Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Coatrack claim

The WP:COATRACK assertion by DaltonCastle doesn't parse for a number of reason.

1. The removed text isn't criticism, but an outline of a controversy surrounding the subject. It covers both sides.
2. The lead is supposed to summarize the contents, and with this removal, the lead no longer covers an important aspect of this subject.
3. Perhaps most importantly, having criticism in the lead does not make something a coatrack. A coatrack article is one in which is used to cover a related subject, instead of the actual subject.

All in all, I see absolutely zero merit to your claim. If you have a better argument, I'm listening. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaltonCastle and MjolnirPants: WP:COATRACK is not policy. A relevant policy might be MOS:LEAD, perhaps MOS:LEADREL (Relative emphasis) specifically. Yue🌙 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. I'm just perplexed by the logic here. I'm not sure how having 'criticism' in the lead makes an article a coatrack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The controversy is a major part of the topic (and the article); it obviously needs to be covered in the lead in some form. Also, in terms of both this and other recent removals under the COATRACK argument, it's important to note that the RFC determined that the purpose of this article was to ...cover the academic debate on the potential correlation between mass killings and communist regimes as documented in reliable sources. That means presenting it as an active debate and giving both sides on it. I don't think the argument that these are marginal views holds any real water (there's a lot of diverse high-quality sourcing raising various arguments), but at the very least the implicit argument that criticism doesn't belong here doesn't make any sense; this article's purpose is to discuss an active academic debate. Based on this I've also restored the "comparisons to other mass killings" section - it's one of the central points in that debate, and the attempt at a lead change made me realize that removals a few months back were what started moving this article away from the definition set out in the RFC. Whether editors agree with them or not, the section cites a number of highly-cited academics who are plainly using that comparison to advance one side or the other in the debate over whether there was a correlation between mass killings and communist regimes or not, which is, again, the topic of this article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the users involved in the removal of the section on "comparisons to other mass killings" a few months back, so I want to clarify my opinion: I don't have strong feelings on whether this section should be kept or removed, but I do strongly believe that whatever standard we choose, must be applied consistently. At the time of the removal of the section, a few months ago, what happened was that several different users removed various comparisons with other mass killings from the section until only one single comparison remained. Then I removed the last comparison, and the section. The arguments made by the other users were saying that comparisons with other mass killings are a topic which does not belong in the article. If this is the case, then all comparisons should be removed. Or if it is not the case, then all comparisons should be kept. Either way, I do not see any basis for removing some comparisons (actually most of them) and not others.
So that is where I stand on this: We should either keep the section, or not, but whatever we choose must be applied consistently. Comparisons either belong in this article, or they don't. - Small colossal (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the coatrack claim, I agree with MjolnirPants that I do not see any connection at all between what is described on the page WP:COATRACK and what is present in this article. - Small colossal (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetical Biographical article: The article lead is almost entirely about their controversies making the article of the person about their controversies. That is a Coatrack. That is not what the article is intended to be about. This article is about mass killings under communist regimes. The lead should not immediately be communist and communist-sympathizers attempting to debunk the well-cited claims. There's a criticism section for that. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DaltonCastle, the hypothetical biographical article you described actually exists: Alfred Dreyfus. The article lead is almost entirely about the Dreyfus affair, because that is the most important thing about Alfred Dreyfus. And he is not alone. There are many biographical articles that are primarily about controversies involving their subjects. For example: Jeb Stuart Magruder and Martha Mitchell (most of their articles, and the leads, are about the Watergate scandal), O. J. Simpson (half of the lead is about the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson), Elián González (most of the lead is about a custody case he was involved in as a child), George Whitmore Jr., Juan Alfredo Arzube, Robert Tilton. I found these by looking through a few "controversy" categories. There are many others.
that is why those people are famous.DaltonCastle (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not coatracks. Sometimes, controversy is the most prominent thing about the subject of an article. This article is one example. The only part that isn't controversial is that mass killings under communist regimes took place. But simply saying that they took place, or listing them, would make for a very short article. All the analysis of them is controversial: what the killings should be called, why they took place, how many people were killed, who is most responsible, how they compare with other mass killings, etc. It is not possible to talk about any of these aspects without running into the fact that sources disagree on the answers. And none of the various controversies are about "communist and communist-sympathizers attempting to debunk the well-cited claims". All the cited sources are anti-communists and non-communists, as far as I have seen.
Lastly, I've looked through the archives of this page and discovered that the structure of this article was actually determined by a RFC three years ago, which included multiple proposals and extensive debate. In the end, there was a consensus that
The article should discuss the concept of a correlation between mass killings and communist governments, including proposed causes and critiques of the concept.
And there was consensus against the idea that the article should be a mere summary of killings without analysis. So, I think that RFC result, unless we arrive at a different consensus, requires us to cover debates and controversies in the lead. - Small colossal (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of "criticism" sections (which are usually coatracks), but the text in question gives a pretty good overview of the debate/ views of studies of this, and such is central to the article. I think it's good, and would not call it a "criticism" section. Probably the most questionable content is comparisons to other countries which is highly likely to be more demagoguery / whataboutism than informative. And the section that it is derived from has some pretty creative whataboutism that is not informative on the topic. IMO the text should not be removed wholesale. It and the material in the body that it is derived from could probably use some changes/removals after discussion on narrower changes. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comparisons with other countries, I don't feel strongly on whether we should keep them or not, but whatever we choose must be applied consistently. Either we should keep all comparisons or remove all comparisons. But I will say one thing in favor of keeping them: They are pretty common in the sources. Many sources that talk about mass killings under communist regimes are also comparing communist regimes with other kinds of governments or ideological movements. Is this a valid way to analyze communism? Well, I'm personally not sure, but it's present in reliable sources, and not just once or twice but frequently. - Small colossal (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This echoes my thoughts on the subject. One of the principal rules we adhere to here is that we follow the sources. If the sources keep making comparisons, then there's no real argument that we shouldn't. And my own review of the sources is that they keep making comparisons, precisely because this is a controversial subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

This article has a ton of problems. Here are a few:

  1. The terminology section is bizarre; most of it is not necessary and provides information very similar to what is said later in the article. It seems like it is there just because it has always been there even though it lowers the quality of the article as a whole.
  2. There is very little discussion about the scholarship on the association between mass killings and Communism, which is outlined in the RfC from three years ago. There is an acknowledgment of opposition to the term at the start of the proposed causes section, but it is disappointingly short. Then, the rest of the section is a list of possible causes without any consideration given to whether they explain something that actually actually exists. As I see it, something more akin to the Totalitarianism article, where the debate over the validity of the term is shown fully, would be much better. This would both make the article more complete and much more interesting.
  3. The debate over famines section is simply confusing. It quotes one person to say that there is a consensus that the Holodomor was not a genocide, and then it quotes another person to say that there is a consensus that the Holodomor was a genocide. It seems vastly preferable to talk less about the Holodomor genocide question and simply link to the other article on the topic. This section somehow also fails to mention the Great Chinese Famine at all. Finally, "two African countries that claimed to be Marxist–Leninist" should not be included—such countries are almost always described as Communist or Marxist-Leninist. North Korea doesn't even call itself Communist anymore and it is still referred to as such.
  4. There is a general NPOV issue. I think that anyone who reads this article can see that. You can really feel the editors' hatred of Communism, which simply should not be the case. The same is not true from the article on the Holocaust after all, whose horror is far less controversial.

Overall, there has got to be some sort of rewrite of this thing. I was just reading through the 2021 AfD, and stuff has really not gotten better. I don't believe that this article should be deleted, but it muddies a super interesting topic by being so bizarrely written. Despite all the edits that have gone into this thing, it has barely improved since even 2010. Porg656 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, many people who were active on talk leading up to the RFC vanished afterwards, leading to much of it failing to be implemented. Compounding this is the fact that the article does require a degree of expertise; it's a sensitive subject which touches on an in-depth academic debate, where people need at least a basic grounding in the topic to know what sources to look for and how to weigh them. If you want to fix things you'll probably have to do it yourself; I would suggest starting by looking for sources that aren't currently in the article but ought to be, and by reviewing the article for sources that are currently given too much weight. But it's a big undertaking and I'd suggest doing it one piece at a time rather than trying to go for sweeping rewrites. --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porg656, the article should reflect what reliable sources have written about the subject, in a way that best conveys that information to the reader according to Wikipedia policies. The terminology section is important to that end, as the first paragraph of that section explains. It's good that you want to improve the article, but that improvement must be based on the relevant sources and policies, not your personal opinions about what the end state should look like. This article has a long history of argumentation between editors, much of which could have been avoided with a sources-first approach. If you want to add something to the article, first find a reliable source for that addition. Likewise, if there is something in the article that you think should be removed, first check the cited source to see if it is supported as written. Saying that you want to add a particular thing before having a sourced basis for it ("There is very little discussion about the scholarship on the association between mass killings and Communism...") or remove something without understanding it ("The terminology section is bizarre; most of it is not necessary...") is a mistake that will end up wasting a lot of time and effort. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the terminology section is that most of what it says that is actually pertinent to the article as a whole is some variation on "[term] has been applied to communist regimes," with the sole exception of 'Red Holocaust' which is instead elaborated on in the form of various scholars saying that it perpetuates the Double Genocide myth. Every other term has its own article where it is defined with much more precision than what is laid out here. It is not necessary to list these terms in the terminology section because they are already listed at the start of the article. If there was more of a discussion of why different terms have been applied to mass killings under communist regimes, then maybe the section would actually be useful. However, as it stands, the terminology section is almost entirely bloat. Lastly, it is not relevant what reliable sources say here because I don't actually want to add information to the page or want to remove information from Wikipedia, I just don't think the overview of terminology is useful.
    I do want to apologize for rehashing the 15 years of edit warring, though. Porg656 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. There is no single consensus term for these deaths, so it is important to describe which terms are used and why. The disagreement between sources on the best terminology to use is actually a significant part of the topic, with sources debating between the merits and applicability of various terms, so reflecting those sources per WP:DUE means including that in the article. The terms are also in the lead because they are in the body of the article, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Lastly, I assumed you also wanted to add to the article when you said "There is very little discussion about the scholarship on the association between mass killings and Communism...", which is why I mentioned finding a reliable source for additions first. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes