That's probably because most mass killings under capitalist regimes are just generally called "mass killings". They are your regular, run of the mill mass killings that aren't really newsworthy and that we are accustomed to.

Fascist and colonial states atrocities are widely documented in Wikipedia, countries that we consider capitalist probably too. I recently stumbled across Belgian atrocities in Congo reading Wikipedia by accident. It motivated me to read more about it in the future, maybe "Heart of darkness" (while not exactly historical, it still seems like a good critique. By the way is it a good novel?).

You know you can make a page yourself right?

Go ahead and compile a list with sources referenced and write it up according to the style guide.

Some good reading about Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

Idk, I've learned a tremendous amount about things outside my culture... because of wikipedia. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good?

Edit: I apologize that my comment derailed from the conversation of Wikipedia having inherent and abundant Western bias... the fact that VOA is considered reputable is enough to turn heads. What I guess I was trying to say is that I wouldn't want people to ignore a good resource for information because of that... but it is also very important to point out and criticize their bias, if true neutrality is a Wikipedia "goal"

I apologize again. I would delete my comments, but I think it's important to own up to my own errors and have a record of what was said. Maybe others will learn from my misinterpretation of the conversation being presented, and my initial emotional responses

• Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth says:

This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source.

Verifiability is as important as truth.

But reliable sources are biased!

From WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources).

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

(Bolding mine)

But reliable sources are chosen by biased contributors!

OP attached to their comic repost RSP columns.

• Deutsche Welle: Reliability was never discussed in an RFC. Anyone complaining here of bias does not acknowledge their possibility (if they are not banned) of making an RFC on it.
• Voice of America: Discussed on RSN a few times. The last one is pretty interesting: Here
• Xinhua: Discussed here. ITT: It's quite old, but Xinhua is very controversial.
• Telesur: Discussed here around seven years ago. Quite conclusive, I would say.

Indonesia: Am I a joke to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366