I don't like Wikipedia as a source, but it's generally accepted as the standard for liberal academia. If a source criticizing communism or communist figures is disputed even among Wikipedia, then it isn't a good source, most likely.

As for the bit on Tibet, I'm fully capable of admitting when I do not know something, unlike the person I replied to. However, I said the exact opposite of calling Tibetans "savages and pedophiles." I called the feudal slavers as such, just like I would be comfortable calling the plantation owners of the south pedophiles and torturers. Dr. Michael Parenti painted the Tibetan serfs not as pedophiles and savages, but as people with their own agency in actively opposing their own torture:

The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation — including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation — were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs.

As for the site I linked, it's not the source. You can read the source on Duke University's website, I just linked the site I did because I prefer to link text over PDFs. Dr. Michael Parenti isn't some random person, but was a university professor and academic.

I have no idea why you attacked me with homophobia at the end, certainly you're capable of insulting me without resorting to bigotry. Same with immediately dehumanizing me as cancer.