Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 7 June 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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 Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Due to recent revert warring, be advised that reverting more than once without discussing it on the talk page is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 10, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus September 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed October 2, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus November 15, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus April 22, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

1RR restriction

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We've left out one very big category

Leaving out all the trivia about causes and philosophy, why aren't the NAZI killings included in this list?

I know, I know, "the NAZIs weren't communists". Only they were. According to Hitler himself in his speeches there was no difference between a NAZI and a Communist. One of the great lies of all time is how the western liberals (press, Hollywood, intelligentsia) managed to separate themselves from the holocaust after it was discovered by simply never referring to their mass admiration of Hitler and Stalin and quietly implying the NAZIs were far right, when in reality, they were far left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Until there is a stable consensus on the Nazi article that they were somehow communists, it shouldn't be listed here. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

George Watson, already used in this article, considers the Nazis as a type of socialist movement and mentions that their mass killing policies were inherited from the left. I suggest also discussing the Nazis' bloodlettings and moving this article to Socialist genocide. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Socialist genocide would be a fringe theory proposed by Watson and supported by tiny minority of scholar. I am not sure if it will pass a notability test.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would be very interested in an explanation as to why that might be. Given your position here and the broader editorializing going on here, you seem to be using Watson's work selectively. The very book cited here, Watson's Lost Literature of Socialism, actually discusses mass killings through the lens of the view of genocide as a socialist concept -- he specifically considers such bloody ideas as an inheritance rooted in the socialist tradition, including the 1840s articles of Marx and Engels, which he presents as seminal writing in just that respect.

On that very note, since Watson's scholarship, already reflecting exactly this particular view, is included in this article, and has been determined by the consensus of editors of this talk page to constitute a source reliable enough to be included, this seems like a moot point and I don't quite see what different rationale behind your disagreement on this point could be. The majority of the editors who have chimed in on this talk page have expressed the view that the mass murders discussed are related by virtue of the underlying ideology of the governments responsible for them, and the overall direction of the current text has survived many revisions and AFDs on this basis. And the same consensus has overruled the already-discussed contention that Watson is somehow WP:FRINGE and reaffirmed that Watson's views are reliable and significant enough to be discussed in an article structured around the intersection of communism and mass killing.

It's actually an exceedingly simple issue: the Communist systems established across Eastern Europe and in the USSR were all socialist regimes, just as their histories, and the history of Marxism generally, are a subset of socialist history. The Communist rulers of the 20th century, like their genocidal predecessors, Marx and Engels, were all proponents of socialism, and the Stalinist mass murder period in the 1930s occured in an empire officially known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As those studying political theory generally know, Marxist ideology even describes "communism" as the hypothetical stage of history where the state withers away: this stage is the culmination of socialist construction, and is preceded by a post-revolutionary era in which the state exists in the historical period of socialism.

In fact, by expanding the article's subject to Socialist genocide (per Watson), to Genocide and socialism, or Mass killings under socialist regimes, we will have the breadth to include additional information on the murderous deeds carried out by other supporters of socialism, like the National Socialist German Workers' Party of Germany and the socialist dictatorship in Burma. And Misplaced Pages correctly positions a discussion of national socialism as a subcategory within the article Types of socialism.

If such bloody governments as the Nazis and others are already recognized as heirs of socialism alongside the communists by serious scholarship, like distinguished Oxford University professor's George Watson (and it really seems needless to go at length into its presence among the writings of popular authors such as Jonah Goldberg and others), I don't see what further argument against these proposals might be put up. Like the present article, the broader one would also describe the specific instances of mass killing and the theoretical connections to ideology which are present according to Watson and all sorts of other experts -- still allowing the critics to have their say in counterpoint. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since according to Watson, socialism was conservative and right-wing, why not re-name the article "right-wing mass killings"? TFD (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some libertarians do associate all authoritarianism with the right, but if Watson's work were entitled The Lost Literature of Conservatism, you'd have a far stronger case on Misplaced Pages. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, that Watson is included does not mean that he isn't fringe, either as a source or in relation to the topic. That he is a reliable enough source to be included does not make him appropriate to base the article upon. The topic is limited to communist regimes, rather than all socialist regimes, simply because that is how the sources upon which it is based have chosen to frame the issue. If you want to make an article about Genocide and socialism, then you can gather your sources and do it, but that is not this article. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as what I gather, most of the sources used here simply describe the individual events carried out by 20th century regimes like the Soviet Union and Mao Tse-Tung's China (we see, e.g., the Great Purge, the Chinese famine during the late '50s, de-Cossackization, and such), while only a relatively small section, as well as a minority of the references I could find at the bottom of the article, actually directly focus on some specific link connecting any or all of these distinct events with the underlying political commonalities behind them.

The second part of your response concerns the framing of the set of atrocities outlined here, while I see this as the most flexible aspect of the article. The objection you propose is already partially answered by the fact that Communism is a subset of socialism, as explained previously. Watson's Lost Literature of Socialism on the matter the "socialist genocide" of the smaller "primitive" peoples isn't the only one, of course, of the influential names on historical and political questions to examine and dissect the connection between mass killing and the leftist ideal of socialism.

Alexander Nekrich, a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences and later a respected lecturer at Harvard University, describes the mass killing of the kulaks during collectivization as the first "socialist genocide" , Lew Rockwell of the Von Mises Institute has written an essay entitled "The Socialist Holocaust in Armenia" , and noted French thinker Bernard-Henri Lévy philosophizes about the Stalinist period of killings in the USSR as "a mode of socialism. Gulag is not an accident.' At fault, he argues, is socialism's obsession with homogeneity, 'expelling from its borders the forces of heterogeneity and ... squelching its rebels.'" Since both "socialist" and "Communist" can be applied to define these massacres and their perpetrators, it's really a question of which term is the preferable one for this article. Since George Watson's take is already given, there is already a good argument made in favor of expanding the article's title to mirror the points of view presently in the article. Making an article about Socialist genocide would be one resolution of Aaronsmith's original proposal, but what I haven't seen so far is an argument for the current title. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Watson's "Lost literature" has been cited only seven times according to GoogleScholar . Neither of citing works (except, probably, Conquest) discuss his idea on connection between socialism and genocide (suggesting zero notability). And, again, please, read the discussion of this issue on this talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The term socialist is too wide. The mass killings of Iraqi civilians by Western powers could be described as socialist mass killings because the UK had a socialist prime minister while the president of Iraq is a socialist. Murders by right-wing death squads in Columbia could also be seen as socialist because the president is a socialist. The people who tried to overthrow Hugo Chavez are also socialists. In the recent UK election the liberals and conservatives were silent about mass killings by the Labour Party (who got to them!) and the US is silent about socialist provincial governments in Canada, and Reagan appointed a socialist as ambassador to the UN. However, you probably think that Reagan was a socialist. I agree however that this article should explain the supposed connection between Marxism and mass killings. TFD (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Socialist" is not too wide. The problem with your examples is that they are all absolutely moot, since you're determined to conflate social democracy (the ideological ground for much of the political establishment in Canada and Europe, as well as the official ideology of the mainstream European liberal left, including American allies like the United Kingdom under Brown and Tony Blair) with socialism (the official ideology of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Ne Win Burma, and Ba'ath Party Iraq).

I agree that the connection between ideology and practice should be the primary point of this article. My only point here has been that a good place to start from would be with the intersection of all mass killing regimes from the socialist tradition (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ne Win, Saddam, and others) rather than the much narrower Marxist subset included here. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, fascists and Ba'athists are really secret socialists, parties that belong to the Socialist International are really liberals, parties in the Liberal International are really social democrats, and so are conservatives and Christian democrats. Do you have a source for any of that? TFD (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, if you read any serious work on the political history of the mainstream left, you'll learn that the reformist current of socialism broke away in the late-1800s to early 1900s, with the European Social Democratic parties completely severing their links to Marxist theory by the mid-20th century, and I'd thought that this was common knowledge to those familiar with the field. The Social Democratic current, which largely no longer self-identifies as socialist regardless whether some parties remain in the Socialist International or not, advocates a reformed capitalism with a large welfare state alongisde the democratic institutions condemned by the traditional Marxist left as "bourgeois democracy"; traditional socialism asks for the replacement of capitalism by a fundamentally different system and expresses disdain for the institutions of "bourgeois democracy". If there are specific parties or groups you would like to discuss, I am completely willing to go along, but please point them out by name, as you've been very vague in your last couple of posts. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The fascism is left wing theory has them evolving from pro-Great War Socialism not Communism, and point out that Mosley was Labour while Mussolini was a socialist. If you believe that today's socialists have abandoned socialism, you need a date for that. Was it 1915 (which would make the fascists non-socialists) or was it 1959, then you have to explain what prevented the Weimar Republic from carrying out mass killings. Your definition of socialism appears to include Communists, fascists, some socialists (including those like the Burmese who did not evolve from either socialist tradition) and other unrelated parties like the Ba'athists. Or are you saying that violent socialists are violent, while peaceful socialists are not? What is the connection between socialist theory and mass killings? TFD (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "The fascism is left wing theory has them evolving from pro-Great War Socialism not Communism, and point out that Mosley was Labour while Mussolini was a socialist."

Exactly, fascism under Mussolini and Germany's National Socialism (also labelled as "fascism" by leftists trying to negate the self-identification of the Nazis with socialist ideology in their effort to conceal something) evolved from the pro-Great War Socialism of the 1910s. Benito Mussolini, the founding father of fascism, was not only a socialist, but a leading figure in Italian socialism before the Great War. The ex-Labour Party MP Oswald Mosley in Britain is a tad less interesting, since he is hardly as relevant in the great scheme of things by comparison as the Duce and his German ally. (Incidentally, Mosley did come from an era in which the Labour Party stood far closer to "socialism" than it does today.)

Re "If you believe that today's socialists have abandoned socialism, you need a date for that."

