Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Director (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 24 May 2012 (→Tito). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:17, 24 May 2012 by Director (talk | contribs) (→Tito)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either

minor edits as described at WP:Minor edit and marked as minor,
reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious WP:BLP violation,
or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus.

Procedural details

The rules at WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans apply to reverts of vandalism or BLP violations. (For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, for any reason, are neither minor edits nor vandalism.)
For the purpose of this sanction, an edit may only be deemed to have consensus if the following minimum procedural requirements are met:
- It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours.
- In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal.
- The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal.
The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof.

Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBEE#Discretionary sanctions.
In addition, a previously imposed WP:1RR restriction concerning this article continues to apply. Sandstein 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Skip to table of contents

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.

Article policies

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: 10 days

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 multiple 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

	History portal 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

	Politics portal 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

	Socialism portal 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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Keep, 13 July 2010, see discussion. Keep, 13 April 2010, see discussion. No consensus, 8 November 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 24 September 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 3 August 2009, see discussion.

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
July 19, 2010	Articles for deletion	Kept

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

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.

Article policies

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

Other communist regimes

In the "Anti-communist mass killings" page the deaths of regimes such as 60's Iraq, Pinochet and the White Terror in Hungary where the number of deaths is listed in the thousands, I think their needs to be mentions of mass killing committed by Castro (10's of thousands suspected of being murdered), the Sadanista's (Thousand's suspected of being murdered), the MPLA (10's of thousands suspected of being murdered) and Cold war era Poland. I think reliable sources could be found for these 4 regimes (especially Cuba) and their degree of mass killing is certainly comparable if not much higher than Pinochet's Chile and Arif's Iraq. Even if their is ambiguity over these mass killings they could be placed under the "Controversies" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussions about other articles should take place on their own talk pages. I was not aware by the way that Castro, the Sandinistas, the MPLA, and Polish Communists were anti-Communists, let alone responsible for anti-Communist mass killings. TFD (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I too am confused. Editor, can you clarify whether your recommendation relates to anti-Communist mass killings, or if you were just invoking that page as an example? Homunculus (duihua) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I was saying killing of a similar (if not smaller) magnitude are listed in the the page Mass killings under anti-Communist regimes. The examples I cited were Pinochet's Chile and Arif's Iraq. Since as far as I am aware killingd of a comparable scale (if not considerably higher in the case of Cuba) occured in Castro's Cuba, Sadansitan Nicaragua, under the MPLA in a Angola and in Communist Poland, I thought it would only be fair if there were sections about these 4 regimes on this page (Mass killings under Communist regimes). I did not mean to imply that these four regimes were anti-communist. I was merely comparing them and the alleged scale of their crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. You are welcome to propose some text for inclusion on the talk page, along with references. I think some of the other editors involved here may have a better handle than I on some of these events, so I will withhold comment on whether I think they are notable enough to meet whatever criteria for inclusion is in place here. Homunculus (duihua) 21:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly think Castro's Cuba fits the bill. According to R J Rummell, Communist Cuba murdered 73,000 people from 1959-1987, with a lowest pssible estimate of 35,000 and a high 0f 141,000. Most of these deaths are attributed to executions and prison camps (gulags). This is the link: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB15.1B.GIF Certainly comparable and just as credible as the sections on Bulgaria, Romania and East Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Never use Rummel as a source for figures. Thus, he claims about 40 million were killed in Gulag, whereas the total amount of those passed through Gulag was ca 14 million. There is a consensus now that the total number of Stalin's Gulag victims was ca 2 million.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I highly doubt that is true. 2 million is far far too low. I have never heard a credible source say that only 2 million died. 14 million is probably the annual number of people in gulags or the total from Soviet Archives. Rummell estimates that an annual camp population ranging from 9,000,000 to 12,300,000. Rummell is the most well known expert about democide so I think he is a credible source. As well as that the word Gulag is used to refer to all types of labour camps. The Gulag Archipelago estimates like a total of 50 million prisoners under Stalin. This specifically refers to Gulags. Many figures on Misplaced Pages uses his source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You read obsolete sources. Please, read the Gulag article. It cites such renown scholars as Conquest, Wheatcroft, Ellman and others, and the sources are the most reliable Western sources available now. 14 million passed through Gulag from 1927 to 1953 is a mainstream point of view now: after opening of Soviet archives the large estimates had been reconsidered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes to opening Opening paragraph

"21 million to a high of 70 million" Why is the highest estimate only 70 million. R J Rummell's mid level estimate for these 3 regimes is like 133 millions so at the very least this should be the highest credible estimate (regardless of whether yo agree with his estimates).

Source: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB1.1.GIF, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.TAB8.1.GIF (this table does not include the 32 million he attributes for Chines famine. I have added this figure to the 133 million approximation), http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB9.1.GIF

I suggest you reword the lines to "21 million to a high of 133 million" or something along those lines since having a high of 70 million is factually wrong since that is not the high estimate. Interestingly enough even 133 million is by no means a the highest estimate since the max range Rummel gives for these 3 regimes is much higher than is something like more than 200 million so I don't think 70 million as a max range is reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the past discussions where several editors seemed to think "ten million" was as high as we should offer the readers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, Rummel is unreliable and obsolete source for figures (see, e.g., his claim about 40+ million killed in Gulag, or his estimates of Chinese famine "democide" when he added the amount of actual deaths with the amount of unborn infants). --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless 70 million is by no means the highest estimate for these 3 regimes so I think keeping this figures is therefore highly inaccurate. Also I don't see what is so wrong with his estimates on the Chinese famines. His estimate is 35 million. That seems rather close to most other estimates. Also can you please give me sources indicating that Rummel is considered unreliable and obsolete since I would like to know more about these statements.

Not "unreliable" or "obsolete" in general. I wrote "unreliable" or "obsolete" for figures. For example, almost nobody cites Rummel's "data" in contemporary scholarly articles about Gulag. Regarding sources, look, for example at those:

Dulić. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106
Vincent. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 119-125
Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766
Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the inaccuracies of Rummel's figures regarding the Gulag, I still think it would inaccurate to have 70 million as the highest credible estimate especially when many credible scholars claim the Chinese Famines as democide. Maybe you could change this line "21 million to a high of 70 million" to "21 million to a high of over 100 million". I think that would be more accurate since (including the Famine) legitimate high estimates would definitely be higher than 100 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 12:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We can add higher estimates, provided, but only provided, that the clear connection will be explained between each particular estimate and what the author saw as killings. In the case of Rummel, it should be clearly explained that he saw almost every premature death under Communists as "killing", hence such astronomic numbers. Again, if we clearly explain that the estimations that take into account only direct killings (murders, executions, deliberate starvation, repressions) give about 10 million for all Communist states, whereas the estimates that lump together both direct deaths and all other demographic losses (including a birth deficit) give 80-100 million. I would not mind against that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I may try find a good source. And I would also day say direct killings by communist regimes must be much higher than 10 million (including Holdomor but excluding the Chinese Famine). I think you are being a bit generous especially to Stalin.

The difference between Soviet and Chinese famines do not allow us to describe the former as a mass killing and the latter as not. There are no consensus about intentionality regarding neither the former nor the later.

Regarding direct killing, we have a problem, because the figures of direct killings may be found only in single society studies, whereas the authors who try to accuse Communism as whole in mass crimes tend to combine both direct and all other demographic losses under the category "Communist mass killings" ("democide", etc). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The opening line says "There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries." Ithink it's dubious to say that the killings in North Korea were on a smaller scale than Cambodia, since the overall tally may be higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.218.11 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Is North Korea a Communist state? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Who owns the means of production? That should likely be a clue. Collect (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

In ancient Egypt the land (the major mean of production) belonged to state too. The same is true for most ancient Asian regimes. The Korean ruling party is not a Communist party, and the name of the country has no linkage to Communism (although has a linkage to democracy). The concept of Juche is a deep revision of Stalinism, so it is hard to tell if this ancient Asian ideology has anything in common with initial Marxism, whose history can be traced back into European Enlightenment. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say it was close enough.

