicist who works as an educator ceases being a physicist, even if he were head of the American Ohysical Society <g>. He has proper credentials for the work in question. And I do suggest being a co-editor on a scholarly journal counts a bit. Collect (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think being a co-editor on a scholarly journal counts here, the journal is particularly young. My main and fundamental attack on the "Kim Il-Sung" entry in the dictionary is that its an unsigned tertiary source. The discussion of Totten's authority is interesting, but secondary to that. What I would point out, regarding any scholar, is that their standing is a field is established by peer review. Which means monographs from academic presses, chapters in edited collections (edited by someone other than themselves) published from an academic press, and peer reviewed journal articles. Being a co-editor is not part of this. Being a professional for a US instrumentality is not part of this (and in this case, given the US government's known habit of engaging in outright lies in relation to Communism, not an establishing point, but neither is it detrimental). Show me Totten's publication history to establish his authority, but as I noted, his authority isn't the issue with the source; the lack of an appropriate author signing the individual entry, and the entry not meeting the standards of articles in scholarly tertiaries is (consider Oxford National Dictionary of Biography as a comparator). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Note further Greenwood Publishing Group. Which rather precludes the "vanity press" argument, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, how can I be wrong for raising a concern which you agree is legitimate? Then you explicate my point (your point 2).

Collect - IAGS may have the word "scholar" in the title, but it's open membership. Anyone can join.

As for specific credentials - he may have studied and written about genocides, but the issue is his authority as a ::::::::::: political history authority on this topic (which is not genocide or even simply mass murder).

A better analogy is in fact a guy with an education degree working as a physicist.

Now, an amateur by training and position can yet be an expert - but on the face of it he is not an

impressive source. I'll have a look at who has published him and how many citations his work has got, certainly, but

the concern is certainly worth raising. - DHooke1973 (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that the publisher is used for RS on over 6,000 cases on WP would carry weight for you? That it had been owned by Houghton, Mifflin? Sorry -- the source is RS. No one at RS/N has said it is not RS from the outside of this article. Collect (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Totten. [11] "Totten has been active in investigating the genocide in Darfur. In the summer of 2004, he was among 24 investigators asked to interview black African refugees along the Chad/Sudan border for the U.S. State Department's Atrocities Documentation Project." Clearly regarded as expert by the DoS. Collect (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps the fact that the publisher is used for RS on over 6,000 cases on WP would carry weight for you?"

Perhaps it does.

On a another point, can you tell me where I can find such stats please? It would be useful to know where to look that sort of thing up. Thank you.

Totten as an overall source - well the article isn't about genocide, it is specifically about a link

between communism and mass killings .I am simply saying Totten doesn't seem like the best source in the world to support that hypothesis. I am wary of undue weight, also.

DHooke1973 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) Use the "search" function. Also note that Greenwood is specifically singled out as reliable in the essay cited by one editor <g>. As for undue weight -- on what basis do you specifically feel the source carries undue weight per se? Do you have sources which contradict it? Then add them. Collect (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel the source necessarily carries undue weight. I do think that robust sources will help the article out of it's neutrality issues. Do I have sources which contradict the dictionary quote, you mean? To be clear, that is not my issue. My issue is robust sources throughout and the weight of academic discussion of the article's implicit hypothesis. That is what doesn't seem so heavy to me. See the lede section directly above ('what I found out') if you want my (initial) appraisal of sources. - DHooke1973 (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I could give you a number of sources about how Stalin and Kim were universally loved by the people and how they brought happiness and prosperity to everyone. After all if anti-communist propaganda is allowed here, why not communist propaganda? (Igny (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

"Communism" is rather ambiguous term. Although, strictly speaking, Communism is just a political ideology in which property is commonly controlled, this term is colloquially used to describe some Asiatic and semi-Asiatic dictatorships that used Communist phraseology to establish a bureaucratic control over property, private life and state. In that sense, Communism defined in such a way has not much difference with Nazism. Consequently, what you call "Communist propaganda" in actuality advocates Stalinism, Maoism and similar dictatorships, and it cannot be equated with anti-Communism propaganda (I mean those anti-Communists who are, in actuality, anti-Stalinists, anti-Maoists, etc). Therefore, the answer on your rhetorical question is: because mass murderers' advocacy has no place on WP pages. Of course, if under Communists we mean some leftists (in European meaning of this word) and under anti-Communists we mean rightists (like Conquest, e.g.) both Communist and anti-Communist POVs should be presented equally. However, I believe, this has no direct relation to this concrete case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

once it has been established that DHooke1973 has been a sock puppet of Jacob Peters and the account has been blocked indefinitely, I suggest archiving the threads as a disruption and starting fresh. Or perhaps anything posted by DHooke1973 should be simply deleted from this talk page in case anybody is willing to take on such a tedious job and sees that there is a possibility to sort the discussions out? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RE Fifelfoo on that one :[12]. I'd appreciate if you could stop commenting on contributors and limit your comments on content only. Other than that. Unfortunately pasting the entire work here for your convenience would be a violation of WP:Copyvio. Please feel free to acquire the work from you nearest library and quote whatever you please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to propose your own version of lede, I will gladly participate in the discussion of it. However, to avoid reiteration of my and Collect's arguments, please, familiarize yourself with our comments and, please, try to take it into account when it possible. I believe neither Collect nor I are someone's sockpuppet, so our opinion should be taken into account in any event.
If you, for some reason are unwilling or unable to propose your own version of lede, I believe you will not mind us to take a DHooke1973's version as a starting point. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Its impossible to navigate in those discussions spammed by DHooke1973, and one thing is clear, anything said by this user should be simply ignored. On the lede, I never had mayor problems with it as it was other than sectins from it were constantly removed with no reasons. If anything, since there seems to be a controversy going on, the lede should spell it out. What we need is a source that looks into this controversy and that should do it.--Termer (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has an issue or query regarding my editing this page, I suggest you bring it up on my talk page. If a significant number of editors think I have been "spamming" then I will listen. Other than that, I suggest my contributions be taken on their merits and we move on. I certainly don't wish to take up any more of this talk page talking about me.

DHooke1973 (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies DHooke1973, your way of commenting was very similar to a user who has been misusing wikipedia user accounts and therefore coupler of wikipedia editors including myself misunderstood your intentions. Please do not spread your comments all over the talk page, and please keep it straight to the point, otherwise it makes it very difficult to follow what exactly are you after. Also in the future please consider discussing changes on the talk page, bring the discussion to a consensus before making any major changes in the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

I do not think my comments appear in any more different sections than anyone else. I put them where they belong.

I'll reserve the right to make the occasional bold edit where I think it will help move a discussion on.

I think we are moving the discussion on. So let's get back to discussing that here, and my talk page for any concerns about my approach. Thanks.

DHooke1973 (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

lede draft (dec 22)

Latest comment: 14 years ago43 comments7 people in discussion

"Several historians and political scientists have written comparative analyses of various Communist regimes associated with mass murder, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Scholarly opinion on how to analyse these events varies. Whilst many scholars treat these events as regime-specific, others analyse them as pertinent to Communism. Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as 'genocide', this broad use of the category is not generally accepted. Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide.

Some treatments of the subject have put forward the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines also indicate intentional killing, but this interpretation of intent is not held by the majority."

Thoughts? For sources and previous discussion see subsection above.

(Any queries not about the article, I refer you to the bottom of the DPRK section/my Talk page)

Glad to see that sockpuppet investigation initiated by Termer demonstrated that you were not a sockpuppet. With regards to the lede, do you think the beginning of the first sentence is good? Many (if not majority) scholars study mass murders under Stalin, Mao etc. separately (for instance, Wheathcroft discusses victims of Stalinism separately from other victims, however, he does it meticulously) , and only few scholars tried to do a comparative analysis. Interestingly some of these broadly thinking scholars, e.g. Rummel have been criticised for crucial flaws in their analysis and conclusions. However, by starting the article with the mention of comparative analysis we thereby put extra emphasis on the second type scholars' works. I don't think it is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right: The following sentences deal with the different types of analysis anyhow.

