Wikipedia

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 27

< Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Paul Siebert in topic 500 words or less
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Editors may wish to comment on Crimes against humanity under communist regimes which has been listed for deletion.[1] It may be that it should be merged with this article. TFD (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that would make this article too long. A50000 (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Wow, is AfD nominator The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) blatantly WP:CANVASSing a particular outcome of a merge here? --Martin (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:CANVASS and please assume good faith. TFD (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence appears neutral in your post, the second a bit less so. Cheers. I suggest yuo be appreciably more neutral in wording in the future. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 13 years ago43 comments13 people in discussion

It has been suggested that Communist crimes against humanity be merged into this article.

What topics are discussed in the other article that would be excluded from this one? TFD (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and it seems that many "crimes against humanity" are not "mass killings" making the merger substantially contrary to common sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Crimes against humanity that are not mass killings are already discussed in this article, and the concepts are reasonably connected. "Communist crimes against humanity" by itself is not a coherent and notable topic. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously crimes against humanity that are not mass killings that are already discussed in this article should be removed as being offtopic. --Martin (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge Obviously the sensible course per TFD and Quigley. Writegeist (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge. Most "mass killings" discussed in this article (mass deaths as a result of sharp and short-term decrease of living conditions) are not mass killings from the commonsensual point of view, so either the considerable part of the content of this article should be moved to CCAG, or these articles should be merged.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Most "mass killings" are not mass killings, that does not make sense, then are they mass unkillings? By definition crimes against humanity are mass crimes. --Martin (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It does. A lion's share of those 70 million deaths under Communist regimes were the famine deaths. Since most sources in this article are single society studies, let me continue using the single society approach. Many, if not majority of reliable sources do not describe Soviet famine as mass killing, or genocide, however, many of them (e.g. Ellman) do describe them as the crimes against humanity. Therefore, if the same is true for China, then most deaths that are described as mass killing deaths by Valentino are the results of the crimes against humanity according to others. The most simple and reasonable way to resolve this issue is to merge these article under some more general name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hang on a moment, just a few days ago you were arguing that Communist mass killings accounted for just millions of deaths, not 70 million, have you changed your position? The term "mass killings" makes no judgement on criminality, afterall these killings may have been perfectly legal under the laws of the respective Communist regimes. If these mass killings described by Valentino are judged to be crimes against humanity by other authors, then that is the judgement of the criminality of those killings by these authors. --Martin (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It depends on whether we are talking about "mass killings" or mass killings. The mass killings this article is talking about are: (i) mass killings of non-combatants during civil wars, mass execution of real or perceived political opponents, the executions of the opponents of agrarian reforms; (ii) genocide of urban and non-Khmer population in Kampuchea; (iii) deaths from famine, deportations and diseases. The total amount of these deaths was probably ca 70 million: 15-20 million in the USSR, ~2 million in Kampuchea, and others in China. BTW, I never looked at recent studies devoted to China, so, if the tendency is the same as in the case of the USSR, the actual number of deaths was lower that Rummel&Co claimed, so the total amount is lower than 70 millions. One way or the another, whereas two first categories are mass killings from the commonsensual point of view, the last one is not, however, the vast majority of the victims of the Communist regimes belonged to the third category. Therefore, we can speak about 70 million of victims of mass killings only if we use Valentino's terminology, however, if we remember that, e.g. Ellman described the famine in the USSR as a crime against humanity, not as mass killing, then we will have to move famines, deportaions etc to the CCAG article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, certainly deportations can be moved to CCAH article since it is explicitly defined as a CAH under the Rome Statues and the majority of deportations did not result in mass killings. However while Ellman describes the Ukraine famine as a crime against humanity, you cannot assume he says it is not a mass killing. Even if the majority of deaths occured in the third category, the fact that many of these deaths are attributed to neglience give rise to the concept of negligent manslaughter, hence Valentino is correct to call them mass killings and Ellman does not contradict Valentino when he attributes criminality due to the negligent nature of the mass killing. On the flip side Communist party purges, while resulting in mass killing, aren't really considered crimes against humanity, so do not belong in CCAH but belong in MkuCr. --Martin (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't have to prove negative, therefore I don't need to prove he didn't say something. I know what he did say. Re alleged concept of mass manslaughter, this term has been used by him for just one time. And, in general, your arguments rest on a very shaky ground, because mass killing is a subset of crimes against humanity, so, although everything that belongs to the MKUCR article does belong to the CCAH article, the opposite is not correct. Whereas most famine deaths, which, as a rule, were theoretically preventable in XX century, can be described as crimes against humanity, and, therefore can be safely discussed in the CCAH without a danger of NPOV issues, to place it to the MKUCR article would be not completely neutral, because many sources do not describe them as mass killings, and even as killings at all. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You have stated below in response to Smallbones "many events ... have been described by many scholars (e.g. Ellman) not as mass killing". Your argument re Ellman is a logical fallacy, you premise is "mass killing" or "crime against humanity", then you assert Ellman states it is "crime against humanity", therefore your conclusion is that it is not a "mass killing". Deportations and the GULAG system in general do not belong in MKUCR but in CCAH. As you say, CCAH is a superset of MKUCR, so obviously some things like some famines may fall within both but many things don't. I've always argued than MKUCR is a valid sub-topic of CCAH, but MKUCR is already over 100k and if we merge MKUCR into CCAH and fully include all the detail regarding other non-lethal crimes against humanity such as deportations, etc, the size of the merged article will easily be 2 or 3 times bigger, over 300k, necessatating a split in any case. --Martin (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not a fallacy. Ellman used the term "crime against humanity", but he did not use the term "mass killing". That is easy to verify by using any search engine. Therefore, his articles should be used as the sources in the CCAH article, not in this one. One way or the another, we either merge these two articles, or we move a considerable part of the content from MMUCR to CCAH (leaving the ref to the later in the former). I support the first option.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The size argument is reasonable. A solution would be to move the discussion of the figures of premature deaths to the CCAH, because this would be less controversial. The facts that some communist regimes committed crimes against humanity that lead to premature deaths of tens of million people is not a subject of debates in mainstream literature. For the MCUCR, we can leave the categories i and ii, because all scholars agree that they were mass killings, and just mention famine and other "dispossessive mass killings" as a Valentino's views (all details should be moved to CCAH). I also suggest to move Afghanistan there, because Valentino does not list it among mass killings under Communist regimes (he consider it "counter-guerrilla mass killings"). If these and some other suggestions will be supported, I may consider withdrawal of my support of merging these two articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
What you suggest has some merit, although I think Afghanistan should probably remain here since "counter-guerrilla mass killings" would fall under category (i). I suggest after this current move discussion is closed we could discuss each section by section in an orderly manner because it is not enough for just us two alone to agree but we have to get others on board too. --Martin (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The article's name is "Mass killings under Communist regimes", not by Communist regimes. Similarly, mass killings in Vietnam committed by the US troops are not mass killings under democratic regimes, because neither South nor North Vietnam were democratic. And, importantly, since Valentino does not consider that as MKUCR, and prefers to group Afghanistan with anti-Communist mass killings in Guatemala, we should stick with what this source says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be cherry picking Valentino's work, giving great weight when it comes to Afghansistan, but attributing less weight when it comes to Soviet famines. You seem happy enough to cite single country studies by Ellman that contradict Valentino and say we don't have to stick with what Valentino says, yet reject other single country studies that support communist mass killing in Afghansistan because it contradicts Valentino and now say we have to stick with what Valentino says. --Martin (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No. I am not "happy" to cite any work devoted to mass killings or famine, however, I know no works that described Afghanistan as "Communist" mass killings. Valentino describes it as counter-guerrilla mass killings and groups together with other similar mass killings. That is reasonable, because the events in Afghanistan had close parallelism with other counter-guerrilla operation conducted by non-Communist governments. Therefore, since even Valentino does not describe these events as "Communist mass killings", and since the article is devoted not to mass killings by Communist regimes, this chapter should be moved to the CCAH article (if we do not merge them).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Explain this distinction "under communist regimes" and "by communist regimes". --Martin (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That is simple. According to Valentino, the mass killings under Communist regimes were the result of the program of profound social transformations Communist authorities were implementing in their own states, not abroad. That is a feature that was specific for these events. The Communist regimes were internal factors for the societies we discuss. By contrast, Afghanistan was a clear example of counter-guerrilla warfare conducted by an external secular force against a medieval type religious nationalist opposition. There were nothing specific to Communism in Afghanistan, which, by the way, cannot be considered as a Communist led state during the Soviet occupation. (That is not my conclusion, I found that statement in some quite reliable source; and that was the reason why Valentino had not placed it into the chapter #4). Therefore, the crimes committed by Soviet authorities in attempts to secularise Afghan society were the crimes of Communist regime, but they were not committed under Communist rule.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2 related but different concepts. Under the current editing rules, this would be impossible to merge. Perhaps we should get the editing restrictions changed first. This article needs help, but throwing in everything but the kitchen sink is not going to help it. Smallbones (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In actuality, the editing restrictions are more or less similar to the unwritten rules according to which the editors working on the WWII article are acting. However, that did not prevent that article to become a GA. I do not see how these restrictions can prevent us from changing this article if a consensus will be reached on the talk page. The only thing we need for that is our good will. BTW, can you please explain why these two concepts are so different? In actuality the MKUCR is a subset of CCAH, and, many events described here, such as Soviet famine, have been described by many scholars (e.g. Ellman) not as mass killing, not as genocide, but as crimes against humanity. Therefore, since it is very hard to draw a clear border between these two topics, they definitely should be merged, although probably under some more generic name.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Crimes against humanity" is very specific, there's no impediment to that being a "see also" article, this one is already large enough and contentious enough. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No. "Crimes against humanity" is a very broad term, much broader than "mass killing". Your rationale is flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In legal terms "Crimes against humanity" has specific meaning, while "mass killing" makes no specific judgement in terms of criminality. --Martin (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No. The definition of the Crimes against humanity is "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated". The words "and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population" do not allow us to speak about some specific meaning. This definition is not exhaustive, and all acts described in both CCAH and MKUCR fit this definition.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"Mass crimes" is somewhat problematic, because many of these events were in accordance with domestic law. For instance, the whole system of criminal justice had been abolished in Soviet Russia in late 1917, so the VeCheKa initially served as a substitute of criminal police. Its members had an authority to use a wive range of punishments, from warning to execution, so these executions were not crimes from neither the local not international laws (no definition of "Crime against humanity" had existed by that moment, and the laws have no retroactive force). Stalin's troykas were also in full accordance with Soviet laws. As a result, the scholars working in this area prefer to use the word "repressions". In the case of Kampuchea, we have a pure example of genocide. China is also quite a different case. In any event, if we decide to change a name it has to encompass all these cases adequately, and it should not be misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have requested an admin to close this out, there is obviously no consensus for a merger IMO, plus this article is already to large to begin adding crimes against humanity to it. The Last Angry Man (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop changing the footnotes please

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

You may think that you are doing a neutral updating of the footnotes; but I'm sure that many people would disagree, please stop now. Smallbones (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you address to Filefoo? He seems to be doing a right job, which has been proposed on talk page and supported by two other editors, and it has not been opposed so far. If you have any objections, please, explain them. A request to stop unopposed changes under a pretext that someone might oppose it is hardly productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • From 19 May to 8 July (20 days) comment was solicited at Proposed edit, above. The proposal received general support and no opposition. The implementation of changes, so far, has been:
    • To remove to Further Reading works not cited
    • To remove from the Bibliography works only cited once
    • To add to the Bibliography works cited multiple times
    • Preparatory citation cleaning, including
      • Identification of authors, chapters, and works
      • Notation of citations which are unable to support their works due to failing to indicate the text, or the place within the text, which supports the claim (for example, citations to a book length work without a page number or quote, citations to long journal articles which claim that the article as a whole substantiate the claim).
  • Following expected work is to:
    • Complete Preparatory citation cleaning. For example, determining for footnotes 87 through to ~199 whether works have been cited multiple times
    • Ensure citation presentation consistency. For example, correctly citing the work, "Chandler, David. The Killing Fields. At The Digital Archive Of Cambodian Holocaust Survivors." including identification of title, correct display of title, identification of works contained in works, identification and correct display of publisher.
    • Locate missing verification details (particularly pages or page ranges which support the factual claims). For example, locating the text supporting a paragraph and quotation of "collectively guilty of holocaust-scale felonious homicides." in Red Holocaust.
    • Clean and present. For example, merging multiple citations to identical pages into single notes.
  • Implementation is expected to continue in this order. The copyvio, fails verification, and verify source tags which I have been adding are directly related to this. For example, that "R. J. Rummel coined the term "democide"" is cited to a book by Rummel. This is not verifiable without a page number, almost certainly to be found in the introduction. In comparison the claim that "Rosefielde has published a book on this subject titled Red Holocaust." is cited to the entire book quite justifiably. A key example of unverifiable material was the citation which claimed that Coutois' "Introduction" at page x was to support the Black Book's coverage of "crimes, terror, and repression' from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989". Courtois' "Introduction" commences on page 1. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I'm going to be away from my notes relating to sources for about 4.5 days, and so won't be acting until everyone has again had plenty of time to discuss this. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you should use Template:Page needed rather than the failed verification template. --Martin (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the articles do not need in exact page numbers, so do not add the pn tag to the articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, they do. Slogging through a 7,000 to 15,000 word humanities journal article to verify, confirm, or use a fact or opinion which is actually spread across a handy three page range or contained on a single page is not allowing a work to be verified. You can see any humanities citation style for this, though I recommend Chicago or Turabian. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tammsalu, I wasn't aware of this template. I'll just be conducting a clearing edit to cover my own ignorance on this template. I also discovered Template:Full which covers some of the other lack of citation data issues (where publisher and publisher location are also required). I double checked two or three items which actually did fail verification in a strict sense: Courtois didn't write any text in roman numbered pages in the Black Book, and Valentino's discussion of Afghanistan is much later than p. 151. While I encourage editors to continue discussing this issue, thankts to Tammsalu, the tags better represent the citation problems: full citations required (publisher, location, volume), page needed, volume & issue needed (a serial), and two instances of failed verification (probably due to poor initial citations reliant on citing chapters as a whole). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • What might be nice would be for an "insufficient cite" template rather than a "failed verification" one. The latter strongly suggests that the cite says nothing close to what the claim is, the former would more properly suggest that the cite is just a bit too broad for anyone to prove or disprove a claim made for it. Collect (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am assuming from the absence of discussion after 9 June that Smallbones concerns have either been addressed through better use of templates for citations that need work; or, have otherwise been resolved. As such I am going to continuing working the citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sidebar

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Redthoreau (talk · contribs) has removed a sidebar[6] and replaced it with an image[7] without gaining consensus. I've ask this be undone. --Martin (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Seconding on Policy—there appears to be copyright issues with the image due to US law, and the use of the image on this page wouldn't meet free use exemptions. I'm indifferent about image versus sidebar in general unless someone has the policy on this stuff in the back of their mind. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is no freedom of panorama in the US, so this image will be removed from Commons, and it can be used only in the article about this monument itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Huh? The Commons license information seems quite adequate, and no such removal discussion is there. "Will be removed" is thus rather irrelevant. Cheers. BTW, photos of government owned property is not barred under US law - for example the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial inter alia. But I assume from your post that you are expert on such matters possibly? Collect (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually there WAS a discussion on deleting this at Commons [8], and it has been decided that these images will be KEPT. Smallbones (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I only looked at the current status - I agree that there would have been no grounds for deletion <g>. Collect (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies and I have reverted myself. At the time of my additions I was not aware of the stringent sanctions on adding content. For the record, I thought the chosen image (stylistically acting as a quasi-info box) made more aesthetic sense than the sidebar – but I will leave it up to others here if they wish to reinstate my former additions.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Additions (expansion of content) welcome. Substitutions (replace prior content, presumably agreed to by numerous parties, with yours) can be problematic. Best to discuss first here on article talk. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Defination of communist regimes is WTF?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

""Communist regimes" refers to those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition (in other words, "communist states") at some point in their history."
So any country that used to be communist is still a communist regime and the death tolls of post-communist countries can be blamed on communism?

