Talk:The Black Book of Communism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Notability of article and book

What objective criterion was used to introduce this propaganda piece to an enyclopedia such as wikipedia? This book is not notable, and only recieves attention from capitalist imperialist apologists and the corporate oligarchies controlling the mainstream media.

Btw most users here seem to have an extreme "Americentric" Nationalist POV that completely distorts the meaning of the article. World Views (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"capitalist imperialist apologists and the corporate oligarchies controlling the mainstream media."

My! We have an ivory-billed woodpecker sighting! Apparently Communists aren't totally extinct! Solicitr (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not all reasonable people are Communists. Let's see what scholars think about the BB. I found only five reviews on this book in peer-reviewed journals (jstor.org database). One of them (by David J. Galloway, The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 587-589) characterized it as an "excellent survey of scholarship on the Soviet system and the systems of other communist states".
Other four reviews are generally negative. Thus, Amir Weiner (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452) writes:

"That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation."

"The problems with the authors' flawed comparison are not merely intellectual. Intentionally or not, their argument opens the door for all kinds of apologetics. This is a sad outcome for a country that until re- cently excelled in avoiding its murky wartime past. Communism deserves to be buried, but not by those whose writing and methodology so closely resemble its basic tenets."

Alexander Dallin (Reviewed work(s): 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 ; Mark Kramer. Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 882-883) pointed out:

"It would be uncorrect to say that the book tells us more about the authors than about the subject; however, it be equally fallacious to omit the time and place ... from its etiology"

"The book must have required an immense effort by a groop of dedicated contributors. It is unlikely that its impact will be commensurate."

Hiroaki Kuromiya (Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression by Stephane Courtois. Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201) writes:

"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."

"Courtois is irritated by his perception that most western intellectuals are softer on communism than on nazism and that therefore the crimes of communism have not been fully exposed."

And, finally, Ronald Aronson (History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245) concludes:

"The intensity of the continuing controversy suggests that we may not see it resolved anytime soon. Comparisons with Nazism, central for one side of this discussion, cannot but inflame the other. Accusations of bad faith, denial, and dishonesty flow off the pen easily, especially when it becomes clear that intel- lectual positions cannot be separated from political positions. But this was always true concerning capitalism and Communism and concerning the Cold War, just as it is true of virtually all important historical discussions. Nevertheless, even scholars on opposite sides of such questions, writing from deep commitments, operate according to, and are subject to, common standards of argument and evidence. In other words, it has always been true that the major obstacle to historical understanding is not commitment, but distortion."

"The point is not simply the psychological and political one that conflict creates a natural tendency to self-justification as well as selective moral bookkeeping. Yes, during the Cold War both sides' faults were kept from the other side, who certainly used them as a weapon whenever they could. But just as Communist violence cannot be fully understood without being placed in the context of what the left saw as bourgeois violence, from Verdun to Hiroshima, so Communist moral blindness can only with great distortion be treated all by itself, lifted from the life-and-death struggle with bourgeois society and capitalism's own histori- cal crimes. It is artificial to demand symmetry between the two, but it is no less myopic to ignore capitalism's evils in discussing Communism's. As much as anything it was the total war between the two systems that shaped either side's responses-the downright lying, the one-sidedness, the moral blindness, the selective amnesia."

"The 1997 brouhaha over Le Livre noir du communisme at least posed the possibility of an unself-righteous and non-propagandistic perspective towards Communism, one which might combine a critical stance, a self-critical spirit, and a genuine effort to give the facts their due. An adequate moral history of Communism is still worth writing, and still to be written."
Let me re-iterate the following. I provided all reviews on the Black Book I could find. I didn't cherry-pick anything. I believe the only conclusion that can be drawn from these revirews is that the Black Book represents fringe views. BTW, so moderate number of reviews implies low notability.
Best regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:BK is such that no way this articles is getting deleted. These reviews however should be used in the article's reception section. Right now, they don't seem to be. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, I never proposed to delete this article. However, it need in major rewrite. In actuality, this article is not about the book, but about the introduction authored by Courtois. This is the most controversial and least reliable part of it, and it is little bit odd to see how people try to use Werth's name to add credibility to Courtois' bullshit. If we want this article to be good, we must purge it from most nonsense (i.e. from Courtois' speculation) and focus on what the authors of book's chapters say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

To do

Making a note here to use Peter Rutland's extended review. [1] Tijfo098 (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this book is not about the number of victims of Communist repression. Only a few pages in introduction tell about this, but whole book is around 800 pages. As about this edit, well, this is fine to briefly summarize the essence of critical remarks about the book, but simply collecting and describing in length all negative opinions goes against WP:NPOV and readability. What would happen if one tried to collect and present in detail all negative opinions about Das Kapital in article Das Kapital? We do not do that. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is de facto not about the BB but about the introduction. The number of deaths under Communist regimes is in the focus of Courtois' introduction, because he, by playing with figures is trying to convey the idea that Communism was a greater evil then Nazism. It is this idea which sparkled furious debates, and it is that idea which is supported by some authors and severely criticized by others. Interestingly, whereas the BB is, as a rule, being commended for Margolin's and Werth's contributions, Courtois is the sole contributor who is a subject of severe criticism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But then the extensive criticism of introduction (rather than whole book) is even less relevant and should be summarized more briefly. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of the introduction should be proportional to the space devoted to the introduction. Actually, the article discusses only (or almost only) the introduction, so this your argument is incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed a hoax/fabrication by an IP [2].My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Restored last stable version

Our anon IP has been making a POV shambles of the article for some time now, I restored the last stable version. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of Communism and Nazism -- crap

"Comparison of Communism and Nazism" -- that's like saying that Queen Elizabeth is 'unemployed' so she deserves unemployment insurance benefits.

Communism is left. Nazism is right. Get that through your heads, folks.

Sure, just like bagels is Left and cheese is Right.

Communism is about collectivism. Nazism is about individualism. Communists are like Democrats. Nazis are like Republicans.

