Misplaced Pages

User:Davide King/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Davide King Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:14, 30 November 2021 editDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users104,398 editsm →Atsushi Tago and Frank Wayman (single paragraph): r ---> rs← Previous edit Revision as of 10:39, 7 December 2021 edit undoDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users104,398 edits testTag: RevertedNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
==== Theory-based topic ====
== MkUCR (AfD nomination) — c. 4,000 words (''full'') ==
; Proposed topic
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)}}
"he discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation? And so on, and so forth. ... ." Non-primary literature about this proposed topic:
* {{cite journal|last=Ghodsee|first=Kristen|date=Fall 2014|url=http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/kristenghodsee/files/history_of_the_present_galleys.pdf|title=A Tale of 'Two Totalitarianisms': The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism|journal=History of the Present|publisher=Duke University Press|volume=4|issue=2|pages=115–142|doi=10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115|jstor=10.5406/historypresent.4.2.0115|accessdate=7 December 2021|via=Scholars at Harvard}}
* {{cite journal|last=Neumayer|first=Laure|date=November 2017|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/advocating-for-the-cause-of-the-victims-of-communism-in-the-european-political-space-memory-entrepreneurs-in-interstitial-fields/CA97E4462FBB1B26B2ECB087700F1C17|title=Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism' in the European Political Space: Memory Entrepreneurs in Interstitial Fields|journal=Nationalities Papers|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=45|issue=6|pages=992–1012|doi=10.1080/00905992.2017.1364230|issn=0090-5992}}
* {{cite magazine|last1=Ghodsee|first1=Kristen|last2=Sehon|first2=Scott|date=22 March 2018|editor-last=Dresser|editor-first=Sam|url=https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-communism-stance|title=The Merits of Taking an Anti-Anti-Communism Stance|magazine=Aeon|accessdate=7 December 2021}}
* {{cite book|last=Neumayer|first=Laure|year=2018|url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Criminalisation_of_Communism_in_the/4jhjDwAAQBAJ|title=The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War|edition=E-book|location=London|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781351141741}}
* {{cite journal|last=Neumayer|first=Laure|year=2020|url=https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-d-etudes-comparatives-est-ouest-2020-2-page-151.htm|title=Bridges Across the Atlantic? Intertwined Anti-Communist Mobilisations in Europe and the United States after the Cold War|journal=Revue d'études comparatives Est-Ouest|publisher=Presses Universitaires de France|issue=2–3|pages=151–183|accessdate=7 December 2021|via=CAIRN}}
* {{cite journal|last=Dujisin|first=Zoltan|date=July 2020|title=A History of Post-Communist Remembrance: From Memory Politics to the Emergence of a Field of Anticommunism|journal=Theory and Society|publisher=Springer|volume=50|issue=January 2021|pages=65–96|doi=10.1007/s11186-020-09401-5|s2cid=225580086}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Engel-Di Mauro|first1=Salvatore|display-authors=etal.|date=4 May 2021|title=Anti-Communism and the Hundreds of Millions of Victims of Capitalism|journal=Capitalism Nature Socialism|publisher=Routledge|volume=32|issue=1|pages=1–17|doi=10.1080/10455752.2021.1875603|doi-access=free}}