This needs to be changed, now. 216.105.64.144 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then change it. TFD (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How crazy is this?

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I marvel still at the hundreds of hours spent over the past few years by people trying to save this article, fighting to win a battle they won during the Reagan administration. I say again, almost nobody under thirty knows what "communist" means, and anti-communists are as obsolite as antidisestablishmentarians. The article is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

range of "number killed"

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments7 people in discussion

We have Rummel at [9] with figures of over 100 million.

Courtois at over 100 million.

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

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

Lansford appears to cite Rummel at [11] implying that Rummel is generally accepted as mainstream.

Kurtz and Turpin arrive at over 115 million at [12]

Using the fact that the most widely cited figures are in the total range of 80 to 100 million, it seems that this is the "mainstream" position, and any claim that 10 million is remotely near the mark is clearly WP:FRINGE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, can you please not misrepresent sources. Valentino wrote, "Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million".[13] He did not endorse that figure. TFD (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
TFD, take care not to misrepresent what I wrote. I fear you missed the entire sentence following. Cheers - but take care not to be so quick to assert errancy when it is your post which was errant. Collect (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1 Rummel is obsolete and unreliable.
"In a series of nine chapters Rummel then explains how he reaches the figure of sixty-one million dead, and despite the complex tables and intricate computations, his explanation is quite unsatisfactory. Some general points first: Rummel uses no Russian-language sources and cites a variety of secondary sources as if they were all of equal worth, when some are scholarly and some far from it. He also assumes that the entire labour camp population was innocent: for Rummel, deaths in labour camps while serving a prison sentence are legitimate elements in what he calls 'democide' and much space is devoted to computing death rates in camps, yet some of those who died in this way were common criminals or actual Nazi collaborators, while a camp death rate of twenty-six per cent seems hard to credit, even at the height of Stalinism.
"Rummel is at his least contentious when dealing with collectivization and purges."
"Ironically, given Rummel's rather naive mission to show the utter inhu- manity of 'Marxism', his own figures can be turned against him."(Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)
"Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses. When judging particular countries, he repeatedly draws the conclusion that the more people died the worse the regime. This connection is true for some cases, but not others. Often deaths are attributable to neither direct governmental action nor governments' tacit approval of vigilante activity, but, rather, to the consequences of war, displacement, or famine."(Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)
2 Courtois is not reliable. His figures are not supported even by the co-author of the BB (Wertht et al)
"What Werth and some of his colleagues object to is "the manipulation of the figures of the numbers of people killed" (Courtois talks of almost 100 million, including 65 million in China);" the use of shock formulas, the juxtaposition of histories aimed at asserting the comparability and, next, the identities of fascism, and Nazism, and communism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint" (Stanley Hoffmann Source: Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 166-169)
3 Valentino, as TFD correctly noted, just made a compilation of the secondary sources made by others, and he did not endorse these figures. In addition, Valentino's definition of mass killing is dramatically different from how other people understand this term, so before citing Valentino it is necessary to explain what "mass killing" means according to him.
4 Before discussing Harff, I would like to see a real text. You provided nothing, and, taking into account that Harff disagree with Rummel (see above), I have some reason to doubt in correctness of your interpretation.
5 Rummel was accepted in past, however, no serious genocide scholars take his estimates seriously now (see above reviews)
6 Re Kurtz and Turpin, for some reason your link does not work, so I cannot discuss it.
Re "This is the only estimate I found for anything approaching only 10 million deaths" You cam found reliable figures for the USSR in the BB, not in the introduction, but in the Werth's chapter. Another good source is Ellman (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)
"During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly in 1918-23, 1931-34 and 1941-45) were not repression but war, famine and disease. The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period led to a large number of excess lives."
Obviously, this, as well as many other authors, do not consider deaths from disease or hunger as killing.
"Accordingly the present author considers it appropriate to place the famine victims in a different category from the repression victims, even if one judges Stalin during the famines to have been guilty of causing mass deaths by manslaughter or criminal negligence. Both categories contain huge numbers of victims, but only the latter was unusual by international standards. About 12 million people were arrested or deported, and at least 3 million died, as a result of political persecution by their own government. This distinction between famines and political persecution corresponds to normal historical practice. The victims of the 1943 Bengal famine are usually considered to be 'famine victims' rather than 'repression victims' even though by appropriate actions the British Government could have saved many of the lives of those who died. Similarly with the Irish famine of the 1840s. It also corresponds to current international law. Unintentional famine, unlike murder or deportation, is not classified as a crime against humanity (see article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)" (ibid.)
It is interesting to note that Ellamn stresses the fact that in overall, mortality was constantly declining in the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Your chief problem is that the 100 million figure is accepted by a great majority number of sources, and your 10 million figure is exceedingly fringe, with not a single source supposrting that low number. When the ratio of those who end up with >50 million is so overwhelming, and the number < 50 million is near zero, I suggest that it is vandalism to say anything implying that only 10 million or so were killed. Cheers, but you really need to read the current books and not rely on a source I can not find which says ten million. Collect (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Per our policy, "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." All sources I use fit these criteria, and none of them are fringe. No serious scholars who study Soviet history (Wheatcroft, Nove, Conquest, Ellman, Maksudov, Davis, Rosefielde) support the figures of higher than 20 million. According to Rosefielde (Cmrnunrst and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 32 l-33 I. 1997), the range of excess deaths in 1930s (the most lethal years in the USSR, except the WWII) ranged from 5.3 to 14.5 million. However a major part of those deaths should not be considered as mass killings per Ellman.
Let me also point out that the claim that I use fringe sources is an indication that you exhausted your arguments. I can easily demonstrate that my sources are reliable and mainstream just by going to appropriate noticeboards (my previous experience demonstrates that persuasively), however I prefer to save your and my time. Just stop your ridiculous and offencive arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

[14] Zhengyuan Fu lists a number of cites for "excess deaths" in China - citing Coale for 16.5 million "excess deaths" in 1958-61 alone, Aird a "population loss" of 23 million for that period, Ashton Hill et al 30 million deaths and 33 million lost or postponed births. He lists Bannister and Kane as agreeing wth Hill. Z. Fu then ascribes a figure of 43 million deaths in 1959-61 to Chen Yizi as his source. WP:RS from Cambridge University Press in 1993. Need more milk? I dount this manages to back your insistence on a fringe view of 10 million total for all the countries. Collect (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we accept the number of 100 million, that would mean that 32 million excess death in the USSR, which is not true. In addition, as I have demonstrated with the reputable source, according to standard historical practice, the famine deaths are not considered as mass killing. Only Valentino (and, probably Rummel) do that. Accordingly, if the you want these figures to be presented in the article, we need to re-write it. We need to start with the statement that, according to Valentino and some other authors, deaths from disease and starvation, as well as other excess deaths, constitutes mass killing. Then we can explain that some authors believe that the total number of excess deaths amounted to 100 millions in the countries ruled by Communists. Then we should add alternative opinions, and that would be ok.
Meanwhile, I would prefer the editing restriction procedure to be observed. I would like you to self-revert, which would be a demonstration of your good faith and of abandonment of the system gaming tactics by you. Otherwise, I will have to take other measures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
All TFD and PS have to do is come up with a reasonable source that says the total killings (in the 20th century, not just in the 1930s) were only 10 million (or whatever number) and we can put in "with an estimated death toll numbering between 10 and 100 million." Absent any such source, we have to stick with what the currently used sources say. Please just provide a source and page number. Without it PS's Wall of Text approach above just amounts to a cross between "I don't like it" and OR. Smallbones (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Since most serious sources deal with Communist states separately, and since the such sources as Rummel (but not Valentino) describe the procedure they used to obtain the overall figures, it is quite possible to verify the latter using the former. For instance, if Rummel says "the USSR killed 45, China 65, so totally we have 110", by showing that the present days scholars disagree with the number of 45 million killed by the USSR I thereby demonstrate that the total figure is wrong and obsolete. In addition, my walls of text are in actuality the quotes from reliable sources that confirm that Rummel is wrong. Therefore, we cannot use his figures.
In summary, your statement is baseless and offensive. I believe I have a full right to disregard it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Smallbones, you it bass ackwards - you need a source to support what you put into articles. Incidentally, sources have been provided above debunking Courtois's reasoning, including by the main Black Book contributor Nicolas Werth. Even worse, reliable sources have accused them of ideological reasons for their estimate. (PS - the figure of 10 million comes from Collect, who appears to be misrepresenting another editor.) TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You have consoistently misrepresented the facts, and consistently insisted that the firncge view of minimal deaths is the mainstream one. I have sghown that if you take the lowest view of 11 million deaths over a seven yearperiod for the USSR, and the 43 million ascribed by a Chinese RS to China for a three year perion, we have for that limited period allone (3 years in China, 7 in the USSR) more than 54 million excess deaths. I fail to see how anyone can conceivably make a comment that "tens of millions" is in any manner a mainstream view when the mainstream view is for over 80 million (China did, presumably, have deaths other than in the 3 year period, and the USSR did not miraculously go free of excess deaths outside of the seven year period.) Nor can any reasonable person ascribe ideology to the Chinese source for those deaths, nor for the more than a half dozen other sources listed. Cheers - now can we simply accept the "80 to 100 million" figure which is so overwhelmingly accepted by the sources? As for the position of Paul -- he sought [15] as "neutral" which says even the tens of millions figure is "disputed." He also even tried to change "tens of millions" to mere "millions" in the lede. ( Therefore, we need either not to mention any concrete figures in the lede at all, or to speak about "millions".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)) So much for your odd claim that I misrepresented what Paul has written. In fsact, he seemed to argue that the number coulsd well have been under 10 million. If anyone else makes a claim that this 'misrepresents 'Paul's precise words, I shall have a good laugh. Cheers. Now can you go back and accept that Paul said what I said he said? Collect (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul Siebert actually put in "an estimated death toll numbering in the tens of millions".[16] Incidentally, your version ("between 85 & 100 million")[17] is not the same as the "over 100 million" that is the subject of this discussion thread which you set up. TFD (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Reread what Paul said which is in bold face above. I trust this is clear enough. Need I repeat it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you please not take my words out of context? I don't know from which concrete archive discussion have you taken my words, however, I clearly remember my rationale. My rationale was as follows:
  1. "Mass killings" ≠ "excess deaths", according to many scholars.
  2. Valentino, as well as few other authors, consider mass deaths from famine or disease as mass killing (concretely, as "disposessive mass killing"), so most excess deaths under Communists fall into that category, according to them.
  3. The amount of victims of mass killings defined in a Valentino's way is equal to the number of excess deaths, which, for such large countries as China or the USSR, simply by virtue of their size, amounted tens of millions.
  4. Therefore, we can speak about tens of millions, provided, but only provided, that all needed reservations (##1-3) have been made first.
  5. Otherwise, we can speak only about the victims of the sensu stricto mass killings (executions, part of deporation deaths, part of camp mortality, Civil war victims, etc), which amounted several millions in the USSR, probably, more then 10 million in China, plus all victims of Kambodian genocide (which is a totally separate story).
Let me also point out that all these explanations have been made by me several times on this talk page, and refusal of some users to understand that shakes my believe in their good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
As the date and time stamp were included - what more do you need? I would have thought that quite sufficient to find the edit in the edit history of this talk page. Do you really need more? I could, of course, then add other interesting claims you have made which are fringe at best. Meanwhile, how do you deal with the figrue given by a seniour PRC official? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you insist. Below is the paragraph you cited so selectively. The words you have taken out of context are in bold:
"Anticipating accusations in redundant formalism, let me explain why these changes were not appropriate. Firstly, since Valentino, a major source for mkucr, clearly wrote that most Communist regimes weren't engaged in mass killings, some transmits his thought better. Secondly, although the fact that excess mortality under Communist regimes was huge and amounted tens of millions, there is no consensus which part of those deaths should be considered as "killings". If we leave Valentino's "dispossession mass killings" beyond the scope, the total amount of deaths as a result of what is commonly accepted as "killings" was much smaller. Therefore, we need either not to mention any concrete figures in the lede at all, or to speak about "millions".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC) "
I believe, it is clear from this my post (for every reasonable person) that I never denied the fact that the excess mortality in Communist countries amounted tens of millions. My argument was that serious scholars do not call that "mass killings".
Finally, after seeing how did you misinterpreted my own words it is clear for me why you misinterpret the sources you use.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting -- an exact quote misrepresents you how? Sorry - that does not wash. Meanhile, did you think Fu is not RS about 43 million deaths in a 3 year period in China ? Collect (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If after my exhaustive explanations you appeared to be unable to understand that, I even don't know what to say...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another source which says 100million, Philosophical melancholy and delirium: Hume's pathology of philosophy By Donald W. Livingston pp337 Re Conquest, he had a number of 170million dead? Retrieving the natural law: a return to moral first things By J. Daryl Charles pp32 The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What would you use a book on philosophy for a source? TFD (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Conquest does give a figure of 170million, in Reflections on a Ravaged Century published in 2001. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Strength of Fu as a reliable source

Zhengyuan Fu is widely cited - and is RS -- he is cited for [18], [19], [20] and on and on. Cambridge University Press, etc. As RS as they get with sound academic credentials. He does not use Rummel, so that old straw arguemnt fails utterly with his figures. Sorry - Elvis has left the building - unless you wish to discredit Fu for some reason. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He was actually writing about China. TFD (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, Fu writes nothing about mass killing in China [21]. Remember, "excess deaths"≠"mass killings", according to most authors. Do you suggest to devote the article to excess deaths under Communist regimes?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
What the he-double-hockey-sticks do you mean by that? Fu is extremely clear as to what he writes about - he was an important figure in the PRC, a noted scholar on the PRC (I rather think his c.v. is easily found) and he quotes a senior PRC official! I suggest that saying "Fu writes nothing about mass killing in China" is one of the most WP:FRINGE comments in the entire history of Wikipedia! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
What I meant? A very simple thing: if we approach the discussion formally and reject the each others arguments for purely formal reason we inevitably arrive to such a ridiculous situation. Of course, I fully realise that Fu wrote a lot about mass deaths in China, and a significant part of these victims were the victims of killings sensu stricto. Being a reasonable person I have no intention to deny that fact. However, I believe I can expect you to be equally reasonable, which implies that you must concede that this source cannot be used as a support for the statement that tens of millions were "killed", because he does not say that. In addition, Fu is a generally poor source for the thesis about Communist mass killing, because for him the Chinese Communist authorities were just a re-incarnation of the old Chinese autocratic tradition, so the mass death were not characteristic for the Communist rule only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I would humbly suggest that where killing occurs under a communist regime, that the killings occurred under a communist regime. I think this ia tautological - and should not surprise you. As for Fu eing a "poor source" I would suggest that the source being in the PRC hierarchy makes it, contrariwise, a very strong source for such numbers. And I iterate that where I quote you exactly, that you can not claim I misquoted you. So now can you be reasonable and admit that the 85 million figure is certainly the mainstream figure and that the 1 million or 10 million is a fringe figure? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a general note, I'll point out that if there are reasonable questions about whether the source considers the regime to be communist, then it's is rather irrelevant if some editor here believes that the regime was communist and to then try to use the source's statements in a context they were not meant for. BigK HeX (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Fu was definitely concerned about the communism aspect - read the chapters thereon. He did say China has a history of autocratic rule, but that did not stop him from criticising the communist regime. And the person he quotes, who had been a higher-up, is not decidedly persona non grata to China. You might wish to read the news articles <g>. But heck, you made me laugh. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
He's writing about famine. I haven't been following discussions here recently, but I thought it was the case that the article was supposed to distinguish famine from other causes of large-scale death. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I would humbly suggest that where killing occurs under a communist regime, that the killings occurred under a communist regime." If. However, in actuality Fu speaks about various excess deaths, and as I have demonstrated, according to some reputable sources "mass killings"≠"excess deaths".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 13 years ago44 comments7 people in discussion

There is currently a link to a website called the Global Museum on Communism, which appears to be contrary to WP:EL.

