Talk:The Black Book of Communism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Criticism section disproportionally big

If the Criticism stays as it is, the rest of the page should be developed.Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Kenez' opinion should be removed from here, it's a detail comparing to millions of victims.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

a similar chronicle of violence and death tolls can be constructed from an examination of colonialism and capitalism i - Two Black books of capitalism exist. Similar opinion by Chomsky. Chomsky ignored that millions of people run away from Communism to Capitalism. It's nice to use capitalistic freedoms like Chomsky did, when Soviet scientists were persecuted. Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Historians Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty have criticized Courtois' arithmetic - a similar problem exists in Holocaust's historiography, many Jews died as the result of fights 1939-1940, not as Holocaust victims. Many were neglected in ghettoes, like Soviet peasants.Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Praise says Courtois's controversial propositions, it's a specific way of praising. The selection of such source from hundreds of Eastern-Europeans ones is biased.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are right. Not only this section is too big, but it is too wordy and non-neutrally worded. For example, "Two of the book's main contributors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, sparked controversy in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction about the scale of Communist terror. They felt Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving ..." and so on. What this is all about? Well, they had happened to disagree later with the number of victims in Introduction (although they were agree at the time of the publication). OK. Yes, this should be said, but without all non-neutral wording like "publicly disassociated themselves", "obsessed", etc. That is what I did. Same in a couple of other places. But that all has been reverted... My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Not only this section is too big, but it is too wordy and non-neutrally worded. For example, "Two of the book's main contributors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, sparked controversy in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction about the scale of Communist terror. They felt Courtois was "obsessed" with arriving". That's exactly what the sources say, if you could be bothered to read them. Judging from past experience, that's obviously a false hope. Time and time again, you delete stuff without even skimming the citations. "Sparking controversy" is perfectly NPOV. "Publicly dissociated" is a fact. The original editor was supposed to be Francois Furet, but he died, so Courtois took his place. There is no evidence Werth and Margolin ever "agreed" with Courtois. And so on... Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

...although, admittedly, the other problems with your edit are less serious. Some of the trimming is a stylistic improvement.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not what sources say. This is a POVish summary/text by a wikipedian. According to shorter version, "Two main contributors to the book, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin felt that a total of 100 million killed by Communist regimes, as summarized in the Introduction to the book, was actually smaller,[12][13] possibly between 65 and 93 million." There is nothing else here, really. That is something they actually disagree about. Everything else is blah,blah,blah at best, or POV-pushing at worst. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, I see you've given yourself licence to bulk delete sourced text without looking at the sources. Not much I can do besides point you to WP:V. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this section is disproportionately large. It does contain some "facts" that some people disagree. Facts? sure, the disagreement is a fact, but it is not that relevant for the book itself. The weight on these comments should be considered, and I say tone it down a bit. Some of the specifics that I don't like are:

• some people say other stuff should have been included - well, that's a critcism of any book, but doesn't usually go to the core of the issue.
• Werth and Courtois disagreed - if you read carefully, in this book and other places, they don't disagree that much
• It's not really clear what Amir Weiner is talking about.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Welcome to fix on the page. If I removed anything important please place it back. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Werth and Courtois disagreed - if you read carefully, in this book and other places, they don't disagree that much. That's not wrong, but "much" depends on the vantage point. If you define "much" in the sense of "Courtois and the Marxist-Leninist League disagree on much" then clearly Werth&Margolin are basically on the same page as Courtois. However, Margolin and Werth would not have raised all that fuss if they themselves felt it was a just a minor disagreement (from their vantage point). Of course we can erase all that fuss by stating, as MVBW did, that the disagreement boils down to a marginal difference in grand totals. ...

... as far as Weiner is concerned, I've added his more substantive critique, which was deleted by MVBW. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Let's take a step back for a sec. WP:V is a pillar. When wikipedians try to delete or alter reliably-sourced (or even unreliably-sourced) text (for whatever reason), they usually read the text first, then carefully lay out the specific problems with the text on the talk page. The onus is on them to show that the text in question is so awful that it clearly fails WP:ONUS. And even if they do succeed in demonstrating that the text is a steaming pile of bs, they are often overruled by repeated invocations of WP:RS. The onus is always on the removers. On the other hand, MVBW repeatedly tries to remove or alter reliably-sourced and long-standing text without deigning to to so much as glance the sources in question, still less read and analyze them line by line, still less engage the topic as a whole and make substantive additions where they are needed. I count at least five instance of this flagrant carelessness in his edits on this page in the last 24 hours: Dallin, Tauger, Kenez, Werth&Margololin, Weiner, and to a lesser extent Gilles Perrault. He hasn't read any of them, but he's got an opinion on all of them. Why this is taken seriously is beyond me. As MVBW and whoever fueled the earlier back-and-forth made clear, they think that most criticisms of the BBoC come from nutbags, giving them licence to cut down the supposedly nutty critiques at will. Not a great start for "fixing this page" if you ask me. Not to say that nothing can be trimmed or fixed here... I've done some of that myself in fact. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Out of all of the criticism, it's Chomsky's absurd claim that most deserves to be removed, as it obviously is completely devoid of merit. On the other hand, bits like "Historian Amir Weiner of Stanford has likewise disputed Courtois' comparison, stating: 'When Stalin's successors opened the gates of the Gulag, they allowed 3 million inmates to return home. When the Allies liberated the Nazi death camps, they found thousands of human skeletons barely alive awaiting what they knew to be inevitable execution'" should be restored (without having read Weiner's article, I'm not sure if this should be in place of or in addition to the "mere provocation" quote already included, but I suspect the former).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