Of course, there are also secondary sources, e.g. reviews of Courtois' thesis, and I am sure TFD and Siebert can provided many more. I put those sources because they are tertiary about the proposed topic,'''1''' which the other topics lack, and summarize for us what proponents of the topic actually say and believe in.'''2''' They also shows that it is mainly a anti-communist/totalitarian field of memory, of which those sources are experts. For the politicization of the topic, Holocaust obfuscation and trivialization, and memories, see:
=== Must read (c. 1,000 words) ===
* {{cite web|last1=Liedy|first1=Amy Shannon|last2=Ruble|first2=Blair|date=7 March 2011|url=https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/holocaust-revisionism-ultranationalism-and-the-nazisoviet-double-genocide-debate-eastern|title=Holocaust Revisionism, Ultranationalism, and the Nazi/Soviet 'Double Genocide' Debate in Eastern Europe|website=Wilson Center|publisher=Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars|accessdate=7 December 2021}}
==== Comment (must read — short two paragraphs) ====
* {{cite journal|last=Kühne|first=Thomas|date=May 2012|title=Great Men and Large Numbers: Undertheorising a History of Mass Killing|journal=Contemporary European History|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=21|issue=2|pages=133–143|doi=10.1017/S0960777312000070|issn=0960-7773|jstor=41485456}}
:''From . was the version'''1''' when the article was nominated for AfD. For a summary of both side's argument, is a good one.''
* {{cite journal|last=Shafir|first=Michael|date=Summer 2016|url=http://jsri.ro/ojs/index.php/jsri/article/viewFile/798/696|title=Ideology, Memory and Religion in Post-Communist East Central Europe: A Comparative Study Focused on Post-Holocaust|journal=Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies|publisher=Universitatea Babes-Bolyai|volume=15|issue=44|pages=52–110|accessdate=7 December 2021|via=JSRI}}
:''Included are many links to comments from the discussion, among others, which may be helpful for the closure when they are reviwing it.''
* {{cite web|last=Subotić|first=Jelena|date=18 November 2019|url=https://balkaninsight.com/2019/11/18/how-holocaust-memory-was-hijacked-in-post-communist-states/|title=How Holocaust Memory was Hijacked in Post-Communist States|website=Balkan Insight|accessdate=7 December 2021}}
'''Delete''' per ] as ], as ],'''8''' , is possible to solve the ], ]/], ], and even ] issues (e.g. contradiction with and all individual events that are not described as ''mass killings'' by majority† sources, excess mortality and mass death events conflated as mass killings, etc.), since the 'Keep' side has refused attempts at rewrite, , and some even refusing to acknowledge any issue despite recognition from the moderator at ]. I have no prejudice in a full/future '''rewrite''' that is NPOV, in full respect of our policies and guidelines (NPOV is not negotiable), and a clearly agreed and defined topic, such as one. Merely stating "]" does not mean anything, especially if you do not address our legitimate concerns and disagree about the topic's scope and structure, as can be seen in my in-depth analysis of so far cited sources below.
* {{cite book|last=Radonić|first=Ljiljana|year=2020|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ks7nDwAAQBAJ|title=The Holocaust/Genocide Template in Eastern Europe|edition=E-book|location=London|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781000712124|accessdate=7 December 2021|via=Google Books}}
* {{cite journal|last=Subotić|first=Jelena|date=4 August 2020|title=The Appropriation of Holocaust Memory in Post-Communist Eastern Europe|journal=Modern Languages Open|publisher=Liverpool University Press|issue=1|pages=22|doi=10.3828/mlo.v0i0.315|issn=2052-5397}}


; Notes
Just saying that there are no issues, or if they are, they can be easily fixed, without proposing any solution, ignoring that we have already discussed at length, and even had a DRN discussion about it — it does not help us. ] (]) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


'''1.''' They generally mention the 100 million number and/or Courtois/''The Black Book of Communism''.
; Examples of replicated content (deletion will not result in removal of any significant information from Misplaced Pages)
* ], ], ], ], ], ], ], , . See .


'''2.''' This is very helpful in fixing the article's "He said, she said" structure, citing it to the author themselves rather than secondary sources about them. Rather than cite Courtois for what he said, we are using secondary and tertiary sources for it. If there are no such sources for other authors, then it means they are likely undue and should not be discussed.
† ''Majority'' sources are country experts and specialists, ] (core source of MKuCR) are ''minority'' sources — is the ; see () how any ''academic'' criticism and mention of mainstream scholars who do not support a global Communist death toll. See also .