  • 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
  • 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article....

The website does not offer any sources for its claims although its claim that there were "more than 100 million victims of communist tyranny" shows that it is probably using the estimates of Stéphane Courtois's introduction to the Black Book of Communism, which have been widely seen as exaggerated. The list of directors does not appear to reflect one would expect of a serious neutral museum. The chairman, Lee Edwards, for example, is described as a "Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation". The site fails to mention his involvement with the World Anti-Communist League (WACL), which was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites", and has links to right-wing groups. All of the articles appear to be written by right-wing authors.

To state high-end estimates as facts is to be "factually inaccurate" and providing no sources is to provide "unverifiable research". There is also a secondary issue, whether the webiste is even relevant, since it covers communism more broadly.

TFD (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be reflected by the way it is cited. Reo + 21:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The Global Museum of Communism is a museum established by an Act of the United States Congress. The Holocaust Museum is also a museum established by an Act of the United States Congress. Both are reliable sources in their area of study. If you delete references or links to one museum established by an act of Congress as unreliable, then you must delete all. @TFD, you are using your personal speculation to besmirch a reputable source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK
@TFD, and on Edwards, you ignore "Edwards was the founding director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University", so give it a rest. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
@TFD, you also ignore "by 1985 [>25 years ago!!!], the Anti-Defamation League declared itself "satisfied that substantial progress has been made since 1981 in ridding the organization of racists and anti-Semites" re World Anti-Communist League. IMHO, you are just retreading all the past tired arguments to get rid of a source that is not slavishly pro-Communist. Let's not appear to attempt to rope uninformed newbies to support your uber-cherry picked narrative looking to discredit a reputable source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You have, if I recall correctly, raised the same issue a bunch of times and nevergained consensus for your view. I doubt you will this time either. Collect (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Web site provides articles by well-known historians, such as Robert Conquest, precisely on the subject of this article [22]. Hence the link should stay. Biophys (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • What Biophys said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Frankly speaking, I see no problem to link the article to some web site containing the articles of such reputable writers as Robert Conquest. However, the problem with this particular site is that it is sponsored by some concrete state (more concretely, by a conservative part of this state) to advocate some very concrete views. This site is highly ideologically charged and by no means is it purely informative. In particular, the main thesis it advocate ("to commemorate 100 million victims of Communism") is rather problematic: similar to the Black Book, whose editor used the names of Werth and Margolin to push weird ideas about "more than 100 million murdered by Communist" of "equivalence of Communism and Nazism" (the ideas these scholars, especially Werth, opposed to), the authors of the site use the names of reputable authors to advocate similarly weird ideas. Moreover, the most strong theses published on this web site are not supported by any references and are anonymous: we do not know who is an author of the thesis that, e.g. "the USSR murdered 20 million people" (it is simply not true according to such a reputable scholars as Nicolas Werth)?
    In connection to that, I suggest to replace the link to this museum with several links to some articles on this web site that were written by really reputable authors. That would be useful, because not all their works are available free of charge and a reader can find something useful there. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Two points to notice: (a) this is an educational organization established by US Congress, not an advocacy web site; (b) by providing a link we do not endorse their views and numbers, but merely provide a link that would be useful for a reader of this particular subject. Biophys (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The museum is not "an educational organization established by US Congress". Title IX, Section 905 of Public Law 103-199, the relevant legislatiion to which you refer, merely states, "The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate in the District of Columbia an appropriate international memorial to honor victims of communism. The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is encouraged to create an independent entity for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating the memorial."[23] The Committee is an anti-Communist advocacy group. The website contains among other things a documentary by Dr. Glenn Beck, founder of Beck University. Beck btw is known to promote conspiracy theories including FEMA concentration camps and can hardly be considered academic. TFD (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not see a difference between the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (which one could call "anti-fascist") and the museum about communism victims. Let's keep the link. Biophys (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The difference is obvious: whereas there is no non-fringe sources that deny the fact that Nazi killed 6 million Jews, only minority of sources support the idea that Communism murdered 100 millions, and the USSR murdered 20 million. That is simply not true, and the site advocating such an idea is not a reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The Holocaust Museum, unlike the Victims of Communism museum, was chartered by Congress, is supported by the government and has representatives from Congress and the cabinet on its council. The Museum also has an academic reputation. For example, it produces the peer-reviewed journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, published by the Oxford University Press. Also, you are drawing a false equivalency between anti-fascism and anti-Communism. Mainstream academic thinking has a strong aversion to fascism, while mainstream views on Communism range from strong aversion to strong support, with a middle ground that is non-Communist but not described as anti-Communist. TFD (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Dancing on the head of a pin. Where the parent foundation of the museum is chartered established by Congress, and the museum is established subsequent to such a charter, it is clear that the distinction being made is totally worthless. As for what you assert you "know" about the "truth" of how scholars look at communism -- find a reliable source, else the assertions are of no value here whatsoever, and have ansolutely no relevance to the Congressional charter! Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, could you please at least present intelligent arguments. See charter: "the granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified" (my emphasis). It does not provide endorsement of rights not specified. The "museum" itself does not make any such claim, nor does any reliable source. Such a claim is mere synthesis. And yes, you will find that there are Marxist scholars that publish within the academic mainstream, including Courtois, the scholar used as the source for 100 million. (He had abandoned Marxism by the time he wrote that, but had been a Marxist earlier in his academic career.) But there are no few if any fascist scholars. You should WP:KNOW this. TFD (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Off the deep end again as an argument. Where the Congressionally chartered established organization states [24] that is is behind the museum, then it is not SYNTH to state that the charteredestablished organization is behind the museum. And the museum website itself? Has Copyright © 2011 The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. I trust the connection is exceedingly clear. Are you through attacking me, by the way? Now that I have shown the clear connection, it is SYNTH to deny it as a bare minimum. Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(I believe the previous post has been made by Collect).
@TFD. I am not sure Courtois abandoned Marxism, I recall some review on the BB stressed the fact that the main purpose of the attack of Communism mad in this book was to defend Marxism.
@Collect. I believe noone can deny the following facts:
  1. The Museum (and its web site) was established and sponsored by the governmental body of some particular country, and main museum's objective, which is highly ideologically motivated, was declared clearly and unequivocally;
  2. The Museum web site contains numerous anonymous statements that are (i) unsourced, and (ii) contain the claims that are at least questionable, according to some reputable scholars, which nevertheless are presented as an ultimate truth. In particular, the claim about 100 million victims of Communist regime and 20 million murdered by the USSR is not supported even by the Black Book Communism (of course, if we do not equate the poorly written and highly criticised introduction with the Book as whole);
  3. In addition to numerous anonymous and questionable materials, the site contains several articles authored by quite respectable scholars as Robert Conquest, whose opinion deserves to be presented on the WP pages.
In connection to that, the best solution is to replace the link to this web site with several links to the separate articles from this web site which meet out WP:SOURCES criteria. I respectfully request you to explain me if you agree with that, and if not, then what concrete objections against my ##1-3 do you have.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)The claim was made that the museum was unrelated to the Congressionally charteredestablished foundation - and that connecting it was SYNTH. I believe that SYNTH argument was deflated utterly. I would suggest, in fact, that almost every external link found on Wikipedia has "unsourced" statements, as (amazingly enough) outside sources do not have the Wikipedia requirement to footnote every single word on a site <g>. If you find any external site which follows the Wikipedia citing methodology, I would love to see it! Thus that argument is also rather deflated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) It is not a charter, which comes under Title 36 of the United States Code, and includes the Holocaust Museum. The legislation merely "encourages" the foundation to build a statue. TFD (talk)

Nitpicking over the difference between "established by Congress" and "chartered by Congress"? Really???? Sorry - that argument does not wash whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Note also the Act provides spcifically: Once created, this entity is encouraged and authorized, to the maximum extent practicable, to include as active participants organizations representing all groups that have suffered under communism. which seems quite adequate, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk)
It was not "established by Congress". Even if it had been, that would not (on its own) make it a reliable source. Even if you are a great admirer of Glenn Beck, you cannot seriously believe that his program is a reliable source for Communism. TFD (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not like Beck, and if I did, it would not make any difference whatsover here in my position. Are you making snarky comments for any real reason here? Cheers, and try to stick to actual arguments as Paul does. Collect (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the question remains: should we replace the link to the questionable anonymous content with the link to the better content written by well established authors? The answer seems to be obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Noting that I demur on "questionable", and that I know of no article which requires ELs to be cited per Wikipedia footnoting policy, the answer to "Should this particular site be rejected on political grounds, or on grounds that it is not 'chartered' but only 'established' by Congress" type of argument? No. Cheers. There have been far too many iterated straw man arguments presented here for me to entertain that thought. Noting also that this same argument for removal has never gotten a consensus agreeing to eliminate this EL. Collect (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
So you consider the Glenn Beck show unquestionable. TFD (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Your post makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
We are discussing a link to a website that presents Glenn Beck's show, originally on its main page. In the show, Beck interviews Jonah Goldberg. This is not acceptable scholarship. High school students who used these sources for school projects would fail. TFD (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You are exceedingly far afield of the discussion on this article on this article talk page. I have not the foggiest idea what you are trying to prove, but it sure as heck is totally irrelevant. The only topic we are discussing is the site presented by a Congressionally created organization. Nothing more. Nothing less. Your point (?) would say we could not link to the New York Times because it has links which you know are not reliable sources. That is not remotely relevant to the discussion here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The source you revere does not provide links to the Glenn Beck show. (Here is the link.) It presents an episode as an explanation of history. I doubt that the NYT would ask Beck to write factual articles for them. CNN and FNC did not present Beck's program as a news show, and it would fail rs. This is a real degradation of scholarship. It is worrying that you think a connection with the federal government makes something reliable. TFD (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
That link shows only that the chairman was interviewed for Becks show. Why is he being interviewed as issue? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
That is not the issue. The "documentary" is posted on the "museum" website, originally on its home page. In other words, they are endorsing it. TFD (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Now that claim is OR and SYNTH on your part. Congrats. But not a reason to remove an existing EL by a mile. Collect (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
So your position is that the Foundation does not endorse what is published on its website which therefore fails rs. TFD (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said nothing of the sort, and such would be totally irrelevant, and the entire argument is now in cloud-cuckoo land, I think we have gone quite far enough, thank you very much. This stuff is far afiekld from any proper use of the article talk page, and is actually a gross abuse of this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
What are you saying then? The documentary was published on the home page. If you think that it is OR to assume that they are endorsing it, would it not be OR to assume that they were endorsing anything? In which case, what value would the website have? Might not an innocent reader assume that the website was endorsing its own contents? TFD (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I am saying none of this has anything whatsoever to do with this article, that iterating the nonsense makes no difference in the price of eggs, and that John Cleese surely foretold this colloquy in the famous Argument Sketch. Though right now the Dead Parrot Sketch runs a close second. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
The discussion is about an external link which fails WP:EL; "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Which is a good description of Glenn Beck's history lessons. TFD (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)@PS "100 million victims of Communist regime and 20 million murdered by the USSR is not supported even by the Black Book Communism" 20 million is the total number killed under Stalin, there are more than enough sources stating this Stalin's Genocide pp 11&71 The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source says "If as many as twenty million Soviet citizens may have died [my emphasis] at the hands of the regime during Stalin's rule...." (p. 77)[25] There is a distinction between saying something is true and something might be true. That is the difference between this article and articles in the Victims museum and the Mises wiki. We cannot state something as fact unless sources say it is a fact. TFD (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
What doe it ay on page 11 TFD? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
From Yes, Minister:
Bernard: Anything might be true.
Sir Humphrey: Exactly, well done Bernard.[26]
TFD (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the opinion of most reviewers, the best part of the BB, its core, is the Werth's chapter about the USSR. Werth does not support the number of 20 million killed by the Stalinist regime and explicitly disagrees with what Courtois says. Even this single (although highly commended) source is sufficient to speak about lack of any consensus about 20 million killed, and any source that pretends that this figure is commonly accepted is unreliabe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I`m sorry, are you actually saying that any source which says stalin killed 20 million is automatically unreliable? Exactly which policy doe this fall under? Is Routledge a good publisher? Revolution from above: the demise of the Soviet system By David Michael Kotz, Fred Weir pp25 Or Princeton University Press are they not a reputable publisher? They published Stalin`s Genocides which you have just aid is not a reliable source. Try your luck on the RSN noticeboard getting these sources called unreliable The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Which policy? WP:NPOV and WP:V. We cannot present the opinion that contradicts to what reliable sources state as the fact, as if no other studies have been made on this subject. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
With regard to Stalin's victims, all numbers are scholarly opinion, opinion of administrators who were part of the system, etc. All estimates from reputable/reliable sources count. We don't decide what goes in or not based on personal contentions regarding sources from reputable publishers. You cannot make your own judgments (censorship) on what reputable sources are reliable as opposed to following an inclusive policy and constructing a fair and accurate narrative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Change without consensus

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

@Paul Siebert. There was no consensus for making this edit. Please self-revert. This is also an obvious misinterpretation of the source quoted in the end of phrase: you refer to a book that tells "100 million", as you know. Biophys (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This was not an edit, but a revert of the edit that has not been discussed on the talk page (as the editing restrictions, described on the top of the talk page, require). I prefer to revert such edits rather than to report a violation. And, frankly speaking, the introduction to the BB, which is being extensively criticised by scholars, is hardly a good source for the lede. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I see this statement has been re-added [27]. Since that major change has not been supported by consensus on the talk page, I recommend Collect to self-revert to avoid sanctions for violation of the edit restrictions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that a deliberate misrepresentation of a source ought be left in the article? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Misintepretation of the questionable source, I would say. We need to replace the reference to the dubious Courtois' introduction with something more reliable. However, due to obstructionism of some users, who are gaming the system, we cannot do that. Therefore, in the situation when, according to the reliable sources, the total amount of the victims of mass killings in the USSR was far less then 20 million (even if we add famine, disease and similar deaths to this category, the step that is not supported by many authors), we must conclude that about 80 millions were killed in China. Are you sure it is true?
In any event, if someone wants to use formal procedure to add dubious statements to the article, I have no other choice but to use the same procedure to remove nonsense from it. Both you and Collect have had already violated the editing restriction (no major edits without discussion and consensus), and you both can be sanctioned for that. I recommend you to demonstrate your good faith and to resolve the issue peacefully. I am waiting you to self-revert in close future (you or Collect can revert the change you made, and that will not be a violation of the edit restrictions). Please, do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul Siebert should be commended for removing a non-mainstream opinion that was represented as a fact in the article. While all of us have our own opinions about history, we should appreciate that Wikipedia readers want to know what mainstream opinion is, not be confronted with views outside the mainstream. TFD (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
You are 180 degrees off -- the mainstream consensus is that the number killed is far closer to 100 million than to 10 million. Sorry -- the POV that somehow only 10 million were killed does not even have fringe support. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, could you please read the discussion before commenting. The 10 million figure refers to the number of people killed by Stalin in the Ukraine. TFD (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, I see you have read my post. I conclude from that that you have been informed about the fact that you made a major edit without discussing it on the talk page and obtaining consensus, as the rules require, and, therefore, you may be sanctioned per WP:DIGWUREN if someone will report you. Since that moment on you may be reported by anyone at any moment. Please, self revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
'I reverted a vandalism edit which was not supported by talk page consensus that I could find. Unless and until you provide reliable sources for your apparent claim that only 10 million or so were killed, and that the number was not generally accepted to total in the 80 - 100 million range, I shall continue to suggest that it is vandalism to go against consensus. At this point, it is clear that the vast majority of writers in the topic use the higher figure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, separate the procedural details from the content dispute. You clearly violated the editing restrictions, and you can be sanctioned for that. With regard to the idea to include the ref to highly questionable BB into the lede, let me point out that this reference is still there for exactly the same reason: replacement of this reference became impossible because some users utilised edit restrictions to sabotage such a step. That is a pure example of double standards. Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
"Some" editors? "Sabotage"? Sigh. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy... sanctions seem to gotten pretty stiff on this article

Latest comment: 13 years ago105 comments13 people in discussion

I made an edit before noticing the (rather draconian) sanctions. In any case, does anyone care to object that my elaborations differ from the material already present in the lede?

Mostly I noted that there is academic dispute with the tolls and that the tolls include famine, war, etc. As far as I can tell, no editor objects to assertions that A) there is academic dispute and that B) the tolls include famine/war/etc.

I assume this material is agreeable to editors here, especially since those points already have elaboration in the lede. The previous version of the opening sentence was awfully heavy on sensationalism, IMO. I've attempted to remedy this, per WP:SURPRISE. BigK HeX (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

With an undisputed RS source (Fu, giving a death toll of 43 million for China in a mere 3 year period, I do not think there is any real dispute now. Even if we cut the USSR to 1 million (a tad laughable since over 2 million died in Gulags in a 15 year period as a minimum estimate), the 85 million sure looks like a good baseline estimate. Cheers, I think this debate trying to make the numbers be ten million or so are now well and truly refuted. Collect (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Did you mean to respond in this talk page section? BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Fu writes about excess deaths, not about mass killings. In addition, he writes about CPC as an instance of Chinese autocracy. Therefore, to use this (probably) reliable source for the statement "43 million were killed by Communist" would be synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change. Why say "disputed" if you don't have a source for a range of estimates? Please just come up with a sourced number for the lower limit. Without a sourced number, it will always appear that you are just disputing for the sake disputing. Show your source. Smallbones (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why say "disputed"? Because they have been disputed. The fact that no undisputable estimates are available does not make the provided figures undisputable. The figures you refer to are taken from Rummel or similar source, and these figures had been criticised as unreliable and dramatically exaggerated (see the sources presented above). I suggest to restore either BigK HeX's or the last stable version, and any attempt to change the lede without discussion may be reported per WP:DIGWUREN. I am reluctant to do so, because I realise that, since Collect, Smallbones and TLAM have already been placed on notice, the sanctions that may follow will be serious, however, you leave me no choice.
In summary, TLAM made the undiscussed major change[28], Collect re-inserted it[29], and Smallbones re-inserted it again[30]. All three users are on notice per WP:DIGWUREN, and all of them have been notified by me about a violation they committed on the article's talk page (Smallbone has not probably read this notification, however, they are likely to read this talk page). I really, really don't like to play this game, so I beg you to accept one of reasonable and uncontroversial variants (either the stable version or the recent BigK HeX's one). Otherwise I'll have to report all of you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I see one more highly controversial, undiscussed and unsupported by consensus edit [31] has been made by a user who also was placed on notice per WP:DIGWUREN. All these edits are sanctionable. That is my last warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not make a major change, I changed the text to accurately reflect the source, which you reverted back to a misrepresentation of the source. I was happy enough with BigKhex change also, but why not just supply a source for lower estimates and be done with it? I note that TFD has gone crying to teacher [32] no doubt in the hopes that all are sanctioned, this will include yourself PS after all, your revert was n edit :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
@Paul, sorry, didn't realize it was a diff to my edit. I have not been active here recently. All I did was insert the actual text from the source as the source itself does NOT say "85-100" quote-unquote and Google Books does not have that page available online, which would be an issue for editors curious to verify the total indicated in the lede with regard to the source cited. There is nothing "controversial" about my edit, do not EVER threaten me like this again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No. this edit is not minor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The page cited most certainly does say 85-100million, I have this book. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
To clarify (for all), the numbers I copied finish with the statement "The total approaches 100 million killed." "85-100" does not appear as text on page 4, at least my version, that what was I meant, not that the numbers don't add up. The point was, if we cite a number from a source and that source provides a breakdown, that should also be included for completeness especially if the book page is not readily available on Google Books and the subject matter is viewed by at least some as contentious. For anyone that didn't check, "85" million is the total for the USSR and China, the vast bulk, so "85-100" is an accurate representation of the information on page 4. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand where you took it from, and you used this source correctly. The problem is that this source as whole has serious problems, and the only reason it is still in the lede is the edit restriction. The same edit restrictions you just violated. See my explanations below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

One more attempt

Let's start from the beginning.

  1. Current editing restriction prohibit any major (not minor) changes without discussion on the talk page and obtaining consensus according to a procedure described on top of the talk page. The sanctions for violations of these rules are also described there, and, since these sanctions are supposed to be imposed per WP:DIGWUREN, it is naturally to conclude that the users who have already been placed on notice per WP:DIGWUREN may be sanctioned more severely than others.
  2. These restriction have nothing to do with the content dispute, and they should be observed independently on what some user think about the content.
  3. The first user who violated these restriction was TLAM [33], Collect repeated the same violation[34], and Smallbones repeated it again[35]. All these users are on notice per WP:DIGWUREN, and TLAM was specifically advised not to edit the Communism related articles. In that situation, all of them should be very cautious not to violate the rules. By contrast to the TLAM's claim, my revert of his edit was not a violation of the edit restriction, because no consensus is required for reverts. Peters continued this series of violation by adding more materials from the same source[36]. Since he is also placed on notice, he ought to avoid such steps.
  4. I admit these users genuinely believe they add correct information to Wikipedia. However, the editing restrictions I am talking about are totally unrelated to the content dispute. They must be observed in any event.
  5. In connection to that, I again suggest to all of these users to self-revert, and we will start a discussion about the appropriateness of the usage of the BB's introduction (or similar sources) in the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't take kindly to threats and editors pushing their POV talking to other editors as if they are doing so from a position of moral authority. I don't put stake in involved editors portraying why they did not violate rules while others did; of course a revert of someone else's edit is part of edit warring, arguing "consensus not required" is gaming the system. So, when you are ready to discuss sources without discussing editors or what "schools" of fringe theories they are looking to pass off as mainstream scholarship, we can discuss content further. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what Paul appears to be complaining about, this particular edit appears to be approved by TLAM, Collect, Smallbones, Vecrumba and myself. Seems like consensus exists on top of pre-existing community consensus of WP:V that requires text be aligned with sources. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
First this is not a democracy, and even if it was, the vote of your team here would count as one. There is no consensus, I see no uninvolved editors approving the edit, I just see the same old team pushing its POV. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC))
Да, да, anyone who disagrees with you is a POV pushing meatpuppet. Да, да, there is no such thing as consensus when it does not agree with you. Or did you mean Wikipedia is an autocracy? Please discuss content not editors; chiming in simply to inflame the level of acrimony is not constructive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Re consensus when it does not agree with you Could you point me in direction to where this consensus you are talking about was established. I must have missed it. (Igny (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC))
(edit conflict)I thought I have already explained that, Martin. The editing restrictions imposed on this article do not allow major edits without previous discussion on the talk page. Therefore, independently on the amount of editors a posteriori voting for one or another change the users who made these changes violate the restrictions. Full stop. If you refuse to understand that I'll have no other choice but to request for some actions to be taken against all of you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

ec I really don't like Paul's threats, I know the not-so-veiled accusations of anti-semitism below by TFD are disruptive and completely out of line. PS and TFD need to ask themselves who is being disruptive here. In my case all I've done is revert an edit that Paul himself recognizes as being out of line. I guess his argument would be that he wants me to revert in the older material that misrepresents the source. I don't know of any rule anywhere in Wikipedia that requires me to put misleading information into an article. All Paul has to do to resolve this situation is get a source that he trusts that gives a lower limit to the range of the number of mass killings by Communist regimes. He refuses to do it. Does that mean he believes that it is zero? That would be pure nonsense, so the only alternative left to folks who want to improve the article is to put in the lower limit from sources we trust and know to be reliable. Smallbones (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, the most correct term would be not "threat" but "warning". By no means the warning about violation of editing restrictions can be disruptive. Try to understand a very simple thing: per editing restrictions, you must discuss the nonminor edit first, and only after that (if the change is supported) implement it. This order has been violated by TLAM, so we need (i) to restore a status quo; (ii) to start a discussion about the possible change.
I agree with you that the first step in this future discussion will be a request to provide a source. However, your request has been made incorrectly. By requesting to provide alternative total estimate you imply that , in the absence of alternative estimates the current estimate should stay whatever controversial it is. That is incorrect. If we have reliable sources that state that the current estimate is highly disputable and inflated (and I have provided such sources), we cannot use this source in the lede (without needed reservations).
In any event, I see that all of you, TLAM, Collect, you and Peters have already read my warning. I believe I made all needed explanations, so I expect you to restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum, and to start a polite and productive discussion.
Regarding TFD's accusations in antisemitism, I humbly ask for your permission not to comment on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Peters, would you be so kind to explain to a broader audience what the non ASCII symbols "Да, да," mean, and why did you appeared to be unable to use English equivalent of them. If you did that not because of your insufficient English (which is perfect, IMHO), then what was a reason to resort to these words in the post addressed to Igny?
Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, consensus isn't unanimity. We have five editors who all agree that reverting back text which misrepresents the source is against policy, versus yourself. Smallbones offers an easy solution of getting a source that you trust that gives a lower limit to the range of the number of mass killings by Communist regimes. Please stop threatening these editors. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Martin, you forget that per discretionary sanctions, the consensus must be obtained before the edits has been made, so a posteriori approval does not work here.
In addition (although I object against mixing procedural issues with content disputes), your argument doesn't work: although consensus is not necessarily unanimity, it is not a vote either. Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised, and there are several legitimate concerns that have not been taken into account.
  1. The source in the lede is highly questionable (per several reputable authors), and it has not been replaced simply because some users blocked this step using the same procedure I referred to above.
  2. Although Smallbones' proposal has some merit, I disagree with the idea that in the absence of the good source that summarises the figures for all Communist states a knowingly disputable figures can be used instead.
  3. The number of excess deaths ≠ the number of killings, and the lede must explain that fact before the figures describing what most scholars call "excess deaths" have been presented.
These concerns must be addressed before we can speak about any consensus. However, that should be made after the edits we discuss will be self-reverted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The signficance of the topic to some ideologies is explained in "Anti-Semitism in Europe" and other sources. TFD (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there an inference being made that Anti-Semitism is behind the positions of any particular editors here? Otherwise, I am at a loss to explain why you find the issue of "anti-Semitism in Europe" so compelling a topic here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
No there is not. Also, we are discussing what weight to give various viewpoints, not our own views. TFD (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Paul, you are developing a pattern of threatening sanctions and resorting to administrative procedures to control article content as opposed to simply making your case. Consider that if other editors don't consider your arguments holding water, perhaps you need to do a better job, as much of your editorialization seems to focus on what does NOT apply as opposed to what DOES apply. You may find the latter approach (how to include, not exclude, sources) works better in a collegial, collaborative environment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
@TFD, I have no idea why you posted a link to the article in question, other than having the same reaction as Collect. And exactly what weight are you seeking to give to what viewpoint by introducing that source for discussion? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
We have discussed that article and similar ones before. It explains the political significance of the estimates used by the Global Museum, and their popularization by the New Right in Europe. TFD (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you find the Global Museum to be founded on anti-Semitism? And the New Right is also anti-Semitic in your Weltanschauung? Is that really what you are asserting? Collect (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @TFD, Your comment has nothing to do with my simply clarifying an existing citation with information which editors cannot verify online as when I went to double check the source, page 4 of the introduction was not available in Google Books. That said, Collect's response and question is really the one that is to the point. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
My views are unimportant. I have presented an article from Scribner's Encyclopedia that explains the significance of the numbers used by the "Museum". See also Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared (2004) Henry Rousso, Richard Joseph Golsan, pp. xi-xv.[37] You might want to read these sources before commenting on them. TFD (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yet it appears it is precisely your views which you seek to promote using a non-peer-reviewed encyclopedia article! Sorry -- trying to tar every view but your own as "anti-semitic" is precisely what is the main problem here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Note: Rousso in pp xi - xv ... nowhere uses "anti-semitic" or "anti-semitism." What he does say in those pages is that the reason why the French did not compare Communism and Nazism ewas ... due to the French Communist Party. In short - Rousso, far from suggesting that anti-semitism was involved in the new comparisons, stated the problem was pro-communist partyism preventing any comparisons in the past! (page xii) Rousso then refers to "Communism's innumerable crimes". I like it when you cite a book which shows the precise opposite of what you asserted it to back! Then Rousso notes the "big fight" over the estimate of some of the USSR deaths -- whether 15 million or 20 million was a better figure -- which rather suggests Rousso supports at least the lower figure of 15 million. (page xiv of Rousso). Rousso iterates his belief that there is no hierarchical difference in the victims between any regimes practing terror. (also page xiv of Rousso). Rousso then states "for Werth and Margolin, Communism was less morally reprehensible because it embodied a noble ideal that tragically was not realized inpractice. (page xv). Thanks fro drawing my attention to this specific work - though doubtless not in the manner you intended. Cheers. Anent your post below - Rousso is a nice source - pity you appear to have totally misread it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, articles by academics in specialist encyclopedias are good academic sources, as you yourself have repeatedly stated. In any case I was replying to Big Hex the political significance of what should be an academic dispute and provided a helpful source. You yourself have backed away from presenting the museum version as factual. I trust you will now agree to its removal as an external link. Also, it is a bit much to accuse other editors of having views unless they actually state them. TFD (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, why are you talking about anti-Semitsm? TFD (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Because you raised the issue - note: The signficance of the topic to some ideologies is explained in http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/HBAntiSemEur.pdf "Anti-Semitism in Europe" and other sources. TFD (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC) as you surely should have realized from my direct and threaded response immediately thereto. Can you find it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the name of one of the articles that explains the significance of the subject. Collect, why are you talking about anti-Semitsm? TFD (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It was you who raised the topic. Again The signficance of the topic to some ideologies is explained in "Anti-Semitism in Europe" and other sources. TFD (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC) shows your name and your use of the topic. So much for your outre and strange iterated query. Cheers. Did you read your own post? Collect (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed AE request

I am contemplating a possibility to file the AE request as explained below. Although that is not a common practice, I prefer to discuss this request on this talk page first to save the admins' time. Please, comment on that if you see any factual mistakes here. Peters', TLAM's, Collect's and Smallbones' contributions are especially wellcome.