I merely began by pointing out the differences between the socialists and the modern center-left. You seem to have suggested that the neoliberal Tony Blair governed as head of a socialist government, when it was explained that neither Labour Party of the UK nor the European Social Democratic movements advocate any political program of socialism today. Even "Old Labour" in its heyday under Attlee did not rise to anything more radical than the positions of the European Social Democratic left and appealed merely for the establishment of a welfare state while rejecting its own earlier slogans of wholesale redistribution of property and the means of production. The Labour Party no longer chooses to self-identify as socialist today even for rhetorical purposes, whereas in practice the original "socialist clause" was never applied by any Labour government, at last being jettisoned by Tony Blair's party as a complete anachronism by 1995.

The raised ideological banner of the party's recent days has been a very open neoliberalism, particularly since the advent of New Labour and Blair's aforementioned rejection of the last vestiges of the party's original taint at that point, but even in infancy the party's overall direction has been from the left towards the center. Granted: some pro-socialist sentiment amid the party's more leftist tendencies has always coexisted alongside the less radical sections of good-old-Labour to some extent. The fact that such black-sheep politicians as George Galloway (long disassociated from Labour and no longer even a Member of Parliament) have held office as members of the Labour Party does not distinguish them as representative members of the party either, any more than such Progressive Democrats within the Democratic Party of the United States as Dennis Kucinich reflect the mainstream side of the Democratic Party.

Re "Was it 1915 (which would make the fascists non-socialists) or was it 1959, then you have to explain what prevented the Weimar Republic from carrying out mass killings. Your definition of socialism appears to include Communists, fascists, some socialists (including those like the Burmese who did not evolve from either socialist tradition) and other unrelated parties like the Ba'athists. Or are you saying that violent socialists are violent, while peaceful socialists are not? What is the connection between socialist theory and mass killings?"

Both of these questions are trivial, since the basic fact that throughout history socialist rulers such as the Nazis, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, and the Maoists, the movement for "Burmese socialism" under Ne Win, and the Ba'ath Party government under the socialist dictator Saddam Hussein all sought to implement their socialistic political aims while committing gross violations of human rights to the point of extinguishing whole classes of their own people in the course of their political pursuits. The mere fact that the liberal government of the Weimar Republic of Germany so happened to be largely dominated by the German Social Democrats and the German Communist Party at a particular time when the Social Democrats identified with socialism is no more relevant an objection than the fact that the Chilean government under the Socialist leader Salvador Allende carried out no mass killings in Chile. Such observations no more preclude us from creating an article entitled Socialism and mass killing or Mass killing under socialist regimes than the fact that such countries as Communist Czechoslovakia, Communist Moldova, and Communist Poland refrained from mass killings has precluded us from writing an encyclopedic article about the intersection of mass murder and Communist rule. It is sufficient to list the various examples of such cases and to provide whatever scholarly literature exists on the underlying commonalities of the atrocities.

The significant question here is simply this: given the existence of scholarly literature on the intersection of socialism and a pattern of mass killings by various socialist regimes, what is it that prevents us from going on to remark about the wider phenomenon, and compels us to limit our investigation to the such states as China, Cambodia, and certain states within the old Soviet bloc, as editors such as yourself and Paul appear to suggest? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is still confusing because the fascists also moved to the right, abandoning Strasserism for example. I think the best place to describe fascist mass killings as socialist-inspired is in this article. TFD (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, does this mean you have changed your position that this article should be deleted, or do you simply see inclusion of this material as bolstering that position? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you asked this question before and I answered it. Please stop raising the same questions over and over again. TFD (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked before for the same reason I am asking now: to reconcile your contradictory actions. You make suggestions on the talk page for how to improve the article at the same time as you argue for deletion on the grounds that such efforts are pointless. Which is it? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, I don't know how long you have been monitoring this article, but there have been many, many arguments about the title on this talk page. A rough consensus on the current title was a long time coming. That's one of the reasons I am reluctant to see the issue reopened. I think the best way to handle this would be to create the separate article, see if it survives Afd nomination (and it will be nominated), and see how it develops. If there is enough sourcing to sustain an article like that, then we can talk about whether to merge the two articles or to leave them separate. Many of the sources currently used in this article focus on one aspect of the topic simply because of the inclusion of a list of incidents. But that there is an article at all is based on those fewer sources which discuss the events as a group. I quoted four such sources in the most recent Afd here. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of view Zloyvolsheb is trying to push is a novel version of Manicheism: a rather childish belief that our world is divided onto the realm of good and the realm of evil. He (as well as Watson) believes that it is possible to find one single word that would be able to manifest all evil of our world (and, accordingly, this word's antithesis is supposed to manifest the eternal good). This approach is hardly novel: orthodox Marxists saw the world evil in private property, Hitler - in Jews and Communists, libertarians - in state control, etc. However, since serious scholars do not use such primitive propagandistic generalisations, the article that is supposed to be based on scholarly sources can hardly be build according to the concept proposed by Zloyvolsheb.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. The only general term that we seriously can use to combine the deeds of "Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ne Win, Saddam, and others)" in one single article would be "bad guys". Even "totalitarian or authoritarian regimes" would not be a good substitute for "bad guys", because in that case many clients of democratic states (Southern Vientam, Indonesia, Latin American juntas etc.) will also join this company. In connection to that I propose not to waste your time and to turn to more serious ideas.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul Siebert, please see the Misplaced Pages article on Straw man. Nowhere did I mention anything morally general or abstract, and let me assure you that never did my statements ever convey anything that bears on concerns with good, evil, or any other metaphysical assertion relevant to Manicheanism or some other scheme. Indeed, my sole in aim in all of the points I've made thus far is to reflect what has already been established by eminent scholars like distinguished Oxford University professor George Watson (apparently a WP:FRINGE writer in the minds of some), as well as many other voices who can be described as experts in the field. In other words, throughout our exchanges I have committed myself to following the official Misplaced Pages approach, as set out in WP:RS policy regarding sources, and would ask you do likewise. And please -- let us henceforth carry on in such a way that no extraneous words be put in my mouth, nor any positions imbued to me, as I mean no more than that which I commit to stating explicitly. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Marxism was not Manichean, private property and the state were seen as necessary stages in social development. But anti-Communism is Manichean and I agree that these views should be properly explained here, provided they have received coverage. While I like Watson's theory that evil can be traced to conservative legitimism, the theory that it can be traced to liberal Jacobinism is more popular. TFD (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Zloyvolsheb, I myself hate the straw man type arguments, and I am trying to avoid putting my own words into my opponent's mouth. My major point was not that your statements "convey anything that bears on concerns with good, evil, etc", but that the concept you are trying to push inevitably leads to that. Your (and Watson's) ideas are dramatic oversimplification of the issue, and, as a result, will lead to one or another metaphysical assertion independent on your will. BTW, you didn't comment on my notion about low notability of the Watson's concept: the fact that Watson is a distinguished professor does not automatically mean all his ideas are notable and deserve to be reflected in WP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are too hasty to dismiss the argument. Misplaced Pages does not so much care for what is or what is not an oversimplification, but for what is notable enough to be encyclopedically discussed. Needless to say, I completely disagree with you about the supposedly low notability of Watson's concept; the idea of the Nazis as a socialist movement has its critics and thus some controversy surrounding it, but it is hardly a fringe theory -- at least in the United States. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

PS You argument about Mussolini is moot because no mass killings were committed by Mussolini's regime (except, probably Ethiopia, however, anti-partisan warfare is hardly a prerogative of totalitarian regimes).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually largely in agreement with you on that: Mussolini has little to do with the kind of article I have in mind, and was only mentioned in passing in reply to TFD. It's far more notable that a good deal of writers, especially libertarians, describe the Nazi Party as a socialist movement. It's easy to name a number of other high-profile people if for one reason or another you think of Watson as being too fringe. For instance, the American political philosopher Murray Rothbard, whose schema of political classification insists on the traditional identification of the 18th-century liberals with the left and their counterrevolutionary opponents with the right, describes the national-socialist government of the Nazi party as a type of "right-wing socialism" -- i.e., an adaptation of the collectivist and statist elements of the broader socialist movement to the anti-liberal reactionaries' categorical rejection of the liberal changes of the Enlightenment. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Watson's book has had zero influence and therefore is just a footnote to the article. The libertarians did believe that fascism was socialist, but it was a right-wing socialism that eventually influenced all governments, including the Communists. But it was a heresy to Marxism, which was anti-statist. Their theory has not become popular because Americans do not know the difference between liberalism and conservatism. The most popular anti-communist theory is in the Black Book. Essentially Communism is an evil conspiracy and mass killings are an objective rather than a means. It is essentially an update of the Protocols of Zion and has the advantage that it can be tied into the New World Order and the black helicopters. TFD (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

We're missing an opportunity here. Remember the Misplaced Pages article on Massacres? The one that was an absolute can of worms where they had no idea what they were trying to do? Well, we can use their (In my opinion, incredible weasel worded) fix for this article. If "List of Massacres" can solve its problems by renaming to "List of Events Named Massacres (leaving out the Barbie Massacre, the Saturday Night Massacre, etc.)", we can fix this article by renaming it to: "Mass Killings Under Regimes Calling Themselves Socialist".