Nazism is about INDIVIDUALISM? Then how come there was toleration only for those who supported the state?

Communists ask: "what can I do for my country?" Nazis ask: "what can my country do for me?"

Correction:

Communist leaders ask "What can my country do for me?"

Nazi leaders ask "What can my country do for me?"

Communist followers ask "What can I do for my country?"

Nazi followers ask "What can I do for my country?"

Not much difference, is there?

Communists believe in taking care of the less fortunate. Nazis believe in making themselves fortunate.

Communists believe in subjecting everyone to their decisions through violence and coercion. Same for Nazism.

Communists believe in looking after each other. Nazis believe in survival of the fittest.

Looking after each other? What about the rest?

North Korea (1.6 million death count)

Cambodia (1.7 million death count)

USSR (23 million death count)

China (49-78 million death count)

Communists are good. Nazis are bad.--Atikokan (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nazis are bad, communists killed even more people.

THE END 209.121.208.229 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting original research. However, the game with numbers is frequently misleading. For instance, if we remember that the most developed and the most democratic state of the Western world emerged as a result of the greatest ethnic cleansing and genocide in history (at least 15 million of Native Americans in the United States disappeared as a result of that), your arguments look rather pale. In addition, one has to discriminate between Civil war or famine deaths under some Communist regimes and deliberate extermination of population under Nazism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To the above point, there is literally no evidence of mass genocide comitted by the pilgrims. They almost all died of disease presumably brought by Spaniards before the pilgrims even arrived. Same probably applies to latin america although the Spanish/Portuguese may have massacred millions. North America suffered from one of the greatest plagues on history prior to the pilgrims arrival. Statistics (provable incidents) would indicate that the the US/British army massacred less than 10,000 native americans in 250 years. Similar number also for Native American massacres of settlers.

Oh right, the Great Leap Forward, Khmer Rouge, Dekulakization, Red Terror, those were all just accidents. For the most part, the disappearance of the Native Americans wasn't an organized effort to exterminate like the Holocaust; they simply didn't have immunities built up to European diseases. The same thing can be seen with European colonizers who were unable to colonize Africa until quinine--they were no match for malaria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.211.245 (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Paul Siebert above, is applying a classic case of moral relativism rationalization, Capitalism v Communism. This is SOP. Those who engage in this style of argument, typically leave out:

1] Time, native americans died or were killed over a 300 year period. Communist purges where millions were killed or died of starvation typically occurred over a matter of years or decades.

2] Geography, native americans who died or were killed spanned the entire Americas, north, south and central. These admitted tragedies didn't just occur in what is now the contiguous United States.

3] Numbers, communist purges, gulags, re-education, return to agrarianism programs killed many multiples more than the numbers of native americans who died or were killed.

4] Continuity, communist styled purges, forced relocations continue to this day. Operation Murambatsvina has been ongoing in Zimbabwe since 2005. The last armed conflicts against native americans were well over 100 years ago. 10stone5 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Views versus Contents

I have read a bit of the long list of complaints and answers above. Let me remind all new readers, that these discussions has no place with this wiki-article. The Wiki article is ONLY explaining what is presented in the book. It is not trying to judge whether the information is wrong or right or what anyone might agree with or not. It is very simple.

If any criticism has been raised specifically in scientific or mass media, it can be explained (and documented) in the section under 'Reception'. And only if it can be documented. It is very simple.

(and no I dont agree with everything in this book myself)

RhinoMind (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I also looked at a series of recent edits by an IP (now reverted). Well, I do believe this article fails NPOV, especially in "criticism" section, by providing excessive citation of opponents whose views are repeated many times and presented as fact, although they are disputable at best. I can try to shorten and edit for neutrality criticism section if there are no objections... My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I've culled a bit, I'm sure more can be done. It's not a matter of whether critic x actually said y, but of whether that opinion carries much weight, and the weight that should be given in this article on the critics opinions. In general, we need to summarize what the Black Books says, and then to a lesser extent what the reception was (both positive and negative). Using this article as a soapbox for the critics is not what Wikipedia is all about. See WP:Soap

I particularly dislike the arguments that are here that "other stuff could have been considered". Other stuff can always be considered, but all authors have to have a certain focus - they can't explain the truth of the whole universe all at once! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to look more carefully but mostly agree with your edits. For example, bringing Solzhenitsyn was obvious WP:SYN, and the claims like Courtuis was guilty "of blurring the memory of Vichy and Nazi crimes" (based on a partisan source) was actually a BLP violation, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Excess deaths

I cut the argument saying it could "easily" be argued the opposite that communism has more excess deaths. There was no substantiation. If the argument were "easy" it would be made. The India comparison is persuasive because India was ahead of China in health measures before Mao took over. Blaming Mao for the fact that other countries were ahead of China when China was capitalist and when Mao was not in power yet would be silly. That is why people use the India comparison. There is no capitalist country that can say China was ahead of it until it took up capitalism and surpassed Mao or until Mao took up socialism. So no, the argument cannot be easily reversed. 198.165.90.75 08:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, could you please indicate the source of the information that India was ahead of China in health measures before Mao took over?

Anyway, India was in very different social, cultural, geographical and historical conditions than China. Besides, India was a demographic curiosity - it was the only country that had higher male life expectancy than female life expectancy. The possibility of comparison between China and India is thus limited.