Request concerning The Last Angry Man, Collect, Smallbones and Vecrumba and Paul Siebert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Paul Siebert (talk)
User against whom enforcement is requested
The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:DIGWUREN.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN, the discretionary sanctions had been applied to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes which prohibit any non-minor edits to that article without obtaining consensus on the talk page.

  1. The user Last Angry Man made the non-minor edit [38] without discussing it previously on the talk page.
  2. After that edit had been reverted by me[39], Collect re-added it without obtaining consensus[40].
  3. A user BigK HeX modified this change[41] further. This user appeared to be unaware of the edit restrictions[42], however, in any event, his edit was quickly reverted by the user Smallbones[43], who restored the undiscussed edit made by The Last Angry Man.
  4. A user Vecrumba expanded the Smallbones' text[44] further, although without obtaining consensus. Although Vecrumba initially believed this edit was minor, it is not.
  5. The requests to self-revert made on the article's talk page have been explicitly rejected by all four above mentioned users (see the article's talk page [45])
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

As per Wikipedia:DIGWUREN, all four users were placed on notice. In addition, during the long discussion on the article's talk page[46] their violations had been explained to them in details. Since all four users participated in this discussion, I assume they have read and understood the warning. The text of the current request has also been discussed with them.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint
During the prolonged discussion of this incident of the article's talk page (starting from [47]) the four above mentioned users persistently refuse to accept the fact that the editing restrictions must be observed independently of the way the content dispute develops. Their claim is based on the fact that, since the proposed change has been post factum approved by some participants of this discussion, the edit made by TLAM was not a violation of the editing restrictions. Any attempt to convince them that the incident has no relation to the content dispute fail.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
(will be notified)
Proposed sanctions
The four above mentioned users should be prohibited from making edits to the (broadly defined) Communism related articles without obtaining consensus on the corresponding article's talk pages before the changes have been made.
Proposed duration of sanctions.
1 year.

I fully realise that that is an unusual practice to discuss the AE request with those against whom it is supposed to be directed, however, I sincerely hope that that discussion may help to resolve the issue without filing this request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added your name to those whom enforcement is being sought against as you did in fact make an edit by reverting my fixing the misrepresentation of a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that is not correct. It does not follow from the sanctions that consensus is required to revert newly added text. Removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
A revert is an edit, read WP:3RR, do not forget this article i under a 1r restriction which I presume extends to this talk page. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You are wrong. 1RR does not imply that removal of undiscussed content should be supported by consensus. Was it the only comment you wanted to make?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Paul, I am glad to discuss content and applicable sources any time. I really can't comment on the merits of your proposed attempt to take out everyone who disagrees with you as I am not intimately familiar with the POVs of some of the other editors you have named. As for my egregious behavior requiring a year long ban, regardless of consensus for the 85-100 million victims (for which I only added clarification in the reference, which is a minor edit in no way changing the intent or narrative of the article, i.e., the definition of minor), there is no issue either way, my edit in no way amplified or changed anything already in the article. You will pardon me if I view this as an cynical and acrimonious escalation of conflict. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
As I already explained, this is not a content dispute. I have no idea why don't you understand that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The first point to consider in any AE request is whether the request will have a salutary or a deleterious effect on collegial editing. Paul - do you feel this request would benefit the collegiality for the Wikipedia project? If not, I suggest you simply file it for a while. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat not to edit collegially, Collect. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
That is one of the biggest pieces of excrement I have seen on any talk page in aeons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course. A group of the editors decided to reject the position of other users and violated the editing restrictions. It would be very beneficial for WP collegiality spirit if these users will be forced to discuss their future edits on the talk page before these change have been made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My only recent edit to the article was a revert of an edit by User:BigHex, who had made a prohibited edit, as Paul S. himself informed BigHex [48]. Big Hex's edit simply confused an already difficult to read lede. His later justification was that his edit simply repeated material already in the lede. All-in-all there was no reason to accept this edit. Paul, on the other hand, wanted me to revert all the way back to an earlier version that misrepresents a source. A consensus of editors here believes that the earlier version misrepresents the source. There is no rule in Wikipedia that requires me to add (or revert back in) material that is misleading. I believe that Paul should apologize for accusing me of doing anything improper, and if he insists on taking this nonsense to AE he should himself be banned for making this a battlefield to the maximum ban that he asks for me. Smallbones (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the change made by TLAM had not been discussed, and you should have to restore the version prior to this edit. With regard to the alleged misinterpretation, the source itself provided wrong information (per many reputable authors whose opinions have been cited on the talk page). With regard to consensus, I see no signs of consensus here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Thanks to those who have been making an effort to comply with the editing restriction. I have made a few suggestions at User talk:EdJohnston#Mass killings under Communist regimes. My bottom line is there should be brief summary of the pros and cons of all the 'death' figures that could be used in the lead. Surely it can be done in 500 words. Then you could have a straw vote or an RfC to decide what option is the best. If it's an RfC, you are not likely to persuade any outsiders to give their opinion if they have to jump into a 10,000-word ongoing debate with no beginning and no end. So please try to be concise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, the prospective AE request is not about the content dispute but about violation of the editing restriction. In my opinion, a procedural issue should be resolved first. (edit conflict)In connection to that, I have a following proposal:
  1. I revert last changes to this version. Per 1RR, I can do that. As a result of that, my request for self-revert becomes unneeded, and TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Peters can ignore it.
  2. As a result of my revert, there will be no need to file the above AE request, so I'll stop this process.
  3. Since I also am not satisfied with the version I plan to restore, I will gladly join a discussion as proposed by Ed.
  4. During the discussion, every factual statement must be supported with a reference to some reliable source (author, title, journal/publisher, year, page. Otherwise, such posts should be ignored.
  5. Any discussion of reliability of disputable sources should proceed in separate threads, desirably, on WP:RSN. If reliability/unreliability of some source has been established, no discussion on the same subject can be initiated, unless fresh sources/evidences have been presented.
  6. If the discussion will not lead to anything useful, we start a mediation process. I declare in advance that I will accept any decision of the Mediation cabal.
----Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to note that when I wrote "The proposal looks like an obvious first step," (immediately below) I was referring to Ed's proposal - none of Paul's numbers above had appeared on this page. In fact THAT proposal, which I strongly disagree with, was not finished until 40 minute after I wrote my comment below. Paul should have obviously placed his proposal somewhere other than right above my "The proposal looks like an obvious first step." Paul should apologize, as it strongly appears that he (intentionally or otherwise) litterally manipulated my words. Smallbones (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The proposal looks like an obvious first step, and I'd urge everybody to sign on. Please note that I've asked many times that some folks supply a lower death figure that they can agree with, but they refuse to do this. Part of the above proposal has to be "What is a reasonable range of deaths caused by Mass killings under Communist regimes?" Folks who just say "we can't give any reasonable range" would not be meeting the requirements of the proposal: there are many academics and others who have addressed this issue. Answering "no, no, no, no, I just can't agree to any of this" is simply not an answer. Smallbones (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Your viewpoint sounds reasonable, however, it has some flaws. I am currently reading the reviews on the Black Book, and virtually every reviewer notes that the Courtois' introduction is controversial, and the figures are questionable. Even the reviewers who generally commend the book still criticise the introduction. Even the co-authors of this book disagree with Coirtous.
Therefore, to claim that in the absence of reliable estimates we can introduce questionable figures is hardly correct.
I agree that some other sources exist that claim that Communist rule lead to about 100 million of "excess deaths". However, most scholars do not qualify most of these deaths as "killings", because ca 90% of them were famine deaths and disease, which do not fit this definition. To call all of them "mass killing" would mean to mislead a reader, because for most readers "mass killing" means mass execution or other deliberate killing.
Moreover, if we decide to include "excess deaths", objectivity would require us to mention "excess lives", the fact, noted by many authors, that despite some disastrous periods in, e.g. Soviet history, the overall life expectancy and birth rate was steadily increasing under Communist rule (see, e.g. Ellman, Wheatcroft). If we mention those who died prematurely (or was never born) under Communists, we must mention those who lived longer that he could (also due to Communists).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Per your concerns I reverted back to your preferred version which misrepresents a source [49] Per the obvious consensus here that sources ought not be misrepresented I self reverted to remove the gross misrepresented of a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston. Your question was about figures in summary. Here are a few points about this.
  1. Yes, the number of victims is important in an article about political repression. Therefore, the number (or a range of numbers) should be provided in the introduction.
  2. The numbers of people "killed" and the number of people "who died as a result of Communist policies" are different. The second number is significantly greater: it is more than 60 million (rather than 20 million) in the Soviet Union alone according to The Guinness Book of Records.
  3. I did not see any estimates of the number of people killed by all Communist regimes except "Black book", which qualifies as a secondary RS written by a group of European historians. It tells exactly this: "100 million people killed by all Communist regimes". They note that the number is approximate, which also should be noted in the introduction. If there are any other secondary RS that tell "N million people killed by all Communist regimes", they must be also used to obtain a range of numbers. Biophys (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • @Paul Siebert. It is grossly inappropriate to discuss sanctions at article talk pages [50]. If you think that sanctions are needed, please go to appropriate administrative noticeboards and report your concerns there. Biophys (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I would remove the reference entirely. It does not accurately reflect what the source says and the source has been debunked even by the major contributor (Werth). If as Biophys says only the Black Book makes any estimates, then the estimates are not notable and do not belong in the lead.. TFD (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The source has repeatedly been found to be WP:RS and so the deletion of anything because of "IDONTLIKEIT" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. This is not Siebertpedia and Deucespedia - it is based on concensus and use of adopted policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The only WP:RSN discussion I was able to found[51] didn't come to a conclusion that this source is reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I just followed that link, apart from yourself and TFD all others commenting say it was RS. There is therefore an obvious consensus that the source is WP:RS The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Then re-read it again. "each chapter should be judged on its merits". Since in this particular case we discuss not the BB as whole, but the (highly criticised) introduction, which presents the (directly contested) figures, the BB is not reliable for this particular purpose. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Low and high estimates

Why is there such an intense discussion about 20 million versus 100 million for the lead, when the body of the article doesn't have any text discussing the wide range of estimates? Generally the lead ought to summarize the article. Perhaps I missed it, but if scholars disagree about the numbers so seriously, there must have been debates. Or they must have published reviews of each other's work. Those could surely be linked if they exist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

20 million is the number for those who died under Stalin in Russia, not for the entire number of those whom died under communism. See Stalin's Genocides pp11 The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
We had a similar case with the current American president, where a newspaper reported in 2004 that he was born in Kenya. I resent Collect's repeated comments that I am presenting a point of view. The only point of view I want to see is what is generally accepted by reliable sources. Sources may support or may not support our personal views. TFD (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
TFD what does Obama have to do with this article? Please try and stick to the discussion at hand. Which is, what are the high and low estimates for killings under communism? The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Um -- what has Obama got to do with this? I do not recall ever editing anything to do with Obama in particular - so I am at a loss at to what your comments refer to. Your !votes at AfD regarding Baltic states are easy to find: delete at [52], etc. as well as your !votes to delete at [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], along with your "keep" at [60] show an extraordinary consistency of POV. The repeated use of SPI is also quite notable at [61] . [62] shows the pervasive interest in political issues from a single POV. In short TFD - you absolutely do appear to have an extraordinarily consistent POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The point is that reliable sources may report information that does not reflect mainstream views of facts. The Obama article is an example of where this has occurred. [See Webster's: "example, noun, one that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitated".] TFD (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, if you read across a range of articles, you will find that I expect neutrality in all articles. You are confusing what you believe to be my point of view with what reliable sources say. I filed a successful SPI for example against an editor who was promoting the link between terrorism and the U.S., and have worked to ensure that we do not report the views of those who link terrorism and the United States as mainstream views. I have argued against labelling unpopular right-wing groups as far right or extremist where there was no academic consensus to do so. I argued against labelling Pinochet a fascist. I supported the use of a source written by a former employee of the Shah in an article about the Iranian revolution. I supported the use of anti-Chavez sources for his article. I argued in favor of reports that support the drug industry in aspartame articles. I argued against including a mugshot of a conservative politician in his article. You on the other hand apply different standards of weight and rs depending on the subject matter. TFD (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Alas - all too often I see you assert that the opinions you do not like are "fringe" and the ones you like are "mainstream", that sources you do not like are "not peer-reviewed" but sources by experts you like in the form of blogs are "reliable." I edit Johann Hari and Chris Hulme with exactly the same standards I apply to all articles - a fact of which I am proud. [63] shows you removing RS criticism of Hugo Chavez - the example you cite as showing your even-handedness. Ditto [64]. So much for the wondrous claims above. And also there Where someone went to high school, their twitter accounts, etc., is important for biographies. TFD (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC) which seems odd for a person insisting on "peer reviewed" sources. [65] shows an extremely persnickety edit indeed. [66] where you seem to forget that an SPS is specifically usable for the fact that a person denies charges. And so on. Cheers - quod erat demonstrandum.
You provided examples where I reversed POV edits by mark nutley, who is blocked for sockpuppetry. He continually tried to inject a POV into articles about climate change and far right organizations. Is he your model of neutral editing? I notice that you made great efforts to prevent him and his socks from being blocked. TFD (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I see the issue as follows.