(EC): Also, you will note that Gucci and I determined in the "WP:TAGBOMB" thread above that Werth and Margolin did indeed describe Courtois as "obsessed" with the 100 million figure. In fact, by omitting the criticism that Courtois added 5 million victims to Werth's 15 million in the Soviet Union—and conjured a completely baseless figure of 1 million deaths in Vietnam, something not even hinted at in Margolin's chapter on Vietnam and Laos—Gucci's summary was actually excessively deferential to Courtois, allowing the "Estimated number of victims" section to stand relatively unchallenged.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

A good editor does not remove properly-cited criticism of a book because he personally disagrees with that criticism. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a propaganda piece, so we reflect all major points of view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal disagreement; it's a matter of editorial discretion. Wikipedia represents the major points of view, but not the fringe. When it comes to Chomsky's absurd belief that communist China should be compared with socialist pro-Soviet India rather than Taiwan or Hong Kong—and that anything better in China rather than India is axiomatically due to the glorious wonders of Maoism—I'm not sure likening Chomsky to a flat-earther is that far from the truth. (A good editor—by definition—does employ discretion, as you did when you blocked reliably sourced criticism of the Chomskysite argument.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that looks like personal disagreement to me. Chomsky is a famous author, and the article should mention his views, at least briefly, even if those views are, in fact, absurd. In articles I've started about books, I have certainly mentioned views that I, personally, find to be absurd, and have even gone to pains to do so - just to represent all sides of an issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Times put it well regarding Margolin&Werth v Courtois, but Creator is right about Chomsky per wp:policy and I'll add some more fuel to this fire. Why should India and China not be compared? Presumably, Amartya Sen is also a raving Maoist, since Chomsky appears to have lifted this line of thinking from Sen whole cloth. "Maoist" or not, such comparisons are obligatory in serious development literature, and the answers are far from obvious. The comparison to India, or any country whose development has been short of miraculous, must be avoided at all costs by the likes of Courtois. Much better to compare Maoist China to Taiwan, or better yet to Sweden, or even better just compare it to Nazi Germany or nothing: that way, people will become hopelessly distracted from the question of what would have happened to the millions of wretched victims had China followed some sort of plausible capitalist model. I'd rather not deal here with fringe American right-wing view, noted here on talk, that holds that India was "actually" "socialist". You learn something new everyday ... I learned that the USSR was actually state-capitalist from my college roommate. Mind, blown. Never got the point of these labels anyway: you can call an economic system fried chicken and that will have no bearing on the facts.
• cont.: To develop the issue a little more, I'll add that the only honest answer to questions of comparative development is: "we can debate, but nobody knows". And that's the one Chomsky gives. Hacks like Courtois however, always have the answer: 100 million good people would be alive and happy if only the bad guys didn't get power and kill them, ergo these bad guys are worse than Hitler and the Black Death combined. That goes beyond flat-earth: forget about not crossing the equator, such one-sided thinking won't get out of a paper bag. I should also point out that Chomsky's essay is cited here as a critique of the political climate surrounding the Black Book. That's a different beast from Kenez and Tauger, who are specialists interested primarily in particular historical episodes. We are not citing Chomsky as a specialist on Communist history and demographics—and Chomsky makes no statements that would allow us to do so—but rather as one of the most notable social critics since Karl Marx. The most notable aspect of the Black Book by far is the political-ideological aspect: multiple historians have noted that the BBoC contributes little by way of original historical research—indeed it is often careless with some well-known historical facts, so as a work of history it could be worse than nothing. One hot area of political-ideological controversy has been Courtois' comparison of Communism to Nazism. Less prominent, has been the comparison of Communism to everything else (which Courtois or his brethren avoid as sheer blasphemy). Nonetheless, this comparison is common in serious literature that does not deal explicitly with the BBoC and its jaundiced propaganda. Chomsky simply pointed out that there's "a world out there", so to speak. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky is famous, is his historiography recognised outside leftist ghetto?Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's less relevant here than you probably imagine. Chomsky is not notable for his "historiography", but for his critiques of ideology and power. And that's what he is being cited for. He is not a specialist—he cites the work of specialists in his analysis, usually not the other way around. Yet there is little evidence that he is measurably less capable in his use of specialist literature (I know Times won't agree to agree, but we can't debate this here) than the specialists themselves, when those specialists rely on the work of colleagues. Nor have I seen much evidence that his views are fringe relative to the "specialists": controversial, perhaps minority in the Angloshere, but not fringe. There is little doubt that a good number of specialist are "Chomskyites" in their view of US foreign policy. The "problem" with Chomsky is that, as a social critic, he directs most of his attention to what he perceives as the problems of his society. In that sense he clearly is biased, though probably less biased and dishonest than someone like Courtois, as we have seen. Should he be faulted for it? Maybe, but not more so than Soviet dissidents who refused to spend their time railing against the US and its clients. In fact—after being pushed by domestic repression and exclusion—some of these dissidents began to praise the violence of the USSR's enemies, while often substantially exaggerating the violence of the USSR itself. The responses of official Cold War ideologues, both East and West, to their dissent was swift, hypocritical and entirely predictable. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with comments by Xx236, Smallbones and TheTimesAreAChanging. For example, we should not include any fringe views. Moreover, such views should not be disguised as a legitimate criticism of something (in the version by Guccisamsclub). Many views by Chomisky, for example, are indeed fringe. So are views by some political activists/authors in Russia. Consider someone as Yury Mukhin. Their views should be included only on pages about themselves.My very best wishes (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and continue commenting on sources you haven't read. The analogy between Mukhin and Chomsky is completely insane inappropriate, and proves nothing. Why not compare Chomsky to Hitler while you're at it? Guccisamsclub (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is your analogy. You compared Chomsky with Soviet/Russian dissidents, and Mukhin is one of them. There are other examples, such as Eduard Limonov. My very best wishes (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