] (]) 10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
==== Rationale (must read — short four paragraphs) ====
:''See also and , and Paul Siebert's comments in general (they are better than I could), as best rationale in favour of deletion and rebuttal of 'Keep' arguments.''
] ({{tq|If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted}}) and ] ({{tq|deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts}}). The article is a content POV fork and coat, as acknowledged and recognized by DRN moderator (though they did not weight in on whether to 'Keep' or 'Delete'), which fails NPOV/WEIGHT and VERIFY, and is OR/SYNTH per , including rebuttals , , and , and because:
* "Generic Communist" grouping, as is applied in the article, is controversial (it was one of the much scholarly criticism of '']'', see , , and ).'''2'''
* themselves do not find regime type to be significant in explaining mass killings, there are disagreement and a lack of consensus among genocide scholars, and all three approaches are flawed in terms of their predictive power and falsifiability (). See also concise summary.

and , C.J. Griffin and Paul Siebert () gave an accurate and valid summary of issues. ] does not apply, since it has been over a decade that we have discussed this and tried to find a solution, or even a compromise, among us. Keeping it as it is, it is not only unhelpful but even actively harmful and a form of ] (); ], ], and ] are the only encyclopedias having such an article. 'Keep' voters have relied on ] {{tq|(Google search results alone are not grounds for protecting an article from deletion}}) rather than Google Scholar, the latter being a better way to look for scholarly literature or lack thereof.

The article takes a proposed Communist genocide/mass killing concept from — say — Mann, Straus (who is merely reviewing rather than proposing the concept), and Valentino, even though the first is about classicide, the second is about genocide in general, and the third is a chapter about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century, then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pol, adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side (Courtois, Rummel) list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars-related, etc.), to suggest all those are mass killings and/or victims of communism (the main culprit, which is contrary to Valentino's view of leaders, not regime type, being the main culprit), its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues I have highlighted.

In academia and ''scholarly'' sources, mass killings are discussed as a general topic, hence this article acts as a coatrack content POV fork of that topic to push a Communist grouping, as if it was universally accepted and/or a special category that could explain the onset of mass killings — it does not and it is not a separate category and/or topic. As written , include a general article about mass killings, or during the 20th century, as a spin-off of ]. I also accept those three proposals as possible solutions other than deletion but only if the article is completely rewritten/restructured per ] (not a policy but an especially relevant essay for this article and its problems), e.g. if the closure give the green light to such rewrite, 'Keep' side must be collaborative and accept such possibility, as users showed , , and .

==== For the closer (must read — three paragraphs) ====
:''See also for how we have been misread as though we are denying the events, which indeed happened — it is their grouping and connection that I and others dispute.'''10'''''
Addendum — "per sources" arguments must not be taken at face value due to a sourcing problem as summarized by Siebert (see also and ) and the issue described in the lack of agreement about the main topic. is what they should answer and demonstrate to us and the closure, rather than {{tq|like the articles existence or think the subject "deserves" an article}} (as noted ). As was also noted , it must be kept in mind:
* Many of 'Keep' voters did not participate at all in the extensive daily discussions about issues in the article, and as a result may be disingenuously dismissive of our arguments, issues, and rationale ( also noted). 'Keep' voters who have been canvassed, are ] (), or treat it as a ballot (as noted and and by admins clpo13 and Ymblanter). ], ], and ] must also be kept in mind. As for ], .
* Possible geographical bias in light to the ] and ], ] (), and ] recognizing that the article is controversial and in dispute (]), which the 'Keep' side must be aware of but seems to have ignored.
** and articles, and their politicization in Eastern Europe (, ).
* Paul Siebert's research criteria and neutral search (e.g. Google Scholar) have been positively reviewed in in the academic peer-reviewed '']'', which is published by ].
* As noted , the article's problem are well hidden by the number of sources and citogensis but a deep analysis would clearly reveal; whether they are serious enough to warrant a deletion/rewrite is what I hope that it can be determined. If I and users are indeed correct , , the respect of our ] comes before of 's reaction — nothing is actually going to be censured and removed, everything already has their own articles, and any new content can be incorporated for a NPOV rewrite without OR/SYNTH issues.
* ] and neither is ] ({{tq|Decisions on Misplaced Pages are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Misplaced Pages's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Misplaced Pages '''does not mean unanimity''' (which is ideal but not always achievable), '''nor is it the result of a vote'''. Decision making and reaching consensus involve '''an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns''', while '''respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines'''}}). Respect for our ] is paramount. If policies and guidelines for this article are proved to have been indeed violated, and rewrite is agreed, there should be nothing the mob can do.
* Insults, , against us.
* Useful by DRN moderator, and the .

