Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Error in the lead

"The highest estimates of mass killings include not only direct mass murders or executions, but also lives lost due to effects of war, famine, disease and other factors, including deliberate government mismanagement." Then, the number from BBOC is provided. How come? The number in BBOC (and most other statistics on this page) does NOT include "war" and "disease" and "mismanagement". As about "other factors", one should mention them explicitly. Including victims of wars (may be by Rummel - this should be checked) produces much higher numbers. In addition, this is not mass murder by anyone, by only executions or whatever by the governments. That's important. Perhaps we should quote what counts directly from the BBOC. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it per the source. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The exclusion of wars is important. The sources usually emphasize: "civilians" (and not civilians killed by another government during war).My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, the BB should not be in the lead, because it is controversial and provocative (according to what other sources say), which means it by no means represents a consensus view. The very idea to play with total number of death is also considered misleading and politically motivated. This lead has is so strongly biased, that the NPOV tag is absolutely necessary. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree. Not only that, but the entire introduction of this article is now based on the most controversial sections of the book, the foreword and the introduction. Some of the main contributors to the project vehemently rejected what was stated to the point they regretted their participation in it, and publicly distanced themselves from it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The opinion is cited and sourced as opinions. Excision of an opinion because you disagree with it is not how the process works. We can certainly add other opinions, cited and sourced as opinions, but excising a "wrong opinion" - nope. Collect (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to add it to the article's text, where it belongs to. However, it must be supplemented with the criticism (see below; also read the David-Fox's article)--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Below are the quotes from Kuromiya's review of the Black Book (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 36(1), 191–201.)

"According to the foreword to the English version of The Black Book, ‘thisbook is one of the first attempts to study communism with a focus on its criminal dimensions’. Martin Malia, in his foreword, informs the Anglophonereaders that the authors of the book ‘are former Communists or close fellow-travelers’,2and notes that the authors are divided ‘over the assessment of theircommon past’. (Two key contributors to the volume, Nicolas Werth forRussia and Jean-Louis Margolin for Asia, ‘publicly dissociated themselves’from the conclusions drawn in the book by Stéphane Courtois, the leadauthor.) Malia goes on to examine succinctly the ‘foreseeable political storm’ the book’s publication raised in France. "

"The brutal agricultural policy and the callousness of the Stalin regime were responsible at least in part for this calamity. Indeed the government, in cold-blooded indifference to life, let the peasants die in order to save the cities. Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recalcitrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine. It is not possible, contrary to Courtois’ contention, to show convincingly the ‘systematic use of famine as a weapon’ by the Soviets. 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."

"Courtois’ attempt to present communism as a greater evil than nazism by playing a numbers game is a pity because it threatens to dilute the horror of actual killings."

In other words, this reliable source demonstrates, I think, convincingly, that not only the Malia's and Courtois statements does not reflect scholarly consensus, but this source advocates some concrete political agenda. That warrants removal of the mention of the overall figures from the lead until a consensus will be achieved on how the figures should be presented. I remove Malia, and expect that text will not be restored under a pretext of an alleged consensus. Remember, it was this statement that caused an edit war that lead to article's full protection. Please, do not re-insert it without discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

HUH? It is a major change and therefore should actually have consensus before your "insertion".. Your person opinion as to WP:TRUTH is not how Wikipedia operates. Collect (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the text that I removed violates our NPOV policy. This opinion is supported by two reliable sources. If you believe I misinterpreted these sources or our policy, please demonstrate it, and then re-insert the text. Please, keep in mind that the text I removed did not belong to the latest consensus version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Collect, I have noticed you added the text that violates our neutrality policy, and is contested by at least two users. Please, provide a proof that it complies with the policy. Meanwhile, I respectfully request you to self-revert. Please, keep in mind that (i) the text you added is not a consensus version, and (ii) you added a strongly non-neutral statement, and if you were not aware of that, I am informing you about that now.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not in any way violated WP:NPOV. If you wish to have a reliably sourced opinion added, do so, citing and sourcing it as opinion. Removing opinions one does not like is not neutral . How in XXXX can you call an opinion which has withstood scrutiny for years as suddenly violating Wikipedia policy now? Are you upset that no one has yet supported any of the versions you proposed where you said you would accept any version - therefore you can not support any version someone else proposes? And please note that I added nothing - simply reverting your bold edit. Collect (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

By adding this text to the lead, you directly violated the policy that says Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.. Instead of adding the text into the artile's body, where it could be supplemented with a due criticism (see above), you put it in the lead, to create an absolutely false impression that this source is not controversial and reflects mainstream views. In addition, you are doing that unilaterally, without obtaining a consensus. I again respectfully request you to self-revert, because the text you restored is not a consensus version--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul, I added zero text I reverted your deletion of material. That is all. At this point your accusation that I added text is perilously close to failure to assume good faith. Collect (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Collect, you added the text that obviously reflects a contested viewpoint. No matter if it has been there before or not: I presented a strong evidence that this text reflects a highly disputable viewpoint, and placement of this text into the lead violates our policy. You references to WP:V is not working, because the violated policy is WP:NPOV. Again, that is not a content dispute, that it a policy violation dispute, which we are talking about a violation, not just about disagreement. So far, you provided just procedural reasons for adding the text there (that the text belonged to allegedly stable version, which is simply a lie). That means we are approaching to the point where we will not be able assume your good faith any more.

In connection to that, I am respectively requesting you again:

Collect, please, self-revert and put the disputable text somewhere in the main artilce's text (not in the lead).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I did a simple revert. I added nothing whatsoever This sort of argumentation ad hominem is not a great idea. In fact, I suspect it weakens your oft-stated and oft-restated positions more than anything else. Secondly, you seem to forget the purpose of any lead - that is to summarize the content of the article. Your "request" is actually asking me to violate Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Length of time does not matter. Opinions can be included, but inclusion in the lead signifies high weight and a implication of the attributed text represented scholarly consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think these numbers may actually represent a scholarly consensus. Please convince me otherwise by providing other equally good sources.My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, this is not working. The burden of proof is on those who adds some material. Regarding consensus, I presented a mainstream source that says that Courtois's attempt to prove that "communism as a greater evil than nazism by playing a numbers game is a pity". Which means that any attempt to present whatever number is not a universally supported approach, because it is intrinsically misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Two things. (1) These numbers were in the lead for years, see version from 2014 [1]). I only refined slightly what they mean - per sources. (2) Everyone is welcome to create a section with various estimates from different sources (I think we need it). But remember, this section should provide only some general estimates for all Communist countries, not for individual countries (data for individual countries should be provided in sections for the corresponding countries). I do not think there is a lot of such general estimates. "Black Book", Rummel, what else? Whatever you can find can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the lack of general estimates should indicate that it may not be WP:DUE for the lead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What lack of general estimates? There are general estimates, and they were published in academic RS (books) by leading experts on the subject. These sources are used on the page. This is just a matter of WP:BURDEN for people who claim there are alternative sources which claim something different. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

"I do not think there is a lot of such general estimates."?? By lack I mean low number Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Having even one academic source about something is perfectly fine per WP:NPOV if there are no other sources (I am sure there are more sources in this case). My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not true. One source gives an estimate, another source says giving an estimate is "playing with numbers", which means the very idea to give such a number is non-productive. That means no numbers can be given in the lead, because the very approach is highly questionable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the extremely controversial intro from the BBOC was just added as a citation to the lede, in addition to the already cited Foreword by Malia, demonstrates that this article is in desperate need of a neutrality tag asap.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Why on the Earth the numbers fro BBOC are "controversial"? Were these general numbers disputed in other sources? Where and how? My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you deliberately being obtuse? The controversy over the estimates in the introduction is well known, and one of the main reasons several contributors to the book denounced it. It is discussed in the wiki article on the BBoC, which I provided a link to above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. Yes, I edited the page about the book. No, the contributors did not denounce the book. There was just a minor disagreement about the introduction. Nothing on this page undermines credibility of the book or the numbers provided by the book. Yes, there are differences in opinion as usual. For example, "Economic historian Michael Ellman has argued that the book's estimate of "at least 500,000" deaths during the Soviet famine of 1946–48 "is formulated in an extremely conservative way, since the actual number of victims was much larger"—1,000,000-1,500,000 excess deaths according to Ellman". So what? OK, the conclusion by Ellman can be included in the corresponding section of this page. Or for example, "They also argued that based on the results of their studies, one can tentatively estimate the total number of the victims at between 65 and 93 million". Fine, let's include it here. And so on. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That is obvious, and they did express regret about contributing to the project. I quote from the book "Red Hangover" (Duke University Press, 2017, p. 140): "Margolin and Werth disavowed the book, claiming that Courtois was obsessed with reaching a figure of 100 million and that this led to sloppy and biased scholarship." This explains perfectly the problem with the lede of this article, it is entirely based on this "sloppy" and "biased" scholarship, which is why at the very least it should be tagged immediately.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

They said the number is between 65 and 93 million, according to their estimate, not 94 as main coordinator of the book wrote in Introduction. Fine, let's also use their estimates to define the range of numbers. That is what WP:NPOV requires. It does not make anyone of them right. Some others can provide different estimates. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

However, their numbers must be reliably published and we need to know and how did they arrive to such numbers. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, it is becoming more and more difficult for me to continue interpreting your refusal to understand the point within the WP:AGF paradigm. I

1. I presented reliable sources that demonstrate that BB and Malia are highly controversial sources, which means it would be a violation of neutrality policy to put this text to the place where it is now;
2. I presented the proof (the sources) that say that playing with total numbers of Communism victims may be misleading and serves some political goals, which means we need a serious discussion about the need to present any number in the lead;
3. I proposed to move this text somewhere to the article, where it will be presented in a balanced way;
4. I pointed your attention to the fact, that the added text does not belong to the version that reflects consensus.

In connection to that, any references to WP:V and WP:CONSENSUS are not productive, and I respectively request you to stop violating our content policy (WP:NPOV), because that is becoming highly non-productive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This fresh addition [2] is another violation of WP:NPOV. I think a user who committed this violation is fully aware of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that it is worth having an WP:RFC over whether to include the cite to the Black Book in the lead, to at least try and establish some sort of consensus; I definitely don't think that it has ever enjoyed consensus (as I pointed out above, the article destablized immediately after it was inserted, and has never been stable since), so I'd say that it has to be removed unless an RFC can demonstrate consensus for inclusion. My feeling, obviously, is that putting such a heavy focus on a single controversial source in the lead is WP:UNDUE. But either way, an RFC might attract more attention to this article (which languished while locked for so long), which might help us move past some of our deadlocks. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've said it above, and I'll say it again here; the various estimates from the chapters of the BBOC, discussing different aspects of mass killing, belong in the lead. The introduction does not, because as an introduction, it assumes an almost editorial quality, and because the authors whom it draws upon have since disputed it. This isn't a run-of-the-mill academic disagreement. I also suspect an RFC is going to be a waste of time, because what we need here is a nuanced solution, which RFCs are terrible at providing. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am saying that the lead must provide a range of numbers from multiple RS on the subject, whatever this range is. This should also include numbers from publications by Malia, Rummel and whatever else was published by nobable scholars we have big pages about. The only dispute between co-authors of BBOC about the numbers was if it should be "65 to 93 million" or 94 million. Yes, it should be actually even a wider range (per multiple RS), but I'd like to check which source tells "65 to 93 million". The only serious disagreement between co-authors was about comparison of Nazism and Communism in the Introduction of the book. That indeed probably does not belong to the lead of this page. And BTW, the BBOC numbers very widely cited. Here is a convenience link to a typical historian's website (I am not saying this website is RS). My very best wishes (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde. We need to decide, is this article about various theories of "generic Communism" (the topic #1), or they are about the events themselves (topic #2 or #3). That is important, because the BB is not the only source about these events, not the best one, and not the most recent. I would say, this source is obsolete, and Kiernann is better for Cambodia than Margolin, Snyder is better for USSR than Werth, etc. In 1990s, after collapse of the USSR, many archival materials became available that forced historian to reconsider their vision significantly. Thus, many early estimates of repression victims were reconsidered to a significantly lower side. Conquest himself conceded his earlier estimate were much too high. Snyder (whose recent work I already cited on this talk page) also provides more balanced view. In contrast, old authors (especially Rummel), provide very inflated figures, and these figures have just a historical interest. To use old and new figures for victims as a range is as ridiculous as to give old and new values of electron charge in the same article as a range of estimates. Another reason why we absolutely need to make a choice between #1 and #2 (or#3) is that, depending on that, the lead should look totally differently.

Concept #1's lead should say something of that kind: "Such authors as Courtois, Malia, Valentino propose a theory that links all mass killings to Communism, and they estimate the total number of victins was AAAA. These theories have not been universally supported, and their critics say BBBBBB."

Concept #2's lead should say: "Mass mortality events occurred in some (many?) Communist states. In USSR under Stalin's rule, ~1 million people was executed, according to Snyder, around XX died in exile or died from famine, according to (Wheatcroft/Maksudov), and total population loss was YYY. The intentionality of later events is a subject of debates. In Cambodia, around 2 million, (30%) of population, primarily ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese were murdered (ref Kiernan), and the event is intrnationally recognized as genocide. In China (... , ref O'Grada). Some theories (Courtois, Valentino, Rummel) were proposed that link all these events to Communism as a primary cause, whereas this approach is not universally accepted and disputed by others." Concept #3 - the same, but the focus made only on murders and genocides, and main sources are Kiernan et al for Cambodia, Snyder, Ellman et al for USSR, etc.

Let me reiterate, the choice of the topic defines not only the shape of the article, but it defines which sources the preferencec will be given to, because the authors of general theories are not the best experts in each separate field, and their vision may be different from opinia of true, universally recognised experts. Last but not least. Currently, the lead contains a statement that directly violates our neutrality policy and that is not supported by a talk page consensus. Do you see any reason to have it in the lead even as a placeholder?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Valentino is hardly a good source for a simple reason: his theory is not about "Communist mass killings", but about mass killings as a tool some national elites use to implements social transformations what all other tools proved ineffective. According to Valentino, ideology is of secondary importance, so "Communist mass killings" are just "mass killings in countries that happened to be Communist". In other words, this article combines a general Valentino's theory (which does not make an emphasis on Communism as an ideology) to reinforce a dubious claim made by Courtois. Do we believe that is in accordance with our content policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• If you think that well-known academic sources X,Y,Z are too old and provide outdated statistics about anything, please show newer RS that provide different numbers about the same. Then it will be something to discuss. But so far you could not produce any newer data on the total number of victims of Communist repression. WP:BURDEN. In the absence of newer data, we can only use sources that we have per WP:NPOV. BTW, this thread was only about a minor correction in the lead. You continue discussion about the subject of the page that suppose to be in another section. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think that outdated sources that provide combined number for all victims of communism are more adequate than new data provided by experts in their field, please, prove that the data Courtois used in 1990 and Rummel 0n 1970s are more trustworthy than new data.

