Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Deaths which are a direct result, et al.

@Paul ("mass killings"≠"excess deaths" according to "some" sources): What is your position on suicides committed as a direct consequence of the Cultural Revolution? These are not strictly "killings" but they are direct results. What would be your proposal for insuring they are included? IMHO the purpose of this article is not to listify an inventory of those who got a direct bullet to the head. Perhaps others can present some thoughts on our purpose here before continuing to argue over sources at demonstrably crossed purposes. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to most sources. My position on suicides is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Much more important is to know what reliable sources tell. With regard to that, I can frankly answer: "I don't know". I can look through the literature, however, I see no need in that, because a wast amount of sources I already found and presented has been simply disregarded by some users, who block the consensus building process. In connection to that I suggest to you four to voluntarily restore the stable version as a sign of your good faith, and that may give a start to a constructive dialogue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm only here peripherally at the moment, other than your most unfortunate comments making me appear to be disruptive and threatening sanctions for simply filling in an existing reference for completeness. When other editors oppose your editorial POV, you are adamant. When your editorial POV is solicited, you have none, complaining you've been stonewalled (my word, admittedly). You'll pardon me if I'm a bit confused.

Consider suicides which reputable sources directly attribute to the Cultural Revolution.

• Do they get mentioned or excluded?
• If they merit mention, should the title be adjusted to not imply only the proverbial bullet in the head?

Not all the relevant questions, but a start. On the other, quite frankly, I haven't paid enough attention to even know who "us four" are. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you accuse me in not having a POV? Well, I explain you again: I have no sources to support my point of view on the subject you are talking about. When I have no sources to support my views on some particular subject, I never express these views on WP pages. I can, however, try to find some sources on that subject, however, I prefer to do that only if I will be sure that the time spent by me for finding the needed sources will not be wasted, i.e. if you will seriously discuss the sources I found. Unfortunately, the recent discussion suggest the opposite: the sources provided by me are ignored, the arguments are disregarded, and I have no reason to believe that the situation will change.

Regarding your last edit, you added more information from the sources I proved to be highly questionable. This edit is not minor, and you should have to discuss it on the talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that your questions deserve more concrete answer.

• Re your first question, I do not know how widespread the suicides were during the Cultural Revolution, and how voluntary they were. From my elementary school history lessons I know that it was an old Chinese tradition when a feudal sent a silk rope to his vassal, which meant he must commit suicide. Although this death was nominally voluntary, it was de facto execution. Since, according to the source provided by Collect (Fu) Communist repressions in China had their roots in millennial autocratic traditions, it is natural to propose that most of those suicides were de facto executions performed in accordance with Chinese traditions. Please, keep in mind, however, that that are just my speculations.
• Re your second question, I absolutely agree that, for an ordinary reader, the current title implies only the proverbial bullet in the head. In connection to that, to speak about "100 million killed", 95% of whom died from starvation or diseases is deeply misleading. In connection to that, the idea to bring the article in accordance with the title (to exclude famines etc, and to adjust the figures accordingly), or to bring the title in accordance with what the article says (to rename it) is quite correct and sober.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a more sober response. Further back above, as an aside, I've responded to your personally finding BB "deeply questionable" elsewhere. Short version, not your call. When you get a degree in the topic area or directly related and publish peer-reviewed papers and attain a position of respect as a recognized scholarly expert, then we can cite your paper indicating BB is "deeply questionable." (And BB would still remain.) I'm not being difficult, I'm merely pointing out you are assuming an expert role for which you are not qualified, and if you were qualified, your advocating to remove BB would be a conflict of interest. (And BB would still remain.)

I will be pretty much busy around the clock for the next few days, so advance notice that it will take me a while to respond to yours. You will appreciate that to not speak of all those who weren't strictly shot in the head but still died in massive numbers directly attributed to communism is (accepting your position for the moment) deeply misleading as well. "Genocide", "murder", "killing" are only a part of the death toll. Reducing our disagreements to the basics (my impression), you spend at least as much time arguing that something NOT be included as to be included; I (believe I, this could be rhetorical dysmorphia) spend more time arguing that something should be included. Perhaps a better alternative would be to change the article scope to Death toll under Communist regimes. This would free editors to come up with the "numbers" and where scholarly accounts agree or disagree on the exact nature of the "numbers". All that is necessary as a baseline is that the deaths be attributed to communist regimes. This is not a coatrack—as it is the discussion of the numbers, and characterizations, and agreements, and disagreements, which then makes it an encyclopedic article. And so, the suicides I mentioned would get included (I do remember seeing specific #'s), but then also simply described as exactly what they are without semantic arguments over "if someone felt compelled to commit suicide as a result of communist regime X's actions, did the regime 'kill' them or not?" Consider sleeping on it, as our responses to each other tend to be less constructive the sooner they follow one upon the other. As I indicated, no rush. (Nor, despite the seeming urgency to resolve matters, is any train leaving the station.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see that you agreed that the discussion should proceed in more calm manner. Thanks.

Re the BB, I do not find your statement correct. I do not need to publish anything about the BB because (i) the dispute is not about the BB, but about the introduction (we know that each part of this collective volume should be judged based on its own merit), and (ii) such articles (the articles discussing the introduction) have already been published, and I already presented them. Assuming your good faith i conclude that you do not follow the discussion on this talk page carefully.

Leaving the BB aside, let me point your attention at the fact that, obviously, since the USSR and China were very big countries, the amount of deaths under Communist regimes was considerable. The fact that people were dying massively, and that part of those premature deaths were killings, and even murders, is hard to deny. It is equally hard to deny that the regimes were fully of partially responsible for remaining premature deaths. These numbers are more or less known, however, as Ellman noted, the question of what part of those casualties can be characterised as "repression victims", or "victims of Communism" is a matter of political judgement.

Therefore, we should speak not about numbers, but about opinions of various authors on how these numbers should be interpreted.

Regarding the proposed article, I object. "Death toll" should imply "Deaths toll ascribed to Communists", however, most genocidal and comparative demographic studies do not separate Communist regimes from others. That would be a synthesis. I would rather propose to create a section in this article devoted to this subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment (prelims)

