Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts WP:DRN WP:DR/N This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Current disputes

Mass killings under communist regimes

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Mass killings under communist regimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AmateurEditor (talk · contribs)
• Cloud200 (talk · contribs)
• Davide King (talk · contribs)
• Paul Siebert (talk · contribs)
• Nug (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In August two editors (Davide King,Paul Siebert) started making edits in the article that completely reversed the status quo on this sensitive topic. A heated dispute over specific edits followed, which was largely led by AmateurEditor and Cloud200 on one side, and Davide King Paul Siebert on the other. Their position can be summarised as attacking practically every single aspect of the article (while declaring they don't), starting from validity of the very concepts of "mass killings", "communist regimes" and any causal connection between the two. The subject is complex and subject to interpretation, but rejecting it completely is equivalent to denialism since mass-scale extermination of people in countries declaring themselves as "communist" is a well-documented fact, and link between the ideology and these exterminations is clearly demonstrated by large body of primary and secondary sources, all linked in the article.

Both AmateurEditor and myself engaged in the discussion, honestly analysing and responding to every single argument of the opponents, however their position doesn't seem to be impacted by any number of sources or arguments. They ignore any arguments and just continue flooding the discussion with extremely lengthy and verbose comments that are loosely related to the subject and rarely directly respond to the arguments we raised. The discussion thus was unproductive and I have personally disengaged from the discussion after being treated with ad hominem arguments that implied I have no right to take part in the discussion for being from Eastern Europe.

Since September they have practically taken over the complete article rewriting it to their liking, in a manner that is best illustrated by this edit[[1]]: WP:WEASEL, unsourced and WP:POV.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Massive dispute in Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes, continued to some extent in personal talk pages [[2]] and archived in Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 50

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Revert all edits done by Davide King and Paul Siebert since September. Both AmateurEditor and myself were open to discussion and changes to the article, but not a complete and subjective rewrite that turned it from head to heels.

Summary of dispute by AmateurEditor

Summary of dispute by Davide King

Siebert gave an accurate summary, while Cloud200's not only lacks context and assumes that their position is the right one, and we must be some Soviet/Stalin apologists, which could not be further from the truth, but is actively harmful, inaccurate, and misleading — WP:BOOMERANG. Guess what? You stopped discussing, you did not revert me (as I wrote here, everything is sourced in the body, previous lead was not sourced either, and we need not to source it if a summary and paraphrase of what the sourced body already says), and eventually my edits have been accepted (see here). The real problem is that some users have a complete lack of knowledge about the topic — see this (the new lead and Siebert's explanation for comparison with the previous lead, this is what users like Cloud2000 actually believe in, even though is OR/SYNTH). It is absurd I have to do this but ...

No one is denying that many, many people have died under Communist regimes, what we are disputing is that this is a scholarly discourse (it is at best only discussed by genocide scholars, which are a minority within a minority, and have not been published in mainstream political science journals, and even then they mostly limit themselves to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, which are the only ones who fit the most commonly accepted definition of mass killing) or consensus, or that MKuCR is an accurate categorization; the truth is that it is OR/SYNTH the same way mass killings under capitalist, Christian, fascist, Muslim (mockup) regimes, yet we do this only for communism because, as summarized here, "victims of communism" (e.g. the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation) is more of a propaganda topic than a scholarly debate (see this, especially the notes with sources) but many users actually believe in the former and merge the two, when that is far from an accurate summary of the topic, hence the heart of the matter of that article's diatribe.

The new lead is a better and more accurate, though by no means perfect, summary and proper introduction of the topic, which should show how it is has been misunderstood, falsified, and a good source of citogenesis for years (Conservapedia and Metapedia's "Mass killings under Communist regimes" — I cannot link the latter, not Encyclopedia Britannica or any other proper encyclopedia that would establish notability as those users want the article to be structured), which is not a good thing at all. The real issue is that some users have been supporting and defending atrocious policy and guideline violations (NPOV, OR/SYNTH, and WEIGHT), not Siebert and I, who have been arguing in good faith; clearly, one of us must be wrong but I am still not convinced it is Siebert and I. You have yet to show they are wrong in their summary of the dispute and article's problems.

Davide King (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Paul Siebert

First, I disagree with Cloud200's description of the conflict, this describes my position in more details. Second, the overall description of the dispute is as follows:

"The article is describing numerous and poorly connected events that happened in XX century in different countries. Numerous publications exist that describe those events separately (Type 1 sources). Some publication do comparative analysis, for example, compare two or more Communist states, or compare one or several Communist states with non-Communists etc (Type 2 sources). And, there is a relatively small group of sources that discuss "Communist mass killing" as a single concept (Type 3 sources). Currently, the article relies heavily on Type 3 sources, and other sources play just a subordinated role, or are completely ignored.

The problem is that the type 3 sources sometimes directly contradict to other sources, and they may contain biased interpretations, use outdated figures and questionable facts etc. Type 3 sources are essentially ignored by country experts, so there is no open disputes between Type 1&2 and Type 3 authors. Even worse, Type 3 sources are unhomogeneous, and they frequently contradict to each other, without saying that openly.

Nevertheless, the article treats the topic as a well defined and universally recognized topic (similar to the Holocaust), which has some common terminology (it doesn't), commonly accepted statistics (in reality, the number of victims is a subject of one's political views, because there is no agreement what category of life loss can be considered victims of Communism), some common causes (which is not true, for most country experts provide different explanations for each case). And it is not a sruprise that this article directly contradicts to Wikipedia articles about almost every individual event taken separately (Cambodian genocide is one obvious exception).

In other words, this article is a single huge POV fork, and that situation should be either fixed, or the article should be deleted. I am comfortable with both outcomes, because all essential information will remain in Wikipedia, in such articles as Mass killing, Democide, Classicide, The Black Book of Communism, Red Holocaust, Great Purge, Cambodian genocide, Holodomor and many others.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors, which is required as part of a filing at this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my mistake. All parties have been notified per the protocol, although I have also posted a notice in the article's talk page yesterday to which two people already responded. Cloud200 (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - This case appears to involve both a content dispute that is more extensive than the usual scope of disputes that are handled at this noticeboard, and allegations of conduct violations. The statement of what is being asked appears to include rolling back one to two months of editing to an earlier version of the article. We don't act as arbitrators or as an editorial board. Also, both sides have said that there may be conduct issues by the other side. However, if all editors agree to moderated dispute resolution, I am willing to try to mediate this dispute, with the understanding that it is likely to break down either into one very large RFC or several relatively large RFCs. All editors will have to agree that they will allow me to try to mediate in order to proceed, and I will request that an administrator back up my authority as mediator. After notice is given, the next question is whether the editors want moderated dispute resolution and whether they will agree to set aside any conduct concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer note: Note Cloud200 canvassing users to this discussion with non-neutral messages (and choosing those who they think would support them).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Example--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• I would be very happy for Robert McClenon to mediate in the article as this is precisely what we need there - an objective, experience third-party who will moderate arguments on both side.

Cloud200 (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Before I agree that Robert McClenon mediated this dispute, I would like him to answer several questions.

• Do you know that the filer is actually a newcomer, and the conflict around this article is more than 10 years long, and almost all concerns and objections raised in the gigantic talk page archives remain unaddressed and unresolved?
• Do you know that the number of potential participants is much bigger (I can name more than 10 other users who may be interested in participation)?
• Are you ready to delve into all details of that conflict?
• Do you realize that potential outcome of this dispute may range from compete restoration of the article to its full rewrite (and even deletion)?

If the answer to all those questions is "Yes", then I am ready to accept you as a mediator, but be prepared that the mediation may be very long and hard.

Keep discussion to a minimum until moderation begins
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In addition, the filer is throwing accusations that are factually incorrect and may be interpreted as personal attacks. The filer has already been duly notified that the topic is under WP:DS, and I warned the filer that their behaviour may result in AE actions. I think it would be incorrect to conduct the mediation process in parallel with AE. Therefore, since it seems it is hardly possible to discuss content and conduct issues simultaneously, the most productive way would be as follows: (1) The filer explicitly confirms they understood my warning, and there will be no unjustified accusation of others during that discussion and the discussions closely related to it from her side.

(2) I agree to participate in mediation, which will be devoted exclusively to the content dispute, and no behavioural questions will be raised.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert - I will be posting Statement Zero by the moderator (myself) within a few hours. The participating editors will be asked to agree to it. The rules for mediation at DRN have always said that we discuss content only, and that there is to be no discussion of editor conduct. No editor except the moderator or an administrator may issue warnings to any other editors. There will be no casting of aspersions, incivility, or personal attacks. All editors will understand that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are in effect, and that there will be no reports to Arbitration Enforcement or WP:ANI. I will be posting Statement Zero within a few hours. If the editors agree, then I will post Statement One, which will start a mediation process that may last a few months (not just the usual two to three weeks). If any editor does not agree, then what I do next may depend on who the survivors are. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I got no answer to my second question. IMO, it is important to invite the users who participated in the MKuCR talk page discussion during the period from 2015 (tentatively) till now. Many of them, such as Fifelfoo, or KIENGIR quit because they came to a conclusion that the dispute came to an impasse, but I have a feeling they may express a desire to participate in this DR. It would be incorrect to start the process until all potential participants have been duly informed. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

See below, but one of those editors has been banned. The other editor may be notified. I do not intend to have a large number of participants in mediated discussion, because that becomes chaotic. The principal means for participation by other editors will be the RFC process, but a limited number of other editors may be invited.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Zeroth Statement by Moderator (Communist Killings)

I am ready to begin mediation about Mass killings under communism. This mediation may take a few months, not just the usual few weeks of DRN. The mediation will focus on Mass killings under communism; however, since articles must not contradict each other, it may be necessary to look at other articles, in particular on specific atrocities.

Other Editors

The participants may invite other editors who are in good standing to join in the mediation. The mediation will not be delayed while waiting for responses from other editors. Any invitation to join the proceedings must be neutrally worded. The main mechanism for involving other editors will however be the RFC process. This is because trying to conduct moderated discussion with a large number of editors becomes chaotic.

Ground Rules

The editors are asked to read the ground rules and to understand them:

1. Be civil and concise.
   1. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential in dispute resolution. Uncivil statements may be collapsed.
   2. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. (They may make the author feel better, but the objective is to discuss the article constructively.) Overly long statements may be collapsed, and the party may be told to summarize them. Read Too Long, Didn't Read, and don't write anything that is too long for other editors to read. If the moderator says to write one paragraph, that means one paragraph of reasonable length.
2. Do not report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Reporting any issue about the article at any other location is forum shopping, which is strongly discouraged. Any old discussions at any other noticeboards must be closed or suspended. If any new conduct discussions are opened, this mediation will be failed.
3. Comment on content, not contributors.
   1. The purpose of discussion is to improve the articles, not to complain about other editors. (There may be a combination of content issues and conduct issues, but resolving the content issue often mitigates the conduct issue or permits it to subside.) Uncivil comments or comments about other editors may be suppressed.
   2. "Comment on content, not contributors" means that if you are asked to summarize what you want changed in the article, or left the same, it is not necessary or useful to name the other editors, but it may be important to identify the paragraphs or locations in the article. It isn't necessary to identify the other editors with whom you disagree.
   3. Discuss edits, not editors. This means the same as "Comment on content, not contributors". It is repeated because it needs repeating.
4. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited except by the moderator, the mediation may be failed.
5. It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress, because discussion elsewhere than here may be overlooked or ignored.
6. Be specific at DRN . Do not simply say that a section should be improved, but tell what improvement should be made. Do not simply say that "All viewpoints must be discussed", but identify the missing viewpoints.
7. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors (except as noted below); that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.
8. The moderator will provide a section for back-and-forth comments. Keep your comments in that section, so that anyone else can ignore them. Comments in the back-and-forth section, like everywhere else, must be civil.
9. Every participant is expected to check on the case at least every 72 hours and to answer questions within 72 hours, unless they have said that they will be taking a break of not more than a week.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Archives and Blank Pad

The moderator has not read the lengthy archives, and may or may not read the archives. This means that the participants may be asked to restate what they have already stated. If the participants think that they are starting over, that is because we are starting over. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Zeroth Statement by Editors (Communist Killings)

• Agreed.I neither expected nor proposed the Moderator to read talk page archives, I just said that the concerns raised in them must be addressed too. I can present summaries of archived discussions (with links)--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed and thank you for participation. Cloud200 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Communist killings)

Here are a few more thoughts on how I plan to try to handle the mediation.

First, we will try to divide issues between those having to do with the reliability and choice of sources, those having to do with balance and due weight, and other disputes. Both academic and non-academic (popular press) sources may be used. If necessary, disputes over the reliability of sources can be referred to the reliable source noticeboard, which will put that dispute on hold here, in which case we will try to work on other issues. We will try to resolve disputes over wording, balance, and due weight by compromise, and if necessary will rely on RFC.

If reliable sources are in direct disagreement, which is likely to happen with numbers of deaths, we will list all of the differing opinions or viewpoints.

The editors are asked to reread the neutral point of view policy, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia, and to reread the verifiability policy. These policies are paramount, and no exceptions will or can be made.

I will be posting a note at the administrators' noticeboard stating that we are starting mediation. This does not mean that anyone is being reported for conduct; no one is being reported for conduct. This is only a matter of visibility. Editors should not try to discuss this case at WP:AN, and I am saying not to discuss this case at WP:AN.

Editors should be aware that Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions are in effect to deal with disruptive editing. So avoid disruptive editing.

Each editor is asked to state, in one to three paragraphs of ordinary length, what they think are the most important issues, and also to ask any questions about how we will be working. After I see the introductory statements, I will have a better idea how to prioritize the various parts of the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Communist killings)

Statement by Paul Siebert

(It may be somewhat lengthy, but this introduction is necessary. My other posts will be more brief)

Before discussing concrete sources, we need to come to an agreement on categories of sources. As I already explained (see above), all available sources can be divided on three groups. The problem is that the group 1 sources essentially ignore the group 3 sources, so there is no direct discussion between them. Let me demonstrate it using the Great Chinese famine as an example. This case is very important, because it is responsible for lion's share of deaths ascribed to Communist regimes, so if we exclude it, the "global Communist death toll figure" will become much less impressive. If I were a "naive Wikipedian" with zero preliminary knowledge of the subject, I would have typed something like this or that. However, if I believed that the Great Chinese famine was a mass killing, and wanted to find sources supporting this idea, I would have typed this. Clearly, the sources from these two lists are quite orthogonal. What is more important, if you look at the sources from the first list (for example, O'Grada's "Great leap into famine: A review essay", cited in 12 scholarly publications, or Kung&Lin's "The causes of China's great leap famine, 1959–1961" (cited 170 times), these sources use much more calm tone, are more cautious in conclusions, do not use such terms as "genocide" or "mass killings", and, importantly, never cite the authors from the last list (e.g. Rummel). The group 1 and group 3 sources exist in "parallel universes", and they tell totally different stories about the same event. Importantly, the group 1 sources are much more detailed, their analysis of facts is more careful, and their conclusions are much more balanced. However, the group 1 sources are dramatically underrepresented in the MKuCR article. Moreover, the "Debates over famine" section is quite misleading, because it creates an impression of false balance, whereas there is virtually no debates over, e.g. Great Chinese famine in majority of scholarly research papers or books, which do not consider it "genocide" or other "-cide", or a "mass killing" (for example, see O'Grada's opinion).

If you look at other topics, the situation is pretty much similar: we have a large number of good quality sources on each concrete country or each separate event, which provide a quite adequate description of each separate topic (group 1 sources). We have works authored by "genocide scholars" (group 2 sources) who, as they themselves concede, are not too accurate in some concrete facts figures or interpretations, but who are mostly focused on finding general global dependencies between the type of a society and a likelihood of onset of mass killings, a.k.a geno-politicide (group 2 sources). These sources analyze all geno/politicides (Communist and others), or do comparative analysis of some separate events (e.g. China, Cambodia, USSR, or Cambodia vs Rwanda vs Bosnia, or Cambodia vs Indonesia). And we have a bunch of sources who focus exclusively at "Communist mass killings" as some separate event. These sources (the Black Book of Communism, more concretely, its scandalous introduction, is an example), represent an overwhelming minority of view, and they have been severely criticized for pushing some specific agenda (for example, that Communism was greater evil than Nazism). However, these sources are the core of the article: they set article's structure, and until that flawed structure is changed, the article will be remaining a single huge POV-fork.

Interestingly, due to its structure, the article managed to distort even the views of Benjamin Valentino, the author, whose book gave a name to the article. The main Valentino's idea is that the regime type is not a good predictor for mass killings onset. He came to that conclusion by having analyzed similar type regimes, and he found that one of them committed mass killings, whereas another one didn't. His main conclusion is that leader's personality is the main factor responsible for mass killing, and a practical conclusion is: if we remove some concrete group from power, we may eliminate a risk of mass killings even without making serious transformation of the state's political system. It is ironical that the work of the researcher who wanted to demonstrate that some limited number of persons are real culprits became a core of the article that puts responsibility for mass killings on Communist ideology as whole.

I see two possible solutions of this problem (article's deletion would be too radical, so I do not consider it seriously).

• First, the article is re-written based on "Group 1" sources, and its structure should be:

• Introduction
• Events in the USSR (including the analysis of a historical context and country specific causes)
• Events in China (same as above)
• Events in Cambodia (same as above)
• Events in ...
• Proposed general causes (in a proper context and supplemented with a due criticism)

• Second, we can discuss only group 3 sources, which will include a brief description of the views of the authors AND their criticism. This approach is much easier to implement, because we do not need to duplicate factual information that a reader can find in other Wikipedia articles.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cloud200

The title of Mass killings under communist regimes is very straightforward: it describes events when large groups of people have been killed ("mass killing") in countries that described themselves as communist ("communist regimes"). The article is not called "genocide under..." or "politicide under...". It uses the most basic and widely understood term of "mass killing", and I don't think any of the parties disputes these killings actually happening.

Siebert raises a number of issues with academic or legal definitions of the term "genocide", clearly siding with one specific side of that debate, but the article is not about "genocide" in the first place. It's about "mass killings", which is one reason why its scope is so broad to include mass executions, mass mortality due to conditions in concentration camps, deaths during mass deportations and mass mortality due to state-induced famines.

Siebert then does dispute the attribution of what he euphemistically calls "excess mortality" in China or Soviet Union on the ideology of communism. This is a complex topic and there are many popular and academic views on this subject. One of them can be seen above in Siebert's comment, but this view it's by far not the only one. To the contrary, there's massive body of evidence going from Marx and Engels, through Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders, to Stalin, that quite explicitly postulates that the communist revolution must be performed by means of mass killings. There cannot be a single universal view on these subjects, as they all look at different angles. Most notably, the perspective looking at intentions of communist leaders, and the perspective of outcomes as experienced by their citizens are dramatically different, and you simply cannot average them.

I do not have any problem with presenting all these views in the article in WP:DUE and WP:NPOV manner.

Cloud200 (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (communist killings)

In this case, rather than taking no position on how the article should be developed, I will provide my own opinions based on the policy of presenting accurately what reliable sources have written, and different sources have taken different viewpoints as to how they are describing what has happened.

Paul Siebert has, in my opinion, provided a useful division of sources, except that I would characterize them not as types of sources but as types of measurements or metrics. Type 1 metrics are of casualties resulting from particular events, policy failures, atrocities, or episodes, in particular countries. Type 1 metrics are also provided in articles about the specific events or episodes, and should be consistent between articles. Type 3 metrics are estimates of the total casualties caused by communist governments.

Cloud200 refers to 'the most basic and widely understood term of "mass killing", and I don't think any of the parties disputes these killings actually happening.' No. We do not dispute that there have been mass killings by communist governments, but there is reasonable dispute over whether some particular sets of deaths should be counted as mass killing. Many of the deaths occurred in concentration camps, where there should be no disagreement that they were mass killings, even if there is disagreement as to the exact cause of death (shooting, poisoning, starvation). However, much of the controversy has to do with at least two famines, in the Soviet Union between 1931 and 1933, and in China between 1959 and 1962. Were these mass killings, or mass deaths? To what extent was the loss of life intentional, the use of starvation as a means of policy, and to what extent was it the result of policy failures (that in retrospect we can see caused starvation)? It is my understanding that nearly all reliable sources agree that Stalin used famine as a tool of policy in Ukraine, but that there is disagreement as to whether the famine elsewhere in the Soviet Union, and the famine in China, were intentional, or the result of policy failure. So there is reasonable dispute over what mass deaths were mass killings.

Paul Siebert says that we should structure the article to report either Type 1 sources (specific metrics) or Type 3 sources (aggregate metrics). I agree that we need to decide how to structure the article, and what types of metrics are to be used, but it is my opinion that we can also choose to have both, but in separate sections. My own thinking is that, because both types of metrics, which are different and inconsistent, have been widely reported, as should report both, but separately. However, that decision is up to either the editors or the community.

If an editor thinks that there is a synthesis issue, they should state if clearly. Reporting the total number of deaths by Type 3 sources who report total deaths is not synthesis.

Each editor should make a one-paragraph statement saying what their view is on which type or types of sources and metrics the article should be organized into. If there is agreement, we will then proceed to more specific issues. If there is disagreement, we will develop an RFC on the overall structure and focus of the article. Each editor may also make a one-paragraph statement identifying any other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (communist killings)

2nd by Cloud200

Regarding structure and sources I'm for inclusion of as broad selection of sources as possible, so both group 1 and 3 should be represented, as well as dissenting voices. The latter primarily dispute two things: one of them is the link between the communist ideology (largely presented in Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Proposed_causes), thus trying to present the waves of mass-scale "revolutionary violence" as some kind of independent incidents that had no ideological underground in Marxian class war. The second disputed point is attribution of responsibility on specific events such as famines or mass-scale executions. Robert wrote that "nearly all reliable sources agree that Stalin used famine as a tool of policy in Ukraine", which does accurately represent the scientific consensus, but that's the whole point of this DR: it was specifically one editor's disagreement about this responsibility that fueled the dispute in Denial of the Holodomor (quote: "the scale of Holodomor, it significance, and even the very question if it was genocide or not is a subject of scholarly debates", and subsequent reverts[5]), lengthy dispute about USSR's responsibility of the Katyn massacre[6] (quote: "Stalinism was intrinsically non-genocidal") etc. In that dispute, for example, Russia's own Duma admission of responsibility for Katyn was rejected by another editor because "Russian government is not a reliable source" (!). So once again, I'm for inclusion of any WP:RS sources that present any relevant view on these events but we cannot remove perpetrators' admission of guilt from the article under the pretext that it's a WP:PRIMARY or that the perpetrator's admission is "not reliable". In case of this particular topic use of WP:PRIMARY falls in the policy exception 3 ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge") and no number of WP:SECONDARY academic sources can remove the historical admission of responsibility by lawmakers (not "government") of the country that perpetrated it. Cloud200 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Third statement on communist killings (moderator)

There has been canvassing, which is not useful. I don't see the point to bringing additional editors into this discussion. It isn't even likely to skew the result toward a particular result. First, any decisions as to the structure and focus of the article will either be made by consensus, not by rough consensus, or by the community in an RFC. Second, if there are too many editors, I will fail the discussion, which I don't want to do, but will do if the discussion gets out of hand. In that case, it will probably end up at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, which will probably result in some editors being topic-banned, and will not resolve the content dispute anyway. So avoid canvassing and other efforts to game the system.

I have posted a notice at the administrators' noticeboard. No one editor is being put on report. This topic has already been on report as Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions.

The editors are still or again asked to provide their views on what the structure of the article should be. The editors are also asked to provide their views on any renaming of the article. Be civil and concise. Put your statements in "Third statements on communist killings (editors)". Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement 3.1 by moderator on communist killings

First, if the article is nominated for deletion, as has been discussed at its talk page, this discussion will be put on hold until the AFD is resolved.

Second, any statements that anyone was planning to enter in Second Statements may be entered either in Second Statements or in Third Statements. I will consider them either way. Remember, as noted above, that this proceeding may be put on hold. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Third statements on communist killings (editors)

Fourth statement about communist killings by moderator

I am resuming moderated discussion of this dispute, with the intention that one or more Requests for Comments can be used. An editor asked, at the article talk page, that I request the editors to summarize the issues that were raised at the article talk page with regard to whether to nominate the article for deletion. So I am asking each of the editors to provide a summary of what they think were the points that were discussed at the article talk page. You may also ask any questions about how we will be going forward. Make your statements in the section for Fourth statements about communist killings by editors. (Do not make your statement in the back-and-forth discussion, because it may be ignored.) You are not limited to one paragraph, but make your statement short enough so that it can be read, not merely written. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statements about communist killings by editors

Statement by Paul Siebert

Before we continue with the moderation process, I would like to make sure any consensus is achievable in principle. That is possible if the point of view advocated by each party is falsifiable. In the context of the current DRN it means that each participant acknowledges a possibility (at least, a theoretical possibility) to find and present some facts or evidence that directly contradict to their view point, so if such evidence has been provided, the viewpoint may be considered successfully refuted. The point of view that I am advocating is as follows: {{tq|The title and the structure of "MKuCR" article reflects a minority point of view "Mass mortality events and mass killings in Communist states" (forgive me for using this umbrella term to cover the whole range of quite heterogeneous events described in the MKuCR article). The whole structure of the article, its title and its content must be massively rewritten to reflect what majority sources say."

This my claim can be refuted if the evidence will be provided that the current version of the article represents a majority viewpoint. The aforementioned evidence may be:

• A representative sample of peer-reviewed articles and/or university level books that describe such events as Great Chinese famine, Volga famine, Great Soviet famine of 1932-33, WWII famine, and post-WWII Soviet famine, as well as deportation deaths as "mass killings", "genocide", "politicide", and similar terms.

"Representative" means that the sample must be obtained via a transparent and reproducible search procedure, which rules out a possibility of cherry-picking of sources that support some particular POV. No POV-laden phrases are supposed to be used as keywords during that search. An example of a neutral keyword set may be Great Chinese Famine "Causes of". An example of a POV-laden phrase is "mass killings under communist regimes" (yields the MKuCR Wikipedia article and its mirrors). A search must be performed using some specialised search engine, such as google scholar or jstor, not just google (the latter yields too many garbage non-scholarly sources).

• A representative sample of peer-reviewed articles and/or university level books that discuss mass killings in different Communists states more in each other's context that separately, or grouped with other events of that type.

Here, "representative" means the same as in the above example. "In each other's context" means that the sources draw substantial parallelism between those events and/or demonstrate some common causes, and/or demonstrate a substantial causal linkage between them. "Separately" means the events are described, discussed and/or explained based on each country's specific historical context and/or current socioeconomic situation. "Grouped with other events of that type" means that the events are compared/contrasted with similar events that occurred in non-Communist states (e.g. Bosnia vs Cambodia, Rwanda vs USSR).

• A representative sample of peer-reviewed articles and/or university level books that describe a whole set of mass killings/mass mortality events in Communist states as a single phenomenon attributable to Communism. Adequate examples: Courtois, Rummel (they both discuss Communism in general, and they both discuss mass mortality as a whole. Inadequate examples: Valentino (the author selects just three cases, and he contrasted the murderous Communist regimes with non-murderous, which is an essential part of his approach).

If somebody will be able to present the aforementioned evidence, I will concede my viewpoint has been successfully refuted, and will stop any arguments about the MKuCR rewrite.

If Mediator finds these falsifiability criteria acceptable, I am waiting for a similar post from another party. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

To avoid possible misunderstanding, it is necessary to point out that I presented the above falsifiability criteria mostly to demonstrate that my claims are falsifiable, and hence I can be a participant of a rational discussion. I cannot rule out a possibility that some weaker evidences may be presented that will force me to amend my position just partially. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nug

Apologies if this isn't the right place to comment, I saw the Moderator's invitation on the MKuCR talk page[7]

Rather than descend down the rabbit hole of “falsifiable POVs” to prove to Siebert’s satisfaction that consensus is achievable, let Siebert first demonstrate to our satisfaction that he can progress to a consensus on the original point of issue identified by him in his summary of dispute, being the appropriateness of source categories used in the article, three types were identified. Siebert suggested in the First Statement a possible solution of either re-writing the article based upon Type 1 sources or based upon Type 3 sources. The moderator in his second statement made some observations in that regard, before the case was suspended due to threats of AfD, I’m interested to know Siebert’s response to that. —Nug (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statement on communist killings by moderator

No, User:Paul Siebert, not exactly. First, are you saying that you are imposing this as a condition for your continued participation in moderated discussion, or are you recommending that I, as moderator, ask this of the editors? At this point, I am moderating this discussion, and I welcome suggestions from the editors as to how to direct the moderated discussion, but I reserve the right to be the person who decides whether another editor's posts are non-falsifiable pseudo-history. Second, any particular thesis or conclusion may be non-falsifiable pseudo-history. However, I am not at this point looking for theses or conclusions. At this point, we need to decide how to structure the article. Third, we do not have to reach consensus except as to what the various viewpoints of reliable sources are, and report on what the reliable sources say. Fourth, I had asked each editor to summarize any points that were taken away from the talk page discussion. I want to hear from the other editors before we start trying to exclude them. Fifth, when we start hearing competing viewpoints, we can ask which ones should be excluded. We are not even requesting competing viewpoints at this point, at least not as I think I am conducting the discussion. We are discussing the structure of the article.

So, in the fifth statements, please either summarize any points from the talk page discussion, or discuss the structure of the article, and what sources can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statements on communist killings by editors

Statement by Cloud200

Regarding sources: any WP:RS sources should be used in the article (you can how the Siebert-proposed "neutral methodology" worked for Katyn massacre here[8]). Scholar articles on genocide are one WP:RS but are not the only WP:RS, especially as we're dealing with events that happened in non-English speaking countries and significant amount of research is published in local languages (for example, Ukraine published NKVD and KGB archives just a couple of years ago, which are barely covered in English literature). WP:PRIMARY are also WP:RS as it comes to statements like "government X admitted to doing Y" or "Lenin wrote Y". There is also significant amount of WP:RS that are not academic literature but still describe the events from third-party (Gareth Jones, Malcolm Muggeridge) or first-hand perspective (Margarete Buber-Neumann, tons of Eastern European authors).

Regarding topics:

• Proposed causes - the link between communist ideology and mass killings is well-sourced. The only part that is missing here is what Siebert is contesting - the clear summary of dissenting voices that perceive no such link, preferably in a separate subsection.
• Specific countries - WP:RS and WP:DUE applies. In case of Eastern Europe it's pretty clear and well-sourced. Sections aren't too long and properly link to detailed articles. What I see as a problem is the strength of the link between communism (defined as Marxism-Leninism) and particular countries - in case of USSR it's strong and clear (plenty of direct references to Marxism-Leninism), in case of North Korea not so much (Juche could be at best described as inspired by Marxism-Leninism). This issue could be mentioned in individual sections and, in general, in Proposed causes.
• Debate over famines - should be moved to the front, possibly as part of the dissenting voices section. I personally see most of the counter-arguments in that section as misleading, for example statements that famines also happened elsewhere are nothing but tu quoque and whataboutism; others, such as Solzhenitsyn, ignore all the measures that have been applied exclusively in specific regions thus multiplying death toll in that region. But I don't mind having them as long as we apply WP:DUE.
• Legal status and prosecutions - the section is OK as it comes to this exact topic, but is probably missing gentle introduction into the semantic complexity around academic, national legal, international legal, and popular use of the terms. This should be probably moved to the front so that the reader what minefield they're entering.
• Double genocide theory - mentioned in lead and, rather surprisingly, in "Memorials and museums", is a WP:FRINGE that has been routinely used by several editors to frame the whole discussion of "excess mortality under communism" as a form of Holocaust denial. It has its place in the article, but WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE apply.

The statement quoted below (from lead) and other similar added since September must disappear as it's a textbox example of WP:POV written in completely unsourced WP:WEASEL, victim blaming and strawman at the same time, that has survived in the article only thanks to most editors (but not those who added it) refraining from any edits until this DRN is resolved:

The victims of communism narrative, as popularized by and named after the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, has become accepted scholarship, as part of the double genocide theory, in Eastern Europe and among anti-communists in general but is rejected by most Western European and other scholars. It is criticized by scholars as politically motivated, an oversimplification, and an example of Holocaust trivialization for equating the events with the Holocaust, positing a communist or red Holocaust.

Cloud200 (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

First, as Moderator proposed, I summarize the recent discussion at the MKuCR talk page. My own opinion, and Moderator's comments are not included in that summary.

• The article is very problematic from the point of view of NPOV and NOR, and its complete deletion (per Levivich) or split (per TFD) can be possible solutions.
• The article meets notability criteria, because the events described there are notable. However, the article does not need to discuss the events by themselves, it probably should discuss theories that links mass killings with Communism (per North8000).
• It is quite necessary to come to an agreement on what is the article's subject, (per North8000 and schetm ) and it seems incorrect to group mass killings by a political system: it is better to have separate articles for each of them (per North8000).
• We need to come to an agreement on what sources should be used in the article (per Davide King)
• "Mass killing" is a straightforward term, and the topic of the article ("mass killings under Communists) seems to be clear and non-controversial (per Cloud200)
• The above thesis was contested by Levivich and User:North8000
• The idea to combine all events described in that article under a category "Mass mortality (or excess deaths, or even "population losses, per Nug) that was proposed by Paul Siebert was accepted positively by North8000 and (probably ?) Nug.

These were the main points of the recent discussion as I see it. If someone believes I misienterpreted something, or ignored some important points, please, correct me.

Based on all said above, and before we started to discuss sources, it seems one important question should be answered: what type of information this article is supposed to contain that is currently absent in the Wikipedia articles that already cover each of those events taken separately, and how this information should be presented to avoid POV-forking?"

It is absolutely necessary to answer the above question, because, per our policy, this article must be either complementary to already existing articles (variant A), or it must correctly summarize them (variant B). I am neutral, I am ok with both solutions, however, currently, the article is neither A nor B: it just tells a totally different story that contradicts to what other articles say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If Moderator finds it useful, I can comment on each point raised by the filer in her 5th statement, however, my responses may be long, for most statements contain factual errors, and their explanation can be done only by presenting quotes and sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Communist killings)

Old back-and-forth. New back-and-forth goes below. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will other editors be welcome to contribute here? —Michael Z. 19:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC) User:Mzajac - If you want to participate, please add your name to the list of participants at the top, and then make a First Statement in the space for First Statements. (So yes.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC) I would not commit to answering questions every 72 hours, but I feel I might be able to offer occasional comments, if warranted. —Michael Z. 22:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC) In that case, you don't need to add your name to the list of participants, but may comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC) I respectfully ask the filer to be polite. I am not using euphemisms, for "excess mortality" is a standard umbrella term used by most scholars who study Stalinism to describe executions, camp and deportation death, and mortality as a result of war, famine, and disease. If the filer is not familiar with their works, I can recommend an excellent article by Ellman, which is being extensively cited and contains a brilliant analysis of sources authored by various experts in the Soviet history. I suggest to pay attention at the conclusions ##6-8, and on his note that the number of victims strongly depends on who should be considered a victim. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC) To add to what Siebert wrote above, that is precisely why discussion between us did not lead us nowhere and is what I complained about here, namely the lack of understanding and knowledge of, and about, the topic. There is a clear contradiction from its main article Mass killing, whose most scholarly used database only includes the 1959 Tibetan uprising, Cambodian genocide, and Cultural Revolution, and we may likely add Stalinist repressions in the 1930s as proper mass killing events in a Communist regime pre-1955. Collapsed There is no regime-type categorization by scholars — a Communist death toll article may be written limiting the current article to Terminology and Estimates sections For genocide scholars, who are a minority and is a point that is ignored from the other side, there is very little regime-type categorization, as they compare what we may call capitalist, Communist, non-Communist, and anything in between, yet we do such categorization only for Communism,1 whereas this article, despite having mass killing in the name, includes any possible death (e.g. mass murder and excess mortality) rather than mass killing proper; the most accepted designation is 50,000 killed within five years, which may fit only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes, not the Soviet Union or even China as a whole, much less the dozens of other Communist regimes, which may be a fit only if the threshold is much lowered, at which point you are no longer doing scientific research and are trying to prove a point. We may have an article about a Communist death toll, but it would only discuss the estimates and not the events, for which we already have individual articles, and it would include only the Terminology and Estimates sections. Notes Do not get me started on the fact that the Communist grouping itself is controversial, e.g. scholarly criticism of The Black Book of Communism (Mecklenburg & Wippermann 1998, Dallin 2000, David-Fox 2004), and is misleading or a convenient label (Walker 1989, Morgan 2001). MKuCR is SYNTH and POV fork the same way for any other regime type — if you want to list any death, it is SYNTH; if you want to include only those events which are proper mass killing events, it is fine and may not be SYNTH but will have to be limited to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, and we already have main articles for each event and very little comparative analysis; so either we at least make an attempt to fix the article by following Siebert's proposal, or it should be deleted (with all content already covered in other articles, nothing would actually be lost), or you must prove that Siebert and I are wrong, which so far no one has been able to conclusively do. Davide King (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Addressing this comment by Robert McClenon (SYNTH) If it is not clear how the article is SYNTH, it is SYNTH the same way as would be any similar Mass killings under ... regimes article;1 it is not sufficient that a regime was capitalist, Christian, fascist, Muslim, or in this case Communist, and that many people have indeed died — we need a clear connection,2 and that is ignoring the fact the Communist grouping itself is disputed and controversial among scholars (see above). See also those very short, useful summaries by The Four Deuces in regards to SYNTH and connection (1, 2). The article is already really about a Communist death toll, which usually includes all kinds of deaths—which are disputed by many scholars—and as conceded by genocide scholars, are inaccurate and reliability is not their point. It then moves into SYNTH or POV fork by presenting all those events, on which again experts and scholars disagree, as mass killings and as consensus, even though it contradicts their main articles, there is no consensus among scholars on many things, and there are disputes around the terminology3 — that is until my edits, which the filer wants to revert tout court, finally gave the lead a topic sentence and at least addressed the controversy and scholarly disputes. Collapsed notes 1. It is not a coincidence we have it only for Communism — that Communist death toll may be a notable topic, it does not mean we must have an events-focused MKuCR article. 2. Whether Siebert's proposal is also SYNTH (AmateurEditor claimed it was and have rejected the use of country experts, while The Four Deuces said both are), if it means focusing the article on excess mortality and deaths, I cannot tell — I am just really curious about what it would look like and then analyze it. I would prefer a name change like Communism and mass killing, or more accurately Communist state and mass killing, that better reflects the cautious, controversial, and politically charged nature of the topic. 3. I understand mass killing in its academic and scholarly usage, as the main article says, not its dictionary definition. The death toll itself is controversial, especially the 100 million number, precisely because it includes many events which are not proper mass killing events, nor are they described as such by experts and scholars, and they are the lion's share of fatalities. The body-counting itself, especially those on the high-end of the estimates, amounts to score a political point rather than reflect scientific analysis. See also this, which may be added here, for possible solutions and alternatives. Davide King (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I just got notified of this discussion with a message on my talk page. I'm not going to take part because it feels far too much like inappropriate canvassing to me. I would agree that Davide King definitely has a history of pro-communist POV pushing. However, Cloud200 has not behaved particularly well with the notifying of random editors (even not very active ones, like me), with similar points of view to her. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC) You either show examples, and they must be pretty good, or you both should be reported for making false accuses and personal attacks, not just on me but on Siebert and others as well. Levivich just made my same points at the article's talk page; are they a pro-Communist, too? Davide King (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon, should the Third Moderator's statement be understood as the Second editors statement should be skipped, and we should post our third statement, or I can continue to work on my second statement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon, sorry to ping you again but I would say that Cloud200's second statement should be collapsed, as they have violated the moderation rules, for they again focused on the edits or users, and previous disputes, rather than content and how to work together to improve the article. Collapsed examples and notes Siebert always backed their statements by reliable sources, especially when asked, and the filer's second statement is diverging and misleading ... again They are writing from a Eastern European perspective (please, take a look at Double genocide theory and Holocaust trivialization to understand what I mean by "Eastern European perspective", and you will see that Siebert's edits were not only in good faith but justified), e.g. Cloud200 took the concept of Communist genocide (there are laws about it in such countries, as in Poland), as undisputed fact (ironically, MKuCR started out exactly as Communist genocide, and was created by a banned user in an attempt to troll and should have been deleted outright) when scholars actually disagree and is indeed seen as part of double genocide and Holocaust obfuscation. Again, that a genocide happened in regime A, it does not result that ideology name was necessarily the main culprit, as Communist genocide or MKuCR actually implies and has been one issue of disagreement among us; ironically, MKuCR would not be SYNTH if scholars actually agree that communism was the main culprit (that would be the common link) and wrote a literature about it (Communism as a whole, not Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot) but that is not reality. Again, Siebert has always backed their statements by not any reliable source but the best ones, i.e. academic books — as for Stalinism and genocide, see Doumanis, Nicholas, ed. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945. pp. 377–378. — so any statement about us is to be taken with a grain of salt for their misleading, lack of context, and outright false statements. Important note in light of false "pro-Communist" accusations, which should be reported One final note, there have been no pro-Communist editor on that talk page, at least not one who has been taken seriously (by that I mean somebody who said Communists did nothing wrong or that said the article should not exist but did not cite any clear policy and guideline in their arguments), but there have been plenty of anti-communists (small-c for a reason),1 while Siebert, others (including some of whom we disagreed with), and I are simply the neutral ones; we are "pro-Communists" only from a New Right perspective, or you must be very right-wing to have the spectrum of the dispute so far to the Right to see us as "pro-Communists", when we are simply making sure articles respect Wikipedia's policies. Let me remind the gentlemen that anti-fascism defeated fascism and stopped genocides,2 while anti-communism resulted in politicide in Indonesia3 and Latin America. One can be strongly critical of Communist regimes without being an anti-communist, or even without engaging in Holocaust obfuscation and trivialization by considering them equal to, or worse than, Nazism, or conflating them with the Left, which is the point of MKuCR and was even noted by The Black Book of Communism when summarizing the views of Le Monde. Notes 1. I mean "anti-communist" in a descriptive, neutral sense, as in representing the "anti-communist", "orthodox", or "totalitarian model" historiography of Soviet and Communist studies that is more reflective of the Cold War than archival research and recent developments. 2. That those same regimes engaged in atrocities does not change this fact, which has also been a source of revisionist history of the worst kind by positing the West should not have allied itself with the Soviet Union, with fascism and Nazi Germany seen as the lesser of two evils, when not outright whitewashed, especially in regards to the Holocaust. 3. Ironically (for the MKuCR article's status as OR) but sad (for the tragic events) — "communist mass killings" et similia on Google Scholar do not redirect us at MKuCR but actually discusses the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66. Davide King (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statement on communist killings (moderator)

There seems to be agreement that something needs to be done to clarify the focus of this article. Deleting the article, and moving its content, has been considered, but does not have much support. So a Request for Comments is probably the best step at this point.

The request that started this discussion, and has been restated, has been to roll back changes that were made in the last few months, reverting to an older version of this article. The exact date and version should be specified. A second proposal has been to specify what type of sources should be used, which in turn controls how the deaths are reported, whether they should be Group 1 sources by country and event, reporting deaths by country and event, or whether they should be Group 3 sources reporting estimates of total mortality from communist governments. A third proposal has been to convert the article into a disambiguation article. All of these are 'large-scale' changes, so that any of them should probably be considered before any less drastic changes are considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not necessary to respond to any factual points made by other editors. We need to decide how to restructure the article before we decide how to proofread the article,

Does any editor have any other suggestions for how to restructure this article, or for an RFC on restructuring this article?

Each editor may provide one paragraph as to what they think should be considered next, but if there is a new idea, it may be stated in two or three paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statements on communist killings (editors)

Cloud200

If we take this debate back to Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes under WP:RFC, I'm very much concerned that we will just end up exactly where we were in September, as you can see specific editors sharpening their strawmans and ad hominems here[9]. The format of the DRN, with Robert McClenon actively moderating the discussion by collapsing digressions certainly worked and allowed us to focus on the topic and if you think such format can be achieved in WP:RFC, then let's try it. I'm ready to discuss each disputed paragraph and agree a consensus text in the talk page, assuming there will be someone ready to step in and stop evasive tirades that made any consensus impossible so far. On sources proposed, I already wrote above in 5th statement. Regarding return to a particular version, this[10] is where the wholesale disputed edits started. Cloud200 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert

Rolling back is absolutely unacceptable unless serious evidences are presented that recent changes are not an improvement. Such evidences are hard to provide (if possible at all), for the "stable version" was a result of freezing the article for several years (due to incessant edit wars) and then imposing 1RR. As a result, any significant changes were not possible, and it created a situation when majority of users gave up, and gradual addition of information by few editors just led to slow article's drift into even greater POV-fork state. I can provide numerous examples of direct distortion of sources and of synthesis in the old version (which, by and large, are still present in the current version). However, it seems Moderator doesn't think it is needed at this stage. Just keep in mind that this information can be presented at any moment upon a request.

With regard to the Moderator's summary of the second and third proposal, I somewhat disagree with the former. First, it puts a cart before the horse: for making a decision about sources, we need to come to an agreement on the article's subject. One important point was raised by North8000 (and, independently, by me): the article doesn't need to tell about the events themselves, it should discuss the theories that link those events and Communism. That is the first proposal how the article can be re-written. The second proposal is to convert MKuCR into a "summary style" article for Great Purge, Great Chinese Famine, Volga Famine, Cambodian genocide and all other articles, because that is the only case when our policy allows existence of more than one article about the same subject. As I already noted, I am equally ready to support each of those scenarios. The only my objection, which is absolute, for WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, is that the article cannot combine both approaches, which currently takes place. Indeed, it pretends to be a summary style article, but it is written from the perspective of a bunch of highly ideologically loaded books, and/or it distorts the views of quite neutral scholars to support some very specific ideological doctrine.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the current participants are not main contributors to the article, so even if any agreement will be achieved, it is unlikely that it will be supported by other contributors.

In connection to that, I propose to work on an RFC in the following format:

The article is suffering from numerous NPOV, NOR and V problems, and to fix it, two options are proposed:

• To convert the article into the story about the theories that link Communism and mass killing. To do that, the following is necessary to do (briefly describe proposed changes; we need to come to an agreement what those changes should be)
• To make this article a full scale "summary style" article about mass mortality events under Communist rule. (Again, we should briefly explain what changes are proposed). Here, I write mass mortality events because we must use maximally uncontroversial terminology. Since an overwhelming majority of country experts do not consider the most deadly events in Communist states (e.g. famine) as "mass killing/democide", usage of the term "mass killing" is totally inappropriate for a "summary style" article, and the first step in its conversion to a "summary style" article should be its renaming into "Mass mortality (or "excess deaths") under Communist regimes".

Therefore, as a first step, I propose to come to an agreement that the article suffers from numerous NPOV, NOR and V problems. It seems majority of talk page discussion participants agree with that, but if the opposite party of this dispute disagrees, I can provide needed evidences to support this thesis.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion on communist killings

List of political parties in Italy

{{DRN archive top|Closed for now for timing reasons. The other editor, [[User:Checco]], is a long-standing editor who edits intermittently. This means that the usual protocol, requiring responses every 48 hours, will not work, and their opinions need to be respected and heeded, but without impeding work on the article. So I am closing this thread for now. If Checco wants to re-open this dispute and propose a schedule for discussion, they are welcome to re-open a dispute. Otherwise, my advice is to [[User:Scia Della Cometa]]. This content dispute appears to be about criteria for inclusion in lists. These criteria should be discussed on the article talk page with other editors, either by normal discussion to reach consensus, or by [[WP:RFC|RFC]]. If [[User:Scia Della Cometa]] wants assistance in formulating one or more RFCs, they may ping me either on my user talk page or at [[Talk:List of political parties in Italy]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)}} Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• List of political parties in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Scia Della Cometa (talk · contribs)
• Checco (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been a discussion for months about which pages to include in List of political parties in Italy. I would like to arrive at the approval of the admission criteria of this page, not yet approved through consensus. In particular, there are 3 issues:

1. The nature of the parties: I want to include among the political parties only those subjects that are described by the sources as "political parties" or with a synonym (for example "movement"). Instead I want to exclude from the list those subjects who are not political parties but who are improperly defined as such in their pages. I am referring to mere regional council groups and parliamentary sub-groups which are not defined as political parties in any source (primary or secondary). The definition of "political party" for these subjects seems to me an original research.

1. The simplification of the rules: I would like to standardize the admission criteria to all parties and remove those that are very difficult to verify.

1. The overcoming of over-representation and of attribution of undue weight to regional parties: according to current criteria, a party (born from a split) needs fewer regional representatives than national representatives to be included in the list, it seems to me a contradiction for a page called "List of political parties in Italy".

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:List of political parties in Italy#Issues of the page, Talk:List of political parties in Italy#Revision of criteria (2), Talk:List of political parties in Italy#Approval of the inclusion criteria

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope someone can help us find an agreement on these three issues. Until now it has not been possible.

Summary of dispute by Checco

List of political parties in Italy discussion

Zeroth statement on Italian political parties by moderator

@Scia Della Cometa and Checco:

I am ready to act as moderator for this dispute. At this point, I will only ask the editors whether they want moderated discussion. Please read the usual ground rules, which will be in effect if the editors agree. I am not yet asking the editors to summarize the dispute, only to state that they have read the rules and will agree to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the rules and I agree to them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Zeroth statements on Italian political parties by editors

Zeroth statement on Italian political parties by Firefangledfeathers

‎Robert McClenon, are there any rules options that don't require response within 48 hours? Checco, one of the editors involved in this case, tends to edit less frequently than that. It might be that Checco is willing to spend more time engaging here, but I figured I'd ask if there are any other options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers - I see that User:Checco is a long-time sporadic editor, so that your question is valid. I was about to close this thread with some comments, and I will still close this thread with some comments. I will think about whether to have a low-speed discussion protocol for on-and-off editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I can answer now, but I would like Users SDC, Robert McClenon and Firefangledfeathers that I am very sorry for my lack of response. You can delete my answer, after reading it. Last week I was in a business trip and I had really no time for editing, let alone explaining my views on such complicate issues. However, my opinions on the three points are clear enough from months of discussions with User:SDC. I am not able to edit each and every day, but that does not mean that I am not open to debate, as I have shown for months. Over the last months, most of the proposals by User:SDC have become part of the list and/or the basis for good compromise. Also some of the issues raised here have already reached an agreement in the list's talk page, while others have been opposed also by other users, not just me. I favour a step-by-step approach and I am used to craft compromises and get things done.--Checco (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment by moderator on Italian parties

User:Checco - There is no need to apologize. Please do not apologize. The objective is to identify and resolve any content dispute. Are User:Checco and User:Scia Della Cometa ready to try to engage in moderated discussion? We can address details such as the schedule after we know whether the editors want to try to discuss. I have unclosed this dispute and put it on hold to see whether this can be discussed and resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC) {{DRN archive bottom}}

Arvanites

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Arvanites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Othon I (talk · contribs)
• Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Βατο (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have edited the caption of an image in the article, making it more inclusive, which it currently concentrates only on a specific part and I have been reverted as off-topic. The image is about Napoli di Romania which, it shows the Castle of the Greeks inside the walls and the Houses of the Albanians outside the walls. Certain editors believe that an inclusive statement about both locations (since the topic is Arvanites) as an example of coexistence between Greeks and Albanians in the 16th-century Peloponnese is off-topic. I wonder why because the very same article deals with the coexistence especially the Demographics. Additionally, certain editors were not civil and tried to dictate to me what to do ignoring the WP:MOS and WP:CAPTION guidelines. This is the image [11] as you can see on the right side within the walls you can find the Castel di greci and on the left side outside the walls the case di albanesi.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[12]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate if the you could let us know if this

The Venetian walled city of Napoli di Romania where the Case di Albanesi (lit. Houses of the Albanians) can be seen outside the walls and the castles of their neighbouring communities 'Castel di Greci (lit. Castle of the Greeks) and Castello di Franchi (lit. Castle of the Francs) can be seen within. Early 16th century inclusive caption should be added or is off-topic.

Summary of dispute by Ahmet Q.

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

Summary of dispute by Βατο

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

Arvanites discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is a required precondition to discussion at this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Othon I (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine in the United States

Eelam

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Eelam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs)
• AntanO (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, I added another meaning of the word 'Eelam' to the Eelam Wikipedia Article. I used the same existing sources used in the Wikipedia article to add the other meaning. The same sources used in the Wikipedia article says that Eelam also means Sinhala. The other user Anton says the sources are not reliable. But the same sources that he says are not reliable have been used in the Eelam Wikipedia article to talk about other meanings of the word 'Eelam'. So I asked him to remove all the information taken from the respective sources if they are not reliable. He doesn't seem to be interested in that as well. One of the sources used in that article is the Tamil Lexicon which user Anton says is not reliable. It is his personal opinion and not the opinion of the majority. Tamil Lexicon is a twelve-volume dictionary of the Tamil language published by the University of Madras and it is said to be the most comprehensive dictionary of the Tamil language to date. I can't understand why he says Tamil Lexicon cannot be trusted. At the same time, the same Tamil Lexicon has been used as a source to talk about other meanings of the word Eelam in the Wikipedia article. So it makes no sense. I provided him with more other sources that refer Eelam to Sinhala but he seems to neglect them.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[13]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I humbly request you all to look at this dispute from a neutral point of view and help us reach a consensus. Please go through the entire discussion in the talk page and provide your valuable comments. Thank you very much.

Summary of dispute by AntanO

Eelam is the native Tamil name for the island, now known as Sri Lanka. Other names spurge, toddy and gold are not clear and need more verification. There is no other dictionaries point spurge, toddy and gold to Eelam or vice versa. Newly the terms Sinhala added from the same source and it says Eelam Ceylon, Lunka, the Cingalese country. Ceylon is former name of Sri Lanka. Still Lunka and Cingalese country are not clear. If Eelam = Sinhala, will anyone add Sinhala = Eelam? In the article, Eelam, under the "Etymology" there are 2 versions; one says Eelam came from Sinhala and other says Sinhala came from Eelam. Both are academic views, and it could be political motivation. Therefore, we cannot come to conclusion due to two disruptive versions. These disruptive views cannot accepted as main term. Is there any other dictionaries say same meaning?

Eelam discussion

• Volunteer Note - It appears that Eelam is serving as both a primary article and a disambiguation page. Should it be split into a primary article and a disambiguation page? Would that either solve the problem or partially solve it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I have moved the other meanings into a disambiguation page, Eelam (disambiguation). If there are issues with the disambiguation page, they can be discussed at Talk: Eelam (disambiguation), or by nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Alicia (album)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Alicia (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Piotr Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Samsonite Man (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content dispute over a variety of challenged changes by Samsonite Man; multiple talk page threads over the past three months or so; discussion always become intractable with no concession to compromise by the other editor; most recent thread at Talk:Alicia_(album)#Samsonite_Man_continued_..., others are directly above it.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Samsonite_Man_continued_...
• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Re:_September_16_edit_war_by_Samsonite_Man
• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Re:_August_28th_edits_by_Samsonite_Man
• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Re:_Marketing_addition
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive438#User:Samsonite_Man_reported_by_User:Piotr_Jr._(Result:_Warned_user)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some measure of de-escalation, as was suggested at User_talk:ARoseWolf#c-Blaze_The_Wolf-2021-11-15T18:11:00.000Z-Piotr_Jr.-2021-11-15T18:04:00.000Z

Summary of dispute by Samonsite Man

Alicia (album) discussion