That's simply an insult to Soviet dissidents by way of an insult to Chomsky. The larger problem with what you're doing here is the lack of any concrete arguments—not assertions—that show an engagement with the relevant sources and subject matter, or even with the points made by other users. Same thing happened over at Pavel Florensky where you and your "supporter" successfully removed well-sourced content you knew nothing about, defeating all those who supported the content by simple attrition. Stating that you "agree" with people on your side of a particular issue is not terribly surprising or informative. Bare and seemingly specious analogies don't carry any weight either. You can compare Chomsky to Colonel Sanders for all I care. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

To briefly return to the Chomsky debate, Leftists have always had a deep emotional need to justify the atrocities committed by their comrades in the name of democracy and social justice by saying "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." Yet this argument invariably devolves into blatant apologetics. China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty since it abandoned Maoism and embraced state capitalism, without murdering tens of millions. India, too, has become one of the world's fastest-growing economies since the privatization of the 1990s. There is never an omelette! Moreover, this sort of revisionism is the exclusive province of the Left. While some Rightists might claim that many of the 3,000 individuals killed by Pinochet were communist subversives and a threat to the state, few if any Rightists would assert that Pinochet "actually saved lives" by achieving Latin America's greatest reduction in infant mortality—with the implication that this somehow negates or even justifies the 3,000 killings. That is because Rightists rarely accept the unstated premise behind all such Leftist propaganda: Namely, that mass killing is a viable tool to restructure society.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Either you don't recognize right-wing violence as violence, or you are willfully blind, or some combination of the two. I never knew that Right-wing meant "pacifist". Stop blowing my mind. But you are not framing the issue in a useful way. The rise and development of capitalism has been accompanied by immense suffering. If someone wrote a "black book of capitalism" while being completely and demonstrably blind to the progress achieved by that system, it would be considered a childish rant unworthy of discussion. Luckily, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto largely immunized the radical Left to this sort of idiocy from the get-go. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is because "capitalism" (read democracy) has achieved a lot, but totalitarian systems (like fascism and communism) did not. But you are simply "soapboxing" here. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just in case people forgot, here's the lede of this section, again: If the Criticism stays as it is, the rest of the page should be developed. I've said exactly the same thing before (but failed to carry through with it). That's how you improve the article. The criticism section can be trimmed at the margins—and it was being even before MVBW latest bold edits—that's not where the real potential for improvement lies. But somehow that got twisted into "lets get rid of the critiques we don't like". Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, we all (including you) apparently agree that recent version of the page was unbalanced, which is an NPOV problem. This can be fixed either by adding more material to other sections (and you are welcome to do just that) or by removing materials from the Criticism section. Either way is good. But I think that another major problem here is inclusion of undue materials, regardless to the balance, as was also noted by several people above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Those paths lead to very different ends. One's an improvent—the other is WP:DONTLIKE under the guise of extremely vague concerns about WP:BALASP, concerns that have clearly not been grounded in any serious examination of source material. This is nothing but a rerun of Talk: Pavel Florensky: just repeat "undue" until verifiable information goes away. Seems to have worked there, sadly. I don't think the criticism section needs "toning down" at all. Toning down sourced material is textbook POV-pushing. For reference see Livre noir du communisme. That article is largely about the controversy over the book. Now is that because they lack Wishes' eye for neutrality, or is it because they actually know what they're talking about? Guccisamsclub 20:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If the Criticism section is "too big" than that's not the problem of the article, as it's supposed to reflect what RS are saying on the subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, good! By that qualification, I bags adding criticism sections to all of Chomsky's individual pages on his political texts. That should make for a balanced bloodbath. K.e.coffman, Guccisamsclub, and FreeKnowledgeCreator, you all seem to be missing the fundamental premise of WP:NPOV: this article is not a WP:COATRACK on which to hang as much criticism as suits you personal point of view in order to make a WP:POINT for the reader that this or that book is rubbish to be disregarded as worthy research. That's what is known as WP:ADVOCACY. I don't care how erudite you are, or how hard you try to worm your way out of the fact your objective is to ensure that the reader has no doubt as to the lack of credibility of this work. Justify it as you will, it's WP:GEVAL. Oh, and do consider that the converse of IDONTLIKEIT is ILIKEIT. Drop the advocacy. Just to be clear: Chomsky's political works were part of my lecturing kit, but my personal academic position and what is and isn't appropriate for a tertiary vehicle like Wikipedia are two very different things. Chomsky is an established and respected linguist. His political stance is, ultimately, a matter of personal taste. Don't try to underplay BALASP and WEIGHT because you're trying to give prominence to the minority evaluation of the book. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So two sentences from Chomsky now violates WP:BALASP? Shall we trim Chomsky's critique to: "Chomsky disagreed with book (period)"? Would that be inconspicuous enough for your taste? False balance is exactly what Wishes is trying to do. His assumption, made before even looking at a single source, is that criticism and debate should be given exactly as much less space as than praise, just because. If the articles on Chomsky's books omit notable controversy (though I suspect people who dislike Chomsky—except people like David Horowitz—typically ignore him, at least publicly), my guess is that editors with too much political attachment to the subject are blocking it. Guccisamsclub 10:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This page is about Communism, not about Chomsky's And you are lynching Negroes. Havel is not an evil man, thank you Mr Chomsky... BTW no Criticism section in Noam Chomsky, why here? Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You're not the first victim of this illusion here. This page is about the Black Book of Communism. Ideally, controversy should not even be consigned to a separate section (compare, again, Liver noir du communisme) But I don't know who here can possibly take on this job of integrating it into the body. re: Chomsky. he does not have a separate "Praise" section either, and if people have been deleting notable critiques from Noam Chomsky, they're POV-pushers. Guccisamsclub 10:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You said yourself (above) that Chomsky is a dissident. Yes, he certainly is. This is just another way to say that his views are either "minority" or possibly even "fringe". My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Dissent means dissent from power, which does not automatically imply dissent from scholarly or public opinion. If scholarly consensus was simply the mouthpiece of power, wikipedia would be the equivalent of Pravda. (it amusing to note in this regard, how some Wikipedians (you included) defend Weekly Standard and other Right-wing sources as not-at-all-fringe, whereas outside of wikipedia the Anglo-American Right won't shut up about how it's been completely driven out of the universities by the radical Left. Well, which one is it?) Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I've not edited the article in months -- how is my edit "edit warring"? This is WP:ASPERSIONS right in the edit summary. Also, how is providing illm templates to fr.wiki articles controvercial and not an improvement? Please do the courtesy to fellow editors to revert only the changes that you consider to be controversial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to restore the French Wikipedia links, although it's redundant considering that, per WP:WINARS, no bios are actually testament to the notability of an academic. Being an academic is enough to have a bio in English language Wikipedia. Your interwiki links serve no real purpose in this context other than your desire to lend credibility to the two scholars you wikilinked, and a bio in French Wikipedia is not useful to someone who doesn't know French.