Thanks to Hemiauchenia for pointing out that ] is a good precedent in that the same, if not very similar, rationale for 'Delete' applies here, and I hope the closer here will also not take "'keep' opinions merely reply 'but it's notable' , ..." at face value. This is not a 'voting', as Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so rational arguments and their strength, backed by sources (e.g. as I did to show Communist grouping is controversial) should be seen as the most valuable, irregardless if it is to 'Keep' and/or 'Delete', in weighting it. As noted there, "he 'keep' side would instead have needed to show that the alleged quality problems either don't exist or can be relatively easily fixed by editing; and most of them did not attempt to make this argument." Very few of 'Keep' votes have showed and answered this, and I not think they have rebuked it.

=== Analysis of sources (c. 3,500 words — can be skipped if above is deemed sufficient enough rationale) ===
==== Introduction (must read — three short paragraphs, plus proposed real notable topic as full rewrite) ====
:''Main article: . Paul Siebert's analysis.''
:''See also and for context and further information.''
In response to , see Paul Siebert's comment and for how an academic and Google Scholar research shows different results.

Among others, the 'Keep' side has we understand the topic differently, as has been also noted by North8000 , so saying the topic is notable is not helpful if those on the 'Keep' side do not provide a clearly defined topic; e.g. I would vote 'Keep', provided the article is rewritten on this topic as summarized by Siebert :
<blockquote>"In my opinion, the really notable topic is '''the discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation?''' And so on, and so forth. This would be '''a really notable topic, and that can save the article from deletion'''. However, '''that will require almost complete rewrite of the article.'''"</blockquote>

Since the 'Keep' side has refused any attempts at rewrite, identify a topic, and even acknowledge any issue, I see the only solution as 'Delete', with no prejudice in a future rewrite that is NPOV, in respect of our policies, and a clearly defined topic. Now let us move on to the issue of sourcing.

==== Helen Fein (short two paragraphs) ====
Nug cite ] but they fail to realize and do not point out something that is even in the article itself (as you can see ), e.g. {{tq|the xenophobic ideology of the Khmer Rouge regime bears a stronger resemblance to "an almost forgotten phenomenon of national socialism", or fascism, rather than communism}}, therefore the Khmer Rouge regime should not be discussed per Fein because she does not necessarily agree with categorizing as Communist; other scholars also categorize it as totalitarian (within the context of "xenophobic European nationalism", not Marxism) rather than Communist, e.g. ] and ] (see , sourced to , pp. 96–98)

We must not cherry pick authors and act as though they are proposing MKuCR when they are discussing genocide and/or mass killing in general; as noted by Nug themselves, that is chapter but the book is about genocide and/mass killings in general, so I do not see how that justifies MKuCR rather than a general article about mass killings during the 20th century, irrespective of regime type, which remains a possibility and alternative to both 'Keep' and 'Delete' options.

==== Adam Jones (single sentence) ====
] also separates Stalin and Mao, who are discussed together, from Pol Pot, as you can see .

==== Benjamin Valentino and other genocide scholars (four paragraphs, two of which are quotes from user Paul Siebert) ====
Valentino is the core source but his actually main idea is, to quote Siebert from ], that {{tq|the regime type is not a good predictor for mass killings onset. He came to that conclusion by having analyzed similar type regimes, and he found that one of them committed mass killings, whereas another one didn't. His main conclusion is that leader's personality is the main factor responsible for mass killing, and a practical conclusion is: if we remove some concrete group from power, we may eliminate a risk of mass killings even without making serious transformation of the state's political system. It is ironical that the work of the researcher who wanted to demonstrate that some limited number of persons are real culprits became a core of the article that puts responsibility for mass killings on Communist ideology as whole. ...<br><br>Valentino demonstrated that by the fact that many (majority) of Communist regimes had not been engaged in mass killings (his own words), and the core of his methodology was a comparison of similar regimes, one of which committed mass killings, whereas another didn't. That means the article twisted the idea of the main source it is based upon. A title that correctly transmits Valentino's views would be "Mass killings under some Communist regimes", but I am not proposing it, for that would be non-encyclopaedic, and because the views of genocide scholars are not fully in agreement with views of historians.}}

While Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable in themselves, their sources there certainly are and all this can be verified at ], ], and ]. Nug have argued that all those articles have problems because they do not reflect what is said at MKuCR but these remain unproven allegations, as is showed by the fact that there has been no serious discussion in support of Nug's allegations and at ] they have been rejected by at least two other users, meaning that if Nug refuse to engage with us at Mass killing and do not gain consensus, they must concede that their allegations are wrong, and stop using this as an argument.