The books where the authors do not do their own research, but combine the data of others are tertiary sources. If tertiary sources are outdated, we cannot ignore what more modern secondary sources say. Your argument is that Courtois should be used in the lead because no more recent tertiary source exists. However, that is not what our policy says, because WP relies mostly on secondary sources.

To avoid possible misunderstanding, I explain again: Werth's chapter is a secondary sources, Courtois' introduction is a tertiary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think that books by Rummel and BB are the best and most reliable sources on this specific subject today because modern day history graduates use them. But you can convince me otherwise by providing newer sources with comparative statistics on the number of victims of Communist repressions in different countries. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You may think whatever you want.

Please provide a modern source that uses Rummel's figures. Regarding the BB, what chapter do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In XX century, life expectancy almost doubled, an unprecedented phenomenon that had never been observed in human history (except in Japan). How can that be consistent with killing of 60+ people?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that a joke? Contributors to the BBoC denounced as sloppy and biased scholarship the high estimates provided in the introduction and you think those are reliable? And Rummel is even worse! 62 million "murdered" by the Soviet government? I don't know of one Sovietologist who would agree with such an absurd estimate in the post-Cold War era. Even Robert Conquest was sensible enough to revise his estimates downward (although probably not enough) based on what archival evidence was showing. Rummel also nearly doubled his China estimate solely based on the controversial and highly polemical work Mao: The Unknown Story, which was shredded by actual Sinologists. He is a terrible scholar IMO. The most reliable estimates are those that can be documented, as Wheatcroft does meticulously in his work on the USSR.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I am simply saying that BBoC and books by Rummel qualify as secondary academic RS per our policies, no matter if you like them or not. "Other historians disagree"? Fine, please bring other RS with comparative statistics on the number of victims of Communist repressions in different countries. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The attempt to draw a discussion into this direction is blurring the main question: the source in the lead is disputable, outdated and it does not reflect consensus (this outside opinion [3] supports this my claim). How can you explain your attempts to prevent us from fixing this violation of our content policy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• This talk page is getting intensely frustrating. First, we have five different open discussions about the lead alone. Second, it's been only a few days since this was unprotected, and we're already seeing edit-wars and personal attacks of the sort that led this to be protected. C.J. Griffin, you're right about the sources, but you really should avoid comments like "Are you deliberately being obtuse".

  My very best wishes, your position that the introduction to the BBOC is the best source available is a completely untenable position. The chapters within it qualify as RS; the introduction does not, for the reasons presented above. Your insistence that other folks present "comparative estimates" is also off the mark: one doesn't need to present an alternative estimate in order to critique Malia's figure, and so ignoring criticism that does not present such a figure is wikilawyerish skulduggery that has no place here.

  As I see it, we have two options for numbers in the lead; either we remove them, or we include a range of figures (including for subsets of the topics covered in this article) along with critiques thereof. There aren't any other neutral options. We should focus our discussion on how precisely to fashion this lead (and, if any of the sources are not in the article, where they belong). Also, FYI, Miacek has been blocked indefinitely, and they are not likely to be party to this discussion any further.

  Vanamonde (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• But that is exactly what I am talking all the time on this page: yes, we should include "a range of figures" in the lead! And it is already included. What's the problem? As about "Introduction", it is currently under discussion on RSNB: see here, and it has been previously discussed on RSNB here. We are talking about first chapter of book named "Introduction: The Crimes of Communism". This is not an "editorial". It is no different from any other chapters of the book . This chapter cites 34 other secondary and primary sources (see pages 760, 761), just as any other typical secondary source. Hence this source is definitely a secondary academic RS and should be used here. Books by Rudolph Rummel also qualify as academic RS and can be used on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

An you forgot to mention that is the very part of the BB that raised intense controversy and criticism, including and disagreement among other BB authors. The introduction does not reflect even a consensus of the BB's authors themselves, how can you pretend it represents a mainstream view? I am starting to suspect that you persistent refusal to address this argument is an indication of the lack of a good faith. Remember, this article is under DS, so we must be collaborative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know if you have ever written a scientific paper with collaborators, but co-authors always disagree about something in my experience. Yes, having public disagreements between co-authors of the same book is unusual, but I am sure there are other such examples, and they do not undermine credibility of anything. This is just a normal discourse. In this particular case, people understandably can have different opinions about such politically charged issue as comparison of Communism and Nazism. This is all it was actually about. No one suggested to include the comparison of Communism and Nazism in the lead of this page.My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My h-index is not impressive (just 12), but I, in contrast to you, understand the difference between co-authors of a paper or a book and contributors to a collective volume. And it is an absolutely non-normal situation when one contributor publicly disassociates themselves from another.

However, as I see, you agree that different viewpoints exist on if it is correct to combine the victims of communism into a single category and to give a single number. In that case, I don't understand why are you supporting the version of the lead that pushed one viewpoint and ignores another one? You did not address the question about a generally recognised controversial nature of the introduction (which means the source you are advocating so persistently does not represent majority views).

I consider all of that tantamount to gaming a system. I am interested to see the sources that dispute David-Fox's conclusion. Your own speculations (which are not supported with reliable sources) are irrelevant and not helpful for achievement of a consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The following considerations are absolutely necessary to take into account:

1. A number of sources give an estimate of total amount of Communism victims. ALL these sources give these estimates to support the idea that Communism was greater evil than Nazism, or that Communism was the greatest evil of XX century. This idea is criticised by other sources. Conclusion: if we give total numbers from those sources, we must supplement that with the explanation that the numbers are intended to support some concrete idea, and that approach does not reflect scholarly consensus.
2. A number of modern authors, especially Mildarsky, Valentino, Semelin and Weitz discuss the mechanism of onset of genocides and mass killings, but (i) they do not consider ideology (any ideology) as an important factor, and (ii) do not do a special research about the exact number of victims. Valentino's estimates are not the result of his own research, he just took older data, because the exact number of, e.g. Soviet famine victims is not capable of affecting his conclusions significantly. Conclusion These authors are just not interested in exact numbers, they are more focused on mechanisms, so the sources of that type do not contain any independent estimates that can be used in the lead.
3. The scholars who study genocides "typically compare genocides to genocide". This is not my assertion, that is the statement taken from a reliable source: Scott Straus. Retreating from the Brink: Theorizing Mass Violence and the Dynamics of Restraint. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 10, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 343-362. Published by: American Political Science Association. [4]. For example, it is possible to find modern (corrected) figures of Stalinism victims, but the authors who provide these vigures are absolutely not interested in calculation of the number of "Communism victims", because the subject of their academic interest is Stalinism, not Communism. Conclusion: this type sources also do not contain combined figures, but they DO contain modern and the most accurate estimates of victims of every separate event.

General conclusion: ALL combined figures are from the sources that are written from the "generic Communism" point of view. The idea that the total number of victims of Communism is a part of mainstream scientific discourse is absolutely incorrect. All other sources do not contain these estimates simply because this question is beyond the scope of their study.

Any neutral lead must reflect what all these sources say in a balanced way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You tell in your "general conclusion": "The idea that the total number of victims of Communism is a part of mainstream scientific discourse is absolutely incorrect." Are you saying that all publications on this subject are "fringe"? This seems to contradict your own statement ("A number of sources give an estimate of total amount of Communism victims") followed by discussion of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The review article discussing "second generation genocide scholars" (the source I already cited several times) says:

"To be sure, no topic of study is likely to achieve perfect consensus on core concepts. But the issue is especially salient in this literature for at least two reasons. First, the conceptual range is broad. Some authors such as Valentino employ a concept that includes dozens of twentieth century cases. Other authors, such as Midlarsky, use a narrower definition, with only three twentieth-century cases. Some authors, such as Weitz, Valentino, Mann, and Levene, incorporate communist cases, which generally involve targeting class groups (not ethnic or racial ones). Other authors exclude communist cases. Some authors such as Mann, Levene, and Valentino include colonial cases; the other authors do not. In short, there is considerable range in the kind of violence being examined. Second, most authors seek to find common empirical patterns among a very small number of cases. That being so, even small variations in the concept of genocide yield different universes of cases, different case selections, and ultimately different findings and theories."

As you can see, the review mentions no authors who separate communist mass killing into a separate topic. Courtois or Malia are not mentioned at all (which means, their viewpoint is not a part of modern scientific discourse).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• The question here is not your citation index, but citation indexes of Courtois, Malia, Rummel and other authors. I did not check them, but their indexes should be high based on Google searches. They are also generally known as mainstream researchers (please check wikipages about them). Hence your claim that their work was not "mainstream" is completely groundless. If there is only a small number of publications on a certain subject, it means this is simply a narrowly specialized subject area. Sometimes there is only one author writing about something. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This your post contains just speculations and is not supported by any reliable sources. It looks like an attempt to draw a discussion from a productive direction to repetitions of the same arguments again and again. This post looks like a combination of filibustering and aggressive POV pushing. Please, remember, this article is under DS restrictions. I expect not to see this type posts any more in this thread. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Look, you just said that your h-index is 12 and that "Courtois or Malia are not mentioned at all" because "their viewpoint is not a part of modern scientific discourse". I am responding that no, the scientists with high citation index (and notable enough to have a large WP page about thewm), i.e. Courtois or Malia, are certainly a part of the "modern scientific discourse", are well known experts in their fields, and their books therefore qualify as RS. How can you see such response as problematic? My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion belongs to my talk page, not to this thread. However, if you don't understand the difference between someone's h-factor and a relevance of their work to some area, I am not sure I want to continue this conversation. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

BB reviews

To obtain an unbiased impression of the BB as a source for figures, I went to jstor and looked through top reviews on BB I found there [5]. Note, these sources should be considered best quality sources, because the fact that their authors were invited to write a review tells for itself. In my opinion, we should use all these sources in this article. Please, note, these sources go in the same order as I found them in jstor, so I am not cherry-picking them. Below are quotes (for your convenience, the links to fulltext are provided; I believe the quotes of that size are allowed by our IR policy):

1. Amir Weiner, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452 [6] : Although it adds little data that is new, the list is long, informative, and, for most part, indisputable. Even when the numbers of victims are questionable or obviously inflated, the brutality of communism in power is well established. (...) That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation. (...) Evaluation of academic monographs should not have to involve as- sessment of the authors' political backgrounds and environments. Regrettably, in the case of the Black Book of Communism, these characteristics are not irrelevant. For American readers in particular, the editor's claim that the dark side of communism remained elusive until the publication of this book rings hollow; it is also telling about the author."
2. Hiroaki Kuromiya. Review Article: Communism and Terror. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression by Stephane Courtois; Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201. [7] :"Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recal- citrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine.8 It is not possible, contrary to Courtois' contention, to show convincingly the 'system- atic use of famine as a weapon' by the Soviets. 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."
3. Stanley Hoffman. Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp.166-169 [8] :"This gigantic volume, the sum of works of 11 historians, social scientists, and journalists, is less important for the content, but for the social for the social storm it has provoked in France. (...) 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 commu- nism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint."
4. Alexander Dallin. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression byStéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek,Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 882-883. Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: [9] :"It would be incorrect to say that the book tells us more about the authors than about the subject; but it would be equally fallacious to omit the time and place-French intellectual soul-searching in the post-Soviet years-from its etiology. The editors imply that a lot of what they describe as "crimes, terror, and repression" has somehow been kept from the general public (an assertion further conjugated in Martin Malia's foreword to the American edition). In fact, for the informed reader the outlines-and often the details-of the evidence and argument are quite familiar, though admittedly few nonspecialists will command all the known facts about the Khmer Rouge, the Sendero Luminoso, or (a rather questionable category, to begin with) Afro-communism. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together-just because they are labeled Marxist or communist-is a question the authors scarcely discuss. (...)The chapters vary greatly in quality and reliability. Though often debatable, much the best ones are those by Nicolas Werth on the Soviet Union. Some of the others suffer from rather shrill rhetoric, and the whole enterprise of course leaves vast stretches of uncertainty; thus the attempt to establish the number of victims of communism (a futile effort that would depend greatly on definitions even if the statistics were more reliable) comes up with strikingly vast variations and vague totals (e.g., 65 million deaths for China, 20 million deaths for the USSR, and so forth)."
5. Andrzej Paczkowski. The Strom over the Black Book. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 25, No. 2 (Spring, 2001), pp. 28-34. Published by: Wilson Quarterly. Stable URL: [10]. This review, in contrast to others is positive. However, the reviewer nores: Some critics complained that Courtois was "hunting" for the highest possible number of victims, which led him, as J. Arch Getty wrote in the Atlantic Monthly, to include "every possible death just to run up the score." To an extent, the charge is valid. Courtois and other contributors to the volume equate the people shot, hanged, or killed in prisons or the camps with those who were victims of calculated political famines (in the Chinese and Soviet cases), or who otherwise starved for lack of food or died for lack of drugs. "
6. Ronald Aronson. Review: Communism's Posthumous Trial. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression byStéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the TwentiethCentury by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and theFrench Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus. History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245. Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University. Stable URL: [11] :"But most of these problems pale in significance opening and closing chapters, which caused occasioned a break among the Black Book authors.(...) Courtois's figures for the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Latin America go far beyond the estimates of the authors themselves, as does Courtois's final body count. (...) But two other theses created considerable consternation and have come to be associated with The Black Book: the figure of 100 million deaths and the parallel with Nazism. They became central in the debate that followed. (...) In articles and interviews Werth and Margolin pointed out how, in the service of this goal, Courtois distorted and exaggerated: Werth's total, including the Civil War and the famine of 1932-1933 had been five million less than Courtois's "mythical number,"51 while Margolin denied having spoken of the Vietnamese Communists being responsible for one million deaths.52 Interviewed in Le Monde, Margolin likened Courtois's effort to "militant political activity, indeed, that of a prosecutor amassing charges in the service of a cause, that of a global condemnation of the Communist phenomenon as an essentially criminal phenomenon." Both rejected the comparison between Communism and Nazism"
7. Robert Legvold. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois and Nicolas Werth. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1999), p. 155Published by: Council on Foreign Relations Stable URL: [12]: - a very brief review, generally positive.
8. Shane J. Maddock The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek,Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer Source: The Journal of American History, Vol. 88, No. 3 (Dec., 2001), p. 1156 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Organization of American Historians Stable URL: [13] :"Much of the controversy that has surrounded the book has focused on Stephane Courtois's introduction, in which he argues that communism represents a greater evil than Nazism, largely based on Marxism-Leninism's heftier death tally."
9. David J. Galloway The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois, Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer. Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 587-589 Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages Stable URL: [14] " This review is generally positive, the reviewer just summarised what the book says with minimal comments.