RFC has been moved, see further down
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Option 1 Note. this is not a final version. Editors who support this option may make changes so that it is ready by Thursday 00:01 GMT Mass killing of Non-combatants have occoured under communist regimes.These killings carried out in the pursuit of the communist ideology of forming a Utopian society were caused for the most part by terror-starvation, terror, lethal forced labor and Ethnic cleansing. Estimates for those killed range from some 60 to 100 million.. The highest documented death tolls have occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin with estimates for those killed ranging from 20 to 40 million during Stalin`s rule to some 60 million for the USSR as a whole. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, with estimates ranging from 65 to 72.3million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge with an estimated death toll of between 2 and 2.5 million. There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. References Bibliography Rosefielde, Steven (2010) Red Holocaust Routledge ISBN 978-041577757 Courtois, Stéphane (1999) The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression Stéphane Courtois (ed.) (Harvard University Press): 1–32. ISBN 978-0674076082 Staub, Ervin (2011) Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0195382044 Kurtz, Lester R. Turpin Jennifer E. (1999) Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict Elsevier ISBN 978-0122270116 Combs, Dick (2008) Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised Penn State University Press ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6 Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin’s Genocides princeton university press ISBN 978-0691147840 Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005) Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century Cornell University Press ISBN 978-0801472732 Hosking, Geoffrey A. (1993) The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0674304437 Gellately, Robert. Kiernan, Ben. (2003) The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0521527507 Option 2 Note. this is not a final version. I expect some users to discuss it and to contribute to it Mass killing of non-combatants occurred under some Communist regimes. The highest death tolls that have been calculated are for the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. These mass killings include murders or executions that took place during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents, mass terror campaigns; violence that accompanied land reforms in the Soviet Union, China and some smaller countries also led to death of the immense amount of peasants. Significant part of population perished during the genocide organized by the proponents of agrarian Communism in Cambodia. In the USSR and China, major amount of deaths were caused not by repressions, genocides of executions, but by war, famine and disease. It is currently believed that the total number of peoples who was killed by all Communist regimes taken together, or whose deaths were facilitated by the actions of these regimes amounted to 80 millions. Different explanations of the onset of mass killings in each Communist country taken separately have been proposed that trace the roots of the violence in the combination of Communist ideology, the past history of each particular country, traditions, and other factors. In addition to that, several general theories has been proposed that ascribe the onset of mass killings to totalitarian nature of Communist regimes, to Communist ideology, or to the strategic calculations of the Communist leaders. These theories apply the concepts of "mass killings", "democide", "politicide" or "classicide" to characterize there events. References: since the lede is supposed to summarise the article's content, no new references are required there. Most statements in this text are supported with the sources cited in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Comments on Procedure Section not needed The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Per Ed I have written a succinct lede which I believe covers the issues above. PS or TFD you guys need to write an alternate for this proposed RFC. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Let's have the final versions ready by Thursday 00:01 GMT (Wednesday 6:01 PM New York time) when we can formally start the RfC. Your lede was full of typos, capitalisation issues, spacing issues, correspondence between plurals issues, non-standard treatment of mass numbers "millions" when referring to a singular collective subject, purple adjectives "some…[number]", and mis-citations. I have corrected these. While we can easily subedit bad writing, solving bad citations takes ages. In future please correctly cite chapters: each chapter should be identified by the author of the chapter, the chapter's title, and the full page span for the chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Please read Rule 2 under "500 Words or less" - i.e. you should only edit the version you support - no game playing. You wouldn't want to be accused of confusing a citation, would you? So to keep things simple and straightforward, please only edit the version you support. Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Smallbones, that is ridiculous. Fifelfoo obviously acted in good faith, and this your comment does not promote creation of collaborative atmosphere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC) No game-playing Don't even think about editing a version which you don't support. Paul - this is the 3rd time on the current talk page that you've moved my comments. The first time you moved my support for EdJ's proposal right below your new proposal, implying that I supported yours. I asked you to apologize, instead you've moved my comments twice more. Please don't do that again. I still expect an apology. Smallbones (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Let's keep the supports and opposes separate. Paul's opinions have been heard many times before and he has adequate opportunity to express them again under Option 2. Let's include sources in both options Leaving out sources looks like a sure loser - it does not explain where the material comes from It does not address the main point of EdJ's proposal - Are the sources reliable? It disrespects the reader, forcing him or her to search for references on another page that can be difficult to find It leads to an uneven playing field, forcing Option 1, which includes sources, to be shorter than Option 2. Do you want to include the bibliography or footnotes in the "500 words of less" restriction? If you don't answer, I'll assume the bibliography is excluded from the restriction, but not the footnotes, which have sometimes included extensive quotes or comments. Smallbones (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Option 1 Old Support Option 1 seems like a fair representation of the sources. Well done. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Somehow this seems to have been transformed into a total re-write of the lede. I oppose a complete re-write. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Option 1 is a clear winner, and not only a win by default. I suggest if there is consensus on this, and if no Option 2 is presented, that we just put this in as the lede without an RfC. An RfC would be preferable, but not without an Option 2. Smallbones (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Old Oppose The TLAM's text is not satisfactory. The article does not discuss the figures presented in the lede, and it provides quite different description of the events. This text is the lede of some different article, so it cannot be used per WP:LEDE. The lede should discuss not only the figures, but the causes, mechanisms, it should at least mention different explanations of the reasons of these mass killings. In addition, immense number of studies analyse each particular communist society separately from each other, and provide different reasons for the outbursts of violence in each particular cases. Thus, in Kampuchea we have an example of pure anti-urbanist genocide, in the USSR mass deaths of peasants were caused by the forceful urbanisation policy: many authors argue that we have more differences than commonalities here. In any event, the proposed text is one-sided, it ignores nuances, and is too focused on figures (as if by providing exact figures we achieve neutrality and objectivity).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The choice of the sources is questionable. The most authoritaitve sources on the USSR are Conquest, Wheatcroft, Werth, Rosefielde (the latter produced the highest figures). The top margin is no more than 20 million. In addition, the proposed draft is more suitable for future section "The range of the number of victims" (which is currently absent from the article), than for the lede, which is supposed to summarise the article. It currently is not doing that. Moreover, as a rule, the lede should be based mostly on the same sources that are used in the article, and it should represent them fairly and proportionally. I am not sure the proposed draft meets this criterion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Should you have issues with the sources please take it to the RSN board. You need to prepare an alternate which then goes up in an RFC per ED`s suggestion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Paul. Highly dubious and inflated low border of the range of sources. Moreover, I think that such contentious topics will always do better without naming any figures in the very first line. Better to present the table of different estimates and explain methods of counting so that the readers could judge themselves. GreyHood Talk 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC) All the sources used describe the deaths estimated as mass killing. If you have sources for lower estimates please present them, I`ll happily change the low end numbers. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Option 1 seems to stretch opinions into rather boldly stated facts. BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Option 2 Old Support 2 I'll prepare the alternative version, although I always prefer collective work (you edit - I edit - you edit again - we discuss - put to the article). With regard to the sources, the issue is not in reliability, but in the choice. For instance, you decided to use questionable Courtois, and ignored highly commended Werth. Why do you prefer to use the worst part of the book? In addition, if you write the lede, you are supposed to use the same sources as those used in the article. The article cites Ellman, Conquest and Wheatcroft, each of them, by contrast to Naimark, did their own demographis studies for the USSR. Why you preferred to ignore them?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC) The version 2 have been presented above. It is not a final version, so I propose everyone to contribute. Regarding the number of killed/prematurely died, I think only a top margin should be presented, because the lower estimate depends not on the real number of people killed, but on what different scholars see as deaths caused by the regimes (see, e.g. the Ellman's opinion). --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Support naturally. Paul's version does not present excess deaths as mass-killings at least. GreyHood Talk 17:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Old Oppose 2 The scale of the mass killings, which PS has called the "upper limit" is only given as 80 million despite RS's that go to 100 million, and it is played down by being buried in the middle of the text. What's more important in an article about mass killings than the mass of people that was killed? No sources. Reads more like an apology for the mass killings rather than a simple description. Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Smallbones. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Smallbones - Wikipedia is here to reflect reliable sources, and not to act as apologist for any group where the reliable sources are substantially in accord. "Premature deaths" is a wondrous example of Newspeak as a minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Firstly, there is no term "premature deaths" in the proposed text, so your criticism is irrelevant. Secindly, the proposed text is supported by the sources that have already been cited in the article, so this criticism is also irrelevant. Thirdly, this "newspeak" is a language used by serious scholars (e.g. Conquest, see R. Conquest "Excess Deaths and Camp Numbers: Some Comments". Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 5 (1991), pp. 949-952)). This source have been already presented by me in a responce on your request ("Starvation by governmental act is just "premature death"? Neat argument. Leaky as heck. Collect (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC) "). I can provide more sources where the same terminology ("excess/premature deaths/mortality") is used, for instance: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s Author(s): Steven Rosefielde Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 On the Human Costs of Collectivization in the Soviet UnionAuthor(s): Massimo Livi-BacciSource: Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 743-766 A Note on Steven Rosefielde's Calculations of Excess Mortality in the USSR, 1929-1949 Author(s): S. G. Wheatcroft Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 277-281. and others. Not only your argument about newspeak is false, it is a direct allusion to Orwell's "1984". Therefore, I find your comment and your parallelisms grossly offensive and interpret it as your refusal to collaborate. (It is impossible to collaborate with the person who accuses you in advocacy of totalitarian ideology). From this moment on I expect you to provide serious evidences of your good faith, because the evidences of your bad faith are obvious, and per WP:AGF I don't have to assume good faith in this situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose all options No option is currently adequate, see Siebert on the Soviet Union, see my repeated past discussion of Courtois' introduction's quality here, Malia's foreword doesn't meet the definition of scholarly research (context in literature by citation). I quite like some of the expression in Option 1, but I've not come across a number of the terms used over redirects before ever in the scholarly literature despite being involved with this article for three years now. No Option 2 exists. Option 1 further includes fundamental miscitations of text. Option 2 contains poor phrasing and expression. The current lede is superior in terms of discussing the actual coverage of the article: unresolved disputes between scholars. Plus TFD's concerns which I've shared since I first saw this as an afd years ago. Therefore: no option is currently adequate. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Re "Option 2 contains poor phrasing and expression." Then fix it. Despite obvious weaknesses, the Option 2 has one major advantage: it explain what different authors see under MKuCR, and only after that it provides qualitative data.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo, you misunderstood that. The option 2 has been just recently added by me. This text is rather crude, so I suggest you to edit it directly (or to discuss with me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC) In order to be neutral the article must first explain the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes - who makes the connection, how they explain it and how accepted their views are. Otherwise the article is merely a collection of evidence to prove a point. We should explain viewpoints rather than advocate them. TFD (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The article already does this in Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Proposed_causes, so I am scratching my head trying to figure out what you are on about. Do you think it would be possible for you to focus on the lede here? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Martin, I think TFD means exactly what I explained below: most studies of the events the article discusses have been done by scholars who deal with each particular country taken separately, or who grouped these events according to some different traits, not according to the leaders' adherence to Communism. Thus, one of the most detailed work devoted to Cambodia performs the analysis of two genocides, in Cambodia and Indonesia, and does it not in a context of Communism. Such works are numerous, and by omitting them we introduce a bias towards a studies that see more connection between ideology and mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Not necessarily. For instance, we can say that a scholar X sees the cause of mass killings in the USSR, China and Cambodia in the totalitarian nature of all three regimes, however, we can add to that that a scholar A sees the roots of violence in the USSR in a combination of such factors as in half-hearted land reform, in brutality of the World War I and in radicalism of new Bolshevic authorities, that an author B traces the roots of the violence in China to the millenial autocratic traditions, that prof C explains the Cambodian genocide by a combination of several factors: desperate situation of Khmer peasantry, long Cambodian traditions of revenge, the tensions between poor Khmer rural population and relatively reach and mostly non-Khmer urban population, the Stalinist ideas KR leaders transformed in an exotic theory of rural Communism, etc. That would not be a syntheis, imo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) We could and should report notable opinions in articles about individual articles. But unless scholars are specifically addressing MKUCR, then it would be synthesis, an attempt to support or discredit the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Why? To write that one scholar sees common causes of deaths in the country X and country Y, but other scholars believe that in country X additional important factors should be taken into account is not synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC) It is, because we are presenting evidence in order to support or rebut the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes, which has not been noted by MCUKR scholars or their critics. TFD (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Not necessarily. We just provide alternative explanations. I see no violation of the policy here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) On review, the current lede as it now stands, is prefectly okay. No change is needed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The lede is almost ok. The figures taken from the BB should be removed. Valentino's estimate for the Big Three (already in the lede) are quite sufficient, because the scale of other killings was negligible as compared to them. In addition, last changes were made with violation of the restrictions, and should be reverted. Alternatively, we can consider the option 2. Do you have anything to say about it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Ther than IDONTLIKEIT, no actual reason for removal of the estimate from a reliable source has been given. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The reasons are simple: serious scholars disagree with that, and the changes have been made in violation of the procedure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC) You make an assertion without providing any substantial sources to back what you assert you know. As a result, your argument's value is nil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I don't see that Courtois' summary is far different from any other numbers, the BB is a compendium which brings different pieces of the story together into a whole, and the BB is widely respected. Paul, your logic is flawed, as: Paul: "A" disagrees with Courtois/BB = BB not reliable = omit BB Peters: "A" disagrees with Courtois/BB = there is a # or there are #'s in BB with which "A" disagrees regardless of who or where those #'s are published—however, because BB is a recognized, respected, and widely cited source, it will always be the deer with the birthmark target on its back in the gun-sights of hunter-scholars who disagree with some set of #'s = we represent scholar "A" as to their contentions of # or #'s appropriately, and BB remains exactly as is, with content narrative reflecting the source precisely and accurately. IMHO, we spend far too much fruitless time and effort disputing Paul's syntheses of "why this doesn't belong." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Pushing the figures which actually represent estimates of excess deaths, not mass killings, to the intro of this article (also violating procedure) sounds much more like synthesis. GreyHood Talk 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I wonder, at Holodomor recently the article was frozen on the last relatively stable, status-quo version. Here we have a similar situation and the article is even on a restriction when it comes to major changes. GreyHood Talk 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Peters, your statement is totally misleading. Starting from the end, you accuse me in synthesis, in other words in combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In connection to that, I do not understand what sources I combined, because the sources I quoted tell clearly: "this figure is not correct, it is a result of manipulations, and the actual number is lower". I combined nothing, so I expect you to apologise. Regarding your position on the BB, yes, this book is highly recognised, but it, especially the introduction (which we discuss), it is highly recognised as a highly controversial and provocative book. The lede cannot use this book without needed reservations. Regarding my position, you misinterpreted it. I didn't propose to "omit BB" completely, my proposal was to omit it from the lede for two reasons: firstly, because it is controversial, and, therefore, if we mention the BB, the controversy must be mentioned also, and, secondly, because this figure simply is not present in the article's body as a commonly accepted figure, so, per WP:LEDE, it should not be there. You also totally ignored one additional point made by me: if you insist on usage of the BB, why do you prefer to take the figures from the most controversial author of this collection, not from much better chapter written by Werth? This my point seems to be totally ignored by you. And one more point on that: the last TLAM edit does not reflect adequately what Courtois says. Courtois never claimed "Communists killed 100 millions", his claim was that rough approximations "approach 100 millions". In contrast, current text says: "estimated death toll numbering between 85 & 100 million." which is not what Courtois says. In summary, I have no problem to add the statement that the number of excess premature deaths (Conquest's, Wheatcroft's Ellman's terms) was estimated to approach 100 million, provided that all needed reservations will be added also per WP:NPOV. I also would like to point the attention of all of you at the fact that the dispute over 100 million is de facto a dispute about China: we see that a lion's share of deaths (65 million out of 92 listed by Courtois) were the deaths in China. If we accept the Werth's opinion (supported by most contemporary sources) that only 15 million were killed or died in the USSR due to Communists, this share becomes even greater. In connection to that, can anybody testify that 65 million is a currently accepted amount of deaths in China? I am asking because I am not too familiar with recent literature about China, but my experience with the USSR suggests that more recent studies tend to reconsider the scale of mass deaths downward in light of fresh documentary evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Your obsession with the BBoC is most peculiar, have you not noticed there are three citations for the high end number? I can add more if you like? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Your obsession with figures is much more peculiar, because any figures are totally misleading here. By contrast to the Holocaust, when, as we currently know, all 5+ million Jews were being killed deliberately and systematically, the mortality in the Communist states was much more complex figures. As Ellman noted, the exact number of the victims of Communism (in the USSR, at least) is mostly a matter of political judgment (i.e. it depends on what some particular author sees under "killings". For instance, we know that more than 2 million prisoners died in Gulag. However, we also know that most of them were ordinary criminals, and a significant part of these deaths falls on the period of 1942-43, when the situation with food was desperate in the USSR for the reasons the Communists bear almost no responsibility for. Should all Gulag deaths be ascribed to Communism or not? Different opinions exist on that account.). Therefore, to give any number without explanations would be equally misleading. Moreover. In a hypothetical situation when a consensus will be achieved on this page that the casualties under Communist regimes were, e.g. 5 million, I will equally object to that, because that would live beyond the scope all studies that ascribe most premature deaths, not only shootings and other executions, to Communism. Any figures in the lede (except Kampuchean genocide) that are not supplemented by proper explanations will be misleading, and I deeply disagree with the idea that the key issue is to find and present some "correct" figures. Am I clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I don't understand your objection. No one is proposing an absolute figure. When the text states "an estimated death toll numbering between XX to YY million", that is stating neutrally what is reported in reliable sources. Nor can we describe every objection to a particular estimate in detail in the lede, that is is the purpose of body of the article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC) That is sad. I thought I was clear enough. Let's try again using the USSR as an example. I believe you we both recognise Ellman as an authoritative source on that account. He writes: "Many writers want to give a single figure for the 'victims of Stalinism' or 'victims of Soviet power' and are surprised to find such confusion in the literature. Apart from inaccurate estimates of particular categories, an important part of the explanation is simply disagreement about which categories of deaths in the Stalin period should be labelled as 'victims of Stalinism'. Most of the excess deaths in the Stalin period were victims of the three Stalin-era famines or of World War II (these two categories overlap since the second Stalin-era famine was during World War II). Whether these last two categories should be considered to be as much 'victims of Stalinism' as repression victims is a matter of judgement and heavily coloured by political opinion." (Michael Ellman. Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172) "It should be noted that the categories 'war victims' and 'repression victims' also overlap since approximately 1 million prisoners died during the war and there were also political arrests and shootings during it. As for the wider category of 'victims of Soviet power', that also includes the victims of the demographic catastrophe of 1918-23.80 Who-if anyone-is to blame for that catastrophe is also a matter of political and historical judgement. In addition, whether or not it is appropriate to reduce the total of those unjustifiably sentenced for political offences on the grounds that some of the sentences were 'justifiable' is also a matter of judgement"(Ellman Op.cit.) In other words, according to Ellman, exact scale of repressions is impossible to establish not only due to the lacunae in statistical data, but also because different author disagree about what should be considered as "repressions". Note also, that under "repression victims" Ellman frequently mean what Valentino describes as "mass killings". In conclusion, since the repression/killings figures are a matter of political judgement, any "range between the figure X and figure Y" mush be supplemented with the "range between the opinion A and opinion B", where A and B denote the opinions on what can be described as mass killings, according to this particular author, and what cannot. All said above has little relation to some specific cases, especially to Kampuchea. In this case, the scale and the reasons of the onset of this short and intense mass killing are well known, and even a legal characteristic of this event had been given, so we can speak about pure genocide ("politicide", according to Midlarsky) of about 2 million of victims. However, in most other cases, any concrete estimate of the number of killed must be supplemented with the description of the historical or political concept based on which such an estimate has been made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC) "Many writers want to give a single figure" - this doesn't relate to anybody here, we have presented a range, not a single figure, of 60-100 million - that is a very wide range. You've been invited multiple times to contribute a believable lower end to this range, but have refused. Assumptions have been noted in the lede and can be discussed further in the body of the text. Smallbones (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I refuse, because I don't want this article to be an amateurish potboiler. To understand that, one should realise where this range comes from. Look at the quote form Ellman again. If we write: "Mass deaths occurred as a result of executions, deportations, war, famine and disease; the estimated death toll varies from (for example) 10 to 30 millions", this will mean that, according to some scholars, the number of peoples who died as a result of "executions, deportations, war, famine and disease" was 10 million, and according to others, this number was 30 million. However, that is WRONG! In actuality, the figures are more or less known, however, some scholars include, e.g., all famine deaths, including the Volga famine or war time famine, into a category "mass killings", and others exclude them, hence a difference. Similarly, you may ascribe deaths of Axis POWs or ordinary criminals to the murderous nature of Communist regimes, or you may exclude them, and the total figure will be different. Do you understand now? In addition, since new archival evidences demonstrate that the scale of mass killings in the USSR did not exceed 15 million, then the lion share of other deaths are the deaths in China, so it is somewhat misleading to ascribe one single figure (or range, if you want) to all "Communists". Moreover, if we look at excess deaths in terms of total mortality, then 2 millions of Kampuchean genocide will be the example of the most horrendous mass murder (1/3 of total population perished), comparable only with the Holocaust. In contrast, if you look at the deaths caused by Gulag, they look not so impressive: I was greatly surprised to learn that Gulag had virtually no demographic consequences for the USSR. I fully realise that every human live is precious, however, to claim that the regime that caused the deaths whose scale was insignificant as compared with normal mortality was "murderous" would be at least superficial. A proverb about lie, big lie and statistics is well known, why do we need to add such "statistics" to the lede without needed reservations? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC) No one disputes that the numbers are approximate (including authors of Black Book), but we can only quote numbers as provided in RS. If you quote source X that tells: "the number is N", this is N per that source. That simple.Biophys (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Wrong. We must be sure that the numbers we quote refer to the same phenomenae. If one source tells that the mass killing victims were those who was executed, or died from starvation or from disease, and the total number was X we must write accordingly. If another source states that the victims of mass killings were only those who were executed, and the number was Y, we also must write accordingly. In a situation when considerable disagreement exists among scholars on what "mass killings" are, to quote just numbers means to mislead a reader and to perform synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC) This RS tells "100 million killed by all Communist regimes", and we quote this source. If another RS tells something different, we also quote another source. Right? Biophys (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) No. A source A tells that "rough approximations of the number of people killed by Communism approach to 100 million"; a source B claims that the source A misinterpreted the figures; a source C claims that it is a normal historical practice to exclude some categories of mass deaths from killing statistics; a source D claims that the number of victims of Communism is a subject of political judgement, and therefore varies widely. And your conclusion is that the number of 100 million should stay in the first sentence without reservations or supplemented with a lower estimate, without explanation what different scholars understand under "mass killings" and where the discrepancy come from? Being familiar with Russian culture, you should know the famous Chaadaev's words: "Socialism will prevail, not because it is right, but because its opponents are wrong". During Chaadaev's times, the word "Communism" was not known in Russia, however, his words can be equally applied to Communism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Where do we go from here By my count there are 2 supports for Option 1 vs. 3 opposes, 2 supports for Option 2 vs. 3 opposes. And there are also 3 "oppose both." Obviously there is no consensus for either Option. It looks like we are stuck with the current version, which was made with the then-consensus, and (at least temporarily) accepted by Paul. Paul had also mentioned that we might go to the Mediation Cabal, and that he would accept their decision. I'd like to know how this would work before signing on. In particular, I would want to insure that we had experienced mediators who have not expressed opinions on this subject (broadly construed) before. Can we do this? I have to say that I am quite disappointed that Paul now seems to have hardened his views considerably. Now he insists (immediately above) that no numbers - not even ranges - can be quoted in the article, no matter what the source. This is a direct contradiction to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. If anybody has any suggestions where we go from here, I'd love to hear them. Smallbones (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC) How about actually doing the RFC? I assumed someone would start it last night. 2.124.35.180 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Three comments. Firstly, the current version does not reflect consensus, because some changes have been made with clear violation of the editing restrictions. If we will not come to consensus in close future, I'll revert the recent changes back. Secondly, when we speak about mediation, the only question we have to answer is if everyone is ready to accept the results of mediation (independently of what these results will be). Thirdly, I started to doubt in my writing abilities. I concede I am not a native English speaker, however, I though I am able to express some primitive concepts by means of my primitive English. Where did I write that I object to providing the figures? The only my objection is that the figures should not be used in the misleading manner, for instance, in the opening sentence of the lede, before the meaning of the term "mass killings", as different scholars see it has been explained. Moreover, since there are different levels of ambiguity for different countries (both in terms of figures and in terms of interpretations), the figures for different states can be presented with different degree of uncertainty. I object to primitive and misleading usage of figures, and the only explanation for the present conflict, as I see it, is that someone, for some reasons, wants the lede to start with the words "Communism killed 100 (or 120, or 80, or 40 to 90) million victims" without providing any details. That is unacceptable, because most school students will limit themselves with reading of just few first sentences, and their impression will be that these 100 million were deliberately executed or starved to deaths by Communists, in the same way as Nazi destroyed Jews. However, I believe I was able to explain that that was no the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Re suggestion. The ideal structure of the lede would be as follows: Mass deaths occurred under several Communist regimes. These deaths included ....., most of them as a result of famine, wars and diseases; Total estimates of all these deaths varies widely; some highest estimates approach to 100 million (as in Courtois or Rummel) Several authors combine some or all categories of mass mortality under the term "mass killings" (or "democide", if we consider only the deaths related to communist regimes not to communists in opposition to the existing regimes). No more figures are needed in the lede. Other figures should be discussed in the article's body, and I'll start to prepare the sources for the section devoted to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Obviously the current version stands until a new consensus is reached. You even suggested that this version be used. When it was put back in it was consensus. If you want to write the version you've started as "the ideal structure" just do it on this page and we can comment, but let's stick with the title of the article at the front: "Mass killings" not "Mass deaths" and a range of numbers is clearly more appropriate. I mean nobody puts the numbers of mass killings below 60 million do they? Who? Smallbones (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Firstly, of course, the current version will stand except few recent changes. In the absence of progress in close future, they will be reverted to the previous stable version. Secondly, as I demonstrated, there is no consensus about what "mass killings" mean, some (few) authors include all mass premature deaths to this category, whereas others do not. Therefore, as I explained before, we can chose between two options: To include all "excess premature deaths", per some authors, and to explain clearly that that is not an approach most single society studies (except Cambodia) follow, or To include only those deaths that are seen by majority of authors as "mass killings", so famines etc go to the "Controversial cases" section (as the opinion of some authors, Valentino, Rummel, Courtois, Rosefielde and some others). Incidentally, the article's structure is currently organised in this way, so the current version (with the figures we are arguing about) simply does not reflect what the article says. Thirdly, re "nobody puts the numbers of mass killings below 60 million do they?" Many, if not most single society studies devoted to the USSR do not describe most events of mass mortality as "mass killings". Therefore, according to them, the scale of mass killings in the USSR did not exceed several millions, and the remaining part of 15 million "excess deaths" were not victims of "mass killings". That is not the case for Cambodia: almost all victims were the genocide victims, and there in no disagreement on that account. If you want, I can look at the sources for China, however, if there were some parallelism with the USSR there (which is likely), then only smaller part of those 30-60 million victims were the victims of "mass killings". If you really interested, I can look at the sources on China, however, I'll do that if you promise to treat my arguments seriously, otherwise I'll not waste my time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Read Fu - the "excess deaths" as you so euphemistically call them were the direct result of gross government acts during a famine - with at least 43 million "excess deaths" in a mere three year period. In addition, the number of "political deaths" is set at 12 million to 25 million (non-famine) (32 to 57 million with famine - the Fu minimum of 43 million in famine is RS as well) (Friedman [1]. Brzezinski per [2] gives for "Communist oppression" 60 million. Yang Su gives a minimum of 1.5 million killed in the 1967-8 "Cultural Revolution" and so on. Figure the most conservative death toll for "excess deaths" or (an even stranger euphemism "premature deaths" would be in the 50 to 75 million range for China under Mao's regime. This is less than the USSR total of between 10 and 20 million. Adding in Kampuchea etc. as another 3 to 5 million - we have a minimum total of 63 million, and a high end of roughly 100 million. Without even touching Rummel who is still RS as well. Cheers. (I somehow think "Premature deaths under Communist regimes" would make Wikipedia an international laughingstock.) Collect (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I see no sense in disputes with you: despite the sources provided by me you persistently maintain that "excess deaths" is my euphemism. If the references to the top quality mainstream reliable appeared to be unable to convince you - what else can? Regarding Fu, I was unable to find the term "mass killing" in the Fu's book.[3] Please, advise me on what page did you find it? Of course, one can argue that Fu uses the word "killed" and confirms the fact that many people were killed in China. However "mass killing" is not "killing of many people", such a conclusion would be your own personal synthesis. For example, Staub defines the term "mass killing" as follows: "In my view, killing large numbers of people without the apparent purpose of eliminating the whole group is best regarded as mass killing. The purpose of mass killing may be to eliminate the leadership of a group, or to intimidate the group, and in general to reestablish dominance. Although the number of people who are killed can be much smaller in mass killing than in genocide, it can also be very large."(Ervin Staub. Genocide and Mass Killing: Origins, Prevention, Healing and Reconciliation. Political Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 367-382) In other words, according to Staub, the difference of mass killing differ from genocide is in the absence of the intent to destroy the whole group, just to intimidate, change the balance, etc. However, although it is generally agreed that both Soviet Great famine and Chinese collectivisation famine were caused mostly by social transformations, there is no evidence that they were designed to kill a significant amount of peasant. Therefore, we cannot speak about mass killing in that sense here, and Harf (American Political Science Review Vol. 97, No. 1 February 2003) does not include Chinese famine into the list of genocides and politicides.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Paul - you never cite sources when you are asked for them. Not even above in the "RfC". Don't waste our time. Smallbones (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Are you serious? I provided more sources than all of you taken together, however, I cannot provide sources in a responce on incorrectly stated questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) For example, I already explained, Barbara Harf, one of two authors, per Wayman and Tago, (another one is Rummel) who collected a data set for geno/politicides in world scale, did not include Chinese famine in the list of geno/politicides (the article tells that "politicide" is a term that has been applied to describe Communist mass killings, so "geno/politicides" is supposed to cover mass killings also. Therefore, if you act in good faith you cannot accuse me in syntheses). However, we cannot write "Barbara Harf estimated the Communist mass killings death toll to be XXX million" for a very simple reason: she never used the concept "Communist mass killing", because this concept is not common in literature. In other words, we have a vast amount of literature devoted to these events, but only few scholars subdivide some of geno/politicide events into a category "Mass killings under Communist regimes". And one more issue. You treat the sources as if the human knowledge does not develop. Yes, Rummel was reliable source for demography 25 years ago, however, many events happened since those times: new data become available (especially for the USSR), and many inflated figures have been re-considered. importantly, the world is not divided onto two camps any more, and most authors are not interested in "their mass killings", preferring to study, China, Cambodia, etc, separately. You should have to know that Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, and the style of Wikipedia should not reproduce Cold War propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I think you are trying to provoke me, calling me a Cold Warrior. When you give up on the insults and abstain from the Wall of Text method of communication then we'll probably be able to edit this article together. Smallbones (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Of course, no. I just remindind you that Cold war left extensive heritage, which can be traced even in some contemporary writings. I agree that we cannot disregard such sources completely, however, we cannot fully rely on them either. One has to have a very developed imagination for interpreting my words in the way you did. By the way, what about the major points of my post? To ignore them, and to focus on some imaginary insults, is somewhat impolite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Horseradish. Smallbones (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC) What?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Paul, filtering sources on that basis of one's perception of what is deemed a "Cold War viewpoint" is in itself imposing a particular POV. What is this "Cold War viewpoint" anyway? That the Commies were bad? Do you really think writing that communist regimes only "killed tens of millions" will make people view these regimes more sympathetically than if we write communist regimes "killed between 85 to 100 million"? Some how I don't think so. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Firstly, noone speaks about "filtering" according some artificial procedure. Things are changing, and now (by contrast to the Cold War times) (i) a wast amount of formerly classified information became available for scholars, which was not available during the Cold War era, and (ii) the world is not divided onto two warring camps, and there is no ideological rivalry any more. That allowed some authors (a) to look at those time events more soberly, and (b) to do that based on new information. Some of them, e.g., Rummel, refused to reconsider his old views, but others, including Conquest, or Werth, a co-author of your lovely BB, do that. Obviously, being a scientist, I am more sympathetic to those researchers who are ready to re-consider their views in light of new facts, and I am suspicious of those who refuse to recognise the obvious. Secondly, if you believe I am trying to advocate Stalin's crimes, you are totally wrong. However, I am talking about real crimes. If majority single society studies demonstrate that the Great famine was (fully or partially) a result of Stalin's collectivisation policy, which lead to poor harvest and the need of forceful confiscations of food, regardless of the danger of starvation, I fully agree with that. However, almost no not-nationalistic scholarly sources claim that it was a deliberately organised genocide, and most scholars believe that the opposite was true: the famine was a result of the policy of Stalin's authorities, but it was not intentional, so it was not mass killing, at least according to one of few definitions. Therefore, it should be mentioned with reservations, what the article (but not the lede) is doing. And, finally, what "filtering" are you talking about? For example, I took the work of Harf, who, according to a reliable mainstream source, is one of two experts having the world wide statistics for all geno/politicide? (Another is Rummel, and I didn't use him because I read a lot of sources critical of him, and none sources who criticised Harf). And what kind of filtering are you accusing me? I would say the opposite: those users who google the web using "Communist mass killings" keywords perform screening, because serious scholars who study what others call "communist mass killings" prefer to use different terminology and to focus on single society studies. You want a proof? Open Valentino's "Final solution", and look through the literature. You will find that Valentino cites the same authors I do, and many of authors use quite different terminology (note, Valentino performed no his own work with primary sources, so all information he obtained from the above mentioned single society studies). As a result, they are beyond the scope of the google search "Communist + mass + killings". And when I am trying to point their attention at this mistake, they accuse me in "filtering"! Unbelievable!--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Yes Paul, Valentino cites the same authors you do. Valentino forms one viewpoint based upon these sources, you form another viewpoint based upon these same sources. However the difference is that Valentino has published his conclusions while you haven't. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Excellent! We eventually come to agreement that I do not screen sources (or, at least, that I am not more biased in the choice of sources than Valentino). That is a big step forward. (I am serious. No irony.) Regarding the rest, your considerations would be absolutely correct, had the sources used by Valentino been primary sources. That is not the case, however, he himself conceded that his estimates have been made based on the available secondary sources. That means that the sources used by him (and by me) can be used in Wikipedia directly, and that that would be in full accordance with our policy. And that also means that the opinions of the authors of these sources have the same, or even greater weight than Valentino's opinion (because his book is a tertiary source for the figures of mass killings, whereas Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources). Therefore, I respectfully and substantiatedly disagree with your second thesis, and I expect you to seriously respond on my arguments, which simply reproduce the opinions of established scholars published in mainstream and reliable books and journal articles. P.S. As I already pointed out, without any irony and sarcasm, I am really satisfied with the recent progress in our discussion. I am glad I was able to explain you my viewpoint (at least partially), and I sincerely believe that we will resolve other misunderstandings sooner or later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'm truly amazed that you see no problem in synthesising a counter argument to Valentino using the same sources he does. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Please, look again at what synthesis mean, per our policy, and explain me which my statement is not explicitly present in at least one of the sources I use? Until you demonstrated that, you have no ground to blame me in violation of our policy. In addition, per G. John Ikenberry (Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2004), pp. 164-165) Valentino's "Final solution" is "astute and provocative study", which implies that it is, at least, not fully mainstream. Therefore, it would be absolutely in accordance with our policy to balance Valentino's views with the opinions of other scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Our next steps

I see, the intensity of the dispute is decreasing, and the authors of the recent edits, made with violation of the edit restrictions, stopped to present new arguments and to respond on my counter-arguments. In this situation, my next steps are the following.

1. If no fresh arguments will be presented in close future, I'll revert the changes made with violation of the edit restrictions. If these changes will be restored, the AE request will be filed against the editor who restored them. We already have an opinion of one experienced admin that confirms that the procedure had been circumvented by the users who made this edit, so the request will likely be successful.
2. In close future, I plan to start a discussion about the addition of new chapter devoted to the scale of mass killings (and of the modification of the "Comparison to other mass killings" chapter, because it refers to some figures).
   Everyone is welcome to participate in preparation of the draft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would note that making threats is not exactly a means of promoting WP:CONSENSUS especially since you would have no consensus for your edits. I realize that you have opined that many of the"premature deaths" were due to people fighting "agrarian reforms" but that is not going to fly as a means of gaining concensus, Paul. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually, a notification that someone has violated editing restrictions and, therefore, may be sanctioned if that will repeat means "notification", and should be treated as such. In addition, one can refer to the policy about consensus only if s/he is genuinely trying to address reasonable concerns of others. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it is you who would be the "guilty party" by insisting on editing against WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Completely disagree with Paul, completely agree with Collect about Paul's threats
  • Correcting a misrepresentation of a source, where the source is so clear and the misrepresentation so gross, is a minor edit akin to correcting an obvious factual error.
  • The last time the edit was put in there was a clear consensus to include it with 5 editors for and (sometimes) Paul against.
  • Paul proposed the following:

"# I revert last changes to this version. Per 1RR, I can do that. As a result of that, my request for self-revert becomes unneeded, and TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Peters can ignore it."

• Paul had his chance to document his views on the general question in the "RfC" and completely failed to include any documentation.

given all this if Paul reverts the changes that have been up there now for several days, he would be violating the editing restrictions, as well as intentionally misrepresenting a source. Smallbones (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only relevant edit restriction in the case if I'll make a revert is a 1RR. Therefore, there will be no violation from my side. If you will accept my revert (will not re-revert it again), everything will be fine, and I will have no formal reason for filing the request. However, if someone will revert it, he thereby will restore the version that has not been properly discussed on the talk page as Sandstein's rule require (see the Ed's notion), and the AE report will be filed. However, I'll request for the sanctions against one person only, about the person, who make the last revert. You can decide by yourself who this person will be (if anyone).

Let me point out, however, that on the top of this thread I proposed a compromise: no exact figures in the lede (in addition to the Valentino's figures that are already there), and detailed discussion of the number of the victims in the new separate section. You seem to be too preoccupied with the desire to see "100 million" in the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is an obvious consensus that the gross misrepresentation of the source should not stand, if PS reverts against consensus then he himself is in violation of the restrictions on this article and will find an enforcement request filed against him. I for one have had enough of his threats. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no signs of such consensus, however, you are free to disagree, and to act accordingly. I explained my future actions and you are free to choose between conflict and collaboration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you guys have gone to the trouble of clarifying the issues and collecting opinions, you should finish what you started. I see the draft of an RfC up above, but it looks like it does not have the formal RfC template yet. So the RfC did not start and is not registered in the RfC system. What is holding that up? EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What concrete RfC you mean, Ed? I initiated a straw poll about the edits mentioned in my AE draft. The second poll was about two possible versions of the lede. Which of these two you mean? If you mean the second one, then I believe we need to start it de novo, because I would like to replace my version with the text that addresses all reasonable sriticism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I'll prepare a draft soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I prepared the RcF draft, so TLAM & Co can start it at any moment by adding the description of the alternative viewpoint and by presenting the alternative draft. Removal of "nowiki|" form the template will give a start to the process.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Paul. Let me repeat it once again: this talk page exists to discuss improvement of the article, not sanctions against other editors. This is especially the case for articles under editing restriction, like that one. Biophys (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Famine of 1932-1933

Paul writes "If majority single society studies demonstrate that the Great famine was (fully or partially) a result of Stalin's collectivisation policy, which lead to poor harvest and the need of forceful confiscations of food, regardless of the danger of starvation, I fully agree with that. However, almost no not-nationalistic scholarly sources claim that it was a deliberately organised genocide, and most scholars believe that the opposite was true: the famine was a result of the policy of Stalin's authorities, but it was not intentional, so it was not mass killing, at least according to one of few definitions. Therefore, it should be mentioned with reservations, what the article (but not the lede) is doing."

Actually the article doesn't do that at all. A sub-section is listed now under controversies, but the only real controversy in the sub-section is whether the killings should be called genocide, or were merely mass killings, or perhaps just ‘negligent genocide’ or "a series of crimes against humanity." Paul's POV that the famine was completely unintentional is almost completely missing in the sub-section, except for a sentence on the Russian government's view. I think that if he has a reliable source that says the famine was unintentional he should include it (briefly, since it appears to be a minority view). Notice, however, I don't mean to say that if he has sources that don't mention intentions, that he should include this as evidence that there were no intentions. Sources that don't mention mass killings or intentions are simply not evidence against intentional mass killings.

I would like to include a quote and brief explanation of it as the 2nd paragraph of the sub-section. This is from a Chapter by Werth in the Black Book of Communism, previously lauded by Paul. The inserted material would be:

Nicholas Werth states that "the forced collectivization of the countryside was in effect a war declared by the Soviet state on a nation of smallholders.... (The famine of 1932-1933 was) a terrible famine deliberately provoked by the authorities to break the resistance of the peasants. The violence used against the peasants allowed the authorities to experiment with methods that would be later used against other social groups."[4] Werth estimates the total death toll of the famine as 6 million, with 4 million of those being Ukrainians.

We should also move the sub-section up to the Soviet Union section, since there doesn't seem to be much real controversy among the reliable sources. Let me know whether you agree or disagree with making this change in the article. Smallbones (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's separates allegorical statements from serious opinions. Werth's estimates are is agreement with the data obtained by other serious authors. Werth's opinion that the famine was "in effect a war", is also partially correct, because at some point, when the famine became especially acute, Stalin, along with some concessions, took extremely severe measures against the peasants. However, the claim that it was "provoked", or "deliberately organised", as some authors argue, is not supported by many serious scholars. On this talk page, I already quoted the opinion of Michael Ellman, who notes that it is a common historical practice to treat famines separately from repressions ("mass killings", according to others), and that, in that sense, the parallelism between the Soviet Great famine, Bengal famine of 1942, and Irish potato famine is obvious. Note, also, that other famines (Volga famine, WWII famine) are also ascribed to the regime by Rummel and similar writers, however, in this case, we have no ground to speak about intentionality at all, and the authorities took measures (of course, insufficient) to provide a help for starving people.

Therefore, since different opinions about the great famine have been expressed by different authors, we cannot include this particular quote without providing the quotes expressing somewhat different opinions. However, Wikipedia is not a Wikiquote.

Re "the only real controversy in the sub-section is whether the killings should be called genocide" Incorrect. The term "genocide" is more or less well defined and widely used. By contrast, the term "mass killings" is vague, and is used by only few authors. I cannot even claim that there is a significant disagreement on what can be considered "mass killings" and what cannot, simply because, as I already explained, the term is not too popular. Rummel uses "democide" (only for the victims of government), Harf uses "politicide" (as a complement to "genocide", because the former deals with social/political group, and the latter with ethnic), and she does not include Chinese famine in this list (this list starts from 1950, so I don't know her opinion on the Soviet famine), etc. Many scholars use "repressions" as a synonym of "mass killings".

In other words, there is no uniformity in usage of the terminology. In this situation, to speak about "mass killings" as about some well established term (like "genocide") is deeply incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing again that a reliable source cannot be included simply because you don't like it. You were asked for a source that says the deaths were unintentional, and you come up with Ellman, who, as far as I can tell would just prefer not to address the question. Finally I have to say that this article is about Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. This title was chosen after long discussion as being the most neutral for the subject at hand. "Killing" differs from mere "Death" because "Killing" is about intention and in a general sense about assigning responsibility. Werth, a reliable source, clearly describes the intention and clearly assigns responsibility by doing so. You say "we have no ground to speak about intentionality at all." If you don't want to edit an article about 'Mass Killing" you may refrain from editing here. Or you might start an RfC about changing the name of the article. However I think the title "People who just happened to die while they were being annoyed by Communist Regimes" would be pretty silly. Smallbones (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "You are arguing again that a reliable source cannot be included simply because you don't like it." No. I argue that, since different opinions exist, all of them should be represented.

Re "you come up with Ellman, who, as far as I can tell would just prefer not to address the question" He did. And he concuded that the evidences that this famine was intentional are insufficient. Please, read the source.

Re "If you don't want to edit an article about 'Mass Killing" you may refrain from editing here." I want to edit the article about what all scholars define as "mass killing" (including "genocide", "politicide", "repressions", "classicide", as well as similar terms, because the term "mass killing" is not widely used). And I agree that the events that are seen as mass killings by only some authors should also be included. However, I insist that that should be done with needed reservetions, and in the separate section. Accordingly, the lede should not give undue weight to some opinions at cost of other. One more quote:

"However, whether these two items of evidence can be interpreted as meeting the specific intent criterion is doubtful. An analogy may make the legal problem clear. Was the policy followed in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first by the British Empire and then the USA, towards the Native Americans, an example of genocide? Many of them were killed by settlers, their land was expropriated, their population declined, and their way of life ended. A specialist in human rights law has argued (Bassiouni 1979), however, that this was not an example of genocide because of the absence of proof of specific intent. If the deaths were largely just a by-product of the spread of disease and agriculture, the deaths would remain a fact but would not constitute genocide. In addition, it is necessary to take account of the measures discovered by Davies and Wheatcroft to help Ukraine, such as the 11% reduction in the grain procurement quota in August 1932, and the further reduction in October, making a total reduction of 28% (Davies & Wheatcroft 2004, pp. 183- 185). Furthermore, the state allocated Ukraine 325,000 tonnes of grain as seed loans and relief in February-July 1933 (mainly February) (Davies & Wheatcroft 2004, Table 22). If the present author were a member of the jury trying this case he would support a verdict of not guilty (or possibly the Scottish verdict of not proven)." (Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693

Note, I even do not use the works of Wheatcroft and Davies, who are reputable scholars working in this area. Ellman's article I quoted is devoted to criticism of the W&D views, so I can safely conclude that Ellman represents a middle of the spectrum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones here. Ellman is only discussing whether the famine could be called a genocide or not. There is consensus among the authors that the famine was not entirely natural, but due to some human agency. Killing someone through negligence or incompetence is still a killing. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that Ellman considers two questions: firstly, if the famine was directed against some certain ethnic group, and, secondly, if it was designed to kill this group. Although the first question is specific for genocide only, the second question is equally relevant to both genocide and mass killings (for instance, in the Staub's definition). Therefore, the Ellman's conclusion is equally relevant for both genocide and mass killing.

Anticipating your accusations in synthesis (because Ellman does not use the term "mass killings") let me point out that ca 80% of sources used in this article do not use this term (which is not commonly used among historians and geno/politicide scholars). Therefore, to avoid double standards, you should remove these sources from the article and change the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Shall we try again?

It's pretty clear that it's still very divided here. I don't really know where to take this, or even how the extra rules applied here should be interpreted. Lede 1, which PS seems to want to put in still, had 2 supports and 7 opposes, Lede 2, by my count, had 5 supports and 7 opposes. Lede 3 - which hasn't been put in a ready-to-go cited format - seems to have lots of support. Could somebody write it up and we could !vote on it (vs. the current lede)? If this doesn't work, we could try again (and again and again). Or somebody else could come up with a better way to move forward. Smallbones (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We are probably not going anywhere because no one has ever provided any evidence that the subject of this article exists in either mainstream academic literature or even in fringe writing. TFD (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

What is the Americanism to describe the results? Is it "duh" or "doh"? TFD (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably "d'oh". BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the article's subject itself seems like questionable synthesis supported by synthesizing together a book on Stalin, a book about Mao, and a small smattering of obscure writings. BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument of TFD and BigK HeX is essentially the same argument put forward FIVE (5) times to delete the article, and definitely is not an argument about what should be in the article. I don't think that deletion has ever had a majority in an AfD, and KEEP has had a definite consensus the last 2 or 3 times. In short that argument has been tried over and over again and found lacking. At this point bringing it up again is simple obstructionism. There are plenty of sources that justify the existence of the article in the article now. I'll suggest that folks who want to delete the article just refrain from editing the article or even commenting on this page. We've just heard it too many times. Spouting the same old nonsense is not a way to move forward. Come up with a way to move forward or just get out of the way. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick around all the same. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's go with lede 3 then. Using, or course, the current refs from the lede I left the article with. Cheers, and glad this drama is over. Collect (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Collect. Ever the optimist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It appears to address all the main issues. 2. This has now dragged on for too long. 3. Rehashing old and interminably repeated "stuff" does not advance the encyclopedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify, please, where the 21 million number for three countries (in version 3) comes from? Biophys (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It comes from sources proffered by Paul - the idea was to get the lede done finally - rather than have anyone feel their sources had no representation in the lede. Alas - it seems that such an attempt at compromise has been rejected per the ultimatum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

The editors of this article have long been divided into two groups, each having a different concept of how the article should be approached. While the whole article needs extensive work, the difference in concept shows up most clearly in the lede: one group does not want to include more than a couple of numbers in the lede, another believes that the scale of the mass killings needs to be clearly explained there. Rather than continue endless pages of argument on this matter, we've decided to ask the general population of editors on Wikipedia to decide which approach is best. Please make brief comments below.

Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Concept 1

"Definition of "mass killings under Communist regimes" is a matter of judgement and heavily coloured by political opinion, so the figures are not separable from the opinions, and should not be provided in the opening sentence. A lion's share of mass deaths under Communists was not a result of repressions or executions, but of famine, disease and similar causes, which are not considered as a mass killings according to the normal historical practice. Most single society studies exclude famine deaths from the mass killings deaths toll, however, most studies devoted to "world Communism" as whole combine all deaths together, hence the astronomic figures of "Communist mass killings" in this type sources. Obviously, that fact should be explained before any figures have been provided, otherwise a reader will be mislead and undue weight will be given to the latter type of sources at cost of the former.

In addition, since the article is primarily devoted not to the deaths toll, its lede, which serves as the article's summary, should provide just a couple of the most general figures. "

Concept 2

"Use of the term "mass killings" requires judgement and we need to rely on the expert judgement published in reliable sources and to document those sources. The scale of the mass killings is very important and summarizes much of what should appear in the body of the article. Reasonable estimates of the scale should be represented in the lede as ranges and in the body of the text in more detail."

Lede 1

"Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under some Communist regimes. Scholarship focuses on the specific causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes have been made, including the role of Communist ideology, the totalitarian nature of Communism, the strategic calculations of a small group of leaders seeking to communize the society. The number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited, and different definitions of mass killings have been proposed. There are scholars who combine deaths as result of executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, with the deaths as a result of war, famine and disease into a single category "mass killings", or "democide." The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion, and sometimes approach to 100 million. The highest death tolls occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million, Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, according to some evidences, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Lede 2

Mass killing of non-combatants has occurred under several Communist regimes in the pursuit of the communist ideal of a utopian society Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. The term "mass killing" refers not only to direct methods of killing, such as executions, bombing, and gassing, but also to the deaths in a population caused by starvation, disease and exposure resulting from the intentional confiscation or destruction of their necessities of life, or similarly caused deaths during forced relocation or forced labor. Thus starvation deaths in the 1932-1933 Holodomor, and in the 1958-1961 Great Chinese Famine, lethal forced labor in North Korea and ethnic cleansing in Asia, have all been described as mass killings.

The highest documented death tolls have occurred in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cambodia. Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin range from 15 million to 40 million. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, mass killings are estimated from 65 to 72 million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.

There have also been mass killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

References

While not all these footnotes need to be in the lede, it is important for reviewers to know that these exist and can be included in the body of the text if they are not already.

Bibliography

• Combs, Dick (2008). Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised. Penn State University Press. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6.
• Courtois, Stéphane (editor) (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. p. 858. ISBN 0-674-07608-7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Translation of Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression, published in 1997 by Éditions Robert Laffont.
• Hosking, Geoffrey A. (1993). The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within. Harvard University Press. p. 570. ISBN 978-0674304437.
• Gellately, Robert (2003). The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 396. ISBN 978-0521527507. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kurtz, Lester R. (1999). Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict. Academic Press. p. 809. ISBN 978-0122270116. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Naimark, Norman M. (2010). Stalin’s Genocides. Princeton University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Rosefielde, Steven (2010). Red Holocaust. Taylor & Francis. p. 358.
• Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books. p. 524. ISBN 9780465002399.
• Staub, Ervin (2010). Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. Oxford University Press. p. 576. ISBN 978-0195382044.
• Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005). Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 317. ISBN 978-0801472732.

Comments on the lede 1

Support

• Support - I think a middle ground between 1 and 2 is best ... sort of what Hipocrite proposes below. But of the two choices above, I'd go with the tone of (1). The (2) choice strike me as a rather strident anti-communist POV, that tries to bludgeon the reader with figures. (1) is phrased more neutrally and encyclopedically. Granted, the accuracy issues (listed below in the Oppose section) have to be dealt with, but I'm !voting based on the tone of the proposals. BTW: If there are two factions of editors, and (1) represents one of the two factions, why is no one else !voting for it? --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why did you remove the middle ground 3rd option[5]? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I put that middle ground in, but then figured it may confuse other editors, so immediately removed it. If you want it in, go ahead and put it in. --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. More neutral, more sensible approach to figures. Also because of this explanation by Paul: User_talk:Paul_Siebert#The_top_margin_is_no_more_than_20_million. GreyHood ^Talk 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not even close to what reliable sources - in fact the mainstream sources - state. Wikipedia should not be used to mislead readers in such a manner. Collect (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. This version is clearly problematic. (1) It misinterprets sources. It tells: "but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease". No, the numbers in Black book and other sources do not include people who were killed at war or died from diseases. (2) It is too wordy and non-informative. It tells: "Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made." So, what exactly causes have been proposed? This should be explained. (3) No need to repeat expression "mass killings" many times. Biophys (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Does not summarize what a good article would look like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Opposing per Biophys and collect. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose per others - but I have to add that, after reading it multiple times, I just don't understand what it actually means. Smallbones (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose per others. And per Smallbones, seems to spend more time on what it's not than what it is. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hipocrite and TFD's reason for opposing on the second proposed lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

In regard to Biophys:

1. I would be grateful is you explained me where Courtois took the figures from. However, since his intro contains no references, we can only guess. Usually, the figure of 20 million deaths in the USSR include population losses during major famines (post Civil war famine, Great famine and post WWII famine). A significant part of deaths during these famines were the deaths from typhus (for sources see, Donald Filtzer, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 6 (Sep., 1999), pp. 1013-1038, Michael Ellman, Cambridge Journal of Economics 2000, 24, 603–630, David C. Engerman The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 383-416 ). I believe the sources I cite are reliable enough.

2. The causes proposed by single society studies are specific for each particular society. Thus, Werth argues that the reasons for the outburst of violence in post-revolutionary Russia was a combination of several factors, which included poorly organised agrarian reforms in Tsarist Russia, which lead to enormous social tensions, and of the overal brutality of the WWI. These factors were exacerbated by the brutality of the Civil war (from both sides). Of course, Communism contributed to that, but it was not the sole factor.
Fu speaks about long traditions of Chinese autocracy, so Maoism was just one more reincarnation of that.
Fein discusses specific problems, real and perceived, Cambodian Communist authorities faced, but she does not discuss the genocide in connection to Communism. All these three studies just the examples of numerous single society studies, I cannot review them all on the article's talk page. I think, you should read them by yourself.

I believe I addressed your criticism, so, I believe, you have no objections against this version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

None of this includes "lives lost due to war". Biophys (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see you agreed about "disease". With regard "wars", the text does not claim the figures include "all lives lost due to all wars". Courtois makes a reservation that "civil wars" are more complex subject, however, it is unclear from his words what part of civil war deaths does he include into the overall death toll. Lives lost during the Vietnam war are also attributed to Communism. Therefore, statement is fully correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, none of the sources currently quoted in introductions (and in particular Black Book) counts deaths due to wars. Neither they discusses statistics of deaths from infectious or other diseases. Biophys (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The BB does count 1.5 million of Afghan deaths, which were a result of counter-guerrilla warfare (btw, Valentino explicitly excludes these deaths from Communist mass killings, see his "Final solution"). With regard to the Courtois' figures for the USSR and China, since the author did not explain the procedure he used for his estimates, and since no references have been provided, we can only guess about the origin of these figures, and about what they include. However, it is known that most high estimates of death toll in the USSR include the Civil war and a part of WWII deaths. In any event, we have at least one direct evidence (Afghanistan) that the deaths as a result of guerrilla war were included in the total death toll.

I believe, I addressed all your objections. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on lede 2

Support

1. with changes removing the bit about "utopian society" etc, and the detailing of causes etc. The lede should be a summary, not an exposition of the entire topic. I would prefer to support something on the order of:

Mass killing, excluding war-related deaths, has occurred under several Communist regimes. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. The term "mass killing" includes deaths from various ideological and governmental causes, acts or decisions. The highest documented death tolls occurred in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cambodia. Collect (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Support obviously, naturally could do with tweaking but overall the better of the two. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Support (as previous participant) Smallbones (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, particularly if some of what Hipocrite proposes below is rolled into the text. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, China would come first in death toll as opposed to the USSR, and per Martin. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Does not summarize what a good article would look like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the proposed text is too focused on numbers, it definitely has problems with elementary arithmetic. Thus, we have

• 60 million to 100 million total deaths
• 15 million to 40 million in the USSR
• 65 million to 72 million in China
• 1.5 million to 2.5 million in Cambodia

However, if we add 65, 15 and 1.5 (lower estimates for the three countries) we get 81.5 million (as opposed to claimed 60 million totals). If we add 72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5 (as opposed to 100 million totals).

That is just one of several issues with the lede, which, in addition to that, does not summarise the article at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things, the number are estimates from scholars. The USSR PRC and Cambodia, "72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5" are not the only communist regimes mentioned who have partaken in mass killings. We can but use the estimates provided by reliable sources after all. The Last Angry Man (talk)

Re "The USSR PRC and Cambodia, "72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5" are not the only communist regimes mentioned who have partaken in mass killings." Correct. However, that means that either the total estimates should be higher, or that the individual total estimates for each country have been made based on the obsolete data, and are exaggerated (the last possibility is more likely).

Re "the number are estimates from scholars." Then the selection of the figures are problematic. It is quite possible that, e.g. 40 millions in teh USSR were the population losses, which is a totally different category. Alternatively, it is highly likely that this figure includes all famines and some war time deaths. The source (Combs) refers to some unnamed "Western sources", and it claims that Stalin "caused the deaths". Since the definition of "mass killings" implies some intentionality, I do not think this claim from this fersion is supported by the cited source. Similarly, the problem with 15 million is even more serious, on the page 203 the source tells not about 15-20 million as the established number of "casualties of terror", but about the upper limit ("it may be that casualties totalled 15-20"). In addition, since these books just use the secondary sources, may be it makes sense to use these secondary sources directly?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the following reasons:

Dubious numbers and counting methodology as explained above.

False supposition that various kinds of excess deaths could be so easily summed up and dubbed equal to mass killings.

Dubious claim of the killings in pursuit of utopia, when in reality the reasons were much less idealistic and much more complex in each case. GreyHood ^Talk 17:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to assert that reliable source figures are "dubious" - perhaps you have sources which are much lower and which also pass WP:RS without falling into the "premature deaths don't count" argument? Did you note my suggested wording which does not use the "utopia" language? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. That is why I provided several reliable sources that clearly tell that those claims are dubious. You persistent attempts to ignore these sources are not an indication of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas - you assert that your sources give numbers - but some of your posts indicated that (for example) "premature deaths" were self-inflicted because of opposition to "agrarian reform." Such claims, as far as I can tell, are exceedingly WP:FRINGE and should not be given any substantial weight. Now can you give any mainstream sources with numbers which can really be used? Or are WP:FRINGE sources the best you can come up with now? If so, then you really should accept that Wikipedia does not say we should use the fringe sources as the primary ones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I never use fringe sources. Formally, all sources I use meet all non-fringe reliable source criteria. In that situation, I don't have to prove the opposite, and I do not have to provide the evidences that my sources are not fringe. However, if you think they are, please, provide needed evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Takes singular opinions and states them as declarative fact far too often and much too strongly. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We need to explain why we are telling this. I could write for example that education levels are lower in U.S. states that start with an "A" (Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska), but would need to explain the connection between the group and the topic. TFD (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hipocrite, Paul Siebert, Greyhood, BigK HeX but most particularly TFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Figures should add up. The exact totals are uncertain, both on the facts, and above all on the definitions; a good lead would say this. One proper phrasing would be tens of millions, which nobody disputes as the right order of magnitude; the disputable estimates belong in the body of the article; and in the Soviet Union (chiefly under Joseph Stalin), Maoist China, Kampuchea, and elsewhere is the right level of generality for a lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

This version does much better work with numbers. But there were also some practical reasons to conduct each specific terror campaign (such as Great Terror), not only ideology: preparation for WWII, establishing personal dictatorship, etc. This must be explained in body of the article and in introduction. Unfortunately, no one can edit this article in present situation. Biophys (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Better in some ways - but overly detailed in listing "every possible cause" instead of saying "various causes, including ideological and governmental causes" which would be sufficient IMO. Ledes should summarize, and leave the detailed cites to the body. Collect (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The key sentences of lead 2 run Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin range from 15 million to 40 million. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, mass killings are estimated from 65 to 72 million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.

Those are assertions about what the range of scholarly estimates is; saying that, on a subject on which estimates are likely to be challenged, requires a source which says that the range of estimate runs from X million to Y million. Individual extimates which Wikipedia editors happen to have found do not verify the assertion being made. In particular, the sentence on China implies that the variance of estimate on Mao's murders

• varies by less than 10%,
• and that The Black Book of Communism offers the lowest figure in all the historiography of China.

Both are preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

General Comments

??? I thought we just had an RFC above[6]. Why are we doing this all over again? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no RfC template was placed on the top of the last RfC, it was just a preliminary discussion between the users who have been already involved in it. Other users were not notified, so formally the last RfC never started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I was notified via RFC-bot. I find both of these lacking. I suggest the following alternative, which does summarize what a good article would look like:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation.

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see some issues with this version. Firstly, it assumes that the lives lost lost due to famine and disease are excluded from the lower estimates (60 millions), although I doubt that is the case: in the USSR and China, the lion's share of deaths was caused by these reasons, so, if they are excluded, the deaths toll would be much lower. Secondly, the article devotes a considerable attention to various explanations of mass deaths; therefore, the lede is supposed to do that. However, your version lives this issue beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you intend to argue with outside views that disagree with what you want. I don't think that's very productive. I presented you a way forward - a middle ground between two embarrassingly biased ledes. If you choose to ignore the outside views, that's on you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've just updated the lede 1 as I promised to Smallbones yesterday. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You really think The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion is going to fly? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only I think, I know, and my knowledge is based on what the reliable sources say. Just read the articles I cited, and answer the following question:

"Do you really think that the authors of these reviews do not blame Courtois in playing with numbers in pursuit of a some concrete goal?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Not only I think, I know", Yup, sums it up in a nutshell. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, "I know" is short for "I know that the assertion I make is supported by reliable non-fringe sources". I believe, I made myself clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This part of the discussion not needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the following could be removed as vandalism - but I'd hate to completely remove what some might see as a comment at or on the RfC. Based on the anon's edit history, there is no need to WP:AGF, so I'll say it looks to me like an intentional provocation, like some of the other provocations in his history. So please, nobody fall (anymore) into his trap. Don't respond to provocations. If anybody, after review of the anon's edit history, really thinks that this really belongs in the RfC, just remove the "hat" at the top and "hab" at the bottom. Smallbones (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC) --- All of these are bad and confusing. This is a simple article intended for the simple reader. I will suggest: Mass killing on the scale of hundreds of millions (possibly thousands of millions, that is, billions) of people occurred in communist and socialist countries. The highest death tolls occured in Russia and Red China. The Reds deliberately killed millions using guns, knives, bayonets, poison gases, artillery shells. The lion's share was caused by inaccessible and inadequate socialized medicine, land reform, and tort reform. These mass killings are known as the Red Holocaust, mirroring the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. 24.146.224.106 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) you forgot to mention the well known habit of "jewish bolshevik cossacks" to drink Christian infants' blood ...-Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC) When in doubt, accuse everyone else of being Anti-Semitic, eh? Paul - you know better! Cheers, and suggest you redact that strange and quite worthless slur on other editors. Collect (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) That is a quote from one novel, and this quote has nothing in common with anti-Semitism. This double oxymoron is supposed to demonstrate how ridiculous the anonym's post is. If my opponents are not familiar with this novel, I am not responsible for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Tell ya what - post it on Slrubenstein's user talk page and ask him whether it is an "anti=semitic" charge. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I have no idea on who Slrubenstein is. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Ha, this is funny indeed.. GreyHood Talk 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Just in case all you haven't understand the double oxymoron: real Cossacks were anti-Bolsheviks and were ethnically Russian/Ukrainian. Hence Bolshevik Cossacks and Jewish Cossacks are nonsense, and no any anti-Semitism here. Cheers! GreyHood Talk 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Other than the fact that Jewish and Bolshevik Cossacks did, in fact, exist, and absolute claims are generally errant <g>. Collect (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Did they? Please, give me a name of at least one Jewish Bolshevik Cossack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Copying post: As to the second claim that all Cossacks were anti-Bolshevik -- that is belied by [7], thus such a group certainly did exist. Ditto the existence of "Jewish cossacks" per [8], [9] etc. It is amazing how often absolute statements turn out to be errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The question was about Jewish Bolshevik Cossacks. The books you refer to are about pre-Civil war Cossacks. I need a name of some Red Cossacks with Jewish ancestry. Can you provide it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I gave sufficient RS sources to show that the absolute claim was errant. You are now using the "let's pretend he didn't answer the question by making a different question" system of debate. I do not follow that sort of line, and I am aghast someone else would try it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Could editors please show respect when discussing the deaths of tens of millions of people. TFD (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead 3

To me, not knowing much about the facts, lede 1 reads like (I exaggerate a bit to get the point across): "Some scholars exaggerate, they are politically motivated, actually the situation was not so bad". Lede 2 reads: "Bad communists!". To me the best lead is the one that has been removed: lede 3. Without POV, without spin, and to the point. But as I said, I'm not expert on the subject. --Dia^ (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation.

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

The only real problem with it is the "most countries didn't" sentence. Ceraucescu may not have been Stalin, but he would have been described as a mass murderer in any other century than the twentieth. Amd if we exclude the USSR, the PRC, three of the East Asian Communisms, part of Eastern Europe, and much of Africa, what's left to be "most"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with the proposed text. Firstly, the statement "Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation." implies that 60 millions were the victims of "mass murders and executions", and remaining 40 millions died as a result of "famine and disease etc." That is not the case. For most countries (except Cambodia, were we can speak about a pure genocide of 1/3 of population), both lower (60) and higher (100) estimates include the deaths from all causes. For instance, if we exclude "avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation" from the USSR mortality figures, i.e. we count only "murders and executions", we get ca 1.2 million deaths for the Great Purge (including the camp executions and similar deaths) plus several millions Civil war death, so the amount of death falling into the first category would be far below ten million. A situation in China was not completely the same, however the overall tendency was similar: most deaths were a result of famines and forced relocations. Theefore, this statement is simply misleading, because all authors that give the figures from 60 to 100 million do include both categories of deaths, although the estimates of famine victims are different from study to study.

A second problem with this text is that it completely ignores the analysis of causes of these killings, as if the article hadn't discussed them at all. However, this article is devoted not to the statistics of deaths, as on might conclude from the proposed Lede 3.

With regard to "most countries", I also am not comfortable reading this. However, that is an almost verbatim quote from Valentino's "Final solutions" (see the ref. provided in my version of the lede). That is exactly what he says, and we have no ground to question his conclusion.

Re Ceaucescu, as Valentino says, we cannot discuss this regime, because the existing data do not allow us to discuss the scale of mass killings in Romania, the very fact of them, as well as the motives of the perpetrators.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the close reading. But those are fixable difficulties: for example, replacing higher by these, or these, in varying degrees, will remove the implication that there is a 40 million "other causes" figure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we will fix all difficulties we will probably get the lede #1 (or something of that kind). However, we can try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the clarification about the first sentence. I was not aware of the issue. Would be possible to change the given estimates (60 -100 millions) with whatever is the lower estimate without famine and so on (the same for the highest if it is contested)? Otherwise what about Septentrionalis' suggestion?

For the "most countries" bit, would be possible to give a percentage to avoid to give a subjective quantification? Or something like "Of the ...(put correct number) communists regimes that existed/exists ... definitely carried out mass killings, ... are debated and ... probably/possibly/surely didn't."?

For the missing sentence about the analysis of the causes I'm not 100% sure that I understand. I would expect that any half decent article on such a subject would include a detailed analysis of the causes.

Maybe is missing a "warning" that because of the political issues involved, complexity of the subject (span over decades, many different countries, many different causes, secretive regimes) is difficult to get an accurate disinterested picture? Maybe a sentence could be added between first and second paragraph?--Dia^ (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the lower estimates, the problem is that whereas the higher estimates are available from the books about the crimes of Communism as whole, lower estimates can be found mostly in the single society studies.

Re percentage, please keep in mind that we deal with very vague terminology: no commonly accepted definition of mass killing exists, and there is no consensus among the scholars on what can be considered as "Communist mass killings" and what cannot. So the percentage you are talking about is a matter of judgement, which depends on the political beliefs of some particular author. How can we seriously speak about any percentage in this situation?

Re analysis of the causes, different authors provide different explanations, including the explanations which are specific for each particualr society, and only few authors see direct linkage to Communism. However, by omitting the discussion of causes we create an impression that the commonality and the direct linkage to Communism is the sole mainstream view.

Re a "warning", that is exactly what I wrote in the first version of the lede. Maybe, the wording is not optimal, however, we can discuss its improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not what sources tell (as was already discussed above). Consider this phrase: "Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation." The higher estimate (100 million "killed") is apparently "Black book". But it does not tell "due to famine and disease". It tells: something like that: "due to intentional starvation of population, man-made hunger" (maybe not an exact quotation, but that is what authors tell). The number also does not include civilians executed during Russian civil war, etc. Biophys (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The sources that attribute all excess deaths in Communist states to Communism speak about "intentional starvation" etc. However, many single society studies use quite different terminology and provide quite different explanations for the actions of the authorities. In other words, the categorisation, and, accordingly, the figures are a matter of judgement, and, as a result, are highly controversial.

I agree that some sources exist that fully support your assertions. However, since many single society studies provide quite different description of the same events, we should either present all opinions fairly and proportionally, or to explain, from the very beginning, that the article reflects the viewpoint of some authors (Courtois, Rummel, Rosefielde, et al), who see a commonality between all these events, and who attribute them primarily to Communism.