  • Firstly, the article's subject is vaguely defined. Taking the USSR as an example, one has to keep in mind that the major cause of excess deaths was not repressions (executions or similar mass killings sensu stricto), but war, famine and disease (Ellman, Op.cit.). All excess deaths under Communists (I mean the USSR only) probably amounted 10-15 to million. However, only few scholars qualify all these deaths as "killings", whereas others prefer to separate repressions from famine and similar events (for instance, Ellman draws parallelism between the Soviet famine of 1932-33 and Bengal famine of 1943 and Irish famine), we need firstly to explain which concrete events are considered as mass killings, and who made such a conclusion. The difference between "excess deaths" and "mass killings" must be explained before any figures are presented. Before providing estimates, it is necessary to explain what concretely is being estimated.
  • The second issue is that early estimates of the scale of mass mortality in some Communist countries are, as a rule, artificially inflated (the criticism of Rummel's data and methodology is provided above). Therefore, to give equal weight to the early studies and to more recent works is incorrect.
  • The third problem is that most genocide scholars do not group the mass killing events based on the "communist-mass-killing" concept. They, for instance, discuss Holocaust, extermination of native population of America and Cambodian genocide in the same study, and do not provide the figures for Communist mass killings as a separate category. Therefore, although the numbers for each separate event are available in literature, the estimates of Communist countries taken separately can be found only in few studies, and, for some reason, the figures they provided are, as a rule, inflated beyond any reasonable limit.
    Let's take The Black Book as an example. In his introduction (which is being severely criticised by almost every reviewer) Courtois makes a claim about the Communist killings as whole, and includes the figures for the USSR. These figures directly contradict to the much smaller figures provided by Werth in the same book. The Werth's chapter on the USSR is the most meticulously written part of the book, it is highly commended, and forms a core of this volume. However, being a real scholar, Werth prefers not to make loud political claims about "Communist murders", and focuses on the USSR only. Ironically, the Coirtous' opinion is being frequently cited, and the Werth's results are not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to move further

To clarify the position of all participants of the dispute I suggest to resort to the following straw poll. Your responces are appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ill chosen 'straw poll' entirely As being contrary to Wikipedia procedure, setting up straw-man arguemnets, and not being aimed at a legitimate discussion of a content dispute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC) This also an absolute oppose to the ludicrous "viewpoint 2" as being not only part of a strawman argument, but an attempt to gain by "straw vote" what consensus has denied Paul and TFD. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Collect. As this "poll" includes accusations of wrong-doing associated with content for which Paul Siebert alleges there is no consensus as one of the "votes", this is not a poll, but rather a cynical attempt to control content via accusations against editors who disagree. This has nothing to do with a "clarification" of positions, but is an escalation of acrimony as it is yet another venue to inject accusations against editors. I have repeatedly indicated my willingness to discuss sources and content any time in a venue absent of acrimonious accusations. Regrettably, that is not this "poll." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoint 1.

The edits made by TLAM[67] and expanded by Peters[68] were made in accordance with the procedure described by Sandstein here and should stay.

Viewpoint 2.

The edit made by TLAM[69] and expanded by Peters[70] were made in violation of the procedure described by Sandstein here and should be reverted to this version as a temporary measure. Upon revert, a discussion should be initiated about the changes to the lede.

Greyhood, no content issues in this section, please. My question concerns only procedural issues. Do you support the thesis that the procedure has been violated?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think the procedure was not uphold. My comment about the content has been made to explain why this discussion has caught my eye.GreyHood Talk 17:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A responce to Peters

Frankly speaking, I do not understand why a simple question "Had the procedure been observed or not violated" provoked such a reaction. As Ed correctly noted, the talk page is a complete mess, so only a very motivated newcomer can join such a discussion. As a result, we have almost no fresh input, which may partially explain why we are still in an impasse. That is why it is quite necessary at least to separate procedural issues from content disputes. In any event, if you are ready to discuss the content, let me ask you a simple question:

"As the sources provided by me demonstrate, the numbers you added are highly disputable, and they have been contested even in the source you cite. Why did you add these numbers in the article's lede, as if they were undisputable truth, and there were no other opinions?"--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A response to Paul

To the allegations of "major" edits "against consensus":

  • Working backwards,
    1. I have already explained why my edit was both minor and its purpose, as Google Books does not show the page in question for verifiability. Including that, and subsequent discussion of casualties upwards of 100,000,000, only provided for verifiability of "85-100" million, 85 being 65 (PRC) plus 20 (USSR), not counting additional regimes, with "100" in the narrative as the top limit. My edit did not change content in any manner, and I was not involved in the prior edits Paul (and editors supporting him) allege to be improper. This has already been beaten to death with diffs and discussion with no deviation regarding impropriety from the camp that advocates far lower numbers of victims.
    2. The "85-100" is, per my addition of source verification, a complete and accurate representation of the cited source, ref name #Courtois1999BlackBook, *{{Anchor|Courtois1999BlackBook}} Courtois, Stéphane ed.. (1999). ''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.'' trans. Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer; consulting ed. Mark Kramer. [?]: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-07608-7. [http://books.google.com/?id=H1jsgYCoRioC Google Books]., page 4.
    3. Paul's edit and edit summary are misleading, as rather than take the cited source to discussion, he used alleged disagreements with the source (by the BB authors) as a basis for, at this point—having the exact numbers at hand from the source—misrepresenting the cited source, no change and identical as above.
    4. TLAM's prior edit and summary are accurate as to the content of the edit and the source, again, the source was already there; a core policy of Wikipedia policy is to represent sources fairly and accurately; this is not a major change in content as it only aligns the #'s--with no other change to any text--to the cited source.
  • If we go back, then foward,
    1. Following some activity by the banned Jacob Peters, Smallbones reverts to this version, at that time sourced to Courtois's introduction as opposed to a specific page, "millions"
    2. Jprw updates to "tens of millions" noting: (This is what it actually says: 'For it was in truth a "tragedy of planetary dimensions" with a grand total of victims variously estimated by contributors to the volume [my emphasis] at between 85 and 100 million'), at that time sourced to the Courtois introduction
    3. Paul Siebert comes along and reverts changes, alleging "lack of consensus" (not sure whether that means editors or soruces) to remove "tens of" which was more than justified per Jprw's edit.
    4. And Paul Siebert's dealing with content he does not like by advocating for misrepresentation of Courtois as opposed to dealing with it more appropriately has been going on ever since. Here we are four months later and it's the same old saw, at least here I agree that there is an impasse. Nevertheless, per the most recent activity, as Courtois, per Jprw, indicates 85-100 million per contributors to the volume, Paul Siebert has placed the ball in his own court to substantiate his edit summary contention that the BB authors "disagree" with Courtois' introduction (i.e., Courtois was, minimally, exaggerating) as the basis for his revert.

Fair and accurate representation of scholarship is two-fold: represent individual sources as fairly and accurately as possible; represent disagreements in scholarship by providing as inclusive an account of a collection of applicable sources, each represented as fairly and accurately as possible. To complain about a cited source and to use that complaint to make the conscious decision to misrepresent the totals in that source by reverting content is, quite frankly, disruptive to collegial and collaborative editing. "Compromise" is not about "how can we describe this source's contentions in a way that is more to my liking but isn't technically lying about it", i.e., about the degree to which Paul Siebert et al. can generalize the representation of a cited source (85-100 million per source as "tens of millions", but, indeed, originally reverting "tens of millions" to just "millions") to re-cast what it says to match their opinion.

I again suggest to Paul and others that, again, based on my study of how to write about history, that we seek an inclusive set of reputable sources and then construct an appropriate narrative. The reason the article is a mess is that there has been too much self-righteous wailing and gnashing of teeth and disparaging of sources and, frankly, misrepresentation of sources, as opposed to dealing with a community of sources and editors constructively.

Bottom line, I suggest a more constructive and positive attitude with regard to sources. Instead of saying "no," figure out how to say "yes" while also remaining absolutely true to the sources cited. You, Paul, on the other hand, suggest a one year ban for myself in a strong-arm tactic to browbeat editors who disagree with you into submission. If you'd like an improvement in atmosphere at the article, I suggest you start by retracting your AE draft and this polarizing poll over who is holding the smoking gun.

My suggestion is to archive the entire talk, agree on what it is that reputable currently cited sources state (e.g., Courtois does say 85-100 million) without further judgements, and then discuss how to represent an inclusive range of scholarship. That is neither the state of the article nor article talk at this point. That you present two minor edits to simply align #'s to a cited source as a massive bad faithed disruption of Wikipedia meriting a one year ban only proves how far off track the current "dialog" has strayed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You state above, "The "85-100" is, per my addition of source verification, a complete and accurate representation of the cited source". Courtois actually says, "The total approaches 100 million people killed" (p. 4)[71] Nothing about 85 million. Before you claim to have verified a source, could you actually look at it first. Misrepresenting sources is not an acceptable way to write history. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Look on page X of the introduction [72]. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite my attempts to carefully separate content and procedural issues you guys started to mix them again. Peters, if we speaking about content, what is the need in long discussion of the article's past history? If we discuss procedure, why did you refuse to express your opinion in the straw poll I initiated?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained my procedural view of my edit. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Peters, in your last post you proposed everyone to assume more constructive stance. That proposal is highly commendable, however, I have some comments on that. By making such a proposal you thereby concede that no consensus has been achieved about the last edits you four have made. In that situation, and taking into account that you guys hadn't observed the procedure as described by Sandstein, the best starting point in the journey towards new consensus would be to self-revert. By doing that, you deprive me of any ground for filing the AE request, and demonstrate your good faith.
Regarding the alleged minor edit you made, please, read WP:MINOR: anything someone can reasonably object to is not a minor edit.
With regard to the alleged ban, you read the draft not carefully: I never proposed to block or topic ban you four, the idea was to place you under the same restrictions Sandstein applied to this article. In the case if ArbCom will agree on the proposed sanctions, you will be perfectly able to edit Communism related articles, to discuss the edits made by others, to revert the others' edits (within 1RR limit) and to participate in consensus building processes. The only thing you will not be able to do will be making the edits unsupported by consensus as described by Sandstein. These sanctions are very mild and reasonable.
However, you can easily avoid them simply by self-reverting. If you will self revert, I will physically be unable to file the AE request. In addition, I am pretty sure that the stable version will not stay long, all parties are not satisfied with it (although for different reasons).
To be perfectly honest, I don't think anything I have done by that moment can be an indication of my bad faith. I beg you to show your good faiths - not by words, but by actions.
Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, whether sources or editors, you focus too much on your interpretation and not enough on the simple words in front of you. Courtois has been in the article for ages (relatively speaking). If there was a problem with Courtois's 85-100 being his misrepresentation of the contents of the book (per your last revert), your should have addressed that 4 months ago when you started edit warring that a source that states a specific number (85-100) can't be represented that way, thereby advocating (you can see how interpretation goes both ways now) that misrepresenting a source is more "NPOV" than representing it faithfully--making your contentions that
  1. simply updating content with a number in the existing cited source a major edit and disruption without first achieving "consensus" and
  2. simply adding what is in the source in the citation so it is clear the source is not misrepresented is also a major edit and disruption without first achieving "consensus"
combative and acrimonious at best (from my perspective). Your proposal of good faith: I undo a minor edit which contributed no net change to the article clarifying a source which has stood in the article unchanged for months, and in return you remove the AE gun you are threatening to point at my head is not a manner of diplomacy I respond to. Did I misread your proposed "1 year ban" remedy for four editors? I have not acted here in bad faith whereas you are making a mountain out of a molehill by conducting an all-out campaign alleging editorial misconduct in order to undo edits which simply represented the existing-for-months source accurately with absolutely no other change in narrative.
You brought up a new accusation (as mentioned, after Courtois has been in the article for months) that the source is faulty. That is a new issue which requires a fresh discussion and I invite you to present evidence in that regard. While doing your own interpretive math to dispute figures presented by the author can be portrayed as synthesis, I am still interested in the basis for your contention. But don't pile on a fresh allegation that a source which has been in the article for months is faulty, therefore we must misrepresent what it states so as to not disrupt the article.
I believe my counter-proposal to simply archive all the accusations and allegations on this talk page and start again in a structured, source-inclusive fashion is the only reasonable way forward. As my edit was not disruptive and not for or against any consensus—indeed, it was content-agnostic as it only insured proper representation with no comment on yes/no/maybe or change to article narrative—I believe my proposal is an act of good faith on my part. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest to admins that the article simply be fully protected so editors can focus on making a persuasive case for their content, no matter how minor. Anything less is an invitation to (my perception) game the system to take out editorial opposition. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The BB was added to the lede by Smallbones on 21 Feb 2011[73]. During this period, an edit war, initiated by the banned sock tentontunioc raged around the article, so the change was not opposed during that moment. The Smallbones edit summary run as follows: "We need a lede that gets to the point and is readable. It needs facts and not opinions. Please read WP:LEDE". However, despite this declaration, Smallbones introduced the opinion of the single author (Courtois), which, importantly, was contested by his own co-authors. In connection to that, I ...--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the origin of the addition of the source. What is the basis of co-authors contesting Courtois? And let's not try not to argue over opinion versus estimate until there is good reason to. Also, if there are additional sourced scaling up to 100,000,000 victims, then citing just one source (which is a summary) is not an issue. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Courtois took his nimbers from somewhere, but he didn't disclose his source. Most reviewers note that these figures were supposed to support a Courtois' thesis that Communsm was more murderous than Nazism, and they criticized both the figures and the thesis. Werth, based on his own studies, argued that the figures for the USSR were not 20 but no more than 15 million, and that it is necessary to remember that at least 50 million additional death should be ascribed to Nazism who started the WWII.
Valentino has also made no his own research, he just compiled the secondary sources. Among his sources you can find Rummel with his 40 million killed in Gulag (total nonsence, based on present days knowledge) and more than 100 million totals. I think the high Valentino estimate comes from Rummel.
I cannot tell anything about Rosefielde, because I know only his works about the USSR. He usually is inclined to provide higher estimates for the USSR than his opponents do, however, he agrees that the range for the Stalin's USSR in 1930s is 5 to 14.5 million. Since he seems to specialise mostly on the USSR, his "up to 100 million" for all the communist states seems to be taken from elsewhere.
I am not sure about Goldhagen, however, if I am not wrong he relied on the Rummel's figures and did no independent demographic research.
According to Wayman and Tago (the ref can be found in the MKuCR article), only two scholars collected a datasets for the geno/democides in world scale, Rummel and Harff. Harff is not useful for our purpose, because her work (Harff, Barbara (2003) No lessons learned from the Holocaust? Assessing risks of genocide and political mass murder since 1955. American Political Science Review 97(1): 57–74.) deals with post 1955 events only. Therefore, I conclude that the only scholar who possessed the whole dataset is Rummel, so it is highly unlikely that the (unreferenced) figure of 100 million that can be found in some works has the latter origin. The problem is, however, that his figures and his methodology are totally unsatisfactory. Moreover, although other scholars re-considered their views on the USSR history after the end of the Cold war, Rummel refused to do that, which add no credibility to his claims.
In summary, I would love to see the study where the itemized statistics for MKuCR is presented that has been obtained independently and based on the post-archival-revolution data. Unfortunately, I saw no such sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
just rewording my comment above .... (1) None of us can personally question a secondary RS written by a group of European historians (as Paul does above). Doing so is OR. (2) If other RS criticize this RS, all such information belongs to article Black Book of Communism. (3) This RS tells exactly this: "100 million people killed by all Communist regimes". If there are any other secondary RS that tells "N million people killed by all Communist regimes" (rather than telling "I do not like Black Book"), such sources must be also used to obtain a range of numbers. So far, I did not see such RS. Biophys (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest one more solution, which can serve as a ground for the possible consensus

A possible solution would be to use the following pre-BB version of the lede: "The problem of mass killing in some states governed by Communist parties, and the absence of mass killings in other states governed by Communist parties have interested a variety of single state researchers; some scholars have claimed that common features underlie these mass killings, but, such claims are disputed academically. During the Twentieth Century a variety of states were governed by Bolshevik inspired parties; and, in a number of these states large scale killing of civillians by governments occurred. Most notably, large scale state killing of civillians occurred in the People's Republic of China under Mao, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Other single society case studies have dealt with potential or actual mass killings in other states governed by communist parties. The sociological and historical methodology surrounding both single case studies, and comparative studies, is contested. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the mass elimination of political opponents, mass terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labour camps. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts tens of millions. The validity of this approach is questioned by others. However, as of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on the theorisation of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited."

I would like to know your opinion on the following questions: Does this summary reflect the article adequately?

Is it supported by the sources cited in the artile?

Is it written encyclopaedically?

Does it represent existing views fairly and proportionally to their prominence?

  • General comment There are perhaps two sentences which are reasonable. The mix of problem, some, disputed, potential vs actual, contested, no consensus, theoretical, comparative (do we care?) studies limited, leaves it all rather a non-committal mish-mosh concluding with "as of 2011, scholars simply don't even know which end is up." And combining all types of death and only numbering "tens of millions" (worst case) is grossly understated. I don't mean to be harsh, but my first impression is not encyclopedic. This is why I suggest at least starting with an inclusive bucket of sources and at least agree on what each source says, and then move on to what constitutes representative, encyclopedic narrative, whether detail or summary. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I also find this text difficult to read, however, I proposed it as just as a starting point. It definitely should be re-written, however, the main concept seems reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

suggested first sentence compromise

Latest comment: 13 years ago46 comments6 people in discussion

Seeking a rational compromise, and noting that no one has questioned the total of "excess deaths":

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated number of "excess deaths" from 85 to 100 million.

Thus specifying that the number is one of "excess deaths" and allowing this whole page to go forward. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed text implies that "excess deaths = mass killings", so it is totally unsatisfactory. In addition, it uses the source that is not reliable for this particular purpose for the reasons described above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to use Fu as a source (43 million excess deaths in a three year period in PRC)- do you find that one "unreliable" as much as the source which was specifically found RS in the past? Or is it a "my way or the highway" argument on reducing any numbers to under ten million again? The purpose its to get a compromise here - not to stake out immutable stances. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, read my responce to Ed first. I would prefer not to re-iterate the same post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Please respond here. Last I looked, I am not Ed. Really. The goal of Wikipedia is to achieve consensus through compromise. When someone refuses any compromise at all, they are either absolutely right, or they are absolutely tendentious. +
The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about page content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic. It is useful to remember that consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia. It is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular 'perfect' version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.  :::: Your pick. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
My arguments have been totally rejected previously, and the proposed version takes into account no reasonable concerns expressed by me and by several other users (see previous sections). In that situation, an uninvolved observer may conclude that the above considerations about compromise are made just pro formae.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


Please provide a source that supports your edit. TFD (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Fu was given aboive for the 43 million in three years of PRC of "excess deaths". The Black Book, per multiple discussions, has also been found to meet WP:RS. How many sources do you require whan zero sources were furnished for the vague "tens of millions"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Why not change the title of the article to "Excess deaths under..."? Seriously. --FormerIP (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting issue - one I find interesting provided that the article name is not then used to remove any current content. If the aim is then to remove current content, I would regard the proposal to have been made improperly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, I did not say "tens of millions". Could you please stop misrepresenting what I say. An estimate for China (Fu) cannot be used for an estimate about all Communist countries and your remaining source has been debunked. Fuzzy math. Not only that but it does not even mention a figure of 85 million. Please find a source that supports your edit. TFD (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The Black Book is a WP:RS. Added to that is a corroborating source (Fu) which gives 43 million for a period of three years only in the PRC, and says 50 million was widely talked about in government circles for that period alone. Friedman [74] specifies 32 to 57 million "political deaths" alone under Mao. Hodgson sates 100 million or more [75] and so on and on and on. Cheers - I doubt you can say every single source fails WP:RS <g>. Collect (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
What consensus are you talking about if my exhaustive explanations that the intorduction of The Black Book is not a reliable source for this particular statement is totally ignored by you? The RSN discussion concluded that each part of the BB should be judged based on its own merit, and this particular statement has been extensively criticised by many authors (including major BB contributors).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hodgson says "perhaps" and anyway it is a book about economics. So you have basically taken a book about a different subject and misrepresented what it says. And you resort to synthesis, providing your own calculations. TFD (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Demographics are a fundamental component of economics. Your dismissal of Hodgson as not applying is therefore inappropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hodgson did not do any review of demographics and in any case makes no claims in his book. This is just another case of someone typing in key words and finding sources to back up a point of view. TFD (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
TFD, what precisely are you after? A source which says 100 million died under communism? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I would expect a source that either stated a number or a range, which we could then cite. TFD (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Edwards, Lee (2000) The collapse of communism Hoover Institution Press (2000) ISBN 978-0817998127 "Communism, the dark tyranny that controlled more than forty nations and was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million victims during the twentieth century" ppXIII Theres a source which states a number. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, Edwards performs no special studies, he just reproduce (tangentially mentions in the introduction) the figures from some other source. It is impossible to establish this source, because he provided no reference (a sing of poor quality). Most likely, the origin of this number is Rummel (I suspect, also Courtois took it from Rummel). The unreliability of Rummel for this concrete purpose has been shown by me.
However, much more important point is that Edwards toes not tell all of those 100 million deaths were the victims of mass killings. He obviously speaks about "excess deaths", which included famines etc. The same problem I discussed before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
All you have just written is pure supposition on your part. A number was asked for, one was supplied. And Edwards is the editor, you may wish to look at the authors who wrote the chapters. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Please, provide the verifiable refs to the authors who wrote these chapters (the burden of proof is on you). Please, provide the proof that Edwards meant killings, not excess deaths. In addition, the figures are reliable when they are supplemented with online citations. I found no online citation there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the policy which says a reliable source also has to have reliable sourcing? Or that it even needs sourcing? Are you saying the source is not reliable? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That's Lee Edwards, "Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation", the registered agent for the World Anti-Communist League in 1982 and later founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in the forward to a book published by the Hoover Foundation, a think tank that is "influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements". TFD (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
And that has what to do with the reliability of the source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good one. TFD (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of sources stating otherwise it may be reliable. However, since I presented reliable sources that criticised this particular figure (a first scholar who came out with the number of 100 million was Rummel, and his findings and his methodology was extensively criticised), we have a ground to doubt in validity of these figures. The sources I use contain a numerous references to primary or secondary sources that support each author's statement and explain where they took the facts from. By contrast, neither the BB, nor Edwards provide any sources. Did they do their own research? Did they take the data from Rummel? We don't know. However, if the latter is true (and it is highly likely), then this sources just uncritically reproduce the material that had been proven to be unreliable. In addition, we still don't know what this author means: "excess deaths" or "mass killings"? Without knowing that for sure we cannot tell anything.
Regarding the policy, here it is "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The source that mentions some fact just tangentially has much lesser weight than the source that devotes a special attention to the issue. That includes the inline references as well, because they are a necessary trait of scholarly sources having s "professional structure".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
So now you are saying that Hoover Institution Press does not do fact checking? And please stop with Rummel, this is not about him and you are quite clearly creating a strawman out of it. Your "guess" of were the figure comes from has zero weight here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hoover Institution Press, as well as any other publishing house, never does fact checking. It is an author's responsibility to do that. However, if an author mentions the results of others (not his own results), he is not too responsible for fact checking. Obviously, Edwards, as an editor, did no special research on the total number of killed by Communists, he took the figures somewhere. Since he provided no references, we cannot tell where he took it from. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1. The Black Book has been "litigated" here a few times - consensus then and now is that it meets WP:RS. 2. Fu seems absolutely to meet WP:RS with up to 50 million in a three year period alone in the PRC. 3. The other sources I gave, which independently also cite up to 100 million also meet WP:RS. 4. No source at all has been given by you or anyone to indicate that the total was only 'tens of millions' which means that it is that edit which does not meet WP policy requirements for being sourced. I bolded that so you can not elide that fact. Now will you accept the proffer, or just hold out for no compromise at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Re 1. We are speaking not about the BB, but only about the introduction, and I saw no positive review on the introduction. Courtois is criticised specifically for these figures.
Re 2. I have no objections against Fu, as I already wrote. Moreover, he may be useful in the article, because he emphasise the connection between what happened in China and long autocratic traditions there (to which Communism have little relation). However, can we safely conclude he is talking about "mass killings" only, not "excess deaths" as whole?
Re 3. Since we do not know where did Courtois take his figures (he definitely did no research by himself), it is hard to tell if it is independent. Where did the second source take the figures from? Please, explain.
Re 4. When I provide an evidence that some source is unsatisfactory, I don't have to provide alternative source. These are two separate questions. However, we know that there were not more than 15 million mass excess deaths in the USSR, not more than 3 million genocide victims in Campuchea, some limited deaths in Vietnam (if we will not blame Communists in all deaths during Vietnam war), Korea, etc. Please, add China to that, and you will know the figures for all Communist countries. However, these figures will refer to the broadly defined mass killings; this definition is not generally accepted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


Where does Fu present a total figure, other than for China? Even the Black Book's range is in reference to its findings, not those of scholars in general. Can you provide a source that validates that it is now scholarly consensus that the numbers fall within that range? TFD (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Taking into account the florid language of the book title (on a brink of trivialisation of the Holocaust), it is hard to tell what concretely the author means, and if that is just a metaphor. Does he simply reproduce the same Rummel's figures or he publish some of his more recent findings? Could you please quote the piece of the Rosefielde's text where he itemizes this figure. For instance, what is his total for the USSR? From his article published in 1997 I know that his range for the deaths in the USSR in 1930s (when most deaths occurred) is 5.7-14.5 million, so the mortality for the whole period would hardly be greater than 20 million, according to him. We know the scale of genocide in Cambodia more or less precisely (2-3 millions). Does in mean that ca 80 million were killed in China, Korea and Vietnam, according to this author?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately your Google search returned a page that is incomplete. Call me obsessive, but I like using sources that you and I can read rather than snippets which may be out of context. Is there any way of reading it? Notice that elsewhere in the book Rosefielde writes "perhaps as much as 100 million people" (p. 169).[76] Incidentally you may wish to improve Steven Rosefielde's article. TFD (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It was not a google search. I happen to own this book. Why not go to a library and borrow it? The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If you own this book, you can easily do what I asked for. The burden of proof is on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
He mentions Communism's "killing of approximately 60 million people, and perhaps tens of millions more" on p. 7. We could write, "Communist governments killed approximately 60 million people, and possibly 10s of millions more". TFD (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. His "killed" seems to be what other authors call "caused premature death", and it is not the same, because otherwise a reader may get an impression that all these persons were shot, gassed or died in death camps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Starvation by governmental act is just "premature death"? Neat argument. Leaky as heck. Collect (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"Any assessment of the casualties wrought by Stalin’s policies must begin with a clear understanding of what needs to be measured. We seek to compute the number of people who were executed or who died prematurely as a result of excessively harsh punishment. The former include judicially sanctioned and extrajudicial executions. The latter include those killed during interrogation, murdered in the Gulag system, shot attempting to escape, as well as those dying in prisons, camps, labor colonies, exile, transit, or civilian localities from physical abuse and politically engineered terror-famine."(Rosefielde. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 32 l-33 I. 1997)
"If my figures so far are more or less right, that leaves 4 million pre-1937 excess deaths not attributable to the 1932-33 famine. I divided this into about 1 million in the Kazakh disaster, and 3 million among deported 'kulaks'."(Conquest Excess Deaths and Camp Numbers: Some Comments. Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 5 (1991), pp. 949-952)
These are the examples of terminology used by serious scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, can you stop soapboxing and discuss improvements to the article. TFD (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose a compromise and all you can do is post THAT? I rather thought offering a compromise was how WP:CONSENSUS works -- but it appears you dislike compromises. Cheers - but your post reflects on you a great deal here. Collect (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That "compromise text" is a compromise just formally. There is no consensus about the need to present concrete figures in the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Strange - others do in fact consider it a compromise. Since you do not, I fear the problem is in your own mirror, Paul. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Who?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

500 words or less

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments6 people in discussion

EdJohnston's proposal was to come up with 2 summaries, each in 500 words or less, on the sources for the various "death figures" that could be submitted to an RfC. I strongly supported EdJ's proposal and, unlike the appearance put in place by Paul S., I strongly disagree with the proposal by Paul S. that ended in the mass (and mess) of text of the last few thousand words above. Let's go back to EdJ's proposal Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Arbitrary_break_2.

Let me be very specific in how I think this should be carried out:

1. There should be two summaries, each less than 500 words. One would give sources that would justify including figures - say in the range of 60-100 million, the other would come up with sources that either dispute the first group's sources, or come up with sources that provide lower figures. If they only want to dispute, however, rather than providing estimates that they agree with, I think they would be making a big mistake, making people think they are simply denying the entire set of mass killings.

2. Editors can only edit one or the other of these summaries - no game playing please. Each group should come up with an editor responsible for the final version. I'll nominate either Collect or Peters for the 1st group and Paul S. or TFD for the second group, but it's really up to the groups themselves.

3. The deadline is set for 3 days from now.

4. At that point the 2 summaries will be submitted to an AfC, where editors can support either summary 1, summary 2, or neither, with folks who have already edited this page having a separate section so that we can see what non-involved editors think. If the non-involved editors support the first group, then that set of sources will be used to rewrite the lede. If the other group receives the most support, then those sources will be used to rewrite the lede.

I do believe that we need to see the views of outside editors on this. Please indicate your support or opposition to THIS proposal below Smallbones (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thinking about it as potential participating nominee.
My concern is that it's really a two-part process:
  1. What is the range of sources, and what do they say (#'s to be summarized in lede, details in article), we should agree ("consensus") on what they say (that does NOT mean agree WITH what they say or agree about WHAT to say about them), e.g., Courtois says 85-100 million victims
  2. Given the same sources, then see what the two (or more) proposed ledes would look like and if editors agree with one or more being a fair representation of the topic and then also invite outside commentary.
Simply two ledes will conflate arguments over sources and representation thereof rather continuing the mishmosh we've had to date. What do you think of a two-stage process? To Paul's below, I had looked through earlier versions earlier today and, to my mind, the earlier ledes were a bit vague. Vagueness is neither the logical nor intellectual equivalent of fair and accurate.
I should add that an RfC on what sources to include and what sources to censor is doomed to failure as that is largely the arguing that seems to have been going on rather fruitlessly. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd think a two step process would be pretty cumbersome. The point is to get outside editors to view a streamlined version of the argument that has been going on here ad infinitum and then come to a quick conclusion. Maybe we could say "Rewrite the first sentence" instead of "Rewrite the lede."
A comment and a proposal Ed made one more interesting observation: although the lede (in its current version) refers to total deaths even twice: for all Communist states (in the beginning), and for the "Big Three" (in the end), the article itself discusses almost no total figures, so, per WP:LEDE no figures should be in the lede. In connection to that, why cannot we simply restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum and to work on the article first?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason there are so few numbers in the body of the article is that they were removed multiple times using the type of tactics that led to the current editing restrictions. The current editing restrictions are being used, in my opinion to totally close down "working on the article" Has more than one sentence (the first) been changed since the edit restrictions were imposed (in January?)? It seems to me that it is time folks put up their sources and their estimates and let outsiders decide on their validity. Smallbones (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If you genuinely want to find a way out of an impasse, I suggest you to forget about accusations. Let's focus on what should be done, not on who did what.
Re "The current editing restrictions are being used, in my opinion to totally close down "working on the article" " Totally agreed. Do you want to move forward? Forget about past misdeeds of others, and they forget about yours. However, one way or the another, we need to modify the article first, and only then can we start to work with the lede. The lede is now has been frozen in the version proposed by you, remember? I believe the ball is on your side, so you are supposed to show a willingness to compromise. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Like it or not, the 100 million figure published in the BBoC is extensively cited. Until the BBoC is deemed an unreliable source on RSN, then it is legitimate to quote that number, it is not up to us to determine the truth. As a compromise, I suggest we add the lowest figure published in RS so that we express the number of deaths as a range XX - 100 in the lede. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Like it or not, but in most cases this figure is cited as an upper bound of the deaths caused by the Communist regimes. For instance, Edwards writes: " was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million victims". "Responsible for deaths" and "mass killings" is not the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition, since I already presented elsewhere several reviews on this book which criticise the introduction specifically, I expect you to provide at least few positive reviews not on the book as whole, but on the introduction.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The four hundredth time the objection is raised makes it nomore valid han the preceding three hundred ninety-nine times -- the source meets WP:RS and it is not up to any editor to somehow prove it is better than Wikipedia requires - such as proving it is the WP:TRUTH. The onus is on you to provide different estimates of the number of "excess deaths" as the euphemism goes (a person starved to death is just about as dead as a person who is shot). Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Physician, heal thyself. My sources against your words. Show you sources, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sources for the iterated discussions' here and at RS/N? Paul - that is about as inane a "request as has ever been made on any talk page for any article in the entire history of Wikipedia! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Show your sources, please" Paul - please show your sources, in 500 words or less, and let outsiders judge per the proposal above. The Wall of Text approach only drives outsiders away. Or come up with a sourced lower limit that you can accept. Smallbones (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure 500 words is sufficient, but I'll try
On the BB:
  1. "That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation."Amir Weiner (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452)
  2. "It would be incorrect 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."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)
  3. "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."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)
  4. "Courtois's introduction to Le Livre noir pairs the Nazi atrocities that motivated the Vichy syndrome with those of Communist states, pitting twenty-five million deaths at the hands of the Nazis against one hundred million deaths in Communist regimes.1 Data cited in Le Livre noir account for only eighty-five million deaths, leading Guy Konopnicki to call Courtois a Stakhanovite with his own 'personal Gosplan set at one hundred million deaths . . . Stephane Courtois gave to Stalinism a history which resembled Stalinism.'" (In Search of the Communist Syndrome: Opening the Black Book of the New Anti-Communism in FranceAuthor(s): Donald ReidSource: The International History Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 295-318)
  5. "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."(Stanley Hoffmann. Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 166-169)
  6. "'In these positions Malia is closest to the inflammatory general introduction of the Livre noir’s editor, Stéphane Courtois, who used the figure of 100 million worldwide victims of communism to put the “class genocide” of communism on a part with the “racial genocide” of Nazism. For the disagreements of other French authors, notably the Soviet specialist Nicolas Werth, with Courtois’s introduction, see Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, “Communisme: Le retour à l’histoire, ” Le Monde, 14 November 1997, 16; and Michel Lefebvre, “Trois questions à Nicolas Werth,” Le Monde, 21 September 2000, 3." The quote has been taken from the article devoted to the ctiricism of the views of Malia, and author of the foreword to the BB, see MICHAEL DAVID-FOX On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia). Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5, 1 (Winter 2004): 81–105.
  7. "In his controversial introduction Courtois claims that communism’s record, with its 100,000,000 victims, surpasses that of Nazism with its 25,000,000 dead (leaving out, I suppose, most of the 40–60,000,000 lives lost in World War II, for which arguably Hitler and not Stalin was principally responsible)."
    "Admirably, Werth gives figures for the victims of the various forms of repression based on the archives opened in the 1990s that are significantly lower than those of Robert Conquest and other historians who did not have the benefit of the archives. They are also lower than those in Courtois’s introduction, which would certainly have benefited from a closer reading of Werth." (Suny, Ronald Grigor. Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2002 (New Series), pp. 303-319 (Article))
It is already 713 words, so I'll stop here. We can speak about other sources later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Try adding in the previous WoT posts on this page, Paul. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
What does "WoT" means?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand, "WoT" means "walls of text". However, that looks like a mockery: you don't believe in my word and require sources, when the sources are provided, you complain about walls of text. Is your desire to achieve consensus genuine, or that is just a way to evade sanctions?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, is this the text you want to present to the RfC? If so I think we'll also go to a limit of 713 words. Or would you prefer to revise it to less than 500 words within 3 days? Smallbones (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no. You suggested me to present some sources, and I have done that. I am not sure we can seriously discuss the figures in the lede in a situation when the article contains almost no figures: before discussing what concrete figures should be in the lede we need a consensus about the need of the figures at all. The answer may be positive only if the article itself contains a discussion of these figures, which currently is not the case. I am waiting for your answer on my alternative proposal. In addition, please, remember that the lede is currently in the form proposed by you, and some changes to the lede had been made with violations of the editing restriction, so I suggest you to be more flexible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You have now made one thousand four hundred and fifty posts to the talk page of this article alone. North of half a million words. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked Paul to come up with a 500 words or less summary for an RfC. His "alternative proposal" seems to be " why cannot we simply restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum and to work on the article first?" Why don't we work on the question at hand, including numbers in the first sentence, which will obviously reflect on the general question of including more and better numbers in the article. Paul's reluctance to subject his arguments in succinct form to outside review seems to me to simply reflect the weakness of his arguments. Smallbones (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see you do not understand the point. Let's try again.
  • A proposal to discuss figures is based on the implicit assumption that the idea that the lede should start with the figures is accepted by all parties. That is not the case, however. As I already pointed out, in the absence of scholarly consensus about what "mass killings" mean, it is impossible to discuss figures before different definitions of mass killings have been provided. In that sense, the previous version of the lede was much more adequate: it stated that some mass killings occurred, then it explained what various scholars saw under this term, and then it provided an estimate of the scale of the mass killings defined according to Valentino. This is a balanced and encyclopaedic approach. In connection to that, we simply need to restore the stable version, which has been modified in violation of the Sandstein's procedure, and then to discuss the need of additional changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, a proposal to focus on the figures first is de facto a proposal to discuss your version of the lede. That is hardly a demonstration of your readiness for compromise. A compromise can be jus to mention the order of mass killings in the first sentence, and to clarify that later. In that sense, "tens of millions" is adequate, because if we take just executions and murders under Stalin and Mao, plus Campuchean genocide, we get more than ten million. If we add famines and deportation death, as Valentino does, we get up to 80 million, so by saying "tens of millions" we are absolutely correct. More detailed figures (for the "Big Three") have already been provided in the lede, and, taking into account the Valentino's claims that most other Communist states have not been engaged in the mass killings ("Final solution", p. 92), other Communist countries do not change this range appreciably.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I see your point -- even when the term "excess deaths" is used, the number must be 'only millions" becasue that is what you repeatedly argued for in the archived discussions. For you to even get to "tens of millions" was, to you, a great compromise. Unfortunately, we have reliable sources galore for much larger numbers of "excess deaths" and that is the sticking point. The use of "excess deaths" as the description was a "compromise" suggestion, and I regret that you reject such an attempt utterly. Cheers.
I already quoted Wheathcroft who also doesn't consider famine and disease victims as repressions' victims. I can provide other sources upon request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
. Inflammatory terms is used mainly by political writers and Cold War era propagandists. I do not think Wikipedia should follow that way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article should be either (i) re-named to "Population losses under Communist regimes", or (ii) questionable cases should be largely removed and only briefly discussed in the article's end.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Starting from 1955, more genocides and politicides were committed by non-Communist regimes than by Communist ones. Interestingly, genocides against Communists (Indonesia, Vientam) amounted up to 1.5 million.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The article will become less shocking, however, for those who are interested in presenting truth, not to tell as many terrible stories about Communists as possible (no matter how exaggerated they are), it will hardly pose a serious problem.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
In that concrete case, when the articles form academic peer-reviewed journals are being extensivelly used, NYT is not a reliable source. If you have any doubts on that, go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I see that the number of 80,000,000 is a result of SYNTH, the connection between deaths and Communist ideology is the editor's own conclusion, and the deaths themselves weren't a primary and desired objective, but predictable and acceptable collateral consequence of social transformations. That coincides with what other sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, by drawing parallelism between NKVD task forces and Einsatzgruppen, Strzembosz put a part of Polish/Nazi guilt on the Jews (and Communists) themselves. This is Nazi apologetic and it is already in the article about Communist mass killing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
To fight against Communist propaganda using its own tools is not the best idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The Werth's chapter, the best part of the BB states that the number of victims of Stalinism was less than 15 million. Where additional Rummel' 40 million come from?). Therefore, Rummel is fringe for figures. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN we do not need that. By contrast, you have to prove it is not a fringe theory.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In any event, it is necessary to clarify in the lede that the majority of those 21-70 million were not murdered or executed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, any figures may be added to the lede only along with direct reference to the specific theories the article is based on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

[77] has an editor changing "tens of millions" to "millions". Thus providing evidence that said editor backed "millions" instead of even "tens of millions." [78] removal of a reliable source. [79] ditto. [80] ditto. Long list of deletions of what were clearly reliable source claims. But it does explain the lack of desire for compromise. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • @Sources by Paul. This is irrelevant. If someone criticized "Black book", this all belongs to article about "Black book". However, if other RS (for example a book by Rummel) provides a different number, it belongs here. So, how many people are killed by all Communist regimes, according to Rummel? Can someone check it please? Yes, Rummel is another RS to be used here because his term democide definitely qualifies as "killing". And this article could be even renamed to Democide under Communist regimes as a more neutral title. Biophys (talk) 19:24, 26September 2011 (UTC)
In other words, you suggest to use any sources that contains figures, irrespective to how disputable they are, and irrespective to the opinion of other authors on those figures? That is directly opposite to our policy.
Re Rummel, it is generally accepted that this scholar provides the figures that are considerably higher than the data from others. In addition to the sources cited by me elsewhere, you may look at the first (or second) ref in the Valentino's "Final solution".--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
"Generally accepted" is your personal judgement. You can not dismiss scholarly books only because there is a politically motivated debate about them. Any notable scholarly publication on such subjects has political opponents. If other authors give other figures in RS, their figures should be provided as well (as I said). But they do not give any figures. You tell: "figures that are considerably higher than the data from others". That's fine. If there are any "others", let's include their figures too. Biophys (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand the difficulty here, Paul. Courtois states 100 million, it is a figure widely cited in other texts and the BB has not been found to be unreliable on RSN. It is clearly an upper figure. Why not simply find another reliable source for the lowest figure, say for example Joe Scholar may state only 42.567 million, then we have the text in the lede stating: "estimated death toll numbering between 42[1] & 100 million[2]." Why is this so difficult that we have to expend yards o' text over it? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, I am explaining again.
Thesis 1. The statements:
"Communist regimes were responsible for premature deaths of up to 100 million people", and
"Mass killings occurred under Communist regimes, which lead to the death of up to 100 million victims"
are two quite different statements. Whereas the first thesis implies that under Communist rules many peoples were shot, died in captivity or exile, and were massively dying during various famines and similar events, the second statement implies some deliberately organised campaigns, when the peoples were being consciously killed. You must agree that these statements have some different meaning, and to mix these theses would mean to mislead a reader. We need to explain what "mass killings" mean (namely, to explain that, according to some authors, they included famines, diseases, deportation deaths, and that all of that is not mass killings sensu stricto), and only after that can we write: "the amount of victims of the mass killings enumerated in such a way was in between 20 and 80 millions". Therefore, there is no need to mention any concrete figure (or range) in the first sentence of the lede, before the terminology issues have been addressed.
Thesis 2. The BB is highly inhomogeneous, so the statement "The BB is a (un)reliable source" simply makes no sense, especially, if we do not specify "reliable for what purpose?". The Werth's part is definitely a reliable for the history of Russia/USSR, however, the introduction is definitely unreliable for the purposes of demographic or genocidal studies. This concrete figure, 100 million, has been criticised by numerous sources (see above), and no user acting in good faith can reject my explanations and sources. Moreover, we simply do not know the origin of this figure: Courtois provide no sources, although every serious study I have read provides a large number of references to primary and secondary sources that have been used to obtain one or another figure. The BB figure is unverifiable, and the fact that some people are obsessed with this particular source means that they simply love to see this number in the article. Why do they love it? I don't know.
In actuality, we have much better sources for figures. For instance, Valentino, who did no his own studies, provides an excellent overview of all sources available for him. He mentions Rummel, and he notes that this scholars provides much higher figures than others do (see the endnote section of Final solution). He mentions 110 million, but he does not endorse these figures. He tells about 20-80 millions of killed in the Big Three (Campuchea, China, USSR), and he notes that there were almost no mass killings elsewhere. Incidentally, these figures are already in the lede. What else you need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul does not understand our WP:NPOV policy, which starts out "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Paul thinks that this means removing sources that he considers to have been disputed, whereas it obviously means adding significant views from reliable sources that have different POVs. So, Paul, what is the reliable source you want to add that gives a different take on the total numbers? I will personally see that it is added into the lede if it comes from a reliable source. WP:NPOV means that significant different views must be represented; it does NOT mean that only Paul Siebert's views must be represented. Smallbones (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? The source A states: "A total amount approached 100 million killed"; the source B says the source A is wrong, the source C says the figures are lower, the source D says the figures are tendentiously misinterpreted. Please, remind me how policy advises us to treat such a situation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Re "Paul thinks that this means removing sources that he considers to have been disputed" Sorry, but the situation is totally different: it was you who added this disputable source to the lede, as if there were no disputes around it. Therefore, the accusation in misunderstanding of the policy should be addressed to you. The BB should definitely be mentioned in the article proper, otherwise a reader may conclude the article is written by some pro-Communist cabal. However, it should be mentioned along with others, much more reliable sources, and this mention should be supplemented with necessary reservations and criticism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Paul, source B may say source A is wrong, but how do we know source B is right? All we can do is report a range of numbers. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
We cannot. However, what we also cannot do is to use the source A in the lede as if the source B never existed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_27&oldid=1151050249"