I deliberately haven't included David-Fox there, because his article is not in the top of my jstor search, and I wanted my search to be completely unbiased. I believe the results of this unbiased search convincingly demonstrate that

1. Courtois is not a satisfactory source for cumulative figures;
2. Courtois uses these figures to advocate a certain political agenda, so by presenting the figures in the lead in the way the article is currently doing, our neutrality policy is seriously violated.
3. A number of authors believe the very idea to use cumulative figures is intrinsically flawed.

In connection to that, I am expecting fresh arguments (with sources) that may allow us to keep Courtois/Malia's figures in the lead. If no fresh arguments will be provided until Friday night, I am removing these figures, at least until we find a reasonable way to present these data without violations of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• First of all, these your comments above probably belong to talk page of Black Book of Communism, not here. Secondly, I am not sure what is your point. Are you saying that Black Book of Communism is not a reliable source? Are you saying that publications by Stéphane Courtois and Martin Malia are not reliable sources or that Courtois and malia are not "mainstream" historians? I think there is only one valid point here: yes, we should create a subsection of the page with discussion of the total number of victims. Then it will be more clear what should and what should not be included in the lead. If you do not mind, I can do it later when I have more time. As about your quotations above, they do not prove anything except that book was famous and therefore have received a lot of positive and not so positive reviews. Obviously, communists, leftists and revisionist historians like J. Arch Getty did not like the book. Others just happened to disagree with something, which is normal in this area of science. That does not disprove or negate anything. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

My points are:

1. Courtois's introduction (not the BB as whole) is not a reliable source for figures (leaving other aspects beyond the scope)
2. The figures presented by Courtois were intended to push quite specific political idea, and this very attempt (to "lump together" all figures of all deaths under Communist rule) was criticized by other reliable sources, which implies the very approach is questionable.
3. I expect to see fresh arguments supported by reliable sources, desirably, non-cherry-picked.
4. If no arguments of that type will be presented, I move the BB from the lead to this talk page until we find a way to present this information in a neutral way, which our policy requires. That means, there is a possibility that this source will be added back, but we need to elaborate a correct wording. Since the current wording clearly violate our policy, I'll remove it unless adequate evidences in its support are presented until Friday.

I believe, I was clear enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to my comment just above, each of these quotations needs to be analyzed individually to see what it means. For example, "Courtois and other contributors to the volume equate the people shot, hanged, or killed in prisons or the camps with those who were victims of calculated political famines (in the Chinese and Soviet cases), or who otherwise starved for lack of food or died for lack of drugs. ". Yes, it is exactly what Courtois and other contributors to the volume do. Robert Conquest and a lot of other historians do the same. So what? How this disproves or discredits anything? My very best wishes (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Taking words from a context is not helpful. The author I cited confirms Courtois was engaged in deliberate inflation of figures, and he does not find that correct. That is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

Further argumentation ad nauseum is hardly productive, and it may be considered disruptive editing. Please, be concrete.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not taking words from a context. To the contrary, I am looking at the meaning of the statement. The meaning was correct (I believe), but but it does not really prove that the book was "bad". It was an illustration that every statement on controversial subject needs to be analyzed carefully to understand what it actually means and how it should be used on the page. Just creating a collection of presumably negative quotations about something does not belong to encyclopedia. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not only you are taking words from context, you again did that: we are not discussing if a book is bad, we are discussing if Sourtois's chapter is a good source for figures, and the answer is obvious: some sources say it is unacceptable for this particular purpose, some source say lumping figures together in this particular case is an intrinsically flawed ides at all, and no sources tell the figures are trustworthy. However, even if some sources say that, Courtois is still a highly controversial source, and it should not be in the lead unless it is properly balanced. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• In your response above you clarified that "Courtois's introduction (not the BB as whole) is not a reliable source for figures". Well, it is exactly the question you posted several years ago on RSNB [15]. Did this posting resulted in consensus that you are right? No, it did not. In particular, user:DGG said that although the book should be used with care, the numbers of the book should be be used to establish the range of numbers (that is what I am telling as well). Now, you posted same question again here and here. Will it result in consensus to support you claim? I do not know, but at very least you should wait until the end of these discussions you started. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'll remove the text that obviously violates NPOV, and we can continue our discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, removing this would violate NPOV. Make an RfC about it if you wish. This is the only thing you can probably do to change status quo when there is no local consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This [16] your edit removed the mention of controversy about the intro. That is a violation of our policy, which requires that segregation of text should be avoided. Note that is not a content dispute any more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why this is "not a content dispute any more"? My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that was incorrect edit by another contributor (possibly just a mistake) that I fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This statement seems to be absolutely false: in this diff [17] you removed the word "controversial" and replaced the link to a "criticism" section with a general link, thereby making more difficult for a reader to get access to any information about controversy. The edits of that kind suspiciously look like aggressive POV pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Since no evidences has been provided in support of a current description of Courtois in the lead, I remove it as I previously announced, because this text clearly violates our policy. Nevertheless, I anticipate the mention of the BB will re-appear again in the new version of the lead after a consensus will be achieved. Please, join a discussion of the text proposed below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible correction of the lead

Below, I outline major points the good and a balanced lead should reflect in my opinion (and what should not).

1. A neutral description of the events should be provided. The description should be maximally inclusive. A consensus is that mass mortality events occurred in some communist states, and that is what the first sentence should say.

1b. Other terminology is not an subject of current scholarly debates (thus, Straus writes that all authors use their own terminology, or use the same word "genocide",,but each in different ways). That means there is no dispute about some common terminology, just the lack thereof. Which means these nuances hardly belong to the lead.

2. The most obvious events that are least controversial should be named: Khmer Rouge genocide is universally recognised as such, and we should say that directly. Stalin's mass execution or Mao's Cultural revolution also should be described as mass killing, because they are universally recognized as such.

3. Controversial examples (famine, civil war victims, deportation victims etc) should be named, and the reason for controversy over the role of government policy and intentionaluty should be described (for example, the discussion about a man-made famine Holodomor is ended yet, so there is no universal conclusion about its reasons and if it was a genocide)

4. Connection of these events to Communist ideology and total number of victims should be described: It should be stated clearly, that some authors (with names, the list is exhaustive) combine all mass mortality events and describe all these victims (the number is provided here) as the victims of Communism, implying a strong connection between Communism as ideology and mass killing. It should be stated immediately after that that majority of genocide scholars prefer to study each mass killing event separately or compare one event with another; these authors do not consider any ideology as a primary factor.

Does anybody disagree with any of those statements?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this discussion makes any sense until you can suggest a specific version of the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Add your revised lede here so we can discuss it. The sooner we get this done the better. I added that the materials cited in the lede are controversial with source, given no one has moved them to the talk page or tagged them. EDIT: I request that My very best wishes restore that the introduction is 'controversial'. His edit sneakily removed this in order to supposedly give the official title of the introduction, which by itself is pointless.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Will do soon. I've just realized the article has no POV tag. I fixed that omission.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I daresay using your personal research into the issues and your opinions thereon is not what Wikipedia policy calls for. All we are supposed to do is write what reliable sources write, period. Collect (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

????!!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but does this your statement mean that, in your opinion, whatever text I propose, it is my personal original research?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You misinterpret my post too much to respond. I note that the vast array of text you provide sans specific sourcing for the exact wording you seek is, perforce, original research at best. Provide precise sourcing for any precise wording you believe should be placed in the article. That is all we can ask for, and it is the minimum we should ask for. I suggest that short proposals in the form of RfCs would be better than masses of text, by the way. And please do not make personal attacks on me or any other editor. Collect (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, because it is not easy to understand what you mean?

All I am writing is based on sources I read. I do not add them to save time and space. Later, the sources will be added, but I prefer to do that after an agreement will be achieved about major points. If some point seems controversial and anybody needs to see a source, it will be provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You did not suggest any specific corrections for the lead, at least in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently, I am thinking about it, but I am being constantly distracted by a conversation with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your version below is inconsistent with your suggestions above. You tell: "1. A neutral description of the events should be provided.". That's great, but you did not provide any description of the events in the summary below. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What about the sentences ##1-4? Isn't it a description? Why do you believe it is not neutral? Do you mean the lead requires more detailed description? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Paul for the effort you've put into this necessary task. Unlike some other commenters, I'm not going to make specific judgments until I go through the sources more, but I will say its a relief to see someone looking to make a genuine contribution to WP rather than just shoot other people down.--GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Good. If you need references to some source, just aks, and I provide them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, although I believe we should simply incrementally update the lead to summarize the body of the article as it incrementally develops, here are my responses to your specific points, as requested:

1. Agreed

1b. I think a brief mention that there is no scholarly consensus on what term best applies should be included, without going into details.

2. Agreed

3. Agreed

4. I would want to see the sourcing for this: "It should be stated immediately after that that majority of genocide scholars prefer to study each mass killing event separately or compare one event with another; these authors do not consider any ideology as a primary factor." AmateurEditor (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

the specific version + comments

Below is a crude draft of the lead, and my comments on each sentence. For your convenience, each sentence is numbered. If you disagree with anything, please, add your comments. I think it would be easier to follow the discussion if you wedge your comments in between my comments (I mean, you are welcome to comment on each my comment immediately after it). Happy commenting :-)

(1) Killing of a large numbers of non-combatants occurred in a number of communist states during a certain periods of their history. (2) These killing occurred during civil wars, political repression campaigns against real or perceived opponents, and persecution of certain social, ethnic, or ethno-social groups. (3) Mass killings had the greatest scale during Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union, in Mao Zedong led China, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. (4) The scale of mass killings in the USSR and China considerably decreased by the end of Stalin's and Mao's rule, accordingly, after the change of leadership, mass killings essentially stopped and, in the Soviet case, they were condemned by Stalin's successors; Cambodian genocide was stopped by the military intervention of Communist Vietnam's army. (5) Mass killing in Cambodia was legally recognized as genocide; persecution of ethnic or ethno-social groups in other communist states is also believed to have a genocidal nature, although no consensus is achieved do date on each of those events. (6) Mass killings in smaller scale occurred in some other Communist states and in some developing countries that declared adherence to one or another version of a communist doctrine. (7) Majority of these mass killings had been condemned by the international community and by countries' own successor regimes. (8) In addition to direct mass killings, several other mass mortality events occurred in Communist states; the deadliest of them were Soviet famine of 1932–33 and Great Leap Forward famine in China, which claimed 3-8 million and 30 million lives, respectively. (9) As most man-made famines, these famine showed clear marks of omission, commission, and provision, the degree of responsibility of Communist authorities for each famine is a subject of discussion, although many evidences indicate a genocidal nature of some of them. (10) A question on key causal mechanisms of all these heterogeneous events is still open, and most studies usually involve the analysis of individual cases or comparison of some genocide with other similar events. (11) Communist ideology is not considered as the only cause, and its contribution was different in different cases, although some first generation genocide scholars stress the role of a totalitarian state in mass killing. (12) A number of historians, including an editor of Black Book of Communism argue that Communist regimes deliberately killed 100 million people; based on that, they claim Communist regimes were more deadly and criminal than Nazism. (13) This conclusion is based on deliberately inflated figures of a total Communist death toll, and this approach, as well as the conclusions, caused severe criticism of historians.

Sentence 1 : This is an indisputable statement that reflects mainstream view. Indeed, it avoid generalisations (not all authors agree killing occurred it all states), and as many authors (including the ones I cited above) note that during some historical periods ("Khtuschev's thaw", post-Mao China, etc) there were no mass killing.

Sentence 2 : This is also a consensus view. No mainstream historian will argue against that.

Sentence 3 : These three mass killings should be named separately and explicitly, and I don't remember that anybody objected to that.

Sentence 4 : I think we need to add this information, because otherwise a wrong impression may be created that mass killings lasted from the very beginning to the very end of communist rule in each country.

Sentence 5: Khmer Rouge is a chemically pure genocide, and it was the only Communist genocide that is legally recognised as such. Other mass killings are colloquially called "genocide" although there is no consensus if they fit a strict definition.

Sentence 6: I doubt it may cause any objections.

Sentence 7: I am not sure about China, it looks like they are trying just not to talk about that. Correct me if I am wrong.

Sentence 8: The numbers serve as just a placeholders, I propose to discuss them separately.

Sentence 9: Again, I don't think anyone may disagree with that.

Sentence 10: Sources are: Second-Generation Comparative Research on Genocide Reviewed Work(s): Genocide in the Age of the Nation State by Mark Levene; The Dark Sideof Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing by Michael Mann; The Killing Trap: Genocide inthe Twentieth Century by Manus I. Midlarsky; Purifier et détruire: Usages politiques desmassacres et génocides by Jacques Sémelin; Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide inthe Twentieth Century by Benjamin A. Valentino; A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Raceand Nation by Eric D. Weitz Review by: Scott Straus Source: World Politics, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Apr., 2007), pp. 476-501. Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: [18], and Retreating from the Brink: Theorizing Mass Violence and the Dynamics of Restraint. Author(s): Scott Straus. Source: Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 10, No. 2 (June 2012), pp. 343-362. Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: [19]

Sentence 11: ibid

Sentence 12: That is what Malia and Courtois say.

Sentence 13: Since many sources (cited above) say that, and since it reflects real debates, we need to tell that in the lead.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Argue and deliberately inflated and similar Judgements in Wikipedia's voice make this rather a non-starter. Are you proposing this as an RfC? I wonder how much support it would garner, for sure. Collect (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That statement is directly taken from reliable sources I cited above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is WP:OR and not a summary of the page. I agree: this version is absolutely terrible. Here is just a couple of examples:

1. "Killing ... occurred", "These killing occurred during civil wars..." This is nonsense, in addition to poor English. They did not "happen" [by themselves]. They were committed by the governments of these countries. This is the entire point made by all these sources.
2. "Communist ideology is not considered as a primary cause". No, the majority of sources do not claim it. They tell main reason was the communist system of the government (BBoC, this is not "Introduction", "Communism" by Pipes, and books by Robert Conquest etc.) and the Communist ideology definitely played a role, as also reflected on this page.

And so on. Make an RfC about it if you wish, but I think it will fail. P.S. Speaking about consensus, for example with regard to using BBoC, yes, "the consensus may change". Or it may not change. It is the latter in this case so far. My very best wishes (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The above post is not true, because sentences 10-13 are properly sourced, and the sources may be provided for other sentences upon a reasonable request. The above post is not a reasonable request, because it contains no specific objections, except stylistic ones.

There is no, and there never had been any consensus about the BB.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

These are not stylistic objections. You suggested to include statements that are wrong, not supported by majority of sources and do not properly summarize content of the page. As about consensus about using BB, I already provided supporting links to discussions on RSNB on this page, and can provide them again, but this is not the subject under discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Which my statements are wrong, why concretely they are wrong, and what concretely in these statements is not supported by reliable sources? Please, be concrete, because otherwise that is not a productive discussion.

Regarding old discussion on RSNB, it was inconclusive, and it did not address more recent arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I already explained. Almost every other phrase you suggested is also problematic. "As most man-made famines, these famine showed clear marks of omission, commission, and provision, ..." What this suppose to mean? You suggest: "This conclusion is based on deliberately inflated figures of a total Communist death toll...". Frankly, this claim in WP voice is wrong and looks pretty much as your own WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Re omission etc. "Omission" is authorities' failure to acknowledge the famine and promptly secure an aid. Taking away all means of private food production, forcing peasants into mismanaged communes, and continuing food exports were the acts of commission. Preferential supplying cities cities and ignoring rural areas act of selective provision.

Re: inflation. I already cited these sources, but I repeat specially for you:

2. Hiroaki Kuromiya. Review Article: Communism and Terror. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression byStephane Courtois; Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201. [20] :"Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recal- citrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine.8 It is not possible, contrary to Courtois' contention, to show convincingly the 'system- atic use of famine as a weapon' by the Soviets. 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."

3.Stanley Hoffman. Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp.166-169 [21] :"This gigantic volume, the sum of works of 11 historians, social scientists, and journalists, is less important for the content, but for the social for the social storm it has provoked in France. (...) 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 commu- nism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint."--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re: ""Communist ideology is not considered as a primary cause" Weitz, who sumarises the works of other genocide scholars, writes about three paradigms for explanation of mass killings: idealism, political development and state interest. He does not cite communist ideology as a sole factor. However, you may be right, and primary cause would be better to replace with a sole factor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I already responded to this in another section [22]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

...and failed to address my arguments properly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your are trying to discredit the book by providing published criticism about it. However, there are just as many positive reviews (some of them are cited on the page about the book), and the disagreements are a part of normal scientific discourse. As about the total number of victims, this is just a sum of numbers for individual countries, and the numbers for individual countries are based on publications in many other sources (some of them provide even larger estimates for individual countries). We just should not count the total number ourselves to avoid WP:SYN.My very best wishes (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing "normal" about a major author of a book denouncing the introduction to the press and attempting to get his contribution removed. That's what Werth did.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Any link? But generally speaking, yes, that would be unusual and resulted in a negative publicity for the person who "changed his mind" (that was not Courtois, if I understand correctly). All co-authors are required to sign a form prior to the publication, so that all of them had to be well aware about the first chapter prior to the publication. Signing the release form and disagreeing later is indeed unusual, but again, just a sign of disagreements.My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think repeating the same argument ad nauseum to every new participant of the discussion is a good way to conduct the discussion. The quote from the source (which I cited above) is as follows:

"Why, then, did the Livre noir result in such a storm of copious, polemical articles in the French press and in the rather unusual spectacle of some of the authors-Werth, for example-attacking Courtois, who wrote the book's introduction and conclusion? 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 restrain."

Werth accused Courtois of manipulating his (Werth's) figures. He never changed his mind, he opposed to a wrong interpretation of his own data. That doesn't tell anything bad about Werth, but it does tell about Courtois, and about those who are incapable of understanding that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what is your source, but most of them refer to this article in Le Monde. According to it, Werth thinks it was 15 million victims in the USSR, Courtious used the number of 20 million. That was the only their disagreement in numbers. Not surprising. Some sources tell it was 50 million victims in the USSR, even 60 million (according to Guinness World Records). My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Werth thinks it was 15 million victims in the USSR, Courtious used the number of 20 million.

...So a 30% exaggeration. That's shocking. It means that Courtious may have exaggerated on every country, so the entire Black Book would be distorted by a third.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is not an "exaggeration" (once again, what's the source?), but a minor difference in opinion, given very wide range of numbers published in RS. For example, this book by Yevgenia Albats tells that 66.7 million people were killed "by state" in the USSR between 1917 and 1959. The book is pretty much a scholarly source. So, one could make a point that the number by Courtois was 3 times underestimated, but once again, this is just a difference between sources, depending on how the numbers were counted. Let's include this bigger number on the page? Yes, this should be done per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, show respect to users you are talking with: Albats says: "a terrible statistics has made into Guinness Book of records: 66.5 million ..." etc. She seems to refer to an old Guinness book that used this figure in late 80s. Is that your normal way of working with sources?!

I recall the same Albats claimed more than 200,000 Latvians were killed by Soveit authorities during occupation. Does Wikipedia use this figure? Albats is by no means a scholar, she is a political writer. She is accurate in description of evils the regime, but she never do her own research for numbers. She just use highest possible numbers published before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's why we are using scholarly secondary sources, such the book by Albats. If she cites some numbers, it means she believes the numbers are correct (I would rather not cite Guiness Book directly). Note that the book by Albats [23] was published in 1999, after the so called "opening" of the KGB archives (she was a member of an official commission that was given a brief access to these archives). She is an excellent expert on the subject of Soviet state security services, with a PhD in political science from Harvard University. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Albatz is a journalist by education, who was writing popular articles about physics and astrophysics; read her bio before claiming she is a scholar. Later, she became a political scientist, but she never did her own research of the statistics of victims of Stalinism. She just uses obsolete data. Just open her book and tell me what source does she cite? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, although I prefer us to ignore work on the lead until the article is further developed, here are my responses to your proposed sentences as requested:

1. No objection.

2. No objection.

3. No objection.

4. I would like to see the sourcing for this statement. Mass killing on a smaller scale than Valentino's 50K in 5 years cutoff did occur - rarely - after these periods, so I think saying "mass killings essentially stopped" is not true.

5. No objection.

6. No objection.

7. I would like to see the sourcing for this statement.

8. Ignoring the specific numbers given, no objection.

9. No objection.

10. This seems like a conclusion you have reached based upon your own analysis of various sources, rather than a conclusion found in a source. In particular, characterizing "most sources" suggests a review occurred of all the existing material or a representative sample of it all, which I doubt. Even if we had, this sentence will not age well as additional sources are produced.

11. No objection.

12. I believe Courtois wrote that the total approached 100 million, rather than saying it was 100 million, but I also don't think we can characterize all historians who cite that number as claiming Communism was "more criminal" than Nazism.

13. The conclusion that Communist regimes were more deadly (i.e. killed more people) than Nazism also works for the lowest total estimates I have seen, so I don't think that conclusion is based upon inflated figures, deliberate or otherwise. AmateurEditor (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you AmateurEditor for your insightful review. I think this lead should reflect an overall structure of the article after revision.

(4) I am not aware of any events of this kind in Cambodia after Vietnamese invasion, and in the USSR after Stalin's death (Valentino does not consider Afghanistan as Communist mass killing, just a standard anti-partisam warfare). I propose to think about that sentence together.

(7) This sentence is just a summary of all information available to me. It is hardly disputable, but it may a synthesis, so if a single source will not be found we will have to remove it (although this statement is true). That is an additional demonstration of the thesis that MKuCR is not a single topic according to majority scholars.

(10) No, that is pretty much close to what I read in the sources I cited. The review on the works of "second generation genocide scholars" openly says that. Read it by yourself and check if I understand that correct.

(12) Usually, those historians who are not going to write about Communism in general, do not cite these numbers. Those historians who claim Communism was the greatest evil, do cite this number. Historians who disagree with that, also cite this number, but criticize both the number and the approach in general. In any event, this figure seems to be tightly bound with the question on whether Communism was the greatest evil or not, because other authors simply do not consider "generic Communism" as a real concept, and for them, for example, Cambodian genocide shares more common features with Inonesian or Nazi genocides that with the events in Stalin's USSR.

(13) Lowest totals do not exist, because the authors who do not consider Soviet or Chinese famine as genocide are not interested in providing any cumulative figures for all communist regimes: they study each country separately. Recent comparison of Stalinism and Nazism (which is much more scholarly approach) says Stalinism killed less that Nazism. Actually, Communism killed a lot of people simply because it was controlling a vast countries for a very long period of time, if one compare per capita mortality, figures for all communist states except Cambodia look much less impressive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sen review of Late Victorian Holocausts

The review does not single out Great Britain, does not refer to "free trade", does not accuse Great Britain of "colonization" of China, Brazil, etc., and does not invoke "communism" in the review. This makes the catenated claims for the review unsustainable, so I carefully marked them as "citation needed." Claims which are unsupported by the actual words in the source cited are not usable. Collect (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree: this thing simply does not belong to this page. I would even say the entire section "Debate on famines" does not belong to this page, but belongs to pages about famines or elsewhere. Maybe only a couple of phases from this section could be salvaged. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Free trade is often regarded as a synonym for capitalism. It's my understanding that WP doesn't frown on paraphrases. For both legal and stylistic reasons it does frown on excessive quotation, however. GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Free Trade" is not at all synonymous with "capitalism" at all. In fact, no source I can find makes such a link, nor does the article make such a link. Collect (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I suspected you might say that, that's why I provided a link to a thesaurus above. You may also wish to consult an obscure tome called The Wealth of Nations. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, some online "thesaurus" is not a reliable source especially one that provides words that are associated rather than mean the same thing. "Free trade" refers to international economic relations; low tariffs, quotas etc. "Capitalism" refers to internal ownership of means of production. You can actually have "free trade" under a planned economy (though it tends not to work out too well) and you can have no free trade, protectionism, while being capitalism (uh... Trump).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, see a review on Davis's book cited by me below. It is more specific, and it does support the thesis of British responsibility for mass deaths in China, India and Brasil on 19th cetnury.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Still --- Sen does not single out Great Britain, and Great Britain had nothing at all to do with colonizing China and causing any famines. A thesaurus is not a substitute for a direct cite for the source being used - And The Wealth of Nations does not equate capitalism with "free trade." I urge you to remove the "Great Britain" piece as not being borne out by the source, as well as "colonizing China" as not being borne out by any source. Collect (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say, a "Famine" section is a single large piece of NPOV violation. Our policy says: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. That is exactly what we observe here: the opinion (actually, majority view) that most famines (except few) were not genocidal or even intentional is represented as a minority view, which is a blatant POV-pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Collect posted the question on Late Victorian Holocaust on RSN, and I decided to make a brief research. I think the opinion of Jeff Mann deserves attention. See the relevant noticeboard thread for details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC).

I do not think we agreed to include this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I you may agree or disagree, but the Late Victorian Holocaust may be quite relevant, because it provides a good description of historical background of the event the article describes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The claims made about the UK owning China as part of the British Empire are unsupported by a reliable source, alas (WP:RS/N#Amartya_Sen_book_review) Denby covers the period and makes no such claims Collect (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, political domination is not too important, because Britain dominated economically and, according to Davis, is responsible for famines, because they were a result of an new economical order imposed on these countries by Britain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Denby deals with the "Taiping Rebellion" which had nothing whatsoever to do with Europeans at all. It was an internal rebellion founded on one Chinese person claiming to be Jesus Christ. The total number dead in the rebellion was likely about 20 million according to Denby, who also devotes appreciable content on Chinese agriculture, whose main problem was a lack of modern agricultural tools. The primary problem there was not "British rule" of any sort, but drought and lack of transport. I commend you to read Denby's work. No British economic order had anything to do with the Taiping Rebellion at all. Denby, by the way, would have noted such acts in his frank work. Please read it. Collect (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an absolutely superficial view. Below is a quote from: Theory and History of Revolution. Author(s): Clifton B. Kroeber Source: Journal of World History, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Spring, 1996), pp. 21-40 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press. Stable URL: [24]:

"de Welch believed that what started from ethnic roots, growing because of religious conviction, was further encouraged by economic disparities (Welch 1980, p. 52). Vincent Shih listed eight causes, adding that "social, political, and economic conditions persisted while ideas changed," but admitting that it is a mystery why those factors converged when they did (Shih 1967, pp. x-xiv; Kuhn 1978, 10:264). Scholars stress causes such as miserable, worsening lives of poor farm families, loss of morale and effect in government, the shock of Christian dogmas, feelings of ethnic hostility and nationalism, and the impact of foreign domination smothering trade, transport, and employment in and beyond south Chinese coastal areas (Jones and Kuhn 1978, 10:107-62; Naquin 1976, pp. 2-3, 264-69, 363-64)"

In general, it would be correct to say that colonialism completely changed Asia and Africa in XIX century, and it was responsible for the major part of calamities there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your problem here is that China was viewed by zero scholars as being under British domination, that the agricultural difficulties were exacerbated by lack of transport in northern China, which Britain had zero connection with, that the rebellion was not connected with the British in any way whatsoever, and the fact is the Taiping Rebelllion was centered in Taiping. http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion And, if anything, the western powers opposed the rebellion. Aside from that sort of cavil, China had to be part of the British Empire, along with Brazil etc. Not. Collect (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

British domination of China is explained in Century of humiliation. Note two that the UK had "concessions" in China and Hong Kong has a literal colony of the UK, actually referred to as a colony in British law. TFD (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about political or economical domination? If you mean a political domination, you are absolutely right. The problem is, however, that even in XIX century there was no need for capitalism to establish a full political control over some territory to dominate it. Britain was capable of destroying old economical system even in those countries it was not dominating politically. That is an essence of capitalism, and that is one of its difference from communist rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There are comparative studies of the Irish and Ukrainian famines. See for example, Holodomor and Gorta Mór. Note that it specifically refers to the UK as "the classic laissez faire stat promoting market capitalism and free trade." (p. 79) TFD (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read Denby or any other sources on the Taiping Rebellion? Taiping was never one of the Treaty Ports of China, by the way, and the UK had no presence there. Clearer now? And, by the way, the western powers opposed the rebellion. Collect (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why China was "informally" part of the British Empire. It did not have British appointed judges, provincial governors, police chiefs, etc., throughout the entire country, but dominated the entire country nonetheless. Incidentally some writers refer to Soviet domination of Eastern Europe in similar terms. TFD (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I am not sure why you all are arguing about these minuscule details when the whole Chinese section is a clear POV pushing. And people who are writing that are interested only in two things: to show the number of people killed (desirably, skewed to higher possible estimate) and to collect opinia of scholars who believe that was a mass killing. This is a blatant POV pushing.

In my opinion, a real text about events in China, as well as about each other country should be built based on the following plan:

1. History. What China was before communists took power. It should be explained that China was an extremely poor country whose economy was strongly affected by domination by colonial powers (primarily Britain), which suffered from regular and deadly famines and had archaic social structure dominated by feudal landlords (I am not providing any sources, but a neutral search will give them quite easily)
2. Revolution. Here we tell how and why the revolution happened, who were the opponents of communists, which methods both sides were using and how many civilians were killed by both sides.
3. Actions of communist authorities that lead to mass deaths. It should be explained that collectivisation was actually a continuation of the civil war in rural areas, that both sides (landlords and communists) used violence, what this violence consisted in, and how many people were killed. Then it is necessary to explain the origin of GLF, and the reason of the famine (the sources should be famine schiolars, like Lin, O'Grada, et al, and the same terminology should be used as they did). Only after that can we cite Valentino, Rummel, Courtois and other authors who believe GLF famine was a mass killing event, and this statement should be given as an opinion, not a fact, because all these authors are not specialists in Chinese history, and not famine experts.
4. Other events (cultural revolution, etc) It should be explained that it was a political campaign aimed to eliminate political opponents of Mao. Partially, the reason was in failed GLF. Explain what the CR consisted in, and how many people were killed.
5. Aftermath. What happened after that: measures taken by authorities to prevent new famines (for example, Mao ordered to build plants for production of fertilizers, etc), and so on.

That is how Chinese section should be written in my opinion, and that is what we need to discuss.

A story of MK in other states can be written according to the same scheme.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No original research with numbers, please

1. Which sources tell that the numbers of victims of Communist repressions in "Black Book" were wrong and provided some alternative numbers?. I can see none. For example, can you provide any RS where Werth gives an alternative estimate of total number of victims in all communist countries? If so, it can be used here. But remember, we are talking about estimated total numbers of victims of Communist repressions in all countries (or in a country X), not about numbers of Gulag victims, numbers of people shot, etc.
2. Same question about the number of 148 million democide victims in Communist countries by Rudolph Rummel (that was published, for example in books by Rummel, R. J. Death by government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994 and Lethal politics: Soviet genocide and mass murder since 1917. 1996, Transaction Publishers.). Same answer. For example, nowhere "Black Book" tells that the numbers by Rummel were wrong. Courious said that his estimate was extremely approximate, and that other very different estimates are possible.
3. @Paul. You can tell many times that the numbers are "outdated", "improbable", published by someone "who did not study this herself", whatever, but this is your original research. We are simply looking for the total numbers of victims/deaths which resulted from repressions in Communist countries, as published in reliable sources - in order to establish range of numbers. For example, the number reliably published by Yevgenia Albats should also be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeating the same arguments ad nauseum is hardly a sign of a good faith. Before you continue, I expect you, per WP:BURDEN, to demonstrate that the topic you are telling about is a mainstream topic, and the content you are trying to add/restore does not convert the article into a POV-fork.

You can demonstrate that by making the following:

1. Find the most cited articles about Cambodian genocide [25] in google scholar, and prove they use Rummel's estimates, or mention Rummel's "theory"

2. Find the most cited articles about Stelin's repressions of famine [26] [27] and find if they use Rummel's figures.

3. Do the same for China.

4. Compare Rummel's figures with the following statement:

"The best estimate that can currently be made of the number of repression deaths in 1937–38 is the range 950,000–1.2 million, i.e . about a million. This is the estimate which should be used by historians, teachers an d journalists concerned with twentieth century Russian—and world—history."

This is a quote from a peer-reviewed article written by Ellman who is an expert in the field (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Michael Ellman. To cite this article: Michael Ellman (2002) Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments, Europe-Asia Studies, 54:7, 1151-1172, DOI: 10.1080/0966813022000017177To link to this article: [28]). Ellman is a specialist in that field and a renown expert. He co-authored his papers with, for example, Maksudov, who is a brilliant mathemathician and statistician, and whose methodology has never been questioned.

In contrast, Rummel was criticized for his superficial methofological approach (see the authors I mentioned in our discussion on my talk page), for inadequate figures; he is being ignored by specialists who write specifically about Cambodia, USSR, China and other countries, and he is being cited only by critics of communism who write poor quality political books or articles.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

PS. You are repeating to push Albats despite the fact that this your argument has already been addressed and debunked. Albats is not a expert in this field: try to provide at least one reference to her book in the articles authored by real experts: Conquest, Rosefielde, Whearcrodt, Maksudov, Ellman. Try yo provide at least one research Albats published on that subject. You will never be capable of doing that. She is not an expert in the field, she didn't do her own research, and she obviously use someone else's data. What is the source she is using? She herself says she used Guinness book. Is this a normal level of discussion? By trying to seriously propose us to use Guinness book as a source you insulted all of us. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• We are not talking about the "number of repression deaths in 1937–38", but during a much longer period of time (you gave an irrelevant number). The references to "Black book" and books by Rummel are already provided, just as the reference to the book by Albats [29]. If any of your sources above provide any alternative estimates of numbers, let's include them, but I do not see them. Which alternative numbers these sources provide? Please post them here. "Being ignored" is your original research. Nothing has been ignored. The "Black book" and books by Rummel and Albats were cited. For example, the numbers from "Black book" were cited in the book by Pipes and other publications, Rummel was cited here and in other publications, etc. (see citation of the book by Albats [30]). My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I consider this argument frivolous. Obviously, we do not compare Rummel's totals with Ellman's figures. However, if you compare Rummel's estimate of the number of executions during the Great Terror with Ellman's modern figures, you will see more that three fold difference (4.3 million vs 1.3 million).
• Furthermore, did you read Rummel? Do you realise what his work consisted in? Rummel never did original research in this area, his work was devoted to summarising the data of other authors; he made estimates based on the data available during those times, and did something like a singular value decomposition to identify key factors responsible for "democide". That was his contribution to science. In other words, Rummel's works are just a summary of what scholars knew in 1970s: Rummel, in contrast to others, refused to reconsider his estimates after "archival revolution" (by the way, do you know what it is?) Rummel is a secondary source for his democide concept, but he is a tertiary source for figures, and Wikipedia's policy is to rely on secondary sources when they are available. By pushing Rummel as a reliable and modern source for figures, you are acting against the policy in an attempt to lower the quality of the article's content.
• Your link to Albats is not informative. Please, explain what does it mean.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You failed to provide any sourced alternative numbers so far. The numbers of Great Terror victims are not the numbers we are talking about (yes, sure, there are significant discrepancies in the literature about Great Terror). As about "archive revolution", this is actually irrelevant, but yes, I know about this probable KGB fabrication as outlined here. The KGB archives were never opened, as described in great detail in the book by Albats above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You failed to demonstrate the topic is mainstream. And, again, do you understand what does "archival revolution" mean?

You also haven't explained where did Albats took her figures from. Did she do her own archival research, did she use some secondary sources, and if she did, which sources she used?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Rosenfielde, it is an old article, and it is just one publication on that account, there was a long dispute between him and Wheatcroft, and finally, Ellman summarized the consensus view in the article I cited above.

Obviously, the fact that not all archives are available does not mean we do not know truth, and the fact that statistics is unreliable doesn't mean correct data cannot be extracted from it, because different archives exist (central and local, RGB, railway, army, etc) and they complement each other. One can falsify one kind of data, however, it is impossible to forge all aspect of statistics in the whole country: thus, recent data on Gulag population are surprisingly consistent with the old data obtained based on the size of disenfranchised population of the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this statement: "Which sources tell that the numbers of victims of Communist repressions in "Black Book" were wrong and provided some alternative numbers?." is something I cannot understand. When some source provide some number, and other sources tell this number was deliberately inflated, we should provide this number (and attributed it to the author) and tell this number was deliberately inflated (and provide the ref). If no other numbers are provided, that is all what we can do. Of course, this disputable and inflated number can be placed into the lead, but that means the article should devoted significant amount of space to explanation of this dispute. Are we ready to expand the story about this dispute, taking into account that the BB has its own WP article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• You found a review telling "At least in the Soviet case, the scale of terror presented in The Black Book seems to be deliberately inflated" (here. First of all, this is quotation out of context. Author does not imply that the numbers were fabricated, and does not tell that the book was bad. He only argued that victims of man-made hunger probably should not be counted. Fine, that is a common point of disagreement for many people. That does not make the book an unreliable source per our policy. In addition, should this statement of opinion be given a lot of weight when there are many other positive reviews about the book which tells exactly the opposite? Any scientific research on this subject (i.e. establishing the number of communism victims) must produce certain numbers, which is basically a tautology. Indeed, the research by Courtois and Rummel have produced certain numbers. If there is no other published numbers on this subject, we must use what we have, i.e the only numbers that have been reliably published. This is per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

When you comment on my posts, please, try to keep in mind a whole discussions, not just the last post. I devoted a separate section to the analysis of reviews on BB. All reviews that were positive do not say anything about figures, they usually praise the chapters non authored by Courtois. All reviews that criticise the BB, direct their criticism mostly at Courtois, and mostly at how Courtois is dealing with figures. In other words, the figures and the conclusions Courtois draws from them in the most controversial and most criticised part of this provocative volume. Is it what you pretend to present as a reliable source?

Re: "Author does not imply that the numbers were fabricated, and does not tell that the book was bad." No misinterpretations, please. I never claimed the reviews say Courtois fabricated data (this accusation is too strong). The reviews say the data were manipulated. In addition, Werths complained Courtois cited him and attributed to him some figures and interpretations he didn't made. With regards to NPOV, you dramatically misinterpret it too, because it demands that Wikipedia must representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic..

• Is a Courtois view significant? Yes, taking into account the storm around it.

• Is this view mainstream? No. Many mainstream sources criticize this view: they say that the numbers a manipulated, and the conclusion Courtois draws from them are highly questiuonable.

• What does neutrality policy say in this case? To present all views fairly and proportionally, which means, we should present (i) the numbers, (ii) the criticism of the figures, (iii) the criticism of the very approach that consists in combining all deaths into one category. All of that should be presented together, in each other's context. In connection to that, can yoy tell me if the article devotes so much attention to this controversy to put it in the lead?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree with that, let's request a mediation. I see no reason to repeat the same arguments again and again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with creating an additional separate section with the numbers and their criticism/discussion in the body of the page. Let's do it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

If we do that, and decide to keep the Courpois figures in the lead, then the sentences ##12-13 should be moved there and replace the current text.

By the way, it seems Rummel took his figures for USSR from old Conquest's data, and, as we all know, Conquest reconsidered his old estimates to the lower side after the "archival revolution", but Rummel refused to do that. I am telling that to demonstrate the quality of someone's arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Break; what estimates/criticisms to include

• Since there's some agreement that we should create an article section discussing estimates of deaths and critiques thereof, let's try to begin by listing which estimates and critiques should be considered. To start the ball rolling: obviously, Malia and Courtois' estimates, and the several critiques thereof; Conquest; Rummel, both his original and revised estimates, and the fact that he took his first estimates from Conquest. What else? Vanamonde (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde, this question is incorrectly stated. As I already explained, MKuCR is not a mainstream concept. If we take Stalinism as an example, I can name Wheatcroft, Ellman, Maksudov, Kulchitsky, Zemskov, Rosefielde, Getty, Snyder, Conquest, Werth, and several other experts. This is a "group 1". They do their own archival research, they study different aspects of stalinist repressions, they discuss the origin of famine, they are trying to come to consensus on whether Holodomor was genocide, etc. A "group 2" includes historians like Courtois, Malia, who do not do their own archival research, but compile data of others. They advocate the idea that mass killings in USSR, PRC, Cambodia and some other countries occurred primarily because they were comminust, they believe comminism is the greatest evil, and they compile data of others to obtain a huge cumulative figure. "Group 3" authors: David-Fox, Kuromiya, and others (see previous sections) disagree with the "Group 2" approach, they claim these combined figures are inflated, and the very idea to combine deaths in all these countries together is flawed. In addition to that, the "Group 4" scholars exist, which includes Rummel, Krain, Scully, Harff, Valentino, Huth, Balch-Lindsay, Besancon, Easterly, Eck Hultman, Heger, Weitz, Semelin and others. They are called "genocide scholars", and they are trying to find mechanisms responsible for onset of genocide and mass killing. They also do not do their own archival research, they use data of scholars from the "group 1" (for the USSR), and other experts for the data on other countries.

• In other words, real data come only from the "group 1" scholars, but these scholars are not interested in producing combined numbers for all communist regimes. Some of them may produce combined data for a signle regime (for example, fresh Snyder's data tell that Stalinism killed 6 million directly, and 9 million totally), but they do not discuss the number of all "communist victims", because they (with one exception, Rosefielde) either do not believe this topic exists, or other regimes are not in the area of their research interest. Importantly, overwhelming majority of these authors totally ignore the MKuCR concept, they do not cite scholars from groups 2-4 and do not use their theorising for their own studies: there are no references to the authors fron groups 2-4 in the articles authored by group 1 scholars.

• "Group 2" authors provide the combined figures to demonstrate some concrete idea: that "generic Communism" does exists, and that it was the greatest evil of XX century.

• "Group 3" authors do not provide any figures, because they do not believe the very topis exists, but they think the approach of "group 2" authors is flawed.

• Some "Group 4" authors (Rummel and Valentino) do provide figures, but Rummel uses old data provided by old scholars from the "group 1" for example, old Conquest's data for the USSR. They do not go into details, because they are more interested not in the exact figures, but in revealing the general mechanisms of genocides, so they sometimes do not care much about accuracy. Rummel, for example, refused to reconsider his data in light of "archival revolution" (massive release of archival documents in the USSR in late 1980s), despite the fact that Conquest did reconsider his estimates to a lower side.

Other "group 4" scholars do comparative studies of genocides according to criteria other than Communism. For example, Harff compares Cambodia with Indonesia or Rwanda, and communist ideology is not considered an important factor affecting genocide.

In summary, I believe I was able to demonstrate that is we will try "to present different estimates" we will ignore the views of 95% scholars working in this area, because most authors either do not group communist regimes together, or directly object to this methodological approach.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

PS. The same idea can be demonstrated using this analogy. Almost every book on theoretical physics starts with the mention of Schrodinger equation in its general form, and then more specific equations are derived. However, no the articles authored by experts in Stalinism, Chinese famine or Cambodian genocide starts with the words like: "Communism was a terrible thing, it killed 100 million people (reference to Courtois or Rummel). In this article, I will tell about one instance of Communist mass killings, i.e. about the Great purge". That never happen: most experts do not explain each particular mass killing using communism as a primary and common cause, an they do not draw any parallelism between, for example, Cambodia and USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Paul, you have an almost unique ability to frustrate those who agree with you. I am not suggesting we present only overall estimates. I am suggesting we present estimates from all of the above groups; and if there are critiques of the fact that Courtois et al are combining phenomena that should not be combined, that would be appropriate to include as well. You insist that MKUCR is not a mainstream concept. If we are to accept this premise , the only acceptable options are deletion, which isn't happening, or shifting the scope of this article just discussing Malia et al's theory of a single MKUCR phenomenon, which also isn't happening. So it would be a lot easier for everybody if you just accepted the unpleasant reality that the article exists in its current form, and tried to improve it. At the moment, you are objecting to every incremental improvement on the grounds that the premise is incorrect, and we are getting nowhere. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about frustrating you, but what can I do if the subject is so complex and controversial? Deletion is not the only option. I believe we can improve the article if we agree that:

1. Only Group 2 scholars is obsessed with cumulative figures of total amount of victims;
2. Group 3 do not provide any figures, they simply criticise "group 2" views;
3. Group 1 do provide provide figures, but they do that either for each state separately, or for each event separately (for example, there was a long dispute between Rosenfielde and Wheatcroft about the scale of stalinist repressions); these scholars do not criticize views of "group 2" scholars, they simply ignore them.
4. Group 4 may produce some combined figures, for example, Rummel or Valentino do that, but these figures are not necessarily are a summary of the most recent and most accurate figures, and are not a summary of all killing in all communist states, and most scholars from this group do not separate communist states in a separate category.

I still believe it is possible to write an article about all of that, but, to avoid original research, we should avoid writing about combined figures as if they were a subject of a mainstream discourse. We need to do the following:

1. To provide different (and separate) estimates for different countries and different events in a historical perspective: for example, it makes sense to show how the estimates for Stalin's USSR were changing with time, starting from early Conquest's figures for repression victims and famine, ending with the most recent estimates. Unfortunately, we cannot provide any totals based on that, because it would be original research.
2. To provide total figures as presented by Courtois, but explain how concretely these figures were obtained, and combine the discussion of the overall figures with the discussion of the "generic Communism" concept as a highly controversial concept that was proposed by few historians ("some scholars propose that Communism was a primary cause of mass killing in communist states, and they calculate the combined figures of victims of Communism as XXX, which include such categories as YYY annd ZZZ. Others disagree with that, because .....")

--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with most of that, and I would express it more simply; all estimates should only be included with a description of the method used and the context in which they were made. The only point I am uncertain about it the last one: we need to be very careful about phrasing, because we cannot make generalizations not explicitly supported by the sources. It is okay to say that "Courtois describes Communism as the primary cause..." etc. So let's try to get to a draft here. Vanamonde (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Phrasing, an extended quote from David-Fox (who writes mostly about Malia) may be helpful:

"Malia flirts in the formulations cited above with the suggestion à la Courtois that communism was the greatest evildoer of them all. To his credit, however, in the bulk of the piece he is concerned with laying out a more rigorous set of desiderata that need to be addressed in any comparison between Nazism and communism. The implicit purpose of doing so is to address criticisms that have arisen over The Black Book, and chief among these was the objection that there existed vastly different kinds of communisms around the globe that cannot be treated as a single phenomenon. Malia thus counters by coining the category of "generic Communism," defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure what exactly you suggest, but let's just avoid content forks. For example, a debate about Black Book belongs to the page about Black Book, etc. Speaking about 1st chapter of the book, yes, there was a disagreement between co-authors. That means any claims from this chapter must be attributed explicitly to Stéphane Courtois, rather than to the book, i.e. we should say: "according to Stéphane Courtois...". That is what I made in my last edit. Is he a mainstream historian or a trusted source about this subject? I believe he certainly is, but anyone can follow a link to our wikipage about him and judge. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it a deliberate misinterpretation of the policy? Debates about Black Book belong to any article that mentions the Black Book, per WP:NPOV. Please, stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this is actually a guideline. Please see WP:POV fork. Moreover, if we have a page about someone, the use of "qualifiers" is generally discouraged, i.e. one should usually say "Petrov" rather than "controversial historian Petrov" even if one can argue he is a controversial historian. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight(...)the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Re Pertov, do you have any objections to adding the sentences 12 and 13 to the lead instead of the current mention of Courotis?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". And what is the topic here? "Mass killings under Communist regimes". Discussing another topic in depth is a content fork. No, I would be against including paragraphs 12 and 13 because they represent "original research" and do not properly summarize the content of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, we devoted a whole section to discussion of this question, do you want to renew it again? We are not going to discuss these events in a BB format, because mainstream sources do it in a different way. This comment is irrelevant.

Re "original research", feel free to post at the relevant noticeboard. Other users disagree with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

How to avoid WP:OR and Coatrack

• To avoid WP:OR one should only use sources that analyze mass murder by all or specific Communist government as a general phenomenon. There are not too many such sources, especially scholarly ones, and the "Black Book" is probably the best of them. That's why numbers from this book appear in the lead and the content is significantly referenced to this book. My very best wishes (talk)

• That would be a flagrant NPOV violation. If you want to stick to sources who discuss this as a general phenomenon, then the scope of the article needs to be changed. Plenty of authors disagree with Courtois et al with respect to specific phenomena. Disregarding such criticism because it does not apply to all of Courtois et al's theory is ridiculous, and you should know better. Vanamonde (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I am only telling that all sources must be on the subject of this page, not a Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. For example, discussions "what is a communist country?" or what was the difference between the USSR and Cambodia do not belong to this page. Not a "general" but "specific" phenomenon is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

That would require to narrow the scope (as I already proposed), but (i) you did not support this idea, and (ii) we already have articles about the BB, Democide, etc--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is very simple. Look at the "terminology" section. Anything about genocide, democide, politicide, mass murder, classicide, terror or crimes against humanity by communist governments qualify for inclusion on this page. What is a "communist government"? That is something an RS calls a "communist government", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

terminology section is a single piece of original research. It should be removed, but that is a separate story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This section is well sourced and important to define the subject of the page. If you want to redefine subject of the page, please start an official RfC with your suggestions, whatever they might be. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you justify NPOV violation using V. That does not work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not justify anything. I am giving you an advice. You wasted a lot of your time and time of other contributors during this discussions. Enough. My advice: you should either (a) gradually fix something on the page which will not cause anyone's objection (yes, this is possible), or (b) submit an RfC about something you disagree with others about (I do not even know what that is). My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with anybody but you and Collect, but Collect at least does not post repeatedly the same arguments. Do you want to discuss this collision with someone else (with diffs?)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• My very best wishes, we already discussed that in details, I presented you the same arguments that Vanamonde did, and I thought we started achieving some consensus. However, you seem to start a discussion de novo with a new user, as if there were no previous discussion. I am not sure it is a good and productive way to conduct a discussion. You are persistently advocating the idea to write this article as a POV fork, despite our numerous attempts to explain you that that is a violation of our policy. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alas - you appear to be making personal attacks, whilst MVBW has not done so. Nor do we "rate" sources and present our "preferred source" as Gospel. Lastly, your use of "POV fork" does not comport with Wikipedia usage. Might we stick to doable suggestions? Like change "mass murders" to "non-combatant deaths associated with …" or the like? And not producing tomes of talk pages. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Welcome to fix. Just make sure that the wording follows some RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Collect, I proposed very concrete edits that require thoughtful analysis. Before we discuss the changes proposed by you, let's finish with mine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

??? + POV pushing

bold, 1st revert with a false edit summary: the text was discussed on talk page and RSN, and no reason for removal were proposed; the removal was not explained on the talk page, 1st revert, 2nd revert; although it is a move, formally it is a revert; 1RR exceeded

This is a misleading edit summary, because Pipes just uses the number taken from Courtois. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, this is good edit with correct edit summary. The removal was discussed in this section, and you agreed with it. Also, there was no 1RR violation because none of these two edits was a revert to any previously existing version. Only edit by GPRamirez5 (not by me) was indeed a revert, but it was not a violation as a single revert during 24 hours.My very best wishes (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, you started this thread that there was too much content about famines on this page, it received some support, and I removed it. Now you complain and call this "POV pushing". My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Really?? In this thread I proposed to remove the section provided that the article should be changed in such a way that the views of Courtois, Malia and Valentino are represented as a significant minority views, and the famine is made a major part of the narrative. Had that been done? Actually, you did the opposite: you added more weight to Courtois and moved famine to the bottom to create an impression it is a minor controversy. That is exactly opposite to what you agreed about. Such a blatant misinterpreting of the words of others is not a sign of a good faith.

And, by the way, you are edit warring not with me, but with another user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not edit war and do not POV push on this page. If we start counting ratio of reverts to all edits by user X on this page, who will show up? I already asked you not to make such accusations on article talk pages [31]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I trust you. Let's consider it a working hypothesis. Then could you please kindly put the Famine section back where another user put it originally (as we agreed on the talk page)? Unilateral actions in a violation of previous agreement are not fruitful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

When I edit something, my primarily concern is the content. I moved this paragraph because I think this improves content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

But you acted against our agreement, do you realise that? And can you admit that my actions are also dictated by the desire to improve the article. ?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you admit that you was wrong when you started this thread and strike through your comments above? My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, no. Your made a first revert on 22:42, 30 May 2018 and the second revert on 01:37, 31 May 2018. This is a clear violation of 1RR. The fact that you just moved this piece of text means nothing, because you undid other user's edit in part. Note, I am not reporting you as a sign of my good faith, despite the fact that you are persistently ignoring our talk page agreement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong. My first edit was not a revert to any previously existing version of the page. Yes, it was a removal of sourced text (a removal that no one did before), however when I asked admins about such reverts in general, they explained that such edits usually would not be considered a revert (I can give link to discussion if needed). My second edit also NOT a revert to any previously existing version of the page. I simply moved this section to another place where it never was before. Now, if you really believe it was a 1RR violation, why did not you report it to 3RRNB? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see your discussion with admins, because I recently have had similar discussion with other admins, and my impression is: either you dramatically misunderstand what those admins told you, or different admins have totally different opinia on the definition of a revert. Anyway, this discussion has to be continued in a different place (it was not my initiative, however, I decided to support Ramirez, as soon as he started that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Two things. (a) The banner at the top tells: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under Communist regimes article." Therefore, this whole thread you started is a violation of talk page guidelines. (b) I have no time to find a link, but it is a common misconception that removal of a sourced text is always revert. This is not the case. This may or may not be a revert. Addition of new text also may or may not be a revert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I admit, it was a violation of a talk page guidelines, because the right place to start with was ANI, the option I hate. Note, the arbitrators decided not to take this case because they recommended to try other options first, including ANI. Instead of reconsidering your behaviour, you are persistently pushing us towards this option. Do you really want me to try ANI?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

you are persistently pushing us. Who are "us"? No, I do not push anyone towards anything. I only ask you to respect talk page guidelines that you violated already many times on this page [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See "The three-revert rule:" "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." TFD (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC) TFD (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi. I noticed that the requested April 2018 peer review received only one contribution there. While I was an engaged editor on this article a long time ago, I hope my level of disconnection can assist the editorial community with this informal review. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Biggest problems with the text
  1. Overly verbose. Can be cut by a third with no loss of meaning against the title topic.
  2. He said She said vacillation. Either the topic is an accepted significant scholarly belief about the nature of the external world first and foremost, and therefore claims are put as fact. Or it ain't, in which case the article needs to be refactored to strip fact and discuss the "theory."
• Missing sections
  1. Criticism of the concepts and associated scholarship
     1. Scholarly [or other high quality reliable source discourse] criticisms of the theoretical concept, or the application of either the agent assignment or claimed historical process. Should generally come last in the body. Should only be based on field review works. IIRC I cited years ago a ?Swedish field review which proposed high level studies of politically or socially caused preventable mass death was no longer a way forward in studies of preventable mass deaths. This would be a one liner if weighty, "[Widely / narrowly] received study says that in preventable mass death literature attention now focuses on small studies, [due to theory fatigue]," etc. Each major discourse would deserve no more than one line, unless it is a scholarly debate equivalent to the importance the Nove-Millar debate (https://glam.rl.talis.com/items/855C3D93-FBCD-CC19-57F6-D331A8947579.html) was to NEP economics for example, for which we could afford a paragraph at most.
     2. Criticism of poor Scholarship. Throw the fringe, harshly criticised, and narrowly received scholars on the bonfire. Get it out of the body of the article where it is unweighty. If the only claims which give the article notability are unweighty there shouldn't be a section on historical phenomena at all, the article should be about a fringe or rejected scholarly position. If there are some rejected and some accepted scholars, guess where the rejected scholars belong?
• Ordering of Sections
  1. Generally coherent. Reconsider whether debate on famines ought to be in Terminology
• Lede
  1. The article positions its subject as an actual historical process, rather than a scholarly discourse. Editors need to be aware of this editorial decision.
  2. Misplaced footnote "Stéphane Courtois in the [1]"
• Terminology
  1. Fails to deal with "Communist regimes" the other half of the relationship of the articles' topic.

• States where mass killings have occurred
  1. Tiresomely too long.
  2. The article's topic is the claimed link between a claimed set of agents and a claimed set of linked processes. This section is coatrack, not because of its existence so much as because it unWEIGHTily dominates the article.
  3. If you're going to play capitalisation games, don't, "Soviet and communist studies" => "Soviet and Communist studies.
  4. Almost all of these sections could be reduced to one well written paragraph each. Consider,
     1. Large-scale killings and deaths happened during, due to and because of the Communist content of the PRC campaigns for land reform, against counter-revolutionaries; during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution; and, in the Chinese reoccupation of Tibet. Official material for the land reform published in 1948 envisaged the need to "destroy" one in ten peasants or 50 million people. The campaign resulted in at least a million deaths. In suppressing people as counter revolutionaries the early PRC executed 710 thousand people, and imprisoned 1.29 million people. The Great Leap Forward was an economic campaign which was a cause of the Great Chinese Famine. State orders to procure food during the famine were predicated on expected starvation; and, apart from terror and systematic violence, enemies of the regime experienced the worst effects of the lack of food. 45 million people were knowingly starved to death by the state, and 2.5 million people were executed summarily, including by torture. (fn: Valentino, Dikötter). After the 1959 Tibetan Uprising PRC cadre politically and culturally targeted the Tibetan elite, genocidally killing 92 thousand people out of a population of 6 million.(Jones, Margolin) During the Cultural Revolution political paramilitaries were given freedom to attack perceived enemies of the regime, resulting in the deaths of 750 thousand to 1.5 million people. (210 words versus 640 words currently)
  5. Much of the babble is excess quoting. Dikötter's para quote is cut from the above. We don't need to cite Courtois' introduction, a controversial text, on Tibet. Either Jones and Margolin are speaking about fact, or they're a minor discourse (see above.) If they're widely considered to be batshit insane and/or unreliable in fact we shouldn't use them.
  6. Much of the rest is a litany of a hagiography which doesn't go to the point of this article
  7. Much of the remainder is "Some scholars [believe]" "[Fred] writes that" "According to [Fred]". Again. Either the discourse is a major scholarly consensus appropriate to cite as the circumstances of what is real (within the expected limits that a reader knows that historiography is a process of debate), OR, the article is actually about a narrow or fringe scholarly position, in which case putting weasel words in front of unWeighty claims is garbage editorially. Either way: the text goes, or the weasel words go. They're mutually incompatible.
  8. "Others." If these deserve their own heading, they shouldn't be under "Others." If they don't deserve their own heading, then they should have no heading at all and be worked into tight paragraphs.
• Legal prosecution for genocide and genocide denial
  1. Needs a bloody topic sentence. "Former members of government have been convicted for their responsibility in mass killings. States have also sought to conceptually define Communist genocide. Cambodia and Ethiopia have tried and convicted former members of government for genocide, and Estonia's attempt to try Arnold Meri for genocide was halted by his death. The Czech Republic has made Communist genocide denial a criminal offence. The Polish government has sought the aid of Russia in defining a massacre of Poles by communists as genocide." 80 words versus 404. We've got hyperlinking, we can conceal the less relevant material behind them.
  2. "However, no communist country or governing body has ever been convicted of genocide." I strongly suggest this is unlikely to be found in the source. See our article State crime for why. If it is found in the source, I suspect for similar reasons that its a quote taken badly out of context of a discussion of the possibility of criminal states.
• Debate on famines
  1. "Some authors" don't do this. It is Weasel. "Wiener and Milne have questioned…" is much stronger writing
  2. Poorly summarised He said She said
     1. Too much on Weiner and Milne's specifics. Does Milne even refer to any of the topics? "Both authors put their claims by drawing attention to modern preventable famines not considered as state action or negligence."
     2. "In contrast Valentino writes that communist leaders directed existing famines against opponents and used famine as an opportunity to force populations to comply with state directives."
     3. "Goldhagen considers that mass murder and famine death ought not to be distinguished: where states fail to alleviate famine, they choose mass death. Chuck his claims in the footnote: they're not relevant to the body text as they engage multiple "non Communist" regimes.
  3. Put Mishra up with Weiner and Milne (if he's still in). Questions is a piss-weak verb in summarising. If Mishra is only questioning, why are we citing humanities conjecture instead of humanities result? If truly a finding by Mishra, "Mishra uses a comparative analysis between non-Communist India and the Communist PRC to [deny the agency/reduce the culpability] of the PRC leadership for famines in China.
• See also
  1. Bloated. The following are cited above and don't need to be there: Dekulakization; Gulag; Great Leap Forward (It has its own subsection in the article for goodness sake); Great Chinese Famine; Land reform in North Vietnam (Already cited as a "Further Information" in the apposite section); Soviet war crimes (also);
• Footnotes
  1. Generally: Citations out of style (Style is templates: cite book etc, ie "cite [format category]") with p. pp. format page references. for example, Communism: a history, by Richard Pipes, Random House Publishing Group, Nov 6, 2001, page158.
  2. See Bibliography for details on links, spaces, dashes, capitalisation, wikicode, advertisement, ISBN/ISSN, FUTON links
  3. Shockers:
     1. Journal title, we don't need no stinking journal title, Harff, Barbara; Gurr, Ted R. (1988).
     2. cite law probably: Congress (US), (1993), Friendship Act (HR3000) p. 15, s. 905a1.
     3. Misattributed, "Hollander, Paul (ed.). […]" you mean Applebaum or Hollander as an AUTHOR. Also cite the chapter name
     4. Unnecessary single quotes. Semelin (2009) Purify and Destroy.
     5. 6 ed. vs Edition. choose.
     6. Incorrect Italics, "Between 1929 and 1953 the state created by Lenin and set in motion by Stalin deprived 21.5 million Soviet citizens of their lives." ; "We now know as well beyond a reasonable doubt that there were more than 13 million Red Holocaust victims 1929–53, and this figure could rise above 20 million."
     7. "My own many years and experience…" Babble. Cut to the numbers or cut the sources as unreliable if you really need him explaining his methodology, which to me, is a claim, "I saw 20 million die with my own eyes." Admittedly this could be a poor quote or translation or context issue. But if he's RS/HQRS then why the babble?
     8. "See also: S. Melgunoff (1927)" Are you kidding me? Either we're citing this, or it goes down to the See Also section of the article. Doesn't belong in a footnote with that prefix applied.
     9. "See also:" If you're citing two sources in the one footnote, don't use this. Use a semicolon or full stop between them.
     10. ""Foreword". In " versus "Foreword: Uses of Atrocity" in The Black Book" pick one.
     11. Way out of style "Sergei Petrovich Melgunov, The Red Terror in Russia, Hyperion Pr (1975), "
     12. Garbage tertiary: "Encyclopædia Britannica"
     13. "Russia,volume 5."
     14. "NICCOLÒ PIANCIOLA"
     15. "19 (according to Ukrainian BBC: "Латвія визнала Голодомор ґеноцидом"), 16 (according to Korrespondent, Russian edition: "После продолжительных дебатов Сейм Латвии признал Голодомор геноцидом украинцев"), "more than 10" (according to Korrespondent, Ukrainian edition: "Латвія визнала Голодомор 1932–33 рр. геноцидом українців")" You mean 19 [governments] or 16 [governments]. Restate the noun in an extended note. The reader isn't holding the noun in their head when expecting a citation.
     16. "PACE finds Stalin regime guilty of Holodomor, does not recognize it as genocide. RIA Novosti, April 28, 2010." Personally when the author is a wire or collective, I prefer them as the author. YMMV, matter of taste. Decide.
     17. "Christopher Kaplonski, Thirty thousand bullets, in: Historical Injustice and Democratic Transition in Eastern Asia and Northern Europe, London 2002, pp. 155–168" Correctly link the external source instead of using the entire cite as a hyperlink.
     18. "Twentieth Century Atlas – Death Tolls" Utter garbage source, as admitted, http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/map-faq3.htm . Don't know how you guys let this through.
     19. "Interview with Tomasz Strzembosz." For a historical claim. Wow.
     20. Serials normally have an ennumeration scheme? " Fischer, Benjamin B.,"
     21. Style correctly: "Wojciech Materski"
     22. "In one estimate…ISBN 0-87855-822-5." Babble. The claim is in the article. This isn't the article on that specific geographically limited historical process. Cite the sources and move on. And chuck the editorial research into the appropriate on topic article.
     23. "Boobbyer, Phillip (2000), The Stalin Era, Routledge, ISBN 0-7679-0056-1, p. 130" >> "0767900561" >> Applebaum (2003) Gulag.. Which source are we citing?
     24. "Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story'.' Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. ISBN 0-224-07126-2. p. 3" Someone stuffed up the italics feature. Fix
     25. " Transaction Publishers, 1991. ISBN 0-88738-417-X. p. 205: In light of recent evidence, Rummel has i" and again. Fix
     26. "Jean-Louis Margolin "China:" still takes a year even if a chapter
     27. "Peace Pledge Union Information " Author (Year) "Article or Chapter Title" work title description of place in work. Corporate author issue
     28. " The CGP, 1994–2008" corporate author issue again
     29. "Black Book of Communism, pg. 564." whom and in what chapter?
  4. The last 39 citations were too depressing.
• Bibliography
  1. nbsp;s n-dash / figure-dash
  2. Half template half manual. Pick one. Generally homogenous with Footnotes in style, but not template based. Consider applying templates / exporting from templates to plain text.
  3. Citation out of style
     1. Orlando Figes. A People's Tragedy
     2. Robert Gellately. Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler
     3. MacFarquhar, Roderick and Schoenhals, Michael. Mao's Last Revolution.
  4. If you stick with templates pick either "short lines" or "one line" style for specifying the template

{{Anchor|Parrish1996LesserTerror}} {{Cite book| last = Parrish | first = Michael | title = The Lesser Terror: Soviet state security, 1939–1953 | url =https://books.google.com/?id=NDgv5ognePgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA324#v=onepage&q | publisher = Praeger Press| location = [[Westport, CT]] | year = 1996 | isbn = 0-275-95113-8 }}
versus
{{Anchor|Pipes2001Communism}} {{Cite book
| last =Pipes | first =Richard | authorlink =
| title =Communism: A History
| publisher =[[Modern Library Chronicles]]
| year =2001 | location = | pages =175
| url =https://books.google.com/?id=O04KAAAACAAJ
| doi = | isbn =978-0-8129-6864-4}}

• Bibliography continued
  1. Either admit that you're not going to bother looking up places of publication by deleting the manual text field, or do so.
  2. "Google Books." Are we an advertising agency now?. There are a bunch of commercial advertising links in text titles as well. If they're FUTON, sure, otherwise we are selling ads.
  3. Either we should link all scholars to their wiki articles, or none of them. (Valentino versus Yakovlev.) Pick one.
  4. Same deal with Publishers.
  5. Same deal with Publication location.
  6. Missing ISBN/ISSNs.
  7. Why is there a page number in a bibliography citing a monograph?
     1. Pipes, Richard (2001). Communism: A History
     2. Goldhagen, Daniel (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide
     3. Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life
  8. "trans." "Trans." Pick one. Same with ed. Ed., series ed. Series ed. consulting ed.
  9. Missing chapter title "Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century" ( |chapter=Communist Mass Killings: the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia )
• Further Reading
  1. Citations out of style (Lanning (2008)
  2. Not sure how Lanning (2008) is relevant?
  3. Totten (2008) is already cited above, not a good candidate for further reading if already referred to? Include in Bibliography if of core significance.
• External Links
  1. Deadlink, seek archive? (http://www.globalmuseumoncommunism.org/)
• Categories
  1. Double check list against Terminology and Proposed Causes for completeness?
• Images
  1. Too many memorials by far. China's soft.
• Items not reviewed
  1. Notability, general weight of the topic, RS/HQRS status of sources, deadlinks in citations / archives
     1. But you need to muck the stables for unreliable secondaries like Journalism. I'm tolerant if an expert is merely writing opinion in a newspaper, but there are some dodgy ones IMHO. The journalism for recent changes in state opinion is okay.

As you can see, even if you're stalled in particular areas there's plenty of stuff you could get done. Faithfully yours, Fifelfoo (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo for your thoughtful review. I share your view on the lead and the "Terminology" section. Regarding the lead, can you please leave your comments on the new lead version proposed here? Regarding the "Terminology" section, would it be correct to say that this section is currently a list of terms that happened to be used at least once by at least one scholar to describe MKuCR? If you agree with that, doesn't it mean it must be deleted completely as synthesis?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That is an excellent review, and a far better place to begin improving this than the string of discussions above, which have gotten nowhere. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Each of this terms was applied to communist killings in multiple RS (I am only not sure about "mass killings" itself - this is Valentino). If you want to remove something specific in this section, please explain - why. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I added some content from Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/dumping-ground, without actually checking anything, the content was placed there by good contributor [33]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"Controversial" in the lead

Since this became a matter of reverts... Perhaps one should explain what was the "controversy" with numbers in the body of page: Werth said it was 15 million rather than 20 million in the USSR, and some other said that victims of Holodomor should not be counted. However, the qualifier definitely does not belong to the lead, especially because we have the page about Black Book and make a link. Moreover, since this new insertion was challenged, it needs consensus for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right. A possible solution is to add sentences 12 and 13 from the proposed lead draft (see this talk page). If this does not work, I'll think about another solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps one should simply make a wider range of numbers per other scholars in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Per Harff, global estimates that are made by genocide scholars are intrinsically less accurate than the ones made by each expert who work with some particular country (see below). That, as well as the fact that obsession with totals is being explicitly criticised by many reliable sources make your proposal not acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I am somewhat puzzled about this. The explanation is unsatisfactory, and it seems to violate consensus. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You said above: "You are right", and now you are telling I am not. That is puzzling. Not sure what consensus you are talking about. It is only logical to provide range of numbers in the lead, although providing most frequently cited numbers, i.e. 100 million [34] is also not a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agreed about explanations, but I haven't noticed the second point. Of course, I disagree, because (i) if we discuss this controversy in the article, that major controversy has to be reflected in the lead, and (ii) the link to the BB article is not sufficient, and it is against our policy, because it requires that all major aspects of any story should be discussed in the same article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That's why we now have section "Estimates" in the body of page where this can be described in more detail. My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this your proposal is in agreement with the your attempts to remove any reasonable discussion of figures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

1943 India Famine

Is described as being "presided over by Winston Churchill. Can we have a reliable source for that blame - as the British did not have any aim to cause a famine, nor can I find any actions by Winston Churchill as being particularly aimed at causing that famine? If not, then the Churchill aside should be excised. Collect (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The cited source makes the connection, although the sentence as written seems a bit misleading and I will change it for clarity. The full quote is "The millions of Ukranians who died of starvation in 1932-1933 rightly appear on the list of victims of communism, but recent scholarship has established another equally significant event on the other side of the capitalist-communist divide:the 1943 Bengali famine, in which at least 1.5 million dies while British authorities continued to export Indian grain. Churchill's role in the Bengal famine seems similar to Stalin's role in the Ukrainian famine." UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, it was not a British goal to cause this famine. Actually, the same can be said about majority of other famines. Sen argues Bengal famine was not a FAD type famine, and the main mistake of the British government was that it believed it was. See, for example, Amartya Sen. Starvation and exchange entitlements: a general approach and its application to the great Bengal famine. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 1977), pp. 33-59Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: [35]. As in the case of the Great Leap Forward famine, the reason was a criminal neglect and strategic blunder.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Number of death

I added modern data for deaths in different countries. Will add more data later. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Rummel and other genocide scholars.

I found this source: Barbara Harff. The Comparative Analysis of Mass Atrocities and Genocide. Chapter 12. p. 113. in N.P. Gleditsch (ed.), R.J. Rummel: An Assessment of His Many Contributions, SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice 37, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54463-2. [36] that contains a very simple thought.

Barbara Harff gives an explanation that may resolve our dispute: genocide scholars are not too interested in calculating exact numbers, because their major goal is not the figures, but a search of correlations and theoretical explanations of the causes and mechanisms of mass killings. She sais:

"Compiling global data is hazardous and will inevitably invite chagrin and criticism from country experts. Case study people have a problem with systematic data because they often think they know better what happened in one particular country. I have sympathized with this view, because my area expertise was the Middle East. But when empiricists focus on global data, we have to consider 190 countries and must rely on country experts selectively. When we look for patterns and test explanations, we cannot expect absolute precision, in fact we do not require it."

Read the whole chapter 12.2 (it is available online), it is an interesting reading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Famine

First, I am not sure "debates" is a right word. I suggest just "Famine", because "debates" is not the key word in the articles written by country experts. Second, since at least a half of communist death toll was famine death, it is logical to put it directly after the "Estimate" section. If the key point of the article is "what happened?", not "who should be blamed?", this structure seems logical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

1RR/self revert

It would appear that because Paul Siebert was editing the "Estimates" section while I was copy-editing elsewhere, I may have technically violated 1RR because Paul's edits made mine non-consecutive modifications of other folks' content. Now it seems silly to self-revert grammatical changes, but I cannot anticipate what people might object to, so here is a standing offer to self-revert my edits of the last hour, good for the next 24 hours, if anyone objects to them. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Democide

I changed the wording using the recently published volume dedicated to Rummel and his theories. Barbara Harff is a renown scholar herself and Rummel's close friend, and she adequately transmits what he was actually saying. He did not invent his "democide" to describe communist killings, he just applied this term to these events, among others. I also do not think we should list all separate examples of application of this term to MKuCR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Start an RfC on removing Rummel - but I doubt you will gain consensus for that change. Try. Collect (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure requesting RfCs on any tiny change is a productive way for conducting a discussion. By the way, why did you decide my goal is to remove Rummel? I just provided more accurate description of his views and supported it with better quality sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly object to this revert and especially to the edit summary: this edit explains the definition of democide provided by Rummel's close friend and a renown genocide scholar. This wording has nothing to do with "opinion", it is accurate and not misleading (in contrast to the version that was restored), and it is based on the best quality reliable source. I also notices several separate additions have been reverted under the same pretext. These additions were properly sourced and relevant, so I find this wholesale removal counterproductive, and would like to see some non-frivolous explanation for that revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Start an RfC - the way I did above. Collect (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, can you please be more specific? I cannot start an RfC saying "Collect has some unspecific objections to my edits, what you do you guys think about that?" That would be frivolous. So far, only you and Smallbones (who magically joined a discussion by making an unexplained wholesale reverts) are objecting, but to discuss it I need at least to know what exactly are you objecting to?

Smallbones seems to have refused to be a part of a normal BRD process, so the only user who object is you. Can you please explain the essence of your objections?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The idea of an RfC is that the person asking the question states the question he wishes to ask in a neutral manner. If your question is "Is this edit proper?" then you might get some opinions. Collect has some unspecific objections to my edits, what you do you guys think about that?" is a grossly improper phrasing for any RfC under the sun, and your blatant snark in saying that does not actually make me respect such an RfC. Can you please settle seriously into a mode of "let's figure out neutral phrasing in this article"? Please? Collect (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, of course, I understand that Collect has some unspecific objections to my edits ... would be improper phrasing. However, to propose a question about a neutral phrasing, I need to know, at least, what concrete phrase caused objection, because I made several edits, and you event haven't bothered to explain which one is non-neutral. Actually, at this point, I simply see no reason to start any RfC, because an RfC should be preceded by a talk page discussion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If you have a proposal - use RfC. If you want to carp about me, note that I was the one who placed Harff's name into the article. Carping about any editor is not what this talk page is for - it is for discussing content which ought to be in the article, and the sources for such material. And when a claim of fact is made - the source must back the specific claim of fact. If an opinion, the source must be cited and presented as opinion. Collect (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, I reiterate, RfC is needed when there is a disagreement about some concrete proposal. So far, I see no disagreement with you about any concrete proposal: you seems to disagree in general. For example, in when you falsely accused me of 1RR violation, you failed to provide any diffs, just requested me to self-revert. Regarding Harff, I noticed a hyperlink to her paper disappeared, and I thought it was you who removed it. If you have no objections to Harff, that is good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My edit was on 17:23 3 June. Your edits were at 17:10, a specific revert. 16:42. 16:34 and 16:03 (counting as 1RR as a group). 05:57 reinstating material previously removed or edited. 2RR. 03:01 to 05:26 groups with 1 RR (not counting a stray edit by another person). And 00:04 same day reinstating material which had previously been removed or edited. I think a polite 1RR Warning is not "falsely" accusing you of much. Collect (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You again are not providing diffs, and to make a situation clear I am doing that for you. this was a first revert. I didn't remove any material before that, and I didn't change any existing material in last 24 hours. My previous edit, this, and this, did not change or restore any previously added text (except the text added by me). If you see any other edits that were reverts, let me know. If not, please, retract your accusations. In last 24hr period, I made just one revert: I changed theh definition of Rummel's democide. Do you have any objections to that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The 05:57 edit is an addition of one reference. Can you please demonstrate who, when and why removed this reference from the article, and why did you decide it was a revert?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any your edits during at 17:23. May be, you mean this? If yes, then, alas, you are accusing me of making just one revert. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit time I gave was of my edit on your talk page - the one you accused me of lying in. As I listed your many edits, and note that many of them altered recent changes by others to the article - I rest my case. And please note anything which alters another editor's recent work is a revert. Now can you start simply obeying the rules or do you really want me issuing ANI reports when you pull this sort of thing off? I have been trying my damndest to get a moderately worded working article out of this - and your personal accusations of lying are not gonna really impress me. Care to simmer down and actually participate in multi-party discussions related to the article? Collect (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's get back to talking about the article. Do you have any specific objections to the section in question? You haven't given any, and I see a broad consensus for at least parts of it here (as I mentioned below), so unless you give a specific objection, I'm going to restore them shortly on account of there being consensus on talk. I can understand your caution in dealing with a controversial article, but demanding that consensus be demonstrated for every edit is unnecessary and drags editing to a halt - you should only revert when you (or someone else) has an objection they can answer. Similarly, while WP:RFCs are useful, they're not the only way to demonstrate consensus. If we take something to talk, and nobody provides specific objections to it, while multiple people support it, then it obviously enjoys consensus. That appears to be the case here; there's no need for an RFC when the bulk of Siebert's edits are clearly uncontroversial. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Collect, let me clarify something: I never accused you of lying, I am pointing out that I am incapable of addressing some of your arguments, because I sincerely do not understand them. You falsely accused me in 1RR violation, but it it quite possible it was just a misunderstanding. Don't you want to switch to something more productive? For example, to address Aquillion's concern.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You used the word "falsely" with regard to my post. Where I come from, saying someone said something false is the equivalent of saying they lied. Your mileage appears to vary. I use Merriam-Webster. The usage was errant and objectionable. I have given 10+ edits made by you in at least five groupings within well under 24 hours, and which affected other recent edits on the article page. Congratulations! Collect (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Where I am coming from, this word sounds totally differently, I never claimed English was my mother tongue,and I don't have to know all nuances. In my understanding, a person may make a false claim knowingly or unknowingly, and I never claimed you knew the claim was deliberately false.

To finish that, I propose the following: if you concede you accused me of 1RR violation by mistake, my statement about false accusation automatically becomes wrong, so I am apologising in advance. My apology takes effect immediately after you retract your accusation of 1RR violation at my talk page. Deal? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No. You made a very large number of edits, with gaps where others edited, and several of your edits modified the edits of others. Including your bluelinking of Harff's name with a comment which stated that I had removed the link! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=844245286&oldid=844242099 Do not understand why hyperlink was removed. when no hyperlink was removed in the first place. As I was the one who actually had added Harff's name - the charge was absurd as a minimum. I do not care if English is not your Muttersprache, or not. This is the English language Wikipedia and using words which would cause offense in any language I know of is likely to cause offense. As for your non-apology for a clear assertion of an act which never occurred (the removal of a Harff bluelink), I find that quite amazing. Erstaunlich. Удивительные. Étonnant. Collect (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Collect, are we discussing technicalities, or we are speaking from the point of view of a common sense? If you want a sincere and friendly discussion, then let's forget about formalities. Frankly speaking, this only reasons I made multiple changes and saved them as one edit. The reason is simple: you accused me of a technical violation of 1RR letter and requested to self-revert. Obviously, it was a minor and peaceful copy-editing: no edit war occurred during that time. However, you didn't warn me, but requested to self-revert. I have serious reasons to consider this unfriendly action as an assumption of bad faith, especially taking into account that you ignore much more severe violations committed by other users. I leave beyond the scope the question of why did Smallbones magically appeared from nowhere to make a single revert after your attempt to force me to self-revert under false pretext failed. I consider this event just as a coincidence ... so far.

Collect, we either play fairly, and forgive each other's petty technical violations, or I will be strictly sticking with the rules. OK?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't tell for Smallbones, but there are many changes here. Changes at the top (in your version at the left) seem to be OK in my opinion. However, your changes at the bottom are questionable because they discuss purely hypothetical errors. Yes, the data are sparse, and the errors in any direction can be significant. But even that seems to be excessive/undue on this page. Also, the discussion of famines probably belongs to section about famines. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I would actually remove a lot more than Smallbones. It tells: "The major criticism of some of the above estimates was focused on three aspects: (i) the estimates are provided to advocate the idea that Communism as a doctrine was more deadly than Nazism..." What? The criticism in this section suppose to be about numbers. This is not about comparison of Communism and Nazism. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Had you read the sources cited in this text you would not be so categorical. The criticism focuses both at numbers and at the way they are being interpreted. That is exactly what the sources say, and selective extraction of information from these sources (taking the criticism out of context) would be highly misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Paul - you appear to be addressing the editor and not the edit. And I find your personalization of every edit along with your "at length" discussion sections on this talk page to be unconducive to reaching consensus wording. Can you at least try starting an RfC? I did not find the process too onerous. By the way, RfCs NEVER deal with the editors, they must deal with proposed edits and ONLY with proposed edits. Your "example" is, alas, exactly what RfCs are never supposed to be.

" Keep the RfC statement short and simple. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" Legobot will copy your statement (from the end of the {{RFC}} template through the first date stamp) to the list of active RfCs. A long statement will make the list harder to read. For technical reasons, statements may not contain tables or complex formatting, although these may be added after the initial statement (i.e., after the first date stamp).'" Collect (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Collect, you addressed me - I address you. You proposed me to start an RfC without explaining what are you disagreeing with - I am asking you what you disagree with. So far, I sincerely do not understand what exactly you are objecting to, so I think it would be much easier to discuss it between us two first. By the way, as your recent RfC demonstrates, it hardly attracts any uninvolved users. In addition, the RfC page recommends to try a talk page discussion first. And that is exactly what I am doing, because we need to identify the points of disagreement regarding this particular issue.

I am asking again: what exactly are you dicagreing with? let's discuss it, otherwise I'll restore the text I added yesterday, because I see no reasonable criticism to address.'--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the change to the wording on Rummel's definition of Democide; and I agree that it's premature to go for an RFC (which, after all, consumes significant time and energy) when nobody has yet put forward a specific objection. Given that My very best wishes implicitly approved of that section of the edit above, and that nobody has expressed a specific objection, I suggest we wait a day or so to see if anyone raises any objections to it and then restore it - I can understand Collect's desire for caution on such a controversial article, but currently it seems that three editors support that part of the proposed change, and nobody (except Smallbones, who has apparently left the discussion) objects, so it appears uncontroversial. RFCs are for when there is a clearly-defined dispute, and at the moment, at least for that aspect of the disputed edit, there does not seem to be one. Obviously if someone has an objection they haven't voiced, or if they feel I'm discounting them unfairly, they can speak up, but please give a specific objection so we can consider your perspective and try to answer it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Aquillion. I'll do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My concern here is mostly the phrase "This definition covers any murder of any number of persons by any government". My understanding this is not the case because the definition by Rummel does not cover all victims of wars, but only certain categories, such as executions of POWs. My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, if you go to the source I provided and open it at the page 116, you will see the words:

"Democide according to Rudy, as noted above, ‘is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.’ Given his definition, he has to deal with all the issues above and add victims killed during other forms of conflict, such as civil wars and pogroms, in which peoples are murdered by states for any reason, as in Syria today, or during World War II, as were Polish civilians and officers."

Is there any difference in that and in what I wrote? I doubt. This source is the best quality secondary source written by one of the leading genocide scholar. Please, read the sources before objecting.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

PS. Anticipating possible criticism, "Rudy" means "Rudolph Rummel", because he was her close friend.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

________

I don't find this revert and the edit summary adequate. I believe several major points have been removed that lead to a serious bias. A body of published sources makes clear that:

1. The criticism of the estimates made by Courtois and the conclusions he and Malia makes from them is at least as prominent as the estimates themselves.
2. The numbers provided by genocide scholars are not accurate, and they are neither expected not supposed to be accurate, because these scholars are not specialists, and they production of accurate figures is not the focus of their study.

These two major statements, supported by best reliable sources, were removed with inadequate rationale. I request for explanations, otherwise I'll restore these changes back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition, this edit simply misinterprets what the source says. The cited source says:

"In other words, to reach a plausible figure by using Rummel's method, we would have to rely on many underestimations to 'take out' single overestimations. In the case of the Holocaust, that would mean 'narrowing down' single unscholarly overestimations by relying on underestimations by several Holocaust deniers. Although Rummel does not usually use the mean, it seems he has not paid enough attention to the distribution when making the mid-estimates. Consequently, there is a high probability that his mid-estimates would have been high, even if he had useful data at his disposal."

It is totally different from what the current version (that cites Dulic) says. He does not say "the estimates were based on sparse and incomplete data, when significant errors are inevitable", he directly say they systematically inflate figures.Why the explanation of the origin of the error has been removed?

Another edit is also unacceptable. The current version says:

" some critics said the figures were skewed to higher possible values, but did not provided alternative estimates"

Who says that they do not provide alternative estimates? Wiener? The authors cited says quite different thing: the figures are inflated, and the the very idea to produce combined figures is intrinsically flawed. Why was this statement removed?

If someone disagrees with the text, they are supposed either: (i) prove the edit is irrelevant, or (ii) prove the sources do not support the statement, or (iii) provide alternative viewpoint without removing the added text. Instead, a newly added text is a pure violation of WP:NOR and WP:RS, and I remind those who engages in it that the article is under DS. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Which alternative estimates these sources provide? My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If an author X makes an estimate Y, and and author Z says the estimate Y is wrong and misleading, and explains what is the cause of the error, then the whole information must be provided. You cannot change the wording that misinterprets the source, and you cannot say "and author Z criticizes the author X's data, but he does not provide their own estimates", you are allowed just say "and author Z criticizes the author X's data". If an author Z explains why he believes the data are wrong and misleading, you cannot remove this explanation from the article, unless you prove it is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We are making a summary of several sources. It should not be exact quotation or a close paraphrase. But it must be correct. For example, your wording "This definition covers any murder of any number of persons by any government" is incorrect because it implies inclusion deaths of soldiers at war. On the other hand, saying that cited sources did not provide alternative estimates is correct and important information. Any reader would expect to see some alternative numbers in such context. No numbers means that the criticism should not be taken seriously (my opinion as a reader). My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

To a considerable extent 'relevancy' is in the eye off the beholder. I would err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, if it provides context or explanation, rather than too little of the relevant. That being said, if it is marginally relevant but perhaps tangential, how about putting it in as a "note", which is a separate section at the bottom of the page (a specialized type of footnote). See, e.g., Yank Levy. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think a solution would be a rewrite of the section completely, because more weight is given to the authors that were presented on this page by the moment I made my edits. It is probably a time for RfC about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)