Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Sorry but if you're going to write an article called mass killings under communist regimes, it is biased not to write one called mass killings under capitalist regimes, and there were / are plenty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.216.157 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I keep wondering from where this logic comes from that the opposite of Communism would be Capitalism? As in essence economicaly communist countries were/are not anything more or less than State capitalism where the state had a total monopoly and acted as a giant Corporation. And nowdays if we're talking about Communist China than economicaly it's flat out capitalist system. So what exactly are you talking about with this "mass killings under capitalist regimes"? There are totalitarian regimes like Commnism and Nazism and then there are democratic societies. If anybody really wants to make a point in connection with this article here, please suggest a title like "mass killings under democratic societies" instead perhaps.--Termer (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So should this article be moved to Mass killings under State Capitalist regimes? csloat (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

why? the economic system like state capitalism has not been the reason for those mass killings but political ideology called communism.--Termer (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to you the communists did not follow communist ideology at all. Which of course supports my point below that brutality was inherent in Eastern European politics, whether under the tsar, Germany or the Soviets. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not really a place to discuss such things but once you asked, as far as I can tell the communists followed the communist ideology just fine. After all, one of the agendas the communists had since Marx spelled it out, take away the means of production from private hands and put it under the control of the state -meaning the communist elite. So instead of the free market economy it became a state/communist party operated monopoly. And unlike you keep insisting, communist mass killings haven't occurred only in the EE, but around the world, please read any of the books in the article reference section FFI. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You just said these regimes were not communist but state capitalist. You do realize you're not making sense, right? csloat (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What has it to do with me? Please red any books on the subject or the article State_capitalist, especially chapters under State_capitalist#Use_by_Marxists that should explain the connection between Communist regimes and state capitalism. Also, there is a difference between a political regime, lest say communist and an economical system. Capitalism is an economical system, it can bee a free market economy in one end and state capitalism as a total monopoly on another. Communist regime however is a political regime based on the communist ideology, it's a form of a totalitarian state vs. Democracy&civil society. therefore what doesn't make any sense is to go and say "Communist regime vs capitalst regime mass killings" etc. Hope that it helps.--Termer (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you're saying is that this article should be called Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. csloat (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

csloat -please read the article totalitarian regimes, that would cover much wider scope and include National Socialist Germany etc--Termer (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the point. If you want an article that isn't full of WP:SYN violations you can't just pick out the countries you don't like on the basis of a connection that you manufacture with the help of a few sources strung together. There actually is a connection between totalitarian regimes and mass killing that is well established in reliable sources. The same cannot be said of the material in this article. csloat (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no Syn here. majority of the sources given in the article speak about the mass killings committed by the communist regimes. FFI please see 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. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is nothing but SYN. You are well aware that we've already discussed the problems with the Valentino piece ad nauseum, so we're not going to rehash that again. If you're insistent though you should start an article on Valentino's theory alone so it can be discussed rationally rather than positing it in an article like this as some kind of absolute truth. In either case, it's pretty clear that this article is at best about Mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia, but you have (unwittingly, perhaps) made some persuasive arguments for a name like Mass killings under totalitarian regimes; in either case, perhaps a simple name change will solve these otherwise crippling problems with the page. csloat (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard all this the first time you brought it up about 3 months ago, and I hope I've made myself clear from the beginning that I can see the sources provided in the article discussing the subject directly under appropriate chapters that define the Communist mass killings. So I can't see any reasons to keep repeating ourselves over and over again. thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is one way to completely avoid addressing the issue when you find you are unable to respond to the arguments. csloat (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The left communists claimed that communists abandoned communism and became capitalists. So was the mass killing part of the original communist ideology or was it a function of the capitalism of the degenerated workers' state that was later adopted when the revolution was betrayed (to paraphrase Trotsky)? The Four Deuces (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's a common pattern to all religions. (yes commnism is often considered to be just another religion ) For example many Christians claim that some other Christians have abandoned Christianity and became...So do the communists claim over who is the true communist and who's not. And the so called 'left communists' or Trotskyists were expelled by the various Communist Parties from their ranks throughout the world. So the bottom line, the internal disputes of communists are a bit out of the scope of this article. But in case there are any sourced opinions out there what was the position of sc. left communists regarding the mass killigs committed by the communist regimes, those statements would be most relevant to the article.--Termer (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So your logic is that because of the mass killings by crusaders and the inquisition that this somehow reflects on the teachings of the New Testament. Incredible. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

my logic has nothing to do with anything here, it's the followers of religions/totalitarian political ideologies who interpret the teachings, either its the New or Old testament, Koran, the communist manifest or mein kampf etc. they follow.--Termer (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are now arguing that communist mass killings had nothing to do with communist ideology but rather with the actions taken by some of their followers. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling the Soviet Union and Communist China, 2 mayor Communist powers in the world history just "some followers of communist ideology" is quite a stretch of imagination I think. So you're saying basically that those communist countries were not in fact following the communist ideology? A little like Inquisition didn't have anything much to do with Christianity? I guess its a valid POV like any other. Why don't you come up with some sources that discuss such matters and simply add it to the article.--Termer (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You should not write an article without a basis in academic theory. There are no respected theories that connect mass killings with economic or political theory except in specific circumstances like Nazi Germany. Most historians attribute mass killings to the nature of the individual countries rather than temporal political or economic theory. For example Eastern Europe had a history of brutality and extemely backward government which continues until today. No one connects the brutality in Eastern Europe with their tsarist, communist, or capitalist governments but rather see it as a function of the backward nature of those states. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"...a function of the backward nature of those states"? That was interesting! are you The Four Deuces suggesting a new title to this article, perhaps something like Mass killings in the backward states? I wouldn't arque against the communist states being backwards, just that I'm not aware of any WP:RS calling it this way. All we have is the sources speaking of the Communist political killings that the article is based on. But I'm open minded, in case you have any sources that spell out this backwardness you brought up, feel free to list it here.--Termer (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have provided a novel explanation of communism and I would appreciate your further comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"You should not write an article without a basis in academic theory. There are no respected theories that connect mass killings with economic or political theory except in specific circumstances like Nazi Germany": have you ever heard of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, ...? --AndreaFox2 (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed. Do you know what a "respected theory" is? In this case it would be a theory published in reputable academic literature that argues that communist ideology caused the killings in those countries. Do you think that Stalin killed Trotsky because of the writings of Marx and Engels? If you do then kindly find a reliable source that explains this line of reasoning. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This article should be 'moved to' Mass killings under authoritarian regimes. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Or different parts could be merged, respectively with Human rights in the Soviet Union, Human rights in the People's Republic of China and Human rights in Cambodia. --FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

These are both excellent suggestions. An article on authoritarian regimes could include such mass killings as this one, for example, which otherwise don't fit here but are obviously connected in substantive ways. The problem with this page is that the arguments people are making supposedly identifying "communism" as the main reason for mass killings are really saying that totalitarianism or authoritarianism is the issue. That is a specific political system and set of institutions that these societies have in common. But for various political reasons people want to identify "communism" as the root commonality even though they cannot point to such mass killings under Castro's Cuba or Ortega's Nicaragua, for example. I would also support the merging of relevant content to other articles that aren't SYN, as suggested by FormerIP. csloat (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this present discussion, and with this article in general, is that people are not advancing arguments discovered in high quality reliable secondary sources authored by historians, politicial scientists, sociologists or anthropologists; and, that when these arguments are raised they are selectively distorted, for instance, the shoe horning of Valentino into claiming communist mass killings are an explicit catagory rather than a convenience device to structure the discussion of a subset of one of his real categories. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think its going to be a problem. In case needed the politically motivated mass executions by the Communists in Cuba etc. and in Nicaragua etc. can be also added to this article. And widening the scope of this article from Communist regimes to all totalitarian and even authoritarian regimes wouldn't be necessary, there already is a list of Genocides in history that covers such a broader scope.--Termer (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, could you please pre-screen the sources you provide for your arguments. I clicked on a couple of them and several are sourced to the Nicaraguan Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which was supported by the Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, and another was an article in Human Events. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But "authoritarian mass killings" is not broader in scope; the only things connecting these events are their authoritarianism, as we can see from your own faltering attempts to defend this concept of "communist mass killings." And if we're talking about genocides, I don't see how you can compare the events you link in Cuba and Nicaragua, leaving aside the rather dubious nature of many of the claims supported in those links. If this article includes every killing of more than 30 people or so, often during a war, then there really is no basis for connecting any of it and we should just call it Mass killings and be done with it. csloat (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo really? How about Frank W. Wayman from The University of Michigan and Atsushi Tago from University of Tokyo who in their Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing: Democide and Politicide categorize mass killings by 4 different regimes : Democratic Regime, Autocratic Regime, Communist Regime and Military Regime (see Table II). So only according to this work there could be easily be 4 separate articles on Misplaced Pages: Mass killings under communist regimes, Mass killings under democratic regimes, Mass killings under autocratic regimes and Mass killings under military regimes.

And a citation perhaps from the work on the current subject: mass killings by Communist regimes: An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings."--Termer (talk) 01:04, 7

December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, far from underming Fifeloo's point, your sources do seem sort of barrel-scraping. They also seem to underscore the amibuity/menainlgessness of the article title. I don't support the deaths of 95 people ordered by Che Guavara (even if the source is self-published) or the deaths of 500-1000 people as a result of the Sandanista revolution in Nicaragua. But the deaths of 152 people were ordered by George W Bush as Governor of Texas and the US-backed Contras in Nicaragua killed about 70,000 30,000. I'm not making a point about political equivalence, but how is the case made for an article focusing on "communist" killings? --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the deaths of 152 people etc. you FormerIP mentioned would most likely belong to any of the articles that could be started up according to Wayman&Tago categorizations of mass killings.--Termer (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But does an obscure, apparently unpublished, university thesis necessitate the creation of four hightly contestable wikipedia articles? The categorisations are rubbish anyway. The Sandanista regime belongs, arguably, in all four categories, for example. --FormerIP (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, thanks for bringing up the democide school. Tabulation of concepts is notoriously a poor form of presentation of social theory. Can you find within the work where the authors structure their categories for analysis? Do they nominate a specific cause that sets out communist mass killings from other mass killings, or is it just a thematic grouping, "these states were communist within our schema." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:Fifelfoo says who? In case you really missed the quotation on a specific cause from the last source, no problem, here it is again:

An alternative form of autocracy is a communist regime. The organizational base of these regimes is the communist party, often having a membership consisting of upwards of 10 % of the total population of the society. Communist regimes have an ideology (Marxism-Leninism) that can legitimize massive regime efforts to transform society – often including mass killings in the millions. This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions in communist mass killings.

And in case you forgot about the one by Valentino, no problem again: here it is once more:

The strategic approach suggests that communist mass killings result from the effort to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and to protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies.

Now, in case you're aware of any alternative viewpoints of the subject as evident by published sources, why don't you just add it to the article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Valentino quote is deliberately deceptive because he is describing a sub-set of his actual category; which isn't "communist" at all, his category is states mobilising for radical social transformations, as you would well know. Wayman and Tago is also deceptive

Additionally, we create military regime and communist regime variables. Mostly, both of these regimes are sub-categories of autocratic regimes, but we consider it is very important to set such variables to separate different types of autocratic countries. Military regime and communist regimes, in theory, create very different conditions vis-à-vis initiation of mass murder. A military regime, by its definition, is more likely to have stronger armed forces and a lower threshold for using them (Wayman, 1975). Any regime has policies that affect society, and the regime, if it wishes to carry out these policies, needs to find a way to get its way and impose its acts on society.

Part of the very paragraph you quoted. Termer, your mischaracterisation of sources has reached a level that indicates your conduct is an issue. Please read your sources in full and adequately characterise their findings rather than cherry picking. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read these sources (and don't have time to now), so in all likelihood I may be missing something important, but could I ask you to clarify: From what you write above, it seems (very simply put) that Valentino is stating that communist regimes are regimes which tend to attempt radical social transformations, which in turn can lead them to conduct mass killings. Whereas Wayman and Tago are saying that communist regimes are a particular kind of autocratic regimes, which due to their ideology and organization sometimes engage in mass killings. Sounds to me like two different attempts at explaining why communist regimes engage in mass killings. Why is the sub-category vs main category distinction crucial? Isn't there an argument to be made that if many other categories of mass killings are analyzed, then those could also be valid topics for their own wikipedia articles? The idea that one could create an article such as "mass killings under military regimes" doesn't seem to imply that "mass killings under communist regimes" is an unacceptable topic for an article. --Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Anderssl. Set A containing (C, D, E, F) causes mass killings because of B. This means the article is "Mass-killings in A. Lede: Mass killings in A happened because B." This article is currently "Mass-killings in C. Mass killings in C happened because of B." This is deceptive and misleading conduct: C is a case-study or example of the set of A. Escalating this article to "Comparative theories of Mass killing, Genocide, and Democide" and actually covering comparative horrorific social behaviour en mass studies would be the optimal outcome. This would be effectively a rewrite from scratch though. Neither Wayman and Tago nor Valentino address "Communist states / governments / etc" as an object of theoretical analysis, they address them as a case study within a set that is the object of theoretical analysis. This is the reasoning for why the article should be deleted: the object of this article is not an object of academic study. As should any other "Mass killings in ". I'm aware of a few generalised claims for the causes of mass killing in capitalism, but these are a) primitive (alienation, commodification of the human being, extraction of labour power while enclosing common land) and b) not currently cited at the other pathetic article. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, but what makes me wonder about this argument is that it seems to isolate every source. If you view it from a different perspective, we have: "A number of communist regimes have conducted mass killings. Source A claims this is because communist regimes belong to category X, which lead them to do mass killings. Source B claims it is because they belong to category Y, etc." So multiple sources offer different explanations of the phenomenon. I am not sure if this holds, but I am also not sure that it doesn't - there is the difference between being convinced that this is a sound theory, and being convinced that it deserves being mentioned in Misplaced Pages (as you probably can tell, I am an inclusionist). --Anderssl (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Even for an inclusionist this is problematic way forward. A(b,c,d,e) caused by X ; F(b,g,h,i) caused by Y=> Article Mass-killings in b as part of A due to X; in b as part of F due to Y is synthesis, as b is never an object of study. The object of the article is simply not an object of study. The correct articles would be A and X; or F and Y. There is a place for scholarly thematic pieces; but, the place is defined by the literature available. The best way to present the possible thematic piece is by moving the substantive literature survey achieved here to a general comparative genocide/mass killing/population destruction piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think that is a very good point. You may just have convinced me. --Anderssl (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is self evident that communist regimes can and always have been subcategorized under totalitarian and/or autocratic regimes. So are the mass killings under communist regimes subcategorized accordingly and that's what this article is all about. Just that you keep ignoring the sources on the subject written by numerous authors is not going to make it go away, I'm sorry. But there is always an option to take it to another AfD in case you feel so strongly that an article about the mass killings committed by communist totalitarian regimes is WP:UNDUE and it doesn't deserve a separate article on Misplaced Pages.--Termer (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly you are welcome to your opinion that these things are "self-evident," but if the reliable sources don't indicate that they are self evident we cannot assume they are. It is telling that you quote a source identifying "mass killings under communist regimes" as a category alongside mass killings in "democratic" "autocratic" and "military" regimes, yet you don't seem eager to start articles on any of those topics. Ultimately can you even begin to address the question, what makes "communist mass killings" fundamentally different from "totalitarian mass killings" or some similar category? csloat (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument - is Termer under an obligation to create all these other articles because he is also working on this article? He has already acknowledged that his arguments imply that those could be appropriate topics for articles, but that doesn't mean he has to go and write them to prove his point.--Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is I think this "point" is disingenuous. He's already been caught mischaracterizing the sources in terms of what they actually say. If this was truly a parallel taxonomy accepted in the literature he would be defending an article that clearly put these categories alongside each other, whether or not he focused on creating the other three articles. But he's only defending the claim provisionally as a way of winning an argument here. Or, at least, that's what it seems -- I don't mean to speculate on his motives but it is hard to see how he is doing anything else. csloat (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that hard to see - most likely it is a matter of people not understanding each other. It is not entirely uncommon. You say you don't mean to speculate on Termer's motives, and yet you just did. --Anderssl (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Sloat is challenging whether Termer is really serious about his line of argument or whether he's just grabbing at something that may help him achieve a narrower objective. By convention, you couch that sort of challenge by acknowledging your own impoliteness ("I don't mean to be rude, but..."). But only Termer can know the reality behind that, so we might as well move on. Termer isn't obliged to create the other articles (although it would only be proper for him to support anyone else who did). But the point is, surely, that all four of the proposed articles are appropriate, or else none of them is. --FormerIP (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all it wasn't me who suggested this Mass killings under capitalist regimes at this talk page. I just explained how "communist" vs "capitalist" regime doesn't make sense first of all because one refers to a political regime and another speaks about an economical system, and further on the communist regimes were/are in fact state capitalist. So what I also did, suggested some alternatives according to published sources but in the end if someone really likes to create this Mass killings under capitalist regimes, what do I care, go ahead.--Termer (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As you should be aware, no academic consensus exists on the specific nature of the Soviet-style societies. Please stop mischaracterising the nature of scholarly opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

From where did you get an idea that every article on wikipedia needs to be based on academic consensus Fifelfoo? It that was the case, most of Misplaced Pages should be deleted. Articles on wikipedia need to be based on WP:Verify, WP:RS and written according to WP:NPOV&WP:YESPOV. In case you're aware of any other perspectives on the subject as evident by WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, please help yourself, add those opposing opinions to the article that contradict the sources that the article is based on. There is no other way to improve the artcile.--Termer (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WEIGHT. While consensus is out, as it is, could you refrain from pushing a particular POV up hill about the composition of the Soviet Union, for instance, that it was state capitalist rather than any of the other 34 flavours of analysis present in the academic literature in high quality reliable sources? I'd like to invite you to stop disrupting the encyclopedia at this article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your beliefs I only edit articles on wikipedia according to the published sources that I'm aware of. And again, in case you're aware of any conflicting perspectives and respective sources on the subjcet, why don't you just improve the article accordingly. I'd love to help you out with this but unfortunately I'm not aware of any sources that question the ideological pattern in Communist mass killings.--Termer (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Also contrary to your beliefs there has been a strong consensus here, which was renaming this article from Communist genocide to Mass killings under Communist regimes. As clearly "Communist genocide" could imply that all communists have something to do with a genocide, vs Mass killings under communist regimes]] clearly refers to totalitarian communist regimes that have comitted mass killings in history. And do I need to mention that I still support this achieved consensus on the subject.--Termer (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, that is a misrepresentation of the consensus that led to the name change, and besides I think you are misunderstanding what Fifelfoo is trying to say: That you shouldn't state as a fact that the economic system in the Soviet Union was "state capitalist", given that there is no academic consensus on that point. It might be a good idea to slow down a little and make sure you are understanding the comments made here before answering. --Anderssl (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

misrepresentation of the consensus led to the name change? Sorry Anderssl that just didn't make any sense to me. Such requested name changes can only happen according to consensus, please see the relevant discussion . Regarding either economic systems in communist regimes were/are state capitalist systems, then again, why don't anybody take it to the relevant article and list all the 43 different interpretations instead of accusing me of something here. And yes, as far as I'm aware of it, it's a fact that Communist economic systems are in fact state capitalist, in cases of Communist China its flat out capitalism.--Termer (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I take back my rebuke of csloat above, and join the other editors' opinion that Termer's editing on this talk page has become disruptive. He is repeatedly responding to comments with nonsensical derailments, and whether it is intentional or not it is preventing constructive debate on improving the article. --Anderssl (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors may wish to note Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes which requests Arbitration related sanctions in the form of warning and counselling in relation to Termer's disruptive behaviour. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say other than sorry that you feel this way.--Termer (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You should probably try to make it clear to people what is the cause of the problem, which is that you are arguing in a way that suggests you are not understanding what other people are saying at all. It seems that you are either unable or unwilling to clear up your own misunderstandings. If this is the case your contributions here will never be helpful to improve the article. So you really need to demonstrate ability and willingness to comprehend other people's comments - and clear up misunderstandings when they happen. --Anderssl (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a misunderstanding here? I don't think so. I think it has been very clear since the beginning what this thread called "Capitalist Mass Killings" implies vs. the current subject Mass killings under Communist regimes is all about. But since its not going anywhere because there is no point for everybody to keep repeating themselves, it would be the best to put this discussion to sleep.--Termer (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of obvious cases where one editor brings forward one argument, which you then misrepresent/misinterpret and argue against the misrepresentation, thereby derailing the discussion into futility. If you insist that these misunderstandings are not intentional, it seems to imply that you are either not paying sufficient attention, or your understanding of English grammar is not sufficient to take part in this discussion. The problem is not limited to this thread - you are doing it again below - so I don't think ending this thread is enough to settle the issue. --Anderssl (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the only issue I can see down there is the source published the Harvard University Press is getting a "peer review" on Misplaced Pages with words like "Fringe, laughable, and ridiculous". I must admit my understanding of English grammar is not sufficient enough indeed to understand either "COATRACK, SYNTHESIS, OR" according to Fifelfoo refers to the book published by Harvard University Press or something else?--Termer (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the long thread discussing the nationality of the Unabomber. Did you not understand that the question of whether he actually was American or Eastern European was irrelevant to the argument put forward? --Anderssl (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I even don't know why do I respond to somethin so obious but anybodys nationality or anything else concerning this man has been compleaty irrelevat to this article and the discussion.--Termer (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is anybody denying that they occurred? If so, put them on the same bench as Holocaust deniers. If not, what's the hubba hubba on this article? PS. For the record, I am all for creating parent article on Mass killings under totalitarian regimes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

its a 'list of blue things.' None of the genocide studies people theorise communism as a category in the cause of killing. Cross cultural genocide studies deals with societies on the basis of broad organisational structures, or comparative two society case studies. Lacking a basis in academic literature this article is SYNTHESIS and OR. That's the only problem. The individual social instances are theorised and well documented and belong in their own articles as they currently do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Piotr, you are missing the point. Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers. No one is in denial about that. However that does not mean that there is a category called "Mass killings by Eastern Europeans". We need a theory that connects being Eastern European with being a mass murderer. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What about The black book of communism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed many times, the book was written outside the academic mainstream, and its ideas are not accepted. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you point me to an academic mainstream review with this opinion? You may be right, but I tend to be wary of such unbacked claims (recalling the global warming debate, and how while 99% of scholars agreed that it is real, 50% of mainstream press kept saying otherwise). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the theory advanced in the Black Book was never published in academic literature there is no academic literature that rebuts it. I do not understand your reference to climate science. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I went out and read the Black Book for this purpose. There are three chapters containing sections claiming to be multiple society cases: the preface, introduction, and conclusion. The conclusion says, straight out, "This deals with the USSR only" and gives three paragraphs to China, Vietnam and Kampuchea. The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. The conclusion is adequate academic work for a study on the Soviet Union (its narrative is ridiculous, its lack of theory laughable, but hey, it at least deals with the topic), but inadequate as a study in causes of multiple culture genocide. The Preface is laughable, it is short, inappropriate, and fails to meet academic standards—this is expected, its a Preface, its job isn't to theorise. The Introduction deals only with Russia and explicitly advances two claims: the rot set in in 1917; "Communism is inherently criminal (possibly because it isn't Catholicism)". That the rot set in in 1917 is debatable, and a theory with long standing: it is not multiple society. That Communism is inherently "criminal", and, accusations of the failure of a social concept because it doesn't meet the world view of French Catholicism is not acceptable practice in the humanities and social sciences, and hasn't been since 1789. As the editor of the book wrote the introduction and the introduction failed to receive adequate review (collected works are reviewed by their editor); as the theory is laughable; and, most importantly, as the theory is advanced over approximately three paragraphs without evidence to support it, or elucidation of what criminality comprises: we should not esteem this theory. It is FRINGE. The other chapters in the Black Book are adequate single country case studies, the one I previewed (Russia, by Conquest) written by an appropriate specialist (who I don't like, but he's certainly got the requirements). They necessarily can't be used to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing / genocide / democide / etc. I have stated this before, at length, in comments contained in the archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I looked into this as well, the work is published by Harvard University Press - "a highly respected in academic publishing", "it was authored by several European academics and edited by Stéphane Courtois" - a French historian, currently employed as research director (i.e. senior research scientist) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique", and all this is fringe, and laughable according to Fifelfoo? I guess we need to take it to WP:FTN than.--Termer (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think he is saying that. He is saying that the book is does not give a basis for the subject "Mass killings under Communist regimes" being WP article because it only contains three, apparently controversial, paragraphs which attempt to advance the thesis that it is a genuine historical phenomenon. In the whole body of historical literature, that does not look very significant. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what I read above "Fringe, the theory is laughable, narrative is ridiculous" etc. And what is this "to advance a general theory of Communist mass killing" all about? For example: The conclusion does not advance a theory or cause of communist mass killing, but merely describes a number of cases. So fine, we can use the source for "describing a number of cases" and in case there is "no theory or cause of communist mass killing" i that source, so what. Is there "a theory or cause" to any other mass killings in history? And in this case it should be self explanatory that mass killings under communist regimes occurred because the communist parties wanted to get rid of all its possible and real political opponents. So what's the big deal, I'm not getting it.--Termer (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

COATRACK, SYNTHESIS, OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That an random descriptive accumulation is not sufficient grounds to indicate a theory; ie: what this article is about; has been well established. To use the placing side by side in a collection of untheorised case studies as the basis of this article is COATRACKING, and is thus SYNTHESIS of external materials without a theory, and is thus ORIGINAL RESEARCH. This has been repeatedly gone over, in a variety of ways, with a variety of metaphors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces "Theodore Kaczynski was one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"As far s I'm aware of it an "Eastern European" is not a political ideology that needs to implement policies of radical social or economic transformation and protect that transformation from real and perceived enemies by the use of something that has been referred to as Communist mass killings, also known as Communist genocide or -politicide, or -democide.--Termer (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Another question is how come this Theodore Kaczynski was according to The Four Deuces "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers"? It says the guys is an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois. Is that a slight mistake in geography perhaps. In case I'm not mistaken Eastern Europe and Illinois are about 9000 miles apart and on different continents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, The Four Deuces.--Termer (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More like 4500 miles, at least according to this; but I guess it depends which city in Eastern Europe. Why is this relevant? csloat (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my question, how is it relevant to this article that someone called Theodore Kaczynski- an American mathematician, social critic, and murderer, born in Chicago, Illinois is "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" according to The Four Deuces?--Termer (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was an example to make a different point here; if you re-read his comment perhaps you will see the point itself. csloat (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see a point in an American murderer been called "one of numerous Eastern European serial killers" on the talk page of this article. --Termer (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Termer, this is a bit of a tangent. The Unabomber was a Polish citizen as well as a US citizen. But you are concentrating on the validity of the example used instead of the validity of the argument. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)