Talk:Benjamin Valentino

Merge

@Davide King, didn't realize you had written most of this! This article is a biography so while it's worth some detail on his background and publishing process, it should be mostly about the author. All of the analysis of the book itself should be in a dedicated article, since the book is independently notable: Final Solutions. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Czar, to be fair, I took the content from Mass killings under communist regimes because Valentino does not actually support the claim there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing. The supposed main topic of that article; if the main topic is merely about the events, it is a coatrack and synthesis because we need a link that ties them together; problem is, there is none and that concept or theory is presented as a mainstream and majority view, when it is a minority view among genocide scholars and historians of Communism. By the way, I agree this content can be merged at Final Solutions and/or Mass killing, which is the main topic, not Mass killings under communist regimes. Davide King (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states this is minority view among genocide scholars and historians of Communism, or is that just your own conclusion based upon your own research? --Nug (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nug, do you have a source that this is a majority view among genocide scholars and historians of Communism, or is that just your own conclusion based upon your own research? The fact we do not describe the events, minus the Cambodian genocide, as genocide, mass killing, or mass killing under a Communist regime in the first sentence shows that this is not a majority view accepted among scholars. As repeatedly shown to you and others by Paul Siebert, Valentino is not really relied on by historians of Communism on, say, Stalinist repressions.

You are also the one supporting the view scholarly sources agree there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing (you wrote "[m]any books do make a link between communist ideology and genocide [...]. Either way, ideology is a factor, the question is to what degree. Communist ideology promotes the destruction of national groups, no question about that, and destruction of national groups is genocide according to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."); they do not, as I have shown you here, and this includes Valentino, as shown by both his own words and the review by Strauss (not by me), who does not report Valentino thinks ideology, or in this case communism, is to blame.

Actual reviews of their works by experts, not random Wikipedia editors, show that Courtois et al. are proposing the theory of equivalency between Communism and Nazism, with their introduction being more about how evil Communism was and how it was worse than Nazism. Similarly, Rosefielde does not blame it on communism, or on Marx, but only on a selectively few of Communist leaders. Finally, Rummel is more about how much of a mass killer non-democratic government in general, not limited to Communism, was, especially in the 20th century, and democratic peace theory is the main topic, not mass killings under communist regimes.

Neither of these sources are representative of the mainstream majority view:

• Courtois et al. are revisionists in positing Communism as equal to Nazism and even worse of it. Here, Newimpartial gave a good summary of its evolution of acceptance among scholars.
• Rosefielde is similarly revisionist in speaking of a "Red Holocaust", which is Holocaust trivialisation and goes back to the revisionist Nolte.
• Rummel is not an expert of Communist regimes and his main topic is mass killings by government (democide) and the democratic peace theory, not mass killings under Communist regimes, which can be discussed at Democide without making a coatrack article.
• Valentino does not link genocide or mass killing to communism, or any particular ideology; in addition, he discusses "communist mass killings like the ones carried out in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" alongside "ethnic genocides as in Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda; and 'counter-guerrilla' campaigns including the brutal civil war in Guatemala and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan." In other words, this book can be used at Genocide and/or Mass killing; it cannot be used to create Mass killings under communist regimes when that is not Valentino's main topic and indeed he proposes not that topic or concept, but Communist mass killing as subtype of dispossessive mass killing and says most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings. "Valentino closes the book by arguing that attempts to prevent mass killing should focus on disarming and removing from power the leaders and small groups responsible for instigating and organizing the killing." This is his argument, not that communism is to blame or that there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing.

Again, if that is a clear notable topic, why there is not a single book whose main topic is that? Why are they mentioned in passing? Indeed, the books alleged to support that topic, they do not; that is not their main topic:

• Mann's The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, not explaining mass killings or mass killings under Communist regimes, is a "comprehensive study of international ethnic cleansing provides in-depth coverage of its occurrences in Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, as well as cases of lesser violence in early modern Europe and in contemporary India and Indonesia. After presenting a general theory of why serious conflict emerges and how it escalates into mass murder, Michael Mann offers suggestions on how to avoid such escalation in the future."
• Semelin's Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide "demonstrates that it is indeed possible to compare the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina while respecting the specificities of each appalling phenomenon." Resisting Genocide: The Multiple Forms of Rescue is "[b]ased on three absorbing case studies—the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the slaughter of the Tutsi in Rwanda—this volume marks the first international, comparative, and multidisciplinary attempt to situate rescue as a research object." Communist regimes and/or genocide/mass killing(s) under Communist regimes is not the main topic; and if the Soviet Union et al. are mentioned in passing mention, that means the info can be added at Genocide and/or Mass killing, not that we can create an article about Mass killings under Communist regimes when the books' main topic is far from it and does not say there is any link between communism and genocide/mass killing.

Your AfD shows it was an attempt to remove the info I added here; if you think this article should be deleted, then you should not even be able to use Valentino in the first place to support your view, if you think he is not even notable to have an article in the first place! Davide King (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding? How can you say Valentino does not link mass killing to communism when his book has a chapter called Communist mass killings where he states: "The ponderous death toll of communism in these states was driven not simply by the real threats posed by suspected counterrevolutionary groups and classes, but also by the adherence of communist leaders to a paranoid Marxist-Leninist or, perhaps more accurately, Stalinist world view". --Nug (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nug, do you understand what Valentino's concept consists in, and how his ideas are used by other authors to explain and analyse mass killings?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, they do not seem to understand it, so I hope you can explain it. But I would note the review of Straus does not say what you think he says. Now who holds more weight; Nug or Straus? I say Strauss. Valentino is not writing about mass killings under Communist regimes but of genocides and mass killings in the 20th century. He discusses some events he calls mass killing that just happened to happen under Communist regimes but he makes no connection or link as you imply, says most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killing and only the Big Three did ("radical communist regimes") but he does not attribute it to communism. His main topic is not Mass killings under communist regimes but Communist mass killing as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing, i.e. Mass killing; you may think that just because he says "Communist mass killing", he is supporting your topic but these are not the same topic and he does not support yours. Davide King (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

David, first, your "I took the content from Mass killings under communist regimes because Valentino does not actually support the claim there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing" means you created a POV-fork, which is not allowed per NPOV. However, your desire to correctly describe Valentino's views is understandable. The best way to do it to move all that content to Final Solutions.

Nug's "Do you have a source that states this is minority view " is a complete misunderstanding of our policy. The categories "minority/majority views" is usually not frequently found in scholarly sources, that is our own, internal terminology, specific to Wikipedia. I think Nug has to familiarise himself with NPOV. There IS a way to figure out if some source expressed minority view, that way is outlined in out policy, and it doe NOT consist in finding some source saying "that is minority view". To demonstrate how stupid it would be, please, consider a situation when some scholar Y says "X expresses minority views". How can we make sure the opinion of the author Y is not a minority view per se?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think the burden of proof is on Nug to show that something is a majority view in the relevant academic fields. Although not always in so many words, you can sometimes find sources saying which views are more or less accepted in a given field. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It is Davide King making the assertion that "Neither of these sources are representative of the mainstream majority view", I just asked how he came to that view, from some source or his own research. --Nug (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Per our policy, editors are supposed to make their own research to establish if some view is majority, minority or fringe. This procedure is described in the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I am asking Davide King to share his research if he doesn't have a source to back his assertion. --Nug (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you are right that it was both a "POV-fork, which is not allowed per NPOV", and "[a] desire to correctly describe Valentino's views is understandable." I agree the best solution is to move it at Final Solutions. I also agree with Buidhe that "the burden of proof is on Nug to show that something is a majority view in the relevant academic fields." The fact at Mass killings under communist regimes the burden of proof is on us, when it should be on these supporting the article why it is a majority view, is an issue. Nug, and of course I did an analysis and research of sources, although Paul Siebert already did that for me. I already made two researches (here and here) showing sources do not support the link between communism and genocide/mass killing and that the main topic should be about the concept, narrative, and/or theory of "victims of Communism." Davide King (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems some people haven't bothered to read what Valentino writes in reality. I am not going to provide my own interpretation, so I'll better reproduce a fragment from the review on his book by Jessica Priselac (Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the twentieth Century (review), SAIS Review of International Affairs, Volume 25, Number 1, Winter-Spring 2005, pp. 207-209. Published by Johns Hopkins University Press. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2005.0015). For those who cannot access this text, the quotes are provided below:

"One of Valentino’s central arguments is that “characteristics of society at large, such as preexisting cleaves, hatred and discrimination between groups and non-democratic forms of government, are of limited utility in distinguishing societies at high risk for mass killing.” Valentino’s strongest arguments in support of this statement are his comparative studies of regimes that committed mass killing with similar regimes that did not. Why did genocide take place in racist Nazi Germany while it did not take place in South Africa? Why did mass killings occur in Communist Cambodia but not in Vietnam?

His answers are compelling.Through his case studies, he presents evidence that, in each case, a concentrated group of leaders is generally responsible for formulating and organizing the mass killings after concluding that this is the best way for them to advance their own interests and solidify their power. Moreover, leaders do not need widespread support in order to conduct such policies; in each case, a relatively small group of people carried out the actual killings.In essence, Valentino argues that the overall characteristics of a society have little to do with whether or not it is at risk for genocide, because leaders who devise these plans are not responding to a society’s calls for action, nor do they need a majority of society to support their actions for the results to be deadly. Despite the popular perception, these killings are not done for killing’s sake—they are done with a specific goal in mind. Leaders take these actions after coming to believe that the alternative paths to their goals are either impractical or unfeasible."

Therefore, not only Valentino saw no linkage between Communism and mass killing, his concept directly rejects any general linkage between some specific regime type and mass killing. Therefore, the question if his views on Communist mass killing are majority or minority view is not a question that we have to discuss: we are dealing with a direct misinterpretation of Valentino by a group of Wikipedians.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Anticipating possible criticism, I am explaining how I obtained this search. If you look for valentino final solutions in google.scholar, you get that review on the second page, so there were no cherry-picking from my side. By the way, another review on the first page (Daniel Chirot, COMPARATIVE POLITICAL STUDIES / June 2005, p. 578, [1]) is even more interesting. The reviewer notes that Valentino combines the three dictators, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, into one group, because "in all three cases, a small cadre of leaders led by a dedicated revolutionary chief was driven by utopian fantasies and ideological certitude that made it see enemies everywhere and kill millions." However, a reviewer disagrees with Valentino, and he argues that "Lenin and Trotsky were not exactly gentle, either, though it is conceivable that neither would have become quite as paranoid as Stalin." In other words, the reviewer partially disagrees with Valentino's concept, which puts too much emphasis on leader's personality, and he concludes that "That takes nothing away from Valentino’s correct assessment that genocidal decisions are made by a few leaders and that even intolerant and brutalized populations would be unlikely to muster majorities in favor of carrying out such atrocities if they were not led by fanatics, but it does make it clear that the structural and cultural backgrounds from which these leaders emerge are not quite as irrelevant as he suggests."

In other words, Daniel Chirot's review also confirms that Valentino could be neither an originator nor supporter of the "Communist mass killing" concept, because his theory openly rejects the role of any political system (and Communism is not an exception) as a significant factors responsible for mass killing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, thank you. The problem is this is not only done with Valentino. The same thing is done for other authors which are used to support the Mass killings under communist regimes article. Davide King (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)