If there have not been any scholarly studies comparing, for example, Ramses and major communist figures, ancient Egypt is likely irrelevant. Yes, (post Cold-War) scholarship describes North Korea as communist despite aspects such as inheritance of ruling position. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That is pure demagogy: the point was that state ownership of the means of production is sufficient to claim a state is Communist. I proposed several examples demonstrating that state ownership of the major mean of production (land or water) was common in the East. Regarding contemporary North Korea, it is a weird mixture of Stalinism, Confucianism and Korean nationalism, so the connection to European Communism can be traced only by some ideologically motivated individuals.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you overreacting a bit? Certainly state ownership of means of production in the contemporary era is a litmus—though perhaps not definitive—test. Bringing up ancient Egypt as a counter is rather a bogus refutation. As for North Korea being Communist, I only go by what scholarly sources state (including post-Cold War). You contend that individualities within X are proof of X not really being X as opposed to X is X regardless per basic features, albeit with individualities. You may have mistaken me (and apparently reputable scholars) for someone who has a POV axe to grind (your denouncement of those blinded by ideological motivation). "Demagogy" is an over the top accusation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

AFP From a small and crowded office in a Seoul backstreet, Park In-Ho shines a light on one of the most closed and secretive nations on earth. His Internet newspaper Daily NK is one of about a dozen South Korean organisations collecting news about North Korea, through sources inside the hardline communist state and contacts or staffers in neighbouring China. 14 May 2012.

Irish Times also from yesterday: His diplomatic bag of swag includes a distinctly unglamorous canteen of “stainless steel and gilt cutlery” he was given during a visit to Pyongyang, the capital of the communist state. He was there on a mission-impossible to promote tourism.

So widely asserted by multiple foreign reliable sources to be a "communist state." As of yesterday. AFP and Irish Times are not "ideologically motivated individuals" by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can forgive journalists for this inaccuracy. Yes, North Korea was seen by Stalin as an orthodox Stalinist country, but Kim decided otherwise. The specialists in Korean issues describe that as follows:

"When Kim Il Sung delivered his anti-Soviet reformism juche speech to propagandists and agitators of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) on December 28, 1955, he made no references to the classical Marxists Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Vladimir Lenin. As for Leon Trotsky, he was simply unthinkable. Despite Kim’s training in Stalinism and Maoism from 1931 to 1945, he also did not mention his political mentors Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Stressing the “Korean revolution” as the subject (juche) of party ideological work, the North Korean Stalinist leader emphasized the need to patriotically study national culture, national history, and national traditions. Moreover, as a national-Stalinist, he called for a creative application of Marxism-Leninism to North Korean conditions. Neo-Confucianism having been the state ideology of the feudal Chosŏn dynasty (1392–1910) and Kim knowing more about Confucianism than Hegelian and Marxist philosophy, it would seem reasonable to conclude that his emergent juche ideology was a political adaptation of Neo-Confucian thought. Historian Bruce Cumings, for instance, uses the phrases “Neo-Confucianism in a communist bottle” and “Chu Hsi in a Mao jacket.”" (Source: Alzo David-Wes, Between Confucianism and Marxism-Leninism: Juche and the Case of Chŏng Tasan, Korean Studies Volume 35, p. pp. 93-121 (2011) Published by University of Hawai'i Press. DOI: 10.1353/ks.2011.0007)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammar edit

This is a very tiny issue, but shouldn't we change the beginning of the third sentence from "Some higher estimates" to "Some of the higher estimates"? I'm not sure what the procedure is for such minor edits. -- Amerul (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Tito

Why is there no mention of Tito's government's mass killings? It is pretty clear that his government is responsible for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths so there really needs to be a mention. You may not agree with Rummel's figures, but these links give to an indication of Tito's mass murder (both as leader of the Partisans and of Yugoslavia). It seems hard to deny that Tito's government is responsible for mass killings even if Rummel figures are wrong. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB14.1.GIF http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB9.1.GIF http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP9.HTM http://dalje.com/en-croatia/rummel--titos-regime-took-million-lives/71942

Other links: http://www.andrija-hebrang.com/eng/marshal_tito.htm http://www.gpanet.org/content/genocides-politicides-and-other-mass-murder-1945-stages-2008

Also it seems clear that the MPLA (Angola) killed a large number of people in mass killings and FRELIMO (Mozambique) as well in mass killings and deaths in re-education camps. Rummels figure here would be useful to give an indication. They also cite a number of sources that support my claims.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB14.1C.GIF http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB14.1A.GIF http://www.frontline.org.za/news/vol%205%201993/AngolaKillingFields.htm

