Talk:Anti-communist mass killings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original research

While this article lists acts of mass killings against communists, it lacks a properly sourced lead that is referenced to reliable sources defining a concept for anti-communist mass killings. Are there any reliable sources that describe this concept? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Open Veins of Latin America is a good start. However there are tonnes of other RSes. Give me a while (couple of weeks) and I'll find some for you.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I was reading Galeano before Hugo Chavez made it cool. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this article should have a better lead with references, and probably needs to qualify its claim to say something like "mass murder or allegations thereof", since not all of these allegations have been settled in court trials, or have otherwise been established as uncontroversial facts. The Pinochet trial, for instance, is noted as ongoing. --Anderssl (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

According to whom? AFAIK he was pronounced guilty and has since died. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the current version of this article... --Anderssl (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Headdesk. My bad. That being said, considering what happened prior to his death, it is very likely he would have been convicted had he lived long enough. And the absence of a conviction for Pinochet doesn't change the fact that Salvador Allende was killed during the coup due to his leftist policies; or that Victor Jara was tortured and killed by the regime for leftist positions. Or that the disappeared were... well... disappeared for their political opposition to the regime.Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Allende was killed during the coup due to his leftist policies Last time I checked, Salvador Allende killed himself. Colchicum (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Julian Pefanis' book Heterology and the postmodern: Bataille, Baudrillard, and Lyotard (Duke U Press, 1991) notes that Pierre Clastres identified "capitalism as a global ethnocidal venture" (p. 24) ... I have the Clastres book that he refers to somewhere so perhaps we can refer directly to that work as well. csloat (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding sources can I suggest Klaus Theweleit's Male Fantasies on the universal psychological causes of white terror (heterosexual fear of women). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wait, I added it. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I removed it, at least from the lead. I see no remotely valid reason why a brief tidbit about an analysis that explains "white terror" in terms of male psychosexual pathology relating to communism and female sexuality belongs in the lead of this article. Without more context I'm not even sure it belongs anywhere in the article at all, though I simply don't know. Some discussion before re-adding is probably advisable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. This article is a SYNTHESIS and COATRACK, just like its relatives. Theweleit's book is the only reference to a theorisation of the object of this article, "Anti-communist mass killings". What follows is a coatrack of individual events with no context or theorisation. The article could probably do with being cut down to only Theweleit, with a simple See also section. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both this article and its cousin should probably go, and maybe a combined AfD in a few months could have that effect, but they are here for now. The sentence I removed and which you re-added does not seem to refer to a source that is "a theorisation of the object of this article." "White terror" is not synonymous with "Anti-communist mass killings," obviously (for example the terror of the first KKK during the period of Reconstruction had nothing to do with communism, but sexual fears no doubt played a major role; likewise anti-communist mass murder is not always perpetrated by "whites", as the article points out). Perhaps the problem is that the sentence does not adequately summarize Theweleit's book, but as written the reader of this article will be taken aback by that sentence as it simply does not seem to relate to the topic at hand. You may think it does (and you may be right, or possibly not), but that needs to be clear from the article text. For starters can you clarify here how Theweleit's analysis theorizes "anti-communist mass killings"? I'm not scared of theory so fire away! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding the concept White terror, taking it to mean killings perpetrated by people with white skin. The "white" refers to white (reactionary) vs. red (revolutionary), see the WP link for more. --Anderssl (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well that makes sense, and while I was thinking in racial terms (and the term "white terror" is also used in that respect, albeit less frequently), I am familiar with white terror in the political sense but just was not thinking in those terms, which was rather dumb on my part. There's still possibly an issue though, as white terror does not refer exclusively to reaction against communist or socialist forces (e.g. the Thermidorian Reaction). I'm still not clear that Theweleit's book actually theorizes "anti-communist mass killings" per say, and I think that needs to be demonstrated more conclusively here on the talk page before using it. And this leaves aside the question of whether the theory is respected or not, which is also relevant. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the book description (and customer reviews, just to get a sense of the content) the study seems to be very limited in terms of geographic and temporal scope (Weimar Germany, apparently with some reference to the Baltic states per the footnote in the text of our article). Unless there are specific passages in the book which theorize anti-communist mass killings in general (rather than explaining root causes of fascism in psychological terms, which seems rather different on the face) then it seems unlikely to me that the source is appropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Willing to accept this judgement. It seems to me that article editors here are satisfied that this article shouldn't exist. The Other Article needs a bit more time before it should be put to AFD. When the (next) AFD list goes, the nomination ought to be a collective nomination with a very simply explained justification for the inevitable coattail riding that will occur. (sigh) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Combined AfD is definitely the way to go, and as you say it will have to wait awhile since the last one was so recent. I'm going to go ahead and remove the Theweleit bit for now then. If there are passages of the book that actually relate more directly to the topic of this article I'm quite open to including that, and indeed would think an actual quotation is probably best. But like you I'd rather this and the other article were simply deleted. I might actual consider doing the nomination sometime next year if I think of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Name

The current name "Anti-communist mass killing" is confusing. Till I read the lead, I wasn't sure if the article is about killings of or by anti-communists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also confused by the title. The general tone of this article seems biased towards "communist victims". Admittedly, anything I wrote would be biased the other way, but perhaps the neutrality of this article could be improved upon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.183.11 (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

During the Spanish Civil War, freemasons along with communists were put up against the wall and executed as each town was taken by nationalists.[1] I'm not sure which group was more numerical in the revenge killings, but the figure on this page it seems to include the vanquished freemasons and separatists (non-communists) as included in the figure for communist deaths in general. Thus the figure is not reliable for the scope of the article it would seem. - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is the problem with every other paragraph here just as well. But the article is so virgin a piece of red propaganda, it would be pity if we lose it. [W]ith the intent of crushing any vestige of Hungary’s brief Communist revolution - wow, I am getting ready to shed a tear. Colchicum (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo

This article should only be deleted if the "Communist mass killings" article goes as well. The latter is academically unsound and lacks any kind of balance. I propose that both these articles be deleted and replaced with a broader "Mass killings in totalitarian states" article. DublinDilettante (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a proposal for a merger is the way to go? --Anderssl (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

agreed Victory to the UAW (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This (perhaps unwittingly) makes one of my points... The claims of victimhood are often biased and non-objective. The "murder of communists" seen by some people is the "ending the treat of an anti-human ideology" by others. The struggle between communists and everyone else is not like any normal political debate. The communists (in virtually every country that fell to communism) killed, incarcerated or tortured their political opponents (see: Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc.). Communism is seen to represent a clear and present danger to free societies (a/k/a immediate threat to life and health)--and there is no mention in this article of the idea of a society's self-defense against those who support the violent overthrow of their government (see: Communist Manifesto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.183.11 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This (perhaps unwittingly) makes one of my points... The claims of victimhood are often biased and non-objective. The "murder of political opponents" seen by some people is the "ending the threat of an anti-human system of oppression" by others. The struggle between communists and imperialists is not like any normal political debate. The imperialists (in literally every country that fell to colonization) enslaved, sold as chattel, massacred, incarcerated, tortured, and dropped atomic bombs on the indigenous peoples who did not play along with their global criminal enterprise (see: the history of capitalism since its inception, continuing this day, etc.). Capitalism is seen to represent a clear and present danger to free societies (a/k/a immediate threat to life and health)--and there is no mention in this article of the idea of a socialist society's self-defense against those who support the violent overthrow of their proletariat state. (see: Stalin, Castro, Mao, etc.). 73.118.146.101 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the name

Currently the name here is rather confusing. Can it be changed to "Massacres of communists"? That actually has textual support, as shown by CarolmooreDC in the deletion discussion. Are the historical perversions going to be fixed, as well? Right now a stack of information could rightly be deleted from this page, it would seem (including the lead sentence!) for lack of substantiation. Anyway, can the name be changed? Also, does anyone at all feel personally responsible for making sure the contents of this article are respectable and make sense? It would be good if someone could do that. In particular, it needs some sources for the lead sentence maybe.--Asdfg12345 15:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna be bold and change the name then. --Asdfg12345 06:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. If there's a problem with this, please write here. I have watchlisted this page. I don't want to spend any time fixing it though. I hope the people who made it take responsibility for that. --Asdfg12345 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert, because I am not sure how to do it correctly without salting the current page. But I think this was a bad move (would have said so before if I had noticed the comment). The AfD discussion showed that many people's reason for wanting to keep this article were tied up with Mass killings under Communist regimes. If so, a common terminology should be used for these two articles. It has been argued that Mass killing is a concept with a fairly clear definition. If so, this article could be called Mass killings of communists or something equivalent. The fact that there is a bunch of hits on google for the current title proves zip. What matters is if someone actually has a definition or a theory which uses this term as a proper concept or category. --Anderssl (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, actually it's all about how many sources can be found, not about whether this one is supposed to balance another. The notability guideline WP:N defines what can have an article and what can't. Here's the AfD discussion. The only reason I supported it was because it had the textual support from sources. See the notes from CarolMooreDC for example. As usual though, it's easier to do a whole lot of talking about the issues without ever actually improving the article! --Asdfg12345 22:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "it's all about how many sources can be found" - actually, WP:N would indicate otherwise: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't think the simple google searches that have been cited are enough to document that the term is addressed directly as a subject in the sources. That is the issue, not the number of hits in the google searches.

Re: "As usual though, it's easier to do a whole lot of talking about the issues without ever actually improving the article!" Well, yes, actually it is! Improving the article takes some thinking, and a lot of discussion, and ideally someone who has more detailed knowledge of the subject than me... I'm a generalist, but I try to contribute where I can. --Anderssl (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and for the record, you give the impression of being a reasonable-minded editor who is working in good faith to improve the article. We just happen to disagree about the title. I appreciate your contribution, trying to move the discussion forward. --Anderssl (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Really there have never been "mass killings of Communists" just mass killings of people with the excuse that they were "Communists". So the last title was better, if imperfect. It is like calling Salem "mass killing of witches". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. The title should be changed back? I thought that user's comments were good (I mean, make sense):

Keep: Title "Massacres of Communists" seems more popular in Books google search than confusing "Anti-Communist Mass killings." And looks like a lead could be generated from one or more of those sources. Or maybe "Mass killings of Communists" to mirror Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Though didn't find that exact phrase in google.books.) Text and refs show such massacres has been a real phenomena and do deserve and article detailing them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest: "Extermination of Communist Threats to Free Societies"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.183.11 (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Week Keep I am changing my vote per the argument provided by Carolmooredc. It meets the notability threshold, but the article needs editing to fix certain POV issues. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

These remarks argue for the current title. Then some other remarks complain about the confusing nature of "Anti-communist mass killings":

The current name "Anti-communist mass killing" is confusing. Till I read the lead, I wasn't sure if the article is about killings of or by anti-communists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Really though, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Should I change the title back? --Asdfg12345 00:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, sorry to be unclear about this. The current title is pretty much as good as the previous, so there is no point in changing it back. What I mean is that it isn't good enough, in my mind. It should be changed to Mass killings of communists, or something similar. --Anderssl (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Although many governments have killed people and claimed it was part of a war against communism, most of the victims were not communists. It was a pretext to eliminate opposition or to remove indigenous people from their land. Ironically many of these purges ignored communists. So both titles are misleading. I cannot think of a title but I can think of a description: mass killings of opposition and indigneneous people upon the pretext that they are part of an international communist conspiracy. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, it seems you know something of this topic, that's great. What about "Massacres of alleged communists"? Note that "Mass killings" should have the same meaning as massacres, right? The title can be short, and the details dealt with in the article itself. The title doesn't have to tell us everything. But if in the literature it's mostly "opposition and indigenous people upon the pretext that they are part of an international communist conspiracy" who are killed, then that can be noted. --Asdfg12345 09:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Massacres. What is the definition given in the literature of a massacre, and of a mass killing? That would tell us if they are the same thing. And while we're at it, what are the two-three most well-known academic works on this subject? I do not know, I am no historian. If none of us know, the most appropriate thing might be to request experts on the subject. --Anderssl (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Anderssl (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted and undiscussed move. Reverted back to the original article heading.--PCPP (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PCPP, while I didn't agree with the original move, calling it undiscussed is blatantly wrong, and saying that it is unwarranted without commenting on the very reasonable objections to the current title is not constructive. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to this thread? --Anderssl (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will be opening an RfC on PCPP's conduct shortly. --Asdfg12345 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This list of mass killings, and should in that case be called "List of anti-communist mass killings", and should use sourced lists as a basis. As it is now it's WP:OR as it is creating a list from separate sources. I don't know if sources with such lists exist. Another option could also be to change the article from just a list of these mass killings to an article about them, analyzing them and explaining the reasons, but that requires several reliable sources that discusses the topic in that fashion. Again, I don't know if there are any sources for that, I doubt it actually.

Lastly, it could be merged into an article in state-sponsored mass killings, likely to be called "Mass killings under authoritarian regimes" or something. Most events here would fit that, I think. That seems to be the best option, as such an article seems to be created as a result of a discussion on Mass killings under Communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. This article appears to be a WP:COATRACK, WP:SYN and WP:POINT (it was apparently created to dispute another article).
2. If we follow this path, we must include mass killings of communists in communist countries, in particular Great Purge
3. I do agree with Asdfg12345, OpenFuture, Anderssl and others who tell that title must be changed to something like Anti-communist repressions or Mass killings of communists. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of sources concerning Freikorps.

The "Bolshevik" source is fine by me. If there's an issue concerning the number of deaths,just cite other sources which make different claims and put it like "Source A says x, but Source B says y, and Source C agrees with Source B - however, Source D has a middle ground between A and B". Claritas § 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Freikorps was not even a governmental army/organization. Article is supposed to deal with "political mass murder of communists, alleged communists, other leftists, or their supporters by right-wing, reactionary regimes." Lt.Specht (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine that you're "fine" with the Bolshevik source, but what wikipedia requires is a reliable source. If the 15,000 number is at all credible then should be no trouble finding a reliable source to that effect. This is not even going into the fact that the info does not fall under the subject heading of this article.radek (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On what grounds do you believe the source not to be reliable ? Because the author's a communist ? What would Mass killings under Communist regimes look like without the capitalist sources ? Claritas § 21:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Exactly the same. Capitalist isn't an ideology, it's a job description. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

From a capitalism perspective, Capitalism isn't an ideology. From a Marxist perspective it is. Claritas § 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, capital*ism* from a Marxist perspective is a stage in the historical economic development of society. A capitali*ist* is in Marxist perspective somebody who makes money from capital. There is no capitalist ideology. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Look up Victor Serge. It's pretty clear that this falls under WP:FRINGE (not to mention outdated, bordering on primary). Again, if in fact there 15,000 victims (and there might have been, I actually don't know), then it shouldn't be hard to find another source which says the same thing.radek (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This suggests 345, rather than 15000 [2]. And believe me, it's not like I wanna defend the Freikorps - rather this example is just an illustrative example of the many things that are wrong with this article.radek (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Recorded, traceable deaths are different from actual numbers of deaths. Claritas § 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source is needed that identifies the Freikorps as a "right-wing, reactionary regime" to make it even belong in the article, otherwise it does not fall into the subject matter. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we go by the article title "Anti-communist mass killings", then it COULD belong in the article, provided that a reliable source which documents that it indeed engaged in anti-communist MASS killings is found. Otherwise it goes. The thing about "right-wing, reactionary regime" is an obvious problem with the lead - it doesn't correspond to the article title - and it should be fixed. General problem is that the whole article reads like some propaganda pamphlet you get from some Che t-shirt wearing student on a university campus - it's not encyclopedic at all.radek (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian mass killings?

After the 1965 coup of Suharto against Soekarno in Indonesia the PKI, the Indonesian communist party was physically exterminated. This is a well documented fact. The PKI at that time was the third communist party in the world in seize, after the Sovjet and Chinese parties. Estimations of the number of casualties range from 500.000 to 1.500.000 people. The description of the events on the Wiki page is only about a small number of military officers. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.199.112 (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess this issue has been fixed by now? RhinoMind (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Iraq

Why is this section all about the United States. Surely more of this section section should be more about the culprits the Iraqi government then the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.36 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mass killings"?

Shouldn't it just be "killings"? Many of these have a death toll only in the thousands....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've cut out everything except "mass killings".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The killing of thousands of people is indeed a "mass" killing. Wikipedia has a list of events named massacres, and many of them have death tolls in the thousands or even hundreds. I assume that a "massacre" and a "mass killing" can be considered the same thing. (unsigned)

Actually - no. "Massacre" comes from "butchery." "Mass" from "a lump." Collect (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about etymology. I meant that the two concepts are the same. In any case, what kinds of death tolls count as "mass killings," in your opinion? I agree that 75 doesn't count, but 2000 or 5000 or 30000 does, right?

You can "massacre" a single person. "Mass killings" generally (when considered on a national scale) are considered to start at about 10,000 or so ... Personal mass killing is much laxer in definition -- I have seen cases where a person who killed 3 is called a "mass murderer." So let's be cautious and stick to 10,000+ deaths as being a minimum "mass killing" here. The "Mass killings under Communist regimes" article starts at 20,000 or so. Collect (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Collect. Do you have a source perhaps for this assessment of the term "mass-killing"? I am really interested. And it appears crucial to the article as well. RhinoMind (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It is arbitrary and WP:OR to only include killings that are more than 10,000 persons. The Wikipedia way is to look at what WP:RS say. If a reliable source calls an incident a genocide, massacre, mass killing, or other synonym, then the list should include it. LK (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As long as there is no general consensus on what constitutes a "mass-killing", we would have to go by that. RhinoMind (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It just seems a bit odd that Mass killings under communist regimes was written around Benjamin Valentino's definition of "at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less," thereby excluding, e.g., Castro's Cuba—while we're supposed to use a much lower threshold for Anti-communist mass killings, thus permitting reference to Pinochet's Chile or Iraq in 1963 (despite the death toll in both cases being far lower than Castro's). Nevertheless, I understand that what is good for one article is not necessarily good for another—and that the editing restrictions on Mass killings under communist regimes make it unsalvageable in the near future—so I would not oppose restoring Chile, Iraq, or anything else that I previously removed. If that is done, however, this page should be renamed "Anti-communist killings" to prevent further semantic disputes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Well first of all, a proper source (for academic consensus) on what constitutes a mass killing, would do the trick. In every case. If that is not obtainable, or if it does not exist at all, we need to go by what User:LK describes. I cannnot see how to do it any other way. If that means adding to other articles, well that's it then; we just add stuff.

