→10 countries consider 'Holodomor' a genocide: genuine controversy is not the same as contentiousness |
Seb az86556 (talk | contribs) you guys aren't getting anywhere... |
||
Line 409: | Line 409: | ||
We should not make up bogus categories just to [[WP:POINT|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? [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] ([[User talk:Commodore Sloat|talk]]) 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
We should not make up bogus categories just to [[WP:POINT|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? [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] ([[User talk:Commodore Sloat|talk]]) 07:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:The category is now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_13#Category:Communist_genocide up for deletion]. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] ([[User talk:Commodore Sloat|talk]]) 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
:The category is now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_13#Category:Communist_genocide up for deletion]. [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] ([[User talk:Commodore Sloat|talk]]) 08:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
==RfC/politics: "Mass killings" or "Genocide"?== |
|||
{{rfctag|pol}} |
|||
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"? [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] ([[User talk:Seb az86556|talk]]) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:26, 13 August 2009
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
are downright misleading."The effects of this genocide and ethnocide were later admitted by the communists during the perestroika [17]"
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Why do you want to delete this article so much? --Martintg (talk) 20:32, 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)
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)
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)
- Outrageous. This diff explains it nicely. [6] Triplestop x3 15:21, 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))
- 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)
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))
- 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)
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))
- Now you go ahead and read the context where there word genocide was used in the source. Just to remind the fellow editors,
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 [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, an 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)
- The killing wasn't merely in communist countries, but by avowedly communist states, an 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
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)
- 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
- --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))
- 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))
- 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)
- 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))
- 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)
- How about this one? --Martintg (talk) 00:59, 12 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That was already explained a couple of times now. Are you really having trouble understanding? csloat (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- What material is being synthesized into what conclusion? Please be specific.radek (talk) 19:40, 11 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)
- How is it "Synth" when this book has an entire chapter called "Communist mass killings"? --Martintg (talk) 01:01, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Unfortunately making up a new SYNTH violation isn't a helpful solution. csloat (talk) 00:44, 12 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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)
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)
'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)
- 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)
- “'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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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 [14]. 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)
- 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))
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)
- 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)
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)
- Which articles are you proposing for deletion? csloat (talk) 00:04, 13 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?
- 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)
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: [15]. 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)
- 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: [15]. 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)
- Sorry, I don't understand, can you clarify? --Anderssl (talk) 01:54, 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))
- Well, thanks again Igny for giving no explanations even to the revert of yours. [16]. 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)
- Well, thanks again Igny for giving no explanations even to the revert of yours. [16]. 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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"? Seb az86556 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)