Perhaps the first sentence should be amended simply to "...have written about mass murders committed under Communist regimes"?

DHooke1973 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is much better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all this article is not about comparative analysis of anything, and such analysis would remain outside of Wikipedias scope in the first place. All this doesn't mean that the article shouldn't have a section on analysis, in case that is what is wanted here.

The only purpose of this article is to give the reader explanation(s) on what does the term Communist Democide, or Communist Gnocide or Communist politicide or like Valentino has put it simply "Communist mass killings", what does it mean exactly? And in case it can be verified that all this is simply a fringe or a "crack-pot" theory like often claimed above. No problem, there are many articles on fringe theories on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion about lead is the first necessary step to remove the ugly SYNTH tag. Is it not? (Igny (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Re:"The only purpose of this article is to give the reader explanation(s) on what does the term" The only reasonable explanation may be that these terms are vague and no consensus exists on that account among scholars and lawyers. In my understanding, the article's purpose is to tell about premature deaths under Communist rules, about well established cases of mass murders, mass executions, more controversial cases, like famines, labour camp mortality and deportation deaths, about other population losses. It is absolutely irrelevant how several scholars and political writers call it, especially taling into account that really serious scholars do not play in these games.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There rarely is a general consensus on anything really. And why this case should be any different. In case these terms are vague, no problem again, our job here is to write articles so that all possible viewpoints are covered. In case serious scholars do not "play in these games", why does the first President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Helen Fein claim that "most genocide scholars have acknowledged the greater likelihood of communist states than other authoritarian states to commit genocide since 1945" [13]?--Termer (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think genocide scholars are the only scholars who work in this area? With regards to Fein, please, familiarize yourself with this tabe [14]. Starting from 1955, more genocides and politicides were committed by non-Communist regimes than by Communist ones. Interestingly, genocides against Communists (Indonesia, Vientam) amounted up to 1.5 million.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line to this lede draft would be ^{[citation needed]}&^[who?]. In case all this comes from a secondary published source, and it specifies who exactly are the "several", "many", "some" etc. no problem. But what we can't do here, have a comparative analysis written by wikipedia editors. that's what WP:No original research is all about. The lede should be based on what exactly any of the sources written on the subject say, and there is nothing more to it really.--Termer (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:LEDE doesn't require citations to be in the lede. Anyway, what concretely is OR in the lede proposed by DHooke1973?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede reflects the article, in that there is a "Controversies" section for cases such as famine etc.

"The bottom line to this lede draft would be ^{[citation needed]}&^[who?]"

I'm just going on the article itself and the sources I am aware of.

I don't mind laying out all those external sources and relevant sentences from the article, if you require. We've discussed quite a few of them already, but I can lay them out as footnotes to the lede. Would you like me to do that, termer?

- DHooke1973 (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede like the article itself should state facts only according to the published sources. Phrases like "Several historians", "many scholars", "not generally accepted" etc. are not facts according to the sources but an original analysis of the sources written by wikipedia editors. In case anything is "generally accepted" or "not generally accepted" etc it needs to list the source/the author that has claimed so and clearly spell it out in the article who says so. And words like "Several" and "many" and "some" shouldn't be used in the first place. please see WP:WEASEL FFI -the most important: "either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". Hope that it was more clear what I was talking about.--Termer (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The style guide WP:WEASEL most certainly does not say words like "Several", "many", and "some" shouldn't be used. However, I agree we should be as precise as is reasonable.

Paul, having read the Ellman article, I think the quote you provided before - while it does highlight problems with ascribing intent - probably doesn't represent Ellman's conclusions, so I suggest it not be used.

termer, I am going to drop "majority" for the last line, then, but certainly there several plenty of sources that dispute 'famines as intentional killing'.

With all that in mind...

lede draft (dec 23)

"Several historians and political scientists have written about mass murders committed under Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Scholarly opinion on how to analyse these events varies. Whilst these events are often treated as regime-specific, they have sometimes been analysed as pertinent to Communism¹. Furthermore, whereas some treat all these events as genocide, this broad use of the category is not generally accepted². Other proposed subcategories include democide and policide.

Some treatments of the subject have put forward the view that other cases of mass fatality such as famines have indicated intentional killing. This interpretation is disputed.³"

1. "Rummel (2001) finds totalitarianism and communism in particular, two variables often passed over by other scholars, to be important explanatory variables." - Wayman & Tago

2. "Most scholarly definitions assume that [the UN Convention] legal definition is a good start, but are aware that [...] this treaty-based definition left out the killing of economic and political groups." - Wayman & Tago

Kulaks

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

“What do you do will all the Kulaks?” doesn't make sense. What did Churchill actually say?

Also, I don't think statements count as mass killing.

This new section doesn't belong as is.

- DHooke1973 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[17] "'What did you do with all the kulaks [wealthier peasants]?' asked Churchill. 'We killed them', replied Stalin." World War II Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West By Laurence Rees. [18] The rise and fall of the Soviet Union, 1917-1991 By Richard Sakwa' [19] Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him By Donald Rayfield. How many cites for the killings doe we need here? Collect (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Same as always. One good one, I guess. Two is better. Three great.

I think the Kulaks are mentioned in the deportations section of controversies, so you might want to merge some material.

If they are documented clearly as mass murder (intentional killing) then put the sourced material in the main part of this article.

DHooke1973 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember Summary style though, and ensure you put the cited material into the main article for the country specific section. The country specific sections ought to be summaries of their mains, tailored for the importance to this article 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps much more relevant to this case would be the notorious quote by a party official who had commented on the question: "It took a famine to show who is the master here. It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay. We've won the war." [20]--Termer (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If its relevant, its most relevant at Soviet Collectivisation. It'd also be nice if you attributed your quotes. The fact that you can search Google Books is uninteresting. Are you quoting it from within Conquest? If so, who was Conquest quoting. It makes it extremely difficult to edit with you when you fail to attribute, and rely on a google search as an authority. Conquest, Conquest's page number, who Conquest was quoting, and the footnote Conquest used so we can locate the originating use of the quote would be best, but again, better placed at Soviet collectivisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF and NPA please. Collect (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I did, and I didn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Fifelfoo, there are 73 books that have it on black and white, therefore I don't think it would be necessary to list one specific source only. Since the discussion seems to be about either getting rid of the "kulaks" by a famine was a killing or not, it seems like relevant to me. On your other complaints, sorry, I don't think attributing would be really needed here, anybody can click on the links by themselves and read what exactly do the sources say.--Termer (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is, as I have been discussing with you, insufficient. Once again you spring a deep search on a phrase without any context, and on this occasion you don't supply a source, but a search. If the discussion is about intentionality in relation to the Kulaks, then all I can suggest is that intentionality in relation to yet another single case study, yet again the Soviet Union, is not the way forward. Discussions of intentionality should proceed, as the majority of this article should, from works which specifically deal with multiple case studies. Surely Rummel ascribes intentionality across multiple case studies in an academically published work? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear you that you have problems with me, however I intend to keep ignoring your comments on contributors. Other than that, the sources should do the talking, not me.--Termer (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

sources do not speak free and clear with an unbound tongue. Conquest may well have made that quote only to demolish it. He may have described it as fictional but an adequate characterisation. Please read specific sources, attribute them correctly and contextualise them appropriately. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

All those 73 sources listed for your convenience speak freely about "It has cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay", and narrowing down to Conquest in the context would be irrelevant. A former Soviet official and latter defector Victor Kravchenko is the one who has originally published this dialogue between himself and Mikhail Khatayevich, who was the secretary of the party's Dnepropetrovsk committee in Ukraine. And who BTW got himself also arrested by the regime later on.--Termer (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Killing of kulaks" may be an euphemism for elimination of the kulaks as a class. Beside actually murdering the kulaks the same effect may be reached by simply expropriating the property and exiles. (Igny (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

^ The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
^ The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

[1] The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

[2] The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

[1]

[2]