Your proposal of using the term "killings" instead of "mass killings" would also be some sort of a solution of course. I am just afraid that the scope would be so broad, that over time all kinds of irrelevant information could/would be added without much focus. On top of that, listing of individual killings would probably make the article change/loose focus completely. I am thinking of examples such as Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, one of many notable individuals killed by anti-communists. Also the killing of British MP Jo Cox in June 2016 to name a recent killing by an anti-communist. For these reasons, I am not in favor of this approach. Let us see if there is some sort of academic consensus of what constitutes a mass killing before heading in new creative directions. This is my take on this. RhinoMind (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely change to killings. Communists were seldom numerous enough to even make anti-communist mass killings possible, unless you expand the definition to communists and "fellow-travelers". The only cases I can think of is Indonesia and, possibly, Nationalist China. Franco certainly could not have killed 50,000 communists. Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, before anyone answers your post, I would just like to point out that the victims are not required to be communists. The article is just about "Anti-communist mass killings", that's all, ie. mass killings performed by anti-communists. This would also include mass killings of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, social democrats or the general population. It also includes groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the White army (in historic Russia), the fascist Japanese army during WW II, Nazi Germany, Neo Nazis, and many many more groups. The sole question is only whether the killings by these groups were on the scale of mass killings or not. And to figure that out we need to know what constitutes a mass killing. Just stating to avoid misunderstandings. RhinoMind (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not correct. In practice, this article has always been limited to politicides against communists, suspected communists, and fellow-travelers. All non-communist governments are in some sense anti-communist, and it would be sheer madness to list every atrocity committed by any government that happened not to be communist in one article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, then the article should be renamed to Anti-communist mass killings of communists, to specify this particularity. But is that the case? And who are to decide? Until the name change happens, what I mentioned certainly has its place here.

You say something at the end that worries me. You say that "All non-communist governments are in some sense anti-communist". To be anti-communist, you would have to proclaim yourself as such. Just as to be a social democrat, a communist, a muslim, a Christian, a patriot, a nationalist, a pacifist, you would have declare yourself as such. I am worried about the way you seems to be heading. The thin ice of "synthesis" with the mountain of Original Research on the horizon. RhinoMind (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion about the title of the article, and there was no consensus to rename it to anything else. The present title isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives, which all suffer from various bigger problems. The scope of the article is mass killings performed by anti-communists and motivated by their anti-communism in some way. Adding "of communists" to the title would be problematic because the victims were, in many cases, people merely accused or suspected of being communists. Ohff (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, anti-communist groups have killed many people who could not objectively be characterized as communists, but that was exactly why I propose this limitation in the page-title. To some anti-communist groups, social democrats, leftists, cultural Marxists and for some even cultural radicals and Jews (because Marx and other prominent socialist theorists were of Jewish descent) were/are characterized as "communists" in their world-view, and thus (in their logic) deserved to be killed. But these incidents could of course be dealt with in the article, if they are accompanied by an explanation. I understand your point and is ok with it. RhinoMind (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

But is there some sort of objective, universal, non-controversial definition of who is or isn't a communist? No, there isn't. Especially when we're dealing with groups, not individuals, so we can't be precisely sure of the political views of everyone in the group. Therefore, adding "of communists" to the title may invite endless debates between editors as to whether group X or Y were really communists, and whether their killing should be included in the article or not. People already argue endlessly about which historical groups and individuals were "real communists" and which ones weren't. We shouldn't invite that argument here. If a group of people were killed because they were believed to be communists by the killers, that's good enough. And that is also the current scope of the article as it stands. The fact is, "communist" can be just as vague as "mass killing", so if your goal is precision, you should not want it added to the article title. Ohff (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

An objective categorization would be a membership of a communist party. But as I explained, I understand the "problem" and the need to have a broader inclusion to make the page of any use. You already described it in your first comment and I elaborated on it further in my comment above. PS: I guess your comment was a comment to my general post below? RhinoMind (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

But the nature of mass killings is such that, in the vast majority of cases, we don't even know the names of the victims, let alone whether they were members of any particular organization. If we used membership of a communist party as a criterion, we could only really talk about killings of known individuals, not large groups made up of largely anonymous victims. Take the Indonesian killings of 1965–66 for example. How many of the victims were actual members of a communist party? All of them? Most? Some? We have no way of knowing. We are only sure that they were believed to be communists, and their killing was motivated by anti-communism. (and yes, my comment above was in part a response to your general post below) Ohff (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As for the question of what precisely constitutes a mass killing, do we really need an exact definition? I think it's quite obvious that there can never be a single consensus definition of terms like "mass killing" or "persecution", yet Wikipedia has at least one other article with "mass killings" in the title, and a vast number of articles with "persecution" in the title (which do not use any kind of consistent or universal standard for what counts as "persecution"). This is not ideal, but it's fine, and unavoidable. We don't need a general definition, we can just go on a case-by-case basis. Some events self-evidently qualify as mass killings. As for those that may be disputed (i.e. those that are relatively small), if an editor adds a certain event and another editor contends that it doesn't qualify as a mass killing, we can just look at what reliable sources call that event. That is what we have done so far and it seems to work fine. Ohff (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another example, outside of the realm of mass killings, persecutions and so on: Medieval medicine of Western Europe. What are the precise limits of the period of time called "medieval"? What geographical locations count as "Western Europe"? The article doesn't say. And that's fine. The vast majority of things discussed in that article are clearly medieval and clearly Western European. Things that may or may not fall under those categories can be included or excluded on a case-by-case basis. Ohff (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In the light this debate-thread I would now like to express my support for TheTimesAreAChanging's suggestion of a name change to Anti-communist killings. In relation to what I have stated above, the ideal solution would be Anti-communist killings of communists to make the title reflect the intention of the page's theme and content in an unambiguous way. If that is not possible, "Anti-communist killings" is a next best solution, because it does away with the ambiguous term "mass killing" and allows for a more thorough and informative treatment of the theme. I can see however, that the title-name has been debated a lot before so I am not sure any solution will come up easily and quickly, but I hope it will. RhinoMind (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Needless to say, I oppose any proposed title change, for the reasons stated in my comment above and also for the reasons brought up the last time there was a proposed title change. The current title is fine. "Mass killings" is no more ambiguous than "medieval" or "Western Europe" in the title of the article Medieval medicine of Western Europe. It would be silly to suggest changing the name of that article to "Medicine between the 5th and 15th centuries in Europe West of the Vistula", or some other attempt to make the title more precise. Wikipedia is full of articles whose titles are not entirely precise, and don't need to be. Other examples include: ancient maritime history, list of ancient dishes, religions of the ancient Near East, Prehistoric Asia, Edwardian musical comedy, African-American musical theater, and so on. All of these titles, and many more, could be interpreted in ways that make the scope of the article narrower or broader. If controversies arise between editors as to what should or should not be included, they can be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Ohff (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I (and several other editors) don't think the current title is fine. For the reasons we elaborately explained. I think the fact that the name-issue has been brought up again and again independently by different editors who have a problem with it is clear testimony that it is not fine. The question is if there are better names. RhinoMind (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I strongly but respectfully disagree. But when I said the title is "fine", I didn't mean it was perfect. I support the current title mainly because I don't think there are any better names, and that it is a waste of effort to search for other names. Ohff (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to ask: Why are we worried about the title when there is no actual content dispute at the moment? Perhaps the term "mass killings" could generate problems because it's not precise enough, but so far it hasn't generated any problems. So, why change it? If it does turn out to cause problems in the future, then we should discuss changing it. But for now, there is no actual dispute about an event that may or may not qualify as a "mass killing". So why fix what isn't broken? It would be better to just add content to the article instead, and fix problems that come up in the process, rather than attempting to fix them in advance. Ohff (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