Genocide scholars,'''3''' such as Valentino and many others, are a minority, lack consensus among themselves, and have not achieved mainstream status in political science ( and ), which is further proved by the fact they are not relied by ] and many events discussed at MKuCR are not described as mass killings ''et similia'' by historians and country experts/specialists. As has been noted by ], a disciple of ], genocide scholars are mainly concerned in establishing patterns and not data accuracy, for which they must rely on country experts and specialists (), who do not necessarily reach their same conclusion.

==== Rudolph Rummel (single paragraph) ====
:''See also comment by Paul Siebert about how Rummel is not relied on by country experts and specialists.''
From , which is a tertiary source and a core source of both MKuCR and ] (CaHuCR),'''4''' Rummel is considered to be controversial ("they are hardly an example of a serious and empirically-based writing of history"), and is only mentioned "on the basis of the interest in him in the blogosphere." In addition, Rummel has been discussed at ] (, ). Harff herself, a disciple of Rummel, has acknowledged it (Harff 2017), there is no point in denying this any longer. Rummel's category is not Communism but "authoritarian and totalitarian", which discusses together Communism ''and'' fascist/far-right/other regimes (, , p. 5: "Disagreeing with Rummel's finding that '''authoritarian and totalitarian government''' explains mass murder, Valentino (2004) argues that regime type does not matter; ... .")

==== Atsushi Tago and Frank Wayman (single paragraph) ====
, who do not discuss of MKuCR but of mass killings in general (even Rummel's categorization is described as "authoritarian and totalitarian government" at p. 5 vis-à-vis Valentino's disagreement, so that is an argument to rewrite MKuCR as mass killings under any regime type but why should we give so much WEIGHT to Rummel when, as I am going to show next, scholars disagree on regime type?), show that there is a disagreement among scholars, and the solution is certainly not to give too much weight to Rummel by following his categorization, which are criticized by other scholars by Valentino, who is not the only one. When scholars disagree, the solution is not following categorization by a relevant but undue (in light of disagreement and criticism) scholars like Rummel. That we must give WEIGHT and priority to Rummel by having a MKuCR (full Communist-devoted article despite scholars either disagreeing or rejecting ideology and regime type links) is absurd, false balance, does not follow, and is quite frankly beyond me. I cannot possibly be the only one to think this — I am well open to the idea of being proven wrong but I just do not see any sufficient rationale that would justify this.

==== Stéphane Courtois (two very short sentences, plus one quote from Karlsson and two by users Fifelfoo and TFD) ====
] is as controversial as Rummel, again see Karlsson 2008, pp. 53–54.

<blockquote>{{tq|Bearing in mind the charged nature of the subject, it is polemically effective to make such comparisons, but it does not seem particularly fruitful, neither morally nor scientifically, to judge the regimes on the basis of their 'dangerousness' or to assess the relationship between communism and Nazism on the basis of what the international academic community calls their 'atrocities toll' or 'body count'. In that case, should the crimes of all communist regimes, in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other countries where communism is or has been the dominant party, be compared to the Nazi regime's massacre of six million Jews? Should the Nazi death toll also include the tens of millions of people who the German Nazi armies and their supporting troops killed during the Second World War? Not even Courtois' analytical qualification, that ranking the two regimes the same is based on the idea that the 'weapon of hunger' was used systematically by both the Nazi regime and a number of communist regimes, makes this more reasonable, since this 'weapon' on the whole played a very limited role in the Nazi genocide in relation to other types of methods of mass destruction, and in relation to how it was used by communist regimes.}}</blockquote>

Keep in mind this is one of MKuCR's core sources and has dismissed, or otherwise criticized, two claimed sources in support of MKuCR as either controversal or not mainstream. Courtois' participation to was also revisionist and similarly controversial ().

<blockquote>{{tq|''The Black Book on Communism'' only conducts a multi-societal analysis of genocide in its deeply flawed foreword and introduction, where it claims Communism is Criminal and Not Christian (hard to believe, but true). This does not meet the academic standards of comparative sociology. ... While the ''Black Book'' presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of "Mass killing in Communism."}} —User Fifelfoo</blockquote>

<blockquote>{{tq| Conquest did not write about mass killings under Communist regimes, he wrote about the Red terror, the Holodomor and the Great purge in the Soviet Union. He treated these as separate subjects and did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes. We should not put together a group of events and create an article when no one else has.}} —User The Four Deuces</blockquote>

==== Steven Rosefielde (one sentence, plus one helpful quote by Siebert) ====
What is ignored is that ] says Communism is less genocidal than Nazism, and he is specifically about excess deaths and mass mortality rather than mass killings, which contrary to the 'Keep' side is not the same thing. To quote Siebert from ]:

<blockquote>{{tq|As I already explained, the question is not only the figures themselves, but in their interpretation. As Rosefielde pointed out (Premature Deaths: Russia's Radical Economic Transition in Soviet Perspective Author(s): Steven Rosefielde Source: Europe-Asia Studies , Dec., 2001, Vol. 53, No. 8 (Dec., 2001), pp. 1159-1176) 3.4 million of Russians died prematurely in 1990s, after fall of Communism. If we consider all "premature deaths" as mass killings, should we speak about "democratic mass killings" in that case? It seems Rosefielde does not consider premature deaths in neither post-Communist Russia not in Communist USSR as "mass killings". The problem is not only in Rummel's figures, but in his interpretation of those figures.}}</blockquote>

==== Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals (three paragraphs, one which is quote from source itself) ====
This is not the best source because, as noted by The Four Deuces, because it was written at the request of Sweden's conservative government with the objective of "elucidating and informing on communism's crimes against humanity", which ironically proves the lack of scholarly research of a generalized grouping as is done in the article. Yet, it describes 'Keep' side's core MKuCR's sources (Courtois and Rummel) as either controversial or not mainstream, and acknowledges as follows:

<blockquote>{{tq|This research review does not claim to list all research on the communist regimes' crimes against humanity. Bearing in mind the large number of books written on Soviet communism in particular, and on the terror of the last decade in the West and in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, '''this would be an impossible task.''' ... There is, therefore, a great need for Swedish research on communist regimes' crimes against humanity, and a great need to create the right conditions for this research. This research would benefit from taking a comparative approach, either focusing on comparing these criminal histories with each other, or with crimes against humanity perpetrated by other regimes in modern history. ... Despite commendable research initiatives in recent years, '''this area of research is still in its infancy'''.}}</blockquote>

The bolded part is one more reason why the currently structured article should be deleted — it simply is an impossible task. MKuCR article does not reflect this source because it says (1) , and even if it does, it would be limited to three Communist ''leaders'' (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot),'''6''' not even Communist regimes, as the review is limited to three very specific periods of three different Communist regimes (Fein and Jones separate Pol Pot from Stalin and Mao) out of dozens and dozens of other Communist regimes, which did not engage in mass killings;'''7''' (2) the article must be restructured to limit the scope to them, e.g. removing discussion about causes, since the killings were the result not of communism ''per se'', as Karlsson 2008 says they were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization (Karlsson 2008, p. 8); and (3) it is not discussed in a vacuum but is compared with non-Communist regimes, which MKuCR fails to address.

==== University syllabus (example of citogensis) ====
single university syllabus does not debunk SYNTH claims and is also just further proof of citogenesis in actions, as shown by and citogenesis/republishing itself on . In addition, as noted by Siebert, the author is an expert in Putin's Russia, and she has authored no publications on Communism.

