Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

POV?

This article is not POV. A google search is showing multiple referecnes on this topic. Communism killed 100 million people which is more than Nazism. This article should stay. --Joklolk (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic and most of the contents of the article are worth of keeping, BUT certainly not in a separate article. It should be rewritten, maybe to be more compact in form, and added as a subsection to Communism, or some other relevant article.poisonborz (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research going on

I have now removed twice original research and editorial comment from the article, which is not backed up by the sources provided, here and here. Neither source mentions anything about so-called communist genocide and to portray it as such goes against core policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. If editors want to editorialise, take it to your own website/blog, there is no place for such things on WP. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion of sourced material by User:Russavia

As per this edit, could User:Russavia explain why he/she deleted the reference. Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes is reliable source. It is a non-profit research organization founded by historian Mart Laar. Please explain why you are considering this source unreliable. --Joklolk (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit by User:PasswordUsername

This edit by User:PasswordUsername removed a reliable source Baltic Federation in Canada. I added it back. Joklolk (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, please take a look at WP:QS (questionable sources):

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature..."

The Baltic federation is "an umbrella-organization for the central socio-political organizations of the three Baltic communities in Canada." [1]

And political organizations organized around particular constituencies tend to be promotional, which makes the source questionable. Of course, if there is academic consensus that the communists committed a "genocide" in Belarus, you'll have no trouble finding a better source than a pamphlet pdf file from the Baltic Federation's web site.

Furthermore, the Soviet Union never recognized any "genocide" or "ethnocide" in Belarus, except the Nazi one – and neither does modern Belarus, so materials like this

"The effects of this genocide and ethnocide were later admitted by the communists during the perestroika [17]"

are downright misleading.

There should be more reliable sources than a Candian political group. Looking at WP:RS should guide you well in this respect.

Best,

PasswordUsername (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, there is an entire chapter on the subject available in Belarus: at a crossroads in history by Jan Zaprudnik 1993. Hope that it helps. --Termer (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as Radford University's Professor Grigory Ioffe writes, Zaprudnik is a nationalist who immigrated from Soviet Belarus for Nazi Germany – for whom an individual who "embraces Polish or Russian identity, as has happened many times in history, he or she is not a true Russian or Pole, and attempts are justified to uncover their true Belarusian selves." Zaprudnik spent a subsequent chunk of his life working for Radio Liberty propaganda broadcasts into Eastern Europe – but you can even get that from Wikipedia. As for the quality of the cited work as a polemical piece, Ioffe writes that

"The third major thread of Zaprudnik's portrayal of Belarus is blanket negativism about what happened to the country after 1944, when he left the country for Germany. In a 278-page book about Belarusian history, the immensity of what was built on the totally and completely devastated Belarusian land after the war receives 5 pages in the chapter titled "Destruction by War and Russification (1941-1985)." [2]

Consequently, Ioffe suggests that we read two books by David Marples, recommended as "devoid of Zaprudnik's extreme biases." Not a good candidate for Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing for neutral-content articles.

Lastly, consider the fact that Zaprudnik considers as his main charge of genocide Stalin's advances against the presence of the Belarusian language in certain spheres such as universities – when Soviet policy until the mid-1930s actively promoted the Belarusian language after centuries of repression under czarism. (Even the Taraškievica alphabet for transcribing the language was designed as part of Soviet policy in 1933.) I dare say that Russification is no more an element of communism than Anglicization is a part of it, but hey, this article is a fork for anything with "communism" and "genocide" mentioned by the same person against whatever backdrop. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly is Grigory Ioffe? And how is someone who thinks that there is nothing wrong with the murderous regime of communists in the former USSR less biased than someone like Jan Zaprudnik who points out the wrongdoings? In case you like, feel free to add the viewpoints of Ioffe (in case he's notable enough) pr WP:YESPOV. Other than that Russification was an important aspect of the cultural genocide in the USSR, thanks for reminding me that. The cultural genocide or ethnocide by the communist regimes deserves perhaps it's own section, perhaps later entire article.--Termer (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Grigory Ioffe is a professor at Radford University, known for his work in Slavic studies and Eastern Europe's geography and political economy. He is not a former volunteer for the Nazi German Luftwaffe auxiliary and Waffen-SS like Jan Zaprudnik [3]. I don't think that a topic as significant as genocide in a country should be discussed using sources from a scholar with a noted agenda for pushing an extreme point of view. That is the point being made here. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

one of the leaders of the Belarusian community in the United States and an honoured member of the Belarusian PEN-centre is an extremist, a noted agenda pusher? This kind of opinion is good to know, just that, please do Wikipedia a favor and remove your accusations from this talk page pr. WP:LIVE. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not call him "noted agenda pusher" – as you have it. I made it clear that Grigory Ioffe calls his work extreme and hints at Zaprudnik's emigration to Germany in the evalutation of his work (although he doesn't bother detailing Zaprudnik's Waffen-SS participation). And I am not slandering Zaprudnik on Wikipedia – I am bringing up the way he and his work are discussed in scholarly work by Grigory Ioffe on a Wikipedia talk page – even if that is not seen as alright by you. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Watching the OR circus

I am yet again not surprised to see the familiar faces from two very polarized teams arguing at this AfD. Let me make a few predictions of what will happen to this synthesis of a bunch of quotes taken out of context here.

• The polarized debate will be closed with no consensus.
• the war will start over adding/removing POV/OR/BIAS/SYNTH tags in this article
• a number of attempts will be made on renaming this article, e.g. into something ridiculous like allegations of communist genocide
• eventually the interest in editing this turd of an article will go to zero
• in several months another AfD will follow citing no consensus in this AfD, no significant improvements in this article, obvious POV/OR/SYNTH issues
• there might be a number of RfCs, ANIs, AEs initiated by the same usual suspects over this article, and, considering the team tagging, the result of these debates is also predictable (for those of you who's just tuned in, I mean a complete and utter waste of time)

Looking forward to this circus. (Igny (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

Rather than make vague generalised claims, please identify which parts are OR. --Martintg (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As it has been established that the whole thing was nothing but trolling, your extremely unwise suggestion to make contributions to the trollish article amounts to asking me to give pearls to swine. (Igny (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Igny's prediction seems spot-on. I guess we are at point nr. 2 now. Offliner (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it was pretty obvious from the get go that there was no consensus on the AfD.radek (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A synth tag requires identification and discussion of the synth issue on the article talk despite many requests. Therefore the tag goes. --Martintg (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Making the point

For those of you who is interested in making a point, I have a few suggestions on the new articles with WP:GHITS

• Communism and AntiChrist, ghits
• Communism is/was bad, ghits
• Evil and Communism, ghits
• Communist havoc, ghits
• Communist boogeyman, ghits
• Communist occupation, ghits
• Communist apocalypse, ghits
• Communist brainwashing, ghits

And many more. Fire away, be creative. I would appreciate if you notify me, I will watch with much interest. (Igny (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

My impression, as I have said on the AfD, is that this article was created in order to advocate or perhaps to troll. It may be notable that the artice creator, User:Joklolk, had been indefinitely blocked for sock puppeting and cross-wiki vandalism[4]. This really makes one wonder about his motives for creating this article. Offliner (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - this tidbit should have been mentioned in the AfD. It's pretty obvious this article was created to soapbox, at least, but I hadn't considered that it was an outright troll from the beginning. csloat (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and how did I forget about the communist holocaust. (Igny (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

And there is the fact that the China section was one sentence, completely leaving out the weather conditions, which is the bane of that argument. That section is a pretty good test of who is just reverting for IDL and who actually looks at the material; the section and its relevance are easy to understand, and some people revert all of my edits, and some leave the China section in. Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Creation by a banned troll

This page was created by a banned user as seen here, [5]. Could we speedy delete this under G5? Surely we don't want to keep a page made maliciously by a serial troll. Triplestop x3 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been significantly expanded by other editors in good standing, so I would oppose any attempt at speedy deletion, particularly since this article is already subject of an AfD debate. --Martintg (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But why do we want to keep this article so much? We shouldn't let that troll troll us. Triplestop x3 20:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete this article so much? --Martintg (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's crazy, ridiculous POV. Go to some place like China and you find lots of propaganda for communism. Go to a capitalist nation and you find crazy propaganda against it. Communism is evil, the antichrist, blah blah blah. And calling communism genocide is only a part of that. We shouldn't be honoring either side of the spectrum, as an encyclopedia. Triplestop x3 20:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist (adjective) genocide (noun). Communism is a political system. Communist regimes employed genocide in the pursuit of their aims. No one is conflating communism as genocide. It's more than a stretch to accuse that such is the case here. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And I love your argument that it's all propaganda anyway. Can you stoop to a less scholarly means of denigrating the article or trampling on the millions of lives lost? Let's wait and see! VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, troll. A successful troll manages to strike a particularly sensitive, polarized issue, and a spark creates a fire. The "editors in good standing" jump in and start feeding the fire. Again, way to go, I am impressed. A notice to all involved: Experienced wikipedians should know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls". (Igny (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Igny, don't call editors trolls! It is a violation of the spirit of no personal attacks. Please be more civil.radek (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already indicated the solution is to cite sources specifically discussing "communist genocide" and insure the article, regardless of how it started, fairly represents reliable sources. There are plenty of those, regardless of (baseless) claims that "communist genocide" isn't even used as a term in scholarship. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Igny, I do not really understand how it is possible that your persistent personal attacks have so far been unnoticed. Man, you should be warned by some admin. Tymek (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem?

Sorry but I must be missing something, what are those WP:SYNTH, WP:OR accusations above all about? How is an article about the established fact of mass killings of about 60-100 million people by the Communist regimes around the world WP:trolling? Is the problem the title? "Communist genocide". So is anybody suggesting to rename the article or something? How about Communist mass killings according to the chapter Communist Mass Killings in Final solutions By Benjamin A. Valentino? And how exactly is this all WP:OR and/or Synth? Or is anybody actually saying that the killings of those 60-100 million people by the totalitarian communist governments never happened? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Their main issue is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can always tell when someone accuses of WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and WP:OR but is unable to point out what exactly is wrong, forcing them to use phrases such as "the whole thing was nothing but trolling".

Also, I would support renaming as well - perhaps Communist mass murders?

--Sander Säde 07:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous. This diff explains it nicely. [6] Triplestop x3 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Except nowhere does the article use the alleged "universal doctrine" (in quotes) that I've found, so your outrage is nicely unfounded. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And just because, say, Italian communists have not practiced genocide does not remove the notability of the term regarding "Communist". VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the argument posited that the article covers genocides by "individual communists" is utterly specious, as the genocides were carried out by the regimes (leader, leadership, military, paramilitary,...), so this is not akin to "list of bank robberies by communists" as individuals, for example. VЄСRUМВА  ☎  18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So say changing the article to the list Genocides by Communist regimes (note plural, it is not a concept, it is a list) will be ok by you? (Igny (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

The topic is obviously notable as the concept of "Communist Genocide" is used in scholarly sources. Additionally several countries have laws against denial of Communist Genocide - which is like notability-squared. Furthermore, the article has extensive references and inline citations. Can you point to a specific instance of SYNTH or OR in the article rather than just making general (and spurious) accusations?radek (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I do not want to feed the troll by contributing to this turd of an article. Again I point out that your contributions do nothing but feed the troll. As I also pointed out earlier a vicious cycle of edit wars has just started, and I really do not want to participate in this circus (see the pearls before swine for explanation why). I am just watching this development, which I consider to be an example of Wikipedia degradation, with interest from sideways. I do believe however that in time the interest of editors in this article will naturally die, as it happened to so many other trollish articles. If it survives a couple more nominations of AfD, only then I may consider contributing here. (Igny (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

i just stumbled upon this article wile doing some research on "THIS EXACT TOPIC" and tho no expert, i wonder why it is that with more than 20 nations recognising the term " communist genocide " with it being an accepted term in historical context to the UN security council and with litterally thousands of books on the topic, why exactly IS wikipedia debating this??? it would make more sense to find someone who could more perfectly display the facts than to delete it.

--Tophatdan (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see [7].radek (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You were doing research on this exact topic and claim that the term is accepted in the UN's circles? Actually, the UN's report condemns politics based on the idea of labeling killings committed by communists as "communist genocide" in that it confuses the concept with the concept of class struggle: [8] – bottom of page 21, section 103. The UN feels that politicizing the phenomenon of genocides is "abbhorent". I'd like to see you back up your other claims. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone elaborate this?

giving "the world the wars and genocides of Lenin, Stalin and Mao."

Such strong words... Can anyone elaborate what wars and genocides? I could only come up with Gulag by Stalin and the Great Leap Forward by Mao Zedong. How come only the article on Stalin mentions the word genocide with reference to the Holodomor? What wars is the lead of this article talking about? Where is the article on Lenin's genocide? (Igny (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

It's quoting the source. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it's quoting the source. What is the source talking about??? (Igny (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Here you go: A century of genocide By Eric D. Weitz: In this book I try to provide a historical account for the escalation of genocides in the twentieth centuries by examining in detail four cases: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, especially the ethnic and national purges initiated Stalin, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and the former Yugoslavia. there is an entire chapter on subject, hope that it helps.--Termer (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It obviously doesn't help because it does not answer my questions. (Igny (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Recent edits by User:Russavia [9] -> claiming the source doesn't mention genocide, let alone COMMUNIST GENOCIDE.... despite that the source has a chapter on the subject of ethnic cleansing in the former Soviet Union, "The Crimean Tatars, 2.5 The Genocide and Deportation". What exactly is going on in here?--Termer (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The source uses "genocide" in at least 18 different pages and has a chapter that uses it in its title. What is going on here?radek (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you go ahead and read the context where there word genocide was used in the source. Just to remind the fellow editors,

Take care, however, not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context.

Just count the number the word is used in the source is not equivalent to citing the source. (Igny (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, perhaps, maybe, possibly, that's another issue. This issue is that Russavia claimed the word "genocide" doesn't appear at all in the work, when it clearly does.radek (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you probably should report him to authorities for this. Why can't you see the bigger issues with this article is beyond me. (Igny (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Allende versus Pinochet

I wonder why the case of the Marxist socialist Allende overthrown by Pinochet's junta (with help of CIA) was not mentioned in this article. Was the Marxist ideology also the primary cause of Pinochet's genocide? (Igny (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Pinochet's regime was nasty, but nothing especial in Latin American circumstances. It definitely isn't qualified as genocide nowadays (the number of victims - mostly indeed political opponents, not some passers-by - was at least ten times less than that of the Communist regime had in e.g. Romania, which admittedly lasted much longer). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issue from AfD: article name change proposals

I think the title needs to be changed to address the criticisms raised during the deletion debate. On that page, there were several suggestions offered, and I have reproduced them below:

Communist inspired mass murder

Communist mass killings

Genocide by Communists

Genocide by Communist regimes

Genocide(s) in Communist regimes

Genocide(s) in Communist countries

Genocide in totalitarian regimes

Mass killings by Communists

Misery perpetrated by communist governments

Totalitarian Communist mass killing

If anyone has any preference, suggestions, objections to particular proposals, or support for the current title, please post them below. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The title fits. There is no reason to change the title or term from what already appears in sources, contrary to charges elsewhere of WP:NEO et al. The more complicated the title, the more it moves away from existing usage. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the current title doesn't comport with "existing usage," at least not in any mainstream sense. I would vote for "Genocide in communist countries" or "Genocide in totalitarian regimes" which are both far more likely to meet WP:NPOV and WP:V. The content could then be rewritten with this title in mind and a lot of the WP:SYN could be eliminated. csloat (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The killing wasn't merely in communist countries, but by avowedly communist states, and typically in avowed defense of communism. The real issue is over whether these mass killings were genocide or some other sort of large-scale homicide. —SlamDiego_←T 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an opinion that educated people may disagree about; we can't state that as if it were self-evident. And when we don't even have sources backing up the claims we are just synthesizing original research. csloat (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I used the word “avowed” advisedly. There is room for debate over whether this-or-that avowedly communist regime was-or-is really communist, and over whether this-or-that mass-killing which was avowedly in defense of communism was truly in defense of communism. But there's no room for honest debate amongst educated people over whether avowedly communist states killed large numbers of people, and typically invoked the defense of communism in motivating subordinates, &c. The invocation of ideology distinguishes these killing from those merely by a class of regimes or in nations ruled by regimes of that class. —SlamDiego_←T 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Genocide by Communist regimes, with a separate article for Genocide by Capitalist regimes. Alternatively the 'by' could be replaced by 'in' or 'under'. The current title is not so much POV as it is simply bad language - people and regimes can be communist, but how is a genocide communist, as opposed to capitalist, or feudalist, democratic etc? --Anderssl (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Genocide by Communist regimes, it will keep us from silly arguments that the term "Communist genocide" refers to or is easily mistaken to mean genocide by individuals who are/were communists, as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH neologistic as "Polish bank-robberies", и т.д. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Vecrumba and in interest of compromise.radek (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED

I think its quite obvious that this article is anti-communist propaganda. It is extremely scholarly and is an example of why people discredit wikipedia. It should be erased ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.35.252 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to do so currently. Triplestop x3 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

PR nomination

If this page is going to stay, then we might as well get certain things resolved. I believe the best way is having a third party. I am nominating for PR and hope everyone can agree to this. Triplestop x3 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Meri

Russavia, the reference you removed is clearly titled "Estonian charged with Communist genocide". So ACCORDING TO THE SOURCE he was charged with "this made up" (whatever that means) "Commiunist genocide" - I don't think it's possible in any way for the source to be clearer on this, don't you think? Or is this like pretending that the word "genocide" doesn't appear in a particular ref when in fact it appears at least 18 different times. I would appreciate if you reinserted the ref and the relevant material.radek (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the two words are together seems to be a result of the title trying to sum up the article in few words; nowhere else does it say "communist genocide" on the article. Are there any other sources saying he was charged with communist genocide? Triplestop x3 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to interpret what a source is trying to do is, actually, OR. The source says, quote, "Estonian charged with Communist genocide". How much clearer can it get? It appears that some people think that "Communist genocide" is a made up term, but unfortunately reliable sources do not think so and use that term, hence this reduces some people to arguing that when a source says "Communist genocide" it doesn't really mean "Communist genocide". Huh?radek (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well interpreting the source as defining Communist genocide as some special term is OR too, given that it only appears once, in the heading, and is not substantiated. Triplestop x3 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It only has to appear once - and the fact that it is in the heading is a bonus, not a drawback. And if you want "substantiation" (whatever that means in this context) then essentially you're questioning the reliability of the source, which is an issue for RSN, not here.radek (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Laar

Calling Laar a "nationalist" is OR here and a BLP violation - in fact sources refer to him as either conservative or liberal [10] (in the European sense).radek (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Same goes for FICC.radek (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the nationalist part for Laar. Triplestop x3 01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging

Some people are placing a "SYNTH" tag on the article[11][12], but steadfastly decline to articulate what aspect is synthesis here on the talk page, i.e. what new position is being advanced that is not in the cited source. In case you haven't noticed, the tag states "See the talk page for details", but no details can be found here. This is disruptive. --Martintg (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive? What exactly does this disrupt? Did you read the AfD debate? Didn't you see all the Delete votes? Why do you think they all voted delete? Are you paying attention at all to what I have been saying? Why do you play innocent and clueless victim of the so called disrupting editors? Was it unexpected to you? I mean everyone should have expected edit wars over the POV/SYNTH filled article, why didn't you? Oh, you thought you won the AfD, it gives you a sort of an absolution to let you to push whatever agenda you have there, right? Wrong, "no consensus" in AfD is not a victory, and definitely not an absolution. Besides, don't you think that calling other editors in good standing "disrupting" constitutes a personal attack? (Igny (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Again, this was asked in the AfD, what new position is being advanced that is not in the cited sources? --Martintg (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am really torn here between trying to make this article better (which would probably be fruitless with you on guard reverting my edits) and ignoring/keeping this article as it is for laughs. No wait, I'd better have laughs. Just do not remove the tags for the sake of whatever is left of credibility in the Wikipedia project if anything else. (Igny (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

And what is your answer to the question: What new position is being advanced that is not in the cited sources? --Martintg (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The position that there is an identifiable concept called "communist genocide" worthy of analysis on its own is a synthesis of original research. csloat (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just trying to get your way here when you didn't get it at the AfD as Martin says. Per source, there is in fact an identifiable concept called "communist genocide". The very term is used by the sources. That's not SYNTH and refusal to even discuss this, but rather reinstating the tag over and over while at the same time just repeating "this whole article is SYNTH" is disruptive - since it is impossible, by definition, to resolve the issue, or compromise with an editor that takes such a stance.radek (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Which source specifically defines "communist genocide" as an external observable concept? Not just uses it in a headline or as a sensationalist neologism. If you think we should create an article about the neologism that may be a defensible position, but this article is not about the neologism. It's a rambling soapboxing original essay. There is nothing "disruptive" about making a concrete argument like this; it's your refusal to answer the argument other than calling it "disruptive" that is itself disruptive. Cheers, csloat (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let me try this another way. Given that you believe there is a SYNTH problem in this article can you make a constructive suggestion as to how it can be solved?radek (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Remove the material that is being synthesized. This is, of course, a large portion of the article. The article should be rewritten either (1) as an article about the neologism "communist genocide," assuming there is evidence that it's a notable neologism (there doesn't appear to be at this point), or (2) rename the article to something more appropriate and rewrite it accordingly. What many of you seem to want this article to talk about is something like "genocide in communist countries" or "mass murders by totalitarian regimes." It would be pretty easy to take it from there. Of course, a third alternative is to delete the article, but a significant number of people think it should be kept, so we should figure out a way to keep the important material while removing the original essay. csloat (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What material is being synthesized into what conclusion? Please be specific.radek (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That was already explained a couple of times now. Are you really having trouble understanding? csloat (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Please indulge me. Can you give specific indication of what material is being synthesized into what conclusion and how this can be resolved, given that this article has not been deleted and that it currently exists under the name that it does. Refs, sources, etc. would be very helpful.radek (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To repeat myself, then: "The position that there is an identifiable concept called "communist genocide" worthy of analysis on its own is a synthesis of original research." No I will not provide refs, sources, etc. because there are none that specifically speak to this topic in this way -- that's the problem. The whole article is made up of such material. It's actually your burden (or whoever defends this as not a massive SYN violation) to provide the sources to back up this claim. If they exist, they aren't in the article. Cheers, csloat (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that the very existence of this article under its current names violates SYNTH and basically as long as it's not deleted or renamed nothing can be done. That's not a constructive approach. And the placement of the tag does seem like sour grapes from a lost AfD vote. Basically what you are saying is that you (and others) object to this article being here, and as such as long as it exists the SYNTH tag must be in there regardless of what the actual content of the article is (and whether or not any material is actually synthesized into novel conclusions). Nope, not constructive at all.radek (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument of the "lost AfD" again. Oh we poor losers, just keep crying over the loss which we can't handle like men... (Igny (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

You are insisting on the synth tag regardless of actual article content though.radek (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not regardless, but most of the current content must go or the tag stays as long as the content stays, that is indefinitely. In meantime, try to find the definition of the communist genocide. (Igny (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

There are tons of scholarly sources on "communist genocide". I really can't see how it's possible it's synthesis or that "communist genocide" is somehow not "communist genocide." I would suggest we simply work on adding sources, there are plenty out there. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are "tons" of such sources, why is it you cannot be bothered to produce even a single one when asked for it? csloat (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? --Martintg (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The book is about genocides in 20th century. It used the phrase "communist genocide" just to differentiate the regimes which committed genocides. There is not characteristic unique to the genocides perpetrated by the communist regimes, and I have yet to find the actual definition for the phrase "communist genocide". There is an apparent confusion here over the linguistic ambiguity: "communist genocide" may just mean "genocides committed by communists" and nothing more. It is similar to "Rwanda genocide" a genocide which occurred in Rwanda, there is nothing about the territory of Rwanda which caused the genocide, just a reference to a particular place. Taking quotes from this book is essentially taking quotes out of context. (Igny (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

How about you read the book, it defines three types of mass killing, communist, ethnic and counter guerrilla, each with specific characteristics. --01:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No it does not. This very article mentions the "Crimean Tatar genocide" (the crimean tatars have been oppressed since 1800s btw, but this article fails to mention that). What is it then? Is it ethnic or communist? Make up your mind. Connecting the genocide to communism the way this article does is akin to claiming that Rwanda genocide may happen in Japan. Oh wait, did I say Japan? I meant Australia. Oh wait there was an Australian genocide, what type of genocide was that, guerrilla? (Igny (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Are we looking at the same book? The book has specific chapters categorizing the types of mass killing

• Chapter 4. Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China and Cambodia
• Chapter 5. Ethnic Mass Killings: Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda
• Chapter 6. Counterguerrilla Mass Killings: Guatemala and Afghanistan

--Martintg (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Categorizing does not mean defining. Again it is used merely to differentiate different types of regimes/places/circumstances where/when genocides were committed. Like, Rwanda genocide happened in Rwanda, communist genocides were committed by communists. Genocides are genocides, there is no specific trait which makes genocide uniquely communist. Trying to connect genocides to the communist ideology the way this article does is the SYNTH violation which we discuss here. (Igny (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

Ask yourself two questions. Can Rwanda genocide happen outside Rwanda, and can communist genocide (if it is defined the way it is defined in your opinion) be committed by a non-communist regime? I think it is related to the True Scotsman fallacy. (Igny (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

And Rwanda is grouped with Nazi Germany because of regimes/places/circumstances? So what is the common regimes/places/circumstances that links Guatemala and Afghanistan together in one chapter? --Martintg (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

When sources are asked for, they are provided, then their existence is ignored, and the demand is repeated a few comments down as if they were never provided. Wash, rinse, repeat.radek (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this: when sources are asked for, one source is provided that does not answer the questions; when it is pointed out that this one source is useless to make this particular case, that information is ignored, and the sources is repeated several times on the talk page as if it were several different sources. Wash, rinse, repeat! csloat (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- Nope. For people who think that the very existence of this article is a "horrible thing" every source, no matter how reliable is going to be "useless". None of the sources which were given have been question on the basis of reliability or brought to RSN. It hasn't been "pointed out", again, it's been asserted.radek (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's really absurd to assume that those of us interested in NPOV and NOR think this article is a "horrible thing." It's not. It may even be valid. But it's original research, and it doesn't belong on this encyclopedia. There are many places to publish original research, why not look there instead of here if that is what you're into? It just doesn't make sense. Bringing up RSN is a red herring of course; the problem here is not the reliability of the sources but rather the question of what the cited sources actually say. So far you've cited only one source -- a chapter heading, not the source itself, in fact -- in defense of your claim that "communist genocide" is some kind of external observable phenomenon that is encyclopedic. A chapter heading in a source that you haven't shown to be notable, a chapter heading that doesn't even include the phrase "communist genocide"! If that's all you've got, there's really not much more to say. If you have more, please come back to the original requirement -- show sources that identify and define "communist genocide" as an observable (and encyclopedic) phenomenon that is actually talked about this way in some body of (preferably scholarly) literature. csloat (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

“Genocide”

My suggestion is that the article be moved so that its title no longer includes the word “genocide”, but that a section be devoted to the question of whether the mass-killings were, technically, genocides or instead some other sorts of exterminations. —SlamDiego_←T 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support a move to "Communist mass killings" if this SYNTH nonsense is dropped, in the interest of compromise.radek (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately making up a new SYNTH violation isn't a helpful solution. csloat (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it "Synth" when this book has an entire chapter called "Communist mass killings"? --Martintg (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First, one chapter heading in one book is not the kind of evidence that we need here. What we need is a specific *definition* of "communist genocide" (or "communist mass killings" if that is your new title of the day) that describes it as an external observable concept. That is, unless you want to rewrite the article as about a particular neologism (in which case, one chapter heading from one book is not going to be enough to establish notability, so you will have some more research to do). I'm not opposed to rewriting this as about a neologism (perhaps like "red terror" or "red scare") but I'm not convinced yet that any evidence of its notability exists. Or perhaps you are suggesting this article should be about this one chapter in this one book? csloat (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. So no possible solution exists and no compromise is apparently possible. The tag must stay until those who wanted to get the article deleted, under this or any other name, will get it deleted. I'm sorry, but that IS disruptive and against Wikipedia spirit of consensus building and cooperation. Where's that PR?radek (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I never said those things. This isn't about consensus anyway; it's about Wikipedia's rules. Two big ones are WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If you don't like these rules, there may be other encyclopedias you can edit. But don't pick fights with other editors here just because you don't like the rules. csloat (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The article follows these rules. If there is disagreement as to whether an article meets NPOV and NOR (and the tag says SYNTH, not OR) then there is need for discussion, compromise and consensus building. And consensus building cannot be hijacked by an obstinate user or a group of users who effectively refuse to budge an inch.radek (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no; the article blatantly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. This has been explained over and over. The obstinate users are the ones who refuse to acknowledge this and keep on demanding that those important rules be ignored. csloat (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it has been asserted, not explained. There's a world of difference. I've been making the request for an explanation over and over again and all I get in response is just the repetition that the article does this, that this is wrong and (incorrectly) that the term is not used by reliable sources.radek (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No; it has been explained. Your inability (or unwillingness) to understand that explanation is not the same as the lack of an explanation. If you can describe which reliable sources use the neologism in the manner described by the article perhaps we can have a discussion. But all you are doing at this point is stomping your foot and covering your ears. csloat (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pol Pot

It is wrong to say “Skulls of victims of US-backed communist regime in Cambodia under Pol Pot.” The US did not back the communist regime itself so they have no direct responsibility for those skulls; however, they did back Pol Pot's terrorists after the 1979 Vietnamese invasion, when Khmer Rouge managed to arrange a 'Coalition government' that also included anticommunist forces and was indeed financed by the US, among others. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's include, then, that the Pol Pot regime was against mainstream communism, which finally combined with anti-Vietnamese racism helped them to come together with the US. Here, by the way, is a good report by Pilger: [13]. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pol Pot's regime and gov't-in-exile was aligned with the PRC (which is how Jimmy Carter got us aligned with Pol Pot). I'm not sure that the regime can be said to be against mainstream communism, when it had the backing of the largest communist regime. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to note that it was a heterodox communist regime. —SlamDiego_←T 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: mainstream communism (whatever that is) and heterodox communism - This smacks too much of the ORish and weaselish but frequently employed argument that all those bad things that were done by communists weren't really done by communists because they weren't done by "real" communists and in fact "real" communists would by definition never do such things. There are probably some regimes that can be described as heterodox communism but Pol Pot's was pretty clearly straight up communism although of its own variety.radek (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the struggle of the proletariat in favor of focusing on a society of agrarian primitivism is mainstream communism? Didn't we just quote John Gray saying that Marxism "had an explicit and pronounced contempt for 'small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life'"? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek, whatever the smack might be, I think that the relevant significance or insignificance is revealed by whether other, more orthodox communist regimes also exterminated large numbers of people. I think that any reader who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid will be able to figure it out without guidance in the writing. —SlamDiego_←T 08:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

@Radekz: “frequently employed argument that all those bad things that were done by communists weren't really done by communists because they weren't done by "real" communists and in fact "real" communists would by definition never do such things.” - you are absolutely right! In German wiki, the anarcho-commie alliance has gone so far with their whitewashing actions, that a OR term Realsozialismus is used, whenever there's anything irrevocably bad to be said about the Socialist countries. Such a usage of term implies the completely nonsensical argument, that the communists were not 'real' communists and the socialist countries were not 'real' socialist countries. One could of course just as well claim Capitalism in the US is no capitalism since it has been 'wrongly' built - an argument similar ones found in an Estonian madman's selpub books. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, libertarians often do claim that the capitalism in America is not real capitalism. Respect people's points of view – you are, after all, on Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well of course the existence of such a view is a fact, just like the existence of people who believe Earth is flat or Evolution is devil's work is a fact, and an encyclopedia should note these facts' existence. However, Jimmy Wales' Wikipedia does not use FRINGE sources or give UNDUE weight to fringe views when discussing various topics. And this applies to extreme libertarians and communists apologists alike.radek (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

“Extreme libertarians” is a redundancy. A libertarian is an classical liberal extremist. —SlamDiego_←T 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As for Pol Pot, though, he indeed was not an orthodox Marxist, but then again, neither was Stalin nor was Lenin (socialism in a country where capitalism was underdeveloped!). Nevertheless, Pol Pot 'was communist, for who would dispute Mao Zedong (Pol Pot's great inspiration) was a communist? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Except Maoists who value Comrade Stalin and Mao don't regard him as a communist: "Pol Pot Was Not and Is Not A Communist". This came from 1986 – ie, when Pol Pot was being supported by America. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the article you linked states that

Apologists for capitalism are always inventing lies to "prove" how terrible communism is. In recent years one of their favorite tales concerns the mass killings in Cambodia by the supposedly "communist" Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. Lots of articles, a couple of books and at least one major movie, "The Killing Fields," have focused on the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Pol Pot has almost replaced Joseph Stalin as number one on the capitalists' all-time hate list.

Now is it some Buddhist thing of soul metempsychosis, but some communist apologist with his load of sock puppets just yesterday showed up with such propaganda in German wiki. The basic argument is from those Trotsky's Jeremiah songs of the late 1920s on invariably the same: the socialism put into effect is never the 'real socialism', but a monstrous corruption and deviation from the noble ideas of Marx-Engles. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. The point is, the article is written against Pol Pot from a communist point of view, condemning both his murders and his views, back when he was our ally in 1986. The article correctly notes that Pol Pot did not even use communism's rhetoric – yes, he was communist in name only, but that's hardly something compatible with an article loaded against communism. Since North Korea calls itself democratic, I propose you apply that to some POV fork criticizing the concept of democracy. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, the Marxian goal of abolishing 'private ownership of means' has been carried out in a number of cases, so the cases of the USSR and similar regimes could reasonably be called socialist. In general, instead of such fringe sources as the link above, you might want to consult the plenty reliable sources available online [14], [15] if you don't want to buy more mainstream sources from a local bookstore (I presume you reside in the US, not Russia). I really wouldn't put much hope on American Maoists' opinions. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what we follow on Wikipedia is WP:YESPOV. I think communist sources are better classed as legitimate POV material rather than "fringe" as far as insiders' opinion about communism goes. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

'Wholesale changes'

Here is the diff of the edit I made. Feel free to comment on it, and the closer we adhere to WP:AGF, WP:EQ and the Argument Pyramid, the faster we will go. Obviously there will be a lot of material to cover if editors disagree on every point.

Personal agendas are not covered, and should not be covered, by WP rules, up to a point. What matters is the content, until the editor's activity becomes tendentious.

So, with that in mind, I will outline the changes, and their rationale.

• 'Communist genocide' is already a frame. An invalid logical argument that states: Communists committed this genocide, therefore this genocide is communist. That's why it was nominated for AfD. That is why I will continue to support its deletion or renaming.
• What I removed from the article goes further than this. It says, 'communism is genocidal'. There can never be proof of this, only opinion, and it remains to be proven whether there is any notable opinion on the subject.
• "The scale of communist genocide is overwhelming, and it will be years before all the information about these atrocities is processed and disseminated" purports to show how vast the scale is by how little information there is about it.
• Really got to wonder about the quality of scholarship on this one: "... and the former Yugoslavia". Seriously, Serbs?
• "small, 'primitive'" ....Why is this on a page anywhere?
• Another one of those '10 books I really don't like'. Darwin is always number 3. The editor who added this was so greedy to include his fringiness he even added an anti-evolution book to the citation.

Moved the Engels quote, it is not as important (arguably is just an argument to tone), and added information about the Great Leap Forward that wasn't. Anarchangel (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the Engels quote change (I wasn't sure where to put it myself at the time). But the thing that pops out at me is your take on point three. "The scale of communist genocide is overwhelming, and it will be years before all the information about these atrocities is processed and disseminated" means that there's too much information to wade through in the recently opened archives to process it all quickly, not that there's too little. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the source. What they are doing is asserting that is there is way more, without having to cite evidence of way more. We do not allow that, and responsible scientists do not allow it. It is an irresponsible statement. Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He needs to cite evidence of the vast scale of evidence? But he did: the findings published in The Black Book of Communism. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

“'Communist genocide' is already a frame. An invalid logical argument that states: Communists committed this genocide, therefore this genocide is communist. That's why it was nominated for AfD. That is why I will continue to support its deletion or renaming.” - you're walking on a thin ice, Anarchangel. Cf e.g. Nazis committed genocide --> this genocide was 'Nazi genocide'. Would you argue this is invalid logic? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I would. 'Nazis committed genocide therefore that genocide was Nazi' is an invalid logical statement. In the case of the Nazis, there is the evidence in Mein Kampf, years of hate speech against Jews, and a thin but visible trail of proof that genocide was state policy. It is that evidence that makes it Nazi genocide, not assertion. Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, your argument has merit in that 'Capitalist genocide' would not suit at all as a title according to this logic. When capitalist regimes committed crimes, they did not do so precisely in order to advance some capitalist theories.
As for your implication that Nazi theories prescribed genocidal policies long before they gained power and commie ideas do not, I disagree, but am not going to waste our time and convince you. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that both the terms 'Communist genocide' and 'Nazi genocide' are bad language. A person can be communist, as can a regime, and these uses of the word have clear meanings that can generally be agreed upon. 'Communist genocide' does not have any such clear meaning (is this a genocide where everyone is killed equally much?), so the title should be changed to Genocides under communist regimes or something similar. --Anderssl (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

i guess Rome wasn't built in a day. First step is to list sources:

• The Dictionary of Genocide has an entry for "Communism", characterizing it as an intolerant, repressive and genocidal political force in the modern world. --Martintg (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• This book Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century has an entire chapter called "Communist mass killings". I don't think Cornell University Press is a fringe publisher, is it? --Martintg (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Final Solutions begins by asking whether ethnic tensions are enough to explain genocide. No, it says. Then, is not having democracy (eh?) enough? No, it says. No, the cause is the "specific goals and strategies of high political leaders". Problem solved, eh? Apparently it is all evil supervillains, perhaps Darth Vader.
You have misquoted a key part of a source. The passage from the Dictionary actually reads "intolerant, repressive and potentially (when not actually) genocidal political force in the modern world" Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism

Did anyone here read criticism of the Black Book of Communism? I could only see that noone bothered to counter all the selected POVs here... (Igny (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

The book is a groundbreaking work, and it has received excellent reviews [16]. Furthermore, its scientific background is trustworthy and wide. Have anyone actually reversed its main theses? Peltimikko (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to me that you are able to find all the praise and all the glowing reviews of the book. Now my question was whether you can find any criticism of the book. I can give you a hint. The article Black Book of Communism has in fact a section about the criticism of the book. Let me know if you can find it, or I can just provide a link. (Igny (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Critics consider a number of victims, one-sided (narrowed only communist crimes) and comparison of Nazism and Communism (two extreme "religions"). One argument was that "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union"! Seems a critic have not red up on Gulags. These are mild critics, but my point was that have anyone reversed its main theses? And actually argued that "Communist genocide" do not have any scientific background? Peltimikko (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Don Cossacks

Leaving the fringe accusation of genocide against the Don Cossacks by other sources aside, I am again removing the Nekrich reference. "Genocide" and "Don Cossacks" do not appear together anywhere in the same vicinity in the book, and there is no such claim. Since Radeksz feels otherwise, he can quote the passage he presumes to exist on this talk page. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one who inserted the source, I am merely AGF here in regard to the editor (whoever it was) who did. The standard response in a situation is to ask for clarification and wait for response before removing rather than assuming bad faith and reverting others. Particularly since the three words DO appear in the book on the same page (which is of course unavailable for preview), page 87. Or is this like the pretending that a reference entitled "Estonian charged with Communist genocide" doesn't mention genocide or asserting that a reference doesn't contain the word "genocide" when in fact it does on 18 different pages?

If anyone has access to the book, could they please look it up and clarify this matter?radek (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Genocide" does not appear on page 87. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of genocide by Israel W. Charny states on page 521 in the section "Genocide in the Soviet Union": "suppression of the Don Cossacks revolt in 1919 took the form of Genocide". --Martintg (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read what I have been writing here. And what you're quoting is by noted anti-communist R.J. Rummel, Charny is only the editor. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It was Charny's choice as editor to include or exclude it. Evidently he finds Rummel's contribution encyclopedic. --Martintg (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources listed for the allegation that there was genocide committed against Don Cossacks are experts on Russian history. Nor have they produced any scholarly studies of the civil war in the Don Region. Professional historians who have studied the subject at length such as Peter Holquist and A. Venko explicitly dismiss such hyperbole. Professor Holquist writes in one his studies: "The Bolsheviks, however, did not pursue an open-ended program of genocide against the Cossacks

Johnnypd (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Capitalist Genocides page?

This is nothing but blatant PoV pushing. I support the proposed merge.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it's a misnomer. The adjective in front of genocide usually refers to the victims, not the perpetrators, e.g. Armenian genocide does not mean that Armenians killed, but rather that there were killed. category should be deleted as well. Seb az86556 (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF, as it applies here as well. Nothing stops you from creating article Capitalist genocides (could be an interesting article), but lack of some article is not a reason to delete or merge another. --Sander Säde 09:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With intent

“ While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical( This is a quote. The original is 'ethnical'. See www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm), racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Retrieved 2008-10-22" ”

That is why Communist Genocide is a fringe term. It will never be accepted by scholars. The key phrase is 'with intent'. Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if your statement was correct, which it isn't, it would apply generally to ANY genocide not just Communist genocide - do you wish to delete other genocide articles as well?radek (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anarchangel (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Even if your assertion was backed with evidence or reasoning, which it isn't, your conclusion relies on the assumption that other genocides are not so called because intent has been shown. Are you planning on contradicting your way to victory?

The contradiction is that you're arguing that when some non-communist group of people set out to destroy another group of people they do so with the intent to destroy them, but somehow, when communists set out to destroy a group of people, they do so without the intent of destroying them. Huh? Anyway, if this is your objection, then presumably you'd drop this SYNTH business if the article was moved to a title which didn't include the word "genocide", as has been proposed. Say, to, "Communist mass killings".radek (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Pure Straw man. Never said Synth. I said WP:FRINGE. Synth is somewhere between an argument to tone and a refutation of validity; I actually was refuting the central point, that the current title of the article is a valid term among historians. See the argument pyramid for these terms and the one you don't seem to follow, Contradiction. Anarchangel (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Which articles are you proposing for deletion? csloat (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is false. Real genocides such as the Holocaust are carried out deliberately and with intent to wipe out a race. Triplestop x3 00:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "with intent" is a legal fiction. I doubt if the victim (we do remember the victim?) would notice the dif::ference.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not the issue. csloat (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

'Fiction' is hardly the word. US law, for instance, states that the act of killing someone can be a more or less serious crime depending on the intent behind the act. From wikipedia on Manslaughter:

“ Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

”

For the victim it may not make a difference, but for the (U.S.) law the difference is real.--Anderssl (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is all a red herring. Next we'll be contending people volunteered to jump in front of bullets. Or that the mass death of starving individuals force-marched somewhere is dying of natural causes. (I've already seen the latter one argued on WP in defense of nationalist genocide.) "Communist genocide" as in genocide by communist regimes is a well-established term describing an incontrovertible phenomenon. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This article is currently titled "Communist genocide". A 'genocide' is a legal term that has a specific meaning under the UN convention. There are other definitions, intent seems to be a factor in most of them, but not all. An article with 'genocide' in the title needs to deal with this fact. Try to deal with the actual arguments presented, instead of infantile speculations about what "we" will come up with next. --Anderssl (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

10 countries consider 'Holodomor' a genocide

“ The Holodomor is recognized as genocide by Australia, Argentina, Georgia, Estonia, Italy, Canada, Lithuania, Poland, the United States, and Hungary. ”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that means that only 10 countries recognize this as genocide, so that means most of the Countries of the world do not, right? Even if we only count democracies and consider population numbers, the countries listed above represent only a small fraction. Doesn't that suggest that this is a highly contentious classification, and should be treated as such in the article? --Anderssl (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite in this article, I think. This article focuses on communist genocide, and the other one is Holodomor. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand, can you clarify? --Anderssl (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's just everything listed here is interpreted as a genocide according to somebody's opinion. Except for the Cambodian genocide, where the debate favors labelling the atrocity as genocidal, the majority of what's been put up here aren't even recognized as genocides by the majority of scholars. Even that one has been debated in the pages of the New York Review of Books: [17]. So this whole article amounts to a huge POV fork anyway. My comment was tongue-in-cheek, in part: but there's really not much room to fix things up here – the majority of voters did not want this loaded article just due to this at the AFD. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There will always be apologists for genocide: that it wasn't intentional, was somehow justified, or "wasn't really" genocide even through hundreds, thousands, or millions died. Such contentions should be duly noted but they do not mean, as PasswordUsername would contend, that this article is a sham. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  12:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Such contentions were not in fact noted in this article duly or not. There is no a single mention of the words controversy or criticism in the article. All the POVs just were stated as a fact. In fact these POV quotes were taken out of context, congregated together to create a new position, which is the existence of communist genocide. Changing the titles to communist mass killings or similar does not help, there is no such thing as communist mass killings. I could support however Mass killings by totalitarian Communist regimes or similar. (Igny (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

With all due respect, it would be helpful to try to stick to the specific topic of this section instead of mixing in all kinds of separate discussions. This section is not about whether or not this article is a 'sham'. It also not about defending genocide. It is about whether or not the controversy around classifying the Holodomor as a genocide should be better represented in the article. I think it should. --Anderssl (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Holodomor article claims that 20 countries have recognized the event as genocide. Does anyone know if that is correct? If so, this line should be corrected in this article. --Anderssl (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, the Holodomor article just quotes some Ukranian and Russian news media, whereas this article quotes a blog. It should be possible to find original sources for this - parliament resolutions, for instance. Until that is done, the claim should not be stated as a fact. --Anderssl (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text of the article to fit the sources, and added one source for the European Parliament resolution. Feel free to add countries back in if you find official sources supporting the claim (not just media reports, which obviously are in conflict with each other and therefore not reliable on this point). --Anderssl (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

SYNTH tag

As far as I'm concerned the SYNTH tag doesn't have any bases to it. The sources provided in the article speak of the communist genocides that happened under a number of communist regimes. Another thing is that the sources keep disappearing from the article. Why? In case this is still about the title "Communist genocide", that's fine, it can be replaced with anything appropriate that describes the story about the 60-100 million people killed by the Communist regimes.--Termer (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is nice that you are concerned. Me concerned too. The tag stays. (Igny (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for giving no explanations or arguments to support your opinion, it means the tag has no bases to it, and it goes until arguments are given what exactly has been synthesized here?--Termer (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks again Igny for giving no explanations even to the revert of yours. [18]. So no explanations or reasons needed, the tag just stays and that's it, and that is the way things work on Wikipedia in your opinion? --Termer (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert me without explanation, Termer? Didn't I remove the 100-million-victims-of-genocidal-communism-claim with sufficient reason? You'd better explain that. Are you saying that everybody killed by communists was a victim of genocide? Answer this: against whom was this genocide of 100 million victims targeted? PasswordUsername (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice try but the statement doesn't have to be about a single genocide of 100 million people. It's sufficient that among those 100 million victims there was at least one genocide - though in fact there were a few.radek (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? Try noting WP:COATRACK. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been explained several times now. I'll give it one more go. Let's take it slowly. Here's a quote from WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.[7] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In this case we have sources claiming A (genocides have occurred in Communist countries). And multiple variations of B (different sources which mention "communist genocide" in various contexts without ever defining it or connecting it to the other sources). You're pulling these sources together to claim (conclusion C) that there is an identifiable concept "communist genocide" that has been factually observed. There is no reliable source making claim C here.

The article cites multiple sources that discuss genocide in communist countries, but few that actually mention "communist genocide." Those that do mention the term use it without defining it, and they do not seem to be in conversation with each other. For example, see the first paragraph under "Overview." You've got Harry Wu talking about genocide in Germany, the Soviet Union, and China, and never mentioning "communist genocide." You've got Nguyen talking about Vietnam. The article falsely (utterly and verifiably falsely) proclaims that Nguyen "describes communist genocide as the 'genocide of entire classes'." Nguyen does no such thing. At all. He describes the actions of Vietnamese Communists and states, "These terrorist acts were crimes against humanity and the genocide of entire classes." Nguyen also never mentions "communist genocide" as a concept, and gives no indication he might be in some kind of discourse with Wu.

And neither give any indication they are talking about the same thing mentioned by Ronit Lentin, the first person to actually use the phrase here. Let's look at what Lentin says, shall we?

"the notion of genocide has originally been confined to the physical annihilation, or intention to do so, of members of whole nations. If it were to have remained confined within those boundaries, the Communist genocide would, perhaps, be arguably applicable to massive deportations and annihilation of a large number of Ukrainians, Balts and other Soviet nationals, but if would leave out the massive extermination of own-nationals. The Cambodian Khmer Rouge, among others, could never be indicted for 'genocide,' which is absurd."

OK that's what Lentin says; we get points for him actually using the phrase "Communist genocide," so this is perhaps the first relevant source. But does he define it? No. I would love to see the context in the original source, as it appears he is referring to a specific genocide that was being discussed earlier, but whoever inserted this quote never bothered to identify that referent; instead what they did is infer the conclusion that there is an observable concept of "communist genocide."

Next we have this odd passage:

In his book "The Lost Literature of Socialism", George Watson says, "The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."[10]

OK, again, there is no use of the term "communist genocide". This quote is particularly troubling as it violates NPOV flagrantly -- it states as fact that Marxist theory demands genocide and bases this opinion on a bizarre misreading of this essay by Engels (which nowhere that I can find mentions "racial trash"). Then we cite this in Wikipedia as if it were a definitive theory of "communist genocide," even though there is no indication that Watson ever defined the term or that his theory has any currency among scholars of Marxism or genocide.

How about this next paragraph?

John N. Gray in the book Post-liberalism: Studies in Political Thought observed that the political creation of an artificial terror-famine with genocidal results is not a phenomenon restricted to the historical context of Russia and the Ukraine in the Thirties, but is a feature of Communist policy to this day, as evidenced in the sixties in Tibet and now in Ethiopia. The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism. Gray states that communist policy in this respect faithfully reproduces classical Marxism, which had an explicit and pronounced contempt for "small, backward and reactionary peoples - no less than for the peasantry as a class and a form of social life".[5]

Hmm, no "communist genocide," no "genocide" actually, at least not in quotation marks; all we have is Mr. Gray's opinion that Marxism was contemptuous of "small, backward and reactionary peoples." Again, it's an opinion about classical Marxism that we have elevated to the position of the unquestioned truth about "communist genocide," a phrase the source never uses.

No "genocide" actually? You seemed to have missed "The socialist genocide of small, "primitive" peoples, such as the Kalmucks and many others, has been a recurrent element in polices at several stages in the development of Soviet and Chinese totalitarianism". --Martintg (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss it; I noticed that it was not in quotation marks. That does not seem to be a quote from Gray. And, if it is, it seems to be to be only further evidence of synthesis -- do you have the Gray source, and can you tell us where he defines "socialist genocide"? csloat (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, three quotes that are connected only by synthesis once again:

Stéphane Courtois in The Black Book of Communism compared Communism and Nazism as slightly different totalitarian systems. He claims that Communist regimes have killed "approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of Nazis." [11] Nathaniel Weyl wrote of political aristocide that "In modern times, the outstanding instances have been the genocides commited by the Nazis and Communists." Although actually, this is a misnomer as politically the Nazis and Communists were indistinguishable.[12] According to Dr. Kors, founder of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), "No other system has caused as much death as communism has".[13]

Need I go on here? None of the sources talks of "communist genocide"; they simply compare numbers of people killed under Nazi regime and various communist regimes. To conclude from that that there is a notion of "communist genocide" is synthesis. To conclude that these authors share Watson's and/or Gray's (mis)reading of Marx and Engels is synthesis.

That's just the overview, every single quotation is used as part of a synthesis. We can easily do the same for every section following. There are occasional sources that actually use the phrase, but they clearly use it as a neologism without a definition or object. The claim, for example, that Arnold Meri "faced charges of communist genocide" is patently absurd. Sure, the headline of the article, written by an editor, may say that, but the phrase is never used in the article, and there is never any indication that "communist genocide" is an actual name of a crime somewhere. Meri's Wikipedia page states that he is charged with "genocide," as does the article that is linked here. "Communist genocide" is the invention of an editor for a sensational headline -- not an accurate name for specific charges that were filed against Mr. Meri.

As I said, we can do this with every single paragraph in the article. That's why we have been saying that it is *all* a synth violation. Is any of this starting to sink in? csloat (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your whole argument of "Communist genocide" being an undefined neologism is a straw man. It is not more of a neologistic term than say Communist left or Soviet agriculture. --Martintg (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is Communist genocide, not other pages, which may have sources to back up the usage of those phrases. If you don't think they do, go to those pages and complain. But don't dismiss the detailed discussion above with an unexplained charge of "straw man" and expect to be taken seriously. csloat (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

About your criticisms of the Watson quote from "The Lost Literature of Socialism", I'd like to make a few points. First, I don't think it does violate NPOV because it does not state as fact that Marxism demands genocide, but rather attributes that conclusion to Watson based on Engels' writing. Maybe that distinction can be made more clear by changing the first sentence. Second, I think it is important to remember that the Engels article was originally written in German, so there may be differences in translation. I read the translation you linked and I assume the phrase Watson translates as "racial trash" is translated there as "residual fragments of peoples." I don't know which translation is better. Your link is helpful, however, because it's a translation provided by marxists.org. I think we can safely assume that their translation is, if anything, going to err on the side of giving Engels the benefit of the doubt on any ambiguous wording. With that in mind, the following quotations are hard to explain away:

• "...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution."
• "All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm."
• "The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names."
• "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."

AmateurEditor (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So in other words, Watson got even the author wrong? According to Engels, we are dealing with a quote from Hegel here, not Engels: "These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples." And I'm not sure what you mean about "explaining away" these quotations; the question is whether Watson is right that Engels is advocating racial genocide here, which he does not appear to be. He's describing a world war he considers inevitable -- this is classic propaganda to be sure, but hardly an argument for genocide. (According to Marx and Engels, an inevitable world communist revolution would wipe out ALL nations, not just the "racial trash.") This is about a notion of the inevitable triumph of global revolution, not about the inevitable triumph of white people or some other ethnic group.

Anyway I'm not sure where you want to go with this -- a debate over whether international communism is a murderous enterprise simply doesn't translate into "communist genocide." If it does, I would think the "other side" ought be represented here too, such that multiple sources who argue that world communism is the only solution to the inherent murderousness of capitalism. There are many many sources who make such claims, yet nobody has tried to make Capitalist genocide an article because the connection of those claims to a concept of "capitalist genocide" is an illegitimate synthesis of original research. Does this help your understanding? csloat (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear which part of that sentence was "as Hegel says". But assuming for the sake of argument that the entire sentence was from Hegel, Engels then goes on to adopt the term himself after specifically naming three groups he believes it applies to. Peoples who will require "complete extirpation" because "their whole existence in general is itself a protest" against a revolution. And, according to the article, a world communist revolution would not wipe out all nations (read: "peoples", not "states"), because he specifically says it will be "all other large and small nationalities and peoples" in Austria except those he had just singled out for praise ("the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars"). And it is certainly not an issue of simple inevitability. This is, as you say, "propoganda". He is trying to motivate others to bring this about. He wants it to happen. And these "residual fragments of peoples" are not going to "extirpate" themselves. The people who will do it when the time comes, the people of the "world revolutionary storm", are people much like his readers. And just to be clear, he makes sure the very last sentence of the article rearticulates his point that "the disappearance from the face of the earth" of entire peoples is "a step forward".

What more do you want from him? You can't very well expect him to say "I want genocide!" as the term hadn't been invented yet. It's important in any event to remember that the word was invented before the UN decided on a legal definition for it. Words often have more than one variation of meaning, especially between legal meanings and colloquial ones. To adhere strictly to one and deny the other's existence is not constructive. To insist that the phrase "Communist genocide" likewise means only what you take it to mean is also not constructive. It may in fact simply mean genocide by communists. If you have a better title for the article, try to convince others of its merit. And if you want to try to start an article called "Capitalist genocide", you're welcome to try. But I hope you have an article from Adam Smith as damning as this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is actually very clear what part of the sentence was "as Hegel says" since the quoted part is in italics (and, indeed, much of what Engels has to say in this essay is utterly Hegelian). But had Watson properly attributed the quote to Hegel rather than Engels, it would have taken the fun out of his diatribe (perhaps we should start a Hegelian genocide article next?) There is no doubt that Engels thinks the global revolution he describes is a positive thing, but our disagreement is over whether it is a *genocidal* thing. For the international communist, ALL races/cultures/nations must give way to the international revolution. Again, one could debate about whether this is a murderous adventure, but to equate it with "genocide" is to misunderstand fundamentally the essence of international communism. (And please understand that I do not speak as an advocate of it -- I would probably agree with Watson that it *is* a murderous venture).

As for "capitalist genocide," I could fill this page with quotes from Thomas Malthus that seem equally to delight in the murder of innocents and show how they are directly derived from Adam Smith's influence, and I could even cite multiple reliable sources who opine that capitalism is inherently a global ethnocidal project. But to connect the two and claim that these form evidence of an external concept that we can call "capitalist genocide" is the essence of WP:SYN. Hopefully this is getting clearer? csloat (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"As for "capitalist genocide," I could fill this page with quotes from Thomas Malthus that seem equally to delight in the murder of innocents" ... uh, what??? First I think you're completely missing the point on Malthus (though I'm slightly impressed that you've actually heard of him) and second Malthus was not writing about the "capitalist" world as that only began to emerge at the time of his writing, but rather about the feudal, or pre-capitalist one - as Marx said himself.radek (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's exactly my point. To draw definitive conclusions about "capitalism" or even worse "capitalist genocide" from such quotes would be clearly inappropriate. But that is exactly what you guys want to do with "communist genocide." csloat (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are words sprinkled throughout the entire essay in italics. But I conceded for the sake of argument that the entire sentence could be attributed to Hegel. It doesn't matter. It's not in quotes. Engels chose to paraphrase or repeat what Hegel had said and use the term again because it conveyed what he was trying to say. In re-using those words to express his own ideas, he made them his own, and Watson was perfectly in the right to attribute them to him.

But your objection is with the word "genocide". And whether or not it can apply to the murderous action of communists. In my opinion, Engels is a more authoritative source on what communism is than you are, and he clearly associates specific ethnic groups with extermination at the hands of communist revolutionaries due to their historic backwardness. How do you define genocide in this case? Are you using the UN definition? Why does it not apply? Would your objections go away if we used "Mass killings by communists" or some similar phrasing for the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First, if we agree that this is part of Engels' philosophy that is Hegelian, then the appropriate name for this article is "Hegelian genocide." Do you want to move the article? Second, you are not exactly correct that Engels "clearly associates specific ethnic groups with extermination" -- it is ALL ethnic groups that would be exterminated in such a revolution. Equating that with genocide is possible but it is not the only reading of this (and certainly most people who identify as "communists" today would reject such an interpretation). Third, even if you are right about all of these things, basing an article about "communist genocide" on this one obscure article from Engels (which never actually uses either word) is still a massive SYNTHESIS violation. We keep coming back to this. As for changing the name of the article, I have already supported such suggestions, "mass killings by communist regimes" or something of the sort would be much better than this. But with such a change, comments like this about something Engels said in 1849 would have to go. That, or we open things up and have a litany of back and forth on both sides of the argument (such a page, I think, would be an even bigger nightmare than this one). csloat (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you aren't serious about the "Hegelian genocide" name change. However, I do think it would be a good idea to rename the article, for the sake of consensus. I encouraged the discussion to that end earlier on this page, and previously on the deletion review page.

As for Engels clearly associating specific ethnic groups with extermination at the hands of revolutionaries, I'll quote three places from his article where he says that some but not all nations will or should be wiped out:

"Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary."

"There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution. Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745. Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800. Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos. Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development."

"The Magyars are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will fall gloriously, as the last heroes of the 1848 revolution, and only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations [referring to the Sonderbund nations], down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."

But even if I am right about all these points, yes, basing an article called "communist genocide" on this one obscure article from Engels (which never actually uses either word) would be a massive synthesis violation. True. But that is not the situation here. This article is not based on this one article from Engels. It is supported, in part, by a passage from a book which cites Engels' article to make a larger point that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide". It is that larger point which is relevant to the wikipedia article (although I doubt it should be in the lead section). And, if we were to change the name of the article to "Mass killings by communist regimes" or something similar, the passage from Watson certainly could be kept in an appropriate section, with an appropriate context given. "Mass killings" is a more inclusive phrase than genocide, not less. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All we can say is that Watson has an unusual opinion that is disputed by other scholars of communism. Leaping from "Engels wrote one article that can be read as supporting genocide" to "communism demands genocide" is a pretty idiotic leap of logic, as many scholars have pointed out -- if you look up the actual quote (not the "racial trash" mistranslation) in google books you'll find a number of books that discuss this essay and argue that this essay does not even represent "communism." (Which is rather obvious, given that it is Hegelian through and through). Again, the best this gets us to is a theory of Hegelian genocide, which you agree is laughable. In any case, I think this quote can stay if there was a section titled something like "Does Marxist theory require mass killings?" where various published views on the question are put in dialogue, but I think it is a severe POV violation to have this quote placed here with no response as if it were an obvious, unproblematic, uncontested point. csloat (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing actually ... you stated that "This article is not based on this one article from Engels. It is supported, in part, by a passage from a book which cites Engels' article to make a larger point" -- That is actually part of the problem. Read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." That's the whole problem with this essay. Watson's reading of Engels is being used to "support" the article's conclusion "in part." In order to get to the article's conclusion -- a verifiable and well established concept called "communist genocide" -- Watson's comments must be put into conversation with other sources that they are not already in conversation with. These various sources together are then used to stitch together an argument -- Watson accuses Engels of genocidal thoughts, Harry Wu compares Nazi concentration camps to Soviet gulags, John Gray speaks of the genocide of the Kalmucks, NAthanial Weyl writes of "political aristocide," etc. These general quotes (which are at least related in some thin way) are used to establish the basis for a laundry list of deaths attributed to various governments which are alternatively described as "communist" "socialist" "democratic peoples regimes" etc. Then we have legal charges, supposedly of a crime of "communist genocide" even though there is no law in the world outlawing "communist genocide" specifically. Then the denial laws (which are not about a "concept" of "Communist genocide" but about specific historical events) are thrown in for good measure. To conclude that all of these sources are connected by way of a theory of "communist genocide" that dates back to an article by Engels in 1849 is a synthesis. csloat (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Communism as a topic in general is controversial. Even today it has its defenders. That a negative assertion, such as the one Watson makes, is disputed says next to nothing about its merit. And despite your distortion, Watson's logic is hardly idiotic. Your logic about "Hegelian genocide", on the other hand, is baffling. And ironic, considering that it would be the most blatant example of WP:NEO, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I have ever seen. The phrase is virtually unknown. It gets zero hits on google books[19], zero hits on google scholar[20], and one hit on google web search[21] (from Uncyclopedia, no less). About looking up the "residual fragments of peoples" quote in google books, can you provide some examples showing that the Engels essay was about something other than communism? Was he writing about some other "world revolutionary storm"? If you have proper sources which argue that communism was incidental to all the mass killings, then I could support including them.

But to say that the quote is synthesis because it makes a larger point about marxism requiring genocide based in part on Engels' essay is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept. Sources are supposed to engage in synthesis within themselves, that's what they do. Every source synthesizes information within itself to create new content. WP:SYNTH prohibits wikipedia editors from engaging in synthesis of their own by combining sources to say something not said in either one. Using the quote from Watson's book does not make any point other than the one it makes by itself: Therefore it is not synthesis. (And I did not write that the source supports part of the point of the article. I was saying that the article has many supports, of which this is one.)

On the other hand, it has been clear to me since the deletion debate that the title of the article is far too restricting and subject to misinterpretation to fairly represent the concept actually being discussed: Mass killing by communists. I proposed changing the name then, and I still support it. I won't be making any more edits to the article until that issue is resolved, although I notice as of this writing that the Watson quote has been removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So you really don't get my point about Hegelian genocide. Your agreement that it would be an absurd category only supports my argument. If you thought I was serious about creating such a category, you've been missing most of the discussion here. And go ahead and use google books as I suggested to look up that phrase rather than asking me to interpret it for you -- better to stick with reliable sources, methinks. The point is, Marxist scholars who discuss that essay argue that Engels is much more Hegelian than Marxian in it. Which makes sense if you've actually read any Hegel. You're also missing my point about synthesis (or perhaps you're creating a straw man?). Obviously I'm not saying that it is synthesis if the claim is in the source (be it Watson, Engels, or Hegel). But it IS synth when you combine this quote from Watson with a quote from a newspaper headline inaccurately describing a war crime someone is charged with and argue that they are talking about the same thing. Anyway, you're right this debate is somewhat academic since we're hopefully changing the name of the article and the Watson quote was removed by someone else for more basic issues of expertise. csloat (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me just add that in regards the Watson quote, my point isn't about whether Watson is right or wrong in his reading of Engels; just that many scholars disagree with him about that interpretation or about the connection of that essay to the overall project of "communism"; if we do include this view we should also include opposing views, and we should not pretend that this is an open and shut case on the relationship between "communism" and "genocide" (or mass killing or whatever). So a separate section discussing this as a disputed question is far better than a quote cited as if it were fact. csloat (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to be done arguing on this point. To end on an up note, I find nothing objectionable about your second paragraph. Hopefully we can make this right after the article is renamed. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Here's a quote from WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
Here you go: there are citations provided by the sources in the article:"The scale of communist genocide is overwhelming, and it will be years before all the information about these atrocities is processed and disseminated" and the second :"Soviet and communist genocide and mass state killings, sometimes termed politicide, occurred in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and the People's Republic of China", etc. in other words , there is nothing about "combined material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" here. The whole article is written according to the sources and there is still no reasoning given to justify the WP:SYNTH tag.--Termer (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are these two quotes only in the footnotes if you think they are so important? It is nice we finally dig up some quotes that directly use the phrase, but neither of them define it or indicate it is anything other than genocide by communist regimes. The first one says little - can you please provide the context so we know what the author is talking about? A specific genocide? Or "communist genocide" as a concept? The second does not specifically isolate "communist genocide" but rather "Soviet and communist genocide and mass state killings" -- and then adds "sometimes called politicide" -- so is "politicide" equal to "communist genocide" or to "soviet and communist genocide" or to "soviet and communist genocide and mass killings"? And why isn't this page just merged here if that's what we're actually talking about? It turns out that (at least according to google books) that one page is the one time either the term "politicide" or the phrase "communist genocide" is ever used in the book. How can we say we are dealing with an objective concept that deserves an encyclopedia entry when it is used in such a haphazard manner? Making a concept out of this is the essence of original research. csloat (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can easily say that by clicking at the links that would take you to google books print pages and read the entire chapters written on the subject. And it doesn't matter what you call it, it's a matter of an opinion, "genocide" or "politicide" or "mass killings", there are enough books publisihed on the subject, the deaths of 60-100 people committed by communist regimes. There is no synth of any kind here.--Termer (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No; what you can do is click to books that have entire chapters that happen to use the phrase once in a haphazard way. Inferring anything more from this is original research. And if "it's a matter of opinion" then that needs to be stated clearly here rather than pretending we are dealing with facts. And if it doesn't matter what you call it, how can we even agree what "it" is? csloat (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't attempt to confuse the facts with opinions. the facts are the systematic killings committed by the communist regimes that resulted 60-100 million deaths. Opinion is what you want to call it, either "genocide" or "politicide" or "mass killings". Do you think it makes a difference? I don't. Those are opinions, bt the facts are written down in the books and in the article that you keep ignoring.--Termer (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think such things make a difference, you probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia. Can you indicate which article you think I "keep ignoring"? I've addressed several of them now and you haven't made a case yet. csloat (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a case yet? that is not my intention. The case is well made only by *Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. pp. 91–151. ISBN 0801472733. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) and the rest of the sources provided in the article that in no way constitute anything close to unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.--Termer (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, as it turns out, that is exactly what they constitute, at least as presented here. If you don't understand this, go back and read WP:SYN, and then re-read my arguments above. Thanks, csloat (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did read Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources again, and...did read the article and the sources provided again; and the article here reaches only conclusions stated by the sources, and the article is based on the sources, therefor there is no WP:SYN here.--Termer (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And I asked you at least a half dozen times now to identify the sources that specifically define "communist genocide" in the manner used in this essay. So far you have refused to do so other than to cite a single book over and over in an increasingly hysterical tone. Again, you have yet to make the case. csloat (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry according to csloat's narrow definition of WP:SYNTH, putting different sources which discuss the same topic together in one paragraph is WP:SYNTH. No conclusions or comparisons or juxtapositions are drawn which are inappropriate to a fair and accurate representation of the sources. That csloat goes on ad nauseum attempting to build a case rather points to its tenuousness and lack of basis in sources. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My definition of WP:SYNTH is not narrow; It comes directly from this page: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I'm not proposing a ban on the use of multiple sources; only on the use of multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That's the problem here, and the definition of synthesis is not at all vague or subjective. csloat (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

category?

We should not make up bogus categories just to make some kind of point about a dispute on this page. I reverted the category here because the original categories, "communism" and "genocide", make more sense than a WPSYN category "communist genocide." What reliable source connects all the things linked to that category under that phrase? csloat (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The category is now up for deletion. csloat (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC/politics: "Mass killings" or "Genocide"?

Should an article that deals with incidents in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed for their political stance/beliefs be named "genocide" or "mass killings/mass muder"? (Note: request comes from an uninvolved user. None of the participants on the talkpage doubts that these murders took place and that they were horrific and unjustified. Do not participate in this discussion to be an apologist or to deny these facts. The question is solely about terminology.) Seb az86556 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• As I have indicated, I support replacing “genocide” in the title with something such as “mass homicide” or mass killings” or “mass exterminations”, but including a section in the body discussing the question of whether these killings were in fact genocides. I understand that those pushing for “genocide” are acting in good faith, and that it may be hard to distinguish those who are simply trying to be precise from those who are trying to white-wash the association of communism to these atrocities. —SlamDiego_←T 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would support the change; "genocide" is a very specific term that doesn't apply in most of these cases at all. I disagree about having a section discussing whether they are "genocides" unless there are reliable sources that directly speak to the existence of such a debate (in which case both sides of the debate must be fairly represented). The sources cited in the article do not even hint at the existence of such a discussion. csloat (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The determination of how much coverage is given to the view that some of these killings were genocidal versus opposing views is to be determined by the representation of views in “reliable sources”, regardless of whether some editor on either side finds the results “fair” or not. —SlamDiego_←T 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree - sorry if I implied otherwise. What I meant by "fairly represented" is precisely that Wikipedia reflect what reliable sources state, not that we try to impose some kind of phony balance on a one-sided debate. Unfortunately there are apparently *no* reliable sources that suggest that such a debate exists, so I don't see how we can represent one here without synthesizing research. csloat (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support the change, as per the above. The alternative would be to limit the scope of the article to covering incidents for which there are reliable sources characterizing them as genocide. --Anderssl (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: There is already an ongoing discussion about name change on this page. These two discussions should be seen in connection with each other, especially since there seems to be some will of compromise in both of them. --Anderssl (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment What is the suggestion? Don't see any clear alternatives to the current title. Also, please undrestand the difference between Genocide vs. genocide. The first refers to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, out of which the former Soviet Union as a member of the UN security council vetoed out the mass killings of social groups, and that's why the mass killings of social groups are not considered Genocide according to the UN convention. The second, 'genocide' is a word in the dictionary that simply means "–noun the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.". This article is about the genocide committed by totalitarian communist regimes, not about a Crime of Genocide according to the UN convention. So what seems to be the problem? As this article is titled 'Communist genocide', not 'Communist Genocide'.--Termer (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion being considered here is "mass killings" as opposed to "genocide." csloat (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist mass killings? there are some sources that speak about the subject and call it "Communist mass killings" + some anti-Communist mass killings, by referring to the killings of Anti-communists , by the communists. In case this change of title helps consensus building, I support the suggestion.--Termer (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that's terrible too. Mass killings under Communist regimes, perhaps. Or even genocides under communist regimes, as support was building for above, as long as we limit the article to actual genocides. But we need to stop reaching for a simple neologism here since there isn't one with actual currency in a body of literature. csloat (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if we generalize this to "Mass killings" then it wasn't only "regimes" who engaged in these but also various movements that never succeeded at grabbing power. Then there are more complicated cases as for instance the killing of moderate socialists and anarchists by the Stalinists during the Spanish Civil War.radek (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a feature, not a bug. If it's simpler to figure out what kinds of events belong on this page and which don't, that's a good thing. Surely there must be a page on Stalinism or on the Spanish Civil War where such items might be relevant. csloat (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As I showed above in section 'intent', legal intent cannot be shown for alleged genocides in this article. The article must explicitly deal with the subject as one in which a legal basis does not exist, sources and claims are partisan, and the term is not supported by consensus among historians. I cannot support this article in any other form, and support the name change only in that it is a step towards making this state of affairs more clear. Anarchangel (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

a legal basis does not exist? Please read the article and it's sources, in a number of countries 'communist genocide' is defined by the law. Wikipedia's purpose is to educate it's readers, not to hide facts.--Termer (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please first quote a definition of "communist genocide" in law from any country of your own choosing. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Always ready to help, please see Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Czech_Republic § 261a on 'nazi or communist genocide'--Termer (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already noted that the UN condemned the law as incoherent. This article isn't Law Against Support and Dissemination of Movements Oppressing Human Rights and Freedoms (2001). As such, this is not about § 261a of the Czech Republic's legal code: it is about the phenomenon here presented – as in the title of our page – as "communist genocide." As far as I know, the Czech code does not attempt to define it. You've asserted that it does. Please let me take a look at your definition, please. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

the UN condemned the law as incoherent? Really, why don't you add this fact by referring to any WP:RS to Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Czech_Republic then? --Termer (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Termer, the UN's conference on elimination of racial discrimination condemned it in this publication from as recently as 2008, noting that the Czech Republic's representatives have been unable to explain it and that it confuses genocide with class struggle, plainly labeling it "abbhorent": [22]. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but you're sorely mistaken if you're citing that as a law against "communist genocide." Read it please. csloat (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussion above and what exactly have I said. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, done. Again, you are sorely mistaken if you think you have cited a law against "communist genocide" or given evidence of "communist genocide" as a legal concept. If you are unable to provide the evidence you've been asked for, it is not helpful to bring up information that seems tangentially related as if that answered the question. See red herring. csloat (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing you just said made any sense to me. And if you think that an intelligent discussion should contain phrases like "you are mistaken", I'm sorry -you are mistaken.:-)--Termer (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I said anything too complicated. You claim to be citing evidence but it isn't really evidence; if you're conceding this, fine, let's move on. csloat (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)This whole article is based on an American extremist view and therefore can never achieve good article status. The Communists invented flouridated water, the Communists infiltrated the PTL PTA (Parent Teacher Associations), the Communists made the Negroes uppity, the Communists have bases in the United States, Eisenhower was a Communist agent, etc. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Observation: Some of the editors most concerned to defend this article are eastern Europeans. I suggest that you revise your model. —SlamDiego_←T 05:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • LOL. The point of view advanced here is extremist, but I note that radek, User:Miacek, and others are Eastern Europeans, while User:Martintg has written of his fascination with Estonia. (All frequently get into edit warring at various Eastern European articles.) So I am, too, not sure who's playing the Eastern European card here – although we could always refer this to the ethnic disputes board, this being an Eastern Europe affair and what not. Incidentally, most of the Western editors who took part in the AFD thought this article a piece of trash worthy of a delete. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Password, given the recent spat over the outing of people's nationalities (and your comments in it) you might want to be a little more careful about discussing "what" other editors "are" - in general, you might want to be avoid discussing editors (and making false claims of edit warring, again, given your own record here) and discuss content. Please see here [23].radek (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not much of an outing if the "what" is something that you really openly self-identify as, and my comments are quite legit. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to myself. And no, GENERALLY, discussing editors rather than content is not "legit".radek (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To follow up on something that Anarchangel wrote. It is not just legal "intent" it also needs to be show that the group attacked was one of the protected groups under the Genocide Convention. One of perceived deficiencies of the Genocide Convention is that Stalin successfully removed political groups as mentioned in the 1946 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96 ("when racial, religious, political and other groups have been destroyed, entirely or in part") -- see Genocides in history#Genocides in history#Dirty War in Argentina -- Which means that if the group is not one of the protected groups "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" and the intent was not to destroy one of those groups (even though by intentionally destroying a political grouping a national group was also destroyed), then it is not genocide but it may still be a crime against humanity. The problem is that before the cases over the events in Bosnia (See List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions, and Bosnian Genocide Case), legal scholars had different opinions of the precise meaning of genocide as defined in the Genocide Convention, which means most authors who had little to no legal training, tended not to understanding the finer nuances of the Genocide Convention. So as a rule of thumb one can probably discount any paper written before the Radislav Krstic case (1998) which claims a communist genocide took place without using one of the alternative genocide definitions (for an example of such a use see Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). --PBS (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• • While if would be perfectly appropriate to report in the article whether these killings were prohibitted by the Genocide Convention, that is a somewhat different issue than whether they were, in fact, genocides. The UN (which is, ultimately, an association of states) can chose what it will and will not denounce or against which it will otherwise act, but neither it nor any other state body should be accepted as some sort of legitimate Minitrue, allowed to reörganize our concepts at its convenience. (Given that Big Brother was largely modelled on Stalin, the perversity of allowing him to determine the definition here would be profound.) —SlamDiego_←T 11:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your paranoid anti-UN fantasy aside, where would an alternative definition to one with worldwide consensus be found? I suggest that the UN is the best that can be found, but I am curious to see if there is another. Perhaps you can state it without styling faith in the UN as an Orwellian plot, though. Anarchangel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot conduct yourself without personal attacks, then you will be blocked from participation. Meanwhile, world-wide consensus wouldn't be achievable in any case, and is not wanted for the English language definition of “genocide”. It may be that an appropriate consensus also cannot be found there. In case you'd not noticed, I've been arguing that we need a section discussing the debate over whether these killing should be called “genocide”; in such a section, any distinctions amongst the uses by educated laypersons, by scholars, and by lawyers could be noted. —SlamDiego_←T 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

To add to what SlamDiego is saying, let me restate my comment from the category discussion page:

Per the article on Genocide and the UN definition given there a "genocide" does not necessarily involve an "ethnic group" (though there were instances of communists targeting these) but also religious and national groups. Additionaly, per Genocide definitions in many uses "genocide" involves a "class of people", or it is a "the deliberate destruction of physical life of individual human beings by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such", or it is the successful attempt by a "dominant group" to reduce a less powerful group (these groups not nec. being ethnic), or it could be a "a structural and systematic destruction of innocent people by a state bureaucratic apparatus", or, noting the complexities, it involves the attempt to liquidating or exterminatory actions against" political groups, and so on.

Perhaps the best one I think from purely NPOV point of view is this:

Genocide is a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator. (my emphasis).

Insisting on a super-narrow definition here (more narrow than the one adopted by UN and far far more narrow than adopted by many respectable scholars) simply in an attempt to get rid of this uncomfortable category violates Wiki policy on NPOV - NPOV is supposed to represent the spectrum of mainstream opinion, not the (narrow) extreme.radek (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" and who was responsible for getting the Genocide Convention through the UN, used the term "Soviet genocide" extensively, see e.g. this article in the Journal of Genocide Research [24]. (The difference between "Soviet genocide" and "Communist genocide" is trivial and I hope nobody would lower themselves to claim that they are different things) It's clear that Lemkin was writing about the same things that are written about in this article, e.g. "Soviet Genocide in Ukraine." (See article in Journal of International Criminal Justice ) The article about Lemkin in JGR makes it clear that Lemkin had different views on genocide than many people and that he made some mistakes of fact. Nevertheless, even if Lemkin was completely wrong (which I don't think that he was) the subject of Communist (or Soviet) genocide could be an article based on Lemkin's views and observations alone. Smallbones (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes across as too forward – but did you even read the Weiss-Wendt piece in your link? Not only was any genocide by the Soviet Union acknowledged by the convention, but nowehere does it say that he used the term. Moreover, the author even contends that Lemkin used unreliable information to talk of genocide:

Not even at the time of Lemkin’s death in 1959 did the western world have a clear picture of the extent of political purges and ethnic deportations carried out by the Stalin regime. Most, if not all, information came from the recent emigrants from East Central Europe and from occasional journalist accounts. The evidence thus acquired was ridden with inaccuracies, exaggerations, and sometimes distortions.

That was also the only kind of information Lemkin had at his disposal. Lemkin tended to substitute the word “Soviet” for Russian, implying that ethnic Russians benefited from deportations.6 Lemkin used to talk about the “Russian practice of genocide,” which he explained through the Soviet fear of encirclement.7 He contended that the Russians decided to destroy a quarter of the population of East Central Europe for they were incapable of “digesting a great number of people belonging to a higher civilization.”8

According to Lemkin, genocide was taking place in almost all East Central European countries. As a proof, he referred to the Vatican Radio broadcast from July 1950 that announced 10,000 priests missing in the territories overtaken by the Red Army. With regard to the Baltic States, Lemkin claimed that substitute husbands were imported from Siberia for the destitute widows whose spouses had been deported!9 An article in Pravda from spring 1941 supposedly exposed the Soviet intent to commit genocide against the Baltic people; the article cited the Russian Tsar Peter the Great who claimed a mistake for letting the inhabitants of the Baltic area stay there.10 In the midst of the Cold War, fabulous stories like these found a receptive audience worldwide.

and driven by political anti-communism and his own sense of personal desperation, since Lemkin was trying to get the obviously reluctant United States to sign on to the Genocide Convention:

By ratifying the Genocide Convention or by indicting the Soviet Union for genocide, the United States would have exposed itself to similar allegations. In accordance with the basic principle of American diplomacy, the US opposed anything that the USSR favoured.23 The fact that the Soviet Union ratified the treaty (in May 1954) ruled out a possibility of any serious discussion in the United States regarding the future of the Genocide Convention. The American Bar Association, an influential organization with a strong anti-Soviet agenda, felt apprehensive of frivolous allegations of genocide if the United States ratified the convention, and therefore recommended against it.24 Lemkin realized that without the participation of the United States, the Genocide Convention remained a dead letter. In his desperate attempt to resuscitate the treaty, Lemkin resorted to what he, correctly, recognized as the defining feature of American foreign and domestic policy at that time—anticommunism.

PasswordUsername (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lemkin used the term "Soviet genocide" extensively (see e.g. "Soviet Genocide in Ukraine." Journal of International Criminal Justice ) The Journal of Genocide Research [25] makes the same point. Now, as I understand it, you are saying that he didn't have all the facts and that he was politically motivated, so that we can't have an article on the concept. It doesn't follow. Given that the coiner of the term "genocide" accused the Communists of genocide, I submit that there can be an article on the concept, whether he was right or wrong. It's a notable concept, and there is evidence to back up the accusation (e.g. mass killings). Now, we disagree, but please don't put in such a screed again in an RfC. We are allowed to disagree in an RfC, but "did you even read the Weiss-Wendt piece in your link?" comes awfully close to being a personal attack. Smallbones (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have a lot less trouble with the term "Soviet genocide" than "Communist genocide" since it actually focuses on the actions of a specific political institution rather than those of a nebulous ideology. It's a lot easier to make the case that "Soviet genocide" is not a synthesis of sources. csloat (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting declaration about the non-existent "communist genocide" by Michael Shafir (historian and political scientist of Romanian origin, noted contributor to RFE before 1989, thus can't be blamed for Communist sympathies; already quoted in the article): "[...] for a scholar, the term genocide has today a very exact definition. The definition was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and, of course, can be enhanced with the condition of discussion. But to use the term "genocide" when you are dealing in fact with crimes against humanity, which are something else, cause confusion. Nowhere in the communist system can we speak of the intention to destroy a nation in its entirety. There have been genocidal aspects, but this must be explained first and the term should be used accurately. [...] The use of expressions such as "genocide of the intellectuals" creates a conceptual discomfort for the specialist in social sciences or, if he is in a good mood, makes him laugh.". Replying to the reporter asserting a "metaphorical" use of the term "genocide": "In a scientific report that has no place. Metaphor has no place in history." When the reporter points out the supposed minor importance of the term in the study of Communist regimes: "It's not [minor] for a scholar. When someone speaks of genocide, I want to know what we are talking about is genocide and not something else. I send students home when they present such a paper". Full interview in Romanian Anonimu (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Anonimu, for that useful and informative posting. To follow up on the postings made by SlamDiego an radek to my initial posting to this page. It is not to Wikipeia editors to decide on a definition. But if a claim is made that a genocide occurred then sources of the claim should be cited and the definition that they are using (as is done in Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). If the source does not define what he or she means by genocide and only makes the claim then it can probably be dismissed as an unreliable source, because anyone who is making a serious scholarly point will be well aware that there are a number of different meanings for the word genocide and would know that they need to define what they mean by "genocide" before using the word. --PBS (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support."Mass killing" is much less objectionable than "genocide", which is ambiguous due to the UN legal definition being specifically designed to exclude the kind of killing the soviets engaged in. Mass killing is broad enough to include all the various terms used to describe the different events: democide, politicide, class genocide, marxist genocide, socialist genocide, communist genocide, red holocaust, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmateurEditor (talk • contribs) 20:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - just move it to "Communist mass killings".radek (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion

Can we just look at the Oxford English dictionary, or some other similar source whose reliability is not in doubt; look up the term "genocide"; and determine if this article meets that definition? I think the conversation above delves much too deeply into the political implications of the word. Is the dispute over whether the people killed during these time periods actually belonged to some coherent group? As in, "dissenters?" If the definition necessitates that the victims belong to an immediately identifiable group, perhaps its not appropriate. I think there are multiple disputes going on simultaneously and I'm having trouble parsing them out. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Zuckermann

I removed the following from the lead:

Totalitarian communist regimes took the violent "class struggle" described by Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto to its most virulent incarnation, that of genocide, giving "the world the wars and genocides of Lenin, Stalin and Mao." ref Peter A. Zuckerman, Beyond the Holocaust: Survival or Extinction? Chapter 3: "The Fatal Human Flaws". Washington, D.C., 1996, Publisher: H.P.N. /ref

Zuckermann is a fringe source. He's not a historian or political scientist, his background is in business and information technology. The book is published online by a publisher that has only published two other works, and is not affiliated with any university or established academic institution. If this source should be used in the article at all, these concerns must be noted, and this book cannot be cited as fact, as done here. --Anderssl (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The China section

The China section describes a famine, caused in part by bad policies, noting that scholars of famine don't call this a genocide. It needs to either explain how these events are relevant to the topic of the article, giving some reliable sources that state clearly that this was a case of "communist genocide", or the section doesn't belong in this article at all. --Anderssl (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The section may have been purely written. Other than that there are enough sources out there that speak about genocides in communist China. Most known is the case of Tibet of course, but not only. There is a chapter on China about the subjct for example in Encyclopedia of genocide, Volume 1 By Israel W. Charny etc.--Termer (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what does Charnly say? Who is he, what's his background? Who published that book? Are there academic reviews of the book? --Anderssl (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not care whether it is in or not. It was a single sentence, in which the famine, already notable, became more so by its absence. I filled it in. Note that none of the mass killings in this article are called genocides by the consensus of reliable historical scholars, who abide by the definition of genocide given by the UN Convention, so China is not unique in that respect. Anarchangel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, seems like the article needs a chapter on the UN Convention, and on the fact that the USSR as a member of the security council excluded with its VETO vote the 'systematic extermination of social groups' from the convention. Just that nobody has eve excluded this from the word 'genocide' coined by Raphael Lemkin. Also, an opinion on 'The consensus of reliable historical scholars' needs to be clarified in the context. In case anybody want's to challenge the sources that speak about genocide in the context, please take it to WP:RSN. PS other than that, I can see the sources removed from the China section and the whole chapter has been reduced to a some kind of agricultural problem.--Termer (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and create new sections in the article if you want, this section is for discussing the China section. Currently there is nothing in that section indicating that it has been called genocide by anyone, ever. You guys need to come up with some reliable sources and work them into the article (don't just throw out a link here on the discussion page). Those sources need to explain how the famine wasn't just a result of bad policy, but that it was in fact genocide, according to some explicit definition of the term. And you guys need to summarize that reasoning in a sentence or two, and present that summary. --Anderssl (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done it once, but the section and references have been removed. I might return to this later, since there is no point to go along with this edit warring that is going on now.--Termer (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm on the "leftie" side of this, but I'm quite disappointed by the behaviour of other lefties in this discussion. Hope you come back later. --Anderssl (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

George Watson

The insane rants of a literary critic, who has no expertise in the field of history or political science, does not deserve a place in the lead of this absurd article, which should have been deleted long ago. Even his own publisher calls the book "controversial". Johnnypd (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I had not noticed that he was a literary critic. I agree this cuts against his expertise for use as a source here. csloat (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Source [26].radek (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The author of that book did not produce a specialized study of the Great Leap Forward and is not qualified to decide whether that case constituted genocide. If I receive a graduate degree in Chinese studies, for example, I would not be qualified to analyze the history and politics of Iran. Once again, if you do not prove that the Great Leap Forward was genocide by citing the work of a specialist on Chinese history and politics who characterizes the policy as genocide, then the entire section will be removed.Johnnypd (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Sources

I think some editors have not learned how to proper research. The section about Don Cossacks purports that genocide was committed, yet not a single expert on Russian history or someone who has otherwise published a scholarly study on the conflict in the Don has been cited to substantiate these claims. Two experts on the subject I just added repudiate the claims that genocide was committed in this situation. Johnnypd (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

johnnypd

Alright, johnnypd you've just violated 3RR on this article. Please stop reverting other users and discuss potential changes.radek (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Charges of communist genocide

Currently there are no charges of 'communist genocide' in the article, only of 'genocide'. Is there any reason to keep this section in the article? How is it relevant to the article's topic? Also, both the charges have been dropped (or halted). --Anderssl (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The section should be renamed, but what reason is there not to discuss charges, if the article is about communist genocide? Unless there's an article specifically dealing with these charges, where else, exactly, should one put them? PasswordUsername (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Johnnypd, You are on nine edits and counting on Communist genocide. This has been reported to an admin and it is customary in such cases that the editor is blocked (WP:Blocking policy). The WP:3RR rule is a bright line rule, ie any nonconsecutive edit over three nonconsecutive edits is actionable. Please show good faith by stopping. Anarchangel (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnnypd has just been indef blocked as a sock puppet. --Martintg (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis in the lead

The following sentence in the lead should be removed or reworded:

Mass graves in Slovenia – evidence of Yugoslav communist genocide against Nazi collaborators – are being uncovered up to the present day. ref Štor, Barbara. "Post-War Killings: Enter the Bloody History". 2 April 2009. The Slovenia Times. Retrieved 14 August 2009. /ref

This is synthesis because by using the word "evidence" it implies that the term 'Yugoslave communist genocide' denotes an established fact, which it does not - instead it refers to a controversial position supported by some scholars, and criticized by others. (I am of course not referring to the fact that mass killings took place, but that these killings constituted genocide.) In my opinion this sentence does not belong in the lead at all, but since it has already been reverted back and forth we need to agree what to do with it here. Can anyone give a good reason why this should stay? --Anderssl (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a very good reason is that if you remove all such "evidence" what will be left? That will ruin the article beyond repair. (Igny (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Igny, are you trying to be constructive? --Anderssl (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh come one, a little humor? Your honor, I object! Why? Because it’s devastating to my case! Overruled. Good call!

But seriously, even if true as stated, that was a part of the war. Nasty things happened during the war, but calling an execution of the collaborators a genocide? By the way communists participated in many wars and some of the wars were even initiated by the communists. Why don't we have an article on Communist war yet? (Igny (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

It's even worse than that. Where I'm from Communists are said to brush their teeth before going to bed. I'll get started on Communist toothbrushes forthwith. csloat (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Termer has just made Communist war. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist war? War communism is the term you were looking for perhaps?--Termer (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No I am talking about communist war as in here. (Igny (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Does the source even refer to it as "communist genocide"? Are "Nazi collaborators" a protected class now? csloat (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The only mention of genocide in the source is this:

“ Crimes from the years following 1945 are still unaccounted for and so far, none of the executioners has been brought to trial. There was an attempt in 2005, when a former Slovenian communist leader, Mitja Ribičič was charged with genocide for his role in the killings but the charges were dropped because of lack of evidence. ”

...which basically refutes the claim the source is meant to document: So far, evidence of genocide has not been found in this case. --Anderssl (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this, the section about Slovenia doesn't make much sense. the source says "The victims are believed to be Nazi collaborators" but the text in the article claims "Yugoslav communist genocide against Nazi collaborators" sating as a fact. So much is clear that mass graves have been found, but who were the killed and who were the killers has not been established. So the section on Slovenia should go from the lead.--Termer (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, PasswordUsername as someone who keeps adding the WP:SYNTH tag to the article [27] also works hard to add actual [28] conclusions not explicitly stated by any of the sources into the text. among others things like "commie genocide against Nazi collaborators" [29] and now this original commentary based on a random web site [30] on the internet "about Soviet Union alone, nearly 162,000,000 human beings-a number significantly greater than the entire population of the Russian Federation"? So this is WP:SYN at best indeed. So why do you PasswordUsername keep adding Syth together with synth tags to this article?--Termer (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Termer, I'm not sure why you find the website I included (the ATTIC report) less reliable here than any of the other sources added by others. The population of the Russian Federation is common knowledge, and easily verifiable by reference to any of numerous sources (including Wikipedia). This is not synth – the synth is the concept advanced by the article. Also, there is nothing any more synth about the genocide against Nazi collaborators than anything else here. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The first edit mentioned by Termer [31] is most definitely OR - particularly since the source is talking about Soviet Union and PU is mentioning the Russian Federation. Soviet Union /= Russia. And second, you're comparing the population at a point in time with the number of deaths which occured over 30+ years. A moment of thought would make this obvious.

The second edit mentioned by Termer [32] is an obvious example of violating [33] and as such is simply disruptive. Most notably while the victims in that one particular grave might have been Nazi collaborators, the article does not say that all of the 100,000 victims of post war executions were. Again, this is in fact SYNTH - and incorrect one at that.radek (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

First, the first of the edits: try reading the thing closely. I am not talking about the Russian Federation. I am talking about the victims of Soviet genocide, some 120,000,000 victims according to the source, which also gives an extrapolated figure of 162,000,000 were the communist genocide in the Soviet Union to continue to the present day. This is not WP:SYNTH: both items are found in the source. The present population of the Russian Federation, around 140,000,000-145,000,000 people, is an easily verified fact of common knowledge, and you can get it from Wikipedia. Juxtaposing the material directly in the source with this figure as a comparison, as Wikipedia permits routine calculations.

I have read the source. The source is about victims of Soviet genocide. So why are you adding the population numbers for the Russian Federation, a completely different entity which does not include all the now independent republics? And again - it's illegitimate to compare the number of deaths that occurred over a 30+ year period and a population at a point in time. It's SYNTH. Doesn't belong in there.17:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not synth. Please reread what I have written: the Russian Federation has nothing to do with Soviet genocide, but is simply used as a point of reference to assist the reader in grasping the magnitudew of the figures. Rroutine calculations are explicitly allowed per Wikipedia protocol. Please explain what is synth – and explain why. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

<---I've already explained. Comparing Russia and Soviet Union doesn't make sense (so it's not a good point of reference). Comparing a population at a point in time with the number of deaths over a 30+ period also doesn't make sense (so it's not a good point of reference). Since it's not a good point of reference, the only purpose is to imply something about the number. I mean, why not put compare it to the current population of Fresno, California?radek (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I will address the second point in a more elaborate discussion below. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact I think Termer is right that the strategy employed here seems to be "in order to keep the SYNTH tag, let's add SYNTH material into the article".radek (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This can't be more synth than what the article started out as. Adding sources that actually employ the term "genocide" in regard to what was done by communists is actually a significant dilution of the synth. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how "the article started out as" - all I know that what you're adding is simply designed to make a POINT and is thus disruptive. Yes, the Communists killed Nazi collaborators as well as many innocent people. You're trying to imply that all killed by the communists in Slovenia were Nazi collaborators, which the source DOES NOT say. Synth. Take it out.radek (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your attack here is disgusting. Take it out. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about???radek (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your personal attack – cease! PasswordUsername (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, your edits seem very strange. Before you have argued strongly against the concept of communist genocide, and now you are suddenly adding material claiming that "The number of communist genocide victims, however, is much higher" than previously claimed. Either you have changed your mind, or you are trying to make a point. Which is it? Do you now believe in the concept, or are you adding content that you don't believe in yourself? --Anderssl (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I objected to the article on the basis that "communist genocide" is not recognized by serious historians and that an article about murder/killing/genocide by communists, so long as no tangible connection to communist ideology exists, amounts to a simple WP:POV fork. Others have suggested that we compromise. So I have no problem contributing claims to the article with precisely the same standards employed by the other editors, although I take its existence to be a violation of good policy. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So let me try to get this straight. Because you feel that other editors are not living up to Wikipedia's standards, you have decided to not live up to them either? In other words, you are making edits that you consciously believe to be bad? Or if not, how are we to understand the comment about using the same standards as others? --Anderssl (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Obviously "communist genocide" is not something accepted by the international conventions. This has not prevented Wikipedia from keeping the article. Instead, reliance on alternative definitions of genocide has been made use of – thus, there is a reliance on sources using the appearance of the word genocide to describe communists in this article. I have thus inserted more of these sources. We cannot have a neutral article about a synthesis concept like "communist genocide" as something seriously accepted/recognized by most scholars, because no international court has ruled on any of these cases using the international definition of genocide, nor has a significant number of scholars labeled them as genocide. Are you suggesting that I am simply at fault for editing this article at all? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You honestly don't make much sense. I give up. --Anderssl (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No basis for removing references about genocidal killing of Nazi collaborators

The material on the Nazi collaborationist victims of communist genocide should be reincluded. Anderssl's remark in the objection – viz.,

"This is synthesis because by using the word "evidence" it implies that the term 'Yugoslav communist genocide' denotes an established fact, which it does not - instead it refers to a controversial position supported by some scholars, and criticized by others. (I am of course not referring to the fact that mass killings took place, but that these killings constituted genocide)"

 – as not a significant an objection here, because it is the evidence of mass killing of the collaborators by the Yugoslav communist authorities that prompted the Slovenian government to bring genocide charges against Mr. Ribicic. I find Anderssl's further argumentation in this respect excruciatingly unconvincing: the fact that Ribicic was not found guilty of genocide for lack of evidence against him does not mean that the genocidal killings of Nazi collaborationists did not occur in Slovenia. Many Nazi leaders were acquitted of participation in Nazi genocide at the Nuremberg Tribunal, but this does not furnish evidence that the Nazis did not engage in genocidal destruction of people. As this BBC UK article makes clear [34], Slovenia recognizes as genocide genocidal killings committed against "political or social groups" (Nazi collaborators fall under this sort of genocide definition); this is exactly the basis on which genocide charges brought against Ribicic. In fact, this article essentially gives the rebuttal to Anderssl:

"It is high time to acknowledge these graves - after all, more than 60 years have passed since the Second World War," Lado Eržen, the local community's representative for secret graves at Lancovo, told Reuters.

"Slovenians account for about a fifth of all victims but, so far, none of the executioners has been brought to trial.

"In 2005, a former Slovenian communist leader, Mitja Ribičič, now 88, was charged with genocide for his role in the killings but charges were dropped because of lack of evidence.

"The evidence is being gathered but the fact is that most evidence has been systematically destroyed in the past," Dežman said.

(A similar story is to be found here: [35].) Genocide against political opponents and social groups is not accepted by the UN Genocide Convention, but neither is any of the other instances of killing/famine presented as genocide here. There is no such thing as “communist genocide” according to the UN: the article pretty much is entirely based on alternative definitions of genocide in order to get at this very idea, and the concept of genocide against Nazi collaborators perpretrated by Tito’s communists in Yugoslavia as genocidal violence that was carried out against an anti-communist political group is just as much fair game here. As this other article tells us as well [36], over 540 such sites have been found across Slovenia – those killed were essentially former

"soldiers who collaborated with the Nazis. Most were executed in the woods without trial."

That the communist genocide against Nazis was is supposed to be more controversial than the communist genocide against certain other groups is an assertion that has been presented on this talk page as fact without any evidence. Nowhere did I give it as my personal opinion that Nazi mass graves in Slovenia are to be taken as evidence of genocide – this is simply the matter as viewed by the new history, turning and spinning and obliterating the old narrow notion of genocide. Of course, genocide against Nazi collaborators is considered genocide in Slovenia – this article [37] couldn't be any more clear:

"Mitja Ribicic, a communist official in Tito's Yugoslavia, has been charged in Slovenia with genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators at the end of World War II."

Commodore Sloat has asked whether Nazi collaborators are the new protected class in Slovenia now – however absurd this may sound to some, certainly, in the case of genocide victim-status Nazi collaborators are exactly such. The Slovene historian Joze Dezman has characterized the executions of Nazi collaborators as making Srebrenica look like an "innocent" case by comparison. [38]

I note that both Igny and Anonimu have agreed with me that this information that this claim of genocide against the communists isn't any less adequate than what has been presented here. That some may be offended by what the state of affairs in Eastern Europe is at this time isn't rational evidence for removing the claim, so long as the material in question fits the subject matter suitably, and I welcome whatever discussion points one has to offer in clarifying this issue. Since others support my view that this is the same type of genocide by communism that is described in the article elsewhere, I ask that this material not be removed without further discussion. Consensus building is the way to proceed. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

where exactly does it say PasswordUsername in the source that the victims of those mass killings were "Nazi collaborators"?--Termer (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here: [39]. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not a fact, but an editorial speculation...other than that it works well as an excuse to kill a lot of people. Similar arguments were used by the Stalin's regime against Crimean Tatars who were deported entirely from their original homeland.--Termer (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not an editorial speculation – as it's presented in all of the sources. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Reuters they were not only Nazi collaborators; they were also mostly soldiers. In what way is this "genocide"?? Even "mass killing" implies indiscriminate slaughter, not attacks on uniformed combatants. csloat (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the rise of the the reinvigorated far-right of Eastern Europe for you, csloat! :-) PasswordUsername (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Martintg (who liked this article before I put in the kind of other claims that fall under "communist genocide") has deleted my contributions, let me point out again that there is no synthesis. This source [40] – even better than the other one, actually – puts it very clearly:

"The emotional and strongly ideological attitudes on both fronts clash against the attempts to reconcile the diverse historical memories. Today, an increasingly visible bias against antifascism tends to relativise the responsibilities of nazi-fascism and of its collaborators and to increasingly criminalise the Partisan movement. This may also be due to European silences and even attempts to equate communism and nazism. Recent Slovenian examples include overturning the conviction of the deceased Bishop Rožman and bringing a legal action against ex-partisans such as the famous combatant and politician Mitja Ribicic, under investigation for crimes against humanity as an alleged culprit of the slaughters of domobranci [i.e., the Nazi collaboratos] in the immediate postwar period. No charge against him has yet been proven. However, politicised enquiries in the government controlled mass media, primarily public television, seek to criminalise the liberation movement."

And lest you think this was a minor affair –

'British MP Expresses Regret Over Repatriation of Domobranci - British parliamentarian has expressed regret over the British decision after WWII to repatriate 12,000 Slovenian domobranci (Home Guard), who then became the victims of summary killings by the Partisans.'

"John Austin, the chair of the British-Slovenian All-Party Parliamentary Group, which was on a return visit to Slovenia on Tuesday, expressed his personal regret over the decision of the British authorities to return the Domobranci to Slovenia in the aftermath of the war.

"In response, Mojca Kucler Dolinar of the coalition New Slovenia (NSi), who heads the parliamentary friendship group with the United Kingdom, thanked Austin, a Labour Party MP, for his efforts to see the British Parliament extend its regret for the decision. So far, 60 out of 646 British MPs have signed Austin's initiative aimed at making the parliament acknowledge with regret that after WWII 'Slovenian soldiers were disarmed against their will' and repatriated.

"According to the initiative, published on the website of the British Parliament, the decision of the British authorities to leave these soldiers at the mercy of their political opponents resulted in the loss of 12,000 lives.

"Meanwhile, Austin told reporters in Ljubljana that Slovenia is Great Britain's ally in NATO and a fellow member of the EU, which is why the countries are bound to candour about historical events.

"Kucler Dolinar assessed that such a gesture by the British Parliament would present a substantial contribution to not only clarifying complex historical events but also to the process of democratisation in Slovenia.

"She also labelled the killings of the Domobranci the biggest genocide in Europe after WWII."[41]

PasswordUsername (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In case this is like you claim ....reinvigorated far-right of Eastern Europe, why exactly are you trying to add such fringe stuff to this article? I'm with csloat on this one. In case they were soldiers, like the source says, it would be execution of prisoners of war. This article is about mass killings of civilians. So please stop adding such nonsense to this article PasswordUsername. --Termer (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare this to my claim, which simply discussed the political climate in Eastern Europe. I said that the far-right was reascendant in Europe, and I think that many things feed off political mores. (However, genocide by communist groups is always, I think, brought up by the hard right-wingers.) In this instance, what we have was something that found itself published by reliable sources, and genocide charges appeared in a Slovene court. What makes this fringe? Please do not resort to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because I don't like it either. It's what the sources give, so if my inclusion contains some error (synthesis or what not), do point it out. Meanwhile, if the article is going to make claims about communist genocide elsewhere, then the article should state claims of genocide in this case, also without the censorship. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both csloat and Termer, the view point you are promoting that Nazi collaborators were victims genocides has no place in this article. --Martintg (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between promoting the view as my own and attributing it to other sources. I would suggest that the view you are promoting has no basis in this article, but I suggest you outline why what is reported by sources does not belong given this article's labeling of various acts as genocides instead of resorting to personal attacks. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:genocide by communist groups is always, I think, brought up by the hard right-wingers? So in your opinion the first who brought it up, Raphael Lemkin was a 'hard right-winger'? after all he was the first one claiming in 1951 that -the Soviet Union was the only country that could be indicted for genocide.[42]--Termer (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If Lemkin wrote in 1951 -- after the Holocaust, after the Armenian genocide -- that the Soviet Union was the only country guilty of genocide, then he is a fool. csloat (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're really grasping at straws here. I've already pointed out below that Lemkin had a very poor awareness of the conditions in the USSR – this aside from being politically motivated, as he wanted the U.S. to ratify the Genocide Convention during the climate of the 1950s. This isn't my interpretation: it's cited in the piece by Anton Weiss-Wendt, who clarifies the situation rather well. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying the mass killings by the Communist regimes resulting 60-100 million deaths never happened? And Anton Weiss-Wendt opinions on Lemkin's motivations are right and Raphael Lemkin was wrong and made everything up?--Termer (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

+Note Termer's argument here is hypothesizing genocide denial. Anarchangel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice strawman, but NO, that's not what he's saying at all. NickDupree (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

strawman. is that right? I read that according to PasswordUsername genocide by communist groups is always, I think, brought up by the hard right-wingers and Lemkin had both a very poor awareness of the conditions in the USSR.. and was...politically motivated. So please correct me of I'm wrong NickDupree but the way I'm reading this, according to PasswordUsername, whoever brings up 'genocide by communist groups' is either a hard right-winger and/or simply someone who has very poor awareness of the conditions in the USSR but is politically motivated. If this doesn't say 'genocide by communist groups' is simply either ignorance driven by political motivation or just anti-communist propaganda, sorry but what I read out of it->the 60-100 million deaths never happened. Feel free to help me out in case I got it all wrong. thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

+The straw man vanishes briefly, but only long enough for Termer to defend another argument in its place. It's still just the two arguments: opponents are holocaust deniers and are using personal attacks, but the shell game keeps you hopping around. Ignore this malicious prevaricator, and let's get back to renaming the article. Anarchangel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very poor logical structure, because you are presuming that "60-100 million deaths" = "ZOMG -- communist genocide". Nobody said the deaths didn't happen. The question is whether they are referred to as genocide or simply deaths due to the actions of the governments in question, agricultural conditions, etc. The concept of genocide in these cases is something that is simply advanced by right-wing writers as a very predictable phenomenon I have come across. (Except in the case of Pol Pot – yes, he is described as genocidal across the spectrum.) PasswordUsername (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never presumed that "60-100 million deaths" = "ZOMG -- communist genocide". It was Lemkin who called it genocide, remember? For me personally genocide is a word in the dictionary meaning: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.--Termer (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to my remarks on genocide, you wrote the following:

"So you're saying the mass killings by the Communist regimes resulting 60-100 million deaths never happened?"

This sure makes it sound like you just said that "600-100 million deaths = ZOMG communist genocide." Your dictionary.com reference doesn't help much. It's already been established that political deaths do not count under the international genocide convention. Nowhere has it been shown that those who died under communism were members of deliberately targeted groups. Incidentally, it seems the definition you're offering suggests that Nazi collaborators can be classed as victims of genocide as a group. But, if I'm not wrong, you sort of seemed to take offense when I brought up reliable sources from others for just this sort of thing in the case of Slovenia. Am I reading this right? PasswordUsername (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not offering any definitions here, the definitions come from either the dictionary or Lemkin, and a number of other sources that speak about the subject -communist genocide. Another thing I'm still not getting, why do you keep mixing up the Genocide Convention with the word 'genocide'? I really don't care about the semantics, if you insist, the article Communist genocide could be renamed the way your preferred to call the killings: "simply deaths due to the actions of the governments in question, agricultural conditions", and feel free to work on the idea of Communist genocide of the Nazi collaborators that you keep bringing up. happy editing!--Termer (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I've addressed you. The genocide convention is inextricably mixed up with the semantics of "genocide" – its common meaning refers to the deliberate annihilation of a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group. I am still not sure why you want an article to focus on communist killings. If you are interested in having a full-length article regarding the Anti-Nazi genocide by communists, be bold! PasswordUsername (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Surprising words from PasswordUsername since they appear to be among those appearing to wish to (my perception only, of course) stamp out of anti-Communist and anti-Soviet POV and forks thereof. Summary executions of soldiers captured by the Soviets, summary Soviet executions of the nationals of other countries—any acts directing death at a particular group or using death as an instrument to the detriment of any group—all qualify as genocide. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What's surprising, 'crumba? My sarcasm in answer to Termer's remark? PasswordUsername (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, You're saying the mass killings -Communist genocide was not a genocide, and not Genocide according to the UN Convention, yet you'd like to merge this article into Genocides in history [43]?? How does that make sense exactly?--Termer (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I said that we can merge salvageable material about genocide claims into Genocides in history, where presentation of claims based on alternative opinions about genocide is already to be found, explicitly clairified, and not POV-forked. In fact, the lede for Genocides in history explicitly has it that "the following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects." I've never claimed that mass killings = communist genocide, so stop attributing this loaded argument to me, because I do not and never have advanced this argument. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that merger is going nowhere; that discussion is so far from consensus that it's not even funny. What's your plan B? --NickDupree (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between dealing with one POV fork vs. dealing with another. A POV fork is a POV fork – all are equally bad. (A POV for balanced out by an opposite POV fork might be a better situation, but that isn't what's on the table; between Communist genocide and Mass killing by communists there honestly isn't a substantial difference to swing my interest.) PasswordUsername (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Weyl

Nathaniel Weyl is not a suitable reference for genocide studies, and I see no reason why his opinion should be weighted in this article at all. The man is known for his testifying against Alger Hiss, his racist writings, and his spreading of conspiracy theories about John F. Kennedy (of course, nothing less than that JFK' assassination was a communist work carried out by none but Castro himself). I have taken him out accordingly. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of sources in this article is perhaps the most problematic aspect of this article: a literary critic studying political science, people with no specialty on Russian history discussing Russia, the citation of a right-wing Estonian nationalist's propaganda machine called "Communist Crimes Foundation", etc. Johnnypd (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the problem with ridiculous POV forking in a nutshell. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad article. The first sentence contains a major grammatical error. Why not just get rid of it? Silver Pinions (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the grammatical error? Explain, please. --Anderssl (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The term Communist genocide refers to the mass killings carried out by the communist regimes in the former USSR, the Democratic Kampuchea, the People's Republic of China and Ethiopia should be considered genocide or politicide. This sentence has two predicates but no conjunction and uses an article for Democratic Kampuchea. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Would have been faster to fix the grammar error, no? When there are so many inline ref tags it's often difficult to keep track of the sentence when editing. You remind me of my friend's university history professor who would toss term papers out his office window if they had any punctuation errors. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, someone had been messing with the first sentence. I have edited it back to read

“ The term Communist genocide [1] refers to the claim that mass killings carried out by the communist regimes in the former USSR,[2] the Democratic Kampuchea, the People's Republic of China[3] and Ethiopia[4] should be considered genocide or politicide. ”

The word 'claim' need to be in there because it is clearly not an established fact but a controversial claim, as has been made abundantly clear through all the discussion on this page. --Anderssl (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I did not fix the grammatical error because I saw no value in changing an incoherent false statement into a coherent false statement. I actually enjoy the irony of a conspiracy theory introduced by an incoherent statement. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's still a bad article. --Silver Pinions (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately it is precisely those editors who are the most critical of the article who are blocking any move towards improving it. --Anderssl (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

China

I agree that some of the material in this section is superfluous. But I've already provided a source which does in fact refer to the GLF as "genocide" [44], the objections of a notorious sock puppet not withstanding. Please also keep in mind that we are currently discussing whether or not this article should be moved to Mass Killings under which heading the section most definitely belongs in there. Blanking the section before this issue is settled is not helpful.radek (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The source you have provided counts does indeed count the Taiping Rebellion in China as a genocide, but since "The Taiping Rebellion was a large-scale revolt in China from 1850 to 1864" -WP, that is not particularly helpful here. Anarchangel (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't provided the source, you have just thrown a link out on the talk page. This is not a discussion forum. You need to incorporate the claims of that source into the article, as explained above. The name change debate is gridlocked, so for now we should edit the article according to its current title. --Anderssl (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not gridlocked - it's just of the present commentators are not saying anything. Everybody else is supporting the move.radek (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia - willful misrepresentation of sources

Password Username insists on putting "genocide of Nazi collaborators" into the lede and the section on Slovenia, basically, as I've said before to make POINT, which is seen as disruptive on Wikipedia. He doesn't believe that there is such a thing as communist genocide so he seems to be inserting the part about "genocide of Nazi collaborators" to ridicule the concept of this article. Of course, it's fine to think that this article should've been deleted - but it is not ok to engage in disruptive editing to make a POINT. In particular since the source is being misrepresented - the linked article [45] opens up with a description of one particular mass grave which likely contains the bodies of Nazi collaborators. But it then moves into a general discussion of the many mass graves that have been found in Slovenia, noting that so far 100,000 bodies have been unearthed - but it doesn't say at any point that these "100,000 bodies" are that of Nazi collaborators. In fact the article clearly states "Figures differ as well as the opinions on whose all these bodies could be." - so while SOME of those 100,000 are Domobranci, there is nothing in the article which suggests that all of them are - despite what Password is trying to imply here.radek (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I take "willful misrepresentation" as a personal attack, and your having already been warned as a result of WP:DIGWUREN, I'll note that if your level of civility does not rise a bit, you're going to be reported. I didn't say that all 100,000 were Nazi collaborators. I wrote

In Slovenia, where charges of genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators were brought up in legal prosecution of a former communist, mass graves of suspected Nazi collaborators massacred by communists continue to be unearthed.[6][7]

Source 1 says that a former communist official faced charges of genocide for executing suspected Nazi collaborators. Exactly that! Source 2 said that a mass grave, its bodies believed to be Nazi collaborators, had been uncovered and was being investigated.

Where - and exactly where - is my synthesis / OR? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's only one grave that may contain bodies of Nazi collaborators and there's nothing in the article which suggests that the other 100,000 victims that've been found are. Your edits definitely give that misleading impression, whether this is your intention or not.radek (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It says there may be up to 100,000 bodies. Other estimates are much lower. What does this have to do with genocide? The only time where the word "genocide" and "charges" occurs, it occurs either in relation to the Domobranci (ie, the collaborators) or in relation to Ribicic and his killings of Nazi collaborators, e.g., in the first of the two sources used: "Mitja Ribicic, a communist official in Tito's Yugoslavia, has been charged in Slovenia with genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators at the end of World War II." (This is the first reference in the section I added.) Why am I supposed to talk about 100,000 victims, which may or may not exist, when they are not connected to genocide? In fact, nobody even says that the 100,000 bodies that could be uncovered would be victims of communists, since you yourself note that their identities are not certain. All we have is that genocide charges were brought for the execution of suspected Nazi collaborators, and that a grave currently being ivestigated is believed to hold bodies of suspected Nazi collaborators killed by communists. Other bodies may exist, but no genocide charges were brought in connection with them. Who's doing the synth, then? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're the one who added the text with what appears to be a purpose of making a POINT so you should really be the one to answer the question "what does this have to do with genocide"? Let me repeat: there's one grave which is believed to hold the bodies of Nazi collaborators. There's also many other mass graves, however, including the largest mass grave in Europe, but the article does not say these were Nazi collaborators. You're picking out the one grave of Nazi collaborators and leaving out the rest of the article - which is about executions by communists of their political opponents, including but not limited to Nazi collaborators. I don't think personally the entire section should be in the article, but if it stays here, it needs to be rewritten to actually reflect what the source says.

And please keep in mind that you've been warned on Digwuren as well. And while I'm mostly discussing issues here on talk you're reverting right left and center on this and numerous other articles.radek (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any connection in the sources between genocide and bodies that may exist, although the sources make a connection between genocide and suspected Nazi collaborators. That is why I have mentioned recently unearthed mass graves of suspected Nazi collaborators and charges of genocide against a man accused of this for allegedly playing a role summary executions of suspected Nazi collaborators in Slovenia. I can find "suspected Nazi collaborators" in the sources, but I do not see anything in the sources mentioning "political opponents." The article only talks about suspected collaborators: for all we know, most other opponents could have been ignored, disgraced, censored, jailed or converted rather than killed. So do me a favor and actually find this before coming up with the claim that I'm avoiding other political opponents – especially deliberately. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Radek seems unlikely to admit that genocide is not applicable to this. Radek evidences other misbehaviour, and as Password points out, can ill afford to. However, this does not prevent doing the decent thing, against the prevailing wind, and conceding that the victims are not adequately described as Nazi collaborators. 'Communist genocidists' are claiming victory no matter what happens, and half the time, do not even notice, or deign to answer, when a point is made. How is it a loss? Password's edits are distinguished from WP:POINT by not not being disruptive. Whether they are trying to prove a point is therefore irrelevant, and unproven. What is most notable about the addition of phrases such as "(162,000,000) -a number significantly greater than the entire population of the [[Russian Federation-" is not that they are footnotes that burst the preceding balloon, but that the balloonists' only comment on them is that they are POINTY. Anarchangel (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

<-- I'm sorry Anarchangel, but can you explain what kind of "misbehaviour" am I exhibiting, rather than making empty accusations? You might want to check the history of the article page and see how many times I have made edits (not counting reverting what was an obvious sock puppet of Jacob Peters) and how many times you and Password have been reverting. And - LET ME EXPLAIN THIS ONE MORE TIME (hate to shout but I am repeating myself here for the fifth time) - the "number significantly greater" is illegitimate OR because 1) Russia and Soviet Union aren't the same thing and 2) you can't compare population at a point in time and the number of deaths strewn out over 30+ years. So my "only comment" is not that they are just pointy. And I take your calling me names here as a personal attack, in addition to the false accusation you've made and the inaccurate and false presentation of what I've said four or five times already.radek (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Password has made many edits to the page, but I have made five edits, three nonconsecutive, since the page began. I noticed the flaws you pointed out in 'significantly greater' when I read your exchange, so I freely concede that. However, the total population of pretty much anywhere will double in 30 years, if normal deaths are not counted against it, yes? So if the number of deaths attributed to genocide is more than the current population, then genocide must have wiped out more than half the population. Therefore, I still think that evidence is notable.

The title of this section, your repetition of that thesis throughout it, 'insists', 'disruptive editing', 'who's doing the synth, then?'; these are all words and phrases and other behaviour to avoid in discussions. Note that one of my earlier comments in this section was in agreement with your assessment; there needs to be better wording for any inclusion of 'Nazi collaborators', to distinguish the fact that victims proven to be collaborators represent only a small part of the total victims. There are surely other statistics to be considered as well; ie, what percentage of those whose identities are proven do those proven to be collaborators represent? And what percentage of the total victims are those whose identities are proven? Anarchangel (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for turning down the heat, dropping the allegations of "misbehaviour" and actually addressing the issue. Your first paragraph above however is a classic example of what constitutes Original Research (and btw, for a population of "pretty much anywhere to double" in 30 years it has to grow at 2.3% per year - Russia's current pop growth rate is -.5% though that says nothing about what it was in the past. Anyway) We don't have a source which makes the comparison that Password Username is trying to make - and that's essentially because it's an invalid comparison. Note also please that it's wrong for two reasons - the other one being that the Soviet Union had a lot of non-Russian republics which meant, well, a lot more people that could be killed. That's why there's nothing really surprising about the number, despite what PU's OR is trying to imply. This edit simply just doesn't belong in the article.

For the other part - well, the sources don't state, probably because the sources don't know. It's probably just best to leave Slovenia out of it. Isn't that what the people who oppose this article keep claiming? That there's stuff in here that doesn't belong? Isn't this actually a clear cut of example?radek (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A proposal, to try to get this discussion back on track: The sources for the Slovenia section are very weak - a "terrorism news letter" (whatever that is) and a slovenian news website. It should be possible to find more authorative sources - for instance, the official charges in the court case. Probably some historians must have published articles about the case, or at least essays, op-eds etc. Go find those sources instead of discussing endlessly whether some random news article has been misrepresented! Just a friendly suggestion.

Besides that, I'd say this entire discussion has turned into a pretty unproductive quarrel. I suggest that everyone go away for a couple of weeks, cool the heads a little, and come back with a slightly lower level of adrenaline. At least that's what I'm gonna do. See you guys. --Anderssl (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "genocide against suspected Nazi collaborators in Slovenia" nothing more or less than spamming the article with nonsense.--Termer (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC article: [46]. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, the key word there being "suspected". The communists often accused their political opponents of being Nazi collaborators (even, or especially when, those political opponents actually took an active part in fighting the Nazis, but weren't sufficiently leftist (yes they included many leftists too who didn't pass their ideological test or who were too independent thinking)) as an excuse in killing them. There's no reason we should give credence to absurd propaganda claims from the hey day of Stalinism.radek (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Considering that Communism is widely considered to be defeated, it could be much more rewarding to engage in propaganda from the hey day of McCarthyism. (Igny (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Nice non-sequitur. I think there's actually a Russian joke about this kind of stock response. Anyway, as despicable as McCarthyism was, it didn't kill thousands of people.radek (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source cast doubt that those were suspected Nazi collaborators. But for some reason, all of the sources describe them as such. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

external links

Colleagues, There are thousands of various websites, books, and artcles which talk about communist atrocities. Therefore there is nothing "dishonest" in calling only five of them as "random". If they contain important info, please use it in the article and make a reference. If it is a website of a notable organization or scholar, please write a wikipedia article and make a wikilink in "See also" section or in text. Wikipedia is not web directory of internet. It is encyclopedia. A collection of links does not replace a good article. It is already reasonably big. No reason to throw in arbitary external links without explanation what they add to this article. I am surprized I have to explain such basic convetions of wikipedia to long-time contributors. - Altenmann >t 16:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What is Communist genocide?

During the AfD the people arguing to keep this article claimed that there was a specific concept of "communist genocide" that was sufficiently notable to have its own article. The theory was that certain genocides occured as a result of Communist ideology. But there is no mention of this theory in the article and it should be in the lead. Now we have a claim that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was genocide, but no connection with Marxism. We cannot synthesize the allegation of genocide with the fact the the Soviet government was Communist. (Note that Imperial Russia also invaded Afghanistan and post-Communist Russia is engaged in the current war in Afghanistan.)

Normally I would tag or delete any text that was off topic, but unfortunately that relates to the whole article. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article has the section on the Definition. Yet for some unknown to me reason this section also lacks the definition of the "communist genocide". (Igny (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

The term is in use since at least 1958: "Genocide in the USSR: studies in group destruction", [47]. The "unknown to you reason" is very simple: it is very easy to pile up a collection of examples from internet, but it requires a certain effort to go to library and browse scholar books and journals for definition. - Altenmann >t 16:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As the process of Russification started long before Communism, we probably need Tsarist genocide to describe that phenomenon. (Igny (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Let's stick to the topic at hand and what sources refer to when speaking of "communist genocide." VЄСRUМВА  ♪  18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So, basically your way of avoiding the question about the definition of the term is "let us continue to pile up the synthesis of whatever we can dig up on Google on this topic" (Igny (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Rename?

This is an acceptable subject for an article, but the name - 'Communist genocide' - is both rather vague (it could refer to genocides committed by communists or genocides against communists) and ungrammatical (it should be 'communist genocides' - there was more than one). Given that WP:MOSNAME advises us to make our titles as clear as possible, I'd suggest this one be renamed to Genocides in communist countries, Genocides by communist regimes, or something similar. Robofish (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The people defending this article assert that there is a theory that genocide is inherent in Marxist ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is such a theory. In addition there is a theory that the Soviet Union is the corruption of the "true Marxism", and quite a few other theories. - Altenmann >t 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the circus, Robofish. Do not expect much support here as most of the reasonable editors gave up on this, and will ignore this article for a while. Prepare for an onslaught of the oppose votes however. (Igny (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

Please discuss the article text, not the editors. Venting your frustration will not help in improving the article. - Altenmann >t 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Altenmann, there is no mention of any such theory in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

List of countries in the intro

As the article grows, the growing list of "genocidal states" becomes unnecessary in the intro: is prominently seen in the table of contents. Therefore I suggest to remove it from the intro, since the intro is should be a succinct definition of the subject. - Altenmann >t 16:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Communist mass killings"

In the various discussion above I see a good bit of support for moving the article to something like "Communist mass killings" (maybe with "regimes" added in there). I see only one objection by an editor who wishes to keep the article under the current title. So is it okay if the article is moved to "Communist mass killings"?radek (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose See: What Wikipedia is not: Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, et cetera.[48] Since there is not general meaning of "Communist mass killings" the new article will be orginal research. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(I voted opposed earlier so please don't count me twice.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the argument was that this one was OR. And I don't know what you mean that there's no general meaning to "Communist mass killings".radek (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems you have ignored all the arguments about "communist genocide" as synth in coming up with this suggestion. There is already an RfC for a move above. Smallbones has already voted oppose once before, and you can count me voting opposed as well. And there are still more people who've voiced support for a merge instead. And TFD is on target with OR problems. There is no consensus. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The arguments about "communist genocide" is exactly why I'm proposing this merger. But apparently we're back to the fact that this article should not exist and so if we can't have it deleted it must be littered with all the "bad" tags we can find.radek (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Communist mass killings" would have the same tags – 'specially as far as the synth (as I just 'specially pointed it out now). Thanks for assuming good faith! PasswordUsername (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this is only slightly better than the current OR term. What happened to Mass killings under Communist regimes which solves the OR problem and gives everybody a baseline agreement about what we're actually talking about? csloat (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Mass killings under Communist regimes (though I think it unnecessarily limits the scope - but, hey, compromise and all that). So would PU and Four Deuces support the move to that?radek (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Even Mass killings under totalitarian Communist regimes does not limit the scope in any way. Moreover, mass killings under totalitarian regimes would actually widen the scope. (Igny (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Well, you're right, since "totalitarian Communist regimes" is like a triple-redundancy. "Totalitarian regimes" would be broader - too broad in fact.radek (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see the connection now. In nearly all cases genocides required totalitarianism of some sort, lots of academic sources linked these two. Now some of the Communist regimes happened to be the totalitarian regimes which allegedly committed genocide. And based on this, you just attempt to skip a logical step and link the genocides to the communist ideology directly by synthesizing the sources. Don't you think that your view that Communism is totalitarian genocidal regime is in any way biased? (Igny (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Right. "Allegedly". And to answer your question, no.radek (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - nothing anybody says will please the genocide deniers - that's reason enough to oppose. Smallbones (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Any interest in Denial of communist genocide? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones, no one wants to deny that genocide has occured in the modern world. The question is whether communist genocide should be a separate topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I see no reason to milquetoast a title to appease those who would rather just delete the entire article (my perception). With regards to usage of the term, that is, NOT perception, books.google.com returns 409 matches for "communist genocide" and 80 for "communist mass killing" (4) plus "communist mass killings" (10) plus "communist mass murder" (45) plus "communist mass murders" (21)--some of those including "anti-communist mass...". "Communist genocide" is clearly the preferred scholarly use. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was not a vote, just a discussion on a compromise to get rid of the SYNTH accusations/violations. But if you feel that it is beneficial for Wikipedia's credibility to have such POV/SYNTH/TROLL articles, that is fine by me, I am patient to wait until the next AfD. (Igny (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

Other than the accusation itself, I see no evidence of WP:SYNTH. That would require, for starters, that "communist genocide", the term and the topic, not be already widely discussed in scholarly sources. That is completely not the case. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Communist mass killings" is a very vague title, and we will have a yet another article which is nothing but a collection of killings. I would rather suggest to create List of communist crimes against humanity or something, which would be a list of wikipedia articles, speaking for themselves, without unreferenced editorializing or repetitions what was already said in many other places. - Altenmann >t 22:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my cranky edit summary earlier. "Genocide" is a very specific title, used in scholarly sources, I see not reason to not use it. Also, jumbling genocide with "lists of bad things" is a bad editorial idea in general. We do not delete article on other genocides discussed in Wikipedia articles and subsume them into larger "lists of bad things." Why is communist genocide a special case meriting not being called exactly what it is and exactly how it is discussed in scholarly sources? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want be "very specific", the article has to stick to strict definition of "genocide. Unfortunately, many people use the term "communist genocide" in wider sense. So we have a dilemma here: on one hand wikipedia must reflect common usage, on the other hand you have yet to provide a scholar definition of "communist genocide". Please don't belittle my suggestion with the term "other bad things": "crimes against humanity" are not simply "bad things", they are "VERY bad things", and listing them in one place, with summaries is reasonable. We have varuious lists of catastrophes, natural disasters, etc. Communist ideologically-motivated crimes against humanity are notable catastrophes. - Altenmann >t 17:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the problem here comes also from the fact that the word "Communist" reads differently by people from different cultural backgrouns. While in the US it might be considered just a slur often also used by the right even against Obama or remind people the McCarthy witch hunt, in the Western Europe "Communist" can mean hash smoking Cafeteria Politicians, vs the East-Central Europe where the most common interpretation of "Communist" is equality with Fascism/Nazism. Since matching all those views together is impossible, and in order to be clear what this article is about, to get a compromise I'd still suggest Genocide by communist regimes or something similar.--Termer (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Mass killings can refer to many number of atrocities and killings, where as "genocide" is too specific and easily disputeable. Mass killings also offer a more broad and less POV term than "genocide", as this can solve the dispute on whether certain incidents constitute "genocide" or not.--PCPP (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is POV pushing

This article violates the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN and looks like a propagandic battleground. First of all the term "genocide" should only be used when it is actually officially referred as such eg in Cambodia. There are fine lines between actual genocide vs political purges and mass killings vs man-made famines. The article should be named Communist mass killings so it can incorporate other atrocities committed by communist governments without actually constituting "genocide".--PCPP (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you can refer to any secondary published sources saying that there never has been any genocide in Tibet nor a cultural genocide conducted by the communist China, why don't you just add thse facts to the article pr WP:YESPOV instead of doing nothing about it and just complaining about the WP:NPOV issues? In order to rename the article according to your pleasing, please voice your opinion at Talk:Communist_genocide#Move_to_.22Communist_mass_killings.22. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Questionable sources

In China, it is alleged that Mao Tse-tung's policies and political purges, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and Zhen Fan, brought about the deaths of some 40 to 70 million people. According to The Black Book of Communism, the Chinese Communists carried out a cultural genocide against the Tibetans. Jean-Louis Margolin states that the killings were proportionally larger in Tibet than China proper, and that "one can legitimately speak of genocidal massacres because of the numbers involved." According to the Dalai Lama and the Central Tibetan Administration, "Tibetans were not only shot, but also were beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned, mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive, drawn and quartered, and beheaded."

This clearly contain neutrality problems. These killings are not widely regarded as genocide, and cultural genocide is a different issue altogther. The Black Book of Communism is certainly not an objective sources and several of its authors had disputes, while the Dalai Lama mentioned nothing of genocide, simply methods of torture. This violates WP:SYN since it makes up the conclusion for the reader when in fact there is none.

Worth noting that in the introduction, the source accusing the PRC of genocide links to [49], a book called Advanced Iron Palm by a Kung Fu master. I doubt that he qualifies as a historian or an expert on Tibet and what constitutes as genocide.--PCPP (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Communists have been accused of orchestrating a genocide after World War II, where mummified remains and massacre sites of are still being discovered to this day. A Slovene historian, commenting when 540 such sites had been located throughout Slovenia, has said that communist executions have made Srebrenica look like "an innocent case" by comparison – although those executed were mostly soldiers.

Who is making the accusations? And keep in mind these are simply accusations and the sources mentioned nothing of genocide, simply executions. We need hard facts or reputable sources stating that it is actually a genocide. The source acually mentioned that charges of genocide were dropped due to the lack of evidence.--PCPP (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

on Slovenia issue many editors here including me agree with you, please see Talk:Communist_genocide#Slovenia_-_willful_misrepresentation_of_sources FFI. On the issue of genocide, you're referring to the Crime of genocide according to the UN convention, not the word genocide, that is also covered up here. I personally have no preference, the article can be called "mass killings"...just that my attempt to rename the article was instantly reverted [50] and currently there is an ongoing move discussion above.--Termer (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Reordering the contents

I have reordered the cases into "convicted cases of genocide" eg Cambodia and such that has been recognized as such by the UN or other national or legal authorities, and "accused cases of genocide" in which the leaders were accused by third parties, historians etc of committing genocide, but never formally charged.--PCPP (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Name change: "Mass killings under communist regimes"

There is a lot of discussion about the name of this article, which is quite unproductive. We should search for a compromise so we can go on to improve the rest of the article. In two separate name discussions above, there seems to be a fragile consensus forming on to separate proposals:

1. Change the name from controversial concept ("Communist genocide") to descriptive phrase ("Genocide by communist regimes")

2. Exchange legal term 'genocide', which is controversial when applied to the events discussed in this article, with the more neutral 'mass killings'

I propose we combine these two, and change the name of the article to Mass killings under communist regimes, which seems to be the most neutral, descriptive phrase that everyone can agree to. There is nothing in this title that should stop us from using the terms 'genocide' and 'communist genocide' within the article, where supported by reliable sources. It is simply a minimal description of the events - no one disagrees that there were mass killings, and that they occurred under communist regimes.

Of course this does also not preclude any result to the merge debate, if suddenly an unlikely consensus were to appear there.

As for the fact that the term 'communist regime' is used by some sources, which may well count as reliable sources (I don't know, and don't want to prejudge), that should be given appropriate attention in the article. But as long as it is a term which is as controversial as it is, it seems inappropriate to use it in the title - that would prejudge a number of discussions that should take place in the article itself. See the above for examples...

How's this for a compromise? --Anderssl (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the basis for an article like Mass killings under communist regimes? We already have articles which detail the killings under Stalin, Mao, and others. All that would be created by an article called Mass killings under communist regimes would be a POV fork. There is also a fragile consensus forming over moving this article's legitimate contents (as opposed to political speculating) to Genocides in history. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be an "umbrella article" which addresses the subject in general rather than individual examples, not a POV fork. But a better title would be Democide in communist countries. Biophys (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It does look like a reasonable suggestion, if one follows up with Democide in capitalist countries, of course. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - why do you think Mass killings under communist regimes would be a POV fork, and not Democide in communist countries? --Anderssl (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not leaning towards it, as it would still be a POV fork. But it's a more reasonable and specific title, if one accepts capitalist democide. Sources like the Black Book of Capitalism can be used for that. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand why this article would necessarily have to be a POV fork (see my remarks below). Can you please explain that a little clearer? --Anderssl (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this though I agree in principle with the argument that this is still a POV fork. But it's a hell of an improvement over the current page name. I think we will need a "mass killings under capitalist regimes" as well eventually if we go this route. This is part of the reason why original research is generally frowned upon in the encyclopedia. I don't understand the "democide" title suggestion at all -- I mean, I understand it, but we're going to have even more SYN problems with a term that's rarely used in the relevant literature. csloat (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm slow, but I don't quite understand this POV fork argument. If there is a theory out there that something useful can be learned from comparing the mass killings under different communist regimes, why would it be POV in itself to dedicate an article to this topic? It is common, and probably healthy, in the field of history to view the same events from a multitude of perspectives. This is reflected in Wikipedia where, for instance, there is an article on Democratic peace theory, and a separate article of possible counter-examples at List of wars between democracies. The main point is that this is very useful for the reader. I agree with everyone that say this article at the moment is not NPOV and probably has significant problems with OR and SYN, but none of that is sufficient to say that an article on this topic shouldn't exist. And since it has been established that there is no consensus to delete it, and probably none to merge it, shouldn't those of us who see problems in the article work towards a consensus to improve it? --Anderssl (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is, as you say, such a theory "out there," I'd be happy to support such a page that focused on the theory and made clear that it was describing a theory that some sources subscribed to and others don't. The problem is this is being presented as a collection of facts, not as a theory. Complicating the problem is that the "theory" isn't really "out there" (ie, published in some reliable sources), but is being created here by Wikipedia editors stringing sources together that aren't really in natural dialogue. But if there is a theory of "communist democide" or whatever somewhere that is notable enough to have an entry in, say, a political science textbook, I would totally agree with you that a page here would be appropriate. csloat (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

csloat and Password, which option do you prefer? Find a compromise, or keep the current name? I don't see any other options on the table. --Anderssl (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I propose merging this into Genocides in history, the third option, really. Doing so would take care of the POV and original research issues; focusing on killings by communists exclusively in an article ammassing all of that would only create an extra POV fork. I don't see a reason or creating another POV fork, so I don't support the rename. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a loud consensus that this article's title unacceptably breaches WP:NPOV, and the only dissent to renaming it Mass killings under communist regimes is from those who think the article should be deleted instead of renamed (but the AfD failed, so that won't happen). Therefore, I see no reason to not move forward and rename the article Mass killings under communist regimes immediately. Once the POV-slanted title is dispensed with, the real work of beginning to reorganize the article and deal with its obvious WP:SYNTH and NPOV problems can proceed. NickDupree (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also a good number of editors – and more than there are voting here – who are discussing a merger into Genocides in history, where cases of non-standard use of the term "genocide" are presented and explicated. Their votes there need to be taken into account here. So I don't really see a consensus emerging. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, consensus about a merge is even more elusive, and IMO, is unlikely to occur, especially since an editor on that talk page won't stop strikethroughing contributions he feels don't fit the discussion. I see no progress happening at all over there. Merge or not, Communist genocide's blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV problems have to be dealt with (we can't merge obvious issues into another article) and changing the POV-slanted name of the article is the logical first step in addressing the problems. I strongly supported a merge, but there's a wall of no consensus in the way right now, so I am going for the next best option, and a renamed and improved article can always be merged later if the consensus miraculously shifts. NickDupree (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick, while I think your suggestion is well-intentioned, I disagree as far as it definitely being impossible to get consensus for a merge, and don't like the idea of making yet another POV fork. (And I've unstricken what PBS has striken out.) The suggestion has only been up for a few days; plenty of people have not yet voted there. And moreover, as of now, at any rate, it seems that more editors do express interest in merging than in renaming. Some time isn't going to harm the project – and as we're both more interested in merging with Genocides in History instead, I prefer that we rather go slow and steady in deciding in which direction this really ought to go. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Password, it really sounds like you don't know how Wikipedia works. There is no vote. This is also not a discussion forum. Wikipedia is edited by consensus. It is abundantly clear that there is no consensus on a merge for the foreseeable future. And through your actions, you are blocking consensus on a name change. The end result is that the article stays under its current name. If that is not a result you are satisfied with, you need to modify your strategy and work towards consensus somewhere. That necessarily implies looking for compromise. If not, this article will be stuck with a name almost everyone agrees is inappropriate. --Anderssl (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge pro: The 'bad stuff' goes away. Genocide that clearly is not, Communist that clearly is not all the things implied by that word, lengthy quotes from partisan hacks...all goes away. Merge con: We never get an article that shows what killings happened under communist rule, explains what happened and why, and what if anything communism had to do with them. And the article can come back, worse than ever.

Rename pro: This starts with an "If". If editors stop pretending that they know the score (and the score is that, for example, communists perpetrated genocide and the UN is in a conspiracy to hide it). If they admit that historical scholars and the UN know more about genocide than the editors do, and start Googling 'deaths in the Ukraine' (83 hits) instead of assuming that the real action is at 'communist genocide in the Ukraine' (zero hits), then all the 'bad stuff' again goes away. Rename con: If it ever happens, we get a good article. And shortly thereafter, an article about how pigs fly now? Anarchangel (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for having left the URL unmodified. I created a mess, which is fixed and now, a monster, which runs rampant; now everyone using URLs on this page seems to think that nude web addresses are the preferred form. The preferred form is in fact to use bracketed web addresses with a title, in the form [URL space title]. Anarchangel (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Oppose name change In the discussion about deleting this article the defenders argued that communist genocide was a valid concept supported by academic writing. My argument was that it was a fringe view undeserving of its own article and that the concept should be discussed under articles about the authors of these theories and their publications provided they were sufficiently notable to have their own articles. As the article develops it becomes apparent that communist genocide is a fringe view. Changing the name to "Mass killings..." will only turn the article in WP:SYN. You must first show that there is a recognized concept called Mass killings under communist regimes and explain how it differs from Communist genocide. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe no consensus is possible here. The discussion will continue to go around and around with nothing productive accomplished, and then next year another AfD will fail and the debate will be reignited. This is a great example of wikifail. NickDupree (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Viet Nam

Question (answer probably "no"). Would any of the communist massacres of the Viet Nam war count? There were times (especially during the Tet Offensive when they thought they were about to win) when they went through entire cities and killed "catholics", "nuns", "bureacrats", "gays" or some other "deviant" group by the thousands. Technically not "genocide", but what do you call an attempt to exterminate a category of human being?Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Importance: There's no indication that the category is academically sustainable: low rating. Even then, the primary interest is either at genocide / crimes against humanity in history or at specific incidents of genocide / mass killing / etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Class: Bleedingly obvious. The only B-class item this article meets is structure. Please also see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES for the History B- sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)