Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

definition of "mass"

apologies for my confusing tag here. the quoted material is from the definition of the term "mass", not the outcome of the poison, which was always death, varying in suffering and time. The fact that poisons were tested on gulag prisoners resulting in death is not disputed. the previous undo made the comment "how is this relevant to the page?" my tag was to clarify the link was not in relevance to the 5-6 notable victims killed by the poisons, but rather the "large number of people" killed in testing of the poisons. i think paul undid the previous link thinking 5-6 deaths did not qualify as "mass killing", which i agree. however the "mass killings" of those whom served as guinia pigs, should justify the link remaining. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services does discuss human experimentation, however it is sketchy on deliberate killing people and the scale of the killing. Care to provide a RS linking poison experiments to mass killings? (Igny (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

isn't testing poison on people "deliberate" no matter your intent? Oh well i love wp for just this very reason, prove it. so i concede the point, however, since the article is about the masses of people who did die, does it actually have to be a "mass" in each specific method or could we combine all the gulag death into the term mass? one of the rare methods was the "hose and froze" the victim would be hung by her hands, stripped naked, and sprayed with a hose until she became encased in a block of ice. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret service article" tells nothing about of the scale of these tests and about the amount of the victims. Therefore, unless evidences are presented that this secret program lead to mass deaths, it is irrelevant to the "mass killings..." article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty tangential. TFD (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@tfd wp:idontlikeit @Paul: "Those methods included killing the oldest son in any family known to have had contact with the insurgents and attacking the insurgents in their forest redoubts with poison gas. This was the first use of poison gas against a civilian population ever, and it was successful. The peasants’ rebellion was suppressed. But the conditions that had led to that rebellion caused mass hardship in the countryside and eventually a famine in large parts of Russia and Ukraine. It was only timely American assistance that prevented an even greater catastrophe. It is nonetheless estimated that 5 million people died of starvation." http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1217.200706.satter.sovietgulag.html would this do? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, instead of the link you provided, could you provide a reliable source for your assertions. I do not like it not because I do not like the contents but because it is an unreliable source. TFD (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, frankly, I have no idea what relation your last post has to the subject (secret tests of poisons). Use of poison gas by Tukhachevsky has nothing to do with these tests, simply because it occurred earlier.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@paul, actually it did exist, "1921: First poison laboratory within the Soviet secret services was established under the name "Special Office". @tfd, a yale published moscow correspondent and author is unreliable? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, the source is the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which was formerly led by Daniel Pipes. David Satter is Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. These are partisan, not scholarly, institutions, and to make things worse they have been wrong too often about too many things, from the Cold War to the War in Iraq. Being a professor does not mean, like Jesus, that everthing that proceedeth out of one's mouth is gospel. Find a reliable source where he published his thoughts. When someone presents views outside the academic process, they are not reliable sources. Do you really believe that mainstream academics would believe something just because it had been published in a neoconservative or for that matter liberal magazine? BTW, Joseph Goebbels had a doctorate from Heidelberg University, but that does not mean that everything he wrote is reliable. TFD (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, is there any evidence that (i) by 1921 this secret laboratory was different from similar laboratories that existed in other European countries (where mustard gas was invented), and (ii) the gases used by Tukhachevsky were not those used by all parties during WWI, but were developed and produced in this secret lab and (iii) these gases were used as a part of secret program devoted to tests of new toxic substances? If yes, the link is relevant, if not, your arguments are fully irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"is there any evidence that (i) by 1921 this secret laboratory was different from similar laboratories that existed in other European countries" 1. how is that relevant? the article is about communist, not Europeans. wasn't the majority of the ussr in asia anyway?

2. why does it matter the type of gas was used to kill? the result is the same no matter how many different regimes produced it. 3. the facts remain, soviets tested gas on humans, and gassed humans outside of the lab/test environment. the article about poison appears to be relevant. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "1. how is that relevant? " Because if this was just an ordinary poison gas laboratory (which seems to be highly plausible, because poison gases were widely used by all WWI parties and were not banned by that moment, Geneva Protocol was signed only in 1925) then the fact that such a laboratory was established is not something outstanding.

Re: "2. why does it matter the type of gas was used to kill?" If the gas used during Tambov rebellion was from the stocks remaining from WWI (which is very probable), then this fact has nothing to do with the secret laboratory;

Re: "3. the facts remain, soviets tested gas on humans, and gassed humans outside of the lab/test environment. " Noone questions these facts, the problem is that I don't see the relevance of these facts to the mass killings of non-combatants under communist regimes.

I cannot understand your logic. If I understand your correct, your premises are: (i) the poison laboratory was established in Soviet Russia in 1921; (ii) in the same year some rebels were gassed during anti-partisan warfare in Central Russia; (iii) new substances were being tested on humans as a part of some secret program devoted to development of new poisons for GPU/NKVD/KGB, although the amount of victims is unknown. Based on that you conclude that the article about these tests is relevant to the "Communist mass killings" article. I definitely see no linkage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Re: "the article is about communist" No. The article is about mass killings under Communist regimes. Please stick with the article's subject and explain me what is the relation of this link to the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, can you provide reliable sources that support your claim? TFD (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@paul 1. i still am not sure what Geneva has to do with whether or not the gas/poisons killed people, or if other regimes killed people. no one is disputing whether or not the soviets had the legal right to kill prisoners. i think we both agree the lab killed people, we seem to be stuck on how many constitutes a "mass". my larger point is the soviets killed massive amounts of people in a variety of ways, each deserves mention here, unless it is your opinion that only the killing where machine guns mowed down herds of people in seconds be included here. is there a time/location/kill ratio at play here, is so, it would be helpful to define

@tfd, yes, see the sources listed in the lab article, challenge/remove any you feel inaccurate. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, I get into the same disputes with American liberals too. Dr. X is a professor at Harvard etc. and therefore what he said on Saturday Night Live belongs in the article. Let us keep to reliable sources and forget all the polemical writings. TFD (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

kinda a moot point since the gassings and the gas/poison lab cant be linked. ironic tho both happened in 1921 cccp under the same command eh? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "my larger point is the soviets killed massive amounts of people in a variety of ways, each deserves mention here" Yes, each separate case of mass killings can be mentioned. However, that does not mean that each case of (non-mass) killing (or of killings of combatants) can be combined together in this article to reach an impression that it was a single event of mass killing of non-combatants. Whereas links to the articles devoted to some separate mass killing cases can be added to this articles, the link you advocate tells nothing about the scale of killing, so it is your burden of proof to demonstrate that it tells about mass killings (more than 50,000 for 5 years or less). With regard to Tambov rebellion, please, keep in mind that the gases were used against combatants, the gases were not banned by international laws, so according to those times' laws there were no difference between usage of them and, e.g. anti-infantry mines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a source that says that mass killings of some sort happened there. Otherwise I don't think this article would be improved by marginal or doubtful inclusions. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul you have made your case well. i have nothing to prove the lab killed 5000 people in under 5 years. until evidence surfaces or the rumored mass gulag deaths related to this lab, consider the topic hibernated. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. I am ready to renew this discussion when (or if) new reliable sources on the subject will be available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. A similar link to North Korean experiments (this poorly sourced article tells nothing about mass killing) should be removed also. I believe, noone minds me to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For North we just have Rummel's estimates with no details about how he derived them or how accepted they are, which makes this section POV. TFD (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

According to professor Michael Ellman...

The words:

"According to professor Michael Ellman, the National operations of the NKVD, which targeted "national contingents" (foreign ethnicities), such as Poles, Ethnic Germans, Koreans, etc., may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention."

are taken out of context. The full quote is:

"It should be noted that there are other actions of Team-Stalin in the 1930s that might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38 (but not the victims of the operation against the ‘Harbintsy’ since these were former railway workers rather than an ethnic group). Of these, the ‘Polish operation’, which led to 111,000 death sentences, seems to have been the biggest (Petrov & Roginskii 2003). There are three objections to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide. The first is that NKVD order no. 00485 of 11 August 1937 (the order for the ‘Polish operation’) does not explicitly target Poles as such, but only members of a (former and in 1937 already for many years non-existent) Polish organisation, POV [POV is an abbreviation for Pol’skaya Organizatsiya Voiskovaya or in Polish Polska Organizacja Wojskowa] and certain specific groups of Poles.38 However, in implementing order 00485, NKVD officers interpreted it as an order to arrest Poles (since they could not arrest members of POV because nonexistent members of non-existent organisations cannot be arrested). In its implementation it was predominantly an example of killing people (and sending them to the Gulag) based on their ethnicity.39 The second objection to treating the ‘Polish operation’ as genocide is that only a minority of Soviet Poles were victims of it. According to the 1937 census there were 636,000 Poles in the USSR in January 1937, but the number of persons sentenced in the ‘Polish operation’ was ‘only’ about 140,000 or 22%. Whether this is enough to meet the UN Convention criterion of ‘in whole or in part’ depends on the interpretation of ‘in part’ (see above).40 The third objection that many of those sentenced (about a third) in the ‘Polish operation’ were not in fact ‘Poles’ (Petrov & Roginsky 2003, pp. 166 – 171). Since no legal tribunal to try the crimes of Stalinism has been established, there is as yet no authoritative ruling on the legal characterisation of the ‘Polish operation’ and the other ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38"

In addition, in actuality the Ellman's article, as well as his conclusions, are much more general. According to him, at least two different definitions of genocide exist, strict (UNO convention) and loose, and one can come to different conclusions depending of which one is used. He concluded that whereas Stalin's action fit a loose definition of genocide,

".... such a broad definition would mean that genocide was no longer a rare and uniquely horrible offence. A large number of historical events would become genocides (Jones 2006), ranging from the expansion of the Zulu kingdom in early nineteenth century South Africa, to the Atlantic slave trade, the European colonisation of the Caribbean islands and American continent, the atom bomb on Nagasaki (and possibly also the one on Hiroshima), and the economic sanctions of the 1990s against Iraq. This also means that countries such as Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, UK and USA, which participated in or were responsible for one or more of the events in the above list, would become guilty of genocide."

I removed the above words because they have been wrongly attributed to Prof. Ellman.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well. The words have been restored without discussion. I am waiting for explanations of that step on the talk page, otherwise I'll remove them again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, like there is a big difference between "may constitute genocide as defined by the UN convention," which is how I paraphrased Ellman, and what he actually said: "might well qualify as genocide as defined in the UN Convention. In particular this concerns the ‘national operations’ of 1937 – 38." Nothing is taken out of context here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can not believe that I might know the subtle difference between "might" and "may" better than native English speakers. If that were the case, then I might believe you that you did not take the phrases out of context or did not change their meaning. But I am afraid I may not. (Igny (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

The issue is not only in might/may. Ellman cites (i) the claim, (ii) three objections to this claim and (iii) some objections to these objections, and, finally, (iv) he concludes that it is not possible to legally characterize these events ("genocide" is a legal term); it is not easy to extract his own position from that. He tries to be neutral (and he succeeds in doing that). By contrast, C.J. Griffin arbitrary takes only one piece of the text (#i), attributes it to Ellman (although it is not clear from the text if it is the Ellman's own opinion or he cites others) and presents it as a correct transmission of the article's idea. That is exactly what is called selective or arbitrary citing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact, that the Spanish cruiser Vizcaya is seen above water the day after the Battle of Santiago de Cuba – despite the claimed 20 yard hole in her bow – raises the theoretical possibility that the Spanish won the battle and in fact the whole Spanish-American War.

Yes, I think this is correct. Ellman raises the theoretical possibility of an argument, but that is all. We would need a source that positively support the argument. --FormerIP (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Ellman does not explicitly discuss national operations others than Polish. However, I think this source does positively support some argument, although the argument is different. The argument is that, although it has been proposed that the national operation (Polish) had some traits of genocide, no decisive arguments can be proposed that unequivocally support or refute this point of view. IMO, we don't have to find a source that support existing article's assertion, but we have to bring the article in accordance with what existing sources state.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ellman is using the phrase "might well qualify as" as a way of bringing the counterargument to the firing line, before firing his own broadside of arguments to discredit it. Similarly one could say that the Spanish cruiser Vizcaya might well have qualified as the most powerful war ship on the Atlantic, if only her armor had not been breached by the main guns of U.S. battleships Texas, Iowa, Oregon, and Indiana and the armored cruiser USS Brooklyn. However, I do not think Ellman is using a straw man argument as his target here, as there seem to be those, in academia and outside, who would argue that the ‘Polish operation’ was genocide.

What we have here seems to be a serious case of wikifraud – the willful misrepresentation of sources to further a point-of-view. If this was an isolated incident by an inexperienced editor in a marginally important article, the offense might be overlooked. This article is however of paramount importance to the neutrality of Wikipedia, The editors here are experienced with excellent access to alternative sources. If this issue was ever brought to ArbCom or to another similar forum I would have to recommend a permanent topic ban for who ever inserted the misinformation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is called tendentious editing, and should be treated as such.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this whole article consists of tendentious editing. This specific case is an example of something worse. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have commented on the conduct of an editor of this page (and cited another editor) here. Further and more informed comments are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 September 2010

This is not the place to CANVASS for folks to enter the already large ArbCom discussion. This article, curiously enough, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Climate Change in any way at all. Collect (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, can you point to any policy or guideline that supports your viewpoint? TFD (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS would be the policy i believe, as this article has sweet fa to do with CC then bringing un content disputes from articles outside this remit is pointess mark nutley (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What WP:CANVASS actually says is It is perfectly acceptable to publicize ongoing discussions among interested editors, provided that it is done to broaden participation in the discussion, rather than influence the outcome in a desired direction. It then identifies four desirable qualities:

• That the posting be limited: I have done one; it would be difficult to get more limited.
• That it be neutral: My wording is above.
• That the forum be nonpartisan: It's on this talk-page.
• That the announcement be open; I mentioned it in the section linked to; is that not why these gentle editors are here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Missed a but their man Canvassing on Wikipedia means sending messages to Wikipedians informing them about a community discussion, with the intention of influencing the outcome in a particular way. This is considered disruptive behaviour – firstly because it may compromise the normal consensus building process; and secondly because, if done to excess, it may annoy the recipients of the messages. This is the reason you have posted this here. I have not broken any WP guidelines on this article, you however have broken plenty with your attacks mark nutley (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then this post should find someone who will tell Arbcom that you haven't broken any guidelines here; since I had already linked to TFD's quite negative comments, this can only help you. What is your objection? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Posting in this section is pretty neutral (if not overwhelmingly necessary). Overall, I don't see it being reasonably construed as a way to influence a particular outcome or another. BigK HeX (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Whereas Marknutley can be considered as an editor with strong anti-Communist bias (the fact that he doesn't try to hide, judging by the terminology he uses), whereas the present talk page is being constantly visited by the editors sharing quite polar views, whereas the ratio between the editors with pro- and anti-Communist bias is close to unity (judging by the results of four recent AfDs), and whereas posting here about the ongoing Arbcom discussion will draw attention of both pro- and anti-Communist editors (i.e. of Marknutley's opponents and supporters, accordingly) in about the same proportion, and thereby by no mean can tip the balance, I believe the Septentrionalis' post by no means can be considered as canvassing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He specifically said he had commented on an editor - which, under WP:CANVASS is presumed to be a nonneutral message in a place where the message is offtopic to begin with. Collect (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It simply presumed to be a truth. He invited all editors, including those who disagrees with his comments (e.g. yourself) to join a discussion, and to correct him if he was wrong. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read [WP:CANVASS]] about "talk page spamming"? I submit this article has very little to do with Climate Change. Collect (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that only confirm the impression that this audience would be "nonpartisan" as required to avoid the appearance of canvassing? BigK HeX (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you canvass extensively, on AfDs, mergers, RfCs, etc., more than any editor I have come across. One could almost call you "The Canvass Man" and you have of course defended your practices when challenged by administrators and other editors. How is this case any different? TFD (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I think you are missing the point here. For some reason that I don't care to look into, Pmanderson has referred to the conduct of editors here in a discussion in an Arbcom case. It is only reasonable for him to notify this page so that editors can take a look if they want and defend their conduct or the conduct of their fellow editors if appropriate. That is politeness, not canvassing. --FormerIP (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Try telling the truth here. Your charges are wrong, false, errant, conflated, misleading and contrary to WP policies. Collect (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IOW you did not read about "talk page spamming." There was absolutely no reason to inject this page into the Climate Change case I can find. Collect (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Collect (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you believe that the claims are "wrong, false, errant, conflated, misleading and contrary to WP policies" then we should commend Pmanderson for drawing our attention to the discussion. How is this different from the many, many times you have canvassed for AfDs, mergers, RfCs, etc.? TFD (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I followed the precise rules when making a neutral canvass on a SINGLE AfD. "Many many times" is simply false. Try recognizing AGF someday. My suggestion remains that this article is not related to Climate Change. Simple. Collect (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't. Arbcom is still choosing between sanctions limited to Climate Change articles and ones which aren't. The only evidence relevant to such a choice is Mark Nutley's behavior on other articles. You have spoken favorably of it; others may agree. Some might even be grateful for the opportunity to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What are these precise rules precisely? And is this not a neutral canvass on a single RfA? Perhaps with his experience of canvassing Collect could explain this. TFD (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sideways falsehoods about me do not impress anyone. One single proper AfD set of notifications conserning this article which did not violate any guidelines or policies does not equal a history of canvassing -- whilst you had made a partisan canvas on the AfD for this article as you well know. Do you feel if you iterate a false claim that it becomes true by some miraculous intervention on your behalf? Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You also canvassed on the articles Left-wing nationalism and the Daily Mail, which you should remember because it came to the attention of an administrator. These are just three examples of which I am aware, since I followed all these articles. Can you please show me where I "made a partisan canvas on the AfD for this article", because I have no recollection of that. Also, please do not make comments such as "sideways falsehoods" which may be seen as personal attacks. TFD (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (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.

Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since August 2009.

Can we get some reasons as to why this tag is still in place please. Keep it on topic all off topics posts will be moved mark nutley (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is not neutral because it does not reflect the opinions of the topic that are found in academic sources. In fact it is a mere catalog of events that the article fails to connect. The article could be neutral if those problems were addressed. TFD (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by the "too few opinions" tag? Is there a legitimate reason to require both, if that's the only issue in terms of neutrality? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD you need to point out something specific please, what exactly in the article do you believe is not NPOV ? mark nutley (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The title Mass killings under Communist regimes implies that there is a connection between mass killings and Communist regimes, yet the lead does not explain how prevalent this view is or what connection has been made. Neutrality requires that, "All... articles... must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." TFD (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You believe the title breaks NPOV? Sorry but the article has survived multiple afd`s with that name and as such has a community consensus to remain as is. Any further things you think break NPOV? mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. I did not say that the title breaks POV. WP may cover many topics both mainstream and fringe. What we cannot do is imply in the body of the article that something is accepted as fact (i.e., that mass killings and Communist regimes are connected) unless we provide sources. If there is no consensus for the connection then that should be pointed out as well. I have suggested various ways to phrase the lead to make the article neutral, but it remains POV. TFD (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But plenty of sources have been presented which do connect the two, so were exactly is your objection? Now either point to an actual NPOV vio or the tags can go, then perhaps we can work on improving this article mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel that the lead has POV issues? Personally I think it's phrased much more neutrally than when I last looked at this article, and I don't see any bias in it at all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider these two possible articles and whether the leads would make any sense:

1. "Jewish holidays": Holidays occur under many religions. This article lists holidays celebrated by Jews.
2. "Jews and greed": Many people are greedy. This article is about Jews who are greedy.

In the first example there is no need to mention that holidays occur under other religions. In the second, the implication is clear that Jews are greedy and the first sentence does nothing to lessen that implication.

If the link between Communism and mass killings is a fact, as in 1., then it should clearly state that a connection exists. If it is a theory, as in 2., then the article should explain what the theory is and how widely held it is. I think the problem that marknutley and some other editors have is that they assume it is a fact, then throw in a disclaimer for "neutrality".

TFD (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD's logic in the above comment is quite forceful. BigK HeX (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I would say, this example is even more deep: although it is possible to find some (anti-Semite) sources that state that there is some connection between Jews and greediness, virtually no sources seriously write about the absence of such a connection (which is evident for every reasonable person, so, from the point of view of serious scholars, that does not need any evidence). However, it is possible to find serious scholarly sources telling about greediness of some concrete Jews. Combined together, these sources (general anti-Semite sources and neutral sources telling about some particular persons without making any generalisations) would create a visibility of neutral and well sourced article, although in actuality the very concept of such an article makes it intrinsically flawed.

I already wrote about that and I re-iterate: the only thing which can make this article neutral and free from original research is its deep modification into the article that discuss all aspects of mass killings in a context of Communism: we need to discuss all authors who see both positive and negative connection between mass killings and Communist doctrine, or see no such connection at all, to consider all major cases of mass killings in Communist states from all point of view (to demonstrate relative contribution of ideology and national specifics in every particular case), to discuss the cases when Communist interference prevented mass killings, and to discuss the cases when Communists themselves were victims of mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong siebert, the article is about mass killings under communist regimes you need mass killing of communists by anti communists article. TFD there have been plenty of sources which link the two, however no such source needs to exist. The article is about mass killings under communist regimes so that is what the article has in it. There is no need to prove it is a theory nor a fact just use what the sources say per wp:v if that is your only objection then i shall remove the tags as your objection is groundless mark nutley (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the tag is quite valid. BigK HeX (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No valid reason within policy has been given for it`s use, an article can`t be held hostage because a few editors happen to not like it`s content, there is a community consensus for this article to exist which overrides the objections of the few holdouts on this talk page mark nutley (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So .... support for the existence of an article is the same as a declaration that it presents information neutrally??? You'll have to explain that logic for me one of these days. BigK HeX (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason within policy given for the NPOV tag, a few editors can`t hold an article hostage with a badge of shame because they do not like the article contents. Unless something specific is pointed out within 24hrs and not just vague meanderings i shall remove the tag again. mark nutley (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

remove tag, nothing specific has been presented, rather a distaste for the subject appears to be the source of the tag. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see that edit warring has started again over this tag's inclusion / exclusion, despite the fact that there is clearly no consensus here. Please stop edit warring and start discussing, or it's likely that the article will simply be fully-protected for a while again while consensus is established. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Giftiger the issue shall never reach a consensus, there are three editors who replied in this section who have said the tag should stay yet refuse to actually point out were NPOV is being breached, in such a situation were a few editors are holding an article hostage then the usual course of action is to remove the tags which have no reason to be there, i`ll ask again though ca nany editor point to a section within this article which is not written in a NPOV manner? mark nutley (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to be with the title itself and the implications of it, as explained by other users above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Title has a community consensus to remain as is which is evidenced from the AFD, hence as i stated a few editors who do not like the article may not hold it hostage. There are no implications being made either, all content is reliably sourced per wp:v therefore again there are no reasons within policy to retain the tags mark nutley (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "...nothing specific has been presented..." "...refuse to actually point out were NPOV is being breached..." I believe it was quite clear from TFD's and my posts that NPOV has been breached by the very way the article has been written. Moreover, I outlined concrete proposals how to fix that. These proposals have been completely ignored. I am waiting for concrete answers, and until these questions remain unanswered, I consider that no concrete objections to my and TFD's point have been presented.

Re: "The Title has a community consensus to remain..." Wrong. There were no community consensus to remove it (i.e. the majority of opinions in favour of removal was not overwhelming). That can hardly be interpreted as "community consensus to remain".

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I noticed the tag has been removed with misleading edit summary. It is inappropriate, and I am afraid the user who did that may be subjected to sanctions if that will repeat at least one more time (even if 1RR will not be violated formally).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not jump to "sanctions". I've been watching the article for further edit warring, and intend to take it to WP:RPP if it continues. The important thing is to establish consensus. If consensus cannot be reached by discussion here, perhaps a request for formal mediation would be appropriate. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am not complaining about the title, merely how the article presents the subject. Going back to the "Jews and greed" example, the lead for that article could be written neutrally using sources. The phrasing would be determined on whether the connection between Jews and greed is regarded as factual, a mainstream view that does not enjoy academic consensus, or a fringe view.

• (Factual connection) Jews are criminals driven by greed. Their law teaches them that money, not worship is the main objective of their religion. (J. & L. T. Levin, The Secret Relationship, Volume 1, p. 37.)[1]

• (Mainstream theory) Some historians describe the Jews as greedy, although other historians have dismissed this characterization as anti-Semitism. (Anti-Semitism, pp. 235-237)[2]

• (Fringe theory) Jews have been portrayed as greedy in anti-Semitic literature. (Anti-Semitism, pp. 235-237)[3])

What weight we provide to the different opinions depends on the our assessment of the reliablity of the sources used. My challenge to marknutley et al. is to find a source that presents the connection between Communism and mass killings as either factual, mainstream or fringe.

TFD (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Depressingly familiar, My challenge to marknutley et al. is to find a source that presents the connection between Communism and mass killings as either factual, mainstream or fringe no such source is required. This is a list article which lists mass killings by communist regimes, the clue is in the title. But not only that sources have been presented which directly connect the two. There is no need for any editor to provide a source which does as you have requested mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is what a list article looks like. I have seen no consensus that this should be a list article, but if you want to turn it into one, that is something we could discuss. We would also what to change the title to "List of mass killings under Communist regimes". Also, since we would still need a lead, we would still have to address neutrality in the lead. TFD (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You misunderstand, i mean the article lists mass killings under commies, which is how it is laid out, hence there is no need for anyone to provide the sources you request. The article as it stands is fine and you have yet to provide an actual reason within policy why you feel the article does not meet NPOV mark nutley (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's compare the following:

"Mass killings of non-combatants have occurred under many types of governments. This article lists mass killings under regimes that are commonly labeled Communist. It includes both intentional killings and those for which regime intent is disputed. Scholars place various level of blame for the deaths on the governments, but tolling methods are non-uniform and often disputed."

and

"Greediness is a phenomenon which is common for various peoples. This article lists the examples of greediness manifested by peoples that are commonly labeled Jews. It includes both examples of genuine greediness and those for which the intent is disputed. Scholars place various level of blame for the greediness on the Jews, but the approaches to estimate greediness are non-uniform and often disputed."

Does anybody denies that a very solid ground is needed to demonstrate that the article Greediness of Jews have a right to exist even as the list article?

PS. I am still waiting for comments on my proposals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

marknutley, in other words you see no reason for the article about "commies" to be neutral. Could you please point to a policy that supports your position. However even if neutrality is not a requirement for the article, that does not mean that the tag should be removed. It alerts readers to the fact that the article is not neutral. TFD (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, i have collapsed your comments to save space, you reply is long and does not help this discussion at all. TFD please point to the policy which says i need to provide a source which shows an article subject is factual, mainstream or fringe as you have requested. There is no need for such a source, if you feel the lede is not NPOV please suggest an alternative mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, in your example you present the possible treatment of "Jews and greed" as a mainstream view, and the reason that article would be unacceptable is that it is a fringe view and we would be giving parity to fringe and mainstream views. Actually there are many articles about Ethnic stereotypes. There are also articles about Jews and the slave trade, Jewish Bolshevism, etc. TFD (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. The point of view that, according to some stereotypes, Jews are greedy is a mainstream views.
2. By contrast, these stereotypes themselves (namely, that Jews, by their nature, are greedy) are an anti-Semite point of views and thereby (luckily) are a minority, or fringe point of view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So we may write articles about both fringe and mainstream views. But we need reliable sources to indicate which they are. Notice two that there are different types of mainstream theories as well: consensus, majority and minority. Majority and minority are the most common types found in articles in social sciences. TFD (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My problem has long been that the article strongly suggests a theoretical connection while specifically failing to make explicit the level of acceptance of this theory. Of course, the end result is that the connection should presumed as well-accepted fact, which is OBVIOUSLY not the case. BigK HeX (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

marknutley, you do not have to provide sources for anything, but must use them in writing articles. TFD (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked above for a source, you have now had your reply. Bigk hex, do not revert me again i said at the start of this section all off topic stuff would be moved, hatting it is not an issue and i shall do so again mark nutley (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatting and mislabelling are an issue, and, moreover, beginning a talk page section does NOT give you ownership of comments here. BigK HeX (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

marknutley, your reply was, "the article lists mass killings under commies, which is how it is laid out, hence there is no need for anyone to provide the sources". Could you please provide a policy that supports this view. TFD (talk)

sure, just as soon as you point to the policy which says any editor needs to My challenge to marknutley et al. is to find a source that presents the connection between Communism and mass killings as either factual, mainstream or fringe do that. mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in other words, you appeared to be unable to provide a ground for your assertion. Let's see how the list article is defined in WP guidelines. Guidelines state that "Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places. The titles of these articles usually begin with "list of" or "timeline of". Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view."

Per guidelines, the list article consists of the lede, which provides a neutral and verifiable introduction, and a bare list of subjects with links. By no means this article in its present can be represented as a list article, so the main Mark Nutley's argument does not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously misunderstanding what i am saying, no surprises there either really. I said in response to 'My challenge to marknutley et al. is to find a source that presents the connection between Communism and mass killings as either factual, mainstream or fringe that no such policy says any editor needs to supply such a source. I would like a reply to this please mark nutley (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No. According to your own words, "i mean the article lists mass killings under commies", which implies that the article is a bare list. However, I already demonstrated that it isn't. In any event, the policy says that it is the editor's burden to support any challengeable edits with reliable sources. The article is build in such a way that it implies that intrinsic connection between Communism and mass killings (not violence in general) is widely recognized and represents a mainstream views. That has been challenged. Therefore, it is your burden to provide a needed proof.

I agree that this article may be considered as WP:Summary style article, however, that doesn't make your life easier: it is quite necessary to avoid any POV fork in summary style article as well (per policy and guidelines).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Look i`ll make this easy for you, The article as it stands is fine. I have not nor am i asking for the article type to be changed. And there is no policy at all, none which says i need to do the following My challenge to marknutley et al. is to find a source that presents the connection between Communism and mass killings as either factual, mainstream or fringe Or you can point me to the policy if such exists mark nutley (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You do not have to do anything if you choose not to. However if you want to persuade other editors that the article is neutral then you must engage in discussion. TFD (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Here is a possible lead based on reliable sources:

The debate over the comparison of Communism and Nazism re-emerged in France in the 1990s, popularized by Francois Furet's The passing of an illusion (1995) and the Black Book of Communism (1997). The comparison became popular with the far right, who now claimed that Communism killed more than Nazism. The "genocide of a class" was seen as the moral equivalent of the "genocide of a race".[Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared (2004) Henry Rousso, Richard Joseph Golsan, pp. xi-xv] This new thinking, which is especially popular in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, where Communism is associated with Jewry, has been to diminish the significance of the Holocaust, with the Holodomor presented as a crime of equal magnitude. This reasoning has been described as a new form of anti-semitism.["Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914 - 2004" (2006) Jan Herman Brinks, pp. 17-18)]

TFD (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding right? mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and reply to the discussion using well-reasoned arguments. TFD (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your really really kidding right? mark nutley (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You should make arguments based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. Reacting to suggested text that is reliably sourced with "Your really really kidding right?", which is an argument ad hominem contributes nothing to this discussion, If you find that your views on this article and articles on science cannot be supported by reliable sources but only in fringe sources then you should accept that. TFD (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You should make arguments based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policy. Reacting to suggested text that is reliably sourced with "Your really really kidding right?", which is an argument ad hominem, contributes nothing to this discussion, If you find that your views on this article and articles on science cannot be supported by reliable sources but only in fringe sources then you should accept that. TFD (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your really really really kidding right? You see, i believe your kidding as i have not made any PA`a nor Ad Hom`s on this article talk page, so i figure your shitting me to get off topic. As for your proposed lede, your kidding right? mark nutley (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Ad hominem: "An ad hominem... is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy." Please stay with rational arguments. Speaking of staying on topic, could you please address editors' comments rather than making ad hominem attacks against other editors. TFD (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, your kidding right? That is not a personal attack, and that is also the reply to your proposed lede as it is obviously a very bad joke mark nutley (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And now you have put that crap in the lede? Self revert for gods sake this is ridiculous mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Section Break

Your kidding right? mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and reply to the discussion using well-reasoned arguments. TFD (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Were`s the personal attack? Do try and stay on topic please mark nutley (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding right? TFD (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don`t take the piss, that is not a PA. Stay on topic please mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of staying on topic, could you please address editors' comments rather than making ad hominem attacks against other editors. TFD (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A warning. Mark Nutley, please, never do that [4] again: that is almost equal to deleting other's edit and, therefore, is highly inappropriate; by doing that not only you refused to address the issue but you prevented other editors from doing that (someone can simply overlook my post when it is collapsed). In addition, that is not a first case when you collapsed others' edits thereby unilaterally deciding what is relevant and what is not. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) PS. I interpreted your action (and your comment) as your inability to contrapose anything concrete to my arguments. In that situation the only appropriate behaviour for you is to abstain from further discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time you wish to warn me do so on my talk page mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There should not be a next time. TFD (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there will be, it is standard practice to collapse off topic junk, and you guys do like to go off topic mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to precipitate further sanctions against you? BigK HeX (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (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.

I've been away from this article nearly a year. I have to say, it's in much better shape now than a year ago, in particular the sourcing is much improved. The POV issue I think can be best resolved by placing clearer emphasis on alternative explanations (that reject communism in practice or theory as being a significant contributory factor).

On a quick search, I have a couple of suggested sources. The Epilogue to David Priestland (Lecturer at Oxford)'s 2009 book The Red Flag p. 572 ff claims that there has been considerable debate about the connection between Marx's writings and violence, and he himself appears to assert at least in part a connection between radical communist phases and violence. That is, he appears to me at least to be claiming that this article's topic is out there in academic discourse. Igor Halfin's 2003 book Terror in my soul: Communist autobiographies on trial (Texas U Professsor, Harvard UP) writes in the introduction of "the potential for violence inherent in communist discourse", and considers Stalinist views of the 1930s killings as a necessary step of purification to herald a Communist utopia. Both are available on google books.

I may not stick around to edit - time is a bit short, but I thought I'd throw in my tuppence ha'penny. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me point out, however, that you mix two things: "violence" and "mass killings". Yes, the Communist doctrine, as well as all other revolutionary doctrine, implied that, most likely, some violence will be necessary (in this particular case to remove bourgeois from power). However, that has only a tangential relation to the article's subject, which is mass killings, not violence per se. In my opinion, the sources provided by you cannot be used in the article unless it is demonstrated that they tell not only about violence and terror, but also explicitly tell about mass killings or genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not mixing anything here - the writers have taken the reasonable liberty of characterising mass killings as violent. In particular (as is perfectly clear from the source), Priestland's "violence" refers to the Red Terror, The Cultural Revolution, and "the Cambodian and Ethiopian violence", while Halfin is referring to the Great Purge. That the writers don't use the exact phrasing used in a wikipedia article is not in itself a problem. It would only be OR if we could not safely conclude that the writers, when referring to violence, and to specific events, are referring to mass killings. I think we clearly can conclude they mean mass killings, and I'm not sure how you read them to mean otherwise. See WP:NOTOR for when paraphrasing is not OR. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The references are brief and the topics are not well-developed, they are just passing lines. Do you have any sources that discuss the connection between Marx's writings and violence? It seems too that it is a jump between saying that justification for violent revolution can be found in Marx's writings and a blueprint for mass killings. TFD (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Vsevolod, Milovan Đilas for one proposes a generalised account of the transformations of [the then] actually-existing socialist states and the need for a heightened period of internal conflict that both denies mass-killing as a necessity, and, accounts for acts of horrific state action outside of an academic framework of mass-killing, genocide, etc.; similarly Kolakowski's Main Currents of Marxism may be useful. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Year In Review

Having not looked at this god awful mess of an article since early 2010 I am pleasantly surprised! (Editors who have read my commentary here can proceed to be shocked.) Sections 0-4 seem cogent, if extremely poorly written. (Lede, Terminology, Origin of debate, Proposed causes, Comparison to other mass killings). Sections 5 onwards are crap coatracking which should go to a list format.