It makes more sense to compare the People's Republic of China with the Republic of China (Taiwan). The former represents the part of China which was taken over by communists. The latter represents the part of China which was taken over by Kuomintang. The former introduced a socialist economy. The latter introduced a planned capitalist economy. The former received economic aid from the Soviet Union. The latter received American, Japanese and other foreign investments. We have no exact demographic data on China in 1950, but it is reasonable to assume that the life expectancy in both states was approximately the same. 30 years later, the difference between the both states was very big. In 1980, People's Republic of China had a life expectancy at birth of 64 years and the Republic of China had a life expectancy at birth of 71 years. The difference is 7 years (!!!). Source: Huw R. Jones, A Population Geography, Harper & Row, New York 1981

As you can see, the argument is more than easy to reverse. Boraczek 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, i don't see that. It is highly illogical to compare the tiny island of Taiwan to China. The mechanics of managing states of such different sizes are too singificant to simpyl gloss over. Similarly, Taiwan, b nature of its opposition to China, it recieved, as you noted, consistant aid from America and Japan, among others. However, China had a much rockier relationship with the USSSR than Taiwan with the US or Japan. Again, here it makes more sense to compare China to India, both states with mixed relationships with superpowers, the USSR in the case of the former and the USSR and the USA in the care of the latter. Finally, i feel that this arguing is perhaps not the best way to spend our time. I would be perfectly happy to differ to the judgement of a Nobel Prize winner then anyone who is likely to be a collaborator on Wikipedia, including myself, at least on subjects such as economics. Zinnling 13:30 16 Dec 2004

I don't think that the size of the state is too relevant in this context. Do tiny islands usually have better life expectancy than big continental states? Well, at least we can find many counter-examples (e.g. the United States and the Bahamas).

In the years 1950-1962 China did receive 1.82 billion rubles of economic aid from the Soviet Union. Taiwan, as far as I know, did not receive any considerable economic aid from the US, Japan and other countries. But its non-communist system encouraged foreign investment. What economic aid did India receive? Did anyone check it before comparing China to India?

As far as I know, Amartya Sen did not interpret the excess deaths as "lifes saved by communism". This conclusion would require some more far-reaching assumptions. Boraczek 21:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with Zinnling on the comparisons made between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Taiwan. The Kwomingtang government, which once controlled all of mainland China before the 1949 Chinese Revolution, took as much money as they could before fleeing to the island of Taiwan. In addition, the United States offered help to Taiwan to build up an infrastructure, which is a lot more useful than simply giving Taiwan an inflow of financial aid. The Soviet Union on the other hand, was more interested in making China into a subordinate state rather than an ally. True, the U.S.S.R. might have have given China financial aid of 1.82 billion rubles, but one must remember that 1) 1.82 billion rubles does not mean 1.82 billion dollars. and 2) China's population was already around 1 billion dollars in the middle of the century. If the United States had given aid of the equivalence of 1.82 billion rubles to Taiwan, Taiwan would have indeed benefitted more. In addition, the PRC faced numerous difficulties the moment the new nation was founded. For instance, the war was fought with peasants and extremely outdated technology, and the nation was basically in poverty after the Revolution. Taiwan did not face a great deal of economic difficulty after its formation. In other words, Taiwan had a huge head start in this "race," if you will, and one cannot directly compare results at face value in situations such as this. However, if one were to look at the economic progression of the two nations, they will find that China's living standards (notwithstanding the "great leap forward") have improved significantly over the past 20 years, or even the past 10 years.

However, i respond to Zinnling by saying that: No, size of a country really doesn't matter in a general sense. Things balance out; Big nations may have advantages over small ones (ex:resources), and ditto with small nations (ex:management). The variable that is in disputation is -Financial Aid- and so in this case, smaller nations do benefit more, if statistics such as "life expectancy" is to be presented, where small nations are treated as statistic equals to large ones.

SirCollin 22:56, 18 Dec 2004

1. I think the effect of small/big state is more complicated than that. We should not forget that Taiwan had to devote a huge part of its financial resources to maintain its means of defence against a potential invasion. It was much more difficult and economically exhausting for a small state like Taiwan to be militarily ready for an attack of a giant like PRC.
2. In my humble opinion, SirCollin definitely overrates the head start of Taiwan. Besides, we should keep in mind that what weighs here is not differences in situations as such, but rather differences which are not attributed to communism. I could argue about some things SirCollin said, but I won't do it now, as I think it's less relevant at the moment.
3. SirCollin rightly pointed out that some factors make it difficult to make a comparison between PRC and Taiwan and to interpret the outcome of this comparison. I don't deny that such factors exist. But I want to observe that this argument does not lead to the conclusion that the comparison between India and China is more justified that the comparison between China and Taiwan. To draw this conclusion one would also have to show that 1) the same factors do not come into play when we compare China and India and 2) no other significant factors restrict the comparison between China and India.

Boraczek 12:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

From deaths this debate has changed to economics. I will make my own contribution on that topic. It is simple. It would be hard for anyone to argue that as an economic model Communism is superior to free enterprise (incidentally the opposite of communism is not capitalism; the opposites are actually socialism (democratic or communist) and free enterprise (capitalist or otherwise). India only developed economically after the 1980's when the pro-Communist Gandhi regimes socialism came to an end. Mainland China has only grown rapidly after socialism was abandoned in favour of free enterprise. Cuba and North Korea, who alone still adhere to Communism/Socialism, stagnate.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Communism v. Nazism

I have not read the book, but I would offer the following observations. Pardon me for stating the obvious.

Communism is intrinsically not an objectionable social system. It advocates wealth creation and ownership by all. It is sophisticated, intellectually valid, intellectually defensible and scientific, building on the sum of human knowledge. The problem is that it has always been hijacked by corruption, and the reason for that is that it is inherently easy to corrupt it. Another reason is that it has been born out of revolutions, dictatorship, chaos, previous corrupt regimes, i.e. out of unfavourable circumstances. The failure of communism is unfortunately due to human fallibility and is therefore a utopian, unachievable goal. In view of the disasters it has created, it is now no longer a human aspiration.

Nazism is an intrinsically revolting ideology because it enshrines the annihilation of one race by another and classifies humans to no rational scientific categorisation. Its creed is oppression. But it is also the social and political manifestation of Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest'. Again, this ideology was born out of the wreckage of defeated nations and nationalist and anti-semitic precedents. Even given favourable conditions, Nazism represents a regression in human thought, to a pre-Christian, savage tribal era albeit in the modern world.