As regards your reversion, you had already joined in the discussion here therefore are not ignorant of the fact that there is currently a debate over the content. I'm not going to claim that I am not without blame in reverting, but you stepped in in the middle of my trying to clean up the standing content and reverted knowing full-well that you're flaming the fan of an edit war. Please leave well enough alone, and I'll also step back from edit warring. Please keep your eye on the talk page and try responding to my response under your comment in the section above. You should have paid attention to it prior your latest revert. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit stillshowed you had absolutely no idea what you were reverting. You just saw the usernames and acted accordingly. Would not be the first time either. Per BRD, the long-standing text stays. The text that Wishes rammed through at last minute after discussion had begun is not the long-standing text. Of course given enough support from you via the revert button, the BOLD text may eventually become "long-standing" text. It seems that's exactly where we are headed. Wishes does not need any more "support"—he needs arguments and sources. Guccisamsclub 08:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, BRD is an essay, not a policy. Hence you argument is invalid. These edits have been explained and discussed above. The consensus (as I read it) is as follows: more changes in the same direction are needed to improve this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, moved the goalposts mid-discussion. If someone moves them back, cry foul. Cleverly done. You might want to tell Iryna about you BRD discovery (I've already heard it from you three times). Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It tells right on the top: "This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline." My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. That's wasn't the point. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I reverted MVBW's removal of content that they were edit warring earlier on: diff. I did not revert any of the work that Iryna has done around the same timeframe. I should have been clearer about that. I'd like to change it back, as MVBW has not provided a solid argument why the article should be changed.

On the fr.wiki links, citing WP:WINARS does not quite make sense to me, as then we'd not link anyone, right? The presence of fr.wiki articles indicate that these subjects are notable and providing an inter-language link is more helpful to readers vs a red link. One can always use Google translate to get the gyst of the articles. The way illm template works is that when an en.wiki article is created, then the link automatically changes to a blue link, transparently to the user. The statement on my "interwiki links serv[ing] no real purpose in this context other than your desire to lend credibility to the two scholars you wikilinked" is inaccurate/another aspersion, since this "desire" was actually for the authors of the book: Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, etc., listed in the infobox.

Again, I'd like to reinstate my changes. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, there are objections to version by G. They are fully explained in several sections above, and not only by me, but also by other participants, for example with relation to large paragraph that describes in length views by Chomsky. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And no objections to your version, obviously. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes went beyond Chomsky. For example, this intro paragraph was removed, leaving a wall of text:

• A number of historians have criticized the Black Book of Communism on methodological, factual, and political grounds, with particular attention being drawn to Courtois' controversial introduction.

If there are specific objections to Chomsky, than this can be discussed separately. Including Chomsky in a big edit and then citing this as the reason for an edit is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this phrase ("A number of historians...") is actually one of problems here. This phrase sounds like a summary, but this is is not a proper summary of the Criticism section. It creates false impression that there were actually various serious flaws in the book. Instead, it's better to simply write that The book was criticized, primarily for its polemic Introduction written by Courtois. Indeed, almost all criticism in this section is about Introduction by Courtois. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

*On the other hand, "The Black Book of Communism received praise in a number of publications in the United States and Britain" is just peachy. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

*The controversy is not just about the intro, through the intro was the most controversial part of the book. My summary made that pretty clear, I thought. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Guccisamsclub, you seem to be labouring under the illusion that this article is your own personal essay. No, it is not, and it is not down to you to cherry pick what you consider to be salient to the criticism section. By that token, the criticisms by Chomsky and Bensaïd are WP:OFFTOPIC. This is not about colonialism, capitalism and what would happen if you applied the same methodology (and only according to the two cited op-eds) to other situations. 'Some' is a WP:WEASEL term which you've been tossing in when discussing a small handful. My opinion of what is wrong with the book is irrelevant. Your opinion of what is wrong with the book is irrelevant. I don't care where the majority 'praise' is from: it constitutes the majority view. In this respect, I agree with tossing the 'Britain and United States' as a deplorable compromise. Also, enough of your sarcasm, accusations, remonstrations, and finger pointing. You are the only editor here who has consistently and relentlessly written walls of text, strung on comment after comments onto their own comments, and consistently pushed the WP:CRUSH card. Reverting to MVBW was a reversion to a flawed version, but a version closer to an appropriate criticism section than the onslaught of single instance criticisms you've strung together in order to create the WP:SYNTH you want. If you want to write your own reviews, start a blog. This article is not your review of the subject. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't really care how many WP:CAPS you use, I only read the arguments behind them. I did NOT put to any of the critiques into the the section: all I've done was trim them, re-group them, fix the refs, cut some anti-BBoC POV, and revert Wishes' (and others' before him) attempts to change specific content without reading the citations. All those attempts were backed by transparently false arguments.
• None of the critiques are "one-off" (no, not even Chomsky or Bensaid) or "off-topic" or [any the other ad-hoc labels employed so far, over the last few months]. That's if we follow WP:V and actually read what the sources say, something Wishes (and perhaps you too) has demonstrably refused to do, as a matter of principle. None have been proven to be WP:PATENTNONSENSE either, and god knows people on this page have tried. I haven't seen any argument for criticism and controversy clearly being the "minority view"—purportedly so tiny and nutty that it is now even less than "some" (sic)—only sweeping assertions. A lot depends on where you look, and where you refuse to look. The repeated insistence that it is, combined with the absence of discussion of specific sources (besides blanket dismissals of Chomsky) makes me wonder where this is going and what's fair game. This reminds of the scattershot approach employed here before (see earlier discussions). Perhaps your version of DUE is: Criticism: Werth and Margolin think the total number killed was somewhat less than 100 million, while Amir Weiner wrote that the book was unnecessarily provocative in certain places. THE END.
• Lastly, the consensus invoked by Wishes is a pure sham. You folks won the edit-war after starting the discussion and then, bizarrely, invoked BRD and WP:V to get others to back off. After some editors came out in support of trimming (though it was not clear exactly what), Wishes reintroduced his bold text and asserted that there was consensus to trim his version further. Naturally, the various objections from FreeKnowledgeCreator, TheTimesAreAChanging, K.e.coffman and myself have been treated as non-existent. One more thing: if you think "in Britain and US" is so "deplorable", go ahead and delete it. I doubt anyone will care. Something you're clearly right about is that I've been posting too much, so I'll stop there. Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? This version you reverted included criticism by everyone, even by Chomsky. It was only more neutrally worded, shorter, and similar claims (e.g. criticism of the number of victims) were grouped together. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Apart from general criticism of participating editors by Iryna and non-substantive arguments from MVBW, I do not see that there's been sufficient rationale provided for the revert in question. My suggestion again: if Chomsky is the concern, it may be helpful to highlight the desired change. Including Chomsky in one big edit is not helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No, K.e.coffman. I know there's a lot to read because of the walls of text posted by Guccisamsclub, but try reading again: Noam Chomsky is not the only concern. The concern is that the criticism section is being used as a COATRACK for discrediting the book and basically promoting it as be a load of WP:BOLLOCKS that should be disregarded. Have a good, long read of this unduly lengthy section and consider how many times in contravenes WP:WORDS just for starters. 'A number of historians', scarequotes, 'sparked controversy', "Werth can also be an extremely careless historian..." quoted from Peter Kenez(!?) The section is a list of everything editors have been able to find discrediting the work, all pulled together with as much loaded language as possible without having an apoplectic fit... and you think that is representative of DUE and NPOV? In keeping with the loaded language issue, it was 'interesting' to 'note' that I had to clean up "Content" (of the book) section as, apparently, Courtois had never actually written or said anything; he just "claimed" a lot of things in the book.

Also, please take care about how you use your claims about 'aspersions', and check up on how many editors I've criticised here before personal attacks on me. 'General criticism of participating editors...'? I only held a dialogue with Guccisamsclub prior your opening this section. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The German edition, published by Piper Verlag, includes a chapter written by Joachim Gauck.

Compare German edition section.

Why such short section.

Shouldn't the titles be translated?Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"Historian Peter Kenez has criticized..."

• The subject is a detail, totally unimportant here.
• The paragraph quotes also Mark Tauger. Here comes his background:
  • Ph.D., History, UCLA
  • MA, Historical Musicology, UCLA
  • MA, History, UCLA
  • BA, Music, UCLA

Tauger's opinions about Soviet musicology are welcome, but hunger doesn't seem to be his subject.

Summarizing: the paragraph should be removed. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's allow historians to be the judge of what's important here. Removing Tauger based on the fact that he studied Music at one point. You're joking, right? Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Not at one point, but two.

Mark Tauger seems to be not notable.

Has he ever studied Soviet agriculture?

No, i'm not joking. Western sovietology isn't funny.Xx236 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Has he ever studied Soviet agriculture? Yes he has, at length, and his work has been discussed by other specialists, although it has been highly controversial (as is made clear by the wikilink)—like many other things in Sovietology. Stephen Wheatcroft, author of The Years of Hunger, said that Tauger takes his argument about natural and accidental factors too far, to the opposite extreme of the proponents of the genocide theory of hunger (like Werth). In any case, [Tauger's]^{read the rest} is one of the more notable commentaries cited, so the focus on him seems weird. Kenez is a professor Emeritus of History, who's written multiple books on Soviet history. If Kenez and Werth both thought these were "facts"important enough to write about—they probably are. I've quoted praise for Werth at length, despite the fact that neither Martin Scammell nor Ronald Aronson are specialists on Soviet history in any way, shape or form. But in all seriousness, how do you expect to have a serious discussion when you refuse to research the sources you want to see deleted? This torrent of controversy about the criticism section began with Talk:The Black Book of Communism#WP:TAGBOMB, with editors literally stringing on one vague or bogus argument after another, and one edit war after another, for months. Not entirely a bad thing, since it has prompted some improvements to the article, yet much of this nonsense could have been avoided had people simply followed WP:V (by reading existing sources and adding new ones). I humbly propose leaving the criticism section alone for now, at least until people have had time to cool off and actually digest the material. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Er, you've just rewritten the article according to your preferences and are declaring it an NPOV coup? A pity that WP:OWN has not occurred to you as being a better description of what has transpired. Verifiability does not automatically mean inclusion when WP:WEIGHT determines inclusion to be be POV. This was already demonstrated clearly in this edit and rebutted thus. Content that has been tossed out as WP:OFFTOPIC was actually introduced due to the criticism being criticised. The criticism section has become preposterous WP:CHERRY selected specifically to deride any of the contentions of the book. The fact that criticism exists, but the critism has been criticised makes the section a flaky fiasco begging the question of whether you've met with WP:ONUS. No, you have not. I am obliged to point out (yet again) that you have turned this article into a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tauger has a Ph.D. in history. The fact that he also studied music does not invalidate his credentials as a historian. He currently teaches history at West Virginia University with a focus on "Russian/Soviet History; Agrarian History; World History. He has "historian" written all over him. This line of argument is odd. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The Ph.D. Tauge rexplains the hunger with smaller harvest. It's childish. US children, please play with your toys, don't touch Soviet Union. Party members in Ukraine weren't hungry and farmers starved. Because of smaller harvest. Very selective were those small harvests.Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oh yes, he is known as someone engaged in Holodomor denial (here is something about it, in addition to sources quoted here). Would you use writings by someone engaged in Holocaust denial to criticize mainstream books about Holocaust? No. Same is here. Same can be said about writings by Chomsky. My very best wishes (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah the same shifting arguments all over again. First he's a musiciologist, then he's stupid, then he's the equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Just random smearing from editors who don't know the first thing about the source (except wanting to delete it—by any means necessary) and refuse learn. A throwback to the fine traditions of "Не читал, но осуждаю". This latest bit from an editor who just came back from comparing Chomsky to Eduard Limonov and Yuri Mukhin (two Russian pseudo-fascists). What will you not say to delete a source you WP:DONTLIKE, I wonder? Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, it was you who started making a comparison with Russian dissidents. And could you please stop making personal accusations? That is what sources tell. Here is, for example, a book but two well known Western historians [1]. It tells (on page XV) that Tauger was wrong and how exactly "the most extreme" "supporters of the Stalinist regime" in Russia use writings by Tauger to "prove" that Stalin and his government was not responsible. So yes, I am reading the sources.My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, you're belatedly googling "Mark Tauger+Famine denial" and dumping the result of your query. The very authors you are linking (Davies and Wheatcroft) to have been cited extensively by Grover Furr in his book on Timothy Snyder. And they too stress the importance of natural factors, albeit less than Tauger. The Black Book of Communism has been quoted extensively by neo-Nazis. Your arguments so far have been utterly absurd, and no, that's not a personal accusation. Lastly, I brought up Soviet dissidents—you brought up two neo-fascist nutbags. Yeah, totally the same thing.Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, I gave you a link to a book. You tell that the Black Book was quoted extensively by neo-Nazis. I do not know what you are talking about (any refs?), but are you suggesting to include quotes by neo-Nazi into this page? Or would you quote Limonov and Mikhin on this matter? I hope not. Same with tain other authors. None of them should be included. This is not because they are neo-Nazi, Commies or whoever, but because their views are WP:FRINGE, even if the conspiracy theorist himself can be notable (consider David Irving as an example). My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You are as far away as humanly possible from getting my point, again. Let me say it in what appears to be your native language: "нам не дано предугадать, как слово наше отзовется." I just gave you a concrete example of the patent absurdity of your reasoning: Grover Furr in his book "The Lies of Timothy Snyder" (or whatever the title was) quotes Davies and Wheatcroft—the very source you brought up in your attempt to smear Mark Tauger—about a hundred times. Does that mean Davies and Wheatcroft are Stalinists? A Russian Stalin apologist quotes Mark Tauger—and that is all your source says about Mark Tauger's relation to Stalinism—does that make Mark Tauger a Stalinist? If a neo-Nazi quotes the Black Book of Communism, are the authors of the book Nazis? The answers are: no, no, and no. And that's a real-world answer. In terms of WP:POLICY your assertions about Tauger are WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:LIBEL. (P.S. I gave you a link to a book—is that what they call "reading" nowadays?) Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"absurdity of your reasoning"? A book by well known historians (Davies and Wheatcroft) tells that Tauger was wrong and his book and ideas serve as blueprint for Russian Stalinists (link above, page XV). According to other sources, such as here, and sources quoted here, his views were not taken seriously by most researchers in this field. Hence using writings by this author would be like using writings by David Irving to criticize a mainstream book about Holocaust. And on the top if it, this guy is not not even notable: we do not even have a page about him. But the most important thing is that his views are WP:FRINGE - as demonstrated by the referencing above. Same with a few other sources you want to include here (like Chomsky), as was already noted by several participants above. Is that an absurd reasoning? My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for the reasons already outlined ad nauseam. And no, these "several participants" don't exist. It's only you and Xx236, the latter's arguments being that Tauger is a musicologist and, after that failed, that Tauger is a child. Enough already.Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to read Tauger's paper Stalin, Soviet Agriculture, and Collectivisation. He reads Stalin's texts and believes Stalin, Stalin wanted to make Soviet peasants happy. It's childish, yes.

You failed to prove Tauger is a historian of Soviet Union. Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Tauger's papers were published in Russian in Kiev by a pro-Russian weekly "2000" in 2008.Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Bensaïd, a French philosopher and Trotskyist activist

Philosophy doesn't make you a historian.

Trotskyism doesn't make you a historian.

If Trotskyism was better than Stalinism is unknown. Similarly SA critics of Hitler isn't important.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nobody called him a historian—although he probably knows what he's talking about. Anyway, DONE. Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

General point

I strongly oppose continued edit warring or attempts to water down the "Criticism" section without further discussion. Most of the material that is suddenly being called into question has in fact been long-standing for over a year at the very least (Chomsky—variously included, deleted, or relegated to an external link over the years—being the exception); Guccisamsclub has actually made more substantial additions to "Support" than to "Criticism." Rather than reverting in mass, let's post any problematic material here first so we can discuss it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This is good advice, if you mean that the critics should make separate sections of the type: Talk:The Black Book of Communism#"Historian Peter Kenez has criticized...". I've given the same advice to Wishes early on. However, I do hope that we don't have to litigate the same controversies, which the critics have already done at length, in various forms of their own devising.Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(On a different but related note, Wishes persistently wants Chomsky and Bensaid to be in the opening paragraph of the criticism section, as if Chomsky said anything about the BBoC's numbers being wrong and as if his political and ideological critique is analogous to Werth and Margolin's. This is something that will make Chomsky easier to delete in the future. If that's the point, its extremely facile, although I've gotten used this sort of thing here.)Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here is the problem. This is not neutrally written text. It uses a lot of negative adjectives, such as "controversial introduction" (this is also OR), "an extremely careless historian", "sparked controversy", and dramatization ("publicly disassociated themselves") to smear the book. This all must be fixed per WP guidelines. My very best wishes (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Did they dissociate themselves privately by talking to LeMonde, calling lawyers etc? I can't believe you are still WP:NOTGETTINGIT, after about a dozen entreaties to to READ a single relevant source, i.e to follow WP:V. This is disruptive editing pure and simple and you can be blocked for it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with MVBW in at least one respect: reporting e.g. "an extremely careless historian" needs a lot more backing than it has. It should go. Then let's discuss the rest one dramatic at a time.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

General note: separate sections please, otherwise it'll just be a rerun of the earlier show. Gravuritas. You've omitted the crucial bit: "can be". There's quite a difference between "can be" and "is". What you call "dramatics" are largely specialist reliable sources. I don't understand how people can attack someone like Kenez, but think the praise section—full of loud applause from commentators with less competence in the field—is just peachy ... actually I do. It's called POV-pushing. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No, that is absolutely not the crucial bit. If there's enough heavy firepower to demonstrate carelessness, then it should go in, but the bar should be high as that's a pretty damning thing to say. "can be" sounds more like a smear, and does not help the case for that remark, imho. For the rest, please let's take it one step at a time. 'Dramatics' was intended as encompassing undue praise as well as undue criticism.

Gravuritas (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've listed a few of the POV drama problems in my final comment a couple of sections up. The predominant problem seems to be that some editors are of the opinion that everything should can and should be rammed into the article so long as it is attributed "intext". A couple of reports in Le Monde do not constitute an international scandal. That's a gripe, not 'sparked controversy'. Chomsky is quoted to cite Amartya Sen reading of methodology, vast tracts of quoted accolades litter the landscape, a few scholars have become larger than life players... and so the convoluted plot goes on. The entire article has become a verbose essay more interested in extolling virtues and evils than dealing with the subject. On the last reading, I was seriously starting to wonder whether I was reading an encyclopaedic article or Dante's "Inferno". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"In view of The Black Book's relatively scanty scholarly contribution, it is hard to read the book in other than political terms. In this regard, The Black Book may be seen as an effort to legitimize the claims to memorialization and reparations of those who suffered under Communism." —Torpey, John (2001). "What future for the future? reflections on The Black Book of Communism" (PDF). Human Rights Review. 2 (2): 135–143. Retrieved 2016-09-19.. This is just one of the many commentators (and those include Werth himself) who say that the book does not break any new historical ground and that its impact is primarily political. This explains why the commentary is the way it is, and why the controversy became as notable as the book itself, as the French article on the same topic makes amply clear. I deleted "sparked controversy"—and I don't really see anything else that is problematic. "Publicly dissociated" is sourced to the black book itself (and numerous other commentaries), no matter how hard Wishes tries to avoid reading the citations. So is the other stuff from Margolin and Werth. It's notable, period. I think we can afford to give them 3 lines in the article, given that Coutois gets numerous paragraph-long quotations. (Indeed everything before "Reception" is basically copy and paste from Coutrois' intro). For the support section, I tried to pick the most substantive commentary I could find. Before, the support section was a pure copy-paste of blurbs from the dust jacket. If you think support still boils down to accolades (and everything except Tismaneanu potentially does) there is not much I can do about it. If you can get better sources, go for it. That's the quality of the commentary. If support seems less substantive than the critiques, that again is not wikipedia's problem, and it is one that can only be eliminated by introducing false balance. Wanting false balance regardless of what sources say seems to be the gist of the complaints here, from the tag-bomber on down. Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm reverting to MVBW's version. While I agree that it needs work, at least it eliminated the worst of the op-ed style damnation and praise being obfuscated in attribution for the use of loaded language. The "Support" section is still rife with sycophantic, op-ed lauding equally in need of being sliced out. K.e.coffman, please continue with the discussions here on the talk page. This revert and ES make no sense in light of the fact that you're talking about content added and reworked by a single user recently because there has most definitely been no consensus for the addition of massive, POV quotes being held together with a bit of spit (plus trying very hard not to look like WP:BLPVIO when that is exactly what it is). Guccisamsclub, there is no lack of irony in the fact that you pushed for the elimination of the Tauger factor in other articles, yet have no qualms in recognising him as being an authority when it suits your purposes. It seems to me that you're guilty of that which you've accused myself and MVBW of: having your cake and eating it, too. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You need consensus and concrete arguments to remove WP:V, WP:NPOV (ostensibly), WP:NOTABLE material. The material being removed has been in the article for ages—lately trimmed and reworded to address a variety of recent concerns; this has been explained repeatedly, so suggesting otherwise is just another example of an elementary failure to WP:LISTEN. I've never pushed for the deletion of Tauger, to my knowledge, quite the opposite. Describing M&W's "gripe" with Courtois, quoting Kenez on Werth etc. are not blp vio's. One of the early arguments on the NPOV issue was the following: "If the criticism section stays as is, the rest of the article should be expanded." That was done, specifically in the support section to address ostensible NPOV concerns, but the arguments kept shifting at a rapid rate. The alleged "sycophancy" in the support section—which now contains not only sycophancy but also substantive arguments—is clearly a non-argument for deleting different content from a different section. Given the quality of these and other arguments, which show no evidence of engagement with concrete source material (in additions to the failure to read it properly or at all, despite repeated requests to do so; see posts by users xx326 and wishes, respectively), the removals are arbitrary. Lastly, the barrage of shifting, vague and threadbare arguments, combined with edit-warring, suggests that the recent "interest" in the article is extremely unlikely to lead to improvements, beyond those I already made in response to complaints. Indeed, it has the marks of being a triggered pile-on by like-minded and mutually-aware editors eager to simply lend support their comrades. I trust everyone here is familiar with this sort of phenomenon, and doubt anyone actually likes having to deal with it. Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This matter was debated and fully explained in this, this, this and this sections. There is no obligation of debating the same thing over and over again. The appeals to WP:BRD are not reasonable because (a) this is just an essay, not a policy, and (b) this is actually a stonewall tactics here: G. simply reverts everything that others are trying to do on this page. Note, that there are no significant removals. Almost everyone's opinion in this section is currently included - as a compromise. My very best wishes (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A couple points (your version of the "debate" is hardly accurate, and it's nearly impossible to figure out exactly what text the removers wanted to see in the section—there were just a torrent of shifting rapidly changing and poorly articulated complaints. But be that as it may):

• Your new version is not that terrible, but I now hardly see the point of your changes, other than just to make the criticism section a little smaller and to arbitrarily soften the sourced controversy. Seems like mild POV-pushing at the very best, hardly justifying the earlier flame wars. Again, the only difference seems to be is that the current version no longer elaborates on the critiques, making it harder to see what some of the sources are talking about and why it might matter. For some reason you still insist on arbitrarily toning down sourced and notable material about Margolin and Werth. Kenez has also lost all of his teeth in the process. Becker and Getty are probably not making the same argument (have you read Becker?), even though their arguments are somewhat similar. Tauger's disagreement is toned down, and could be read as a mild disagreement solely on the issue of the applicability of the term "genocide" to the Holodomor. Perrault has been removed inexplicably. Meh..
• As for the article as a whole, the edit upsets the supposedly all important POV-balance that you were so keen on earlier: unbalanced, which is an NPOV problem. This can be fixed either by adding more material to other sections (and you are welcome to do just that) or by removing materials from the Criticism section. You've completely forgotten your own advice after what you suggested was done. It is indeed strange that you trimmed only the parts you didn't like: you didn't touch "Support" at all and scrupulously avoided trimming the Ellman source (not that you really should). Supporters of the book invariably get full quotes to expound on the virtues of the book (not that they should be arbitrarily trimmed either), while the critics now merely disagree. That's the equivalent of toning down, for example, Tismaneanu's argument in the support section, leaving only "Tismaneanu deemed Courtois comparison supportable. THE END" Would that also be an improvement? I's say no—such an edit would only serve to keep relevant information away from readers. There's a similar problem with you current version, and it might set a precedent for further arbitrary cutting and endless bickering in the future, for no good reason. I am not going to touch the article just yet, but I really don't see how the edit is an improvement. It's a compromise sure—for how long I don't know—but that's not a good reason in itself imo.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to plainly tell that such and such people had happen to disagree with such and such conclusions in the book, without hinting who was right (as in my/current version). However, describing the nature of every disagreement in length would be excessive and a kind of WP:OR. As someone who actually read the Black Book, I must tell that a lot of the criticism is ridiculous. For, example, Curtouis said in Intro that (a) the Holocaust was only one of many atrocities in 20th century, and (b) the number of people killed by Nazi (he tells not only about Jews of course) was actually smaller than the number of people killed for political reasons by the Communist regimes during a much longer period of time. Those are actually bare facts, even if one uses a smaller number of people "killed by Communist regimes". Why anyone should include a ridiculous claim by a biased source that it was an anti-Jewish statement by Courious? I am even thinking this might be a BLP violation. But OK, let's include this stuff (because you insist), however only very briefly. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I've already outlined why the new edit is not an improvement in terms of WP:V and WP:NPOV, source by source. You are still saying the same thing as before: the book got it "right" and the criticisms are worthless and that the article should reflect your opinion on that score. With the new edit, you are only saying this more timidly by trimming and muting each of the sources you dislike at the edges, rather than deleting them outright. Why should this be taken any more seriously than the earlier and bolder attempts to say the same thing. If anything, it should be taken less seriously. I want to reiterate that your compromise is more than a little "weird": it's a compromise between the version that you and XXnnn demanded the first time (expansion as a counterweight) and the version the both of you demanded the second time (removal/downplaying of critiques). It's a compromise between having your cake and eating it too. I do wonder what's next? Demanding still more cake, as past experience would seem to indicate? P.S.: Since you say you read the book, I have absolutely no idea why you spend all you time bickering to delete or trim sources on the talk page, and no time adding content about the book to the article. I'm genuinely curious. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

To write about the book, one needs sources that tell something about the book, not the book itself. Unfortunately, most of these sources are mediocre, highly biased or even outright fringe. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If that were really the case, no articles on books or movies would contain plot summaries or any factual details, just the opinions of literary and movie critics. But you know, it's up to you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)