This has a couple of advantages: We don't make the call, the originators make the call. It will pick up even regimes with controversy i.e. the NAZIs where NAZIs was only an acronym for National Socialis . . . and one that was almost never used by the NAZIs themselves. They were "National Socialists" in their own minds.Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We would have to include British mass killings under Labour or coalition governments in Iraq, Germany and other places, killings by right-wing death squads in Columbia, and the Indian government's crackdown on various minorities. TFD (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're starting to catch on. Anyone else think this article is just as poorly conceived as all the other articles in Wiki with an "agenda"? About we AfD this thing before someone says (and it's been done for other articles just as dumb) "It doesn't matter how wrong it is. We've put in too much work to AfD".Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would support an AfD. TFD (talk) 05:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it would be correct, because the arguments of those who oppose the article's deletion are unbeatable: the sources (reliable sources) exist that discuss mass killing under Communist regimes thereby making the article's subject notable. However, the problem with this article is different (I already tried to explain that elsewhere): the article with such a name should be based exclusively on the sources that discuss mass killings under Communist regimes as something pertinent to Communism, and these theories should be presented not as established facts, but as theories (not shared by other scholars, btw), otherwise the article becomes a pure original research. It is incorrect to add sources and facts from other books and articles that deal with some Communist countries taken separately, and it is incorrect to take the scholars' views out of context. We can use Rosenfielde with his "Red Holocaust", but not Wheathcroft, whose works are focused on the USSR only, not on Communist mass killings in general. We can use the Black Book, but I am not sure we can use a Rummel's works, because his "Democide" is a much wider concept (he draw a connection between totalitarianism and democide not between Communism and democide). In other words, the article should be seriously modified: it should discuss not the events (that have already been covered in many other articles), but the views of some scholars on commonality between different mass killings under different Communist regimes. And, of course, a critique of these views also should be added.

In other words, the article should not be deleted, it should be significantly modified to comply with its name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The article will always be problematic because we are combining a number of obscure, unrelated non-academic theories from a variety of sources, none of which are specifically about "mass killings under Communist regimes", or even use that term. TFD (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. If we remove all OR the article will not be problematic. However, after having that done the article should be constantly watchlisted and all attempts to " combine a number of obscure, unrelated non-academic theories from a variety of sources " should be stopped as attempts to decrease the article's quality and, thereby, to prepare it for new AfD.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Romania section deleted by anon editor

References for Romania found in investigation of victims of communist repression also incudes deaths and disappeared individuals (presumed dead) Bobanni (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That is original research. You have to show that there were mass killings. TFD (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of the source in the article is a very tendentious original research. The source specifically says that "direct victims" includes 600,000 people put under trial for political crimes, of which only 1/3 were condemned. The rest (1,4 mil) are peasants put under trial for refusing to participate in the activities of the kolhozes, the POWs taken by Soviets between 23 Aug '44 (the date when Romania declared it changed sides) and 12 September '45 (when Romania signed an armistice with the Allies), which other sources put at around 100,000, deportees (including about 70,000 ethnic Germans expelled after 1945 according to the Allied decision, plus some 45,000 people temporarily moved from the western border in expectation of a Yugoslav invasion), Soviet citizens from Bessarabia and Bukovina repatriated to the Soviet Union, 520,000 people who served in the "grey army" (as the size of Romania's military was limited by the Paris Treaty, a part of the conscripts were not enrolled in the regular army, but in work detachments for public construction projects), "tens of thousand" of people who were put under trial for trying to illegally cross the boundary. So nothing about 2,000,000 deaths. The documents talks about "several thousands" of "unnatural" deaths, including in this number people who died of illness caused by environmental detention conditions, and the largest group killing mentioned is that of 7 (seven!) detainees. Moreover, when talking about indirect victims, it specifically mention that this category refers to "family members who suffered from social discrimination", making it clear that it considers the people "who died in liberty as a result of their treatment in communist prisons" and "who died because of the dire economic circumstances in which the country found itself." as part of the 2,000,000 direct victims. Any Romanian speaker can read the source and confirm the above.

So either bring other sources for that extraordinary large number of deaths, or remove the section.Anonimu (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If "the number of direct victims of communist repression at two million people" refers to the number of arrested, tried, convicted, executed, exiled, deported, died from hunger, disease, etc., then the material re-added by Bobani is not relevant. Please, provide a quote (translated to English) demonstrating that all these two million were killed (or showing another number of killed). The second para (execution of Ceausescu) is irrelevant anyway. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The text, that seems to be irrelevant to the article, has been recently re-added. Since it is impossible to "improve" the irrelevant text, the only reasonable improvement would be its removal. However, before doing that I would like to know if anyone can explain why this text is relevant to the article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor has restored the Rumania section with the notation: "Undid revision 362576700 by The Four Deuces (talk)as it covers an actual conviction for mass murder, it is decidedly on-topic". First, could that editor please explain why the 1989 killing of citizens (now estimated at fewer than 1,000) for which Ceausescu was convicted is seen as "Communist mass killings". Also, could he please explain why the source, a 2001 article on www.moreorless.au.com written by an amateur historian is a reliable source. A side note on writing articles: please go to reliable sources and present what is found there rather than write one's own personal opinion and search for sources that support them. TFD (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As the criminal convictions were for mass killingfs, it would appear per se to be on topic. is an undoybted RS for Four senior officials in the Nicolai Ceausescu Government were convicted yesterday in Bucharest of charges of complicity in genocide. They were sentenced to life imprisonment by a military court. Is the New York Times insufficient to make a claim of mass killings by the Romanain governemnt? Collect (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a statement is true is no reason to provide an unreliable source. The source used was a personal website, not the New York Times. You are well aware of WP:RS. Incidentally the link in the New York Times you provided is to the caption of a photograph of officials in Ceausescu government and does not even mention the Ceausescu trial. Could you please read the sources that you are providing. Also, do you have any reliable source that claims the killings were "mass killings"/ If not could you please remove the section. Thanks! TFD (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Is the New York Times insufficient to make a claim of mass killings by the Romanain governemnt?" Of course, no. The New York Times article is a reliable source to make a claim that Ceausescu and his subordinates had been accused in genocide by their political opponents, not that mass killings took place in Romania. It is not clear if (i) the mass killings took place in actuality (genocide =/= mass killing); and (ii) if these accusations were genuine: although I do not argue that Romanian regime was brutal, the primary goal of its opponents was to get rid of Communist leaders as fast as possible, not to establish real facts. Remember Beria was executed for being a foreign spy, that was absolutely ridiculous, although completely understandable: his opponents wanted to execute him as quick as possible, and the most universal pretext during those times was treason.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not just "accused" - but "convicted." WP requires that where such a claim is made by a reliable source (such as the NYT) that it not be ignored. BTW, the NYT has a number of articles thereon - I chose the one which most succinctly stated the claim. Ascribing the matter of a few thousand deaths as acusations by "opponents" is perilously close to a Godwin's Law invocation. Collect (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Accused, convicted, no matter. You apply a Western vision of legal procedures to the ex-Communist country. If someone has been convicted in genocide by communist or ex-communist authorities that doesn't mean he really committed it. Again, Beria was executed for treason, however, it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that he really did that. One way or the another, we need the source that openly states that mass killings (not genocide) were committed by Romanian authorities, because not every genocide is a mass killing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's widely accepted nowadays that Ceausescu's trial was a kangaroo court. Even those who participated directly acknowledged in the last few years that the trial did not even respect the laws of the communist regime. Actually Ceausescu's rule was the least bloody part of the Communist regime, with only about a dozen political killings (if you include deaths of women who died during illegal abortions, the number could be raised to hundred, but this is not directly to the political ideology, and it's even contrary to communism).Anonimu (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Find an RS for the conviction being a fake then. Until then WP requires we give WP:V the edge - with the NYT being RS n spades. Collect (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The section you support is not supported by the New York Times, but by a personal website. Please read WP:RS in order to gain an understanding of reliable sources. Thanks! TFD (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: " Find an RS for the conviction being a fake then." It is rather loose interpretation of WP:V. Per WP policy, the burden of proof rests with those who adds/restores the material, and you seem not to sustain the burden. The fact that someone in post-communist Romania was convicted for genocide does not mean that (i) the genocide took place in actuality, and (ii) that that genocide was mass killing (per Valentino definition). --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect did a google search and found something that appeared to be a reliable source from the New York Times. However, the source did not even mention the trial. Collect should provide real sources and read them before presenting them. This article is an embarrassment. Anyone reading it would think that Misplaced Pages was a collaboration between US teabaggers and Eastern European fascists. TFD (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

In short you want truth and not verifiability to be the rule? It isn't. NYT NYT 1000 killings in one incident. Reuters NYT with the wonderful claim I can't remember if I gave such an order or not. AP An officer testified today that President Nicolae Ceausescu's Defense Minister shot himself in the heart because he could not bring himself to obey the dictator and order troops to fire on demonstrators during last month's uprising. NYT teporting tribunal verdict NYT Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Idi Amin racked up well over 100 million deaths themselves. True or not this all meets WP:V. Scholarly works , , , etc. @TFD, the search is a NYT search for NYT articles. Note the several additional sources for what should be considered supported by RS per WP. Collect (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this. You presented what you said was a source about Ceausescu. Here is the link to the source. Please do not pretend it is anything other than what it is. People can click on the link and read it! It is a description of a picture of Ceausescu followers who were on trial. It says nothing about Ceausescu. Since you have never read this source you presented, please click on the link now and read it. Now you are providing nine sources! It takes you all of one minute to google search for them and then you expect other editors to actually examine them. Are you aware for example that your first reference is from 1991? How does its reference to "the massacre of almost 100 people" morph into "mass killings under Communist regimes"? Why are you providing a newspaper reference close to the event when 1989 was a long time ago and there are now more accurate sources? Before you reply you should ask yourself whether you intend to improve articles so that they present topics in a neutral point of view or whether you want to use these articles to present your Tea Bag point of view. TFD (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. The RS source was quoted precisely by me - despite WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. Did you read the sources furnished? Are thay somehow deficient because they do not agree with what you "know"? Sorry -- WP:V is what applies, and you well ought to consider the WP policies as being binding. Collect (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've put in 2 Reliable source - in English- that state NC was convicted of the murder of 60,000 people AND genocide. This is obviously related to the topic of Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. It's from reliable sources. If you want to take this to WP:RSN please do so, but I can't imagine that they'll have much patience with such an obvious case. Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect & Smallbones, I am not questioning that Ceausescu was convicted of genocide, merely stating that the source used is unreliable as a personal website and the first source provided by Collect said nothing about Ceausescu's trial. The next source provided by Collect referred to "the massacre of almost 100 people", which is fewer than the 60,000 claimed by Smallbones. Collect, could you please delete those links which are irrelevant to the facts that you have re-inserted into the article. Smallbones, I am surprised at your total confidence in the indictment against Ceausescu considering that the judges were Communists and no evidence was presented. In fact objective estimates of the massacres during the Rhoumanian revolution are below 1,000. Do you have any sources that claim this was a Communist mass killing? TFD (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, your first source does not mention the trial of Nicolae Ceausescu at all. I am unable to access your second source, however if you mention that Ceausescu was convicted of killing 60,000 people you should also mention what informed opinion is about that. TFD (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is anybody actually denying that there were mass killings under Ceausescu? Are you saying that because you have a source that says 1,000 rather than 60,000 killings, or for another incident only 100 killings, that Ceausescu was not guilty of mass killings? Are you saying that Ceausescu did not head a Communist regime? Earlier somebody compared Ceausescu to Beria, suggesting that therefore he was not a mass killer, and that genocide is not evidence of mass killing! Quit this nonsense - read the passage I put in and the 2 English language footnotes- both are online. If you have reliable sources who say anything different, you may put them in. Smallbones (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reread WP:V It is not up to us ot "know" what is "true" only to make sure that reliable sources are used for any statements.