The question of casualties is different. Communism has probably caused more suffering than any other. Nazism was localised. Fascism is different again. Victims of facism might approach those of communism. Fascist nations would have to include South American dictatorships, African dictatorships (to wit Rwanda), and so on, to complete the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.182.186 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Gimme a break. In the first place Communism =/= Marxism-Leninism that we are talking about here. The classless society was just a bait. Marxism is about destroying semi-hegemonic and patriarchal relationships with in societies and killing the Elites of nations. Your statements on "Nazism" are certainly nothing else then a straw man. Simply because the ideology of the National-socialist was ambiguous, but agreeing on the elements serving the nation and building a folk community. Now even if one considers that this requires the exclusion of certain groups based on ethnicity or race and even dealing rigorously with ones opponents. What is now really objectionable about this? --41.14.242.61 (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't even consider that the charges made against the Nazis are of a highly suspicious nature --41.14.242.61 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Communism is inherently revolting as it preaches hatred and class warfare, dictatorship and spreading its creed by violence. Nazism is actually far less revolting - and as it happens was responsible for a lot less deaths than communism. I am conscious that this is a talk page, not a forum, so I shall get to the point. If it is said that a comparison with Nazism is disputed, reasons should be given. Frankly I cannot see any good reason not to compare them, though I suspect that many communist would be afraid to do so.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

By the admission of some of its authors, this book is a crude work of propaganda. For fuller discussion, see Talk:Communism and Talk:Communist state.

I have marked it as being of disputed neutrality for now. Shorne 12:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

" Courtois has also come under fire for his assertion that Nazism was "better" than communism because the former supposedly killed "only" 25 million." This entry needs the direct quote rather than this siomplistic assertion from a non-reader. With a title like The Black Book of Communism, assertions that some of the content is inflated seem too naive to credit. Wetman 15:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article has been stable for a month, but I do not want to take off the neutrality tag until Mihnea comes back and sees the article. Mihnea has done much to make this article better and I think I should wait a bit longer for his reaction. Boraczek 21:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was something I found to be clearly based on a non-neutral point of view which was that colonialism and imperialism were not capitalist because they "reduced the economic freedom of people". Colonialism and imperialism were, in my view, the result of overproduction in domestic markets requiring the state to try to expand its markets by 1. providing opportunities of investing surplus capital overseas and 2. making the colonised countries capitalist so that they could be a new market for all the products being made. In other words, there was a coherent and specific capitalist logic underlying them. This in fact shows that capitalism is not just about "economic freedom", but has its own limitations and contradictions just as classically-formulated communism does. However it is not the case that capitalism ineluctably must incorporate colonialism - one could image a capitalism without it, hence my clarification. Joe.

Although the book is propagandist, there is no logical reason why an article about it should be. I will watchlist this article: it is deeply POV in a number of places, and will eventually NPOV flag it if improvements are not seen. Sjc 07:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this book any more of a work of propaganda than any book written by modern writers? Courtois may have come under fire for his assertion that Nazism was "better" than communism because the former supposedly killed "only" 25 million." However that does not make the book a work of propaganda. I suspect that the communists are simply objecting to the book because they don't want people to realize how objectionable their creed is.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism produced communism

Mention that Ferdinand Lundberg said in "The Rich and the Super-Rich" that capitalism produced totalitarian communism, as a wealth of information conclusively shows, & the industrial tycoons in 1914-1918 , American and foreign, far from saving the world, were the chief operative factors in producing World War I, & nearly every major difficulty in the contemporary world can be traced directly to the governments of the major powers, the United States included, and the leading property holders who stood solidly behind them. It was the American leaders who pushed the United States into that war from far out in left field on fantastic grounds of insuring freedom of the seas, terminating militarism and saving the world for democracy.....And the USA has always been an oligarchy, not a democracy. Hillmon7500 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I cannot confirm or deny what you are referring to, but I can add the important note, that communism is in fact an extension of capitalism. Communism (or a socialist society rather) is thought of as building upon the fruits and structures of capitalism. There can be no communism/socialism without capitalism. A phase of capitalism is a must for communism to emerge. Im not inventing this, nor am I mentioning this to defend communism (or debunk it), I just want to add an important aspect to the full picture. Study the founding literary works of communism by Marx and Engels and it is very clear. In the Soviet Republic they jumped from an agrarian society to a socialist (communist inspired) society, and that caused a lot of heated debate back then and some even doomed the whole project right from the start because of that. The soviet republic artificially installed the socalled NEP (New Economic Policy) period (look it up!), to simulate a capitalistic phase in fact. The stereotypical conflict of communism vs. capitalism that we are normally fed by the media, is a bit flawed and I guess even people calling themselves socialists are not aware of this? From a theoretical socialist and communist point of view, capitalism is not the incarnation of evil itself, it is in fact a prerequisite for socialism and communism to emerge. An important lesson for all. RhinoMind (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The above is horse manure. Communists, Marxists and assorted fellow travelers produced Totalitarian Communism, no one else. Marxists and Communists alone are responsible for the upwards of 100,000,000 deaths in the 20th century in the USSR, China, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, etc., cited in this book. What the fellow travelers like the commenter above (Hillmon7500) fail to understand is, Capitalism is not a "system" in the Marxist tradition. These types of fellow travelers who tend to occupy these boards, simply can not understand that fundamental. Other than that, what point are you getting at that would add to the content of this article? 10stone5 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Would like to add, that you/anyone cannot use this book as factual truth or proper reliable source. It is not a source in itself and it was/is meant to provoke and create debates, not to illuminate and present unbiased insight. It is not a scientific paper or reliable thesis. It should be very clear, if you care to read it. RhinoMind (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this book acceptable as a Reliable Source ?

The book contains information regarding some named governments and some specific events that happened at the hands of these governments.

Having seen this article's large section with criticism of the book, I wonder if it is acceptable to use this book as a source of information in other articles?

