This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crimes against humanity under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 31, 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Loganallen97. Peer reviewers:
Dlaylib,
Mpadilla123.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Zuroff's opinion is entirely relevant to the subject matter of the article, it seems to have been given undue weight. -- Martin ( talk) 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The article states, "communism and National Socialism were comparable". Does it violate WP:WEIGHT to state this opinion without balancing it with other opinions. Here is a link to the removal of an alternative view by User:The Last Angry Man. TFD ( talk) 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
To all those saying remove, I shall put my faith in both my ability to read, it is paraphrased correctly, and in the fact that a book from springer is a very high quality source. Also note, what it says is the crimes against humanity committed by both are comparable, not that both political types are comparable.
The Last Angry Man (
talk)
19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
GULAG refers specifically to the Soviet institution: Korean camps, for example Yodok, are not, strictly speaking, part of the GULAG. This is not a comment about either country or their institutions, but a point of detail. I am editing the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.117.221 ( talk) 23:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but why is it so imperative that the term "gulag" be applied to North Korean camps? I, too, have heard these camps described as such for the benefit of lay observers, such that they may more readily summon to mind the horrors that the camps inflict on their population. But while it is sometimes a useful parallel, it should be used as a simile, not a metaphor. Can you not simply call them by their proper name, and perhaps state that they have been likened to the Soviet Gulag system? Homunculus ( duihua) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a great deal of content had been removed due to it being added by a blocked editor, I have restored it as it all seems relevant to the article, wiki is about expanding articles, not removing it after all.
86.26.201.167 (
talk)
17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Can it now be removed? And shall we expand the article instead of removing content? The Last Angry Man ( talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If the POV tag is about the single sentence that compares Communist and Nazi attrocities: "In the 2008 Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism it was stated that crimes committed under communism were often crimes against humanity in the same sense as the Nuremberg Trials and that the crimes committed by both communism and National Socialism were comparable.[4]" then the statement and the source line up, and the statement makes clear the fact that this is the opinion expressed in the Declaration. I don't know what could be clearer, so I will remove the tag. Smallbones ( talk) 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I reverted Anonimu for the following reasons, [5] removes Boldur as unreliable, this is a source from Nova Publishers which is an academic pres and is WP:RS. [6] the Khmer Rouge were communist, to say they were not is pointless. [7] per WP:UNDUE to much weight given to one persons opinion, this was already discussed on this talk page. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have asked on the reliable sources notice board regarding the use of Boldur [8] The Last Angry Man ( talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
So far the WP:RS/N discussion indicates the source is usable. If anyone dislikes it, WP:NPOV says to add other sources, not to just remove this one. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Without consensus, I have moved the article back but am unable to move this talk page? The Last Angry Man ( talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move back to the old title. 'Communist' to 'communist' was mentioned and is not addressed by this close. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes → Communist crimes against humanity –
Article was moved without consensus. Communist crimes against humanity is a more descriptive title and not such a mouthful, Communist crimes against humanity was the suggested title for this article during the AFD and it really ought remain at that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Angry Man ( talk • contribs)
An editor removed this link and it was restored by User:The Last Angry Man with the notation, "And who says it is a propaganda site?" [9] Here is a link to the site, TLAM is obviously taking the p*** and I will therefore remove the link which fails WP:EL. TFD ( talk) 05:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You guys really ought read the policy you so blithely quote "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." As the article more or less presents the same content then the EL is allowable under this criterion, also who says it is a propaganda site? Or that is publishes unverifiable research? I looked at the articles there and they are linked to academic websites. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
(out)Must be the day for epic fails, first Malksoo is a she. Second read again what she wrote,she give the opinion of one person, this is not enough reason to exclude a link. Also as there are multiple reliable sources which equate the Nazis and Communists the nI fail to see an isseu with this statement anyway. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 01:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Then put that article up for deletion, it`s notability has nothing to do with it`s use as a EL The Last Angry Man ( talk) 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The EL was again removed with the assertion it is a propaganda site, source for this rather bold claim is required. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Re "Must be the day for epic fails, first Malksoo is a she" Firstly, let me point out that TFD referred to a different person. A scholar TFD meant was Lauri Malksoo. He is a rather famous scholars, and it is quite understandable that TFD thought it was Lauri Malksoo whom TLAM meant. By contrast to Lauri Malksoo, Maria Malksoo is less notable, an that is why TFD was not familiar with her works.
Maria Malksoo is just a research fellow, so it is premature to speak about her as about a reputable scholar; her work TLAM cites is just a non-peer-reviewed conference paper. I am sure that, if the web site is notable enough to deserve inclusion, TLAM will be able to find more sources about it.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
And again it was removed, please provide a source which says this is a propaganda site or the link may stay, I want to see a reason within policy which says this EL fails. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 22:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I am bit surprised how furious is this debate about the comparison of Nazism and Communism. Yes, all comparison between any subjects have some limitations. Obviously, there is hardly exception for those two unexampled ideologies, very unique ideologies. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the people who's nations lived through both the nasty regimes (as in my country) this often comes as warning, that it really is to some degree comparable evil, causing massive bloodsheds, epic injustices and ... yes crimes against humanity defying imagination. (somehow it feels here like if skeptics here feel, that this comparison aims in belittling the dread of Nazism, ummm .. in my opinion not at all, it is more likely, that non-residents in post-communistic countries fails to see what the communism really was, and Prague declaration was just about that)
However, I did not come here to talk here about my possible POV or express any other opinions, (it was just my natural reaction here, trying to calm down both sides of the dispute, there is not need for seeing ulterior motives here on any side)
I came here because I wanted to present here suggestion to include note about Kang Kek Iew in Cambodia section. Well with few links about his sentence for Crimes against humanity ..: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Although this link could not be really source, it gives some context Reo + 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is everyone in this discussion avoiding the elephant in the room: Not one 'crime against humanity' trial of Russian Communist criminals after the 'collapse' of the USSR in 1991?! The explanation for that can be found in KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1984 book, 'New Lies for Old'. Golitsyn was the only defector from behind the Iron Curtain to have a high accuracy rate (94%) in predicting future Soviet/East Bloc behavior, according to United States historian Mark Riebling in his 1994 book 'Wedge'. That 94% statistic means Golitsyn's methodology for analyzing Communist future behavior was correct. Golitsyn's bona fides also means that Dubček's Prague Spring reforms were part and parcel of the Communists' Long-Range Strategy (I noticed that Dubček was given a clean bill of health in this discussion by an observer).22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.10.237 ( talk)
Why isn't there a similar article for Crimes against humanity under Capitalist regimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.192.12 ( talk) 03:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As Communist regimes would need 1.3 to 2 wikis if they existed in proportionate numbers for about the same time as capitalists.
Because capitalism is not a political system or ideology, is not that hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.128.202.18 ( talk) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
1. This article was created by a sockpuppet.
2. This article ignores a number of mainstream sources
3. The article combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.
If these issued will not be resolved, it is preferable to delete this article completely, and, for a while, I put the tags to inform a reader about these issues.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Drmies:, how is this not a reliable source? From Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
For this source, all three meanings support reliability.
1) The work is an academic research review directly related to the article's topic.
2) The authors,
Klas-Göran Karlsson and
Michael Schoenhals, are both professors and subject matter experts in the area they write about in the source.
3) The publisher, Forum for Living History, is
"The Living History Forum is a Swedish public authority which, using the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity as a starting point, works with issues on tolerance, democracy and human rights."
AmateurEditor (
talk)
05:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not with reliability of this source, it generally meets RS requirements, although it has not been peer-reviewed. A real problem is that this source is the only source that defines this topic . In contrast to MKucR, which separated in a separate topic in a Valention's chapter, in the BB, in Rosefielde's book, no other source discuss crimes against humanity under communist regimes as a singe, separate phenomenon. In connection to that, the sole source that defines the topic must be a top quality source, because it is the only source that warrants existence of this article.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thus, no references have been provided to support the opening statement in the lead. All other references deal with separate examples of crimes against humanity in separate communist states. It suspiciously look like a synthesis.
By the way, a brief examination of the Crimes against humanity article demonstrates that not a single event listed in the CAHucR article is mentioned in the main article (I mean Crimes against humanity). One more nuance is important. Like "genocide", the term "crime against humanity" has two meanings. The first one is a strict legal term, we can speak about crimes against humanity when such a crime was recognised by the court. A second term is more a journalism: "Oh, they were acting so brutally, they raped a lot of women, it was definitely a crime against humanity!". As you understand, the second category is much broader. Which events is this article supposed to describe? It seems the source we are discussing speaks about CAH that fall in the second category: brutal, although not always lethal actions of these regimes not recognised as CAH by a court . However, that is a pure journalism. How many events described in this source are CAHs recognised as such by a court? I think,, just a few. If that is the case, why should we discuss it as a separate categories: "CAH in Communist Romania", "CAH in North Korea", "CAH in China" (by the way, the previous, non-Communist regime in China was not less brutal, so I even don't think it make sanse to separate them.)-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Brief reading of this article shows that only in the case of NK there was an attempt of a legal accusation of CAH. In other cases, there were just characterisation of some events as CAH by some individuals. Therefore, this article is about accusations of leadership of some communist regimes of crimes against humanity. IMO it does not deserve to be a separate article.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Calidum 21:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I know many sources refers and uses "Communist state", but in practice they all refer to this, a Marxist–Leninist state; Communism as state ownership of the means of production rather than as a classless, moneyless and stateless society under common owenrship; and Marxist–Leninist state or Marxist–Leninist regime have been used anyway. I also remember reading another dicussion in which it was stated that communism shouldn't be capitalized and perhaps it was done so as a way to distinquish from communism itself, but then why not just use Marxist–Leninist instead? I would also argue it's not a neutral title in that it refers to a specific ideology (Marxism–Leninism), but calls it communism, which is much more than Marxism–Leninism.-- 80.180.196.242 ( talk) 20:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I'm disappointed that no one, beside a precious few who also seemed dissatisfied with the current name but may disagree with my proposal, actually replied to my objections and no one actually provided a single source; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for. I don't even dispute that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME, although I repeat once again that by the same logic the word should stay capitalised in the title since that's what many sources do and they do it exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. If you disagree with this, fine; but at least reply to my objections, which some did but stopped now; and do it with sources, which no one did as of now. I have no problem accepting whatever decision will be final, but I would have liked to have a more thorough discussion and sharing of sources.-- 82.63.72.187 ( talk) 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem, but I have accepted the previous result and this one is mainly based on consistency since the Mass killings under communist regimes page isn't capitalised. I would oppose this move based on WP:COMMON NAME. I don't know which one is more common; I believe when it isn't capitalised it's only because communism is considered a noun, but it's also just as often capitalised both to distinquish it from communism and because the word Communism is used to refer to the Communist Party-state rule rather than communism. Either way, vote on talk pages whether you want both of them to be capitalised or not. Thank you.-- 79.52.17.197 ( talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Гармонический Мир is removing the "Communism" navbox from the article. Is there some reason that navbox isn't appropriate? I know that they prefer the "Marxism-Leninism" navbox instead, despite the article being specifically about "Communist regimes" and not "Marxist-Leninist regimes". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, the article shouldn't have both the communism sidebar and the communism navbox, so Ive removed the navbox. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi hi, I am quite new to wikipedia editing and I don't know how this work. In the last edit (931856593), someone changed a all of empty importance tags for Projects to "High". Is this correct or should this be reversed? It seems weird when most others are low or mid. Corn Kernel ( talk) 18:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Czar, in response to this, could you please check this article too? Because it is the same topic as Mass killings under communist regimes; the only source discussing crimes against humanity under Communist regimes is Crimes Against Humanity under Communist Regimes by Karlsson et al. but the topic is the same and they are discussing the same events; indeed, the only difference is that Karlsson disagree with genocide or mass killing as term and prefers using crimes against humanity. The article, however, synthesis sources with any events that has been called as such and does not follow the literature, which is the same as Mass killings under communist regimes; all of this can be discussed at Crimes against humanity. In addition, I agree with Paul Siebert, as written here, that there are multiple issues:
- This article was created by a sockpuppet.
- This article ignores a number of mainstream sources
- The article combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.
If these issued will not be resolved, it is preferable to delete this article completely, and, for a while, I put the tags to inform a reader about these issues.
If none of this is even mentioned at Crimes against humanity, what makes you think a standalone article is fine? They need to be first discussed at the main article, not vice versa. You and this article have it backwards. Davide King ( talk) 07:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
07:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Czar, apologies for the length again. Is there any way to learn how to summarise? But scope is the issue. This article "combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article." Mass killings under communist regimes is the same ("combines several topics in a new, non existing topic") and it is a summary of neither Communist state or Mass killing but of the events themselves, even though the events themselves are not described as genocide or mass killings but they are grouped together through synthesis; and they should not be, because scholars disagree and historians of Communism do not see them as such. Mass killings under communist regimes, or whatever name will be chosen, should be about the concept, theory, or narrative; this is a whole new topic, not a summary of anything. It would be mainly about and the events would simply be referenced such as "Author A include events A, B and C as part of victims of communism." We would not go in detail about the events, when that is "a multiple summary style split of many articles, each of which tells different things about the same events." I think I got what you are saying as a solution, i.e. we should move relevant paragraphs from these articles to their parent articles as summary and if nothing new remains in both articles, they should be a redirect to the main parent articles, right? Problem is, what is their parent article? Crimes against humanity, Communist state, Criticism of communist party rule, Genocide, Genocide in history, Mass killing, all of these? I did already save all the content except "States where mass killings have occurred" because these are so many events and they should already be a summary of their parent articles, so there should be nothing new. Nothing is actually going to be lost but no new information is provided, hence they should be redirects.
Perhaps Criticism of communist party rule should be renamed Analysis of communist party rule, where we summarise Soviet and Communist studies scholarship, what scholars agree, what they disagree with, what are the controversies, etc. Or make it about an analysis of the events not limited to mass killings. Same thing for this article, where "Under Mao Zedong" could be moved at Mao era. Same thing for the other events; they should be in each individual country's history and the rest should go at Crimes against humanity. In other words, there is nothing these articles say that is not already discussed elsewhere (if it is not, it should be), hence it is synthesis and/or does not warrant a standalone article. Perhaps that lead may moved in a section about mass killing at Communist state and Mass killing. In conclusion, Mass killings under communist regimes and its redirects should be targeted at Communist democide or Communist mass killing; this article's events should be moved at the relevant events and Victims of Communism should be created following this summary proposal. That is because both articles are summary styles of their parents article, or they simply replicate thing more relevant for other articles, so they do not say anything new. I do not see how that will solve the issue but what is to be done when an article is a summary-style as a whole and does not say anything new that is not already reported in their parent articles? Both violates WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Are they supposed to be summary-style articles or articles on their own? If they are not in their parent articles, they were not until I did the move, does that not mean they are content forks? |
Buidhe, Czar, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert, I realize this page is not as viewed or discussed as Mass killings under communist regimes but it has been discussed just in the thread above, though it did not lead anywhere. I have tagged it, so that it can be reviewed and it can be improved or fixed. The content can be used elsewhere, to each event and state, if truly due, but to have a main article as it currently is, we need a link that sources do not make.
Crimes Against Humanity Under Communist Regimes – Research Review says the link is not communism or Communist regimes in itself but that killings were the result of unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization under Stalin and Mao (note that this is just a period, not the whole Communist state), and under Pol Pot as part of a similar unbalanced process but of rapid deindustrialization policy; there is no article about crimes against humanity, genocide, or mass killing committed by developmental regimes because it would still be synthesis but only for Communist states do we do this, and even have two separate articles about it as content POV forks, among other violations, when they could be discusses in their proper articles, rather than in a vacuunm just to prove a point as both articles do.
As long as Crimes against humanity does not really address this to justify such a main article, just like Genocide and Mass killing, this remains a problematic content POV fork article and original research/synthesis and violates NPOV and WEIGHT by not presenting scholarly views that would not support the article as currently structured, as main articles about the events contradict what is written here because this article is all about selective, misrepresented sources cherry picked to support the creation of the article, rather than provide an accurate and neutral scholarly analysis of all relevant sources. Davide King ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Crimes against humanity under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on May 31, 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Loganallen97. Peer reviewers:
Dlaylib,
Mpadilla123.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Zuroff's opinion is entirely relevant to the subject matter of the article, it seems to have been given undue weight. -- Martin ( talk) 16:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The article states, "communism and National Socialism were comparable". Does it violate WP:WEIGHT to state this opinion without balancing it with other opinions. Here is a link to the removal of an alternative view by User:The Last Angry Man. TFD ( talk) 21:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
To all those saying remove, I shall put my faith in both my ability to read, it is paraphrased correctly, and in the fact that a book from springer is a very high quality source. Also note, what it says is the crimes against humanity committed by both are comparable, not that both political types are comparable.
The Last Angry Man (
talk)
19:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
GULAG refers specifically to the Soviet institution: Korean camps, for example Yodok, are not, strictly speaking, part of the GULAG. This is not a comment about either country or their institutions, but a point of detail. I am editing the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.117.221 ( talk) 23:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but why is it so imperative that the term "gulag" be applied to North Korean camps? I, too, have heard these camps described as such for the benefit of lay observers, such that they may more readily summon to mind the horrors that the camps inflict on their population. But while it is sometimes a useful parallel, it should be used as a simile, not a metaphor. Can you not simply call them by their proper name, and perhaps state that they have been likened to the Soviet Gulag system? Homunculus ( duihua) 05:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a great deal of content had been removed due to it being added by a blocked editor, I have restored it as it all seems relevant to the article, wiki is about expanding articles, not removing it after all.
86.26.201.167 (
talk)
17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Can it now be removed? And shall we expand the article instead of removing content? The Last Angry Man ( talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If the POV tag is about the single sentence that compares Communist and Nazi attrocities: "In the 2008 Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism it was stated that crimes committed under communism were often crimes against humanity in the same sense as the Nuremberg Trials and that the crimes committed by both communism and National Socialism were comparable.[4]" then the statement and the source line up, and the statement makes clear the fact that this is the opinion expressed in the Declaration. I don't know what could be clearer, so I will remove the tag. Smallbones ( talk) 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I reverted Anonimu for the following reasons, [5] removes Boldur as unreliable, this is a source from Nova Publishers which is an academic pres and is WP:RS. [6] the Khmer Rouge were communist, to say they were not is pointless. [7] per WP:UNDUE to much weight given to one persons opinion, this was already discussed on this talk page. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have asked on the reliable sources notice board regarding the use of Boldur [8] The Last Angry Man ( talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
So far the WP:RS/N discussion indicates the source is usable. If anyone dislikes it, WP:NPOV says to add other sources, not to just remove this one. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Without consensus, I have moved the article back but am unable to move this talk page? The Last Angry Man ( talk) 21:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move back to the old title. 'Communist' to 'communist' was mentioned and is not addressed by this close. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes → Communist crimes against humanity –
Article was moved without consensus. Communist crimes against humanity is a more descriptive title and not such a mouthful, Communist crimes against humanity was the suggested title for this article during the AFD and it really ought remain at that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Last Angry Man ( talk • contribs)
An editor removed this link and it was restored by User:The Last Angry Man with the notation, "And who says it is a propaganda site?" [9] Here is a link to the site, TLAM is obviously taking the p*** and I will therefore remove the link which fails WP:EL. TFD ( talk) 05:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You guys really ought read the policy you so blithely quote "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." As the article more or less presents the same content then the EL is allowable under this criterion, also who says it is a propaganda site? Or that is publishes unverifiable research? I looked at the articles there and they are linked to academic websites. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 15:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
(out)Must be the day for epic fails, first Malksoo is a she. Second read again what she wrote,she give the opinion of one person, this is not enough reason to exclude a link. Also as there are multiple reliable sources which equate the Nazis and Communists the nI fail to see an isseu with this statement anyway. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 01:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Then put that article up for deletion, it`s notability has nothing to do with it`s use as a EL The Last Angry Man ( talk) 08:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The EL was again removed with the assertion it is a propaganda site, source for this rather bold claim is required. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Re "Must be the day for epic fails, first Malksoo is a she" Firstly, let me point out that TFD referred to a different person. A scholar TFD meant was Lauri Malksoo. He is a rather famous scholars, and it is quite understandable that TFD thought it was Lauri Malksoo whom TLAM meant. By contrast to Lauri Malksoo, Maria Malksoo is less notable, an that is why TFD was not familiar with her works.
Maria Malksoo is just a research fellow, so it is premature to speak about her as about a reputable scholar; her work TLAM cites is just a non-peer-reviewed conference paper. I am sure that, if the web site is notable enough to deserve inclusion, TLAM will be able to find more sources about it.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
And again it was removed, please provide a source which says this is a propaganda site or the link may stay, I want to see a reason within policy which says this EL fails. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 22:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I am bit surprised how furious is this debate about the comparison of Nazism and Communism. Yes, all comparison between any subjects have some limitations. Obviously, there is hardly exception for those two unexampled ideologies, very unique ideologies. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the people who's nations lived through both the nasty regimes (as in my country) this often comes as warning, that it really is to some degree comparable evil, causing massive bloodsheds, epic injustices and ... yes crimes against humanity defying imagination. (somehow it feels here like if skeptics here feel, that this comparison aims in belittling the dread of Nazism, ummm .. in my opinion not at all, it is more likely, that non-residents in post-communistic countries fails to see what the communism really was, and Prague declaration was just about that)
However, I did not come here to talk here about my possible POV or express any other opinions, (it was just my natural reaction here, trying to calm down both sides of the dispute, there is not need for seeing ulterior motives here on any side)
I came here because I wanted to present here suggestion to include note about Kang Kek Iew in Cambodia section. Well with few links about his sentence for Crimes against humanity ..: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Although this link could not be really source, it gives some context Reo + 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is everyone in this discussion avoiding the elephant in the room: Not one 'crime against humanity' trial of Russian Communist criminals after the 'collapse' of the USSR in 1991?! The explanation for that can be found in KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn's 1984 book, 'New Lies for Old'. Golitsyn was the only defector from behind the Iron Curtain to have a high accuracy rate (94%) in predicting future Soviet/East Bloc behavior, according to United States historian Mark Riebling in his 1994 book 'Wedge'. That 94% statistic means Golitsyn's methodology for analyzing Communist future behavior was correct. Golitsyn's bona fides also means that Dubček's Prague Spring reforms were part and parcel of the Communists' Long-Range Strategy (I noticed that Dubček was given a clean bill of health in this discussion by an observer).22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.10.237 ( talk)
Why isn't there a similar article for Crimes against humanity under Capitalist regimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.192.12 ( talk) 03:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As Communist regimes would need 1.3 to 2 wikis if they existed in proportionate numbers for about the same time as capitalists.
Because capitalism is not a political system or ideology, is not that hard to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.128.202.18 ( talk) 13:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
1. This article was created by a sockpuppet.
2. This article ignores a number of mainstream sources
3. The article combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.
If these issued will not be resolved, it is preferable to delete this article completely, and, for a while, I put the tags to inform a reader about these issues.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Drmies:, how is this not a reliable source? From Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources: "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
For this source, all three meanings support reliability.
1) The work is an academic research review directly related to the article's topic.
2) The authors,
Klas-Göran Karlsson and
Michael Schoenhals, are both professors and subject matter experts in the area they write about in the source.
3) The publisher, Forum for Living History, is
"The Living History Forum is a Swedish public authority which, using the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity as a starting point, works with issues on tolerance, democracy and human rights."
AmateurEditor (
talk)
05:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is not with reliability of this source, it generally meets RS requirements, although it has not been peer-reviewed. A real problem is that this source is the only source that defines this topic . In contrast to MKucR, which separated in a separate topic in a Valention's chapter, in the BB, in Rosefielde's book, no other source discuss crimes against humanity under communist regimes as a singe, separate phenomenon. In connection to that, the sole source that defines the topic must be a top quality source, because it is the only source that warrants existence of this article.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 15:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thus, no references have been provided to support the opening statement in the lead. All other references deal with separate examples of crimes against humanity in separate communist states. It suspiciously look like a synthesis.
By the way, a brief examination of the Crimes against humanity article demonstrates that not a single event listed in the CAHucR article is mentioned in the main article (I mean Crimes against humanity). One more nuance is important. Like "genocide", the term "crime against humanity" has two meanings. The first one is a strict legal term, we can speak about crimes against humanity when such a crime was recognised by the court. A second term is more a journalism: "Oh, they were acting so brutally, they raped a lot of women, it was definitely a crime against humanity!". As you understand, the second category is much broader. Which events is this article supposed to describe? It seems the source we are discussing speaks about CAH that fall in the second category: brutal, although not always lethal actions of these regimes not recognised as CAH by a court . However, that is a pure journalism. How many events described in this source are CAHs recognised as such by a court? I think,, just a few. If that is the case, why should we discuss it as a separate categories: "CAH in Communist Romania", "CAH in North Korea", "CAH in China" (by the way, the previous, non-Communist regime in China was not less brutal, so I even don't think it make sanse to separate them.)-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Brief reading of this article shows that only in the case of NK there was an attempt of a legal accusation of CAH. In other cases, there were just characterisation of some events as CAH by some individuals. Therefore, this article is about accusations of leadership of some communist regimes of crimes against humanity. IMO it does not deserve to be a separate article.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) Calidum 21:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Now I know many sources refers and uses "Communist state", but in practice they all refer to this, a Marxist–Leninist state; Communism as state ownership of the means of production rather than as a classless, moneyless and stateless society under common owenrship; and Marxist–Leninist state or Marxist–Leninist regime have been used anyway. I also remember reading another dicussion in which it was stated that communism shouldn't be capitalized and perhaps it was done so as a way to distinquish from communism itself, but then why not just use Marxist–Leninist instead? I would also argue it's not a neutral title in that it refers to a specific ideology (Marxism–Leninism), but calls it communism, which is much more than Marxism–Leninism.-- 80.180.196.242 ( talk) 20:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I'm disappointed that no one, beside a precious few who also seemed dissatisfied with the current name but may disagree with my proposal, actually replied to my objections and no one actually provided a single source; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for. I don't even dispute that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME, although I repeat once again that by the same logic the word should stay capitalised in the title since that's what many sources do and they do it exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. If you disagree with this, fine; but at least reply to my objections, which some did but stopped now; and do it with sources, which no one did as of now. I have no problem accepting whatever decision will be final, but I would have liked to have a more thorough discussion and sharing of sources.-- 82.63.72.187 ( talk) 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. — Amakuru ( talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem, but I have accepted the previous result and this one is mainly based on consistency since the Mass killings under communist regimes page isn't capitalised. I would oppose this move based on WP:COMMON NAME. I don't know which one is more common; I believe when it isn't capitalised it's only because communism is considered a noun, but it's also just as often capitalised both to distinquish it from communism and because the word Communism is used to refer to the Communist Party-state rule rather than communism. Either way, vote on talk pages whether you want both of them to be capitalised or not. Thank you.-- 79.52.17.197 ( talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Гармонический Мир is removing the "Communism" navbox from the article. Is there some reason that navbox isn't appropriate? I know that they prefer the "Marxism-Leninism" navbox instead, despite the article being specifically about "Communist regimes" and not "Marxist-Leninist regimes". Beyond My Ken ( talk) 11:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, the article shouldn't have both the communism sidebar and the communism navbox, so Ive removed the navbox. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi hi, I am quite new to wikipedia editing and I don't know how this work. In the last edit (931856593), someone changed a all of empty importance tags for Projects to "High". Is this correct or should this be reversed? It seems weird when most others are low or mid. Corn Kernel ( talk) 18:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Czar, in response to this, could you please check this article too? Because it is the same topic as Mass killings under communist regimes; the only source discussing crimes against humanity under Communist regimes is Crimes Against Humanity under Communist Regimes by Karlsson et al. but the topic is the same and they are discussing the same events; indeed, the only difference is that Karlsson disagree with genocide or mass killing as term and prefers using crimes against humanity. The article, however, synthesis sources with any events that has been called as such and does not follow the literature, which is the same as Mass killings under communist regimes; all of this can be discussed at Crimes against humanity. In addition, I agree with Paul Siebert, as written here, that there are multiple issues:
- This article was created by a sockpuppet.
- This article ignores a number of mainstream sources
- The article combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article.
If these issued will not be resolved, it is preferable to delete this article completely, and, for a while, I put the tags to inform a reader about these issues.
If none of this is even mentioned at Crimes against humanity, what makes you think a standalone article is fine? They need to be first discussed at the main article, not vice versa. You and this article have it backwards. Davide King ( talk) 07:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar
07:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Czar, apologies for the length again. Is there any way to learn how to summarise? But scope is the issue. This article "combines several topics in a new, non existing topic, and it duplicates the Mass killings under Communist regimes article." Mass killings under communist regimes is the same ("combines several topics in a new, non existing topic") and it is a summary of neither Communist state or Mass killing but of the events themselves, even though the events themselves are not described as genocide or mass killings but they are grouped together through synthesis; and they should not be, because scholars disagree and historians of Communism do not see them as such. Mass killings under communist regimes, or whatever name will be chosen, should be about the concept, theory, or narrative; this is a whole new topic, not a summary of anything. It would be mainly about and the events would simply be referenced such as "Author A include events A, B and C as part of victims of communism." We would not go in detail about the events, when that is "a multiple summary style split of many articles, each of which tells different things about the same events." I think I got what you are saying as a solution, i.e. we should move relevant paragraphs from these articles to their parent articles as summary and if nothing new remains in both articles, they should be a redirect to the main parent articles, right? Problem is, what is their parent article? Crimes against humanity, Communist state, Criticism of communist party rule, Genocide, Genocide in history, Mass killing, all of these? I did already save all the content except "States where mass killings have occurred" because these are so many events and they should already be a summary of their parent articles, so there should be nothing new. Nothing is actually going to be lost but no new information is provided, hence they should be redirects.
Perhaps Criticism of communist party rule should be renamed Analysis of communist party rule, where we summarise Soviet and Communist studies scholarship, what scholars agree, what they disagree with, what are the controversies, etc. Or make it about an analysis of the events not limited to mass killings. Same thing for this article, where "Under Mao Zedong" could be moved at Mao era. Same thing for the other events; they should be in each individual country's history and the rest should go at Crimes against humanity. In other words, there is nothing these articles say that is not already discussed elsewhere (if it is not, it should be), hence it is synthesis and/or does not warrant a standalone article. Perhaps that lead may moved in a section about mass killing at Communist state and Mass killing. In conclusion, Mass killings under communist regimes and its redirects should be targeted at Communist democide or Communist mass killing; this article's events should be moved at the relevant events and Victims of Communism should be created following this summary proposal. That is because both articles are summary styles of their parents article, or they simply replicate thing more relevant for other articles, so they do not say anything new. I do not see how that will solve the issue but what is to be done when an article is a summary-style as a whole and does not say anything new that is not already reported in their parent articles? Both violates WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Are they supposed to be summary-style articles or articles on their own? If they are not in their parent articles, they were not until I did the move, does that not mean they are content forks? |
Buidhe, Czar, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert, I realize this page is not as viewed or discussed as Mass killings under communist regimes but it has been discussed just in the thread above, though it did not lead anywhere. I have tagged it, so that it can be reviewed and it can be improved or fixed. The content can be used elsewhere, to each event and state, if truly due, but to have a main article as it currently is, we need a link that sources do not make.
Crimes Against Humanity Under Communist Regimes – Research Review says the link is not communism or Communist regimes in itself but that killings were the result of unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization under Stalin and Mao (note that this is just a period, not the whole Communist state), and under Pol Pot as part of a similar unbalanced process but of rapid deindustrialization policy; there is no article about crimes against humanity, genocide, or mass killing committed by developmental regimes because it would still be synthesis but only for Communist states do we do this, and even have two separate articles about it as content POV forks, among other violations, when they could be discusses in their proper articles, rather than in a vacuunm just to prove a point as both articles do.
As long as Crimes against humanity does not really address this to justify such a main article, just like Genocide and Mass killing, this remains a problematic content POV fork article and original research/synthesis and violates NPOV and WEIGHT by not presenting scholarly views that would not support the article as currently structured, as main articles about the events contradict what is written here because this article is all about selective, misrepresented sources cherry picked to support the creation of the article, rather than provide an accurate and neutral scholarly analysis of all relevant sources. Davide King ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)