hi. I have listed many incidents that would need an inclusion, under the broader understanding of this page's content and focus. They are all listed in this thread. Please take some time to catch and read them. Other examples are anti-communist killings in the Philippines. Also White terror killings in many countries in the first part of the 20th century. Some White terror killings are already in the article but only a few. And the whole Chinese issue that has been discussed in two threads on this TalkPage, has not been settled. Or what about the Breivik killings in Norway (take a look here for further info)? Many examples that could be a source of dispute. Or maybe not? I haven't tried to add them yet, so who can tell. RhinoMind (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Okay. I did read the whole thread, but I assumed you were talking about whether those incidents may or may not qualify for inclusion by someone else in the future - which is why my stance was that we don't need to worry about it until someone actually goes ahead and adds them to the article. But you meant that you want to add them to the article and you're not sure if they qualify? Then I would strongly encourage you to be bold and add them. I think most of them do belong here, but (full disclosure) I have neither the time nor the interest to add them myself. If you want to add them, I would support that! If other editors disagree, then we can discuss each incident separately. But I think the first step has to be for someone to actually add the incidents to the article - I don't like discussing hypotheticals. Ohff (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

To do all of that, you'd first have to change the article to "anti-Communist killings", you could possibly also do "Anti-Communist terror," since virtually all incidents are described as terror in RS. There is simply no body of RS that defines the topic of "anti-Communist mass killings"; the only reason this article has "mass killings" is 'cause its trying to ape Mass killings under Communist regimes. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Meisner citation and the White Terror in China

The Meisner citation for "The greatest slaughter took place in the countryside. The White Terror in China took millions of lives, most of them in the rural areas" in the "Shanghai Massacre" section needs a page number. Meisner's 1986 revised edition, titled "Mao's China and After" has on page 27: "the White Terror of 1927-1930 took a toll of human lives that must be counted in the hundreds of thousands." It appears that the "millions" claimed in the article is off by an order of magnitude, if it is indeed referencing Meisner. This claim is uncited in Meisner and he gives no description of his methodology for his estimate, so a better reference is also desirable. I'll check Rummel's "China's Bloody Century".
One final thought: since the section covers more than the Shanghai Massacre, it should probably be retitled "White Terror in China" or something similar. (The Bodo League massacre is similarly mis-titled given the contents of the section.)
I'll plan making a few changes after a few days, depending on further discussion.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

China

Rummel reports "non-KMT killed" at page 69. The chart on page 94 is not visible online, and its source is not Rummel's own value. Collect (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• If I read the chart on p.69 correctly, the 450 thousand "non-KMT killed" is from massacres and atrocities between 1917 and 1928. How is this relevant?
• Online visibility is not a requirement for citation. How is this relevant?
• Actually the mid value on page 94 is Rummel's estimate. His note to the right states "mid-value a third higher than low". Of course this estimate is not from Rummel's own research into Chinese archives and eyewitness reports - this is not what Rummel does. Instead he compares others' estimates and comes up with a most probable value.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• In regards to your edit summary that Rummel does not claim that this was non-military in nature, Rummel is consistent in differentiating between soldiers killed in battle and other killings, which he calls democide. "Anti-communist terror" is pretty clearly in the latter category.--Wikimedes (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Find a better source, please. At this point, it is quite unclear that the number represented deliberate killing of non-belligerents. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Rummel is a good enough source. I can’t believe that you ignored my refutation of your arguments for a week, and then as soon as I made an edit to the article based on the talk page discussion you immediately reverted, claiming that your arguments had not been refuted after all. A “terror” is not a deliberate killing? Non-combatants are not non-belligerents? What do you mean by non-belligerents then? Your points, when you bother to make them, are getting pretty WP:SOUPy. I can see that you are not interested in having a discussion and coming to a consensus, so I’m pretty much done here. Since you have been edit warring to maintain your preferred version of the article, I will probably give you a warning on your talk page.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Good enough" if and only if it makes claims in a clear and specific manner. Alas, it doesn't. Hissyfits when someone demurs on your position, moreover, do not impress me at my advanced age. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article claimed this: "Between 1929 and 1937, an estimated 1.3 million people were killed in anti-communist terror by the Kuomintang (KMT) regime." The table (p.94, 3rd page of table 4) contains: mid consolidated death toll from KMT anti-communist terror from 1929 to 1937: 1330 thousand. This very clearly and specifically supports the claim in the article. Do you have underlying concerns that you are not voicing? (I don't know of any sources that call any of the events in the article an "anti-communist mass killing", though Valentino on Nazi mass killings is close. If that's the issue, please say so.)--Wikimedes (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The topic of this article is clear. The actual source of the guesstimate is needed -- but a lot of the deaths were not based on "kill the communists" as far as other sources read but were in areas ruled by warlords at the time where a great many people died. The subject is complex, and to make claims in Wikipedia's voice requires somewhat stronger sources than a table in Rummel where I suggest that you may be reading more into a figure than this article is suited for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"[R]equires somewhat stronger sources than a table" entry. Finally you've said something that makes sense. Do you really have sources that specifically refute Rummel's claim that the killings were carried out by the KMT and that they were anti-communist in nature?--Wikimedes (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think you can ask me to "prove a negative" which is a common fallacy (evidence of absence) . Rather it is up to the person seeking to add the claim to provide clear and compelling sourcing for the claim - which Rummel does not do. An entry in a table without specific language making clear exactly what the figure represents is insufficient. Surely you can come up with a scholarly source making the precise claim you wish in the article? I would point out that PRC sources might have problems for this. Collect (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

On a technical note, I have provided a source that makes a specific claim that I want to include in the article, and you have provided a Wikipedia editor's claim (your's) that the source is not accurate. It is therefore up to you to provide sources that support your Wikipedia editor's claim. But at this point I'd rather just leave the entry out until a higher standard can be met--Wikimedes (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I stated it did not directly support the claim as worded. The goal is to use sources which support claims made in Wikipedia's voice. Do you see the difference? It is not up to me to "prove the negative" which is a fallacious type of debate. Collect (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixing the name (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RFC ended in No Consensus. This issue can be revisited at a later date when consensus has formed. LK (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The editors in the previous discussion believe that the current title is ambiguous, as it could mean killings by anti-communists, or killings of anti-communists. I'ld like to take a quick poll to see if there is a consensus about changing to a new name. LK (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please indicate your preference:

• A: 'Mass killings by anti-communists'
• B: 'Mass killings of communists'
• C: Keep at 'Anti-communist mass killings'

!Votes

• Prefer A as not all those killed were actually communists, B is a second choice. LK (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• B as otherwise we would have someone say that any killings in any areas held by "anti-communists" should be included. I would likely go further and eliminate killings of communist insurrectionists as well - one seeking to overthrow a government by force should not be surprised at violence in return. Collect (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point, but should examples of communist insurrectionists being put down be listed in an article separate from this one, and if so, what would that article be called? Is the scope of this article narrowed too much by the description in the lede, which limits it to incidences of "mass murder"? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That would have to be discussed - all I did was point out the potential misuse of the article ambit. Collect (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Practically all mass killings of insurrectionists (by anti-communists, by communists, or by anyone else) also involved mass killings of suspected insurrectionists, many of whom were almost certainly innocent bystanders. In circumstances where mass killings occur, it is often impossible to separate combatant victims from non-combatant victims. I see several sources here that do not attempt to make such a distinction, and it would be highly artificial for us to attempt it. Indeed, the very phrase "mass killings" implies a certain level of indiscriminate killing, presumably affecting the "guilty" and the "innocent" together. Ohff (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer A The victims were usually not communists but were called communists by the anti-communists. I understand Collect's objection: the Nazis carried out mass killings against non-communists. But it was connected with their anti-communist ideology as they conflated Judaism with communism. Another possibility is "Mass killings under anti-Communist regimes." While that could include "any killings in any areas held by "anti-communists"", we have the precedence of that eminent article Mass killings under Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The Nazis only killed Jews because they thought they were communists? I would love to see a source for that news. In point of fact, the Jews were primarily and strongly "capitalists" (company owners, bankers, stockbrokers etc.) in Germany, and the anti-Semites hated them long before Marx ever existed (by a thousand years or so). And Stalin, or course, killed Jews because they were not actual Communists <g>. Collect (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You're attacking a strawman. No one is suggesting that we include the holocaust on this page. Obviously, this page includes killings by anti-communists in their role as anti-communists. LK (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Kindly read the vote prior where an editor specifically averred: the Nazis carried out mass killings against non-communists. But it was connected with their anti-communist ideology as they conflated Judaism with communism which was the basis for my reply - which is not a "straw man argument" from me. Collect (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer A Since the interest is in removing ambiguity I vote for it, although from an aesthetic perspective, it feels clunky. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Prefer A, because that is a more accurate name for the current topic of the article. My second choice would be C. Prefer C, because no option is perfect, but the current title is the easiest to clarify for the readers, with a single sentence being sufficient to remove all confusion. My second choice would be A. I strongly oppose option B, because many of the victims were only alleged communists, and if we were to pick that option, then we may have endless debates about which incidents count as having killed "real" communists. If the perpetrators believed they were killing communists or that their actions were justified by the need to fight communism (and reliable sources say so), then the incident should be included. Ohff (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• A as per Ohff (talk) Jschnur (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Prefer A - because not all who were killed were communists, and were usually just accused of being so. I also like the suggestion of using this title, "Mass killings under anti-Communist regimes" proposed by an above user. I strongly oppose B for this same reason, it could potentially be deemed inaccurate, as per Ohff has already stated. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I would object to the "...under anti-communist regimes" terminology, for the same reasons why I have certain misgivings about option A (although I voted for it). Namely, the topic of this page is mass killings carried out by anti-communists in their capacity as anti-communists (i.e. mass killings of real or suspected/presumed/alleged communists), not all mass killings carried out by anti-communists for any reason. Various anti-communist forces have carried out mass killings unrelated to the fact that they were anti-communists. For example, the Nazis were anti-communist, but they were also anti-Semitic and anti- many other things. The majority of their mass killings were not related to their anti-communism, so they should not be included on this page. User:Collect mentioned this issue above. The title of the page should not give the impression that the topic is all mass killings carried out by anti-communist regimes (or forces). The topic is mass killings of real or alleged communists, by their political opponents (i.e. anti-communists).

I am beginning to think that maybe we shouldn't change the title at all... Option B has serious problems, as I mentioned above, but now I'm starting to think that option A also has problems (although smaller). If the only objection to option C (the status quo) is that the title may be confusing, well, the opening sentence is enough to clear up any confusion, isn't it? And isn't it better to have a potentially confusing title that is cleared up in the first sentence, rather than one that changes the topic of the article (option B), or can give the wrong impression about the topic (option A)? I'm considering switching my vote to C, but I need to hear other opinions first. Ohff (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• C: Keep as is. Other options are equally problematic. Can be clarified by reading the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Abstain - Perfer Anti-communist massacres or Massacres against communists. STSC (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I have changed my vote to C (and edited my first entry above). I've come to conclude that all the options have the potential to be confusing in one way or another - which is a common issue for the titles of many other articles, too - but the current title is best, because any confusion can be cleared up with a single sentence (such as the opening sentence we have right now). Option A would require a longer explanation to describe the topic of the article in a way that doesn't cause confusion, and option B is simply inaccurate. Ohff (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• C: The scope of the article is mass killings of communists or suspected or accused communists. The current title, although it can be misunderstood, best reflects the current article's scope, and reading the first sentence of the article should clear up any confusion. Second choice would be B: this would reduce the scope of the article a bit. Oppose A as it would broaden the article so much as to completely change it. Also it would be difficult to find a consistent way to apply the term "anticommunist" to a regime.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

use of a source for one claim while ignoring the actual claims made by the source

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/pope-francis-and-the-dirty-war

Has a specific logical use here - that it, accusations against Pope Francis. It is weird to say we can only use it to use the term "anti-communist" and absolutely ignore the other 99% of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect the whole article is in all honesty completely biased towards the communist perspective Mike0000000 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Are Daesh anti-communists?

Just wanted to know if groups like Daesh are declared anti-communists? I would certainly guess so.

Daesh is commonly known as ISIS, if anybody wondered.

The question is whether their killings are on the scale of mass killings or not. Same thing with Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, etc.. If viewed together as "violent Islamists", there would probably be no doubt.

RhinoMind (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No obviously they are not, although they do have their origins in anti-Communist Islamist movements. Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

How is that obvious? They oppose Rojava, which while not traditionally Marxist is reportedly still socialist. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

East Timor

The East Timorese perhaps were accused of being Communists, but this doesn't mean they were Communists! Can you provide evidence that the East Timorese were predominately Communist?24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, for anti-communists to commit mass-killings, their victims does not have to be communists apparently. A dead enemy is automatically a communist to many anti-communists (and therefore ok to kill in their minds).

Also, this particular issue and its various facets has already been discussed in another thread here on the TalkPage, so scroll up if you are interested. RhinoMind (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If anti-Communists kill people other than Communists then obviously such killing does not belong on this list. Do you feel anti-Communist extremists are correct if they claim all their enemies are Communists? Can you provide evidence that the East Timorese were predominately Communist?24.189.41.10 (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all mass killings by anti-communists belongs here. As I mentioned above, this has already been discussed earlier on this TalkPage. See the section "Mass killings"? above for example. RhinoMind (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The title is Anti-communist mass killings so that means mass killing of Communists. Isn't that completely obvious to everyone?24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You are going in circles now. RhinoMind (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you acknowledge that is Anti-communist mass killings can be construed as mass killing of Communists?24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you read? RhinoMind (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I know Anti-communist mass killings refers to the mass killing of Communists. Now can you answer my question?

No consensus was reached in the above discussion about naming the article. Anyway I don't want to change the name, I want to discard a section which libels the East Timorese. They were not Communists! 24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who or what the victims were. This article is not concerned with the categorization of the victims of anti-communist mass killings. As explained three times now and made clear in the discussion I pointed to (please read it). Also, the article does not claim that the victims were communists (or not), so your question is irrelevant in relation to this article for several reasons. RhinoMind (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

To be very specific, the article leed reads: "... the political mass murders of communists, alleged communists, or their alleged supporters ...". Under this definition even victims suspected of supporting communists belongs to this article. Even more specific: The title "Anti-communist mass killings" does not say anything about the victims of the mass killings, it just states that the mass killings were committed by anti-communists. As said, this has caused a lot of debate in the past, with some editors proposing re-naming and what not. And as you state, no consensus was reached in that regard, which means that the scope of the article is exactly as broad as I explained. RhinoMind (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

If you possess knowledge about the subject, you might want to improve the article East Timor genocide? The article is categorized under both "Anti-communist mass killings" and "Mass killings under Communist regimes", but the article itself doesn't even include the word "communist" at all, which is a bit weird. RhinoMind (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence the East Timorese were suspected of supporting Communists? If you don't we should change the opening.

You have stated your position multiple times RhinoMind but what you have failed to do is convince anyone that it makes sense.24.189.41.10 (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

How is this statement: "By broadcasting accusations of communism in the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor leaders and sowing discord in the Timorese Democratic Union coalition, the Indonesian government fostered instability in East Timor and, observers said, created a pretext for invading." supported by the footnote? 24.189.41.10 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll delete "By broadcasting accusations of communism in the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor leaders and sowing discord in the Timorese Democratic Union coalition, the Indonesian government fostered instability in East Timor and, observers said, created a pretext for invading." because the statement is unsupported.24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Please look here: A Pretty Unfair Place: East Timor Ten Years After Self-determination (p. 20). For those who don't know, The Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor is also known as Fretilin. RhinoMind (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a more general source, elaborating on the Suharto and US policies: War and State Terrorism (p. 204) RhinoMind (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay but your sources acknowledge the East Timorese were not Communists.24.189.41.10 (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You are welcome. Not to sound grumpy, but next time you have an issue, please try to do a little bit of research, by Google for example. It is often very easy in our day and age to find credible sources on disputes and issues and everybody, including yourself, will be much better of if you invest a little bit of time and effort in some basic research. No hard feelings, you do seem like a reasonable person, but I just have to say this. I recognize why you were/are concerned about the subject, but things only improves when someone invests a little bit of time and effort in basic research. RhinoMind (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I only asked you to provide references to support a claim. Anyway thanks for the condescension.24.189.41.10 (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Condescension? Do you really think you deserve better? After all your silliness? I regret calling you "reasonable", that was premature. RhinoMind (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 15 edits

@Orientls: Please explain your removal of three reliably sourced paras. If there's a copyvio issue, as in your second edit summary, let's discuss it so that we can correct rather than excluding three incidents whole-cloth. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: It is WP:UNDUE to dedicate 10k bytes of content to "Columbia" while rest of the 12 examples share only 35k bytes. Nearly all or most of content there added to Columbia is irrelevant and some of it was copyvio.

This belongs to Communism in Colombia where chunks have been already included. This page should only include those examples where "anti communist mass killings" are involved, otherwise it would be WP:OR. Ping editors who have participated on this talk page before: @RhinoMind, Collect, TheTimesAreAChanging, and The Four Deuces: kindly have a look. Orientls (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hold up are you saying it's copyvio for copying other Wikipedia pages? Because WP:UNDUE is a completely different argument from your questionable deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Also you were a little bit... selective... in which users on talk you included here. That seems like an attempt at WP:CANVASSINGSimonm223 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I pinged those editors that had recently edited this page. One example of copyvio is [3], I had seen more last night but this is one I remember for now and there is probably more. Orientls (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Someone pinged me about this quarrel. I haven't read all of the recently added and deleted content, but if the issue is length, why not just summarize the main points? I agree that we cannot write lengthy accounts on a page that just summarize events. If the subject requires a lengthy account, maybe start a new individual page for it and then summarize the main points here on this page. RhinoMind (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that you deleted all mention of these events which seem both relevant to the page topic and reliably sourced; if copyvio is an issue, or length, I'm open to discussions of these issues. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW Copying other Wikipedia pages is a copyvio. Any outside article with valid information should be sourced to the original RS sources and not be quoted verbatim at all. And I did not regard my "ping" as "canvassing" at all. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Iran and Chile

Hi. I've had these two countries on my mind for a long time in relation to this page. I am not sure I will have the time to write up proper sections on anti-communist mass killings in Iran and Chile in the near future though, so my hope is that other editors might also be interested in these two cases? I am not an expert on Iranian history in the 20th century nor Pinochet's dictatorship, perhaps someone has good sources to recommend? Please share your knowledge below. Thanks. RhinoMind (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Colombia

An unregistered user (IP: 186.84.194.16) attempts to install the following info about anti-communist mass killings in Colombia:

Colombia

The Patriotic Union, a political party formed by Colombian Communist Party allies, and with links to the FARC was subject to political violence from drug lords, paramilitaries and security forces agents during the mid-1980s, leading to its eventual decline and virtual disappearance.

Betwenn 1986 and 1990, at least 4'000 members of the party were killed, including two presidential candidates. Many other prominent members went into exile abroad.

After September 2002, the UP no longer had formal and legal representative status as a political party. Nevertheless, in July 2013 the Council of State of Colombia gave the UP its political status back, facilitating its members to run for office.

The addition has been deleted and inserted a couple of times, and it is evolving into some kind of edit warring. Please debate the issue here. Thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Involved parts:

• @186.84.194.16:
• @212.112.126.224:
• @TheTimesAreAChanging:

The original edit was redacted as a WP:COPYVIO and is therefore hidden. Neither it nor a subsequent revision mentioned communism or mass killing if we are sticking with Valentino's threshold of "at least 50,000 intentional deaths over the course of five years or less." Only the most recent proposed revision included a line about the Patriotic Union's communist ties, and it is still not clear to me that any of this meets our criteria for inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If the massacre of the UP does not count as an anti-communist mass killing, then several of the other examples on this page shouldn't count either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrigduff (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

AFD

The recent discussion regarding deletion of Mass killings under communist regimes has brought up a valid point - is this article really needed? in some sections it's just pushing a pro-communist rhetoric associating every anti-communist with mass killings and far right regimes. The community should consider whether this topic is worth keeping or not.Arasakacorp (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

in some sections it's just pushing a pro-communist rhetoric associating every anti-communist with mass killings and far right regimes. Please provide a quote from the article that says this, I could not find one. BSMRD (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The article does not ascribe the killings of communists to any particular ideology or belief system (i.e., fascism, neoliberalism, religious fundamentalism, etc), just anti communist sentiment. This makes it different from MKuCR as that article is lumping all the deaths caused by communist regimes together, even though some of the worst offenders were often radically different from one another (i.e., The USSR in the 1930s wanted rapid industrialization whereas Democratic Kampuchea in the 1970s wanted to destroy urban industrial society in favor of agrarianism), and then simply laying the blame on communist ideology itself. The vast majority of sources cited in that article do not support those assertions, but focus on individual regimes instead, hence the major WP:SYNTH issues with MKuCR. Furthermore, the mass killings listed here are all actual mass killings. In the MKuCR article, direct killings do not make up the majority of deaths, and some prominent scholars on these regimes attribute such deaths to criminal negligence and manslaughter as opposed to murder, in particular famines which make up roughly half the deaths attributed to communism. This would make them excess deaths as opposed to mass killings.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Concur with C.J. Griffin. This article is structurally far less synthy than the other article being discussed in this thread. Furthermore it's not dependent on unreliable propagandistic sources like the "black book of communism" to anywhere near the same extent. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Luizpuodzius:

Podes quebrar um galho para nós na wiki-pt? att 187.20.15.214 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Supported by the US?

"anti-communist mass killing campaigns waged during the Cold War were supported by the United States".

I am not sure whether this phrasing is correct. The US did support the killer regimes, but did it really support the killings per se? What do the sources say? (I am aware of the activities of CIA in Latin America, but anti-partisan actions and point killings, such as Che Guevara case, are hardly indiscriminate "mass killings" IMO). Loew Galitz (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the most recent scholarship, regarding the largest and most significant of these mass killing campaigns (Indonesia 1965), the US not only supported the killers, but the persecutions and killings themselves. Some of the cited sources, in particular Bevins, also make the case the US supported the smaller scale killings in Latin America and elsewhere, Operation Condor for example.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Russian translation

Hi,

Russian translation of the article was immediately put up for deletion allegedly based on WP:OR:

There is not a single reliable source on the specified topic (mass killings of members of communist movements in general in history and the world).

АИ на указанную тему (массовые убийства членов коммунистических движений в целом в истории и мире) в статье вообще нет. Ни одного.

Please comment. Axlesaery (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a matter for Russian wikipedia. Our Russian-speaking editors may want to chime in over there, but it won't really affect this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

TY for your opinion. Of course, I know that happens in ru-wiki stays in ru-wiki and cannot affect this article. My only hope is actually that Russian-speaking editors may want to take part in the discussion. Axlesaery (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)