I do not have the book at hand, but let's assume for a moment that the book contains information about the Katyn Massacre. If a piece of information regarding this event (or a similar one) appears without source somewhere on Wikipedia, or if it does not appear at all, but is notable, would it then be acceptable to use this book as source? Thank you. Lklundin (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Lklundin: Old thread, but the book has been written by established academics and published by the Harvard University Press, it is a reliable source. Criticisms or responses are normal for all academic publications after all. It's also important to note that most of the popular controversy comes from the preface of the book, not the actual contents. In the preface Courtois gives the number for "people killed in communist regimes", that's why. If it does have actual errors in facts, then we just cite another sources which disagrees. The book has been discussed atleast once at WP:RSN: [3]. --Pudeo' 07:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed a neutrality problem with this article. The "Criticisms" should be summarized more briefly. Not everyone who agree or disagree with this book should be mentioned. It was quoted in many hundred publications. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If any scientific paper quoted this book to present truths, then they did a pretty bad job and it would disqualify the paper as being scientific. If a scientific paper needs a source on something, the authors should find a source. They could perhaps use some of the sources listed in the book itself, but they can not use the book as a source. It is all quite simple, except for people with an agenda. RhinoMind (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No it is not a reliable source. Just from the fact that it is not a source in itself. It is a book written to provoke and create debate.

This article is about the book though and therefore it does not matter that it is not a source. You cannot however use the book as a source in other contexts, as it is not a source in itself. If you need a source in some other situation, then find a source. Simple. RhinoMind (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether they wanted to provoke public debate is irrelevant to the question whether it is a reliable source. You know, even a thing called critical theory exists and those academics have a stated goal to empower the oppressed in their research, which doesn't mean their works aren't academic or reliable. Neither is it relevant whether the book has sold well or not. The Black Book of Communism has been published by a well-established academic press, has been cited 402 times in Google Scholar and there is no academic consensus against it. Quite the contrary, as My very best wishes also points out the criticism section is bloated and includes fringe views like that of Mark Tauger, who claims that the Holodomor was completely accidental. Read WP:RS yourself, "it provoked public debate" is not listed among what makes a source unreliable. --Pudeo' 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither is it relevant whether the book has sold well or not. I did not say a thing about that aspect in my post. But while we are at it, it is important for a book to be notable, to be on Wikipedia. This is one of WPs criteria. And this book is notable. Your Google search also supports that it is a notable book.

Whether or not the book provoked debate, has nothing to do with it being a source or not. The book is not a source in itself. It is a survey at best. A biased survey to be precise, even the authors agree on that. But let us not get lost in arguments about these details either. This book is not a source and that is it. RhinoMind (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you feel it is not a reliable source, bring it up on WP:RSN and aquire a community consensus for removing it from articles, because it is being used as a source. --Pudeo' 19:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Im just stating the fact that this book is not a source on anything. At best it cites and uses sources or parts of sources. I would really like to know where and by whom it is used as a source. I would really appreciate some information on that. RhinoMind (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I was the one to pose the initial question, I will comment on whether or not the book in question can be considered a source on Wikipedia. Wikipedia specifically has reservations regarding primary sources and specifically welcomes secondary sources which here are defined as "an author's own thinking based on primary sources". So it is clear that the book in question is not a primary source, but rather a secondary (or perhaps in cases tertiary) source - and that a secondary (or tertiary) source in general is acceptable as a source on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks for your opinions. Lklundin (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, ok. User:Lklundin is not completely of track, but I need to explain a few things here. The contents of this book are based on a survey of a selected sources. It could even be (and has been) argued, that this survey is unscientific, since it is biased. But never mind, we can discuss that detail in another thread if anyone cares. Bottom line is, that at best this book is a survey. It is not a source in itself. Therefore one can not quote this book and claim the information in that quote to be scientifically sourced. If you want to use some of the information presented in the book, then you can (perhaps) find the sources that the book uses and use them. If it is even possible in a given situation.

I think perhaps that what confuses things here, is that there is a difference between what WP means by the term "source" and the term "original research" and what is meant by "source" and "original research" in the field of science. A proper source in the field of science, should indeed contain original research and some knowledge that was not there before its publication. This new and original knowledge should of course be correct and if it is/can be disputed, it should be mentioned whenever this source is used in subsequent works that builds on it. This is how it works in the field of science. On WP a "source" is (loosely explained) any trustworthy material that is used to build an article. And "original research" is (again loosely explained) something that was invented or something that is heavily disputed, both of which should be prevented entering articles at all costs. Alas on WP one can use this book as a "source" if you are to talk about what The Black Book of Communism is saying. That is all fine. You can not use this book as a source on much else.

This is all a matter of being specific about what the term "source" really means. Try to calm yourselves and stick to this simple topic. There is no need to grind any axes. RhinoMind (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

before you engage in instructing us all on what is and isn't a reliable source, do the required reading. This WP and it has its own conventions on these things. You're not going to change those conventions by blathering on this talk page. So within this talk page, stick tp WP CONVENTIONS, and in order to do that you'll need to understand them, which you don't at the moment. If you wish to change the WP CONVENTIONS on reliable sources, then find the apprpriate WP FORUM AND discuss it there. It will be difficult. And meantime don't tell us it is a 'fact' that this is not a reliable source.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

To your knowledge, I read everything and all I wrote is exactly within WP conventions. I even took my time trying to explain what some posters clearly was missing about these conventions. Do you have something to add to this discussion or are you just here to throw around references to random WP pages, be arrogant and insult people? RhinoMind (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

RhinoMind: I appreciate that you ensure us that you have read everything (regarding WP conventions), because I was seriously doubting that when I quoted from Wikipedia:No original research. You now write at length about "A proper source in the field of science" and your interpretation of what Wikipedia considers a source, but we should agree that none of those two things are relevant, since everyone contributing to this discussion know exactly what Wikipedia's definition of a source is. So having established that the book in question is not a primary source and taking into account User:Pudeo's observation that it is published by a university press, what specific arguments do you (or anyone else) have that it is not a _reliable_ source? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Ok, to be very concrete. One can not use this book as a source on the Katyn Massacre for example. For that you will need sources on the Katyn Massacre. Simple. It is not enough to cite a book, that mentions the Katyn Massacre. On the other hand one can use this book as a source on what The Black Book of Communism has to say about something. Obviously.

That being said, it should also be taken into account that this book is biased by design, has an agenda and that some of its "facts" has even been disputed and questioned by academics and in the mass media. That a book is published by a University Press does not automatically make it an objective useful source. Some University paper mills also publish cartoons.

PS. Personally, I really don't understand why anyone would go to such lengths, trying to make this book something that it clearly is not. If one is keen on a specific topic, why not just find and use solid, proper sources? It can't be that difficult. You might even find some objective ones inside the book, depending on what exactly you want to write about. RhinoMind (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever taken a look at this book? Because I can't imagine how it would be considered to be a survey. It's a very long and dragging description of communist regimes, 900 pages, mostly focusing on negative aspects like terror, famine, political repression. It is written by academic historians. This book shouldn't be used as the sole source on any article, just like any other book shouldn't either. All articles should use multiple sources and due weight. Also, read WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." --Pudeo' 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pudeo. I think I have made my overall point by now. If we need to continue in a progressive constructive way I think we need to specify what exactly this book is expected to source? What topic is it exactly you have in mind, when you argue for it being a "reliable source"? As you also knowns, this is a very big book and it covers a vast amount of subjects. For some topics it could perhaps be used as a source, but for others it is doubtful. I will look at your link later in the week, as Im closing down for now. RhinoMind (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

nearly every word you have written demonstrates a lack of understaning, or a rejection of, WP:RS. So either read WP:RS again, slowly, or find a forum to debate it. Your postings on this page are pointless.

Gravuritas (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And an ego-bloated, arrogant, insulting WP-terrorist should tell me that? You are my "joke of the week".

You know what? I am fucking tired of stupid, aggressive assholes, telling me what to say, what not to say and being overly arrogant, insulting pissfucks. You are writing complete bullshits posts, stuffed to the brim with assumptions, negative insulting personal attacks and your attitude stink. Now this is how I felt about you all through this sick thread, because you are here with an agenda and you just wants to be confirmed in that agenda and everybody who contradicts or challenge your opinions gets the "treatment". Now Im getting it out, smearing it in your stupid face. I don't feel obliged to be polite, constructive, civilised and nice to you. Because if I am, you dont even appreciate it. So let's bring this to the gutter, where you spend your intellectual life. Its your kind that destroys the spirit of Wikipedia. You are not here to be constructive in any way and you even attacks people who are. You use WPs policies to attack WP itself and those who contribute. You are WP-terrorists, thats what you are. I know your kind. Im out of here, listing this page as "hopeless". RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@RhinoMind. First of all, you should read the banner at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Black Book of Communism article." What exactly improvements did you suggest? Second, you tell: "If any scientific paper quoted this book to present truths, then they did a pretty bad job and it would disqualify the paper as being scientific." and so on. I can see that you have no idea about scientific papers. Researchers criticize each other' work a lot, and it does not mean that their work was unscientific. None of their papers is "the truth" and so on... My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't start this section dumbfuck. I answered a question and even followed up with an explanation and I have all the right to do so.

Yeah see? I just called you a dumbfuck. RhinoMind (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you have absolutely no right to express your opinion here. If the book was an WP:RS is irrelevant on this talk page. It may be only relevant on WP:RS noticeboard or on talk pages of other articles where it was used as a source.My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here is main point about this book: it tells absolutely nothing extraordinary, nothing that would not be described in hundreds other publications, which are used as a basis for this book. This is simply a secondary publication/textbook on the subject. It is only more comprehensive than others and received much more publicity than others. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

<!>

Claims that the death toll is inflated by a factor ten

A new editor has extended the subsection 'Estimated number of victims' in 'Criticism' with quotes from a domain prisoncensorship.info, purportedly from the 'Maoist International Movement', that the death toll in the book is inflated by a factor 10, and that this error is acknowledged by the editor of the English edition, Mark Kramer of Harvard University Press.

After one cycle of change + revert I will point of several shortcomings with the page as it currently stands:

• prisoncensorship.info is hardly a WP:RS regarding the sensational claim that the death toll is inflated by a factor ten
• On inspection (assuming that this website correctly reflects the statement of Mark Kramer), Kramer only acknowledges a typesetting error in the English edition, and this error does not change counts of deaths, but rather inflates certain unspecified ratios by a factor 10 (by changing 'the European symbol for "per thousand"' to 'percent').
• Also, Kramer promises that this typesetting error will be fixed in subsequent printing of the book.

Since the error does not actually change the counts of deaths, and it does not appear in the original and that it should be fixed in post 2001 English printings, I see no reason for anything but a cursory mention of this. Lklundin (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for any mention of this. There appears to be no reference to this other than on the Maoist website, so references to HUP are out of order. Even if we believe the statement by MIM as it stands, there are hanging references to 'points 1 and 2' being correct, but these points are not quoted. The alleged error of per thousand vs per hundred occurs in 'these passages' (which passages?). So which specific numbers are out by a factor 10? The source does not say. The source is a joke. The second source is just a rant by a fanboy of Stalin. There's nothing here for WP.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: Fine by me. Regarding your question in this edit, it looks like an attempt to arrive at a compromise by copying from what I wrote above. However, I agree with your revert since I list shortcomings above, not something to include in the article. Lklundin (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.@Peachman2000If you can dig out a source that actually specifies which passages are in question, and hence which numbers are challenged, then it would be helpful. Without that, accusations of errors in unspecified passages are just a smear.

Gravuritas (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous

@Guccisamsclub. This is not a word that should appear unless there is some heavier backing for it than one guy and one specific point. Most notable people have made errors, even ridiculous errors, but the word does not go in to an article without some sort of consistency in the ridiculousness. A wide variety of epithets have been applied to most notable people, but those terms don't appear unless there is some extra justification for its appearance. I'm sorry I haven't had time to view all the comments on talk recently, as there have been so many, but as far as I am aware, your wish to include this comment boils down the fact that, in the course of criticism of the BBC and listing some errors, that statement was made. I think the bar should be set higher than that for so strong a term. If I have missed some extra reasoning on your part, please clue me in. So, in the absence of further backing from you, I suggest that you either accept a paraphrase that the number on that date was significantly wrong, or the comment as a whole is deleted. PS No idea what IDL is that you refer to in your revert. Gravuritas (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the short story is that you didn't miss much by largely staying out of the earlier flame war, which did not contain any specifics that would have bearing on the argument you just made, just complaints.
• I'd say first of all, that the text has already been repeatedly altered to be as deferential to Werth as possible, in response to your earlier complaint about him being described as a sometimes "careless historian": "careless historian" has been removed outright, and the current version implies nothing about who is right, going out of its way in presenting questions of fact as a question of opinion. In light of the gushing but notable praise for Werth in the Support section—from people who are less equipped to judge than Kenez—the current wording allows these overall positive assessment of his contribution to the BBoC to stand essentially unchallenged. All that is now being judged harshly is Werth's estimate of the number of party members—not even Werth's contribution as whole—and that's presented as Kenez' opinion. Second, Kenez is an authority on these issues, so removing his passage outright is simply not justifiable. You may have your own opinion about whether the errors he lists are important (imo, at least three of them are), but that's not a viable argument here, given that both Werth and Kenez brought them up and that these are important historical events, not esoteric trivia. Accuracy is generally important if you want any brownie points for writing a work of history, which the Black Book claims to be. Neither of us is probably informed enough to debate whether inaccuracy is a serious problem of the Black Book, but you might consider this random titbit, as well as the fact that the contributors themselves said all there was to say about Courtois' sloppy intro (hence the repeaded efforts to shut them up here). If it's a problem, it's probably a problem of the book and the way it's put together, rather than any particular contributors. Third, the way you propose to slice up the quote is just awkward: it's like censor blatantly cutting up an article. When someone compares the actual text to the cut version, they'll invariably ask: WTF?! So we can censor the first part if you insist—and I plugged my nose and did it—but we can't slice up the quote midway because the seams will just be too obvious.
• Honestly however, I think "careless historian" still belongs, since it's a summary of Kenez' quote backed by evidence and it would actually make for a more balanced assessment, given the praise in Support. I am not prepared to spend any more time arguing about this, but perhaps we should wait for other editors' opinions.
• Lastly, and frankly, given all that has transpired on the page, I am not sure this is going in the appropriate direction: the vague and changing claims of UNDUE and NPOV just kept coming, completely independent of sources, rebuttals or substantive changes to the article to address the concerns. One could keep making such claims about any sourced content indefinitely. I am not saying you are doing that here and now, but this is something to wary of. Seems like people are just demanding the general right to arbitrarily mess with sourced text they don't like (WP:IDL): which includes the entire criticism section and nothing but the criticism section. I've honestly seldom seen pov-pushing this glaring. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It is exactly the point of our disagreement. Your text includes emotional statements or slander (such as the "extremely careless historian") that should be simply removed. It is enough to say that someone had happen to disagree with the Book and about what. That is what I did. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Gucci. Chopping up direct quotes to soften material one doesn't like, as in this laughably crude edit, is transparent POV-pushing, and no giant walls of text will ever change that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this particular edit by Gravuritas (the diff) is bad. My point is more general. We should not use selective and politically charged quotations in this case, but only briefly summarize what critics tell. My very best wishes (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that my edit could be improved on, however, the basic point I am trying to amke comes under WP:IMPARTIAL- '"Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The direct quote is too strong.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There may be some merit to that, but that's an argument for not quoting anyone in the Support and Criticism section, if you take it seriously. It's hard to write about reception of a controversial book or movie without quoting commentary pro and con. Note WP:IMPARTIAL isn't an excuse for arbitrarily toning down material and doesn't say: "go ahead and quote from the participants in a dispute, but remove any language that might be considered mean; on the other hand, adoring language is fine". Furthermore, the sources in Reception are largely historians commenting on a work of history. You can call them partisan if you like, but ultimately they writing about a topic it's their job to write about. They are reliable sources first and foremost, even if they take a position on an issue. Obviously it would be absurd to make a rule saying: do not quote academics when they take a position on a certain issue, and that's in effect what you're saying. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, your final sentence is absolutely not what I (or the WP guidance I've quoted) is saying, and your first sentence does not follow from the quote at all. Your note is Plainly inaccurate. Your ascription of 'partisan' is a straw man. Please try to stick to the line of argument I have used when you criticise it, and avoid setting up mis- paraphrases to then knock down.

To me, the use of ridiculous, careless, or liar, (the last of which I've just read in another WP article, not this one), is an indication that the dispute is 'heated' as in the guidance quote, and a direct quote should be avoided, as per WP:IMPARTIAL. It's a simple point. Accept it or don't accept it, but please don't distort it. Gravuritas (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying—I now get your point on the "heated" part. But I don't accept it over and above WP:BESTSOURCES, which Kenez arguably is on these issues. Furthermore, in my reading of the source, neither "can be careless" nor "ridiculous" qualify as blanket insults: they are critiques of parts of Werth's contribution to one book, backed by evidence. The concern seems highly selective on your part, given that you prefaced Getty's name with "Stalin apologist" in this very article a month or so back. That went waaaay beyond any "heated" language you're contending here. The "ridiculous underestimate" part is non-negotiable for me: it's a factual comment purely on content, not on an individual; removing it means engaging in highly selective censorship and doing a stylistically atrocious edit like this one. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we stick to the point, please? I have no idea from where any issue has emerged about 'blanket insults', but it wasn't from me, so why introduce a redherring? Whoever was or wasn't a Stalin apologist does not alter the matter we are now discussing. I've already accepted my edit could have been better: if you wish to characterise it as 'stylistically atrocious' that's a little unkind, but probably accurate- so what? Ruling that out does not deterministically rule in the current form.

A moment or two on WP suggests that the correct number of Bolsheviks at the date in question was 200 000, not 2 000, could this be a typo, as opposed to a 'ridiculous underestimate'? And again, I am not trying to ignore Kenez, just get with WP:IMPARTIAL.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea from where any issue has emerged about 'blanket insults' Wishes just now called Kenez' statement "slander" a few posts up. The issue is whether Kenez' statement is "heated" or just a blunt critique of content, from someone who knows what he's talking about. The meaning of the policy ("quoting from participants engaged in a heated dispute") is rather vague, so it's not a red herring to explore what exactly "heated" language is. Obviously insults like "liar" and "Stalin apologist" qualify would qualify as "heated" and fall under the poilicy, especially if they come from someone with a personal stake in making the accusations. But it is not obvious that one historian—with no personal stake in the matter— calling another historian "[sometimes] extremely careless" and then giving evidence, is the kind of thing WP:IMPARTIAL has in mind. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And it's no [typo] Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

From your post above my last one: Furthermore, in my reading of the source, neither "can be careless" nor "ridiculous" qualify as blanket insults.. The 'blanket insults' emerged from you, as a red herring. Try to remember the fish and the wrapping for one post at least. And if you re-read my post more carefully, you would find that I alleged that the coloured fish was 'blanket insults', which has nothing to with 'exploring the issue of what heated language is..'. And why should a new criterion- that of obviousness- be introduced into the discussion of whether this does or does not come under WP:IMPARTIAL ? The question is whether or not WP:IMPARTIAL applies, and/or is countered by other WP guidance, not whether it is obvious that it applies. I am sorry to say this, but I am finding this collection of non-sequiturs, red herrings, and straw men pretty indigestible. If you don't stick to the point in your next post, I'll just list the errors and assume that you've given up rational discourse.

Gravuritas (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh, empty bluster. No point in responding.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Black Book of Communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/122099/scammell122099.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904191638/http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger%2C%20Chapter%20for%20Roter%20Holocaust%20book%20b.pdf to http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Chapter%20for%20Roter%20Holocaust%20book%20b.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311114100/http://www.left-dis.nl/f/werth.htm to http://www.left-dis.nl/f/werth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fix

[4]. I am sorry, but what important information was restored in this edit? Yes, they happened to disagree about the number. We keep it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it should be self-evident that some of the main contributors of a book publicly dissociating themselves from statements in its introduction and criticizing its editor's editorial conduct is important information. It should also be self-evident that their accusing the book's editor of being "obsessed" is important. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it is obvious that strong defamatory language like "obsessed" and "publicly dissociated" has no informational value and does not belong to encyclopedia. I am also not sure this is really supported by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. If multiple contributors to a book call its editor obsessed, that is important information and clearly has "informational value", even if someone doesn't like it for some reason, because it helps give readers perspective on the book. You can call it "obvious" that disputes that lead to harsh things being said should not be mentioned because they are unimportant, but don't expect other people to necessarily agree with you. Maybe you need to be reminded of WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't remove important stuff just because someone is offended by it. If you have a problem with the sources used, that is a different issue completely - but it is up to you to make a case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This obsession is also mentioned in the recently published scholarly work by Kristen Ghodsee (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." Perhaps it should be noted in the article that they also claim this obsession resulted in sloppy and biased scholarship?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Simply telling "obsessed", "sloppy" or "biased" is uninformative. What exactly was "sloppy" or "biased" except the slightly different estimate for the number of victims, in their opinion? Unless we explain the essence of a disagreement (if any), such slander does not belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Poppycock. If a contributor to a book calls its editor obsessed or biased of course that is informative, because it helps place the book in context for readers. Insisting over and over again that this is not true changes nothing. Bias is not simply a matter of the conclusion reached, but of the mental process that leads to the conclusion - that's the key issue. By all means, let's add further information about this issue, if there is any further pertinent information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, it appears that co-authors had a disagreement only about the Introduction written by Courtois. They did not criticize at all the entire book (which they wrote themselves!). Speaking of Introduction, their main disagreement was about the comparison of Communism and Nazism. Second disagreement was about the number of victims. While Courtois said it was close to 100 million and provided the number of 94 million, others wanted to emphasize this is an upper limit of the estimate, while the actual number could be smaller. This is all they disagreed about. Please tell if I forget something. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are no any further corrections here, I will go ahead and fix it. My point is simple: if there was a disagreement about something, we need to explain what it was about, exactly. As about this revert of my edit, I do not have objections (this content arguably may belong to the page), except this is actually not a correct summary of the source if anyone cared to read it, but that can be easily fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure I support it. So far, the article is not about the book itself, but about its introduction. Moreover, the article demonstrates the same obsession with numbers which was was found provocative by reviewers.

In addition, the article is blurring one very important point: whereas several chapters of this book are considered good by many reviews, the introduction caused serious criticism. In connection to that, the whole "Criticism vs Support" structure should be revised. The article's structure is exactly what is not recommended by NPOV policy: different opinia should not be separated on several sections. Comparison of Communism and Nazism and playing with numbers are two the most controversial subjects, and criticism must be added directly to these sections. Finally, the article should tell about the book, it doesn't have to just what the book says. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You do not support what? Explaining what the disagreement was about? That was the subject of this thread. Or you do not support something else? If so, please start new thread. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I see this source (mentioned Griffin above), but it tells just a couple of phrases about the book with a reference to an article in Le Monde. Given that, I think one should use the more detailed paper in Le Monde (currently cited on the page). It does not tell anything about "sloppy scholarship" in the book, but does tell about disagreements between co-authors (as outlined above) and tells that the first chapter was actually self-censored by Courtois to satisfy other co-authors. The disagreements: (a) Werth thinks it was 15 millions victims in the USSR, Courtious used the number of 20; (b) Margolin tells that 1 million deaths in Vietnam is actually number by Courtois, not "his" number, (c) Communism versus Nazism. Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin tell (translation): "Communism is a doctrine of the liberation of the humankind, but Nazism is a racist doctrine". Courtois tells: "I understand these tensions. Many authors [of the book] are either former communists or very much influenced by this ideology. But the historical record of the Communism is overwhelming.". This is basically all it tells, in a summary.My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)