=== Main topic (can be skipped but is useful for context) ===
I think that if we truly want to move forward, we need to identify the ''main'' topic of this article. If we cannot agree on what the main topic is, and is to be structured, it should be ''both'' AfD and RfC — because it is not sufficient that AfD results in ''Keep'' or ''No consensus'', if we, in fact, do not agree on what the main topic is, hence RfC will be necessary.

; Main topics
# Mass killings under Communist states'''1''' () — it essentially discusses ''and'' merge all the topics below,'''2''' treats any death as a mass killing, and treats it as scholarly discourse (as if they are all discussed together) ''and'' consensus; it is both theory-based and events-focused
# Mass killings under Communist states () — it has the same problems as the previous version but at least it aknowledges the controversy and the lack of consensus, and recognizes that while there were many killings under Communist states, only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes can be categorized as having engaged in mass killing as proposed by ], the core sources
# Excess mortality under Communist states, Mass deaths under Communist states – one of Siebert's proposal for rewrite; it would be the neutral version of topic No. 1, and my understanding is that it would remain both theory-based and events-focused, which may fix NPOV and be a compromise between the two sides but not fix OR/SYNTH because country experts and specialists, which this article would rely much more, do not make such Communist grouping, hence we may mislead users in acting as though those scholars are part of the scholarly discourse of topic No. 1
# Communist state(s) and mass killing(s),'''3''' Victims of communism – Siebert's and TFD's, plus me, proposed topic and really the only notable one, see summary '''4''' identifies the topic for us — discussion of the number of '''victims of communist''' regimes has been "extremely extensive and '''ideologically biased'''."

; Alternatives (disambiguations) — it does not preclude having No. 3 or 4, and one of those
# Communist mass killing – the name given by core source Valentino and applied only to Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes
# List of ''article'' – it would only include events which are ''universally'' described as mass killings in ''scholarly'' sources (again, mostly Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes)

{{collapsetop|Collapsed notes}}
'''1.''' I never understood why this article uses ''communist regimes'', as if Communist states were small-c ]; our main article is ], not ] (redirect), and scholars ''do'' make a distinction between small-c communism and capital-c Communism, the latter being a state led by a nominal Communist party.

'''2.''' "The article takes the Communist genocide/mass killing concept from Mann, Straus (who is merely reviewing rather than proposing the concept) and Valentino, even though the first is about Classicide, the second is about genocide, and the third is a chapter about general genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (with Communism simply being one type), then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pol, and adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars, etc.), to suggest all those are victims of Communism, its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues (undue weight, original research, synthesis, more than one topic, NPOV, etc.)" — ]

'''3.''' I use ''Communist state'' rather than ''Communism'' because the article, like all other topics, will be focused on Communist states, it will be a subarticle of ] (e.g. a summary of the article should not go at ], where we may have a short sentence about some scholars saying Communist states faithfully put in practice communism, and many other scholars disagreeing, but at ]), and nothing would preclude a subsection about communism in general and the discussion of links with it, e.g. Siebert's and TFD's, plus me, proposed topic would fit well with North8000's suggestion that such an article would be about links between the two, rather than categorize the article by political system, which we do only for Communism — any attempts at creation of other article were dismissed as OR/SYNTH, which is a clear double standard, since it would applies to topic No. 1, 2, and likely 3 as well.

'''4.''' Such article may also substitute ] and have other articles, e.g. Communist states and human rights, which would discuss not the events, which can simply be linked rather than coatracked as we do here, but a link between the two. Problem is that while I am sure sources could be found for such an article, I am not sure there is, in fact, a scholarly literature that supports it as a separate article. The link is also much less stronger'''5''' than one may think because it would be about communism in general (e.g. it would make no sense to have one limited to Communist states and/or Marxism–Leninism, since that is the example or link that is attempted to prove) but unlike, say, fascism — and despite what ] may lead some to believe — communism is much more broad and divided (e.g. many communists condemned and criticized Communist states, indeed some of them were the first to criticize the October Revolution as a betrayal, dictatorship of the party, state capitalism, etc. already in late 1917, not in the 1920s and 1930s, or when they saw things going bad), and there are, in fact, democratic and libertarian communists. It is tragic but ironic that both anti-communists and ''tankies'' ignore how many victims were themselves communists.

'''5.''' While atrocities and killings indeed continued after Stalin and Mao (e.g. 1989 in China), they did not fit the mass killing category, and Communist leaders have criticized or rejected, both in practice and theoretically — some of them in full, and many others at least in part in regards to their excesses, Stalin and Mao (as was noted by Valentino himself, most Communist regimes, and Communist leaders I may had, did not engage in mass killings), and Cambodian genocide was stopped by Communist Vietnam. The Soviet Union also helped stop the Holocaust and defeat fascism. In short, while one can much more clearly see that fascism results in genocide and politicide, it is not clear for communism, and communists themselves have been victims of genocide and politicide — by both far-right and military regimes, and nominally Communist regimes themselves.

{{collapsebottom}}
] (]) 12:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

=== Conclusion (in 457 words, excluding links and wikitext) ===
The article is a POV content fork and coatrack, which fails NPOV and VERIFY, and is OR/SYNTH per , and because (1) Communist grouping is controversial (it was one scholarly criticism of '']'', see , , and ), and (2) genocide scholars themselves do not find regime type to be significant in explaining mass killings ().

=== Notes (short enough and useful) ===
'''1.''' Is not only editing — but making (see ) — while the AfD is ongoing not only to be avoided but disrupting? Additionally, the article itself was created by a banned user to troll () and there were two further consecutive ''No consensus'' results ( and ) — it should have been deleted back then, with a RfC about its future recreation; after all, if it the topic is so notable and clear-cut as the 'Keep' side maintains, it should have been easy and perhaps the article would be in much better state by now. Instead, the included editorializing ({{tq|This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia}}) and the acknowledged we needed to fix such issues. They have not been resolved, as showed by the many discussion at ], and deletion with eventual rewrite seems to be the only solution'''8''' to fix it once and for all.

'''2.''' is a relevant quote provided by Siebert from David-Fox 2004. Dallin 2000 says: {{tq|"Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss."}}

'''3.''' All those authors cited are genocide scholars, while Rummel is best known for his ], a different topic, in which he is mainstream. See also .

'''4.''' Karlsson 2008 is completely misunderstood at CaHuCR because Karlsson says to prefer ''crimes against humanity'' over ''mass killings'' and discusses MKuCR but limits himself only to Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes, not to any Communist regime'''5''' — in those cases, killings were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization (Karlsson 2008, p. 8).

'''5.''' Such an article would not be encyclopedic, as we already have articles for each event, and the review discuss them individually.

'''6.''' {{tq|"Communism has a bloody record, but '''most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing'''. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain '''why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence'''."}} (Valentino 2013, p. 91.) The bolded parts are obviously missing and not reflected in MKuCR.

'''7.''' The most accepted definition of mass killing is 50,000 killed within five years, and that applies to Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes, and the ], which must be seen within the context of the ] and the ], not as it is described at MKuCR.

'''8.''' </nowiki>."] —Paul Siebert

'''9''' —Paul Siebert

'''10.''' —AndyTheGrump

] (]) 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

] (]) 19:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:39, 7 December 2021

Theory-based topic

Proposed topic

"he discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation? And so on, and so forth. ... ." Non-primary literature about this proposed topic:

Of course, there are also secondary sources, e.g. reviews of Courtois' thesis, and I am sure TFD and Siebert can provided many more. I put those sources because they are tertiary about the proposed topic,1 which the other topics lack, and summarize for us what proponents of the topic actually say and believe in.2 They also shows that it is mainly a anti-communist/totalitarian field of memory, of which those sources are experts. For the politicization of the topic, Holocaust obfuscation and trivialization, and memories, see:

Notes

1. They generally mention the 100 million number and/or Courtois/The Black Book of Communism.

2. This is very helpful in fixing the article's "He said, she said" structure, citing it to the author themselves rather than secondary sources about them. Rather than cite Courtois for what he said, we are using secondary and tertiary sources for it. If there are no such sources for other authors, then it means they are likely undue and should not be discussed.

Davide King (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)