Fair point. I will take a look tomorrow and add some of this if no one gets to it before me. Or you can just start summarizing this information and adding it yourself if you see fit. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the sanctions on this page: no edits, except minor changes, without talk page consensus. Might be wise to make a concrete proposal here, solicit feedback to establish consensus, and only then edit the page. How anything gets done here is beyond me, but it's a credit to the persistence and collaborative spirit of everyone involved that any changes go forward.Homunculus (duihua) 22:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK.... well, does anyone object to a section on Tito consisting of one or two paragraphs summarizing the key information presented above? (Note that lack of objection passes for consensus in my books). The Sound and the Fury (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The links cited above are not sufficient to move the proposal forward. I would ask the editor suggesting content for inclusion to actually write a proposal of what would go on the page, including reliable source citations representing a range of views. Before then, what are we supposed to be reaching consensus on? Homunculus (duihua) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cannot agree. The very concept of "Communist mass killings" was proposed by Valentino, who explicitly wrote that most Communist states have not been engaged in mass killings. By combining all events described by at least one author as MKuCR we (i) arbitrarily expand the Valentino's concept and thereby perform a synthesis, which is not allowed per WP:NOR, and (ii) ignore the works of other authors who describe the same events otherwise (which is prohibited by WP:NPOV). --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is Valentino's definition of this term, or his statement that "most Communist states have not been engaged in mass killings", to determine the content on this page? This is a Misplaced Pages page on the idea "Mass killings under Communist regimes" not "Mass killings under Communist regimes as defined by Valentino," isn't it? I've never heard of the logic you're proposing. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That is simple. We cannot create concepts by themselves. If you want some article to contain all instances of mass killings under Communist regimes, we need a reliable source that states that those mass killings form some separate category. In fact, only few sources state that, and Valentino's "Final solutions" is arguably the most authoritative one. However, if we accept it as a source, we must follow his main idea. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do propose some text so we can get some consensus. Don't take Paul's "logic" too seriously, I'm not sure anybody else does after they've heard it 25 times. Smallbones (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In case it's unclear, the idea of "mass killings under X regime" is not some concept that a particular person has a copyright on. With that said, let me look at the sources tomorrow and propose some language. Note that if the rules of this page are such at Paul Siebert can simply object to anything for any reason, and it is therefore impossible to make changes, I will be out of here quicker than you can blink. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would even develop your idea further. The very idea of mass killing is too vague concept, so various authors see it quite differently. However, to group Communist regimes (or other regimes) in a single article discussing mass killings means that there was some significant commonality between those events, in contrast to all other mass killings/genocides, etc. Obviously we need reliable sources for such generalizations, especially in a situation when, e.g., African genocides/civil wars are frequently grouped together without any connection to Communism, civil war or guerilla war mass killings are also discussed without connection to Communism, etc.

In summary, I would like to see serious arguments explaining why the events you are talking about (each of which have its own article) need to be grouped together, and this argument should be in a form of mainstream reliable source, not your speculations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@ both of you. Please stop your ad hominem arguments, which are highly inappropriate. Let me remind you that the tactics described by The Sound and the Fury is being used by the opposite side: all my proposals, while supported by some users, face automatic objections from some others, so any development of the article seems impossible. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is of course welcome to draft and present a proposal for this page. If the IP editor wished to try this, they may. There is no guarantee that the proposal will be accepted.
I am inclined to agree with Paul on one issue here: that Misplaced Pages editors should be careful not to invent concepts and then pull together disparate facts whose connection is not established in reliable sources. To do so may be consider a violation of WP:SYNTH, though there is a considerable grey area, and the interpretation of that policy may not be absolute.
To that end, I think there is reasonably good cause to have an article such as this one. There is a body of scholarship positing that communist states share certain characteristics in common related to their strategic cultures, propensity for violence, etc. I am not familiar with Valentino, but my understanding of volumes like the Black Book of Communism is that they are premised on this notion that the ideology of communism has produced a unique style of governance (including the mass killings, purges, etc.) observable across communist states.
While I accept the above, I am have reservations about the idea that a discussion of MKuCR cannot go beyond the ideas presented by one or a few scholars, such as Valentino. I would propose a slightly broader criteria for inclusion. Let's use the example of Tito: if there are scholars who have written of his rule, and who have identified mass killings he committed as being directly related to or inspired by communism—that is, if they are identified as sharing the same character as other MKuCR—then it might pass for inclusion. Barring that, it is difficult to assess whether or not killings were actually related to communism, or if they would be better explained another way. If there is disagreement among scholars, that debate can be presented. Homunculus (duihua) 04:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but most Tito's killings occurred during and immediately after the WWII, and they had direct relation to the struggle of Partisans with Nationalists, to persecution of real or perceived Nazi collaborators, etc. I am not aware of any works that draw parallelism between Tito's killings and, e.g., collectivisation killings in the USSR. We should probably ask for the opinion of our Yugoslavian colleagues on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You'd be surprised regarding the Black Book. The Black Book is primarily single societies studies, written by individuals of varying quality: some chapters are by experts at the top of their field. The only multiple society discussion in the Black Book are the introduction and the conclusion, both by Courtois. Courtois expounds over three paragraphs in the introduction the sole multi-social cause: that Communism is not Catholicism. The remainder of the introduction and conclusion lack comparisons between societies, and do not discuss causation. I believe that this is the standard interpretation of Courtois' discussion of causation.

Valentino does discuss multiple societies in a comparative sense, but there has been extensive debate amongst editors here as to whether his analysis actually contains a category specifically dealing with Communism (I hold that it doesn't, and rather, that Valentino's categories, if supported by other scholars, would allow us the article Dispossessive mass killing). Finally, a great deal of the literature which accumulates deaths in Communist societies has no theoretical or causative basis. This was true six months ago, I haven't done my yearly literature review of this field. Some editors argue that Valentino's descriptive accumulation of some Dispossessive mass killings under a subtitle in one chapter as "Communist mass killings" supports this article's existence—this analysis is not unreasonable to make even though I disagree with it, I would suggest it would be unreasonable to rely upon a single study whose theoretical categories have not received attention in the genocide studies literature to produce an article. Other editors argue that a coherent causative basis across multiple societies is not required to support this article—and in my opinion this is disgusting COATRACKing. As always with MKuCR, I'm always happy to revise my position based on new scholarly research that theorises a common cause in communism for these deaths. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, usually under The Black Book people mean the introduction, the most controversial part of the book. The intro has been heavily criticised, and by no means can be considered as a mainstream viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok first, if you'll pardon the ad hominem, can I point out that this thread being posted by an unsigned IP is somewhat suspicious? These are the Balkans you've just entered, after all. The Rummel figures he's posted are very dubious indeed. To anyone familiar with the subject matter they appear plain ridiculous, and, if I recall, Paul discredited them quite effectively at Talk:Democide (see the "This article is BS" section :)). The total of WWII deaths in Yugoslavia was estimated (by Zerjavic) at 1,027,000. Rummel posts the number of 1,072,000 killed by communists (did he just switch the "7" and the "2"?). As for andrijahebrang.com, well, that's just ridiculous (see below).

As regards the killings in Yugoslavia, they took place almost exclusively in the aftermath of WWII (1945, '46 perhaps at the latest). I would not wish to generalize in any way since, as one might expect of Yugoslavia, they're diverse in size, scope and motivation.

the Bleiburg massacre usually springs to mind immediately. The numbers here are completely uncertain, but, to my knowledge, most conservative estimates range between 15,000 and 30,0000 (some say the massacres did not even take place, whereas others claim figures of 50,000 or even 200,000, its a guessing game really). The victims here were mostly collaborationist troops (some say there were civilians there as well, some don't mention them). Independent State of Croatia troops, Chetniks, Slovene Home Guard.
Foibe killings. Killings of Italian fascists and fascist sympathizers in the aftermath of WWII. This is such an unknown I won't speculate on anything.
Expulsion of the German minority (not a mass killing per se, but usually associated with the others)
repression of Stalinists during the Tito-Stalin split. This occurred well after WWII, and I know very little about it. I know Yugoslavia was under imminent threat from invasion by Soviet and Hungarian troops, and arrested large numbers of actual or alleged Stalinists among the ranks of the Yugoslav Communist Party and put them away to the Goli Otok ("naked island") federal prison. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a "mass killing", though. A quick note on Andrija Hebrang (of andrijahebrang.com). The man was a prominent Croatian Jewish Stalinist politician who probably got assassinated by the Yugoslav State Security Service for supporting Stalin during the split. Sabrina P. Ramet, as I remember, plainly states he was dealing with Stalin and was supposed to come to power as head of the party once the Red Army had ousted Tito. How he managed to get himself "martyred" by Croatian nationalists is beyond me.

All that said, what exactly is being proposed here? -- Director (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories: