This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Apologies for starting a new thread, but I hope it can be helpful in getting us closer to understand each other and what the main topic is, or should be.

Let me start by saying it is not clear what the main topic actually is:

1. Is it about the events only?
2. Is it about the events and narrative (mainstream)?
3. Is it about the link between communism and genocide/mass killing as an academic fact (mainstream or minority)?
4. Is it about the concept, narrative, or theory (popular among the public but minority among experts and scholars)?

Currently, the lead does not make it clear and is not a proper summary of the article. The article seems to be currently structured as 2 and 3 but the lead only makes a summary of 1. In addition, it still violates our policies and guidelines as argued at length by Paul Siebert et al. It presents only one view, with no serious criticism or other interpretations other than the link between communism and genocide/mass killing being essentially described as a fact supported by both genocide and Soviet and Communism studies scholars. In addition, even among these who support the currently-structured article, I argue there is disagreement on the actual topc.

The problem is the current article treats all these as a fact or widespread academic consensus (especially if one reads only the lead), when it should be described as a concept, narrative, or theory. The fact the events themselves happenened and many have died, which no one is denying, is used as an excuse to keep the article as it is and ignore its policies and guidelines' violations, even though Courtois et al. do not just discuss the events but make the narrative these were "victims of communism", and/or that there is a link between communism and mass killing. While the first point is a good summary of what they propose (hence why we would use for 4), the latter point is not so clear; as I will write and explain below, it is not clear whether they really see a link (some such as Rosefielde and Valentino clearly do not), or whether they are mainly discussing how evil Communism (Courtois) and (non-democratic) governments (Rummel) were, which is not the same thing as supporting 1–3. All four support, and can be used for, 4.

Now let us analyse the four main sources used to support the currently-structured article:

• Stéphane Courtois ( The Black Book of Communism) — the book itself does not actually make a link, only the introduction does that and it is not so clear. The book itself "only presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of 'Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism'" and the introduction is more about "the evils of Communism in general" than any specific link between the two. In addition, The Black Book of Communism is controversial (mainly for the introduction; this does not mean it is unreliable but that it presents one view of the events, hence why it would be better to use for 4 than for all others) and even some of its authors dissociated themselves from it. This was not merely about the estimates but about how Communism was compared to Nazism and even argued it was actually worse because it killed more; and in general of linking all mass killings, famines and excess deaths to communism as ideology, i.e. they dissociated in seeing the link between communism and genocide/mass killing. Finally, while the book was published by an academic press, the introduction was not, it was not subject to peer-review and was extensively criticised; indeed, it is the main reason why the book itself is so controversial. As shown below by Semelin (an actual historian and scholar, so this is not just my reading), the book is about "[a] theory [...] developed by some French historians such as Stéphane Courtois and Jean-Louis Margolin in The Black Book of Communism: they view class genocide [not Communist genocide] as the equivalent to racial genocide." In other words, the main topic is Double genocide theory or equivalence between Communism and Nazism, which would be covered by 4 but it fails 1–3 because they do not support them, according to Semelin's reading.
• Steven Rosefielde ( Red Holocaust) — Rosefielde is an actual scholar in the Soviet and Communist studies field; indeed, he is the only one from these sources. Red Holocaust is exactly the type of source one needs to support this article, i.e. a book specifically about Communist regimes, not just a Communist regime and capitalist Indonesia, or two but not all Communist regimes. Problem is this does not reflect scholarly consensus and Red Holocaust is a criticised for relativising the Holocaust. If this was not enough, Rosefielde does not actually support the link between communism and genocide/mass killing; indeed, it says "blame is ascribed to political, ideological and personal causes, but special emphasis is given to internal contradictions in Marx's utopian model as well as Stalinist and post-Stalinist transition systems concocted to realize communist ends." According to Rosefielde, "[t]he story that emerges from the exercise is edifying. It reveals that the conditions for the Red Holocaust were rooted in Stalin's, Kim's, Mao's, Ho's and Pol Pot's siege-mobilized terror-command economic systems, not in Marx's utopian vision or other pragmatic communist transition mechanisms." In other words, Rosefielde does not reduce the events to "communism to blame", nor that there is a link between communism or genocide/mass killing. Note that Rosefielde does not discuss all Communist leaders or states; indeed, Rosefielde writes of "post-Stalinist transition systems concocted to realize communist ends." In other words, Rosefielde does not lump all Communist states together and clearly distinguish between Stalin and Mao from Gorbachev and Deng. If Communist leaders such as Gorbachev, among others, did not engage in genocide or mass killing, this clearly shows the alleged link is false and indeed these scholars do not actually support it.
• Rudolph Rummel ( Death by Government) — Rummel was a political scientist and not an expert on Communist studies. Death by Government does not have an article and was not published by an academic press but we already have Democide, which is a different topic than this. Again, Rummel may be used for 4 but he cannot be relied for the other topics because it does not support them. His work was about mass killings by government and in general. We need works like Rosefielde that discusses them together; if we take two or more books just because they discuss killings under Communist regimes, even though they disagree on which Communist regimes are notable for it (for example, Rosefielde does not discuss all Communist regimes and Valentino does not discuss Afghanistan as Communist mass killing), that is synthesis. The fact a book that lumps all these Communist regimes together and an agreement among scholars about which Communist regimes are to be considered (all, exclude Afghanistan, consider only Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, consider only the Stalinised states and not post-Stalinism) does not actually exist shows that the only topic we can neutrally write an article about, respecting our policies and guidelines, is 4, for which there are independent secondary reliable sources other than its proponents, who can still be used.
• Benjamin Valentino ( Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century) — the problem remains this is a book about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century, not genocides and mass killing under Communist regimes, or a link between these two and communism; indeed, the fact there is not a single scholarly work that discusses the topic as we do but only discusses these events as part of genocide and mass killing means and should show us this should be discussed at Genocide, Genocides in history and Mass killing, not as a standalone article. Valentino does not see a link between communism and genocide/mass killing, or even between ideology; indeed, Valentino argues they have more to do with the rulers' intentions than with ideology ("ethnic hatreds or discrimination, undemocratic systems of government, and dysfunctions in society play a much smaller role in mass killing and genocide than is commonly assumed. He shows that the impetus for mass killing usually originates from a relatively small group of powerful leaders and is often carried out without the active support of broader society. Mass killing, in his view, is a brutal political or military strategy designed to accomplish leaders' most important objectives, counter threats to their power, and solve their most difficult problems."). Valentino is proposing the concept of Communist mass killing as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing; in other words, this is not the same topic and should be discussed at Mass killing, as we already do.

Now let us analyse other sources used by Nug to support the currently-structured article:

• John Gray (work unclear) — not a genocide nor historian of Communism scholar, non-expert. In addition, The Political Theory of John Gray describes him as "one of today's most...controversial political thinkers." As noted by The Four Deuces in the first AfD, "[c]ontroversial means that his ideas are not mainstream and the fact that his theory on communism has received no academic mention makes it fringe." Gray can be used for 4, if he is relevant or notable. What Gray can be not used for is to support the claim the link between communism and genocide/mass killing is an accepted scholarly fact.
• Rebecca Knuth ("Understanding Genocide: Beyond Remembrance or Denial") — non-notable; "an expert on book burning — is an Associate Professor in the Library and Information Science Program at the University of Hawaii." Same thing as Gray. How does expertness in book burning results in expertness about genocide? These are all weak sources for such a controversial article and topic.
• Ronit Lentin (work unclear) — political sociologist; same thing as Gray; not an expert of genocide or historian of Communism. We need an actual source.
• Eric D. Weitz (Century of Genocide) — "Distinguished Professor of History at City University of New York and author of several books"; not a genocide nor historian of Communism scholar; non-expert. As shown here, the book's main topic is Genocide and Genocides in history ("The book assembles a group of international scholars to discuss the causes, results, and ramifications of these genocides: from the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire; to the Jews, Romani, and the mentally and physically handicapped during the Holocaust; and genocides in East Timor, Bangladesh, and Cambodia. The second edition has been fully updated and features new chapters on the genocide in the former Yugoslavia and the mass killing of the Kurds in Iraq, as well as a chapter on the question of whether or not the situation in Kosovo constituted genocide. It concludes with an essay concerning methods of intervention and prevention of future genocide."), so this source may be used for these articles; it certainly cannot be used for this article, especially if it is not clear what the link is.

If these are the best sources, it does not look good. These can be used for 4, if they are notable and relevant, but they cannot be used for 1–3 because they are non-expert, nor can they be used to claim the topic is actually supported by scholarly literature. Here, AmateurEditor proposed these four more:

• Daniel Chirot (work unclear) – non-notable; what is the work where Chirot either discusses the events or sees a link between communism and genocide/mass killing?
• Michael Mann (The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing) – sociologist; I think the aggregator sources should be genocide scholars and historians of Communism (if they cannot agree with each other, that means the only possible topic is 4). If this is not enough, Mann proposed the concept of Classicide, which is not the same thing as this topic, and it is synthesis to imply it is or that there is a universally-accepted terminology. As noted here by Rick Norwood, who also already analysed these sources (The Four Deuces also analysed Mann here), Communist regimes are not the main topic; it actually says "[t]his comprehensive study of international ethnic cleansing provides in-depth coverage of its occurrences in Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, as well as cases of lesser violence in early modern Europe and in contemporary India and Indonesia. After presenting a general theory of why serious conflict emerges and how it escalates into mass murder, Michael Mann offers suggestions on how to avoid such escalation in the future." How can this source be used to support 1–3? Mann also does not seem to see any link between communism and genocide/mass killing; indeed, Mann refuses to use the term genocide to describe the crimes committed under communism and prefers the terms fratricide and classicide. This is a source to be used for Classicide, Ethnic cleansing, or Politicide, not for this article or topics 1–3.
• Martin McCauley (work unclear) – "Irish historian and former senior lecturer at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, at University College London." What is his work where he discuss mass killings under Communist regimes together, or see a link between communism and genocide/mass killing? Either way, this is just one scholar; McCauley can be used to support 4 but not 1–3.
• Jacques Semelin (work unclear) – according to Semelin, "Mann thus establishes a sort of parallel between racial enemies and class enemies, thereby contributing to the debates on comparisons between Nazism and communism [not this topic]. This theory has also been developed by some French historians such as Stéphane Courtois and Jean-Louis Margolin in The Black Book of Communism: they view class genocide [not Communist genocide] as the equivalent to racial genocide. Mann however refuses to use the term 'genocide' to describe the crimes committed under communism. He prefers the terms 'fratricide' and 'classicide', a word he coined to refer to intentional mass killings of entire social classes." As shown by Semelin himself, Mann wrote about 1, not 2–3. It is also not clear the work where Semelin either dicusses the events or see a link between communism and genocide/mass killing. As with Mann's work about ethnic cleansing, neither Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide ("Purify and Destroy demonstrates that it is indeed possible to compare the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina while respecting the specificities of each appalling phenomenon.") nor Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue ("Based on three absorbing case studies—the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the slaughter of the Tutsi in Rwanda—this volume marks the first international, comparative, and multidisciplinary attempt to situate rescue as a research object.")'s main topic is Communist regimes or genocide/mass killing(s) under Communist regimes.

These were better sources than Nug's but they still do not actually support topics 1–3; some may support only 1 but not 2–3. However, it is my understanding the current article's main topic is 2. Now could these who support the currently-structured article explain what is the main topic and what it is about? Is it only about the events? Is it only about the link of communism and genocide/mass killing? Or is it about both? Also please, do not repeat arguments and just reply to my analysis of sources, and what topic you support. What did I miss? How do these sources support 2, or 1–3? Why would it not be better to use them for 4, since I believe Paul Siebert et al. have demonstrated this is not widely accepted among genocide scholars and historians of Communism? We need a source explicitly saying there is agreement among scholars on terminology or on the topic, otherwise this is just cherry-picking a few scholars who are claimed to support the topic, even though in most cases they do not, nor do they see a clear ideological link.

If the topic is only about the events, it is synthesis and content fork because we already discuss the events in individual articles and because we need a link that ties them together (see here). If the topic is only about the link, I believe to have demonstrated not only genocide scholars and historians of Communism disagree there is a link but these who are claimed to propose a link, well, they do not actually do that or are misinterpretated. If the topic is about both the events and link, it would be both content fork and synthesis because for the first we already have individualk articles about the events and sources do not actually support a link that tie them together. So we are left with 4, the only topic supported by sources and that does not violate our policies and guidelines. 4 is not a different topic but nothing other than the same topic written in neutral tone.

— Davide King ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses

Davide King I would advise you first make a clear argument rather then posting a wall of text, it's extremely long and also unclear. We aren't forking things, you claim it is a synthesis but you fail to realize synthesis refers . Your take on these citations I disagree, I only can agree with the section on the Black Book of communism, I don't think it can be considered a reliable source.

Being a communist scholar is not obviously not required to discuss elements of soviet or other atrocities. You also take a contradictory position, you think that it is a synthesis of material to state Marxist Leninist commited atrocities, or that there is a pattern of these atrocities, but also believe things like pointing Marxist-Leninist states patterns of industrialization isn't. It makes no sense to me. Vallee01 ( talk) 05:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You make no sense and also make unrelated comments for another article. My argument is that sources do not actually support the topic, so how was I supposed to show this (8 sources and provided quotes) without a wall of text? Since you have not been really following thing discussion, do not really undersatdn mine and Paul Siebert's arguments, and only came in recently, I suggest you to avoid making comments like this and personal attacks like insinuating we are downplaying atrocities. Our diatribe at Marxism–Leninism is relevant for that talk page, not here. If genocide scholars and historians of Communism do not agree there is a link between communism (not Marxism–Leninism, but communism! Which you claim to support) and genocide/mass killing, the only topic this article can be is 4. Davide King ( talk) 05:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I literally quoted Semelin, who according to proponents of this article supports it, explaining how Courtois et al. and Mann are proposing a concept or theory that "a sort of parallel between racial enemies and class enemies, thereby contributing to the debates on comparisons between Nazism and communism. [...] [T]hey view class genocide as the equivalent to racial genocide. Mann however refuses to use the term 'genocide' to describe the crimes committed under communism." The topic is equivalency between class and racial genocide, or of communism and Nazism (not mass killings under Communism regimes), which is described as a theory, which is exactly what Paul Siebert et al. propose. Davide King ( talk) 05:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Nowhere is there any personal attacks. I think a reason why new editors aren't getting involved in the current discussion IS because the massive amount of walls of texts that are being posted, new editors aren't getting involved because this entire discussion is long confusing mess, I am uniformed as to much of the current discussion or sources, it's hard to get involved. And nowhere did I state or accuse you are trying to underplay atrocities. "You think that it is a synthesis of material to state Marxist Leninist committed atrocities, or that there is a pattern of these atrocities, but also believe things like pointing Marxist-Leninist states patterns of industrialization isn't." Is not me stating you are underplaying anything its me stating your literal your positions, or at least your positions as I understand them I might not understand them. Also what does it matter if I am a communist? What effect does it have to the article. This article should just be a list of atrocities committed by self descried communists, I don't think there should be anything else. It should be a list describing self described communist atrocities. We shouldn't go into detail if people think communism is somehow connected we have other articles for that, all we should do is state atrocities go into detail on how that happened. We shouldn't try to put the blame on communism it's completely un neutral. Vallee01 ( talk) 06:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you established the topic, "a list of atrocities committed by self descried communists." This still means the article should be rewritten and be more like List of genocides by death toll or List of massacres in the Soviet Union, i.e. it should be a table, if the topic is only "a list of atrocities committed by self descried communists." Now what do other user says? Davide King ( talk) 06:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"We shouldn't go into detail if people think communism is somehow connected we have other articles for that, all we should do is state atrocities go into detail on how that happened. We shouldn't try to put the blame on communism it's completely un neutral." But this is exactly what the article does and what Paul Siebert and I have been arguing against the whole time! So you either misunderstood us, or I do not know what to tell you. You seem to not get this is the main topic, the main topic is putting the blame on communism or that there is a link between communism and genocide/ mass killing; this is what I and others oppose. If we are going to "list of atrocities committed by self descried communists", the article should be turned into a table and things like Proposed causes, which blame it on communism, should be deleted. Davide King ( talk) 06:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out above and was agreed in the AfD discussions, we cannot create articles that group unconnected events. We need to establish why why these events are connected using reliable sources. For example, the Holocaust and genocide against indigenous peoples in the U.S. were carried out by Christians. But if we want an article called Christian genocide, we need sources that draw the connection and explain the degree of acceptance in reliable sources. Otherwise it is just propaganda, listing crimes committed by Christians with the implication that Christianity is a genocidal religion. And the same applies to Islam. This is the only mass killings article that groups the killings by ideology. It could be as the VOC Memorial Foundation says, that "Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history." But it is not our role to promote their views, but to explain them in a neutral manner.

There was a website, Jew Watch, that had sections on Jewish Communists, Jewish murderers, Jewish sexual perverts and other anti-social Jews. While all the information appeared accurate, the site was considered anti-Semitic, because it's aim was to villainize Jews by assigning collective responsibility to Jewish people for what individuals had done. In fact, we had a number of similar articles in Wikipedia, which fortunately have been deleted.

TFD ( talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, what do you think of the analysis of main topic and sources I provided? Do you think it is accurate? Did I miss anything from these sources? Davide King ( talk) 06:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How are these events unconnected when they were all commited by communist regimes? Liberty5000 ( talk) 15:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In the same sense that rum distilled in Cuba and vodka distilled in Russia were unconnected although they were both liquors distilled under Communist regimes. We don't classify liquors by ideology - communist liquors, capitalist, etc., but by how they are made - rum, vodka, whiskey, etc. TFD ( talk) 15:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's fine, but unlikely to be persuasive. One of the editors here for example believes that the USSR, not Germany, was responsible for WW2 and sees Wikipedia as a place to promote that view. How do you persuade someone like that? If someone believes that communist and socialist ideology is the greatest threat facing humanity and Wikipedia is the place to get the word out, then arguing that their edits go against policy and guidelines won't be persuasive. TFD ( talk) 06:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I would be curious who is this user; perhaps they should be reported if they are pushing that view, which is disruptive and may be sanctionable. Perhaps these sources should be presented at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, with the question being whether they actually support the claim there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing, which these editors claim they support. It should not be our job to do this; it is theirs to present sources which makes this connection and if they do not, they ought to be disregarded as not being in support for topics 1–3. Davide King ( talk) 07:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces I also want to know who this user is, I have been extremely new to this discussion and clearly this discussion is very old, with this exact discussion going all the way back to 2009, but what editor are you are talking about? If they genuinely believe the USSR is responsible for the WW2 and they are clearly not here to build a free encyclopedia, they can have there edit rights revoked. Other editors are the opposite, they are here to push a pro-Marxist-Leninist position, I made my position clear I oppose both TFD lead proposal and going into detail on why ML states committed atrocities instead we should state simply ML states have committed atrocities. Sometimes I feel like editing on Wikipedia is futile you always have POV warriors and its painful to deal with them, sometime I falsely think of people of POV warriors when they aren't. The bad thing about POV warriors is that they are so active, they try so hard to push their POV. Vallee01 ( talk) 07:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who the editor was, my point is that any given time, there are always editors who cannot be persuaded by policy or guidelines. I have nominated many articles for deletion and have had limited success. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservatism in North America. That article is similar to this one in that it was a cut-and-paste from various articles with no attempt made to connect the various countries, because no one has made a comparative study. I added the synthesis tag in 2009 [1] and it's still there. The vote to keep was 4 to 3. The creator of the article who voted keep created thousands of unneccessary redirects a large number of which contained the words boobs, boobies or titties. [2] Another editor who voted keep would go to every vote I was in and vote the opposite way and is now banned from political articles. The third keep editor said there was no reason why reliable soures were required to establish it was a topic, while the fourth just said "good article." TFD ( talk) 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• You can add this university level class which draws a connection between mass killings and communist regimes as yet another source to support the fact that the article, as it stands, doesn't tell of an imaginary or fringe topic. schetm ( talk) 19:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, "[This article] implies that the events were connected and therefore there is no reason to explain the connection and we can just get on with enumerating the death toll. We have no more than a few sentences in any reliable sources saying that all these deaths were connected and nothing saying they weren't. All we have in reputable is analyses of individual countries or comparisons of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot." [01:29, 3 December 2020]. Your link says, "From Stalin’s Soviet Union, to Mao’s China, and the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia, communism appears to have gone hand in hand with mass murder." TFD ( talk) 20:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Schetm, how is that a reliable source? It also writes of "the famine of the early 1930s, which has been labeled an attempted genocide against the Ukrainian people" but there is still a debate on whether it was a genocide or not Also note that it mainly focus on the Stalinist Soviet Union, Maoist China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. Yet this article implies all Communist regimes were like them. Gorbachev, Deng and other Communist regimes did not engage in genocide or mass killing. Valentino himself says most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killing and believes that ideology is not a good explanation for the events. The source you shown does actually appear to support the link ("From Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mao’s China, and the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia, communism appears to have gone hand in hand with mass murder.") but it does not write of all Communist regimes like we do and how much weight does it hold? It does not seem to reflect the consensus among scholars.
• If this was so obvious, it should be easy to find an academic book or something explicitly saying "scholars agree that there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing" but there is not one because scholars do not actually agree. You write this is "yet another source to support the fact" the article "doesn't tell of an imaginary or fringe topic", but we do not disagree it is a notable topic; we disagree on the topic and its understanding. We disagree scholars agree there is a link. As I have shown above, Courtuois, Mann, Margolin, Rosefielde and Valentino, among others, do not say there is a link. Did you even read the bolded part? As things stand, you are just cherrypicking sources which support what you say but does not say that is the consensus among scholars, which is what we would need. If there is not a link, this article needs to be rewitten, which the AfD actually supported as a possible solution, including a merge, among others.
• There are books comparing the Holocaust and the Indonesia mass killing. Would you support an article about capitalist regimes and list the Holocaust and Indonesia? Or do you take the fringe view fascists and Nazis were socialists? If you claim sources do not make the link between capitalism and genocide/mass killing, then you are inconsistent because, as I have shown above, scholarly sources, not cherrypicked ones, do not make a link between communism and genocide/mass killing either. The lead does not make the link clear and is not a good summary. The lead is only about the events but the body is about the events and the link; it fails in establishing the topic (is it about the events only? The events and the link? Or both?) and only discusses the events but make no mention of the link, which is in the body.
• The sources used to support this topic are about "Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, as well as cases of lesser violence in early modern Europe and in contemporary India and Indonesia", "the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina" and "the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the slaughter of the Tutsi in Rwanda." The main topic is not Communist regimes and only Cambodia, which is indeed the only case where genocide is accurate ( Cambodian genocide), is discussed. However, scholars do not actually agree and several scholars noted that Cambodian genocide had more to do with fascist xenophobia and Nazism than communism. Davide King ( talk) 09:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Davide King, to answer your direct question, I'm not putting it forward as a reliable source. I'm including it to demonstrate that the main topic in the article as it exists right now is not a fringe pov, imaginary topic, or synth. It should not go in the mainspace. schetm ( talk) 18:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  Would the supporters of this article care to explain whether Genocide in Muslim countries ( mockup here) is a legitimate topic or not? You can find seemingly mainstream sources for it as well. ( t · c) buidhe 21:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  It is synth when (1) communism is blamed for the events; (2) we present these as victims of communism, rather than authoritarianism, totalitarianism, you name it; and (3) the events themselves are not individually described as genocide or mass killing (we do not write the Great Chinese Famine was a mass killing or a mass killing under a Communist regime; the only exception may be the Cambodian genocide). I think it would be helpful to clarify what you mean by fringe. I do not mean conspiracy theories or that nonsense but " an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." That fascists were left-wing, Nazis socialists, the Soviet Union started World War II and communism is to blame for the events, these are fringe views. When this article is longer than Mass killing, it shows this is a coatrack article to blame communism for it, notwithstanding how many times you try to say this article is mainly about the events; it was created in the first place by a blocked user to troll. The main topic is about the link between communism and genocide/mass killing, which is stated as fact rather than a proposed concept, narrative, or theory. This is what we oppose. Whether you like it or not, whether you keep stating "[t]he link is mass killings (or mass mortality events, which I think would be better) that took place under communist regimes", not communism and genocide/mass killing, there are users who instead support the main topic to be about the link as fact rather than theory, which is what we oppose. Davide King ( talk) 09:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was asked to provide an outside/uninvolved/ "third" opinion and here it is. There is clearly an unresolved scope issue but I (1) don't think it's the main problem, and (2) don't think you're going to find actionable consensus on it right now. I see a larger scope issue: merger. For some reason, this article is longer than the parent articles from which it was "split". I.e., mass killing does not address the causal relationships between concentrated power and mass killings, despite the litany of sourcing exchanged on this talk page (and whether that concentrated power is defined as Communist rule, totalitarian rule, dictatorship, etc.) Mass killing barely scrapes the surface of ruler intent, such as the debate over when famines classify as "killings" (concerted and malicious vs. incompetent). These are topics that exist in greater depth here than in their parent article. The discussion is happening in the wrong place, likely because this subtopic attracts more attention based on its framing. This content needs to be merged up, even if kept verbatim in this article, and the best part is anyone can do it. Once that is done, you should have a clearer understanding of what "doesn't fit" within the parent article and thus warrants a summary style split to this dedicated article.

A few notes on content merger. Right now, § Proposed causes is written in an "X said Y" format, which is subpar for readers. It needs connective tissue so that the reader can understand how scholars converge/differ in respect to a causal link. Second, when content is merged, the originating article becomes ineligible for deletion because the original page history must be preserved for attribution purposes.

If any further elaboration or mediation would be useful, I'm not watching the page but only a {{ ping}} away. Best, czar 08:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, czar. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 18:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)