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. is quite clear. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. In connection to that the NYT article is a reliable source for the article about circumstances of Ceausescu's conviction. However, to make a conclusion about mass killing in Romania based on this article is an original research. Try to find some academic source that tells explicitly that mass killings (in a Valentino's scale, more than fifty thousand for five years or less) took place in Romania.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Pray tell why we need to use a scale from a single source for determining what is a mass killing? Seems to me that a court finding such is sufficient - as is the lumping of NC with Stalin et al as a mass murderer. And if we take your point seriously, a dictator of an island nation of 49,000 people could kill every single one of the inhabitants and not commit a "mass killing"? Romania is not a juge nation, hence the level to be a mass killing can not be assigned an arbitrary numerical value. Collect (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, you are missing the point. Whether or not the material you sourced is true, it must be backed up by sources. Your source from Genocide in international law does not say anything about Ceausescu. Collect, it does not matter what your personal opinion on what mass killing is. That is original research. TFD (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" Correct. The statement that Ceausescu was convicted for genocide is verifiable and the source is relevant to the article about the circumstances of Ceausescu's death.
Re: "Seems to me that a court finding such is sufficient..." Yes, if it is a Western court. In actuality, a decision of Romanian court, immediately after revolution, is hardly an evidence. More reliable evidences have to exist if mass killings took place in actuality.
Re: "a dictator of an island nation of 49,000 people could kill every single one of the inhabitants and not commit a "mass killing" It is a very interesting question. In actuality, as I already wrote before, only few scolars cited in the article see a commonality between mass killings and Communism, and Valentino is one who coined the term "mass killing". Majority of other sources do not see any commonality and discuss different mass killings that occured in one or another Communist country separately. Without Valentino's "Final solution" the whole article would fall apart, because other authors write about Communist repressions (that include not only mass killings), or about genocide (not Communist genocide), democide (committed by totalitarian, not only communist regimes), etc., but not about "Mass killings under Communist regimes". Therefore, if we want this article to exist, we must stick to the Valentino's definition of mass killings. Otherwise the article will become a pure original research (a compilation of unconnected sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly present in none of them) and I will vote for its deletion (although, as you probably noticed, I didn't vote for that before).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why must we use one interpretation from Valentino when the article relies on many sources? Last I checked, the article made no such claim that only Valentino was a valid source. Collect (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The article's claims are not relevant because WP is not a source for itself. The article is based on Valentino's "Final solution" (in actuality, on the fourth chapter of his book; interestingly, Valentino studies not Communist mass killings, but mass killings in general, so such a selective use of this source is somewhat odd). Other authors write about Communist repressions (for each country separately), Democide (by all totalitarian regimes, not only by Communists), Genocide (the same), politicide, etc., so without Valentino the article becomes a compilation of other WP article made around some non-existing concept. In addition, Valentino's concept of "deprivation mass killings" allows us to discuss famines and deportations here (other authors use the term "mass killings" in much narrow sense, so without Valentino, all of that should go). If we do not stick to Valentino we are creating our own concept, that is not explicitly stated in sources. This is a synthesis. Again, although I am not an advocate of deletion of this article, the way you and some other editor change the article suggests that it probably should be deleted because it serves as a permanent seed for sustained attempts of massive synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you need sources to support allegations of mass killings. Articles must be based on reliable sources, not your personal opinions. Paul Siebert is correct about the weight to be given to the summary court that convicted Ceausescu. Do you think that the findings of Communist courts can be considered reliable? If so we should remove from the article any mention of "mass killings" where the individuals were killed as a result of judicial decisions. TFD (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no "personal opinions" on this issue nor do I need to substantiate such. What I presented is that the NYT inter alia reerred to such crimes, and that the NYT is a reliable soure for claims made in it. WP:V applies. As the NYT referred to the court, please feel free to add any RS material about the court - that is how WP:NPOV works. Not by excising RS material because you "know" it is wrong. Collect (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, yes the NYT is a reliable source. But the article you present, which says, "A Romanian court jailed eight Communist officials and members of the secret police today for as long as 25 years for the massacre of almost 100 people during the December 1989 anti-Communist uprising in a western city, Timisoara," is not a source for the statement, "Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people". Do you understand that a source about people convicted of killing 100 and does not mention any accusations against Ceausescu is not an acceptable source for a statement he killed 60,000 people? TFD (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Since I did not use the NYT for a claim about "60,000 people" it is clear that you are quite confused as to what the NYT says about a conviction of mass killing / genocide in Romania as the various articles refer to them, and the linking by the NYT of NC to Stalin, Pol Pot etc. Please deal wiyth the cites preented and not with straw man issues. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, what are you using this source for? I will post a message at the RSN noticeboard. I do not know what noticeboard to use when editors use sources that are totally unrelated to the opinions they present. TFD (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I set up a discussion thread at the RSN noticeboard here. Perhaps Smallbones and Collect can explain their "reason" and "logic" there. TFD (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"According to William Schabas, these charges were based on an overestimation of the number of deaths during the events of the Romanian revolution." That gives the impression that some people acually accept the indictment used in the summary trial of Ceausescu, which is misleading. Read for example what it says at the museum of the 1989 revolution in Romania: "The scale of the massacre becomes more and more exaggerated with reports of up to 60,000 dead in Timisoara. The borders are closed so frustrated reporters cannot verify anything (actual figures later published were 97 dead and 210 injured in total)." TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Romania subsection in its present form is totally irrelevant: it is just a discussion of the circumstances of Ceausescu's trial and execution. Please, provide a reliable source that states explicitly and non-equivocally that there were mass killings in Romania (which met the Valentino's definition of mass killings), that were committed by the Communist regime, and they were a result of implementation of the Communist doctrine. If no sources will be provided in reasonable time, I'll delete the section per WP:SYNTH.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. Could anyone please explain why this episode should be included. TFD (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cambodia

An editor continues to remove sourced material about US involvement in Cambodia without discussion, with the notations, "false "citing," and this theory is prominent only on the fringe left" and "not reliable sources, sorry you hate America". The source used was Governments, citizens, and genocide: a comparative and interdisciplinary approach published by the Indiana University Press. Could this editor please restore the edit and explain why they consider this "false citing" and why they consider the source to be unreliable. The deleted text was, "Following the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime, they and their coalition parters received aid and assistance from the United States government. While the US was aware of their genocide they supported them as a check on Vietnamese power". The source says, "In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge received aid and assistance from the United States after their regime was overthrown by the Vietnamese in the late 1970s. Even though the nature of the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge was by then well known, the United States saw them as an important check on Vietnamese power...." TFD (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a harsh allegation to make citing only one source, and given the academic divergence, and the fact that the only other person I've heart blame America for the Khmer Rouge is Noam Chomsky, I felt that there is inherent POV when few sources are used in such a strong allegation. Its not even mainstream history.Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which you can find by looking through the books listed here. There is in fact no "academic diversion" from these facts and it is not an allegation against the US. The US did not put the Khmer Rouge into power, they supported Lon Nol. But after the Khmer Rouge victory, they supported them because they sided with China against the pro-Soviet Vietnam in order to weaken Soviet power. They justified this on the basis that ending Communism took priority, and publicly supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government long after they were overthrown. TFD (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as i remember, the United States government (and Western Europe) backed Pol Pot, even after he was forced from power and replaced with a "good" communist regime, or at least much better than the previous. The United States gave 5 million of dollars to Pol Pot's Prime Minister after his ousting to continue the fight against the vietnamese satelite state. Saying this is POV clearly shows that you don't know about the matter at hand. --TIAYN (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead by starvation is still dead

Am I missing something? I can find no mention of the Holmodor.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they didn't kill all those people on purpose. Stalin didn't start the collectivization project to purposly kill thousands, if not millions of people. That was not his intention. An example on something that was his intention was the Great Purge in the 1930s were he purposly killed thousand, maybe even millions of people, to keep power. --TIAYN (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is in the article. TFD (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. You're right. I didn't spell it correctly when I did my search.Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. So, if I remember my history and understand you: If you lock someone up in a cage and don't feed them it is murder, but if you simply use the army to keep them from leaving a district w no food, it is politics?Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess so, otherwise Western countries wouldn't limit immigration from third world countries.Anonimu (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One more example of synthesis.

I've reverted the text added by Bobani , that is a pure example of synthesis. The sources do not describe expulsion of Germans as Communist mass killing. In connection to that, I re-iterate my recent proposal: since the article is based on the works of those scholars who see a commonality between mass killings in different Communist states and present these killings as pertinent to Communism (Black Book, Rosenfielde, probably Valentino) the article should describe these theories only (along with their criticism). The works of the scholars who study the mass mortality in Communist countries separately from each other, and who do not connect these event with the Communist doctrine should not be used in this article as a support for Communist mass killing theory, because that would be a WP:SYNTH.
Although I am not a proponent of the article's deletion, I am afraid that I will have to change my opinion if the tendency to convert the article into a collection of all facts about excessive mortality under Communist will prevail. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not?