As a result, I would like to propose as an editorial direction:

• Keeping sections 0-4 for further editing.
• Reducing sections 5+ to a list of see also:s.

Under WP:BOLD I'm going to demonstrate this editorial direction, with the full expectation that someone will revert me. The diff for my edit is here: Demonstration Edit. Obviously this is not a complete merger, devolution, or movement of apposite citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain first how it`s coatracking to have content about mass killings in a mass killings article? mark nutley (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As expected you have been reverted. There is no justification for the removal of that content mark nutley (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting, I disagree with your claim of justification,

UNDUE emphasis on a limited academic literature to sustain a concept:

"That mass killings which occurred under Communist regimes are 1) related to each other, 2) have their origin in general communism (a broad ideology) or 20th century Bolshevik style Marxist Communism in general as opposed to specific Bolshevik-style Communist states"

The list and detailed treatment of exemplars holds a limited concept, with limited academic acceptance up as a general condition by WEIGHTing it above the actual discussion of generalised mass killings caused by Communist states. The article as prior to my example edit spends more time discussing a series of historical phenomena in detail without comparison, than on discussing the literature and academic debate.

My proposed editorial direction is that: the content held here on specific historical incidents should be merged to the relevant articles, and this article should primarily be concerned with the existence of a debate in academic literature and attendant popular debates (Central European criminalisation debates, actual prosecutions, etc.) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And the article does not assert what you claim it asserts - hence making bold gigsantic changes to meet you own interpretation will not work. Thanks. Collect (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising my interpretation of the article. Of the sections I collapsed into a list I conducted a content analysis for comparative argumentation (multiple states, sustaining the dealing of these topics in a single article) versus example specific content (which ought to be rightly merged into the main articles). The results were:

§Soviet Union contains: Comparative ¶1; Example Specific ¶14

§People's Republic of China: Comparative ¶1 ; Example Specific ¶3

§Cambodia (Democratic Kampuchea): Comparative ¶2 ; Example Specific ¶4

§Others: Example Specific ¶3

§Controversies: Comparative ¶4; Example Specific ¶8

§Notable executioners is trivium which should be removed

It is my belief that this is coat-racking. The example specific sections do not drive a discussion of the literature or the general topic of the article forward. As a result, I propose collapsing these sections into a list, and focusing article editorial work on improving the quality of sections 0-4 and "Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial". Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your belief was not upheld by the innumerable AfDs on this article. At that point, it is clear that deleting half the article at a time is not anything more than disruption for the sake of disruption. Thank you. Now please let the article evolve in an orderly fashion. Disruption is improper under WP policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

…please do read BOLD and AGF, and with BOLD and AGF in mind, read this section of Talk as a discussion on a proposed editorial direction. I will thank you not to level accusations. I will thank you for your succinct rejections of my proposed direction. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I`m a bit pissed that your change has again been reverted in with no consensus being reached. It shall have to be reverted back to the last version until a consensus to such a huge change to the article can take place mark nutley (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur that 3 hours of discussion is not a consensus. I too was surprised that another user did that. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Although Fifelfoo's intervention may give a positive impetus, I am not sure removal of these section is the best option. I would say, the idea to discuss specific causes of mass killings in each case is much more productive, because the article is too focused on generalisations, whereas majority of sources do not discuss "crimes of Communism" in general, preferring to focus on concrete case separately and to outline specific causes in each specific case. For instance, in the case of early Soviet Russia the primary reason for mass killings was a civil war (which is demonstrated by the fact that the Red Terror was generally abandoned even before the Civil War ended and the next wave of violence started only in late 1920s); in Campuchea it was a combination of long lasting contradiction between rich, educated population (predominantly non-Khmer), which concentrated the property in their hands, and desperately poor rural Khmer population, of ancient Khmer tradition of revenge, Khmer nationalism and originally interpreted Communist doctrine. In addition, in the Cambodian section it should be noted that the major Communist power, the USSR and its satellite, Vietnam were consistent opponent of Khmer Rouge regime, they refused to consider it as Communist and made major effort to stop genocide. For Afghanistan, mass killings were a result of anti-partisan warfare (which was caused by Soviet attempts to secularise Afghan society, similar to what the US are doing now), and so on. The article should be more focused on differences, and it should be clearly stressed that the attempts to generalise the issue are not necessarily a mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

marknutley, if you do not like the new lead, could you please provide a reason. I have asked you repeatedly for one, and you have replied (FIVE TIMES!) "Your kidding right?" TFD (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it`s POV bollocks, why do you think. Revert it now please mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it is POV? Can you please explain. TFD (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No i can`t be assed. I shall revert back to the last version until you can get a consensus for your proposal mark nutley (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You may not revert back because it is under a 1RR restriction and Digwuren enforcement. TFD (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I intend to do it tomorrow mark nutley (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigk hex has re added material that was removed, and discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes/Archive_21#Do_readers_need_to_be_told_what_this_article_does_or_does_not_suggest.3F "though this is not to suggest communist ideology as a principal cause in these events (nor does this article discuss academic acceptance of theories about such causation)" this passage was stricken, and discussed. please self revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. The fact that you complained about it on the talk page, and that it was deleted from the article without ANY consensus, doesn't mean that the older version is actually preferable. This is especially so, when the edit comment for removal was "tighten the lede". BigK HeX (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

would you at least source the text you added? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I find a request for a source about as ridiculous as requesting a source for the decision to have an "Proposed Causes" section in the article.

My addition merely clarifies the scope of the article and describes that there is no discussion in the Wiki article about how well-accepted theories about communist ideology are. And now you're asking me to source this lack of sourcing in the article. You're funny. BigK HeX (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

why do readers need to be told what is discussed in the article? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you complaining about readers being given the scope of the article? Informing readers hurts nothing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you deflected my question, why do readers need to be told what is being discussed? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I deflected it, because I think it's no more valid than my question. Possibly your question is LESS valid, as you are ultimately complaining about readers being informed in the lead about what to expect in the article ... which is precisely the function of the lead. And, moreover, the scope text hurts nothing.

So, YOU can state for me a rationale as to why your question is premised on an overriding concern, or I will continue to view it as no more valid than the opposing question. BigK HeX (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

then you will have to rewrite the lede. a lede must meet certain standards, if it requires a disclaimer, then it is not adequate. see wp:darstar1stownpersonalviewofabadlede. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, why do readers need to be told what is discussed in the article? That question would be better asked at WP:LEAD. TFD (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Per guidelines, a lede "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." I believe "to define a topic" means "to tell what the article is about".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

New Lead

Implies this is mainly anti-Semitism. Sorry -- the "new lead" is simply bosh. Collect (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like the lead, which is based on reliable sources, could you please recommend a reliable source that could be used for the lead. Saying "bosh" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is a poor argument. TFD (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The prior lead was stable and neutral. The new Digwuren violation says it is all just anti-Semitism. Bosh. Collect (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous lead was not neutral (see discussion above). In fact the POV tag has been on since the article began and the new lead makes it possible to remove it. Also, please do not accuse other editors of Digwuren violations on article talk pages. TFD (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not find the prior lead to be neutral, and given the endless back-and-forth on the talk pages about it, it's not really stable either. BigK HeX (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the top of this page:

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.

I suggest that the word "Digwuren" is on this page. Really! Collect (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The old lede was not satisfactory because any attempts to write anything serious diluted the anti-Communist tone (which was unacceptable for some editors). The new lede is also unsatisfactory, because it represents the Communist mass killing theories as some fringe theories advocated by some French intellectuals and Central European nationalists. Works of Valentino, Rosenfielde, Conquest and Rummel (British or American writers) cannot be ascribed to neither of these categories. In my opinion, the lede should combine the ideas from both old and new lede, and extended. I temporarily restored the old lede (just to eliminate any pretext for artificial accusations from some problem editors) and moved the new lede here. Let's work on it, and when major issues will be resolved, move it into the article. This worked perfectly for other articles, and I am sure it will work in this case too. Below is the new lede. All editors who are not satisfied with it are welcome to comment on it.

The debate over the comparison of Communism and Nazism re-emerged in France in the 1990s, popularized by Francois Furet's The passing of an illusion (1995) and the Black Book of Communism (1997). The comparison became popular with the far right, who now claimed that Communism killed more than Nazism. The "genocide of a class" was seen as the moral equivalent of the "genocide of a race".

This new thinking, which is especially popular in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, where Communism is associated with Jewry, has been to diminish the significance of the Holocaust, with the Holodomor presented as a crime of equal magnitude. This reasoning has been described as a new form of anti-semitism.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I planned to re-insert the old version with the following edit summary: "temporarily restored the old lede to prevent further edit warring. It is not an endorsement for this version.", however someone have done that for me. Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A new lede would have to introduce and summarize the article as a whole. TFD's proposal, however, belongs in its entirety in the "Comparison with other mass killings" section of the article. It does none of the basic things an article lede must do (introduce the topic, define it, explain relevance, and summarize the article). And as was discussed earlier, if we do not yet agree on what belongs in the body of the article, we can't very well yet agree on how to best summarize the article in a lede. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This i believe is a better summary of the article.

• The worst mass killings in history have happened under Communist regimes. They have proven more violent than other regime types due to the changes they have attempted to bring about with the forceful mass dispossession of property from the population. Communism has been described as "the deadliest ideology in human history" and it has resulted in the murders of an estimated 100 million people. This article discusses mass killings under regimes that are commonly labeled Communist. It includes both intentional killings and those for which regime intent is disputed. Scholars place various level of blame for the deaths on the governments.
• A far more realistic lede than the one proposed mark nutley (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardly realistic. Firstly, the analysis of sources demonstrates that the number of 100 million victims initially was derived by Rummel, who is known to be quite unreliable in that respect. For instance, about 40% of there 100 millions were those died in Gulag, according to Rummel. However, it has been established that the number of those died in Gulag hardly exceeds 2 millions. In any event, any quantitative characteristics, as well as conclusions made based on them, must be removed from the lede. Secondly, the source (www.victimsofcommunism.org) is hardly acceptable for the article which is the casue of such hot debates. Please, provide highly reliable academic sources if you want to make contributions into this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources are fine, there is no requirement to provide academic sources mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provided that the academic sources tell the same. However, academic sources give quite different figures and make quite different conclusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No per wp:v but i added another ref to keep you happy mark nutley (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you didn't make me happy. The ref you provided is not complete: the page number is missing. And, if you add the page, I am sure this will be the page from introduction, the most controversial part of the book. By contrast, the Werth's chapter, the only part of the book which is really well written (according to the reviews available for me) give quite different figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Again no, per wp:v but i`m a nice guy and have added another ref for you mark nutley (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you are missing the point. The whole reason, as the sources explain, that this subject became popular in France is that it provided justification for the collaboration of the French Right in the Second World War while discrediting the Left who formed the resistance. Furet was essentially updating his earlier revisionist views about the French Revolution. The main followers of these views are the far right in France, Germany and Eastern Europe. Showing that Communism killed 100 million people makes fascism seem the lesser of two evils. They have gained no acceptance in mainstream academic writing. TFD (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that your new lede does not function as a lede and, instead, is only relevant to one of the article's sections is missing the point? I hope you aren't saying that you swapped out the lede of the article simply in order to make a point. Both of your sources were about the comparison and/or equivalency between communism and nazism, rather than the topic of communist mass killings per se. Obviously, such comparisons are highly charged politically. But not everything is political. There are many sources used in the article already which are mainstream academic writing. And even such comparisons as your sources describe can be dealt with responsibly in that section of the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, your use of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation as a source violates NPOV. The home page of their website page presents a documentary by Glenn Beck whose show has featured stories on "FEMA prison camps" and who wrote introductions to the books of the noted conspiracy theorist Cleon Skousen. (I call him that because he thought President Eisenhower was a secret Communist agent and that the bankers, etc. were behind Communism.) TFD (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, while I might have phrased it better those two sources explain who promotes the alleged connection between Communism and mass killings, why they do this, what explanations they use and how widely accepted their views are. The previous lead did none of this. TFD (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The two sources you used did not discuss "the alleged connection between Communism and mass killings", they discussed the comparison/equivalency between communist killing and fascist killing. There is a huge distinction there. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

MarkNutley, unfortunately, you last source is hardly relevant: the number of 100 million is taken from "De Long, J. Bradford, Slouching Towards Utopia". Bredford de Long is economist, so he hardly is an expert in this area.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

They do discuss the main literature that draws a connection between Communism and mass killings and explains that the comparison with Nazism is an essential part of the motivation for these theories. TFD (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Where do they discuss the "main literature that draws a connection between Communism and mass killings"? Neither source has much beyond the discussion of comparison to Nazism. (Both do recognize, however, that such comparisons are entirely appropriate. It is the moral equivalency that is problematic.) AmateurEditor (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

They discuss Furet's writing and the Black book of Communism which as you know is the main literature. TFD (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, they discuss them as the main literature for comparing communism and fascism, not the main literature for "a connection between Communism and mass killings". These are two different things. AmateurEditor (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Furet's writing and the introduction to the Black book of Communism are the main literature linking Communism with mass killings. They also compare these mass killings with Nazi mass killings in order to prove that Communism had been a greater evil. TFD (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you saying that they are the main literature does not make it so. You will notice that Furet and his "The Passing of an Illusion" are not even mentioned in this Wikipedia article. The "Black Book of Communism" and Furet are only mentioned in your sources as part of their discussion of the comparison of communism to facism, which makes sense as it is the comparison that both of your sources discuss. And again, both sources say that such comparisons are necessary, it is moral equivalence which is contentious. From "Stalinism and Nazism", page xx: "But if the comparison of Communism and Nazism lends itself to highly troubling and indeed dangerous claims such as Nolte's, that does not compromise the legitimacy - even the necessity - of the comparison in historical terms." And from "Anti-Semitism in Europe", page 15: "But opponents of this theory of totalitarianism contend that the equation of the two dictatorships as opposed to their comparison is highly problematical." So you have made multiple errors here:

1, insisting that the "connection", as you put it, between communism and killing is theoretical, rather than historical;

2, conflating unobjectionable comparisons between communist killing and nazi killing with objectionable moral equivalency arguments about them;

3, linking the anti-semitic associations of the moral equivalency arguments to the legitimate comparisons between communism and nazism, and then forward to the topic of communist killings as a whole;

4, substituting a subtopic of the article (comparison with other killing) with the general topic of the article

5, asserting that this therefore makes the general topic an extremist one

And on top of this, you deleted the lede and replaced it with one that does none of the things a lede is supposed to do. The sources you used could certainly contribute to the comparisons section of the article, but the sentences you wrote citing those sources are based on a misunderstanding. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Academic Acceptance of Mass killings by Communist Regimes

Some well respected academic sources accept the theory of mass killings by communist regimes, Cornell and Rutgers have published books on the topic.

• Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, Benjamin A. Valentino, Cornell University Press, 2004,ISBN0801439655
• Death by government By R. Rummel, Rutgers University, Library of Congress #93-21279 Darkstar1st (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rummel's book has been written based on grossly exaggerated figures. Valentino was partially affected by Rummel's astronomic estimates. Please read the talk page archive to avoid re-inventing a wheel.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

please share your source for your claims. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:KNOW applies when a person "knows" a source is exaggerated. WP requires actual cites for such a claim. Collect (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This have been discussed in details on this talk page (with refs and quotes) few month ago. Feel free to look in archives. From memory, one of the most striking examples was Rummel's estimates of GULAG victims. He concluded that ca 40 million people died in Gulag, whereas the total number of those passed through Gulag camps during whole Gulag history was ca 14 million (some of them were arrested twice). According to archival data, which were not available for Rummel in 70s, not more than 2 million died in Gulag. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to Collect that all reliable sources claim that Rummel's estimates were exaggerated and you have been provided with these sources countless times. Asking for them again is being disruptive. TFD (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

please simply list which rs say that tfd, @paul, i trust your memory, but for the record, would you produce the sources for your claims? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look here[5]. Rummel was an active scientist during 60s-70s, before archival revolution in the USSR. As a result, he used his approach (factor analysis) based on raw estimates, which were made using very liberal assumption. Many scholars, including even Conquest, re-considered their estimates in 90s, but Rummel didn't. Obviously, the claim that Stalin was a "magamurderer #1" based on the assumption that he killed 60+ million people, 40 million of which died in Gulag, must be reconsidered, because the latter number appeared to me more than one order of magnitude smaller. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)"All"? Show me - I am from Missouri. I have seen sources with differing numbers for individual events - but so far did not see any which say "Rummel exaggerated all the figures" in any language remotely near that claim. Collect (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, e.g. Valentino's footnote 1., p. 255.[6] Collect, I thought you were from the U.S. northeast. I never said Rummel "exaggerated all the figures". TFD (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended list of references. Collapse for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the Rummel's data on Yugoslavia: Criticism by Dulić: "Abstract: The article provides a critical analysis of the quantitative method used by Rudolph J. Rummel in order to estimate the democide rate for various political systems in the 20th century. The first part shows that the estimates used by Rummel for Tito's Yugoslavia cannot be relied upon, since they are largely based on hearsay and unscholarly claims frequently made by highly biased authors. The second part shows how the data have influenced the mid-estimates Rummel uses for further statistical analysis. A com- parison with demographic research in former Yugoslavia shows that Rummel's mid-estimates for Tito's mass killings are much too high and contravene his data for the population deficit in Yugoslavia. The author also criticizes a key assumption in Rummel's method of 'reasonable approximation', namely, that overestimations tend to be taken out by underestimations. It is shown why such a proposition is prob- lematic, particularly in this case where there is a wide discrepancy between high and low estimates. Although the article concentrates on communist terror in former Yugoslavia, the results may have wider implications for Rummel's research if he uses similar sources in other case studies. If so, Rummel would need to revise the method and exclude unreliable estimations in order to obtain useful data." "...he proposes a comparative method called reasonable approximation, by which the researcher uses many estimates for each case study and arrives at a plausible figure by "narrowing the range of estimates to what a hypothetical, reasonable analyst would arrive at in viewing all the available information"." "For instance, Rummel (1998: 172, line 93a) quotes Omrnanin (1972: 181), who claimed that 'about a million Croatians were slaughtered by the Serbs in the last war: by Serbian Chetniks and Com- munists', with half a million killed at Bleiburg. OmrEanin uses Kiszling (1956: 232) as a source in this case. Kiszling, on the other hand, does not quote any direct sources, but refers to Krunoslav Draganovid, describing him as 'a Croatian cleric, who - as far as was possible - has traced all mass executions, [and] believes, that after the Bleiburg capitulation there were at least fifty Katyns [in Yugoslavia]'. Unfortunately, it is rather problematic to use people such as Omreanin and DraganoviC as objective scholars on Bleiburg and associated atrocities. When Vladimir Zerjavid in the late 1980s published his work on the Yugoslav wartime population losses, where he claimed that the total death toll at Bleiburg and the subsequent 'death-marches' was approximately 50,000 Croats and Muslims (today's Bosniaks),5 Omrcanin made the following comment in the Croatian weekly Slobodni Tjednik: "ZerjaviC's work is a falsification. It is Slavko Goldstein6 who has paid [for] it. He is rich and receives enormous amounts of money from American Jews. He has admitted that it is around 120,000 dollars per year, but what he receives apart from that is not known. But the Zagreb native Harie Friedenreich (who teaches at a university in Philadelphia, USA), has written that not one Jew was killed in Croatia until the autumn of 1944. And Martin Heidegger's wife Ana Harent [sic], who is also a Jew, has written that it was nowhere as good for the Jews as in Croatia. Moreover, it was the Bolsheviks who eradi- cated [slistavali] the Jews, the Jews who lived well with us, like everyone else. Oh, all those numbers are invented. Regarding Bleiburg, where the Bolsheviks killed 550,000 Croats (300,000 from the army and 200,000 civilians) it is brought down to 26,000 Ustashe and 18,000 Domobrani" Regarding the crimes committed by the Ustashe in the so-called Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Drvava Hrvatska; hence- forth, NDH), Omrdanin displays a rather disturbing disregard for established historical facts. Beginning within a fortnight after the creation of the NDH in April 1941, the Ustasha authorities adopted racial laws.8 In the summer and autumn of 1941, they insti- tuted concentration camps and began mur- dering the state's undesired elements en masse." "If Prcela is correct, it would appear that the material used by Rummel and Tolstoy is of Ustasha provenance, while some of the authors appear to have been members of the NDH administration that managed to escape through the American postwar 'Rat line' (Tomasevich, 2001: 760). During the Cold War, they remained active in the nationalist emigration and exploited the Bleiburg symbol for propagandistic purposes. Of course, that is their prerogative, but one has to keep it in mind when assess- ing their standing as 'reasonably authori- tative and credible' sources." "The estimate regarding the killings in Belgrade after its liberation in October 1944 is a telling example of the problems that can arise when one uses such an unsophisticated method of estimation. Rummel (1998: 172, lines 69-70) uses 70,000 killed as a mid- estimate by quoting Reuben H. Markham's 100,000, which he believes to be 'exagger- ated', and Martin (1990: 271), who writes, 'it was widely believed that 50,000 to 60,000 residents of the city perished'. The problem is that Martin's figure is much too high, while it is unclear whether Markham actually made such an estimate.23 The city had approximately 400,000 inhabitants in 1941, which would mean that at least 20% were killed in 1944. That would require a large part of the city's present inhabitants to have relatives and friends that perished during this period. This is simply not the case." "Rummel argued that we cannot depend on very few sources and therefore should use those that are at the extremes and reasonably authoritative. Unfortunately, it soon became evident that the estimates he used were neither authoritative nor credible. One could argue that Rummel would hardly have had any sources to work with if he had applied more source criticism to his research. However, lack of data can never be used as an alibi, and sometimes we have to accept that basic research has not yet been conducted." (Tito's Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel's Work on Democide. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 85-102) Rummel's response: "(1) I estimated the democide of 218 regimes, 1900-87. Tito's Yugoslavia was only one of them. Testing my estimate and method on 1 out of 218 'data points' can say nothing about my estimates or methods in general." "He does not do a critical analysis of the whole 1944-87 period for my estimate ofTito' democide, but only 1944-48, 12.5% of the period I covered." "He claims my Tito democide estimate is 'much too high to be taken lightly' (p. 99). He provides no estimate of his own for comparison, a serious omission." (the response is brief, so I cannot give more quotes to avoid a copyright violation). (One-Thirteenth of a Data Point Does Not a Generalization Make: A Response to Dulić. Author(s): Rudolph J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 103-104) Dulic's responce: "Dulic lists some of the most important points in Rummel's critique. He argues that the objections are misplaced since he is quoting Rummel or using his data. Moreover, Rummel could have shown why he feels that Dulik is wrong by giving his own estimates to be compared with Duli's extrapolations. Most importantly, Dulid argues that Rummel has avoided the central point of his critique, namely, that of source criticism. Contrary to Rummel, Dulik argues that the case study on Tito's Yugoslavia might well have wider implications, since it focuses on Rummel's method. The methodological problems need to be addressed before Rummel's data and conclusions can be considered reliable. Whether such a revision would yield significantly new results remains undecided." "As I said in the conclusions, I have shown that there are serious problems with Rummel's method, which is precisely why this one 'data point' might have wider implications. I do not understand why Rummel so categorically refuses to accept the possibility that he might have made similar errors elsewhere, when he has used the same method throughout his research. That is why I call on Rummel to revise his method and properly narrow down the sources to those that are indeed reasonably authoritative and credible. Until then, at least I do not feel comfortable with using his data and leave to the reader to assess the validity of my critique." (A Reply to Rummel. Author(s): Tomislav Dulić. Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106) On the Rummel's statistical approach: "Rummel asserts that his postulated relationship between nonfreedom and international conflict can be found in the Azar data set as well as his own data set, even though he finds severe faults with Azar's methods of conflict scaling. Evaluation of Rummel's arguments indicates that he does not understand the nature of the Azar data set sonstruction and misinterprets multiple regression and Kendall's Tau B results. Extensive re-analysis further demonstrated a lack of relationship between nonfreedom and conflict in the Azar data set." (On Rummel's Omnipresent Theory. Author(s): Jack Vincent. Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 119-125) On the Rummel's data on the Soviet death toll: "In a series of nine chapters Rummel then explains how he reaches the figure of sixty-one million dead, and despite the complex tables and intricate computations, his explanation is quite unsatisfactory. Some general points first: Rummel uses no Russian-language sources and cites a variety of secondary sources as if they were all of equal worth, when some are scholarly and some far from it. He also assumes that the entire labour camp population was innocent: for Rummel, deaths in labour camps while serving a prison sentence are legitimate elements in what he calls 'democide' and much space is devoted to computing death rates in camps, yet some of those who died in this way were common criminals or actual Nazi collaborators, while a camp death rate of twenty-six per cent seems hard to credit, even at the height of Stalinism. "Rummel is at his least contentious when dealing with collectivization and purges." "Ironically, given Rummel's rather naive mission to show the utter inhu- manity of 'Marxism', his own figures can be turned against him."(Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766) On the Rummel's democide theory in general "Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses. When judging particular countries, he repeatedly draws the conclusion that the more people died the worse the regime. This connection is true for some cases, but not others. Often deaths are attributable to neither direct governmental action nor governments' tacit approval of vigilante activity, but, rather, to the consequences of war, displacement, or famine." "Despite his rich and detailed information and data, Rummel's at- tempt at explanation seems oversimplified. He introduces but does not review the theoretical literature, and apologizes for his failure to offer attributions." "In Rummel's view, democracy appears to be the cure-all that ends repression. This position is wishful and not persuasive. Not all authori- tarian or traditional polities are likely to commit genocide, nor are the local traditions and political cultures of many third-world states neces sarily compatible with democratic traditions." (Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)--

Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider [7] and tell me it shows Rummel grossly exaggerated anything. Collect (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Robert Conquest? He writes in his Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319:"We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures." Note 14 million was intake to Gulag. Colonies cannot be considered seriously, because the terms were less than 3 years there, they were not in remote parts of the USSR. Since majority of Gulag inmates survived, the figures provided by Davis are simply unrealistic. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul you listed two unknown probably never published in hard copy authors posted on 2 websites about free quarterly pamphlets or magazines, or journals? i suggest you take it up in the wp:rs forum, otherwise cornell and rutgers trump your minor publishers. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

All quotes were taken from peer-reviewed academic journals and have been wetted by scientific community (if you don't know what it is, ask me. I'll explain)--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ok paul, explain "wetted by scientific community" for me? the next time you attempt to patronize someone, try to spell it correctly lest your rebuke lose it's sting, and perhaps not point it at someone who has been in wp thrice as long as yourself. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for irony. Frankly, some editors on this talk page (by contrast to other pages I edit) are so unfriendly that it is hard to be polite and patient. I'll try to avoid such unfriendly tone in future. Going back to the issue, let me explain the following. By contrast to the materials written by journalists and political writers and published on news or governmental web sites, non-academic books etc, the articles published in scientific journals pass peer-reviewing procedure. I know what this procedure is because in my real life I write scientific (not history) articles and review the works of others. When the manuscript is submitted to some journal, the editor reviews it and, if the work meets some formal criteria, sent it to several (usually 2-3) scientists, who are exerts in the field. The names of this reviewers in unknown for the author. These reviewers write their reviews, which may be negative (in that case the manuscript is rejected), positive (the manuscript is accepted), or, the most frequently, the reviewers point out at some mistakes, inconsistencies etc, which have to be fixed before publication of the manuscript. Then the reviews are sent to the author, who tries to address the criticism. If the reviewers decide he was able to do that, the manuscript is published. As a rule, the reviewers are selected among the most reputable experts in the field, so the very fact that some article has been published is a good journal implies that at least two leading experts in the field recognised it as good.

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case for books published by non-academic publishers.

Did I answer your question?
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

i am one for getting the facts straight, but the opposition to the source is the death total, so if he was off by 100% or 10,000%, wouldn't that still qualify as a mass killing? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Society of Thoracic Surgeons By the time of Stalin’s death in 1953, the total number of victims of the gulag probably exceeded 20 million. [8]
• [9] Between 9.7 and 16.7 million mark nutley (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source is a biography of Vladimir P. Demikhov. It presents no independent study of Gulag. It is not even clear form this article where the number of 20 million was taken from (probably from Black Book).

The second source is devoted to the estimation of the number of Gulag victims using Bayesian approach. I am familiar with this article and I am ready to discuss it with you provided that you explained me what Bayes' theorem says and what is the difference between conditional probability and posterior probability.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Collect, Europe: a history is a popular book published by Harper Perennial and not a reliable source. If you want to quote the author, Norman Davies, then use articles and books he wrote for peer-reviewed journals and the academic press. BTW, Davies was denied tenure at Stanford University for "scientific flaws" in his historical treatment of the Holocaust. Notice how the main support of the type of content you want to include are from right-wing non-academic sources. TFD (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable source? It meets the criteria set out in wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd, the death toll does vary, however, the lowest rs estimates are still well above the amount needed to qualify as mass killing. the debate here is over if the communist regime was responsible, not the body count. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

mark nutley, Rummel says, "Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto." Higher than the number in the surgeons' article. In any case we would not use that article because it is 16 years old and may have been superceded by later research. This subject is no different from Climate Change. The only reason to use this type of source is to include fringe views not found in academic writing. Darkstar1st, there was a side issue about the reliability of numbers but you are correct that the issue is about the acceptance of the theory of mass killings by Communist regimes. In fact Valentino did not propose any theory about this and Rummel did not not present any in his mainstream academic writing. TFD (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Darkstar1st. Not completely correct. We don't need Rummel to state that mass killings did occur under Stalin (overwhelming majority of sources confirm that). However, Rummel's conclusion is that the number of victims of Communism far exceeds the number of victims of other auto/totalitarian regimes. Based on that (i.e. solely on the body count) he concluded that Communism was much more murderous than all other regimes taken together. However, as soon as it has been demonstrated that Rummel's numbers are gross exaggeration, the credibility of his conclusions (which are based on these numbers) also becomes questionable. That is why serious attention cannot be devoted to Rummel in this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Got to agree with Darkstar1st here, getting estimates of body counts correct doesn't qualitatively effect Rummel's conclusions. Afterall communist regimes are notoriously secretive and so it is rather difficult to get accurate figures. Whether it was 40 million or 2 million, it is still a mass killing. --Martin (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, figures are inaccurate, which means the variation is within 10-20%. However, it is simply impossible to speak about additional 35-38 millions. You can theoretically hide 40 million prisoners, however, you cannot hide proportional amount of guards (the camps need to be guarded, NKVD solders were conscripts and the records exist about every person who was conscripted), you cannot hide the amount of trains (the prisoners need to be transported), the amount of barbed wire and guns (guards cannot guard the camps with bare hands), the amount of work performed by prisoners (they were not supposed to be idle, and camps' supervisors had to report about real productivity based on camps' intake, etc. In addition, you have to take special precautions to make central and numerous regional archives mutually consistent, to issue new falsified telephone books, etc. In other words, if you wanted to conceal the number of prisoners (for some unknown reason) you had to have a second Gosstat and second Gosplan. Did Stalin really need that? And, finally, we have objective demographic laws and several census data (only one census was known to be falsified). Rummel's 40 millions are simply inconsistent with these data. In any events, the recent sources generally came to a consensus regarding the numbers, so your assertion is simply obsolete.

Re "Whether it was 40 million or 2 million, it is still a mass killing". No. We discuss quite a different issue. Whereas overwhelming majority of scholars agree that mass killings were perpetrated by Stalinist authorities, only Rummel and several other scholars claim that Stalin was a megamurderer #1. This assertion is based primarily on the figures he obtained. His claim is extraordinary, and it needs to be unequivocally supported by overwhelming majority of scholars to be discussed seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

my request to include the text as a rs was not aimed at proving stalin was the greatest mass murderer of all time, only his victims know if this is true. my point was to include academic sources that accept mass killings occurred under communist regimes. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to include obsolete and questionable sources when newer and better sources on that account are available now?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite my many requests, not a single source had ever been provided that says something like "Rummel's theory is largely accepted among academics." Quite to the contrary, Siebert has shown pretty definitively that such theories are, in fact, highly disputed. (Per policy, the presumption is that there is not wide academic acceptance of a disputed theory.) BigK HeX (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

you will need to take it up at wp:rs before you can exclude cornell and rutgers as academic rs. these two publisher are widely accepted in wp, unlike the critiques of the published material. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Rummel's theories about mass killings under Communist regimes were never published by Cornell or Rutgers or any other academic press. That is why they are fringe. TFD (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

actually it was Transaction Publishers joined Rutgers in 1969, and has been a part or rutgers since. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the book is also housed in the us library of congress Darkstar1st (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not confuse Irving Louis Horowitz's privately owned Transaction Publishers[10], which is housed at Rutgers, with the Rutgers University Press, which is under the auspices of Rutgers. Transaction started by publishing the [[The New York Intellectuals], who were innovative social scientists in the post war era. It now mostly publishes reprints and a few controversial polemical books. It is not part of Rutgers. Also all books that have been copyrighted in the U.S. must be housed in the Library of Congress, even comic books. TFD (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

clearly academic: Advisory Board Of Directors

Irving Louis Horowitz Chairman 1997- Rutgers University

Mary E. Curtis Chairman 1995-97, President 1997- Transaction Publishers

Daniel Yankelovich Chairman Emeritus 1987-94 Yankelovich, Skelly and Wright

Herbert Blumer* Founding Chairman 1968-86 University of California

Current Advisory Board Members

James T. Bennett George Mason University

Jonathan Brent Yale University Press

Mary E. Curtis Transaction Publishers

Joshua Feigenbaum

Jeanne H. Guillemin Boston University

William B. Helmreich City College of New York

Irving Louis Horowitz Transaction Publishers

Penelope Kaiserlian University of Virginia Press

James E. Katz Rutgers University

Roger Kimball New Criterion

Fred Kobrak

Paul Kurtz Prometheus Books

Michael Leonard Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Sandra K. Money SKP Associates

Ray C. Rist The World Bank

Judith L. Rothman University Press of America/Hamilton Books

Luther Wilson University of New Mexico Press Darkstar1st (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having academics involved in a publication does not elevate it to academic status. Most think tanks, which are partisan, are staffed by academics. Notice the list of RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PRESS Governance and Advisory Groups.[11] Notice the difference. TFD (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)