Re civil wars, it is not clear from the Coirtois' text if he excluded the Civil war executions into the total death toll or not. He just says that civil wars are more contrioversial cases.

In any event, since no explanations have been provided in the BB on what sources had been used by Courtois, we cannot speak about these figures seriously. It seems to me that you insist on the usage of this introduction simply because you like this source (despite its obviosly poor quality).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the discussion has abated. In a situation when no progress can be expected in close future, I revert last changes that have been made to the lede in violation of the procedure described by Sandstein on the top of this talk page. We can continue the discussion about further improvements of the lede later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And you clearly do not have consensus for any such revert. Cheers, Paul - but that sort of act is precisely what gets admins here on the double. Collect (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the edits I reverted have been made in violation of the Sandstein's procedure, they were supposed to be reverted immediately. The fact that I allowed them to stand for almost a month is a demonstration of my good faith. Please, self-revert, otherwise I'll have to take other steps. You have 48 hours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Unless you demonstrate that you have consensus for the huge revert, it is you who is in the hot seat. As for the threat of YOU HAVE 48 HOURS - that belongs in a B-movie, not on any article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul is right - the edit he reverts was against procedure in the first place. I wonder why it wasn't reverted so long ago. But it was moderately interesting to watch the resulting discussions, though.. And there is no need to use drama language. GreyHood ^Talk 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For him to make a change, he ought to establish a consensus first. That is a core principle of Wikipedia, and the "drama" was injected with his deadline. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So TLAM's edit did not need consensus, and Paul's revert does need. How utterly nice. GreyHood ^Talk 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that the status quo is what we are dealing with - and it requires a consensus to alter it. Cheers. And read WP:CONSENSUS. Nowhere in that does it suggest issuing an ultimatum. Collect (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to change the article. TLAM did not obtain that and therefore Paul Siebert was correct to revert him. TFD (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a POV Trojan Horse. The topic is unencyclopedic because it attempts to add politically-motivated killings, civil war death tolls, disease deaths, famine deaths, war deaths as if those are somehow additive as common phenomenon. And then it adds different countries in different historical settings as if those are somehow logically additive. And then it takes every half-assed POV-driven published statement from the Cold War (Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, et al.) — there IS serious scholarship on execution death, camp death, famine death in the USSR or China or Kampuchea, but you won't find it here — as if that is somehow indicative of objective reality. Cold Warriors have a field day selecting high numbers and adding everything possible for a max score in a great POV-driven mission. Others object and the dog chases its tail. Whatever.... Have fun, POV warriors. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not belittle victims of the Communist Holocaust. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, noone is trying to belittle them. We are talking about correct representation of the facts. What would you say if someone claimed that the number of the Holocaust victims was not 6 million, but 26? Do you think a person who rejects such a claim would be a Holocaust denier? By no means no. Indeed, Nazi were responsible, directly or indirectly, for deaths of more than 50 million people. However, we cannot combine all of them into a category of Nazi mass killings. Secondly, usage of the (not commonly accepted) term "Communist Holocaust" is a trivialisation of the Holocaust.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation would go much better if everyone stuck to the topic. @Paul Siebert, if you wish to add war casualties, then we can add all the Eastern Europeans who the Red Army killed in WWII, after all, they weren't Germans and did not start the hostilities whereas Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did. Please stop going off topic with unrelated and polarizing "What about the Nazis?" contentions, all that does drive discussion further away from a solution. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I took this thesis from one of reviews on the BB, this is a Werth's opinion, which is directly related to the Courtois' figures we discuss. If you are unable to see commonality that does not mean it doesn't exist. Please, do not disrupt a discussion by frivolous requests to stick to the topic. Noone deviates from the topic here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You will forgive the metaphor, but if WP is a cookbook and fish are totalitarian regimes, an article about herring is not about salmon. That a chef specializing in fish dishes has a book which discusses herring and salmon doesn't bring salmon into the article. This article is not about commonality, there is a separate article for that for relevant scholarship if you would like to expand content there. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You metaphor has been accepted and understood. Let me propose another metaphor, however. If WP is a zoology textbook, then some facts, observations and conclusions made in the chapter about salmon can be used in the chapter about herring, because, although these are two different subjects, the approaches to their description are similar. When we discuss Nazi crimes we clearly separate the victims of Nazi mass killings from the deaths indirectly caused by them. However, when we discuss Communists, we, for some unclear reason, combine them together. Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion below has a direct relation to the lede 3: since the very idea to put some numbers into the opening sentence of the lede is methodologically flawed (see below), the lede 3 is also unacceptable. In my opinion, the old lede (before TLAM made his edit) is a least controversial version, although its further improvement is still possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we add the word 'between'?

In the section beginning here we have three sentences that begin with a number. Here's the first:

“ 50,000 to 100,000 people may have been killed in Bulgaria beginning in 1944 as part of agricultural collectivization and political repression. ”

It looks weird to start off a sentence with a number. I propose we add the word 'Between' to the beginning of each of these 3 sentences. This is, IMO, a pretty minor change, but I'm not sure if it truly qualifies as a WP:MINOR edit. Can I get consensus for this change? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as long as you change the internal join to reflect the comparator, "Between 1 and 5" versus "Between 1 to 5" Fifelfoo (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Sorry, I missed that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and Fifelfoo is grammatically correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's been a week and no one has objected. The change is pretty minor so I will go ahead and make the change incorporating the grammatic correction suggested by Fifelfoo and Collect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Two small changes

I would like to make two proposals for small changes of wording, mainly in the interest of NPOV. One of them would be a change in the lead. I know that the current lead needs to be replaced with a better one, but the discussion above is dragging on and we should not abandon all attempts to make small improvements while waiting for eventual consensus. So, having said that, here are my proposals:

1. In the lead, replace the words "between 85 and 100 million" with "in the tens of millions." There is nothing remotely resembling consensus in the academic scholarship about the precise number of victims of individual Communist regimes, or all Communist regimes put together. We can discuss the various estimates elsewhere in the article. Putting specific numbers in the lead will just get us entangled in endless controversy, as can be seen from the discussions above. In some cases the use of specific numbers, or other sentences surrounding those numbers, has been the main reason why editors could not agree with a proposed lead.
2. This is a small point, but we really should replace the phrase "socialist bloodletting" under the Personal responsibility sub-header with something like "killings." The phrase "socialist bloodletting" seems like a pointless POV epithet only intended to score political points. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that Stalin was a communist. In any case, the phrase is not mentioned by the source.

-- Amerul (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1 - We don't require a consensus among sources, rather NPOV requires us to report all widely held views. But actually, I believe that there is something of a consensus of something over 60 million going up to about 100 million deaths. The only sticking point, which tends to get over emphasized here, is how they should be classified. Different folks use different terms. It has been the consensus here that "tens of millions" tends to minimize the number actually killed - it's off by almost an order of magnitude, at least if you read it quickly. There has been a tendency to minimize things here, to say there is no consensus among scholars (with no evidence saying that there isn't), or as above to say that we can never make progress, because the concept of Mass Killings under Communist Regimes doesn't exist anywhere but here. If that's anything like what you want to do, I don't think your proposal will help anything. Smallbones (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I basically just ran across this article a short while ago, noticed that it seems to be in dire need of major editing, and went to the talk page to see what others are doing with it. What I concluded after reading this talk page was that even small edits can't be done without massive controversy and weeks of debate, so I started thinking of ways to make everyone happy. Proposal 1 was my first idea.

The evidence of a lack of consensus among scholars is simply the fact that so many different opinions and estimates have been published. A difference of 40 million people between the highest and lowest estimates is enormous. It means a population equivalent to a medium-sized country may or may not have died. Sources do not need to explicitly say "we disagree with each other" in order for us to note that they do, in fact, disagree with each other.

So, let me change my proposal 1 to address your concerns. How about using the following wording: "in the tens of millions, with the highest estimates reaching close to a hundred million." That eliminates the problem that some people may misread "tens of millions" as "10 million," but it does not commit us to any sharp numerical bounds. What do you think? -- Amerul (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that as a new editor (97 edits?) you should read the prior discussions on this. If a person stole 65 - 100 million dollars, would you think "tens of millions of dollars" was accurate where the sources all point to the 100 million or close thereto? If a serial rapist committed 65 to 100 rapes, would "tens of rapes" be accurate? Wikipedia has an obligation to accurately state what the sources state, not to weasel down to mitigate the claims. And the highest estimates are well over a hundred million, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

People are not dollars and are not so easy to count. Different countries, different periods, different causes of death. Such general figures are meaningless without giving details, and have a huge misleading potential. GreyHood ^Talk 11:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From the sources given, do you feel that the number range of 65 to 100 million is an exaggeration of the figures in the body of the article? The purpose of the lede is to give a summary of what is in the body of the article. Might you give sources giving the much lower figures Paul suggested (IIRC, he opined that "opposition to land reform" was the cause of many deaths). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Amerul. Regarding your first request, I suggest to wait for the AE decision: since the statement "between 85 and 100 million" has been added with clear violation of the procedure, it is very likely that the admins will revert it back to "tens of millions." Regarding "socialist bloodletting", that is definitely non-encyclopaedic language, and no good faith editor can object against the change you propose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is exceedingly unlikely that your position about the numbers will be adopted by any admins at all, Paul. Cheers - no admin will wilfully adopt a clearly non-consensus edit just because of your "knowledge. Collect (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That the edit was made without consensus has been confirmed by EdJohnson here. By the moment the edit had been made no consensus had been reached, and the Sandsten's procedure does not allow post factum approval. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You made that argument and iterated that argument and repeated that argument at AE. Remember? WP:DEADHORSE Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This argument has not been addressed yet. I am still waiting the answer from the admins, therefore it is premature to speak about WP:DEADHORSE here. However, if you think my point is mute, feel free to ask Ed for explanations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Amerul states "The evidence of a lack of consensus among scholars is simply the fact that so many different opinions and estimates have been published." Actually, that's no evidence at all - the way folks of that persuasion commonly argue here.

• If there are different estimates, let's include them in the article with sourcing.
• If there are people who say that the whole concept of combining mass killings by Communist regimes is flawed, then let's cite them in the article.
• But if an editor here simply says "I see a lack of consensus among scholars," I say that you need to come up with sources.

Smallbones (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

By requesting to prove the opposite you act against our policy. A burden of proof that consensus exists on this subject is supposed to be provided by the user who adds the content. In connection to that, do you have an evidence that consensus does exist? No such evidences have been provided so far. In contrast, the evidence that some authors (including Werth, a co-author and a major contributor of the same book) consider the source we discuss (and the figures in particular) disputable have already been provided. Moreover, the opinion of the reputable scholar (Ellman) has been provided, according to whom the figures of the number of victims are (at least in part) the matter of judgement and are politically motivated. In other words, we have the evidences that these figures are disputable, and the alleged lack of alternative figures does not make these figures and this source impeccable.
In addition, to re-iterate the same arguments (which have already been refuted on the talk page) before a new user is hardly appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you repeatedly cite Werth, without including his estimates??? Give us a quote or similar from Ellman - we can include it. But frankly, you never deliver when called for facts. Rather you just say in effect, "I don't think the quotes, sources, citation, facts, etc. that you've provided are good enough to be included." Your opinion on this has been heard over and over. I will not pay attention to any more of your lengthy opinions, "just the facts, ma'am." Smallbones (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Because (i) Werth provided no general estimates (just for the Soviet Russia/USSR; according to him, the total number of victims was less then 15 million), and (ii) because he disagreed with the very Courtois' approach (to play with figures without explaining what they mean with the obvious goal to shock a reader and push some concrete political agenda). The problem is not only in the quality of the sources you use, but in the way these figures are presented: by providing bare figures without any attempt to explain details you totally mislead a reader. Remember "devil hides in details", and the details in this particular case are so important that providing just bare figures is tantamount to direct lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your approach ("if no other estimates exist, the available estimates can be used without reservations") is totally unacceptable. If some data have been criticised, they cannot be used without needed reservations, and they definitely cannot be used in the opening sentence of the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Too many uncompromising opinions, but sadly lacking in facts. You do not provide a quote from Ellman when asked directly - are you just making things up? And Werth and Margolin give an estimate (with proper qualifications of course) of 65 to 93 million. Le Monde, 14 November 1997. You should be ashamed. Smallbones (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked evidence was uncountable. Colchicum (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidences of what? If we speak about, e.g., Cambodian genocide, which lead to up to 3 million deaths, or the Great Purge with 1.2 million casualties, no good faith person can claim the evidences are insufficient. All of that are well documented and well established facts. However, if we speak about, e.g. Holodomor, the situation becomes more complicated: you probably know that MedCab is currently discussing the question if this famine was deliberate and can it be considered as mass killings. As some existing evidences suggest, it was not more a mass killing than, e.g., the Bengal famine of 1943. And that is a direct and clear distinction between Nazis and Communist mass killings: whereas a definition of the Holocaust is quite clear and indisputable, it is absolutely no consensus about what mass deaths under Communists should be considered as Communist mass killings and what are not. Some authors (e.g. Courtois) argue that all (or almost all) excess deaths under Communists were Communist mass killings ("Red Holocaust" according to Rosefielde), and the scale of this Red Holocaust dwarfed the crimes of Nazism (100 million vs 6 million). Other authors argue that that approach is totally misleading and immoral, and it is impossible to accuse Communists genocide via starvation if other famines (e.g., Bengal or Irish potato famine) are not considered as mass killings. In addition, these authors point at the obvious fact that if the same approach to calculate the scale of mass killings will be applied to Nazi, they should be accused in deaths of 50 more million peoples as a result of the WWII (which was unleashed by Hitler). Who should be accused in e.g. mass deaths of Gulag prisoners during 1942-43 (caused primarily by desperate shortage of food in the USSR as whole) or in the post-war Soviet famine (a direct result of the war)? And so on. In other words, whereas some mass killing events allow no double interpretation and should be ascribed directly to the regimes, an overwhelming majority of mass deaths fall into a grey zone, so the scale of Communist mass killing depend strongly on what one or another scholar see under that. I have an impression that the authors writing about Communism in general tend to combine all excess deaths under Communists into a category of "mass killings", "Red Holocaust", "Communist democide" etc. By contrast, many single society studies are much more cautious, and by making a focus on the sources that come out with some general figures we introduce a bias to the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The English word evidence. Of whatever. And here we go again... Amazing. Colchicum (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is too general to be addressed. Care to specify?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, this is getting ridiculous, you make me feel like a satisfied troll. The English word evidence is not countable. Colchicum (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Smallbones...

• "If there are different estimates, let's include them in the article with sourcing."
• "If there are people who say that the whole concept of combining mass killings by Communist regimes is flawed, then let's cite them in the article."

@Paul, stop arguing over what should or should not go into the article based on your own contentions, e.g., 1942-1943 in the Gulag doesn't count. It may be true there is a tendency for authors writing about Communism to combine so-called excess deaths into mass killings, and if so, there's probably a good reason, and a much better one than it's all just a remnant of the Cold War character smear seeking to defame Communism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As for Hitler's "unleashing," let's not forget Hitler's buddy Stalin. Partition of Poland with the USSR getting the majority? Premature congratulatory telegram to Adolf on the fall of Warsaw? A bit of a skirmish when German and Soviet forces didn't quite stop at the agreed upon line in one spot? Don't even get me started on the Soviets recycling Nazi concentration camps for Eastern Europeans after the war. Try not to digress, we're not discussing Hitler here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Hitler and Stalin were close buddies and had a pact to kill as many people as possible. I've already proposed that this article be renamed Mass killings under socialist regimes to include both Hitler and Stalin (as well as other socialists of various classifications: Ne Win, Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi and others). I'm already working on that article, which will make this a subarticle of the main one. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: User:Greyhood's "Such general figures are meaningless without giving details, and have a huge misleading potential."

I think this point deserves further emphasis. Seems to do the opposite of WP:SURPRISE BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Peters. I fully agree with the following:

• "If there are different estimates, let's include them in the article with sourcing."
• "If there are people who say that the whole concept of combining mass killings by Communist regimes is flawed, then let's cite them in the article."

What I cannot understand, however, and what I disagree with is your guys vehement attempts to push a single (and a very disputable) source to the opening statement of the lede. Yes, different estimates exist, and most of them deserve mention in the article, yes, different authors support or criticise the concept as whole. However, what relation does it have to the first lede's sentence? If different opinions and figures exist, why only a single (and not the most reliable) source is represented in the first sentence of the lede?
And one more point. Could you please stop using the word "contentions" to describe the statements I make. I believe I have already demonstrated for many times that all assertions I make are based on what reliable sources say. Your wording is insulting and uncivil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair characterisation. Right from the beginning we have always wanted a sourced upper and lower number of estimated deaths in the lede, it is you who has wanted to synthesize it to "tens of millions". Does this means that you are dropping "tens of millions" and agree to having two numbers for the upper and lower estimates? --Nug (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this requires more detailed answer

The last Smallbones' post deserves more detailed answer. Before answering, let me explain that the below text is based mostly on what I learned reading reliable sources, therefore, any attempt to present it as my "personal contentions" will be treated as incivility. I do not, however, provide citations, because all of that is supposed just to demonstrate my point, and is not supposed to be added to the main article directly.
Re "Why do you repeatedly cite Werth, without including his estimates???" Because he does not provide them. One review on the BB specifically notes that Werth, by contrast to Courtois, who wants to shock a reader with figures, pays little attention to the overall numbers, preferring to focus on the essence of the events, because the history of these events, and cannot be reduced just to the numbers of victims. That is why the opinion of this serious author and the major contributor of the BB should have much more weight on WP pages.
Let me explain that using the following examples. Everyone knows the proverb about lie, big lie and statistics. Let me demonstrate how can it work here.

1. "More than 10 million died in the USSR as a result of Communist policy." Although that is factually correct, this statement is misleading, because it presents Communists as a murderous regime that lead to population losses due to malnutrition (which otherwise would not take place).
2. "The life expectancy and living standards of Soviet peasantry were steadily growing under Communists, and this process was interrupted only by three major famines and the WWII". You will be surprised, but this statement is also totally factually correct. However, that is also a lie, because it creates an impression that Communist authorities should be credited for that. In actuality, however, only the next statement can be considered as more or less correct:
3. "During the last century, starting from 1890s, the living standards and life expectancy of Russian population were demonstrating a fast and steady growth, and this process was interrupted by several short period of famines (both under Tsarist regime and under Communists) and two wars. Communist regime had no appreciable effect on that." Again, that is the most correct and neutral representation of the events, and any attempts to tell a story of famines under Communists will be totally misleading if they are taken out of this context.
   In connection to that, I suggest to leave the overall numbers for such crap sources as the Guinness book, and to focus on the correct representation of the essence of the events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are using the words lie and crap pretty freely. You refuse to provide facts when asked for them. You totally ignore the fact that Werth estimates that 65 to 93 million were killed by Communist regimes in Le Monde, 14 November 1997. You owe all of us an apology. Smallbones (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read this article? Can you provide a quote?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I found it. Here it is:

"la centralité du crime de masse dans les pratiques répressives des communismes au pouvoir ; l'assimilation entre doctrine communiste et mise en application de celle-ci, ce qui fait remonter le crime jusqu'au cœur même de l'idéologie communiste ; l'affirmation qui en découle de la grande similitude du nazisme et du communisme, tous deux intrinsèquement criminels dans leur fondement même ; un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif, non clarifié (85 millions ? 95 ? 100 ?), non justifié, et contredisant formellement les résultats des coauteurs sur l'URSS, l'Asie et l'Europe de l'Est (de leurs études, on peut tirer une « fourchette » globale allant de 65 à 93 millions ; la moyenne 79 millions n'a de valeur que purement indicative)."

Sorry me for my French, but "un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif" means "a quantification of the victims of communist abuse". If I am not wrong, they do not speak about "killings" only: even former (survived) Gulag prisoners are considered as "des victimes du communisme abusif". In connection to that, are you sure that is me who have to apologize?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say whether or not he supports the figures. Is this topic so obscure that the only sources we can find have not been translated into English? TFD (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones seems to have used either the WP article about the BB, or one of numerous WP mirrors. A common mistake of newcomers. It is strange that such an experienced user committed so stupid mistake.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul's translation is clearly overly-literal. Werth is directly comparing his numbers to Courtois's, which are on mass killings or genocide, so translating "abusif" here as "abuse" is misleading. There should be no question about Werth's views about the intention of Communists in these killings in the USSR. Regarding just the famine of 1932-33, he states that

"the forced collectivization of the countryside was in effect a war declared by the Soviet state on a nation of smallholders.... (The famine of 1932-1933 was) a terrible famine deliberately provoked by the authorities to break the resistance of the peasants. The violence used against the peasants allowed the authorities to experiment with methods that would be later used against other social groups."[10]

Werth estimates the total death toll of the famine as 6 million.

That is not the usual meaning of "abuse" in English. Abuse in English, is more like using the words on this page "tantamount to direct lie," "stupid," "lie" (several times), "crap," and "Your wording is insulting and uncivil," directed toward me and other editors - that is "abusive" and should not be tolerated.

How can Paul use Werth as the centerpiece in his argument that we can't put numbers on the death toll?

Smallbones (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does he speak about "mass killings"? How do you translate "victimes du communisme abusif"? English literature on Stalin repressions available for me uses the word "victims" to describe not only killings, but also what the authors call as "excess mortality". Camp survivors are also called "victims". Moewover, an author quoted below explicitly says that "'victims of Stalinism' or 'victims of Soviet power' are poorly defined and controversial categories". Do you have an evidence that under "victimes" Werth meant the "victims of mass killings"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More on that

I fully understand a desire of some users to come out with some concrete figures of those who died under Communists. The motif is obvious: a reader, who will not probably read the article as whole, after seing the first sentence will say: "Look, Hitler killed just 6 million Jews, and Communist killed 100 million people. Definitely, Communism is much more deadly than Nazism." That is exactly what Courotris wanted to say, and that is exactly he was criticized for by many authors, including his own co-authors, Werth and Margolin:

"What Werth and some of his colleagues object to is "the manipulation of the figures of the numbers of people killed" (Courtois talks of almost 100 million, including 65 million in China);" the use of shock

formulas, the juxtaposition of histories aimed at asserting the comparability and, next, the identities of fascism, and Nazism, and communism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint." (Stanley Hoffmann. Source: Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 166-169)

In other words, not only the authors like Werth and Hoffman criticize the Courtois' figures, they criticize the very approach (an attempt to describe such a complex event with just one figure, or range of figures). And I see that Smallbones et al are trying to push exactly the same approach here. However, since this approach has explicitly been criticized, it cannot be implemented in the first sentence of the lede.

Recently, I have been surprised to learn that, despite its large scale, Gulag had no appreciable demographic consequences for the USSR. At the first glance, that sounds cynically, because every life is precious, and we are not supposed to speak in these terms. However, can you tell me, in which country more people are being killed in car accidents, in USA or in France? Of course, in the US. However, does this fact per se is an indication that cars in America much more deadly? Obviously, whereas the overall number of car accident victims was higher in the US, that is mostly due to the larger size of American population, so the probability to be killed in car accident is not much higher in the US than in France. Similarly, whereas a probability of a Jew to be killed under Nazi was >90%, the probability of ordinary Belorussian to be killed under Nazi occupation, and the probability of ordinary Khmer to be killed during KR genocide, were ca 40%, the probability of an ordinary Soviet citizen to be killed during the Great Purge was 1%. A difference was quite obvious, however, bare numbers conceal it quite effectively, which helps some authors (Courtois, Rosefielde et al) to use them for pushing their agenda (that is not my conclusion, almost every review on the BB states that).
Similarly, although noone can negate an obvious fact that totalitarian Communist regime in China killed tens of million people, the scale of those killing is partially explained simply by large size of this country.
It has already been demonstrated for many times that some parallelism between Nazi mass killings (the Holocaust, execution of the population of occupied territories, etc) and similar events in the Soviet Union can be drawn. However, the scale of these killings in the USSR did not exceed 1 million (Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353) All other deaths fall into quite different categories and cannot be combined together. An example of a sober and reasonable approach to description of these events is presented in the article of another serious scholar (Ellman):

"Since 'victims of Stalinism' or 'victims of Soviet power' are poorly defined and controversial categories, differing estimates would be inevitable even if we had perfect statistics. Since the currently available statistics are imperfect, the wide range of estimates for these categories is unavoidable. In this situation the best that academic analysis can do is to try to generate the most accurate data possible on the various sub-totals and explain the nature of the different categories and the differing ways in which they can be evaluated." (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)

Although the latter work is a single society study, I suggest to follow this methodology in the lede: to pay much more attention to the explanation of different categories of mass deaths in different countries, and of different ways that have been used to evaluate these numbers. An attempt to come out with some exact number (or range) is totally misleading, and now, when I have explained that (with sources), every attempt to push this idea without providing serious counter-arguments against the approach I propose is tantamount to deliberate attempt to mislead a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Paul has indeed perfectly explained and supported by sources, that using total absolute figures without providing a scale background of the respective countries and without giving detailed explanations of sub-totals, is manipulation on the readers. The figures like 100 million might belong to the article, however certainly not to the lead, but to some other section where they should be placed alongside the all due criticism of such an approach. GreyHood ^Talk 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As was already noted, this approach totally fails WP:SURPRISE, with the 100 mln figure (estimate, not fact) astonishing the readers and being given before any key concepts of what constitutes mass killings under Communist regimes are presented in the article. We should be writing encyclopedia, not propaganda aimed to catch the readers with the very first phrase and sacrificing accuracy for that.

Given that the figures used are not facts but estimates, not universally accepted (not supported even by the co-authors of the scholar who produced them), and the very approach being criticized, placing those figures in the lead fails WP:NPOV. GreyHood ^Talk 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul should not want to hang his hat on anything that Ellman writes. Ellman cites many statistics and death tolls, and of course we can include those, with explanations. But Ellman is not somebody whose work can be cited as requiring a ban on death tolls here. And it should be useful to note that in regard to the 1932-33 famine in the USSR that he states that "the debate is between those who consider Stalin guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter, and those who consider him guilty of (mass) murder." [Ellman's (mass)]. If Ellman quantifies mass-killings like this, and Werth quantifies mass-killings (as above), and these are Paul's only two examples, we cannot conclude that quantification of mass killings should be disallowed here. You won't convince anybody with these examples. End of story. Let's procede with suggested new ledes. Smallbones (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"A ban of death toll" and "a ban of death toll without necessary reservations in the first sentence of the lede" are two quite different things. In addition, I quoted another source that specifically objects against this approach. With regard to "only two examples", firstly, not the number of sources matters, but their quality, and, secondly, I provided more sources during the past discussion. Feel free to look at the talk page archives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Regarding the suggested new ledes, none of them have been supported, so the existing one is a clear winner (of course, I do not mean the last illegitimately added changed).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Smallbones, Paul's quotes directly address the discussed question in full essense, while your constant appeals to subtopics such as 1932-33 hunger are not entirely relevant and do not disprove the main point. If Ellman or Werth consider the actions of Soviet authorities intentional or criminal, that does not mean we should ignore or judge in some special non-literal way their point of view on total figures, since it is a different question. GreyHood ^Talk 15:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ok, I was clearly wrong to believe that I could help reconcile the two sides and reach consensus. Never mind, then. I am now inclined to believe that this article can never achieve NPOV. But I will go ahead and implement my second proposal, since that seems to be unopposed. -- Amerul (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A hopefully less controversial change

I have decided that, at least for now, I will stay out of the debate about whether to include exact numbers in the lead. When I made my first proposal above, I did not realize how controversial it would be. I thought it was a good way to satisfy all sides. I was wrong.
But I do not want to completely give up the idea of making small improvements to the lead. So here is a different proposal, which is hopefully uncontroversial. As it currently stands, the lead includes the following sentence:

Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps.

This sentence gives the false impression that the "100 million" estimates include victims of war, famine and so on, while the "85 million" estimates do not. That is not the case. All estimates include famine victims. Even the lower estimates include at least the victims of the Great Chinese Famine during the Great Leap Forward. In fact, this one event seems to be responsible for 40-50% of all deaths attributed to Communist regimes, depending on the source.
As such, I propose replacing the words "Some higher estimates of mass killings" with "These estimates". -- Amerul (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the estimates do not include war deaths due to combat etc. I suggest you read the sources given and the prior discussions inthe archives here. And your casual use of "famine" seems to indicate that you feel premature deaths due to removal of food from a region is simple "famine" which no source agrees with. Cheers, but we are required to use what tthe sources say and not what any editor avers he knows. Collect (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I second Collect on process. You need to read the sources, and use what the sources say and not what any editor avers he knows. (Editors of long standing know that, at least on this article, Collect and I have been on opposing sides regarding content; but we agree on process). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check on my posts across Wikipedia, you will find our opinions are close in a number of WP pages when it comes to process - really. The problem here has always been editors asserting that what they "know" is right, and all else is "fringe." I rather think Franklin's advice about us being willing to doubt our own infallibility is sound. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The civil war deaths were not only a result of deaths due to combat. Thus, majority of deaths in Afghanistan were the civilian deaths as a result of counter-gueriila warfare which are not included into the Communist mass killing chapter by Valentino. Similarly, the deaths during Vietnam war are ascribed to Communists exclusively by the BB, an approach that has been criticised by other authors. Courtois does not specify if he included the Russian Civil war victims in Communist deaths toll, however, he definitely includes "the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920". However, taking into account that overwhelming majority of male Cossack population were directly involved in Civil war (on the Whites' side), the "extermination" was definitely a part of Civil war hostilities. Courtois includes the Volga famine and all other famines as Communist mass killing, although only Great Soviet famine is being described (by some authors) as the result of Communist policy. However, as Ellman noted, it is a "normal historical practice" to treat famine deaths separately, and not to combine them with other victims of regime in a single category. In any event, if we follow the Fifelfoo's advice and read the sources, we understand that Amerul's point is totally valid: for the USSR, for example, the number of victims excluding famine, labour camp and deportation victims was no more than 2 million. A huge numbers come mostly from the second category deaths, and that should be clearly explained. (Of course, the Cambodian case is totally different).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to get into the hermeneutics of the wikipedia editorial process amongst high quality editors who read the same, or similar sources, closely—over a beer. I'm not going to over Talk:MKUCR again. The last number of times I engaged here, I ended up reading texts of low to FRINGE quality; where the authors steadfastly refused to actually state their theses… the reading process itself was frustrating beyond belief. Then of course the greater disappointment that my readings confront your own, and that there is the deep shock, and eventually while trying to discuss inevitable hurt, that another editor who shares my commitment to process can have a divergent close reading. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand. Is this your post addressed to me or to Collect? Do you mean your and my reading?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Posts at the same depth of indentation are (generally) both replies to a preceding post with less depth of indentation. I was replying to Collect. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor Suggestion for lede (unrelated to discussions going on elsewhere)

I can't help but notice that the lead seems to switch back and forth between two different topics:

1. Death toll estimates
2. Causes

Currently, the first sentence is about #1. The second is about #2. Third sentence switches back to #1. Fourth sentence switches back to #2 and then back to #1. Add. Rinse. Repeat.

I attempted to re-arrange the lede so that all the content about the estimates is in one spot and all the content about the causes is another spot. I know that this is a contentious article, so let me emphasize the following:

• I did not add any new content.
• I did not remove any existing content.
• I simply re-arranged the sentences.

The only exception to the above is that I combined (what used to be) the final two sentences and inserted a single word 'but' as a transition. I did this only because I thought the prose flowed better that way. If this is a sticking point, I'm fine with keeping them separate sentences.

Here's my suggested text:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge but there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars.
It's not 100% perfect. By the end of the lede, it switches back to the death toll estimates, but my goal was not to modify any of the sentences, just simply re-arrange them. But at least there's not the constant back and forth.
I'm just throwing out a trial balloon here and see what others think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you correctly summarised the subject. As it has already been explained during the previous discussion, the two first sentences, combined together, are totally misleading. They create an absolutely false impression that 85 million were the victims of "mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms", and the figure of 100 million is obtained by addition of " lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps." That is simply not the case. Both higher and lower estimates belong to the authors who believe that the category "Communist mass killing" includes all deaths described in the second sentence, the difference come from the discrepancy in the methodologies for calculation of these figures. In actuality, if we take the USSR as an example, the second category (" lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps") is a lion's share of deaths under Communists. The same is true for China. Only in Kampuchea can we speak about something similar to what happened in Nazi occupied Europe.

The key issue is that the very term "mass killing under Communist regimes" is poorly defined, and different authors see it absolutely differently. Therefore, to provide any figures before the very definition of the event has been discussed is totally unencyclopaedic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. However, in general this version looks good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How about replacing the contentious sentence with something like The estimates of mass killings variously include mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, and lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps? Also note that the expression these three regimes cannot precede the sentence which identifies the regimes, please fix this. Colchicum (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that not all sources would be summarised by such a sentence. Many, if not majority of single society studies do not consider "lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps" as the victims of mass killings. In actuality, the sources can be separated onto two major categories: the first category sources see Communism as a primary (if not the sole) cause of all premature deaths in the Communist countries. They combine death statistics for all Communist countries together, and come out with shocking general figure of 60, 80 or even 100 million victims of Communist mass killings ("Red Holocaust", "Democide" etc). Other sources, primarily single society studies, analyse the issue separately for each country and outline several different categories of excess premature deaths, and several different causes of those deaths. In the USSR/Russia they were the hate of land owners by peasantry, brutality of the WWI, etc. In Cambodia they were the tensions between urban and rural population (whose misery was desperate), Khmer nationalism and revenge traditions, etc. Of course, different versions of Communist ideology played rather important role, however, many authors warn against oversimplifications. Accordingly, different authors have different opinions on who should be considered as a victim of repressions/killings, and who should not. Therefore, by presenting the figures in the first sentence, in combination with the sentence you propose we make a redundant stress on the first type sources, and totally ignore serious single society studies, which is unacceptable per our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled. This might be a language barrier, but I am not a native speaker of English either. Still, don't you know what variously include means? It does summarize all the sources coorectly. Colchicum (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. Your "variously include" refers to "85 to 100 million", therefore, it summarises only those sources that consider, e.g. famine victims, including the Volga famine, as the victims of mass killings. However, since most single society studies simply do not use the category "mass killings", this wording would be totally unsatisfactory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not very good. Looks like you just want to rearrange stuff, but there are existing problems. Starting an encyclopeida article off with such a dubious number is ridiculous. The only range worth mentioning is actual political executions. Opening an article by counting 30 million people who starved to death during a famine as a "mass killing" when only a handful of writings do so is such a deep violation of NPOV, that the work on this article has gotten to be just comical. BigK HeX (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes"? You need to explain who the agent was, who has made this observation and why. Avoid the passive voice. TFD (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Ledes are supposed to summarize the body - and they need not be separately sourced specific claims. With the content unquestionably in the body of the article, and sourced, the statement is a proper summary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ASTONISH the lead should not start with attempts to astonish the reader (such as the given total victim numbers), and the text should flow in such a way so as to explain all the necessary terms and background information first, such as what is Communist regime, what is mass killing, and what types of mass killings occurred under which communist regimes, how the figures were counted and by whom. GreyHood ^Talk 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The essay you cite is not WP policy - and is debated currently as to what "least astonishment" actually means - it is used with regard to such things as pictures of Muhammed and naked pictures of women, and has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the issue here, and has nothing to do with trying not to "astonish" people with the accurate summary of what the article contains. Cheers - but this essay has zero applicability here. Collect (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Using nice round figures like 100 mln is exactly the thing intended to astonish the readers, to make the reader affected by it, to make the reader remember it. As for the accurate summary of what the article contains - well, the article contains different claims of different instances of mass killings under communist regimes. Nowhere except for the intro the article discusses figures of 85 or 100 million, thus the intro is not a correct summary of the main body. The total figures by Courtois are brought to the intro as additional information, and referenced there, while in fact intro may exist totally without references if everything is referenced in the body of the article. Except for the intro (and the note linked from the intro) the article nowhere discusses how the figures of 85 or 100 million were got, how this very approach of using totals was criticized and how different estimates exist. All this is relevant information, lacking in the body of the article, while the figures in the first line of the intro are forcedly brought there without being founded on the article body. Before inserting any totals to the lead, we need some section in the article devoted to the question of total figures. But given the level of criticism, which was presented by Paul and which is to be added into such a section, the summary of this section in the lead would be quite different from the present line. GreyHood ^Talk 15:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1. The essay does not say what you think it says. 2. Essays are not policy. 3. The figures are supported in the body. 4. Ledes are supposed to summarize what the body says - and are not required to be separately sourced if the body is sourced. 5. "Focedly" placed in the lede is absurd ab initio. Cheers, but iteration of something which is not relevant does not someday make it relevant. Collect (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Explain please, not just assert. 2. This essay is a supplement to the manual of style, and while not as seriously as guidelines, it is still to be taken into account. 3. Where exactly the figures are supported or discussed in the body? 4. I've written exactly the same thing as you: the intro may exist totally without references if everything is referenced in the body 5. Given the fact (confirmed by admins) that the edit bringing the numbers breached the existing procedure, and the fact that the figures are not discussed in the body but added to the intro without summarizing any part of the article, forcedly is quite an applicable description. GreyHood ^Talk 15:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1. [11] is part of one of the current discussions about the WMF usage of the phrase. 2. Essays are essays and are not policy nor guidelines. Thay fall far short of a strong argument for anythingmuch. 3. If you can not look at the individual figures in the body and see the ranges therein, then the idea of a summary is a problem. Summaries can, by their nature, do simple sums. 4. Since the individual figures are referenced, the summing up in the summary does not need a separate reference. 5. The current lede was stable for a long period - and similar wording had also been stable. The idea that "a bad guy wrote this, therefore we should have a non-consensus lede to teach everyone a lesson" is not found in any Wikipedia policy at all, and is inane as an argument. Cheers - and try to find something not made of straw. Collect (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I've responded in that discussion, but I'll stop discussing it here per Paul's request below. 2. Essays allowed to stay in the public space and getting much attention and discussions are not to be completely disregarded. 3. Different sources and different authors understand differently what constitutes 'victims of mass killing under communism'. Simply adding up various numbers found in the article would be OR, manipulation with statistics, and totally unscientific approach. 4. No. Figures from different sources must not be summed up. 5. The version before that edit also was stable, and from the recent discussion with admins it is clear that TLAMs edit should have been reverted if reported right at that moment with a proper understanding of procedure. GreyHood ^Talk 17:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@ GreyHood. Please, do not draw a discussion in a wrong direction. The essay you refer to is much less important argument than the NPOV policy. Since most single society studies do not include the victims of famines, deportation deaths and (partially) camp mortality, and, taking into account that these categories constituted the lion's share of deaths under Communist regimes, we cannot start the lede with number simply per our policy. In addition, since the very term "Victims of Communist repressions/mass killings" is very controversial, and there is no agreement among scholars on what concretely should be included into it (at least, for the USSR), no figures should be provided before needed explanations are given.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Re " The current lede was stable for a long period - and similar wording had also been stable. " Yes. Except the figures that had been added with violation of the procedure (and against consensus).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• @BigK HeX: Yes, you are correct. I'm not trying to fix any issues with the lede beyond organization. To the best of my knowledge, there have been content disputes with this article for at least a year now, and I have no interest in getting involved with that. I once tried to resolve in a content dispute in a hotly contested topic-space and I got topic-banned for my efforts. I'm only interested in very small changes that hopefully everyone can agree with. Anything bigger than that, I don't wish to get involved with.
• @Colchicum: Good catch. I'll make another proposal below.
• @Paul Siebert: Pretty much what I said to BigK HeX. I'm not trying to make any major changes to the lede or address any issues that are being discussed elsewhere. Those discussions should continue, and my proposal has nothing to do with resolving those issues. My goal here is to only make minor improvements to the article that hopefully everyone can agree with. In fact, I purposely avoided changing a single word to make my proposal as least contentious as possible.

OK, here's my new proposal. It's pretty much identical to the first one, except I address the issue raised by Colchicum. Again, I didn't add, remove or change any of the existing content. I simply re-organized the existing content.

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you tried not to change the wording, therefore my criticism was directed not at you, but at the flaws your text inherited from the initial version. Whereas your version may be some improvement, I don't think your approach is able to improve anything substantially.

In addition, let me remind you that, whereas the article devotes not much attention to the absolute figures, the lede is focused mostly on figures. It is simply not a good summary of what the article tells.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Right, I understand the criticism wasn't directed at me. The question I'm asking is, "Is this version better than what's currently there?" If it is better, I'd like to get consensus to make the change. If it's not better, then it should be rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the narrative's order is still completely unsatisfactory, because in actuality the correct order would be "There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. These authors estimate the death toll between 85 and 100 million." Such a rearrangement is absolutely necessary, because the lede pretends to summarise the opinions of all authors, although in actuality it does not.

Although I appreciate your good faith attempt, it is just a visibility of improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The various alternatives do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:LEDE: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." It fails to explain why the topic is notable and what connection there was between mass killings and Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It has been carefully explained many times that Wikipedia does not require such a link, and that most articles in Wikipedia fail your suggested test. And the AfDs on this article were where that argument was made, and failed there as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why the first lede's statement should be an explanation that the very subject is highly controversial, and that different authors see it quite differently. Only after that can we discuss the estimates (made by some authors based on their vision of the subject).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope - a lede's purpose is to summarize what the body of the article is - that you might like the number to be held to under a million dead does not hold water here <g> - the body supports the lede, as it ought. Cheers. And the iteration and repeating of the same arguemnt which has failed fifty times in the past is unlikely to increase the strength of the argument the fifty-first time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The body does not support the lede, simply because famines, deportations and counter-guerilla warfare in Afghanistan (that were responsible for more than a half of all mass deaths) are being discussed in the "Controversial cases" section. Therefore, all your argumentation does not hold water. Posting the same nonsense adds no weight to your point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha - the removal of food from people is "famine" and they were resisting "agrarian reform" and so were actually revolutionaries whose deaths are therefore natural? I had rather thought that was dropped as an argument - but go ahead and provide reliable sources for that sort of claim. Sorry Paul - if that got into a newspaper, Wikipedia would have lots of PR problems, indeed LOL! Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

IOW if the body of the article gives undue weight to fringe theories, misreprents sources and is POV, then we should write the lead to reflect that. TFD (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Um -- the real problem here is that the sources used are not Fringe according to reliable sources - whilst someone may WP:KNOW the WP:TRUTH that they all exagggerate the number of deaths. Labelling anything as "fringe" requires having sources making that call - we can not make it ourselves. Which has been pointed out many times here by many editors. The article would need some non-fringe sources saying that only a very few people died, and those claims made in the body of the article before they can be given any weight in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking in generalities and btw was referring to "fringe theories" not "fringe sources". TFD (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

IOW you accept the sources are reliable sources and not "fringe" - thanks! Collect (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "the removal of food from people is "famine"" Even if we leave Holodomor beyond the scope (although even this case is highly controversial: part of death was a direct result of "removal of food", part was not), all other famines, such as Volga famine, or post war Soviet famine, were not more mass killings then the Bengal famine, and are excluded from the mass killing death toll by serious authors.

Re "provide reliable sources for that sort of claim." I do not have to prove opposite, by contrast, you, as an advocate of the thesis that those figures reflect scholarly consensus must provide the mainstream source that confirms that. By contrast, I have already provided several reliable sources that state that the Courtois' approach - playing with figures - is intrinsically flawed, so I've already sustained my burden of proof. I can reproduce one of those sources again:

"That 'in the period after 1918, only Communist countries experienced such [large-scale] famines' does not in itself constitute evidence of the use of famine as a political weapon. At least in the Soviet case, the scale of terror presented in The Black Book seems to be deliberately inflated. 'Indirect' deaths are indiscriminately lumped together with deliberate political killings. "(Hiroaki Kuromiya. Communism and Terror. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)

"I largely agree with those contributors of the ‘anti-Black Book’ who have at various points characterized Courtois’s interpretation, but also other statements in the French or German versions of the Black Book as well as many affirmative comments and further elaborations in the German press, as ‘grotesque’, ‘cynical’ or ‘scandalous’." (Andreas Umland 'Roter Holocaust'? Kritik des Schwarzbuchs des Kommunismus. European History Quarterly 2000 30: 287)

"But again a distinction, sadly of no relevance to the victims, might be made among executions, exile, and deaths unintentionally caused. " (Suny, Ronald Grigor. Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2002 (New Series), pp. 303-319)

Again, I sustained my burden of proof, and you are not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And none of your sources state that the estimates are "fringe". Sorry Paul - we have seen the same post too many times now, and it remains insufficient to claim the large number of sources used in the article are "fringe" or "minority." It is up to you, moreover, to furnish specific sources saying that the estimates are "finge" or "minority" in order for your posts to make any sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with TFD's characterisation of the BB and similar sources as fringe. However, they are not mainstream either. It would be more correct to say that they are either significant minority views or they represent one of several mainstream viewpoints on the subject. However, if Collect believes that those sources represent the sole mainstream viewpoint, and no other majority viewpoints exist on that account, he is supposed to present needed evidences. Taking into account that some authors explicitly disagree with the BB and similar sources, it would not be easy to do.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You need reliable sources for the claim of the estimates not being "mainstream" -- that you somehow "know" that they are not mainstream is wonderful - but not used by any Wikipedia policy as grounds for insisting on your own personal knowledge being what is in the lede. It is not up to me, or any editor, to "know" anything - we rely on what the SOURCES state. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

That's a crock. Paul would need NO such thing. Anyone treating theories as mainstream against the reasonable objection of editors has the burden to show they are mainstream, as clearly described by policy on theories that have a questionable academic acceptance. BigK HeX (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Woo Hoo! Sorry there -- but any categorization of a source as "fringe" requires sources - not just what an editor asserts. Wikipedia articles are not compilations of editor's opinions but absolutely only claims sourced to reliable sources. There is no requirement that editors prove the majority of sources are mainstream (and it clear the majority of sources do, indeed, cite large estimates of deaths) -- it is up to those who present the minority of sources to prove that they are the mainstream. And so far, that has not been done. As for the "crock" comment - try reading WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(Crock is an expression directed against the quality of the argument, not the person making the argument.) This discussion is not proceeding towards a conclusion. If people would like to actually talk substantively about the points they're raising, perhaps they could do so in a fresh section, in a much more highly structured manner. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a review of The Black Book of Communism in The New York Times by Alan Ryan, a professor of politics at Oxford. According to him: "In what sense can we describe whole governments as criminal? Narrowly construed, crimes are what particular states define as such, and if Stalin or Mao failed to criminalize the murderous behavior of their secret police, prison guards and militias, how can we call these acts crimes? Ever since the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, Americans have known the answer: crimes against humanity are what the conscience of the ordinary, nondepraved human being recognizes as such. It is the answer that Courtois comes to as well. It is hard to know what other answer one might come to." -- Vision Thing -- 12:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Noone (I belive) can deny that some Courtois' point are quite valid, including the statement that Stalin's and Mao's regime committed numerous crimes. However, I see no connection between the review you quoted and the issue we are discussing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Point is that contrary to what some deniers like The Four Deuces or BigK HeX are claiming, topic of this article is not fringe like their opinions are and Courtois' view on it is part of the mainstream. -- Vision Thing -- 08:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) What we have is a substantial number of reliable sources with estimates of deaths. Absent reliable sources saying that these are not "mainstream" it is not up to us to "know" that they are "fringe" (indeed, I have repeatedly suggested that those who dislike the figures present reliable sources contradicting the estimates - alas, such have not been given, or else are not cited by other scholars to any extent as contradicting the estimates). Wikipedia policies must be followed no matter what any editor asserts that he knows - that is how the project works. I make no assertions at all as to what I "know" to be "truth" and I ask the others to make that same commitment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right. It isn't up to us to "know" that they are fringe. Reasonable editorial discretion is enough. And since you have been challenged, the burden is on you to show that such heavily contested theories are not fringe, per Wikipedia policy. BigK HeX (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what sources say. We want to only write true things in Wikipedia, and we want to verify them."-- J. Wales. Food for thought? Writegeist (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "You need reliable sources for the claim of the estimates not being "mainstream"" That is exactly opposite to what our policy says: I don't have to prove opposite, the burden of proof is on those who adds some materials: if you want to present some views as mainstream, please, provide a source that states so. However, taking into account that I have already presented non-fringe sources that characterise the sources you advocate as "provocative", and the figures you promote as "inflated", you are supposed to provide very serious counter-arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re " Absent reliable sources saying that these are not "mainstream"" As I already said, not only you have no sources that characterise these estimates as mainstream, but we have the sources that explicitly criticise the figures and the very approach. Your refusal to recognise this fact shakes my belief in your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The estimates in the introduction to the Black Book are not widely accepted and Nicolas Werth, who was the main contributor to the book criticized them for falsely reporting his estimates. According to him, and other informed critics of the Black Book, Courtois wanted to come up with a figure of 100 million, But whether or not Courtois was correct, we need to show independent sources that show his views are generally accepted. TFD (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that no reliable sources calling the figures "not mainstream" have been given. WP policies require that, and without such a sourced claim, it is not up to us to know that something is not the truth. Is that finally clear after all the iterations of the claims you assert to be the WP:TRUTH? Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul has provided the sources criticizing the figures and the approach of Courtois, including the criticism by his co-authors. This is quite enough to consider the figures "not mainstream". GreyHood ^Talk 11:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Or, when the vast majority of scholarly references disagree with Paul's cite offering "criticism" - it may mean that it is that cite which is not mainstream - especially when that cite does not call Courtois and the host of others not mainstream. Meanwhile when a former PRC official says over 40 million deaths in only 3 years in China - can you find that to be "fringe" as well? Sorry - the issue of editors deciding on their own that all the sources used are "fringe" is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide references discussing Paul's cite and disagreeing with it? If the cites don't use the word mainstream, this is not a problem - we do not need Wikipedia terminology to be reproduced literally in the reliable sources. A former PRC official's personal opinion, which might be imprecise and connected to political circumstances, is of very little importance compared to scholarly publications.

And, really, Collect, can't you see that the available sources in the article support only the general summary of tens of millions, not a quasi-precise figures of 85-100 million, a point made in a specific study by Courtois, whose counting methodology should first be presented in a specific place in the article, since these figures by no means could be drawn from a simple sum of figures named in other sections of the article (if you know anything about how statistics works, you should agree) and counting total figures is a non-obvious, controversial and standalone question? Even in this discussion we were eventually adviced to use tens of millions. GreyHood ^Talk 14:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(od)We have Rummel at [12] with figures of over 100 million.

Courtois at over 100 million.

Valentino at 110 million, with a range stated as being from multiple sources of 21 to 70 million for USSR, PRC and Cambodia alone, and noting that most such regimes have not engaged in "mass killing." His cite inplies that the likely range for the three nations then is on the order of 40 million to 50 million.

Gurr and Harff are cited in [13] (Wang) as citing the USSR for "11 million murders" in theperiod 1029 - 1936. This is the only estimate I found for anything approaching only 10 million deaths, and restricts itself to actual "murders" in a seven year period - so is far from inclusive. Wang sees "totalitiarianism" as being the problem.

Lansford appears to cite Rummel at [14] implying that Rummel is generally accepted as mainstream.

Kurtz and Turpin arrive at over 115 million at [15]

Using the fact that the most widely cited figures are in the total range of 80 to 100 million, it seems that this is the "mainstream" position, and any claim that 10 million is remotely near the mark is clearly WP:FRINGE.

[16] Zhengyuan Fu, who is widely respected, a former senior research professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a visiting associate professor at UC Irvine, a former fellow of the Center for Advanced Study at Stanford etc., lists a number of cites for "excess deaths" in China - citing Coale for 16.5 million "excess deaths" in 1958-61 alone, Aird a "population loss" of 23 million for that period, Ashton Hill et al 30 million deaths and 33 million lost or postponed births. He lists Bannister and Kane as agreeing wth Hill. Z. Fu then ascribes a figure of 43 million deaths in 1959-61 to Chen Yizi as his source. WP:RS from Cambridge University Press in 1993. Need more milk? I dount this manages to back your insistence on a fringe view of 10 million total for all the countries. I trust Fu, as a former personage in the PRC qualifies as "expert" on this matter, and Chen Yizi, former "head of the Government's Institute for Restructuring the Economy" (China) is adequate as a source on material to which he was privy as a government member in the PRC. All of this, of course, has been provided before. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked your for the criticism of the criticism of approach of usage of inflated totals and round figures. Your links are not what I asked for.

Rummel is not mainstream, at least when it comes to the figures. His estimates of the mortality in the Soviet death camps have long been disproved by publishing of the data by Zemskov, accepted even by Conquest. Overall Rummel's estimates are demographically implausible, since the available data and studies of the Soviet demographics totally contradict his overblown figures. The citations of Rummel by other scholars thus also are vain. Gurr and Harff citing the Soviet deaths in the period of 1929-1936 as 11 million also is implausible, since the Gulag population and mortality before 1936 were low, and the only major event which is argued to be 'mass killing' was the hunger of 1932-33, which had much lower deaths and which is highly controversial to be considred mass killing, since, for example, the mainstream official declaration by the Russian State Duma from 2008 mentions both natural and artificial reasons and states it was not genocide.

Anyway the figures you have named are not in the article, and thus we could not say that the first phrase in the lead correctly summarizes the article. Kind of obvious. GreyHood ^Talk 17:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Kurtz and Turpin 60 million killed in the Soviet Union? This is the fringest of fringe due to demographic considerations. The effects of World War II (with 27 million deaths) on the Soviet and post-Soviet demographics is very prominent, visible on population pyramids and well researched. Claims that there were 2 times more mass killings, that is an additional double effect of WWII, are absurd. Something never noticed by demographers and contradicting all available demographic data. GreyHood ^Talk 17:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Another relevant discussion started by Collect: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes. In the previous side discussion his position on the main issue here was already not supported. GreyHood ^Talk 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Valentino. His definition of "mass killings" include so called "dispossessive mass killings" (famines, deportation deaths etc), which is dramatically different from what most other authors (and general public) see under that. Conclusion: the Valentino's concept of "dispossessive mass killings" should be described before these figures have been provided.

Re Gurr and Harff's figures are cited, but not their conclusions. The conclusion about "murders" belong to the author of the book you cite (Wang). Taking into account that he relies heavily on obsolete works of Rummel (with dramatically inflated figures), I am not sure his interpretation is something we can trust. Let's see at the original works of these authors. In his article (American Political Science Review Vol. 97, No. 1 February 2003) Barbara Harff provides a list of all geno/politicides from 1955 to 2001. According to her, most these events occurred in non-Communist countries. With regard to China, the numbers are as follows:

"China, 5/66–3/75 Politicide 400,000–850,000"

Noone objects against the obvious fact that population losses during collectivization in the USSR were at least 10 million. However, most scholars do not describe them as "mass killings".

Re others, I provided the sources that criticize Rummel for dramatically inflated figures. I provided these sources for several times, and by presenting the books that still cite Rummel you've just demonstrated that some authors still believe he is right. In other words, in a situation when the source A cites Rummel as trustworthy and a source B heavily criticises him the only thing we can do is to use Rummel with cautions, in the "Controvercy" section, with all needed reservations.

In addition, let me remind you, that a lion's share of Rummel's 60+ million victims in the USSR are Gulag victims. However, as recent archival data demonstrated, the total number of those passed through Gulag did not exceed 18 million, and the number of Gulag deaths was ca 2 millions. That is a figure most western historians agree with. In that situation, can we use Rummel's data seriously?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec):::(#GH)Your problem is still that you assert "facts" without giving scholarly cites to back them up. And I really would have ben amazed if the Duma said that Russia bore any responsibility for anything <g>. So that cavil drops. [17] certainly offers no claim that large numbers did not die before 1939. [18] gives a total 1941 Soviet population of 181 million including "annexed territories". Other sources give the base total at 164 million in 1940, which seems consistent. Rosefielde [19] offers support as well for large numbers of deaths in the USSR (on the order of 15 million in one short period). By the way, with 50 million+ deaths in China, the 60 million you assert is given by Kurtz and Turpin is clearly not used at all in this computation and summary - it includes the deaths in the early years when the population fell by a very substantial number, but is not where the total of 85 to 100 million rests. [20] is RS and states Russia's population fell from 171 million in 1914 to 132 million in 1921 (39 million loss in population in 4 years). Which likely explains the larger figure. And as the larger figure is not part of the body being summarized, it is nicely irrelevant. Are you going to try arguing that Yizi is not RS? Cheers.

Collect, I could bring basic population statistics to support my claims of inconsistency of the higher estimates with demographics. But it is your claims which are extraordinary and which require extraordinary evidence. And your work with statistics to support your claims isn't exactly cheerful. Excess mortality is not equal to victims of mass killings. And previously we have been speaking of mortality between 1929-1936, but the links you provide discuss periods starting earlier and extending beyond up to 1939, that is after the 1937-1938 peak of Soviet repressions. And really, the last your point have made me LOLOLOL. 132 million is roughly the population of the Russian Empire minus Poland, Finland and the Baltic states which gained independence following the Russian Revolution. Those 39 million "victims of mass killings", eh? Cheers. You are making classical errors, for which you'd be quickly banned from any statistical institution: summarizing figures from different sources without making them compatible, mixing different categories of data, and failing to check which entities are described by the data and what is the continuity between them. GreyHood ^Talk 20:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect cites the Rosefielde's article he published in 1983 as a support of the figure of 15 millions. However, he totally ignores conclusions of the same author made later. Thus, in his article published in 1997 Rosefielde concludes that at least 5.2 million people are classifiable as excess deaths perished during the thirties. He argues that "13.5-14.3 million calculated by Conquest are also demographically possible", however, he does not endorse these numbers. Note, he does not speak about "mass killings", he tells about "excess deaths". Never in his article does he use the term "mass killing".

Let me summarise. Collect uses the obsolete article written by Rosefielde. He uses obsolete works of Rummel, which have been heavily criticised. He uses the introduction to the BB, despite the fact that numerous sources criticise it for inappropriate playing with figures. However, he does not use more recent articles that Rosefielde and other authors published in peer-reviewed journals, and he continues to ignore them despite my numerous attempts to point his attention at them. Why? Unfortunately, I do not know how to describe such behaviour within the frames of the AGF concept. He definitely prefers those sources simply because they support the POV he is tying to push. That is a typical civil POV pushing, and I ask Collect again to abandon such behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

One more point. If someone wants to ascribe all "excess deaths" to Communists, one should be consistent, and to ascribe all "excess lives" (resulting from falling mortality rates, Ellman 2002) to them too. If we take this statistics for the USSR, we will see that the Soviet era was associated with the most remarkable fall in mortality (Stephen G. Wheatcroft, Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60) comparable only with that in Japan. As Wheatcroft argues:

"I agree (with Hobsbawm. -P.S.) that it (a period since 1918. -P.S.) "probably" was the best time for most of its (Soviet. -P.S.) citizens. Mortality was generally falling at a greater rate than ever before. More people than ever before were able to leave the countryside. More people than ever before received an education. But it is less clear than Hobsbawm suggests that it was the Bolshevik model that was causing this secular improvement. Hobsbawm is correct in stating that we cannot forget the sufferings and the excess mortality. We cannot forget them, but we do need to try and place them into some form of perspective. Using mortality data as an indicator of mass welfare is rather unsatisfactory and tends to raise the emotional charge."(ibid.)

In other words, whereas I agree that mass politically motivated killings occurred in the USSR and some other Communist countries, we must, following what most reliable sources say, separate politically motivated mass killings from excess deaths. Whereas the former should be described without redundant reservations, it is impossible and unencyclopaedic to tell about excess deaths and hush up excess lives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To the person who died because the food was removed - does being an "excess death" ameliorate the fact of death? As I have no dog in the race, the concept that I am the one "POV pushing" is absurd, Paul. I gave the reliable sources - and it is rather up to you to give the contradictory sources, and not just say "excess deaths are not killings" which has been argued way too many times, and it is an arguemtn you have never won. Unless, of course, you wish to say that Stalin did not order removal of food from starving people? Cheers -- I really wanna see that claim made here -- you had backed off the one which said they were to blame for their own deaths because they opposed "agrarian reform" remember? Meanwhile, what about the 50 million Chinese deaths with a PRC source? Collect (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In this your comment, Collect 1) you resort to emotional and moralistic arguments (To the person who died because the food was removed..), which are out of place in a serious neutral discussion (remember, nobody here questions that there were many tragic events and deaths in Communist countries; however, this doesn't give us an indulgence to misrepresent these events and blow them out of proportion) 2) you ignore the fact that you have been presented with contradictory sources, heavily criticizing the approach you push 3) you continue to oppose an obvious fact that "excess deaths are not killings" (finally, see some definition of excess death and compare it with killing) 4) you ignore the recent criticism of your strange approach and your obvious methodological and factual mistakes 5) you try to drive the discussion into a different direction. GreyHood ^Talk 23:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And once again, even if some source is reliable and gives some big number for some country or event, we can't just take it and summarize with other sources, countries and events. To do it scientifically, we first should make sure that the figures are compatible with each other and represent the same category of data, which is a difficult task. And anyway, whether we do that properly or not do that at all, this would be original research. So we must rely on the totals given by the reliable sources. But the existing totals are overblown and outdated, and the approach they use is heavily criticized, and these totals are not reflected in the body of the article, which means the first line of the current intro is not based on the body. GreyHood ^Talk 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, on a lighter point, did I understand you right and could I inform some of our friends here on-wiki that they live on Earth only by some miracle, because according to a study by Collect the nations of their ancestors were mass-killed between 1914-1921? GreyHood ^Talk 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Collect, the argument: "to the person who died because the food was removed - does being an "excess death" ameliorate the fact of death?" has been explicitly addressed by at least one author cited by me (Wheatcroft, see above). However, although the fact of deaths cannot be ameliorated by anything, we need to place it into "some form of perspective". Other sources provided by me clearly criticise the approach, according to which all deaths - executions and famines - are "lumped together". I do not deny your sources, I just state that they should be presented in the main article, NOT in the first sentence of the lede, without providing needed perspective. By contrast, you totally ignore my sources, and insist that your POV should be presented as a sole mainstream POV. That is why I am not POV pusher, and you are. That is a violation of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Collect's edit summary (and you can seriously speak of "excess lives"? LOL!), this LOL should be probably addressed to Ellman, whom I quoted. The fact that life expectancy and welfare of Soviet citizens was steadily growing during whole 70 years period (interrupted only by the WWII and several famines), that lead to unprecedented decrease of mortality is well known, and it has been documented by many authors, including Wheatcroft, whom I cited above. If we speak about political killings and murders, we, of course, cannot use it as an excuse. However, if we are talking about authorities' mistakes, and even to criminal neglect, that lead to excess deaths, we must explain that the same policy had lead to "excess lives" (decreased child mortality, increased life expectancy), otherwise you tell just a half of truth, in full accordance with the worst standard of propaganda. However, Wikipedia does not allow any propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

However Western democracies were able to decrease child mortality and increase life expectancy in the same period without slaughtering particular classes of its own citizenry in the process. --Nug (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and serious writers do not attribute the lower life expectancy rates in the U.S. compared with other Western democracies to mass killings, even when they do attribute it to deliberate government policies in health care, etc. TFD (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

@Martintg. It would be more correct to say that, since Russia or China were more backward societies as compared to the Western countries, the "slaughtering" of some classes occurred at later historical periods in the later than in the former. Just compare Irish potato famine and Holodomor. It is simply incorrect to compare XX century China with XX century Britain. And, please, refrain from original research; we are discussing the opinion, published in reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul, are you claiming Communist societies are backward? Doesn't that contradict the notion that Communism is a most modern and progressive ideology? Rosefielde states in Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s (pp. 959-987)[21]:

"The new evidence shows that administrative command planning and Stalin's forced industrialisation strategies failed in the 1930s and beyond. The economic miracle chronicled in official hagiographies and until recently faithfully recounted in Western textbooks has no basis in fact. It is the statistical artefact not of index number relativity (the Gerschenkron effect) but of misapplying to the calculation of growth cost prices that do not accurately measure competitive value. The standard of living declined during the 1930s in response to Stalin's despotism, and after a brief improvement following his death, lapsed into stagnation."

"Glasnost' and post-communist revelations interpreted as a whole thus provide no basis for Getty, Rittersporn & Zemskov's relatively favourable characterisation of the methods, economic achievements and human costs of Stalinism. The evidence demonstrates that the suppression of markets and the oppression of vast segments of the population were economically counterproductive and humanly calamitous, just as anyone conversant with classical economic theory should have expected."

So all that mass killing achieved was a decline and stagnation of the standard of living for most people (Communist appartiks excepted) for most of the history of the USSR. What a tragic waste. --Nug (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not mix ideology and society. We do not discuss the Communist ideology, we discuss the societies where they had been being tried to be implemented. Those societies had been at the lower steps of social-economic development, and neither Western authors nor Communists themselves tried to negate this fact.

Regarding Rosefielde's opinion on the GRZ's main conclusions, I believe, he reflects scholarly consensus: yes, most GRZ's claims (by contrast to their statistics) are highly disputable. Moreover, most social-economic reforms had been performed by Communists in far from optimal way, they were costly and much less efficient than they could be. However, that does not mean that the dramatic increase of welfare, life expectancy and "excess lives" had never occurred under Communists. Your statement about "decline and stagnation of the standard of living" is simply not true, and the sources provided by me (see above) demonstrate that quite persuasively. Therefore, I simply do not understand what concrete thesis did you try to debunk by this your post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

One way or the another, I saw no serious arguments in favour of presenting the figures of "Communist mass killings" before the very term (more precisely, variour quite different meanings of this term) have been discussed. In other words,

Since no serious arguments for presenting of the figures in the first sentence of the lede have been presented, these figures, which had been added without consensus, should be removed.

Please, address the following request:

"Since a number of reliable sources have been presented on the talk page that explicitly criticise the figures recently added to the first lede's sentence, as well as the very methodology (to characterise Communist repressions with just single figure), we need to see a serious evidences (reliable secondary sources) that directly refute this criticism. Please, provide such sources, otherwise, per our policy, these figures should be removed."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Convenience break

Just to be clear here, the sentence Since no serious arguments for presenting of the figures in the first sentence of the lede have been presented, these figures, which had been added without consensus, should be removed is totally bogus. Many reliable sources have been cited, but you have refused to acknowledge them. You tried to modify the lede in the RfC and were totally rejected. If you want the article to progress, you are going to have to recognize the view points of other editors and work with them. If you want to lock in the current version by continuing your totally unreasonable demands, that is your choice. The view point that I keep on hearing from you and related editors, that there really weren't a lot of killings and that they aren't related enough to have an article entitled "Mass Killings under Communist Regimes," is a distinct minority viewpoint that has been rejected at AfD at least 5 times. Please just stop the nonsense about removing the total death toll. If you want to include a revised death toll, please just say where you got your numbers from, and we can consider it. Smallbones (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

By no means it is bogus. Several reliable sources have been cited that explicitly questioned this particular statement of this particular book, and no sources have been presented that debunk this criticism. In that situation, this statement simply cannot be in the lede. Please, provide reliable sources that explicitly debunk the sources, provided by me, that criticize the Courtois' numbers and the very way he interpreted those figures. Failure to do so will lead to removal of this statement from the lede (not from the article, where it should stay), per our neutrality policy.

Your reference to AfDs is simply ridiculous: the fact that the article should not be deleted does not mean that every disputable statement should stay in the lede irrespective to the amount of the sources that question them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Pshaw! You have to accept some semblance of reality or nobody will believe you. The idea that Communist regimes killed multiple tens of millions - up to 100 million or higher - is the majority viewpoint in the world. Screaming that it is a fringe viewpoint simply will get you nowhere. If you try to remove the numbers from the lede, multiple reality-based editors will turn you down flat, which means that it cannot be changed. Face reality. Perhaps you can come up with a different method of trying to resolve this conflict - maybe a new RfC? But a straight attack on the majority view cannot work. Smallbones (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide an evidence in support of your assertion that "the idea that Communist regimes killed multiple tens of millions - up to 100 million or higher - is the majority viewpoint in the world". In particular, please, provide an evidence that the criticism of the idea Courtois advocates - that the victims of Communist mass killings amounted to 100 million - has been successfully debunked.

Regarding "multiple reality-based editors", please, be cool and polite: you are not in position to unilaterally decide whose position is reality based, and whose views are based on various stereotypes. You failed to prove so far that the sources I use are not mainstream or unreliable. By contrast, I demonstrated that my sources fit all criteria our policy applies to mainstream top quality reliable secondary sources. If you dislike my viewpoint, you are free to do that privately. Wikipedia is not a place where you can reject other's viewpoint without providing needed ground for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You've seen the sources cited here and on the article page a dozen or more times. At this point you are just claiming that black is white. There is no advantage to me to discuss anything with you, since you will always come up with reams of meaningless text. Just stop. And do understand that any request by you to remove the cited numbers will be opposed. So under the current rules, there is no way that the removal will be approved. Get real and be prepared to accept real-word documented evidence being put into the article. Smallbones (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the passage about black and white should be addressed to yourself: my point is that, since the source we are talking about and the figures in particular have been criticised by many authors, it should be moved to the article's body, where it should be presented along with its criticism. By contrast, you reject any criticism (despite noone has been able so far to demonstrate that it comes from fringe, or even non-mainstream, authors) and insist on presenting of this disputable statement as the sole mainstream viewpoint. That is a gross violation of our policy.

Re your "since you will always come up with reams of meaningless text". That personal attack is a demonstration that your arguments have been exhausted.

Re "And do understand that any request by you to remove the cited numbers will be opposed." Opposition based on nothing has zero weight, and cannot be taken into account by any reasonable admin.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones, you need to give arguments, not just say that in your view the opponent's position is wrong, and not just threaten that it would be reverted. Sorry, but this looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. You are ignoring the fact that a number of reality-based editors have supported Paul here, and a number of reality-based sources, including the co-authors of the author who produced the number, disagreed with the approach. Surely we cannot speak about some "majority view" attacked here.

Your comments make an impression that you haven't really followed this discussion. There are no AfDs planned, and "tens of millions" will likely remain in the lead. You have ignored Paul's arguments and references, without disproving or even properly addressing them, and you have ignored Paul's support by other editors and other editors' arguments. Please read the recent discussions more closely before making judgements. GreyHood ^Talk 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: "The idea that Communist regimes killed multiple tens of millions - up to 100 million or higher - is the majority viewpoint in the world."

Majority viewpoint in your mind, maybe. Most certainly not this world. BigK HeX (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Smallbones, you turn the situation the other way round. Paul has provided all the need evidence which has not been rebutted, and he was supported by several editors in the last discussion, as well as by one totally uninvolved editor in a side discussion attempted by Collect. And your mentioning of a potential deletion or renaming of the article is out of place, nothing of that was discussed here for a long time.

And please, finally, either disprove the statements in Paul's references by some more reliable and authoritative opinions, or give a good reasoning based on existing guidelines, or accept the fact that this controversial figure, which is criticized by RSs and which is not based on the body of the article, should be removed from the first line. GreyHood ^Talk 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Um == I think the history of the article and the archived talk shows full well that sufficient reliable sources are present in the body for the lede to indicate the larger figure. The "proof by assertion" that such is not "majority" is doomed -- the onus is on those asserting that the material is not the current mainstream view to show such by using reliable sources in the article - not by mere assertion. It is not up to those using the current claims in the body of the article which are supported by the majority of reliable sources when no sources asserting otherwise have been presented (noting Paul's iteration that deaths due to opposing "agrarian reform" are not "deaths" for the purposes of this article - but that position is not supported by mainstream reliable sources). Cheers - but this iterated argument is getting tendentious - the rules of Wikipedia say to provide contradicting reliable sources if you wish a claim inserted in the body. Collect (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The contradicting sources are provided. Please stop ignoring that, and there will be no need to reiterate any arguments.

The sources in the body do not discuss or support 85-100 million figure. Easily checked by searching these numbers in the text.

Per above point, one could only try to claim that sources in the body support the figure indirectly, because they present large numbers for individual countries and events. There is enough evidence for an editor to make a cautious summary "tens of millions", because some claims for the individual events excess 10 million. But connecting the range of per event figures to the specific figure of 85-100 million is OR assertion. It is not up to editors to make such counts. One author made the counting and arrived to this figure, but he was strongly criticized by reliable and highly relevant sources. Which means we can't mention the figure without necessary reservations and criticisms, and that obviously should be done in the body of the article, not in the lead. GreyHood ^Talk 13:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh -- try to AGF on this -- I am "ignoring" nothing. The sum of the reliable source estimnates in the body do, indeed, support the lede. Assertions to the contrary are disproven by anyone reading the body of the article. The claim that implicitly there might even be fewer than 10 million "excess deaths" is ludicrous, and not supported by any mainstream source. The only issue Paul raises of any potential merit is that the people died because of their own opposition to "agrarian reform" for which no mainstream source seems to concur. I ask you to also reread WP:NPA and to understand that the lede is a summary and that since the body supports that summary that "proof by assertion" that even fewer than 10 million died would require substantial reliable sources which are mainstream. Cheers - but tendentious arguments to the contrary, that is what a lede is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you have ignored the arguments on how the body does not support the lead directly, and how trying to establish indirect support is OR. And you continue to ignore the criticism of the figures and the approach.

Please do not make obviously wrong assertions such as Assertions to the contrary are disproven by anyone reading the body of the article - some people read it and disagreed with it. Ignoring those editors is not really nice.

And yet again, making a "sum of the reliable source estimnates" is OR and unscientific approach here, as well as mixing "excess deaths" and "mass killings" (so, have you checked the definition of excess mortality? seems like not).

Please do not try to lead discussion into a different direction, and no need to apply to emotions. Whether in some cases the people died because of their own opposition to "agrarian reform" is not particularly related to the criticism of the total numbers and the fact that they are not based on the body of the article.

Please do not follow Smallbones example above and do not misrepresent the intentions of your opponents about the article. The proposed wording so far is with an estimated death toll numbering in the tens of millions, which does not imply "fewer than 10 million". GreyHood ^Talk 15:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Collect's "I am "ignoring" nothing." You are ignoring nothing but two things. Firstly, despite your numerous claims, the figures in the first sentence had not been supported by consensus: at least four users (I, TFD, Greyhood and BigK HeX) opposed to presenting these figures in the first sentence, and provided serious arguments in support of their viewpoint, which have never been refuted. These figures had been introduced as a result of the edit war, and are there for purely procedural reasons. Secondly, the sources have been presented that directly and explicitly criticise the source (the Black Book) as whole, the "mass killings" figures, and the way they are being used. In that situation, any good faith editor would immediately agree that the disputed figures should be moved to the main article, and the first sentence of the lede should be made more neutral. Your persistent resistance to that is the demonstration of your bad faith.

In that situation, please, address quite simple questions:

"(i) Do you have any evidence that the sources presented by me, which criticise the BB and these figures in particular, are non-reliable, or fringe? (ii) Can you provide the evidence that this criticism had ever been debunked by any mainstream author? (iii) Can you provide a reason why the BB should be used as if it were a mainstream non-controversial source, and no major criticism of this book have been published in reputable scholarly journals?"

In the absence evidences from you (or from another user sharing your views) that the criticism of the BB has been persuasively debunked by mainstream authors, and no controversy exists on that account any more, then we should consider the statement we discuss as contested one. With regard to such sort of statements, our policy says:

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. "

In other words, your viewpoint directly contradicts to our policy.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Misstatements about what others say is not good. Misstatements about what Wikipedia policies state are worse. You appear to misapprehend what WP:NPOV states, and what WP:RS states. Cheers - and please reread my posts lest yu misapprehend them again. "Contested assertions" does not refer to editors "contesting" claims because of what they WP:KNOW, it refers to other reliable sources being presented in the article which contest assertions by the reliable sources presently in the article. That is how "neutral point of view" is theoretically achieved. Collect (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Our policy is quite clear: if some assertion has been seriously contested (by some reliable sources, not by editors), it cannot be presented as a fact, and that is non-negotiable. No reference to consensus, or even to some admin's decision can overrule this requirement of our policy. The only argument that you can provide in support of your POV is the reliable mainstream sources that directly, explicitly and persuasively debunk the criticism of the BB (i.e. the sources provided by me above). Your failure to do so will mean that you are acting in a violation of our basic content policy, and, since I have already explained your mistake to you, you are acting knowingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Frankly speaking, your statement: ""Contested assertions" does not refer to editors "contesting" claims" is somewhat insulting. I believe I provided a sufficient amount of reliable sources that directly contest your BB to be immune from such ridiculous claims. Do you really read and understand my posts?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)