I believe this was brought up a while ago (must be somewhere in the archives, I can't find it), maybe by me, but I'm not sure when my logon ID changed from a number to the current.

Anyway, why doesn't WIKI have a coincident article "Mass Killings under Free Market Regimes"?

Notice I did not say "capitalist" Despite 100 years of misuse, the opposite of "communism (socialism)" is free market. Both are social economic systems. Capitalism is a PROCESS (invest today to benefit tomorrow) and is practiced by everybody, regardless of what they claim.

So, while I believe this article is bad, I also think the bias of only listing one side of the coin is really bad. And no, I'm not going to create it myself. Let someone w an agenda do the work.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any sources showing it is a valid topic for an article? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we assume that the current article should tell about the theories combining mass killings under various Communist regimes together, the answer to the question: "why doesn't WIKI have a coincident article "Mass Killings under Free Market Regimes"?" would be:" because no reputable non-fringe scholars developed such a theory, so we simply have no sources for that; we cannot start to collect different examples of mass killings under free market regimes, because that would be a synthesis"
However, if we decide that the present article, that is just a collection of facts about Communist regimes, is satisfactory, I see absolutely no reason why similar synthesis cannot be performed for the free market regimes, and, therefore, the answer would be: "because, such an article has not been created yet".--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you missed the irony. Why do we have an article that promotes the views of far right extremists, people who equate communism with fascism, deny the holocaust, trivialize it by comparing it with Ukrainian famines and promote the same conspiracy theories as the Third Reich? Do you not agree that this is an embarrassment? TFD (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Where in the world are you getting this characterization? The only one bringing up any of this stuff is you. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, where do you get the opinions that you defend on this talk page? TFD (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What source for this article has denied the holocaust? That is not an issue of opinion. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, the article avoids mention of writers who promote the connection between Communism and mass killings and instead attempts to prove the connection through using examples. Here is a link to an article that explains the connection with anti-semitism. TFD (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you can't find an example of a source used in this article that denies the holocaust because there is no such example. You are simply projecting your own opinions onto material that does not support it. There are several sources used in the article which make a connection between communism and mass killing. Listing examples, which is perfectly appropriate, doesn't "prove" anything. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There exists Anti-communist mass killings already, wherein some editors here have edited, and also opined at AfD supporting that article. There is the possibility that that particular article does not come near the NPOV status of this article. Collect (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument is hardly valid, because "anti-Communist mass killings" are mass killings of Communists, not mass killings perpetrated by all rightist regimes. Whereas the former is quite a notable topic, the latter would be a synthesis (as well as this article in its present form).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually 180 degrees wrong. The current article does not assert rationale in its title for the killings, only that they occurred under communist regimes (governments). The other article makes specific claims as to the causes of mass killings. Thus there is SYN in the other article inherent in its title, whilst SYN is not present in the title of this article. Collect (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean 360 degrees. It implies that the rationale was that they were Communist (not "communist" btw) regimes. TFD (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The only implication is that the killings were of a type. And this is supported by reliable sources, whether or not you agree with them. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Collect does not believe that they are a "type" because he said, "The current article does not assert rationale in its title for the killings". Incidentally I cannot find a description of this type of killing in the article. Perhaps you could provide one. TFD (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Type" means grouping, it does not mean "rationale". AmateurEditor (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for grouping "mass killings under Communist regimes" or are you saying that the grouping is arbitrary? BTW typing does not mean grouping because unrelated individuals may be grouped, e.g., by tidying up and throwing things into a drawer. "Uncategorized" may be a group but it is not a type. TFD (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources used here are the basis. Type does mean group. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The source you linked to does not say, "Type does mean group". It says a type is "a group made up of individuals or items that have strongly marked and readily defined similarities" (my emphasis). This is followed by similar definitions. In other words, all types are groups but not all groups are types. To re-phrase my question, what are the strongly marked and readily defined similarities between mass killings under Communist regimes? TFD (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree "all types are groups", not rationales. The answer to your question is going to be slightly different in each source. That's why we have to attribute each explanation offered in a source to that source. The similarities offered in the sources are by nature opinion or interpretation, rather than facts. But that these events are grouped this way in multiple reliable sources is undeniable and the sound basis for the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that you are following my reasoning. All types are groups, but not all groups are types. (Cf, all Communist countries are countries, but not all countries are Communist.) Your reply implies that, like Collect, you do not believe that "mass killings under Communist regimes" is a type, just that you can find sources that group them. TFD (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming absurd. I'll quote myself, back up where this thread should have ended: "The only implication is that the killings were of a type. And this is supported by reliable sources, whether or not you agree with them." AmateurEditor (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, then could you please provide a description or definition of this type of killing. TFD (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What defines them as a type or group is that they occurred under communist regimes. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "What defines them as a type or group is that they occurred under communist regimes". First of all, the article is about "Communist", not "communist" regimes. If you want to change the topic of the article, please recommend a change of name. Also, could you please define mass killings that occurred under Communist regimes. How do these differ from mass killings under non-Communist regimes? Could you please stop equating "groups" with "types" - the source you provide is quite clear that they are different concepts. It reminds me of what Kierkegaard said, "How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech. TFD (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I'll do us both a favor and ignore the silly stuff and focus on the substance here. One definition for "mass killing" is the one provided by Valentino: 50,000 within 5 years. But we don't necessarily have to stick to that: the term obviously pre-dates Valentino (and he uses it differently himself at least once when he refers to the "mass killings on a smaller scale" that have also occurred). If you want to know how these mass killings differ from those under non-communist regimes you'll have to do the reading on your own. Different sources have different opinions. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The current article does not assert rationale in its title for the killings, only that they occurred under communist regimes (governments)." Not only ot does, but it even devotes a whole section to it. Note, I do not state it is incorrect, moreover, it is how the article should be organized.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the rationale asserted in the title? AmateurEditor (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That the common trait of all regimes that committed mass killings was that they were Communist. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is mystifying. And a bit frustrating. That simply isn't there in the title, Paul. The title doesn't even imply that all communist regimes committed mass killings. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The title does not imply that. The title implies that mass killings occurred under Communist regimes and these killings had something in common. (Otherwise there is no reason to have such an article in WP) Please, try to understand what I mean: I neither propose to delete this article nor I state that no mass killings took place under Communist regimes (or they had nothing in common). My only point is that we have to limit ourselves with the sources that clearly tell about Communist mass killings as something pertinent to Communism and with sources that openly disagree with these theories.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although I also have no problem with the list, which is where we might disagree. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For me both the list article and the article that discusses the mass killings in connection with Communism are acceptable. However, we cannot mix these two things. The article should be modified to fit either first or second scheme. However, since the article in its present form is closer to the second scheme, I propose to remove all tangentially related stuff from it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, is it your position that the only thing that connects mass killings under Communist regimes is that they were mass killings under Communist regimes? Should we now begin an article about mass killings under regimes that start with an "A"? If you want an article that promotes a far right viewpoint, it would be more fair to explain what connection you see rather than imply it through repetition of events. TFD (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, all that matters is that reliable sources make this grouping. If there were reliable sources which talked about mass killings under regimes beginning with the letter "A", then Misplaced Pages could indeed have such an article. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that "mass killings under Communist regimes" is not a type, that there is nothing that connects them but we should have this article because they have been grouped together in academic writing although you have no idea why they did this. Can you please point to WP policies or guidelines that support your viewpoint. TFD (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what I think (or you think). It's the sources which matter. No original research. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Then please allow me to rephrase statement. So you are now claiming that there are no reliable sources that "mass killings under Communist regimes" is a type, that there are no reliable sources that connect them but we should have this article because they have been grouped together in academic writing although you cannot provide reliable sources to explain why they did this. Can you please point to WP policies or guidelines that support your viewpoint. TFD (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I have no idea where you are getting your characterization from. It's like you are making things up. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not characterizing anything or making anything up, I am asking a question, and a very clear one at that. If you do not know the answer or do not wish to answer then please say so. TFD (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Correct. Some reliable sources do make this grouping. However to write the article based both on the sources that make this grouping and those sources that do not make it would hardly be correct. Let me demonstrate that using the following text as an example: "According to prof. A, Communist regimes committed majority mass killings in XX century. Prof. B estimated that about 100,000 civilians died prematurely in the Communist state X during 1950-52." Formally, the text is quite acceptable, however, the problem is that prof. B does not share the views of prof. A, and does not see any linkage between mass mortality in the state X and Communism. Therefore, in my opinion, that is a pure synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. WP:SYN says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". TFD (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul, about your point that we should not use sources in the article which only discuss a part of the topic, I don't know if I can agree. It depends how that source is used. In the list, for example, a source solely about the great purge in the ussr can be used to add a detail about that even though that source does not focus on any other events or countries. Using your example, however, I would agree that civilians dying prematurely does not necessarily mean they were killed by the regime. It would be wrong to mix deliberate killing with simple death not due to killing by the regime. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe what he is saying is that we should not use sources that do not discuss Communist mass killings. If a source makes no connection between mass killings and Communism then it should not be used. TFD (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "In the list, for example, a source solely about the great purge in the ussr can be used..." Yes, provided that, but only provided that the article is a list type. In other words, the article should be renamed to "List of ...", and any theorising should be removed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with having a list of mass killings in an article about mass killings. I think the list and the proposed causes could be split into different articles, but they don't need to be. The topic is the killings, which includes both the sub-topics of proposed explanations and instances. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If such a list is made by some scholar who supports the Communist mass killings theory, this list can and should be in the article. If such a list is made by Wikipedians by combining multiple sources that discuss these events separately and do not speak about Communist mass killings it would constitute a synthesis or original research. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the Communist mass killings theory...". Ah. I think this is the core of the difference between us here. "Mass killings under Communist regimes" isn't a theory, it is a topic of discussion in sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that none of the sources refer to any theory of the existence of communist mass killings. Their theories are solely about the causes. That communist regimes have a particularly bloody record is fact in these sources, not theory. There are various theories, or explanations, proposed to explain this, but this article is not titled "Theory of mass killings under Communist regimes" for good reason. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words you see no connection between Communism and mass killings other than some mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How should allegations of genocide against Ceausescu be described? Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians? Should we give equal weight to both? TFD (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceauşescu was convicted of the Dec. 17, 1989 mass killings of 60,000 people at Timişoara, which was widely reported at the time. However, the Museum of the 1989 Romanian Revolution in Timisoara states that the actual number was 97. Modern scholarship places the total at fewer than 1,000. TFD (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of "However" is not recommended - it looks like the purpose is not to report the allegation and conviction, but to imply no crime existed. NC was also accused of prior killings, if one reads the accounts provided. Are we going to imply that the prior killings did not exist? That sort of arguemnt is used by deniers, to be sure. Collect (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please suggest a "recommended" alternative to however? Ceausescu was not accused of any killings prior to the 1989 revolution. If you want to put such killings in the article then please do so using reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest killing the article. It has created a situation that CAN NOT be solved.Aaaronsmith (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are no grounds for that, Aaaronsmith. Please see the previous AfD. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I did. It's still a terrible article. The problem is not the subject, notability, or documentation. The problem(s) are: A lack of definition for what is to be included (does a mass execution of genuine criminals count? And what is a genuine criminal?), an impossibly huge and contentious subject. Notability aside, there is not way this article can avoid POV (of some kind), ever be complete, ever get even marginal agreement that it has been properly structured to INFORM the reader and not disINFORM by omission and vagueness.Aaaronsmith (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not clutter up this space with a tangent. If you really want to discuss this, start a new section. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of re-opening Pandora's Box, I'm going to also say that having article by this name is a really bad idea. All of the material in this article can easily be included in an article on, for instance, mass killings, rather than have an article whose very title is created to promote a particular point of view. These types of articles have huge NPOV problems. While we're at it, why not have an article titled 'Jews Convicted of Usury', or 'Republicans Convicted of Sex Crimes', or 'African Americans Convicted of Murder'? An article like this violates NPOV before it even gets off the ground. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This box has never been closed. However, your arguments are not completely correct: we cannot have the article 'African Americans Convicted of Murder' because no serious scholar proposed a theory connecting African Americans and murders. By contrast, there are some scholars who connect Communism and mass killings, therefore, the article has a right to exist. However, this article should be devoted to these theories only, not to the events they describe, because other interpretations of these events also exist that discuss the same events without connecting mass killings and Communism as a concept.

The article created a situation when the neutrality policy comes into a contradiction with no-original-research policy: neutrality requires us to present all points of view (including the point of view of those scholars who see no connection between Communism and mass killings, or consider such a connection non-essential), however, no-original-research prohibits us to include such a statement into the article (because many scholars who study history of the USSR, PRC, etc. simply ignore the theories like Democide or Politicide). --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just state all the figures that are available in reliable sources without implying that one figure is better than another. The figure Ceaucescu was indicted for is relevant and sourceable to news reports from the time. The estimates made later by historians are also relevant. Do avoid using "however". Simply break with a full stop or a semicolon. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Itsmejudith has got it exactly right (except "indicted for" should be "convicted of"). If possible it should be noted WHICH mass murders are being discussed: it's very possible NC was properly convicted of 60,000 murders, but in another case only 97 people were killed, and in another the total was less than 1,000. Smallbones (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment I did not suggest that the article should use the terms "however" or "indictment", which is absolutely clear by what I wrote above. I mentioned the indictment because it outlined the charges for which Ceausescu was convicted. The actual conviction does not do this - it says he was convicted of the charges in the indictment. Smallbones, where did you get the idea that the numbers in the indictment could possibly be true? Please provide a source that says any reputable source accepts this figure. TFD (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Reply you asked for a comment - I consider it to be in very bad form to then argue about the comment. Nobody should argue about a suggestion to identify which mass murder you are talking about. As I see it, you have been questioning whether any mass murder at all occurred; confusing the issue by quoting several sources which quote different numbers in different languages without identifying which mass murders they are talking about, and then arguing for deleting the section because of the confusion. What you need to do is find sources that state what you think happened - how many people were murdered under what circumstances. Nobody argues that NC was NOT convicted of mass murder. If you disagree with the source cited, you need to GET a SOURCE that squarely eliminates the confusion. If the sources disagree, so be it. But do not add to the confusion and then argue to delete. Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning the source: the source in fact does not say that Ceausescu was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 people. What I am saying is that the actual number killed should be sourced. I find it ironic that you would accept the findings of this court as the truth. TFD (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not our function here to determine "truth"; it is only our function to assure verifiability. See WP:V. Where editors insist that their view of truth be what is presented, they are basically ignoring WP policy. Collect (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, our function is three-prong: verifiability, neutrality and no original research. I doubt this section to meet these criteria. If mass killings really took place, the reliable academic sources must exist that clearly state that. Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania. Otherwise, the section should be removed per WP:SYNTH--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is taking multiple sources to each support part of a single claim in a single sentence. Such is not the case here. The source used states that NC was found guilty by a court of mass killings. It is not up to us to judge the court, or to state that the matters of fact found by the court are not "true." And the requirement is that the source be "reliable" not that it be "academic" by the way. The NYT is not "peer reviewed" and is an RS under WP policies. Collect (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you are claiming that the findings of the tribunal that convicted Ceausescu are a reliable source for facts. Can you please point to any guideline that supports your faith. TFD (talk) 15:28, 2 (UTC)

Re: "Synthesis is taking multiple sources" Correct. frankly, I meant WP:OR, synthesis is a part of. In connection to that, please, compare my words:

" Instead of attempting to draw a conclusion you want from the sources that do not explicitly state that, please find the sources that tell something more concrete on the mass killings in Romania."

with:

" To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented."

Please, demonstrate that the Romania section is not WP:OR. Per WP:BURDEN you must do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(Out) No - I am claiming that a RS reported what the tribunal did. WP:V is not about "truth" or "facts" - it is about "verifiability." It is most specifically not up to editors to determine "truth." As to the OR claim, as long as the individual claims are sdirectly supported by RS sources, and as long as no conclusion is drawn therefrom, OR does not apply. To wit: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources. If the material is as cited and is found in RS sources, and no synthesis occurred, then WP:OR has not been violated. Collect (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the source telling about the tribunal is reliable, and it meets reliable sources criteria. However, since this article not about NC, and not about tribunal, to conclude from this source that Communist mass killings took place in Romania would be WP:OR. Again, please, demonstrate the opposite, otherwise I'll remove the section soon. By "demonstrate" I mean to provide quotes and sources that explicitly state that mass killings were perpetrated by the Communist regime in Romania. If these killings really occurred, and if the issue is notable enough, it will be not a problem to find such sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania. That is what the source explicitly says. It is a relaibkle source. It is not OR to aver that NC was a Communist <g>. In fact, the NYT says he was a Communist. No OR. The source is RS. The cite remains proper. "If they really occurred" seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." That is, moreover, the one thing as editors we can not try using as a rationale. Collect (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources state that the numbers of victims in the indictment against Ceausescu, for which he was convicted, were false. There is no reason why we should not accept what reliable sources state with the argument that no one can "know the truth". Remember that articles are based on verifiability not truth. TFD (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "It is not OR to cite the NYT as a source for NC being found guilty of mass killings in Romania." Correct. However, to include this fact into the article about mass killings is OR, because the source does not directly support the idea that these mass killings really took place. Again, if you believe they did, please, find the source that directly state that.

Re: "seems again to insinuate that you "know the truth." " I know the WP policy; I also started to suspect that there were no mass killings in Romania, because, despite my multiple requests, noone has provided reliable sources so far that tell about mass killings (not conviction) in NC's Romania.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful Paul, you're being too logical/correct for Misplaced Pages. You'll just make people hate you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard about the shooting of demonstrators described as mass killings. When the US government shot students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State it was called a "massacre" not a mass killing. How is this different? TFD (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that 97 is a greater number than 4? Most people do not consider 4 to be a very large number. Meanwhile, it is up to us to use the words used in reliable sources, not to assert what we "know." NYT NC hired assassins to kill dissidents and to try to kill radio employees. General Plesita showed no remorse for crushing anti-Communist dissent.. Mr. Ceausescu literally sold ethnic Germans to the West German government for hard currency, several thousand dollars worth for each of them, in return allowing roughly 10,000 to 15,000 of them to emigrate each year from 1978 to 1989. but he built such a brutal cult of personality and such a foreign debt that he ended up the only leader to be executed. et alia. The sources make claims - it is not for us to say the claims in RS sources are not what we "know" to be wrong. Collect (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly ignore the point: noone questions the validity of the source's statements. However, to state that mass killings (50,000 for 5 years or less) occurred in Communist Romania would mean to make a conclusion, which constitute an original research (and simply contradicts to what the source states).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the strongest opponents of the US used the term My Lai Massacre, not My Lai mass killings, even though more people were killed there than during the Romanian revolution. And Ceausescu's agreement with the West German government had nothing to do with mass killings. TFD (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Romania section may exist in the article only if some reliable source supports the fact that mass killings took place there. Instead of wasting my time in endless discussions with the person who refuses to get absolutely clear point, I've performed a search and I found that almost nothing is known about mass killings in Romania. However, I found a table in the Valentino's book where Romania is listed among the states where some killings may have occurred, although the evidences are insufficient to judge about their scale, intentionality of motives. Such a statement is sufficient to include the Romania section into the article. -

Based on that, I include the materials from the Valentino's book into the article, remove the OR tag and delete all non-relevant material from the section. I also propose to close this RfC, because the issue is resolved. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why single Romania? The book uses the same terms about Bulgaria and DDR. Better have a section under the Controversies header listing "possible cases". Also, a note in the article about Valentino's domain of expertise would be needed, as he used a lot of time as a source.Anonimu (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is a table in Valentino's book where he says, "All figures in this... table are author's esimates based on numerous sources". It seems that if we are going to mention cases of estimates of possible cases then we should use the sources upon which Valentino relies. Incidentally, the entry is for East Germany not the DDR. Presumably this occurred during de jure Soviet occupation in 1945-1949 since the cause listed is "Political repression by Soviet Union". TFD (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the US and many other nations never recognized the "DDR" and continued to refer to it as "East Germany." For the earlier era it was called the "Soviet Zone." (Hallstein Doctrine) The FRG and DDR joined the UN in 1973 - well after your 1949 date. So much for that cavil. Collect (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In 1972 the two Germanies agreed to recognize each other and they were both admitted into the UN in 1973. The GDR was recognized by the US and the GDR and the US exchanged ambassadors. However none of this is relevant. The term "East Germany" refers both to the Soviet Zone and the GDR. We should not say that mass killings may have occurred in the GDR when the source says "East Germany" - the reference to "political oppression by Soviet Union" may have occurred during the Soviet de jure occupation (which by the way was recognized by the United States) rather than 1949-1989. TFD (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Any killings from 1949 to 1972 would be described as "East Germany" which appears to be the case in the RS source. Collect (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What reason do you have to believe that Valentino would make this distinction? TFD (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, if you want to change Paul Siebert's edit for Romania, please use reliable sources that support what you are putting in. TFD (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since they were reliable sources for the claims made in the first place, your comment is useless here. Collect (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources must also be relevant (simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article). TFD (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The sourrces refer to Ceausescu. I assume that the fact he was a Communist is not seriously in dispute, nor the fact that he was from Romania, nor the fact that he ruled Romania under a "communist regime", nor the fact that he was convicted of mass killings. The article is about mass killings under communist regimes. Seems 4 for 4 on being related. What other article fits that 4 for 4 fit? Collect (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say he committed mass killings. Please find a source that says he did. Also, do not assume, please see WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources say he was convicted. Which was what I said. No assumptions involved. Still 4 for 4. Collect (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No sources say he committed mass killings under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The present article tells nothing about the leader's fate. For instance, nothing is said about de-Stalinisation in the USSR. One way or the another, any attempts to re-introduce the text about NC conviction will be reverted per WP:BURDEN until more reliable sources on mass killings will be provided. However, I doubt it is possible taking into account that such a serious scholar as Valentino failed to find anything concrete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Collect that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to promote anti-Communism or other American extremist views but to present a fair and balanced opinion of subjects. I would also like to point out that distorting sources will probably discredit your views and that the best way to defend your views is to insist on accurate presentation of facts. TFD (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting misleading information into the article is unhelpful, and will make it appear more like an anti-Communist tract that a neutral account of mass killings under Communist regimes. While the intentions may be noble, to warn people of the dangers of Communism, it may also have the opposite effect, because anyone looking into the Ceausescu trial would see that this article is misleading and therefore question the entire article. However unpopular a system of government may be, we must not abandon neutrality in writing about it. TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A commnent from the Guardian is unlikely to represent "American extremism." Nor does the new material make any specific accusation agaoinst Ceausescu. Collect (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Straw man issues such as "American extremist views" are a personal attack, and I insist that the attack be stricken. Such has no place on this talk page, or on any talk page. Collect (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, the term "straw man" has a specific meaning and is inapplicable here. It was not my intention to personally attack you, so I have rephrased my comments. TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Guys, could you next time formulate RFC questions better? It looks as if the murder of NC and his wife is equated to "genocide against Ceausescu". To the point: whatever the killers invented in the heat of the moment should be clearly labeled as such - gunmen's apology. They could say 60 thousand, or 600. That's the way the revolutions work, the loser takes it all and pays the bill for everybody. East of Borschov (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am at fault and I changed it. You make an interesting point though. Ceausescu was convicted by a Communist court and may therefore be a "Victim of Communism". However one editor, User:Collect, thinks that the findings of Communist courts are reliable sources and take precedence over the opinions of American academics. TFD (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Making false statements about what I "think" ill-serves your position. I insist that WP:V is official policy here, and that the New York Times is a reliable source for stating that Romanians were found guilty of genocide. And others at RSN agree that the New York Times is a reliable source for that sort of factual information. I also insist that inserting what an editor "knows" is directly contrary to WP policy and rules. Collect (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You should not insist on inserting what you know about about mass killings in Romania but should find reliable sources. The findings of a Communist tribunal are not a reliable source. Also, please avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting. TFD (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The term is "quotation marks" and use is dictated by manuals of style, not by your "knowing" what "quote marks" must be used for. The use of quotation marks around "know" is thus proper and correct. What I believe to be proper in an article is material found in reliable sources which means the Guardian and NYT meet that requirement of WP:V. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source for your position on the use of "quotation marks"? TFD (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What a strange debate, why is it even going on? Ceausescu was convicted of mass killings, this was widely reported so why is it an issue? There are even books on the subject, Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes The future of Germany and the Atlantic Alliance really what exactly is the issue? mark nutley (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As explained at the top of this section this strange debate is about "Should we use the numbers in the indictment or those accepted by historians?" The second source you provide says, "On the orders of Ceausescu, hundreds and perhaps thousands of these protesters were killed on December 19, 1989". Those are the numbers accepted by historians. However, Collect and others insist on presenting the numbers in the indictment, which is 60,000. What do you think? By the way, your first reference does not mention mass killings by Nicolae Ceausescu at all. Could you please take the time to read your sources before presenting them. TFD (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange as the first source says, mass killings during the 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the ceusescu regime perhaps you should take the time to read the sources before commenting? Also i`m with collect on this, we use what the sources say and if the sources say 60k were killed then that`s what goes into the article per wp:v Lets face it 60k is on the low side for murder for NC. mark nutley (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although the words "straw man" have been already utilized here, that was done in the incorrect way. Let me point out that this RfC as whole is a typical example of the straw man fallacy. Firstly, it is impossible to question the fact that NC was found guilty of genocide by revolutionary tribunal, and all sources that describe that fact are reliable and unquestionable. Secondly, these reliable sources do not provide independent confirmation of the fact that mass killings took place. In other words, these sources are quite reliable for the circumstances of NC conviction and execution, however, they are not reliable for the very fact of genocide. Thirdly, we already have a reliable source in the article that states that the data about mass killing are insufficient for making judgement, therefore, it would be an original research to write that the fact of genocide has been well established.
One way or the another, the attempt to use WP:V as a pretext for violation of WP:NOR is not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While in this case, the people accused of genocide were acting under the instructions of Nicolae Ceausescu, it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. Anyway you are missing the point. No reliable source uses the figure 60,000. If you want to use that number, then please provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "it is not stated in the source and the source is therefore invalid. " By writing this you provide your opponents with additional arguments. Obviously, the source is both valid and reliable, however, it is used in incorrect way. The problem is not with the source but with its usage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to , which does not say anything about Ceausescu's connection with mass killings. (Of course one may infer that since mass killings occurred under his regime, he committed mass killings.) TFD (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people I hope the BBC is reliable enough mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says, "initial reports suggested many hundreds had been killed. In fact the number of dead was probably fewer than 100.... Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people...." Could you please provide a reliable source that states 60,000 people were killed. TFD (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you not actually read the sources? The initial reports is about the actual uprising, not how many people he had put to death. That is a reliable source saying he was accused of killing 60k people, do you have a source saying he did not? mark nutley (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

But here`s another source saying he killed 60k Lawrence Journal-World - Dec 26, 1989

The source you provide is a Dec. 26th editorial from the Lawrence Journal-World of Lawrence, Kansas that says "Ceausescu reportedly was responsible for killing 60,000 Romanians...." Do you have a source saying that he killed 60,000 people? BTW we do not add false information to articles and require people challenging it to provide a source that disputes it, although in fact historians do dispute this figure. TFD (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now given you two sources which say he was accused of killing 60k people i have also given sources from books which say he was a mass murderer and was tried for it exactly what is it about these sources you have an issue with? mark nutley (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And another The Age and another The Herald mark nutley (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, these are contemporaneous news stories that report the charges against Ceausescu, not sources that he killed 60,000 people. I noticed that you added text to the Romania section where you refer to the conviction but not to scholarly estimates of the actual numbers. This is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Also, you have used a source that is about trials that took place after Ceasescu's death. Furthermore, your section is poorly written. It ends with a part sentence. TFD (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All those sources say he was accused of killing 60k people, everything you removed was reliably sourced. The section was written just fine, your removal of reliably sourced material is disruptive and i shall ask you to self revert. Note this, i did not say nor did the sources that he killed 60k people, the section stated he was accused of this per so self revert please mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are three problems with your edit:

• It is poorly written. Schabas' book was not a novel, which normally refers to a work of fiction (i.e., about things that did not happen.) Also, the last sentence is incomplete.
• It says Ceausescu was executed "for the mass murder of 60 thousand people over the course of the Ceausescu regime". In fact the source does not say that this was over the course of the regime. Also, it implies that 60,000 people were murdered, which is speculation.
• WP:NPOV requires that articles "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". That does not mean that we report a discredited finding at a summary trial but ignore the consensus of historians.

TFD (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are in error The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" is most certainly in the book the sentence is not incomplete at all. It is not poorly written, that is your pov. wp:npov were is the bias in reporting what the sources say? there is none. Last chance please self revert or i will revert you for removing reliably sourced material from an article without a policy based reason mark nutley (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The final sentence in your edit reads, In his novel Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime" . It is normal in English to use two sets of quotes and to end sentences with periods. Why do you call the book a novel? Also, it leaves a false impression that the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. I have fully explained my position about why this is NPOV and see no value in repeating it. By the way, this is an RfC and perhaps other editors will weigh in on the subject. In the meantime, please note that this article is under a 1RR restriction and therefore you cannot re-insert this subject matter which is the subject matter of this discussion. TFD (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And again you are mistaken, even though this article is under 1r i most certainly can revert you. There is no false impression here, the author was talking about the allegations against Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, your point makes no sense. It is not normal when quoting from a book or another source to use "stuff here" and it is normal to end a sentence with a full stop, not a period. You appear to be grasping at straws here, btw policy dictates you should have improved upon the content not removed it, if you thought "Novel" was wrong you should have replaced it with book mark nutley (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu in the entire "novel". And yes 1RR applies. TFD (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You will be pleased to see i have taken your concerns seriously, I have changed novel-book and i added the missing ", problems solved mark nutley (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The author does not mention Elena Ceausescu Erm, he mentions the Ceausescu Regime of which she was a part, did you actually have a point? mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i think you will find in what i added she is mention in this ref The BBC, not the book. mark nutley (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

1. As it was shown several times already, the 60,000 figure is not supported by any modern (post-1995) reliable source. The fact that some reputable sources reported the allegations in 1989 doesn't mean that we should ignore newer research (just like we don't quote Strabo when he say the word is flat, even if his works are a prerequisite for any serious study about European antiquity).
2. Unless, there's a source explicitly saying the Ceausescu committed mass killing because he was a leader of a communist regime, his mention here is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Otherwise we can create an article about Mass killing under non-Communist regimes, where we can include all mass killing in history until 1848, and 80% of the ones after 1848. If you want to present original ideas in this article, please produce a research paper, get it peer reviewed by a reputable institution, and then we will discuss. Until then, please read again what Misplaced Pages is really about.Anonimu (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed during the regime which is what the sources i added clearly state. I have no need to produce a paper nor get it peer reviewed so don`t be silly, per wp:v the sources and what they say stand, try again please mark nutley (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment just shows one more time that you aren't interested in facts or building consensus, just in promoting a certain opinion. Otherwise you would have noticed the numerous sources presented again and again, that show the figure you cite had no relation whatsoever with reality. Yes, the verifiability policy allows you to use those sources, but on a relevant article, such as one about Nicolae Ceausescu or Nicolae Ceausescu's trial, the present article being neither of them. Also, per WP:NPOV you should not give undue weight to allegations proven wrong, and acknowledged as such even by the people who originated them (in this case, the leadership of the Romanian revolution).Anonimu (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Show me the links stateing that 60k people were not killed..." Sorry, but per WP:BURDEN the burden of proof rest with those who adds materials, not removes it. Nevertheless, such a source exists and it has already been cited in the article. Valentino in his book argues that more than 60,000 may have been killed starting from 1947, however, the documentary evidences are insufficient to make more concrete conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead during the regime did not happen according to modern sources, yet all three fail to provide links to sources saying that 60k people did not die under the regime. Either provide sources to back the claims you are making or give it up mark nutley (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You must have trouble understanding sources. All your sources clearly say that figure is only what Ceausescu's executioners claimed. On the other hand. Another source you quoted, says explicitly: "genocide was the proper charge solely because of the large number of victims, believed, erroneously, to have numbered in the thousands". It's clear for anyone with a average knowledge of the English language that the source says that the death toll was less than "in the thousands", which corroborates with this reliable source, that says "the genocide charge was based on the killing of several hundred civilians". You can also see in this reliable sources (page 156 and on), how the US media already began to back down on the figure in January 1990, which reached 10,000 on the 10th, 4,000 to 7,000 on the 12th, only to reach several hundreds in March 1990. The 60,000 figure is clearly untenable. You can report the accusation in an article about Ceausescu, making it clear who and in what context made the accusation, but not in this article.Anonimu (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I now have three people saying there is proof that 60k dead" You demonstrated complete misunderstanding of WP policy. Firstly, WP is not a democracy. Secondly, since I do not insert new claims into the article, I do not have to provide any sources. By contrast, you (as well as some other editors) want to add some material, so, please, provide a quote form the reliable source that states that 60,000 were killed (not believed to be killed, because such a source, which was added by me, is already in the article). --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your full of crap, an edit can`t be reverted out on the pretext that there is new research stating that 60k people did not die under the regime and then not supply the actual sources for it. The links you posted above only deal with the uprising, C was convicted of murdering 60k people during his regime which is what the sources i added actually say. Now either show your source saying he did not have that many murdered or i`ll put it back in mark nutley (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceausescu's fellow Communists claimed he killed 60,000 people and shot him. Unlike Marknutley, I do not believe that the statements of Communist officials take priority over those of historians. TFD (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is getting real boring real fast, were are the sources? Were are the papers by these historians which say 60k people did not die during the C regime? You guys keep saying there are some, lets see them mark nutley (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been provided, but apparently you choose only to accept official Communist statements. While I appreciate we may have different points of view, we are bound to follow WP:Neutrality. TFD (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No sources have been provided at all, just a lot of hot air. Sources now or my edit goes back in mark nutley (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are contained in the second paragraph this RfC. You may find it helpful to actually read the contents of RfCs before responding to them. Regardless the burden is on you to provide reliable sources for information you wish to insert. TFD (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding right? A Travel Agent which does not even mention how many died during the C regime. The Genocide Convention: an international law analysis only mentions how many might have dies during the uprising, not how many died during the C Regime. My sources are for how many died throughout the length of the regime, so i reckon my edit stands per wp:v and wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your first source, the BBC, says they were "accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis) and state "the number of dead was probably fewer than 100". Your second source quotes a newspaper that says the Communist run TV station said that they had been charged in the deaths of 60,000 people" (my emphasis). Your third source says that nearly 100 people were killed at Timosoara. (Please do not belittle the 1989 Revolution Museum, Timisoara because it is a tourist attraction. The British Museum is also a tourist attraction. In fact it says exactly what your first and third souces say.) TFD (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point is? That is what my edit says they were accused and then shot. However you are focusing on the uprising, not the regime lenght, the aources talk of those dead during the length of the regime not just during the uprising, spot the difference. Your tourist museum source is riddled with spelling errors and mistakes, it is not a reliable source for this at all mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, please do not denigrate the museum, which merely states the facts that are shown in your sources. Where is your evidence that there were any killings before the uprising? Can you at least name one victim? TFD (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again it`s not a museum it`s a travel agents. All the sources i used in my edit say there were 60k dead during the C regime. The BBC were accused of ordering the deaths of 60,000 peopleThe Herald Journal Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime All reliable sources, all saying the same thing he was accused and executed for the murder of 60k people throughout the course of his regime. mark nutley (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Conviction for genocide rather implies Mass killing - really! Even the UN definition says so!

The factual material from the NYT was removed on the basis that a source using "genocide" in it does not mean "mass killing." I know of no reason for removal of the Guardian cite at all. Query: Does "Genocide" imply "Mass killing"? I ratbher thinbk it is implicit. Especially as the UN defined "genocide" as including ""any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, 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; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." How one can thus claim that "genocide" somehow fails to fall within the purview of this article is rather hard to comprehend. Please restore that material, as being fully sourced and germane. Collect (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the quote provided by you demonstrate you were wrong. Not all mass killings are genocide and not all genocides imply mass killings. For instance, Nazi program of Germanisation of the Poles ("forcibly transferring children of the group to another group") was a genocide, however it was not mass killing.

However, my point is different. You problem is that you make a wrong emphasis. The source is irrelevant because it tells about allegation of genocide, not allegation of genocide (the emphasis on the word "allegation", not "genocide"). The statement that some people may have been killed in Socialist Romania is already in the article, so the quotes provided by you give no additional information and create a visibility of clarity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Try Conviction not allegation. Convictions are generally regarded as facts, last I checked. Your mileage varies? Collect (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Conviction by some court in some Western country mean much more than just allegation (although the difference between "legally proven" and "scientifically established" is huge). However, the situation with NC was different: he was never convicted by more or less objective court to speak about any truth (btw, that can equally mean his actual crimes were greater, not smaller). One way or the another, I already presented this argument, so I see no reason to re-iterate all of that again and again. Try to provide anything fresh.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The NYT source does not refer to NC, so the cavil about him is not relevant. Collect (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Collect, many of the victims in this article were in fact convicted by Commmunist tribunals of treachery. Should these be excluded because we can assume as fact that they were guilty of the charges? TFD (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Find RS sources and add that in then - but excluding the NYT is silly. I would be delighted to see sources saying that those killed under communist rule in Romania were executed for "treachery" as you state. Add them. Collect (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the NYT say that the allegations in the indictment on which Ceuasescu was convicted may be considered to be facts? Where in WP policy does it say that a conviction verifies facts? TFD (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Request For Comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: History and geography Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This text has recently been added and then reverted out.

On the 22 of December 1989, Romania's communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in a revolution. Both he and his wife Elena Ceausescu were executed on the 25 of December 1989 by firing squad for the mass murder of 60 thousand people during the course of the Ceausescu regime. Romanian State Television said the charge of Genocide covered the deaths of 60 thousand people

In his book Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes William Schabas wrote, "The allegations concerned mass killings during the December 1989 popular uprising as well as other victims of the Ceausescu Regime"

1. Horsley, William (22 December, 1999). "Romania's bloody revolution". BBC. p. 1. Retrieved 5 June 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Brumley, Bryan (Dec 27, 1989). "US Sending $500,000 aid package to Romania". Herald-Journal. AP. p. 2. Retrieved 5 June 2010.
3. Schabas, William (2009). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 624. ISBN 9780521787901.

I believe wider community input is required here to decide if these sources used support the proposed text. mark nutley (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Involved users

Comments by uninvolved users

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment