Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Related SPI

SPI now closed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Editors who (unlike myself) have good knowledge of prior participants in this article may be able to help at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HauntologicalPhenomenon. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism

In the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under capitalist regimes (2nd nomination), it was pointed out that the clearly unreliable source The Black Book of Communism is being used as a reference for a fact in the lead of the article([1]). This is wrong, and should be fixed. Its use in the rest of the article is properly attributed as the claims of the author ([40]-[43]), as one of many citations, probably allowable if any are reliable ([67]), and as a picture caption ([91], a bit questionable, but probably OK, or easily fixable). As this article is under sanctions, I'm not going to make the edit without some consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? Here? I admire your optimism. I don't share it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, you are physically unable to do any edit, because the article is fully protected. Interestingly, full protection was a result of the edit war over this particular issue. However, there is some possibility to implement the change you propose, because the addition of the info from the BB to the opening sentence was done without consensus, and the article have been locked in its present form for fully procedural reasons.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

perhaps the case needs to made more clearly as to why the bb isn't acceptable as a source under wikipedia regulations? or is there a reasonable argument why it is an acceptable source? or is it more simply that there needs to be consensus to remove a source and its information?AnieHall (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"clearly unreliable source" - take it to WP:RSN and I'm sure they will disagree with you. Folks who make this claim never seem to back it up with their own sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been brought up before and unfortunately many editors do not see social sciences as being on the same level of physical sciences and will accept very low standards including books and articles that have not gone through the peer-review process. The policies that we can use include WP:RS that says we should use the best sources available and WP:NPOV which says that we should provide proper weight to different sources. Obviously a polemical writing that has had no review and whose estimates have been debunked should not be presented as the authoritative source. TFD (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should not be stated as bare fact, but should be attributed. "According to The Black Book..." And it should probably not be the 1st or 2nd sentence in the lead. The methodology of the Black Book of Communism was (obviously) criticized by Marxists like Kurz and Chomsky (or whatever Chomsky defines himself as these days.) The silly fork on Mass killings under capitalist regimes was largely based on a misrepresentation of what Kurz and Chomsky said about the methodology of the Black Book of Communism. There is in fact more criticism over there. So it's not an uncontroversial view to cite BIG NUMBER from it without attribution. And it looks like there were few other attempts at some sort of global tally. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Arthur Rubin. There are several separate questions here. (1) The range of numbers in the lead should be sourced to multiple sources, and it would be a wider range of numbers, but this is almost impossible to do given the editing restrictions for this article and long-term content disputes. (2) The The Black Book of Communism is a reliable secondary academic sources written by well known historians and it can be used per WP:RS anywhere. If in doubt, please post a question on WP:RSN. (3) This article has nothing to do with Mass killings under capitalist regimes. Let's not mix apples and oranges. My very best wishes (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The 100 million figure appears only in the introduction. Werth and Margolin, who contributed to the book said that Courtois misrepresented their estimates and that if he had used them correctly, the range would have been 65-93 million. It is wrong however to multiple source the lead because that requires us to determine the weight of different estimates. Instead we should use a source that explains how scholars have estimated the totals. TFD (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It is senseless to discuss the Black Book of Communism as whole, because it is a highly inhomogeneous collection of independently written articles. Whereas Werth's part is reliable, Courtois' introduction is not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference [1] (in the lead) clearly isn't acceptable. In the last discussion at RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#Reliable sources about communism), the consensus appeared to be that the individual essays in the book should be treated as reliable according to the expertise of the author, and degree of criticism in academic publications. This makes the introduction to the BB clearly unreliable, as there is considerable criticism, including some from other chapters of the BB. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

The introduction to this heading: "Communist regimes "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."(source?)

"Scholars use several different terms to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants.[3][4] The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:" (source?)

These sentences are missing citation. Where are communist regimes defined as such? and where have the several terms been used to describe mass killings by communist governments? I think these sentences could at the very least use a "citation needed" tag of some sort.AnieHall (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that sources referring to "Communist regimes" (I have bolded instances of it being used in four sources here) are referring to something other than the regimes of Communist states? Wikipedia actually redirects Communist regime to the "Communist state" article. The citations for "The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:" follow the individual terms in the list. That sentence merely serves as a transition. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it is not a term, but simply an adjective modifying a noun and needs no explanation, since any definition would be tautological. (Cf a black cat is a cat that is black.) In which case the definition should be removed. On the other hand if it is a term with a specific meaning then its definition must be sourced to the works on the subject. For example in the article about Communism the defintion can be sourced, rather than relying on the original research of editors. TFD (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, you must agree that the statement "The following have been used to describe killing by Communist governments:" sounds odd in a context of the "genocide" section (the section de facto tells that that term is not applicable to MKuCR).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@TFD, I think you make a good point here. I could support the removal of the "Communist regimes" definition in the terminology section. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, Yes I do agree. I have tried to address that by expanding the material for that term (as well as the others) here. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass killings under capitalist regimes

That (questionable) article should be in the "See also" section here, as long as it exists. I can't say that it would be a minor edit to add it, so I'm not going to add it without consensus. Still, it seems obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

seems like a reasonable suggestion. I've added this page to the see also section of mass killings under capitalist regimes at any rate. not that it really makes a difference, I imagine.AnieHall (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To reply to a point above, the articles use similar methodology, and a prior incarnation of the other article was solely based on the errors in this article, even if the concepts weren't related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As the article has been deleted, the point is moot. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"...with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million."

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million." This is not just the first, but also the most important sentence of the article. So I propose we put it in bold. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no reason in policy or guidelines, and other articles do not do that, I disagree. TFD (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It is customary to put things in bold at the beginning. Also, bold claims in a bold font always look less milquetoast. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BOLDTITLE, which is a guideline. We should not have any bold text in the first sentence at all. It actually looks bad and gives the appearance of bias. TFD (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the statement you suggest to put in bold is taken from a highly controversial source (the Black Book of Communism), and many users propose to remove it. Therefore, I have a counter-proposal: remove the figures at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, you threatened me with arbitration enforcement for simply adding a footnote explaining the numbers. I don't believe you're in a position to complain about them since you prefer to (empirical supposition on my part) suppress (delete) over anything else. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Lets keep focused on content, rather than editors. How about a compromise: we move the figures from the lead to a new section specifically about estimating the numbers. The lead should only be summarizing what is already in the body of the article anyway. Then we can add new sentences about who estimates what and who disagrees and why, one at a time, to this new section, until we all have a good sense of how to summarize this for the lead. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Peters. Yes, you added controversial number against consensus, and I regret I didn't file AE timely. I understand that now it is too late. That is was a result of my self-imposed obligation not to take any action against you (now I realise it was stupid).

@ AmateurEditor. Yes, that is what I proposed from very beginning. In addition, we need to explain that different authors under "mass killings" see quite different things (thus, most historians do not see famines as mass killings).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is actually seriously proposing this here. To just say that the Black Book is not a reliable source is not going to convince anybody. If you want to come up with your own numbers - based on other sources - fine. But just saying, in effect "We don't recognize this as having happened," is just nonsense. The next argument is usually "But no other source than the Black Book exists," and that nonsense has been debunked a hundred times on this page. If you don't want to cooperate on writing this article, please just go somewhere else. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we've moved beyond this. Paul agreed with my compromise suggestion to move, not delete from the article, the estimate portion to a new and soon-to-be expanded section devoted to estimates. The Black Book estimates will of course be included. I think we all agree that Courtois' intro is reliable for his views, at least. Let's first find the common denominator here. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

AE, not only I agree, I myself (if I remember correctly) proposed to do that earlier. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See the talk page section #The Black Book of Communism. It's clear that reference [1] is not reliable, as it's disputed by many reliable sources, including other chapters of the Book. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, the BBoC is a reliable source for the opinions of all the authors who have contributed to it, including Courtois. So some authors disagree over numbers, so what? All we can do is to neutrally report the estimates presented. WP:RS is not WP:TRUTH. --Nug (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you disagree (noone could expect the opposite). However, the arguments provided by you fully support my point" if BBoC "is a reliable source for the opinions of all the authors who have contributed to it", then the facts from this book are relevant to the section that discusses the opinia of its authors, not to the lede.

BTW, I disagree with your characterisation of the BBoC: some of its chapters are quite reliable secondary sources. Unfortunately, that cannot be said about the introduction...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to simply state that an obviously reliable source can't be used in the lede, without providing any alternative sources or any real sourced criticisms of the Black Book, then just go somewhere else. Saying "I just don't believe it" for years on end now, is simply obstructionism. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, provide an evidence that the introduction to the Black Book of Communism is reliable and mainstream source. In addition, numerous sources and quotes had been provided by me and by others to demonstrate that the introduction is not a reliable mainstream source. Please, do not pretend you forgot that, or that you are unaware of that. You did participate in that discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think since the article "mass killings under capitalist regimes" was deleted, this indicates that sources like the bbcom are not acceptable on controversial wikipedia subjects such as this. Some source indicating that the introduction is reliable would be beneficial, or the removal of the unreliable information.AnieHall (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The lede is intended as a summary of the article and normally does not require direct cites since the body of the article should be fully referenced. If the article discusses a range of numbers, then the lede should summarise that range. --Nug (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where is it discussed in the body? The only citation to that number is in the lede. Fails WP:LEDE the way it is now. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopelessly confused proposal

If you look above

• you'll find that the "opposes" and "supports" seem to oppose and support different proposals, and it's not clear which.
• that PS says that the new "estimates" section has to be put off (until when?) - effectively removing a well-sourced statement, but that the actual proposal says that no material would be removed (although it doesn't say how).
• A straight-forward statement by the proposer that the proposal was just made as a WP:Point, effectively assuming bad faith
• a previously banned editor, presenting himself as an "evil wizard", simply mocking all common sense in the discussion
• nobody presenting any evidence that a book published by the Harvard University Press is an unreliable source, even though this question has been vetted many times at WP:RSN and always found that it is a reliable source. And this is all you are proposing - to remove a reliable source.

If you want to make a formal proposal, please lay out exactly what you want the revised article to look like. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

All your concerns have been addressed above. The proposal is to change the specific wording of the lead. Even rs may be wrong, but in this case we are merely assuming that Courtois's estimate represents the range of all informed opinion, while failing to notice that the main contributors to his book said that his intro misrepresented them. TFD (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

PS - who is the previously banned editor? TFD (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually the proposal is NOT "to change the specific wording of the lead." It includes "There is no net change to the article in terms of adding or removing content already there," so how specifically can that be done by removing a reliable source from the lede? PS implies it means just removing the source and nothing else (until some vague time in the future), you imply just removing the source. Unless you have a consistent proposal, we simply can't interpret any !votes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am curious about who the banned editor is as well, because banning policy prevents users like that from coming back. There appears to be a lack of WP:AGF as far as the claim of mocking "all common sense" by this "evil wizard." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones managed to offend two good faith users. I think, it is a good moment for him to apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is to "change the first sentence of the lead from this: "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million." to this: "Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century."" What are the "different proposals" and why is this "NOT "to change the specific wording of the lead" (your emphasis). TFD (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, you are going to have to bear with me here. I only have time to read and post here about one hour or so per day, in the evenings. If editors have misunderstood my proposal, I would hope that others would (politely) set them straight in my absence. The proposal is to move the Black Book estimate from the first sentence of the lead to a new estimates section, and I specified in italics exactly how the two resulting sentences would be worded. The moved estimate would become this first sentence in the new estimates section, beginning that section. Subsequent sentences to be added would then each need to gain consensus in individual proposals here on the talk page. The new estimates section would thus be (slowly) built up one sentence at a time as consensus here permits. The Black Book is not an unreliable source, the issue with the first sentence is that it is not phrased properly for that source and that it does not represent what it appears to represent: a range of the ranges. The source is not being removed from the article. It is being moved from one place to another within the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article contains figures. It is inane to propsoe that what amounts to a significant part of the article be removed from the lede which is intended to give an accurate summary of the article. That is what this all boils down to. One may read prior discussions where one editor suggested thet the figure of "10 million" be an upper bound in the lede, and who found no serious support for the claim. The current lede contains the seriously used figures from reliable sources, and that is what we are supposed to do. Collect (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck does 'seriously used' mean? As for the 'reliability' of the sources, haven't you noticed yet that this is disputed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is a "reliable source" -- this does not mean an "absolutely inerrantly correct source" it means it is a "reliable source" using the Wikipedia definition - unless you seriously wish to say all the prior RS/N discussions were flawed. I have found no one seriously disputing that Harvard is a "reliable source publisher" wiht a straight face. And other reliable sources are also used - even where they disagree on any given fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So why should we use that 'reliable source' in the lede rather than other, less controversial 'reliable sources'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The range is the range from the multiple reliable sources, Andy. As stated in the various sections of the article. As WP:LEDE says we ought. Simple. Collect (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, demonstrate which multiple reliable sources Courtois discusses. There are no references in his introduction at all, so it is just an poorly sourced essay. Again, if no uncontroversial and universally accepted estimates exists, the lede cannot start with the statement that present an opinion as a fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, even the BBofC is written by more than one person - each article therein is a "source" if you wish to nitpick. But I grant that some Soviet apologist authors still revere Stalin even after Kruschchev tore into them. Their view that "almost no one was killed" is the epitome of "fringe" in modern historiography on that period. And as long as we state they are "estimates" we are accurately reflecting what the reliable sources state. Which is what we are supposed to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, that is nonsensical. Nobody here is suggesting that "almost no one was killed". What has been made clear is that the BBofC estimate is itself seen by many as fringe. So now explain why we should be picking out that particular source for an estimate in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I refuse to believe you are serious. You perfectly know that the BB is an unhomogeneous collection of chapters authored by different scholars, and the introduction by no means summarises all what they authors says. Moreover, two major contributors, Werth and Margolin publicly disassociated themselves from what Courtois write. Therefore, the introduction is an essay authored by some controversial former Leftist writer, and the credentials of the authors of each separate chapter do not add credibility to this introduction. The sources for this my statement had already been presented during numerous previous discussions. You had been a participant of those discussions, and you are perfectly aware of those sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That a couple of scholars should dispute Courtois is not remarkable, that is the nature of science. The only solution is to quote a range of numbers reflectioning the span of viewpoints, not to remove the numbers altogether. --Nug (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• According to page about her, Stéphane Courtois is a French historian, expert in communism history and research director at French National Centre for Scientific Research. Not a "controversial former Leftist writer". The book was printed by Harvard University Press. No doubts, it qualify as RS. Of course every notable book on political subjects has its critics and supporters.My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Courtois is eminently qualified to comment, and the BBoC is a reliable source. --Nug (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide justification for BBoC to be a reliable source, when contrary consensus can be found at WP:RSN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read the RSN discussion and it seems that those most vocal in claiming that source is unreliable appear to be the same people here attempting to remove the estimate of deaths. Some observers may perceive that as somewhat self serving. Take away the opinions of the regulars to this talk page (and what is the point of seeking fresh eyes on RSN if all the regulars are going to express their entrenched viewpoints) and the consensus among truly uninvolved editors on RSN appears that the BBoC is a reliable source. --Nug (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think we ever had consensus that BBoC is unreliable source on RSN, for example here. Maybe that's because we do not have formal closing at RSN by uninvolved admin, but I still do not see consensus. Now, people (I do not mean Nug), let me ask this question: did you actually read the book? I mean not just introduction, but at least some chapters from the book, and are you familiar with the subject of communist repressions? I read the book and familiar with the subject, and I can assure this is probably the best secondary RS on the subject (there are better sources on specific countries, like Russia or China, but not on the communist repression in general). Not mentioning, it was published by an academic publisher and by professional researchers. If you know any better sources on the subject, please tell what they are, and I will look at them. I only know publications by Rummel on democide, but they are hardly better, although they also qualify as RS by researcher and must be used here with appropriate attribution. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The book contains chapters about repression in specific countries or groups of countries, not communist repression in general. The approach to any anthology is to treat each article separately. Courtois btw is male and the Wikipedia article clearly states that he was a maoist. If you want a more complete biography, here is a link to "Stephane Courtois Historical Revisionism and the Black Book of Communism Controversy". As explained, the main contributors to the book, Werth and Margolin, claimed that the introduction misrepresented their findings in the book. Incidentally, the Harvard edition is a translation, not the original publication. TFD (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well ofcourse the Forward of the Harvard University Press edition by Martin Malia addresses the controversy surrounding the BBoC and weighs up the arguments of the critics of the book[1]. He concludes:

"What, therefore, do its provocative pages contain? Without pretension to originality, it presents a balance sheet of our current knowledge of Communism's human costs, archival based where possible and elsewhere drawing on the best available secondary evidence, with due allowance for the difficulties of quantification."

Interestingly Malia explains why there is so much opposition to this book which may also be applicable here:

"Even so, such an effort at retrospective justice will always encounter one intractable obstacle. Any realistic accounting of Communist crime would effectively shut the door on Utopia; and too many good souls in this unjust world cannont abandon hope for an absolute end to inequality. "

--Nug (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That dog won't hunt. Richard J. Golsan, whose writing on Courtois I just mentioned and is the English editor of Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared,[2] wrote "But for many of Courtois's critics, including some of his coauthors, it wasn't so much the size of the figure that scandalized, it was the fact that Courtois had grossly exaggerated it.... But if Courtois's exaggerated figures of Communism's crimes outraged many, at least equally schocking--and more disturbing and compromising in the long run--were the uses to which he put these figures in historical terms. In effect, Courtois's body count became the starting point, first, for a comparison of Communist and Nazi crimes and then, more broadly, of Communism and Nazism themselves. The nature of these comparisons, and Courtois's zealotry and single-minded efforts to condemn Communism unequivocally, led ultimately to his complicity with a dangerous historical revisionism with very real political implications in the present." (p. 146)[3] TFD (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Golsan is merely surveying the viewpoints of Courtois' critics, not directly assessing or evaluating the veracity of Courtois' work, so Golsan isn't saying anything we don't already know. As Malia states, what makes Communism worse than Nazism in the eyes of many was that while the Nazis never pretended to be virtuous, Communist trumpeted their "humanism" while killing millions of people. Mass murder in the name of a noble ideal is far more perverse than in the name of a base one, as Malia states. --Nug (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • @TFD. This author disagree with comparison of communism and fascism in introduction (but such comparison is actually a well known concept of totalitarianism published in a large number of books by notable historians) and tells that numbers of victims provided in the introduction are extremely approximate at best. Yes, as Courtois tells himself in the introduction, the numbers are approximate for a number of well known reasons. They could be lower or much higher, depending on what exactly was counted. No, the whole book, and especially introduction and last chapter is about the general subject of communist repression. Tell me please about any other books written by academic researchers on this general subject, and let's use them as well. I remember book "Communism" by Richard Pipes, but it does not provide any numbers... My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Did you notice that the author of the source you are complaining about is by the English editor of Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared? The world is not divided into people who believe Courtois and Communists. There is a range of moderate belief in between. TFD (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... As usually, the Courtois proponent return to the same arguments that had been put forward (and addressed) several years ago. In connection to that, I respectfully request them
1. to read this section, and explain me how the source that got so many negative reviews can represent a mainstream viewpoint.
2. to read Ronald Aronson's "Communism's Posthumous Trial The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois; The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century by François Furet; The Burden of Responsibility: Blum, Camus, Aron, and the French Twentieth Century by Tony Judt; Le Siècle des communismes by Michel Dreyfus" History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245. The author highly commends the only chapter, Werth's "A State against its people", which deserves to be a separate book. Interestingly, according to Aronson, Werth "revises most earlier estimates considerably downward". Other chapters have bees seriously criticized by Aronson. Thus, Margolin's "lengthy studies of China and Cambodia equally ignore the context in which violence occurred". He "does little to explore why this horrendous toll is attributable to Communism rather than, say, to Mao himself, or to specific features of the Chinese situation".
Furthermore, the section about Africa is even more problematic. Yves Santamaria "seeks to attribute both sides' violence in Angola's endless civil war to Communism inasmuch as leaders of UNITA and the MPLA were once nominally Marxist--while ignoring the American and South African contribution to that country's destruction. Once again, fighting against American intervention deserves being placed in the dock, but not that intervention itself."
However, Aronson's criticism of the introduction is much more severe. He writes:

"But most of these problems pale in significance compared with the book's opening and closing chapters, which caused enormous controversy and even occasioned a break among The Black Book's authors. In the introduction Courtois presents the following "rough approximation" of the toll of Communism:

U. S. S. R.: 20 million deaths

China: 65 million deaths

Vietnam: 1 million deaths

North Korea: 2 million deaths

Cambodia: 2 million deaths

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

Latin America: 150,000 deaths

Africa: 1.7 million deaths

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power:

about 10,000 deaths.

Courtois's figures for the Soviet Union, Vietnam, and Latin America go far beyond the estimates of the authors themselves, as does Courtois's final body count."

In other words, we have a reliable source that says that Courtois does not summarise what the BB says, and that that caused a conflict between him and some of his co-authors. More concretely, the figures provided by Courtois are much higher even than the estimates made by the authors of the BB themselves.
In that situation, the proponents of the Courtois figures must either present a solid evidence that the source provided by me is not a reliable source, or to stop any objections against proposed changes.
Moreover, since initial AmateurEditor's proposal was to move Courtois' figures to another place, not to remove them at all, I request that per our policy any mention of those estimates must be supplemented with the Aronson's views of them. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And what is Aronson's estimate? 85 million? Or does he just fail to give an estimate. Alternative estimates should definitely be included, but "I don't like that estimate" is essentially irrelevant if no alternative estimate is offered.

Please write up your section on estimates and we can discuss including it. Then we can discuss changes to the lede. But your wall of text approach, where nothing is ultimately said, is not appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Smallbones' proposal to write up a section on estimates first before the lede is changed. --Nug (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, your argument is wrong. The initial points were that (i) Courtois is a reliable source, and (ii) the introduction summarises what the Black Book says. We see now that both arguments are wrong: not only it is not universally supported, it is not supported even by his co-authors. Therefore, this source is a bad source for the opening sentence of the article, and should be removed. Anybody disagreeing with that acts against our basic content policy: avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

Regarding writing the estimate section, the text that violates our policy has to removed immediately, independently on all other circumstances. Meanwhile, we can add to the article (not to the lede) that in the introduction to the BB Courtois asserted that Communism killed 85 million peoples, mostly as a result of famine. This estimate go far beyond the estimates made by other contributors of the BB and caused enormous controversy. That is enough for the beginning. However, discussion of concrete wording cannot be an excuse for procrastination with removal of the text violating our policy. It should be removed immediately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, thumping on the table demanding removal of text is inappropriate and will not work because:

1. It was edit warring over the estimate of deaths in the lede which led to the imposition of the current discretionary sanction,
2. As a consequence that estimate has been in the lede for quite some considerable time,
3. Making demands such as "the text that violates our policy has to removed immediately" does nothing to build the concensus required by the discretionary sanction and the text will remain indefinitely as a result,
4. Given the above, the only reasonable pragmatic way forward is to draft a section on estimates, only then can the current estimate be revised.

Therefore I am somewhat surprised you do not adopt this pragmatic approach proposed by Smallbones. --Nug (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sanctions had been imposed as a result of addition (without consensus) of the figures. These numbers stay for more then one years in the article that was fully protected, therefore, we cannot speak about any stable version in this case, and article's protection does not mean admins' endorsement of this concrete version. Yes, I agree to start to work on the estimate section, I even proposed the draft. However, as I demonstrated, the statement that is the subject of current dispute violates our neutrality policy, which prohibits stating seriously contested assertions as facts. In connection to that, do I understand you correctly that you object against removal of the text that violates our policy under a pretext that some other text has not been written yet?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I came across the same thing in an article about Barack Obama, who is the president of the United States. One editor found an article in a Kenyan newspaper published when the future president was first elected to the United States Senate that said he was born in Kenya. The belief that he was born outside the U.S. and therefore is ineligible to be the U.S. president is a typical right-wing belief in the U.S. today. However editors rejected this source because it was an obvious mistake in conflict with most sources. I suggest that we treat Courtois' error in the same manner. TFD (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS suggests that Harvard University Press is quite likely to be better fact-checked than a random Kenyan newspaper is - so that argument fails ab initio. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The book was not fact-checked by Harvard University Press, it is a translated copy. So that claim fails. More importantly, there can be errors in any work. While we generally assume that the facts in reliable sources are true, we do not cling to them when other reliable sources have specifically said they are wrong. So even if a book published by Harvard about the 2002 midterm elections had said that Obama was born in Kenya, reasonable editors would accept that that fact was wrong. TFD (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I nevertheless disagree that we can equate the BB with and obscure information about Obama. The BB is among the most controversial sources about Communism, but it is among the most influential books on this subject also. Therefore, we cannot speak about total ignoring of what the BB says, what we need is just to eliminate the blatant VPOV violation: we have a seriously contested opinion which is presented as a fact; we have it in the opening sentence of the lede. This is a double violation of the policy, and, if I am not wrong, Collect seems to be the second user who supports this violation. Am I right, Collect?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Try to be civil, Paul. Use of a reliable source is not a "violation" and your walls of text do not make it one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Pointing at the violation of the policy is not incivility, but false accusation in incivility is. You insist on usage of some (conditionally) reliable sources in quite inappropriate way: whereas it contains a verifiable statement, this statement has been seriously challenged. Seriously challenged statements cannot be presented as facts per WP:YESPOV, and that has already been explained to you. Therefore, not only you oppose to fixing this violation, you use a false pretext for that. The WP:V policy you cite says that the three content policies "work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three". Based on that, I see two explanations for your behaviour: you (i) either do not understand our policy (and that means you are not qualified to make judgements in this case), or (ii) you are acting in bad faith. I strongly believe in (i), so, since your mistake has just been explained to you, that (hopefully) will resolve the issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We should rely on secondary sources that explain the relative acceptance of original views. That is the logic of WP:MEDRS, which was designed to keep fringe views and errors out of articles about medicine. In the aspartame-related articles for example, there is similar to here a minority view that aspartame is lethal and continual editors who try to insert the newest study and accuse other editors of bias. TFD (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

TFD, MEDRS is irrelevant, the requirements applied to medical sources are stricter that to scholarly ones. Had I apply the same criteria of reliability to humanitarian and and biological sources, almost all what is being used in this article had to be thrown to garbage. The BB should stay in this article, although not in the lead and in the appropriate context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it belongs in the garbage. However, if we followed MEDRS then we would mention the intro to the Black Book, but use sources that explain the degree of its acceptance. Hence instead of repeating a claim made by Courtois, we would explain the degree of acceptance of his claim. What is wrong with that? Would a serious encyclopedia do anything else? TFD (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, we can add to the body of the article that "in the introduction to the BB Courtois asserted that Communism killed 85 million peoples, mostly as a result of famine. This estimate goes far beyond the estimates made by other contributors of the BB and caused enormous controversy."--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for formal mediation

Per this suggestion from Paul Siebert, I am proposing that the group of editors actively involved on this talk page participate in, support, or at least not oppose, a formal mediation of the dispute surrounding the first sentence of the lead. Edit-warring over this sentence was the immediate cause of the sanctions being imposed and discussion on this talk page has not yet resolved this disagreement. If mediation can help us to resolve this, then we may be able to reduce or eliminate the sanctions on this article and get back to a more normal situation. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Gladly support --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but I strongly believe that the article needs a NPOV tag (or some custom tag, if agreement can be reached on one) as long as it remains protected due to a content dispute (as per my argument above). -- Amerul (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would accept it, but doubt it would be productive. TFD (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Since I share TFD's skepticism, a question occurred to me: Is there any precedent on the English Wikipedia for an article where good-faith editors simply cannot reach consensus, no matter how hard they try? Or in other words, do we have other examples of permanently disputed articles? If yes, what was done about them? If no, then perhaps we need to set a new precedent and even think of a new policy to handle such cases. Current Wikipedia policy rests on the assumption that good-faith editors can always reach consensus eventually, perhaps with the aid of moderation or arbitration. We should consider the possibility that, in certain rare cases, consensus is impossible despite honest attempts by all parties to reach it. I'm not sure what the policy should be in such cases, but, now that we know that this article is a highly unusual case, perhaps we should start thinking of highly unusual solutions. (as it stands, we have picked the de facto solution of choosing an arbitrary version of the article and locking it in place forever - this is certainly a "highly unusual" solution, but I don't think it's a good one) -- Amerul (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that article is all that bad, after all the most vocal participant here[4] is also the second highest contributor to the article[5] --Nug (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, although I doubt that even formal mediation can survive the extreme likelyhood that a number of editors will object. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  If the "formal edit proposal" above reaches a consensus, it should be implemented, even if the article were under mediation. Mediation does not mean the article is frozen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I doubt it would work, after all Smallbones suggested a way forward here, but its been ignored. Given that drafting such an "Estimates" section would take a lot less time and effort than formal mediation, one has to wonder whether sufficient good faith exists for such mediation to be successful. --Nug (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  Smallbones suggested an unreasonable way forward. The lead is wrong (doesn't reflect the sources or the body), and he/she wants to retain it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it unreasonable Arthur? The article needs an "Estimates" section and the outcome of that will steer the figure reported in the lede. I don't see how you can reasonable believe that mediation will work if you cannot make a good faithed effort at writing up such a section first. --Nug (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Noone denies that the article needs in such a section. However, that is not a reason for the policy violating content to stay. Your attempt to connect these two things together goes against the policy and is disruptive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm frankly tired of people who make up policy out of whole cloth and people who call me unreasonable for no reason. He/she or it should apologize or identify exactly what POLICY is violated by "Please write up your section on estimates and we can discuss including it." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Your violation has already been identified. You object against immediate removal of the text that presents seriously challenged opinion as fact. This is a violation of our content policy, and every reasonable person has to agree that that violation must be fixed immediately and unconditionally. Moreover, that that has already been explained to you here. Form your responce I conclude that you at least partially read this explanation. That means that you either are not able to understand our core content policies, or that you are acting in bad faith. Again, the statement that violates the policy must be removed immediately and unconditionally, and after that we can start to write, calmly and soberly, the "estimates" section. BTW, you seem to totally ignore the fact that I already proposed the sentence that may serve as a seed of that section. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pure bluster. Identify some other estimate before saying the estimate (clearly identified in our text as an estimate) from a clearly reliable source is a questionable opinion. You are just making up your "Policy". I'm very tired of your personal attacks and the rest of your wall of text nonsense. Put up or shut up. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You again demonstrate complete misunderstanding of the policy. Nothing in the policy says that the material that violates policy should stay unless some better material will be available. Moreover, no evidences have been presented by you that some universally accepted estimates exist at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact:the Black Book, published by the Harvard University Press, is a reliable source according to WP:RS and its estimates are presented as estimates in our article. You are pounding the table about getting "universally accepted estimates." What policy are you talking about? Don't make up policy. Cut out the repeated nonsense or you will get no respect on Wikipedia. If you have some other estimates that you think should be presented, please write them up, and if they are from reliable sources, we can include them. Anything less at this point is just intentional disruption. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Fact: the opinion expressed in the introduction to the Black Book has been seriously challenged. You repeatedly demonstrate your inability to understand that the references to WP:V do not work when WP:NPOV has been violated. That fact has already been repeatedly explained to you, not only by me. Your refusal to accept this explanation means that you either are not qualified to participate in this dispute or you are acting in bad faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Which part of WP:V? Chapter and verse, please. WP:Questionable Sources obviously doesn't apply. It addresses websites and similar. Quit trying to make up policy as you go along. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to exhaust my patience, you will not succeed. Where did I write that WP:V has been violated? --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) WP:QS obviously does apply. It applies to fringe journals, as well as fringe books. The Black Book is obviously a fringe position, especially when the introduction is not only contradicted, but explictly attacked, in two of the essays in the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Got a source that states the Black Book is fringe, or do you just WP:KNOW it is "obviously a fringe position"? --Nug (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, scholars do not use the term "fringe". The introduction caused enormous controversy, and the figures we are talking about do not reflect even the opinion of the BB contributors themselves (for source, see this talk page; it has already been presented here). That is enough to say that, even if the introduction does not fail WP:V, it definitely fails WP:YESPOV.

I have a strong feeling that we deal with a typical refusal to get a point. Did I understand correctly that the proposal for mediation has been ignored by both of you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

More making up policy as you go along WP:YESPOV, and WP:NPOV in general refer to making all POVs available in the text. You are trying to use it to remove an estimate from a reliable source and you explicitly refuse to include other estimates. This is exactly a case of refusal to get a point. You've brought up your contention that Black Book is not a reliable source a multitude of times - and been turned down flat on it every time. Time for you to read WP:RS and get over the fact that you cannot remove the Black Book from this article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

"...and WP:NPOV in general refer to making all POVs available in the text, ..." fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias.... As I have demonstrated, Courtois failed to present fairly even the views of his co-authors.

In addition, how can you speak about fair representation of the sources when you are unable to present fairly even the views of your peers? Where did I say that the BB should be removed from the article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(od)[6] shows you reducing the deaths to "tens of millions" whereas the body of the article clearly supports the higher ranges. [7] shows your earlier reduction to simply "millions." Not supported by the body of the article. We know you consider 38 executions in the US in 2008 to be a huge number [8] (massively practiced in the US) , but when you say in an edit summary NKVD special camps was not a place where people were being killed in purpose, one might consider that edit to be interesting. [9]. [10] shows you making a direct edit abut the BBoC, which was, alas, a misrepresentation of the source. [11] shows your removal of the BBoC. I fear also you are injecting your own opinions into discussions This is the most controversial and least reliable part of it, and it is little bit odd to see how people try to use Werth's name to add credibility to Courtois' bullshit. [12] For some foolish reason, I consider removal of a source to indicate that the editor wishes to remove that source. YMMV. Collect (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, why then don't you volunteer to participate in this mediation and get some lasting resolution on this issue? If we limit the mediation to just two people acting as representatives for the for and against camps here, this could be resolved in a week or two. It has been more than a year now. Don't you think that would be worth it? AmateurEditor (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The only policy that requires removal of content "immediately and unconditionally" is WP:BLP. Why the reluctance on drafting a "Estimates" section first? --Nug (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reluctance. The problem is that removal of the policy violating material is not a subject of negotiations or concessions. Does the statement we discuss violates the policy? Yes. Then it should be removed. Full stop (by agreeing to remove this text you do not do any favour to us, you are just doing what every good faith user is supposed to do). And then we can start to think about additions of the estimates to the article's body.

In addition, you seem to repeatedly ignore the fact that I am the sole person who has proposed some piece of text that may give a start to the work on the "estimate" section. In light of that, your accusations in reluctance look somewhat hypocritical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support mediation as a productive suggestion in the current situation. Not sure I want to be heavily involved, but always happy to offer support for those who want to proceed forward. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. it seems that no matter how reasonable or minor a suggestion is, nothing changes. Perhaps mediation could help, or at worst, nothing continues to happen... or not happen.AnieHall (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the proposer of this mediation. I strongly suggest that, if this does happen, we help ourselves by restricting direct participation to just two people with the rest of us giving advice on those representatives' talk pages. Smallbones and Paul Siebert seem to have the sharpest disagreement over this issue, so I would recommend that they be the two to participate. Paul Siebert supports the mediation proposal, but Smallbones has yet to do so. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So let's be clear what you are asking mediation for: Paul Siebert's demand that the estimate be "immediately and unconditionally" removed from the lede vs. Smallbones' proposal that an "Estimates" section be drafted first and then the estimate in the lede be modified in light of the new section. --Nug (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am asking that those two act in a formal mediation as representatives for their respective camps on the issue of the use of Courtois' estimate in the article. I think this is only worth doing if all of the active editors here can respect the outcome (without having the madhouse situation of a dozen slightly different opinions shouting at each other in mediation). I don't think it gets us very far to resolve just those two specific positions, although I am sure that they will be raised. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that correctly characterises the dispute. I don't see Smallbones necessarily objecting to the removal of Courtois' estimate, if it is substituted by some other estimate, and he proposed the drafting of an "Estimates" section to that end. --Nug (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How would you characterize the dispute? AmateurEditor (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it was a dispute between those who want to remove an estimate from the lede "immediately and unconditionally" and those who want some kind of estimate in the lede backed up by an Estimates section. Given that mediation is a lengthy process, I don't see how the "immediate removal" can be achieved, and given that mediation involves compromise on both sides I don't see how that the removal can be "unconditional" either. At the end of the day the mediator may well suggest an "Estimates" section be written in which case an estimate will be in the lede anyway, what then? --Nug (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Let those interested in "immediate and unconditional" removal worry about the length of mediation (which need not be too long if we use representatives). Let's not assume what the outcome of the mediation will be. It may very well be that you get just about everything that you want. Maybe most of it. Maybe just some. Can you live with those possibilities? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see that editorial behavior here or in related topic areas bodes for any chance of success of mediation. We will simply waste huge amounts of time rehashing the same discussions that have already occurred here. If editors wish to come to consensus to change/improve content, that does not require mediation, only an absence of accusations. @Paul Siebert, specifically, accusations against other editors such as "that is not a reason for the policy violating content to stay" which constitute personal attacks alleging editors are dealing in gross bad faith indicate to me you have no interest in accommodation of anything you oppose. You see policy violation anywhere editorial opinion disagrees with you and see mediation as just another forum to press for your POV. (Need I remind you of your mind-numbing time-devouring rehash of your position on the Soviet occupation or not of the Baltic states at a simple article rename?) Therefore I cannot support mediation here as I see no practical reason to fork the discussion here into a formal proceeding which will only confirm what editors have already contended. Mediation is not an opportunity for editors to push their POV with a "neutral" (i.e., well meaning but to be involved also totally uninformed of the topic and its nuances and associated agendas) parties hoping for a better outcome than achieved at talk. That is not an "attack," that is a simple recognition of the empirical fact that uninformed mediators have cause more damage to content than they have solved. This began as a comment, however, on reflection, I see no purpose to proceedings which will only amplify editorial recriminations. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Are you claiming that the "estimate" in the lead does not violate policy? If so, what is your evidence?

  There is a clear consensus at RSN that the "Black Book" is not a reliable source in itself, and the reliablity of the articles depend on the reputation of the authors. Including, as fact, estimates disputed within the Black Book itself, is a clear violation of WP:VERIFY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  First of all, I did not see any serious discussion and consensus about this book on RSN. Secondly, all estimates of that kind are disputable and controversial. That's why we must provide range of numbers per multiple RS, including this book, estimates by Rummel, and whatever else was written by academic researchers. Only that solution would be in agreement with NPOV and RS policies. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a book, but a collection of loosely connected chapters, and we discuss not the book itself, but the introduction. The fact that Werth's chapter is highly commended does not make Courtois reliable. A wast amount of sources say it is controversial and even contradicts to what other authors of the BB say. You are perfectly aware of that, because you participated in previous discussions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, personal attacks are "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". Do you negate the fact that you, Nug, Smallbones and Collect resist to removal of the seriously challenged opinion, which is presented as the fact? I presented the evidence that demonstrates that the text you support has been seriously challenged by another reliable source, so this statement does not belong to the lede in this form. You provided no counterarguments but references to WP:V, which is not a counterargument at all, because the three content policy act in concert, and are unseparable from each other: if some statement meets WP:V, but fails WP:NPOV, it still violates our policy. Nevertheless, you refuse to agree to remove this statement and require some concession (as if you are doing personal favour to us). It is a direct violation of our policy, and, since my statement is fully supported by serious evidences, we cannot speak about personal attacks from my side.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, (my perception) every time you present evidence anywhere you insist it settles content in favor of your editorial contentions and those who dispute from that moment forward violate some WP policy. Your response here, being combative and confrontational, and lacking any thoughtfulness or introspection (again, my perception) validates my personal litmus test that mediation here, at the moment, will only cause a rehash and hardening of positions, to no benefit to any editor's position or to the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That my opponents violate our policy is a problem of my opponents, not mine.

I am not qualified to judge if my arguments are combative or not, however, accusations in the lack of thoughtfulness can be easily checked. Please, point at logical fallacies in my posts, and I'll apologise for being stupid.

However, if you have nothing to present, please retract your personal attacks. Your perception has zero weight when it is not supported by strong arguments and reliable sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, your tiresome and baseless accusations of personal attacks appear to support my purely empirical observation that mediation is pointless at the moment. Gratias tibi. Quod erat demonstrandum. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you characterised my posts as "lacking any thoughtfulness or introspection" (your own wording). This can be considered as an accusation in misbehaviour, and this accusation needs to be supported with adequate evidence. Your failure to provide such evidence automatically makes it a personal attack. Secondly, in response to my request to provide evidence you accused me in "baseless accusations of personal attacks". This is a second accusation in personal behaviour, which is also unsupported with any evidence. Therefore, it is a second personal attack. And in this situation you dare to clam that the problem is on my side??!--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. After looking at numerous discussions above, clearly, there is no consensus to change lede. This is fine. Nothing special. Neither I can see any policy problems. Referencing to an academic book written by professional researchers and published by Harvard University Press is fine. Please bring other RS of similar quality on the subject if you want to NPOV. No one will object to modify text per additional sources. But if you can not bring and use more sources, I do not see any problems with NPOV.My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Biophys, do you reject the fact that the statement made by Courtois in his introuction to the Black Book has been seriously challenged (the source and the quote is available on this talk page)? Do you negate the fact that the introduction as whole is a subject of major controvercy (see the same source)? If "yes", please, provide your evidence (not speculations). If you are not able to provide your evidence, how can you claim there is no violation of the policy? Although there is nothing remotely resempling consensus on this talk page (a brief look at the comments demonstrates that your statement is blatant false), local user consensus rannot have precedence over our content policy, so even in the case of consensus the contested material could not stay in the article in its present form. Not only your statement is false, it is a direct violation of our policy.

You request for the source of similar quality, however, several sources have already been provided during this discussion. You should read the discussion more carefully and avoid posting anything that can inflict accusations in filibustering on you.

Remember, this thread is not about that, but about formal mediation. Do you have anything to say about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As a participant, I'm not "qualified" to comment on the consensus. However, I see at least a supermajority, if not a clear consensus, in favor of the specific change, above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, It is not clear to me that there is no consensus for changing the lead per my earlier compromise proposal. As recommended by the sanctions procedures at the top of this talk page, I have posted a request at ANI asking an uninvolved admin to determine whether or not rough consensus exists there. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, the most correct way to do so is the {{edit protected}} template. See WP:edit requests for details. In addition, to avoid possible misunderstanding, let me explain again that I do support your compromise proposal. However, since no clearly articulated counter arguments have been put forward in support of the disputable statement in the lede (the thesis that the BB was published by Harvard does not work, because we have an internal conflict between the BB authors), it should be removed as soon as possible. Since the opponents of the removal didn't bother to propose any text for possible "estimates" section (ironically, I am the only person who proposed a concrete piece of text so far), their failure to do so cannot be a reason to tolerate non-neutral text in the lede. I believe removal of this statement would be an additional argument for writing the estimate section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, That template is for requesting edits where consensus has already been determined (as can be read in the fine print of the template itself in the link you provided). I am asking instead for a determination to be made on consensus, rather than for an edit to be made. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. That is how the last edit to this article had been done.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Werth supports the 65 million deaths in China alone - thus the lower bound for the range should be, as it stands, 65 million for China separately. Unless, of course, you disavow Werth? Adding in the 12 million for the USSR, and about 6 million others - we get a conservative lower bound for all together of 83 million -- assuming only the lowest figures are used. Thus the minimum range we should use is about 83 million - and we need not state an upper bound as that is where you seem to be adamant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you propose to engage in original research? In addition, I saw no evidences that Werth characterised mass mortality in China as mass killings... --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now you simply parse "tons of people dying due to the government" as not being "mass killings" again? I thought that had been well and truly disposed of in the past dozen sdiscussions here <g>. Collect (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

As Michael Ellman argued (in the case of the USSR), that is a matter of political judgement. Did Volga famine cause death of several million people? Yes. Were all the victims of Volga famine killed by Communists? Obviously not: it was a result of the Civil war, and the Bolsheviks only partially responsible for it. Did Courtois include all Volga famine victims into the Communist death toll? Yes (p. 9). Similarly, did the Great Leap forward famine kill 20-30 million people (I, as well as many reputable authors, do not include unborn infants into the total death toll)? Yes. Were they killed by Communists? Hard to tell. Various authors argued that large scale famines were usual in desperately poor China, so the GLF famine was not something outstanding. Yes, Mao can be accused in risky experiments (like communal kitchens), in the lack of flexibility, in brutality, but, again, all of that hardly fits the term "mass killing". Were ca 1 million people in Angola killed during the civil war? Yes. Were all those deaths a result of Communist mass killings? For the answer see Aronson (above). Does BB ascribe all those death to Communists? Yes.

In other words, whereas the fact of deaths is impossible to deny, the question if they were "mass killings" is a matter of judgement. Therefore, the figures are unseparable from judgement, hence they should be placed in a separate section, along with necessary explanations. No separate figures can be presented in the lede as intrinsically misleading.

However, I think we came to a logical end. Would it be correct to summarise this section as follows:

The proponents of the first sentence of the lede in its present form rejected mediation.

Am I right, or I missed something?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

list of claims linking communism and mass killings

• The following sentence has little if anything to do with the subject heading:

"Daniel Goldhagen,[35] Richard Pipes,[36] and John N. Gray[37] have written about theories regarding the role of communism in books for a popular audience."

Or this sentence doesn't accurately describe what the content of these works is. Or is this section just a collection of sources for "theories regarding the role of communism"? I propose to delete this sentence, or if someone has a suggestion for amendment that makes it relevant, then I would support that.AnieHall (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, that section was in response to some editors' assertion that no link was made in any sources between the communist ideology and mass killing. It is vague, but I read the sentence as saying (in contradiction of that assertion) that these three sources do in fact assert that communist ideology had a role in the killings. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct. However, neutrality requires us to list society-specific studies that discuss those deaths in historical context. Thus, ultra-radical Maoist ideology was just one factor (along with extreme nationalism and centuries long revenge traditions) that caused Cambodian genocide. In any event, this section, as well as many others, require major rewrite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If these three sources do in fact contain an explanation for the relationship between communist regimes and mass killings, shouldn't that explanation be iterated? All it states as they have written about "the role of communism". What about the role of communism? AnieHall (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• On another note, has anyone actually looked at the original source this:

"In The Lost Literature of Socialism, literary historian George Watson saw socialism as conservative, a reaction against liberalism and an attempt to return to antiquity and hierarchy. He states that the writings of Friedrich Engels and others show that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."[33] Watson's claims have been criticised by Robert Grant for "dubious evidence", arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is ... at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question."[34]"

--the citation links to the book and the page... and in the book, there aren't even citations for the claims made (no footnotes, no endnotes, no bibliography, etc (there are a few citations throughout the work, but none for this section, that is quoted)). It's more or less laughable (in my opinion more). Are there any reviews of this work that are reliable that don't smash it to smithereens? Or is it acceptable for this page to use authors who don't even cite their controversial and unusual claims within their own work?AnieHall (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS. If you feel the book fails that policy, then ask at WP:RS/N. Clue" There is no requirement that a cited book have footnotes etc. So go to RS/N - the arguments you give here do not seem to apply. Collect (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Various cleanup

I've just made a series of edits to simplify the wording and clean up the grammar of this article. All of my edits were meant to fall under the definition of WP:MINOR (including the one that I forgot to mark as minor), with no changes in wording or meaning being intended. If you find such a change, feel free to revert me; I'll be surprised and perhaps confused, but I won't object that you've violated the sanctions. I've found a few things that need repair that can't be done by a minor edit, so I've created a subsection for each one with a proposed change. Since this is purely for housekeeping purposes, please limit your comments to clarifications of the current wording; it won't help if we get bogged down in discussing whether the existing content and themes should remain. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is fully protected, how can we revert you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely admins watch this page also? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

When admins start to modify context they are not deemed uninvolved any more. Therefore, they have no more rights then other users do. If your changes are minor per Sandstein's sanctions (see talk page's top) feel free to implement them. Otherwise, the Sandstein's procedure must be observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but your words sounded as if you meant "it's not possible to revert you". I'm not asking to implement any non-minor changes, except for the ones that I've listed in subsections of this section. You'll note that I directly addressed the sanctions at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that we have no physical possibility to revert you; in that situation we will need a help from some admin. You are an admin, therefore it would be logical to address to you directly. In other words, if you believe the change is minor (per Sandstein), feel free to implement it. If you believe the change is minor, but I (or someone else) believe it is not, please, self-revert after someone posted his objection, and let's discuss it. That is how I see it.

In any event, thank you for attempting to do at list anything with this highly problematic article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand you: what do you mean by "do at list anything"? Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant that, although cleanup in this situation does resemble rearranging chairs on the Titanic's desk, it nevertheless is better then nothing, and, probably, may give an impetus to more serious improvements. Please, continue that work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the content is so non-neutral that fixing grammar is hardly the most urgent task. I would say, poor grammar is a signal for a reader that something is wrong with the article. I would prefer to discuss neutrality issues first. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

By writing that, I by no means refuse to participate in fixing ambiguities. However, since that is by no means minor edits, we again need consensus to fix them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the longstanding disputes with which this page is involved, we might as well do a little housekeeping. It's hardly a matter of rearranging Titanic's deck chairs. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to focus on fixing WP:V/WP:NPOV issues instead. However, I'll try to provided all help I can if needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

People's Republic of China chunk

"Based on the Soviets' experience, Mao considered violence necessary to achieve an ideal society derived from Marxism and planned and executed violence on a grand scale."

What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean "Mao considered...Marxism, and Mao planned...", or does it mean "Mao considered...Marxism and from violence that had been planned and executed on a grand scale"? Rewording an ambiguous statement either way would not be a minor edit, completely aside from the fact that I might misrepresent the sources thereby. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

p. 344, Worse than War, Goldhagen "For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. therefore the intention to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystalizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists' victory over the nationalists and assumption of power neared." [13] Your "Mao considered...Marxism, and Mao planned..." seems to capture it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to make sense of this article. It isn't supposed to make sense. It is supposed to tell you how to think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, how am I supposed to know how to think if I can't understand what it's trying to tell me? Ambiguity is a problem, no matter your POV and your opinion of what the article is doing. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, on page 344, Goldhagen says that Mao was inspired with ideas of Marxism, and he learned from the Soviet experience that violence is necessary to implement desirable social transformations. As a result, he came to understanding of the necessity of violence earlier then his Soviet predecessors did.

However, the problem with this text is more serious. The text takes historical events out of context, it totally ignores the fact that mass violence and killing was centuries long practice in authoritarian China. The example of correct and historical approach demonstrates Nicolas Werth (in his chapter about Russia), who saw roots of violence not only in Marxism, but in brutality of the First World War, inconsequent land reform, etc, which were exacerbated by cardinal social reformations of Communists. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Paul, as usual.AnieHall (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So neither of my proposed solutions reflects the source accurately? Meanwhile, I'm requesting that we not discuss content issues in this section, simply so that we can concentrate on cleaning up the wording and the grammar without distraction. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You may try to rephrase what I wrote. I hope I transmitted Goldhagen's thought correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If this text has been taken out of context, is it still acceptable? Perhaps context should be added, to reduce perceived bias.AnieHall (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a separate question, because it is not a minor edit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Vietnam

"launched a land reform" sounds rather awkward; is the insertion of "program" (or "programme", depending on how WP:ENGVAR is applied here), or another noun, acceptable to everyone? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

launched a land reform sounds more accurate. I think remaining as accurate as possible in this article is important. Perhaps "enacted a land reform programme" or some other less awkward noun verb to replace "launched", or keep launched and just add programme?AnieHall (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I've never heard "reform" used as a noun by itself. "Reforms" I've heard, and "reform" as an adjective is common, but "a reform" is a new usage for me. What about "started" instead of "enacted"? Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I was able to find the examples for "started the land reform", "enacted" sounds better [14].--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But you enact laws, not programs. I looked at the bold text shown in all of the results of the first two pages of your search; except for one of them, all referred to the enactment of land reform decrees, acts, codes, etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think "launched a land reform program" is best. "Launched land reforms" also works. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. except, i think it is correct to write "programme", as program generally refers to a computer program. Or has American English excluded the varient programme? If that is the case, then if the article uses American spelling, should probably be consistent... I guess.AnieHall (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Program" is the only spelling seen in American English. I didn't check (and don't remember from a cursory reading) to see the spelling typically used here. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, American English spells it "program". The UK has only accepted that spelling when it refers to computers. In other places, both spellings are used. TFD (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Would anyone object to the removal of the link to "Soviet" at the end of the section? It seems rather pointless so far down in the article; if we already link "Soviet" higher up in the article, it will be a violation of WP:OVERLINK, and if we don't already link it, we need to move the link. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've looked over the whole article at once, I'd like simply to remove it: it redirects to Soviet Union, which gets a link in the intro and in the section dedicated to the USSR. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal prosecution

"On July 26, 2010, Kang Kek Iew (aka Comrade Duch), director of the S-21 prison camp in Democratic Kampuchea where more than 14,000 people were tortured and then murdered (mostly at nearby Choeung Ek), was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 35 years."

This sentence is way too long, due to the massive parenthetical section, but I can't figure out how to split it without going beyond the pale of a minor edit. Anyone care to propose a solution? Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it's not in parentheses; I meant the chunk from "director" to "Ek". See how long and potentially confusing it is: you can easily misread it when looking at the code. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How about splitting it this way: "On July 26, 2010, Kang Kek Iew, also known as Comrade Duch, was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 35 years. "Kang Kek Iew was director of the S-21 prison camp in Democratic Kampuchea, where more than 14,000 people were tortured and then murdered (mostly at nearby Choeung Ek)." AmateurEditor (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to explain the facts on which he was convicted. The implication is that he was convicted of crimes against humanity for his reponsibility for the deaths of 14,000 people, but it is not clear. TFD (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, AE, and I don't see it as changing the wording in any way. TFD, please note my comment at the start of this section — I'm asking for content issues to be ignored here so that we can focus on streamlining the existing wording. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Try fixing the content first, then it will be simple to break it into two sentences. The sentence is awkward because there is no connection between the subject's conviction and the events at the camp. TFD (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

• Blyth, S. (1995). The Dead of the Gulag: an Experiment in Statistical Investigation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 44, 307-21.

This should be added; it is also a nice exercise in Bayesian statistics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And its result is 9.7 million to 16.7 million deaths due to Gulag alone with a 95% probability. Neat stuff, and not polemic. Collect (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know this work. The problem with this work is that even a sophisticated statistics cannot give more then the initial data set contains. However, the data used by Blyth are obsolete. Thus, the article says:

"Conquest's estimates were a minimum of 2 million-2.5 million deaths in Kolyma (Conquest (1978), p. 228), 15.5 million camp deaths in total under Stalin, 1 million executions and 3.5 million deaths as a result of collectivization. All were minimal estimates and may require a 500/ increase (Conquest (1968), p. 533)."

However, this is the views of Conquest in 1968. In contrast, in his recent work Conquest says:

"We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures" (Robert Conquest. Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319)

In other words, Conquest now agrees that intake to Gulag was smaller than his early estimates of mortality. (Regarding colonies, they were intended for the prisoners who served short terms, shorted then 2-3 years; they were run by local administration, and most their inmates survived, so they do not add much to the mortality statistisc) He generally agrees with validity of new data of Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov (1993), although the scholars generally disagree with the their estimate of death: mortality was higher, and probably amounted 2 million.

The same can be said about other authors. I saw no references in this article to the sources published after Perestroyka, when wast amount of archival data became available, which forced most scholars to re-consider their views. Meanwhile, Blyth uses Dallin&Nikolaevsky (1947), who in actuality just published the figures of Mora & Zwiernag(1945)(15 million GULAG population in 1940-42), however, he ignored Jasny (1951) (3.5 million) or Timasheff (1948)(2.3 million). However, the fact that most of the early authors who remain active now did reconsider their views on the scale of mortality in the USSR downwards.

My conclusion is that we need a "History" section, similar to what we have in the GULAG article, where we could explain how the views of scholars on the scale of MKuCR developed. Blyth's article does belong to this section. BTW we can give there a credit to Rummel, who was among the first authors who drew attention to high mortality in Mao's China.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1995 is later than 1993, Paul. And after the era of perestroika. You want other Gulag death estimates? [15] per Soviet sources - 7 million outright executions. Or a 2010 book - its that sufficiently after 1991 to meet your cavils? Stalin's Genocides By Norman M Naimark, Princeton University Press. there can also no longer be any question that Stalin was fully responsible for the mass killing during this period and knew the details of all of the major actions involved. Ukrainian economic historian Stanislav Kulchytsky estimates that between 3 and 3.5 million people died of starvation and disease (from malnutrition) in the republic itself, but that the total demographic losses, including famine-derived decrease in fertility, was between 4.5 and 4.8 million. alone. Routledge Dictionary of the Politics of China states Although 1958 saw a very large harvest, waste and poor management exacerbated the natural disasters of the following three years, with estimates that famine and malnutrition resulted in 20 million to 30 million deaths. "Large harvest" != major crop failure. Need more cites for the numbers, Paul? I note that 1995 was too early by your standards. And your blanket assertion that "most authors" revised their esitmates downwards is not supported as far as I can tell by actual reliable sources - it seems you "know" stuff which ain't in the books. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please read my posts carefully? I wrote the Blyth article does not use the sources published after 1986, the only exception is Rummel, however he always reproduces his old estimates. Maybe, the poor choice of the data set is a reason why Blyth was totally ignored by scholarly community: just two references, one in the US military research paper, another in Russian master thesis.

Regarding, executions in Gulag, read the Black Book of Communism (not Courthois' bs, but a really good Werth's chapter). Ellman gives about 12 million repression (of whom at least 3-3.5 million were fatal)(Ellman, Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172), and we have no reason for not trusting him.

Re Parrish, the author describes his book as ""the first major study based on Soviet documents and revelations of the Soviet state security during the period 1939-1953." Unfortunately, it is not. And, despite claims that the book "documents the role of Stalin... in massive crimes carried out during this period," while providing "the first detailed biography of V.S. Abakumov, Minister of State Security, 1946-1951," it does none of these things." (Lesley A. Rimmel. The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953 by Michael Parrish. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 40, No. 1/2 (MARCH-JUNE1998), pp. 174-178)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Naimark, whereas the fact that Stalin was responsible for mass killings, it is not clear from the quote provided by you, which period did Naimark mean.

Re China, yes, you give the same figures as I presented yesterday. However, and the sources had already been provided on this page, many serious famine scholars describe those deaths in other terms than "mass killings". If you don't want the talk page to turn into the walls of text, do not reproduce the arguments that have already been addressed (with sources and quotes).

My assertion that "most authors" revised their estimates downwards was about the USSR: Werth, Wheatcroft, Conquest, Rosefielde, - is it enough? If you believe Ellman, who summarised the views of most of those authors (just look at the list of the references), is biased or non-qualified, feel free to go to RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Again - you seem to think that a total deaths in the USSR was only 3 to 3.5 million. Which is less than the documented toll from the one famine alone in Ukraine. So much for that argument. Blyth was a highly specialised study - so the fact that the main cite for him was in a 2010 Russian article that details findings on the Gulags is significantly in its favour, not to its discredit. On one single day, 12 November 1938, Stalin and Molotov ordered 3,167 persons to be shot per Stalinism: Russian and Western Views at the Turn of the Millennium By Alter Litvin, John Keep' Routledge 2004. Using released Soviet documents, of course.

And:

Yakovlev estimates that during the Soviet era the total number of people who lost their lives for political reasons (that is, executed plus deaths in camps or prisons) was somewhere between 20 and 25 million (in the USSR alone). This figure includes the victims of successive famines: over 5.5 million during or just after the 1918-21 civil war plus over 5 million in the 1930s. The Soviet penal system, he notes, inflicted suffering on such a vast scale that it is hard to grasp. In the RSFSR alone, the total number of individuals convicted between 1923 and 1953 was in excess of 41 million. (This figure includes those sentenced for common crimes as well as, for example, workers who were put behind bars for being late or collective farmers who failed to earn enough 'labour days' in the 'socialist sector'.) Yakovlev uses the term genocide for these excess deaths and indicts the CPSU élite as primarily responsible: the top leaders like Stalin and Molotov and senior police or judicial functionaries (N.I. Yezhov, L.P. Beria, A. Ya. Vyshinsky, V.V. Ul'rikh). 2 Exactly why Stalin destroyed millions of innocent lives cannot be explained satisfactorily. As well as simple hatred of actual or potential enemies, and sheer love of power, 'an incomprehensible, mystical and devilishly sadistic element is involved'

Is Yakovlev unreliable? I daresay he is notable enough, and wrote after "perestroika" as you seem to think is a dividing line for reliablity. Seems Yale University is a reliable source publisher, I would think. A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia Alexander N. Yakovlev; Yale University Press, Sep 10, 2002 is cited by a bunch of later authors. As he was heavily involved in "perestroika" I would hope you would readily accept his figures from the inside of the Soviet establishment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I don't believe my English is so poor that my posts can be so blatantly misunderstood. I cited Ellman (I believe you have no objections against usage of this source?) who states that the number of fatal repression victims was at least 3-3.5 million: executed by NKVD, in GULAG camps and in exile. Did I include famine death to those numbers? Please, quote my post where I did that.

Re Yakovlev, Ellman (op. cit.) writes:

"According to A.N. Yakovlev, speaking in November 1999 and placing his remarks in an openly political context, a recently unearthed document stated that the number arrested for political crimes in 1921-53 was actually approximately 8,000,000."

In any event, since Yakovlev is among the authors cited by Ellman, I have no doubts that that reputable scholar took into account Yakovlev's opinion in his estimates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Soviet deaths statistics is a highly controversial matter. This is because Soviet KGB/NKVD archives were never opened to researchers, contrary to claims above, and a lot of documents have been destroyed to hide the tracks. Even Lev Ponomaryov's commission, which was officially authorized by the Russian government in the beginning of 1990s, was denied accesses and quickly disbanded, as described in the book on KGB history by Yevgenia Albats who was another member of this commission. Some historians believe that data by Zemskov (quoted here by Paul) were a KGB disinformation, as noted in this review. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Professional historians usually deal with incomplete and distorted information. The ability to draw correct conclusions from such information is the standard professional skill of a good historian (similarly to the ability of physicists to extract correct information from noisy data). In any event, did I understand you correct that you imply that, since full information is unavailable, the actual scale of killings was much higher? If yes, please, explain me why this simple conclusion didn't come to mind of professional historians cited by me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where this is explicitly connected to communism. prison camps existed in Russia before the Soviet Union, and the exist now. Dostoevsky was famously sent to Siberia, where he was sadistically sent to a mock execution - point being, executions and dying in the gulag system has little to do with communism, and more to do with the history of russia. Does this mean that the neoliberal regime is at fault for the executions and prison deaths that occur in the united states? Maybe, but unless a source states that it is, it is my understanding that it should not be included here.AnieHall (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

AnieHall, it was. More correctly, it was connected to the political repressions as a consequence of overall brutality of the Russian Civil war, and subsequent Stalin's program for consolidation of power in his hands. However, you are partially right, all those events must be discusses in their historical context (what Werth is doing, btw).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The paper is summarized in Bayesian Methods, pp. 58-62 as Example 2.5.[16] It is an interesting approach to the subject, but I would like to see a source explaining the degree of acceptance of the findings among mass killings experts before including it. Notice that the author averages estimates from 1965, 1973, 1978 and 1989. It would be interesting to compare his findings with current estimates. TFD (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The source cited by you correctly says that is the best estimate based on the sources used. However, since the used sources were Cold war era sources, it would be correct to say that it reflects those times' views, not contemporary ones. With regard to acceptance, see above: gscholar gives two references on that work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

By 1989, the demise of the USSR was clearly going to happen -- dismissing them all as "Cold War sources" is absurd - they are the best sources available, and the analysis was not coloured by any POV of those doing the analysis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be totally unfamiliar with the subject you are talking about. Blyth used Rummel (which is nonsense, it blatantly contradicts to current consensus views); he uses Dallin&Nikolaevsky (1947), Lorimer (1946), Timasheff (1948), Solzhenitsyn (1973, the work is based on hearsay only); yes, he uses the works of such leading expect in the field as Conquest, Wheatcroft and Rosefielde, however, these works are earlier works of those authors. However, it is well known that these authors reconsidered their earlier views after "archival revolution" of 1990s. Just compare Rosefielde(1981, the work used by Blyth) with Rosefielde(1996), or Wheatcroft (1981) with Wheatcroft(1999). Definitely, although Blyth's work was published in 1995, it summarises obsolete views. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No it was not clear in 1989 that the Soviet Union was going to collapse. In any case, none of these scholars saw it. But the main problem with Cold War literature is that the writers did not have access to Communist nations' records. TFD (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing view, that. You mean no one seeing the many revolutions in Eastern Europe dared to think the revolutions might hit at the core of the USSR? I assert that I and many others did so view the massive revolutions of 1989, and am dismayed that you apparently missed out on noticing them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum. Obviously, under "Cold war era sources" I meant the sources that reproduce old stereotypes and rely only on Cold war era data. I provided exhaustive evidences that in his study Blyth overlooked post-Cold war era writings that had a revolutionary effect on our vision of Gulag. Therefore, if we drop the (very unrealistic) hypothesis that some editors are trying to use Blyth's study for pushing their own POV, that study has just historical value for us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the experts cited here had Collect's foresight. TFD (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Was there a "Communist slaughter" in a vestibule in France? Was there a communist mass killing in 19th century France? According to a short story by an American woman that was published in 1891-1892, there was some sort of "Communist slaughter by the troops": 'Hush!' said Berthe reprovingly. During the the remainder of the service she could feel nothing but the fulness of content. As they came out into the struggling dawn of Christmas morning, through the vestibule that was a few years later to be the scene of the Communist slaughter by the troops, she saw Colonel Ludlow with a party of Americans. To her present exalted state of mind he was an interruption, a cloud. While bestowing on him a frosty little nod, she wondered at a certain indefinable shadow in his eyes, which, from a person privileged to bestow on her compassion, might have been interpreted into expressing that emotion. From "A Daughter of the South" by Mrs. Burton Harrison. In The Cosmopolitan: A Monthly Illustrated Magazine (1891-1892), pages 164-172. This is a work of fiction from an American magazine, so we can't cite it. But it proves that the communists were already known for slaughtering people by 1892. What was the "Communist slaughter" in the vestibule in France that the story is referring to? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Constance Harrison was referring to the slaughter of between 10 and 50 thousand Communards by French troops in 1871. If anyone wants to read her short story, it can be downloaded from the Internet Archive here. The term Communist was not clearly defined until the 20th century, when the first Communist parties were formed. TFD (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC) There is no indication that her story is referring to the Communards. Perhaps Mrs. Harrison is actually talking about killings by the Communards. She is referring to the scene of "the Communist slaughter by the troops." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Please don't bring up irrelevancies, otherwise it looks like pure provocation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC) The writer is referring to the "the Communist slaughter by the troops." This article is about communist slaughter. Perhaps the Communards engaged in mass killing; I am simply inquiring about it because that may be relevant to the content of this article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC) It is quite clear from the context what she means, government troops slaughtered "Communists". Read a few paragraphs later, "To have seen the society of Villa Bois Dormant at its best—before the siege of the Versailles troops in 1871". Harrison indicates where the story is set on p. 22: "drive along the Avenue de la Grande Armee, thence beyond the barrier to a villa boarding house, adjoining one of the chief gates of the Bois." That was the site of the government attack on the Communards, or as the Illustrated Universal History, p. 417, written several years later in 1878 phrased it, "On the night of the 15th of May [1871], the Communists were repulsed with heavy loss, in a sortie upon government troops in the Bois de Boulogne; and the Versaillists continued to fire around the ramparts from Port du Jour to Porte Maillot."[17] TFD (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Fine, thank you TFD. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formal Edit Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I've been asked to comment about how to proceed with respect to the unanswered request for an administrator to close this thread. I'm doing so myself. My opinion is that there is currently no consensus in favor of the proposed change.  Sandstein  18:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I propose that we change the first sentence of the lead from this:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million."

to this:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century."

and move the estimate to a new "Estimates" section in the form of the following sentence (with additional sentences relating to other estimates or critiques of this one to be added later by consensus on subsequent talk page edit proposals):

"In his introduction to the Black Book of Communism, Stéphane Courtois gives a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed." (The current citation for this would also be moved unchanged.)

There is no net change to the article in terms of adding or removing content already there, so that ought not be cause for objection, and I think it provides several improvements. Agreement on a relatively small change like this may serve as a trust-building exercise for editors here. The change would be a constructive first step toward building out a more complete picture of the variances between different sources on this issue, which will help us achieve a common understanding (none of us know everything we need to about this). It de-escalates the tension over the first sentence of the lead by reducing (perhaps temperarily, depending on later consensus) what some see an an unfair prominence for this particular estimate. It allows the lead to remain a section dedicated to only summarizing what is already in the body of the article. It facilitates an appropriate use of Courtois' intro by attributing the estimate to him in particular. It allows us to begin a much-needed section that has been missing. Please respond in the spirit of compromise and consensus building. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Support as a structural and stylistic improvement; this is not a content proposal and shouldn't raise discussion of content issues (in immediate connection to this edit proposal). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - feel free to write up your estimates section and we can look at that, but removing a well sourced estimate in favor of saying nothing in the lede is nonsense. Some folks have made it clear that they want nothing in the article, e.g. via 6 AfDs. If you write up a well sourced estimates section the lede will follow naturally from there. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea that all excess premature deaths under Communist regimes can be characterised as "mass killings" is not universally accepted. Therefore, to insist on addition of some number or range is hardly neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, do you think I am one of the people who "want nothing in the article"? I do want to write up a well sourced estimates section from which the lede will follow naturally: this will be the first step in that process. The lead is not the priority here, the article is the priority. I have tried proposing large and complex edits before. The get nit-picked to death because the impression given is that the change will be a final draft. Wikipedia does not - and never has - worked in the way these sanctions have been set up for this article. Wikipedia works by allowing people to work as much as possible in parallel, rather than truely collaborativly. I think this baby-step by baby-step approach to an estimates section is our best bet for approximating that under the current sanctions. Being a critic of this article does not mean one is acting in bad faith (and being for it does not necessarily mean one is acting in good faith either). One way to smoke out those who are acting in bad faith is to force them to go on record opposing very reasonable things. I have tried to make this proposal such a thing. Holding out for the impossible gives bad faith editors cover. There have been no substantive edits to this article under these sanctions. That is a bad thing because there is a lot left to do. Every day that passes more page viewers miss out on that never-added information. But having this estimate in an estimate section rather than the lead is not going to make anyone who is interested overlook it. And the lead will eventually have something in its place. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying that you made this proposal as a WP:Point. That comes very close to assuming bad faith. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not saying that, this is an honest proposal. I only mentioned good and bad faith because you said "Some folks have made it clear that they want nothing in the article, e.g. via 6 AfDs.", which is a pretty clear assumption of bad faith on your part against the pro-deletion editors who are still participating here (and I am not saying your assumption of bad faith is necessarily wrong; I just think it is no reason to oppose reasonable accommodation for well-grounded criticism of the article, because such accommodation will serve to marginalize those bad faith editors. It is important not to let such people polarize and paralyze disagreements between the good faith editors - hence my proposed compromise). I believe your position thus "gives cover to bad faith editors", not that you are acting in bad faith yourself. In fact, you and I have agreed on almost everything over the years here, which is why I so rarely talk to you. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. There is consensus that the source is not reliable. Even if it were reliable, the range should be extended to include the ranges presented by all reliable sources, and should not have a source in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I don't think you state the consensus correctly, though. Reliability is not inherent in a source because it is entirely contextual. A source is or is not reliable only for a specific cited statement, but even a personal blog post could be reliable source for the blogger's opinions. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. I also support the idea do add to the article a discussion of what various author see as mass killing (and what they do not see as such).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. An improvement. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Support The range is one provided by one writer and should not be represented as including everyone who has ever made an estimate. TFD (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, not one. Anticipating possible counter-arguments, I have to explain that Valentino made similar estimates, Rummel and Goldhagen also tried to combine total death toll under more or less common category. The problem is however, that under mass killings they saw quite different things, not what people usually see under this term. As a result, by providing just a number, or a range, we mislead a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I found a good source saying (the obvious) what most deaths were due to [18]. It makes a few other interesting points. The author of the chapter is this guy. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about attrition in the camps (as many studies demonstrate, GULAG had no demographic consequences), however, I agree about famine. By the way, a real specialist in famines, O'Grada, summarises his article about the Great Leap Forward famine (the deadliest Communist famine) as follows:

"in the case of China, it has been argued that more room should be made for the supply side factors stressed by Malthus. More historical context has been added by drawing attention to China’s relative poverty and the overlap between high excess mortality regions and those previously vulnerable to famine. The famine remains an outlier, but to an extent fits a pattern established by the mid-nineteenth century." (O'Grada. Economic History Review, 61, S1 (2008))

Note, although he does not deny the role of Communist authorities, who started risky experiments in the desperately poor country, which was constantly balancing at the brink of major famine, he uses no term as "mass killings". By citing the numbers from politically biased books we leave the opinia of serious scholars beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

comment Is the proposal to remove the Black Book estimate entirely? I know that's not what the proposal tries to say, but if that's not the case then where will it go? You need to write up the new estimates section, or just say outright that you want to remove the estimate (based on what?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The proposal has specific wording changes. I don't see how you could read that as removing the (introduction to the) Black Book estimate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, have you read the proposal you are commenting on? Of course, the "estimate" section should be written, however, removal of the biased and non-mainstream statement from the opening sentence of the lede is what our policy requires. Of course, we should start to work on this section immediately, but these are two independent things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, the proposal is not to remove the Black Book estimate from the article, only to move it from the lead (and even here perhaps only temporarily, depending on the outcome of building the estimates section). In fact, the proposal cements this estimate more firmly in the article by attributing it to Courtois himself, making its inclusion perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - seems pointless removing the estimate range from the lede if an "estimates" sections is going to be written, since a summary of that section would be needed anyway. However I support writing of the "estimates" section. --Nug (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This logic is flawed, because the "estimate" section will discuss the numbers in a context of what different authors see under "mass killings". Thus, many scholars estimate the Great Leap famine death toll in between 25 and 35 million, however, only few of them consider it to be "mass killings". In actuality, we have two separate questions: (i) how many peoples died prematurely (from all causes) under Communist regimes, and (ii) which of those deaths should be considered as "mass killings". By separating these two questions, we mislead a reader. (However, I recall, I already explained that to you).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nug, the point of moving this estimate from the lead to an estimates section is that this one estimate does not summarize the full range of estimates out there. It is one estimate of several, and so must be treated as such until we can determine by way of building an estimates section just how representative it is. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. It is obviously wrong to give an estimate of 100 million in the lede because this is a ridiculously low number. The late president of Poland Lech Kaczynski referred to tens of billions of victims (dziesiątek miliardów ludzi) in 2009 [19] (Translation: "He emphasized that communism was a 'genocidal system that led to the murder of tens of billions of people.'") No wonder communism failed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely, that was a joke. The number of victims cannot exceed the number of people who lived during XX century. Btw, the only author who persistently advocates for 100+ million victims is Rummel, whose tendency to produce dramatically inflated figures is well known. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

collapsed discussion concerns particular sources

There were billions of people alive at any one point in time throughout the twentieth century. Since communist regimes controlled nearly half the world, the number is plausible. Even if Kaczynski's estimate regarding tens of billions is too high, billions could still have been called in the regime massacres. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC) There were two major Communist states, China (500 to 1000 million population) and the USSR (150 to 250 million). If we assume that the total population of Communist ruled states was 1.5 billion, and four generation lived under Communists, the total number of peoples who lived under Communists was ca 6 billion (of course, those numbers are dramatically exaggerated; in addition, birth of the next generation does not automatically mean the death of the preceding one, they live, for some period, simultaneously.). That means that every person who lived under Communist regimes had to be killed twice by them to give a figure of 10 billion. And, taking into account that the population of former Communist countries and of China is still large, I cannot understand where it came from if all parents of those people were killed twice by Communists. Meanwhile, Polish Institute of National Remembrance has recently re-considered the amount of Polish victims under Communist rule towards lower estimates. Instead of that, try to think about the following. Famines were routine events in China since ancient times, and history knows many major famines in China that were more deadly (in relative figures) then the GLF famine was. However, the GLF famine was the last famine in Chinese history, and something suggests that famines will never repeat there. Noone can blame me in supporting Maoism, however, I have to concede that Mao learned due lessons from his (outrageous) blunders. Similarly, during its whole history the USSR demonstrated steady and remarkable life expectancy growth (exceeded only by Japan). Is it compatible with the statement that 10 billion people were killed by Communists?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I cannot believe you're saying that - you can't just look at a number fixed at a certain discrete point in time. Billions were killed, billions were born. Your fallacy lies in looking at a number for one point, saying: 'look there were 1.5 billion people alive in the communist world during year 19xx.' But that obviously excludes those who had been killed. It also excludes those who would be born later and those who would be killed later and those would be born later and killed later still. The demographic number you're looking at would have been much bigger if not for the killings. You're comparing apples to oranges by drawing original conclusions, and I'm giving you an actual report of a real estimate. I have given you a source from the Polish media, from the Polish president, which he emphasized. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, I can look at numbers and make conclusions (that is what I am doing in my real life, although I am working in different area). And I can tell you that your statement "Billions were killed, billions were born" is in a direct conflict with elementary math. Currently, ca 7 billion people are living on the Earth, and until the end of XX century the population grew exponentially, doubling every 30-40 years. I built some mathematical model, which approximates the actual population data surprisingly well. The model works well assuming that 2.4 fertile infants survived per one fertile woman (quite a reasonable result, isn't it?). Since the function is exponential, it is easy to integrate. Integration gives 17 billions births (excluding infant mortality) and 11 billion deaths for the period from 1990 to 2000. If we assume that every 10th person born since 1900 was killed by Communists, then, to maintain the observed population growth, women fertility must increase to 2.57 survived children, and the Communist death toll would be 1.62 billion. To get 10 billions killed by Communists, we must assume that 67% of people who was born between 1900 and 2000 died because they were killed by Communists, and the average fertility should be 3.7 survived children per one fertile woman. This is a basic math, and, although I realise that is original research, I am pretty certain that more sophisticated demographic models produce quite close results. I am simply too lazy to look in the literature for those data. Again, your statement "Billions were killed, billions were born" is not supported by elementary math: for billions to be killed an average woman had to be too fertile: 3.7 survived infants per fertile woman meant that the average amount of births had to exceed 8-10 per woman, and 67% of all survived children would be killed by Communists. Both assumptions are not realistic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) PS. BTW, you also forgot the fact that Communists controlled just one third of the world. Therefore, to provide 10 billion death toll, Communists had to kill their countries' population twice or trice, unless the women under Communists demonstrated fertility comparable to that of ant queen. Speaking seriously, Japan and the USSR, or India and China demonstrated similar population growth rates. Two explanations are possible for that: (i) for some reason the birth rate in Communist countries was much higher (which is strange, especially for such similar countries as China and India), or (ii) mass killing in India and Japan also took place in the same overwhelming scale as in the USSR and China. Both assumptions look totally unrealistic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Paul, I appreciate the detailed response, but I feel that Kaczynski's view is ipso facto notable because it was made by a prominent world leader. I'm not sure about the model you have created and the assumptions involved, such as how many men versus how many women were murdered by Marxism. If men were disproportionately slaughtered (as I suspect), the numbers may stand up. At any rate, I have seen similar statements. For example, at least one Indian neoliberal economist speaks of – at minimum – hundreds of millions of "numerous indirect killings" that possibly run into the "billions." Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok writes: Taken to the extreme, as with the (erstwhile) Soviet Union, Maoist China, or Naxalites, socialism physically assaults and kills people. Millions of people have been murdered by Marx's equality-driven ideology over the twentieth century. If we add to this the far more numerous indirect killings - namely deaths through hunger and preventable disease arising from socialist mismanagement in countries like India - then the number of people killed in the cause of equality runs into the hundreds of millions; possibly a couple of billions. Equality is not a hot cup of coffee that we may order if available. It is deadly poison. Once this disease of equality infects somebody's mind, the consequences for society can become extremely bad. People infected by equality are infinitely more dangerous than those who go berserk and shoot people at random. Equality is as bad as religious fundamentalism in its disastrous consequences for society. - Sanjeev Sabhlok (2008) Breaking Free of Nehru: Let's Unleash India!. Anthem Press. p. 68. The author, Sanjeev Sabhlok, is a man with a doctorate in economics who is now employed in the Australian public sector in regulatory policy. [20] The publisher, Anthem Press, is an "independent publisher of innovative academic research, educational material and reference works in established and emerging fields." [21] According to the cover, the book received a recommendation from Gucharan Das, an Indian public intellectual known for his liberal views, who said "it must be read by every Indian." It was reviewed by numerous publications [22]. Of course, there are many other claims of billions of deaths, but I chose this because of the WP:RS criteria regarding the author and the publisher. While I admit that this is most likely not a majority view, it seems to have a certain standing. We should present these estimates (with attribution). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC) I see no problem with the model, because, as your own source says, majority of premature deaths were a result of hunger and similar indiscriminate factors, so the ratio between men and women should be close to 1. Regarding Kaczynski, he is not a scholar, and his opinion was not published in peer-reviewed journal or university press. His opinion in this area is not more authoritative then in, e.g. astronomy. Re your another source, do I understand correctly that the author adds Indian deaths to the Communist deaths toll? If that is the case, that undermines any credibility of this source. India is a democratic country, the world's largest democracy, so the statement you quote is absolutely weird. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Re - "as your own source says, majority of premature deaths were a result of hunger and similar indiscriminate factors, so the ratio between men and women should be close to 1." Was it? The women could have received a preferential treatment in terms of healthcare or provisioning. We do not actually know what the impact of the mass killings on the gender balance of communist nations has been, and I do not know if you have a way of knowing that. Moreover, that is just one of the factors that deserve consideration. Another factor would be the age of those purged. That would be divided into two subfactors: (a) were infertile elderly people more targeted during the purges? and (b) were elderly people more likely to perish due to famine-induced starvation and disease. Given what we know about the demographic impact of famine, the obvious answer to (b) would be yes. Regardless of that, we are not in the business of promoting original research and are thus unable to consider your mass killings model. Regarding Kaczynski, he is not a scholar, granted. However, he was a major figure of recent history who is ipso facto notable, particularly in relation to the post-communism debate in Poland. While he is not notable as a scholar, he is notable as a voice of that debate, and his statement on the subject of mass killings is pertinent to this topic. We do not need to present his view as a scholarly statement, but we should mention that estimate. The disanalogy between this area and astronomy is quite clear. As far as Sabhlok, it is unclear whether he is referring to the Marxist regimes of Communist countries "like India" or to the Marxist democracy in India alongside them. He does literally state that there were "numerous indirect killings - namely deaths through hunger and preventable disease arising from socialist mismanagement in countries like India." These indirect killings were the outcome of "Marx's equality-driven ideology" - added to the direct killings, which Sabhlok places in the millions. If communist mass killing is connected to this ideological indirect slaughter, we see that estimates like Rummel's - even estimates running into the billions - are not absurd. Conservative economist Walter Williams relies on Rummel's figures. [http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/socialisms-death-count/] Countless lives were taken on the altar of the disease of socialism. Thus, Sabhlok's estimate of those "killed in the cause of equality runs into the hundreds of millions; possibly a couple of billions.... It is deadly poison. Once this disease of equality infects somebody's mind, the consequences for society can become extremely bad. People infected by equality are infinitely more dangerous than those who go berserk and shoot people at random." I therefore earlier suggested that we move the present article to a title like Mass killings under socialist regimes, and scholars like Dr. Sabhlok illustrate my point. (Also scholars like Stephen Hicks: "[P]ractice has time and again proved itself more brutal than the worst dictatorships prior to the twentieth century. Each socialist regime has collapsed into dictatorship and begun killing people on a huge scale.") Off topic, but I still believe we ought to reconsider that proposal. What most such scholars discussing the subject of communist/socialist butchering cite as the principal cause of the killings is not so much the undemocratic nature of the government as its economic basis, and the inclusion of the category of indirect killing within the total number, directly attributed to the economic structure of these societies, only underlines that point. Also - not representing academia - Tea Party leader Judson Phillips has stated repeatedly that socialism has killed a "billion people" around the world. [23] While he is not a scholar like Sabhlok or a political leader like Kaczynski, this shows that there is a political impact of the mass killings caused by communist regimes, and it would be appropriate to include information relating the death toll to the dimension of political discourse. Also, John Ransom, whose "writings on politics and finance have appeared in the Los Angeles Business Journal, the Colorado Statesman, Pajamas Media and Registered Rep Magazine, amongst others" [24], has referred to "the socialism that worked out so well for so many since 1917, with great golden arch that says: Over One Billion Killed - so far... you have to admit socialists have the franchise down as far as murder is concerned." [25] The attack was on Obama's administration. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Nutcases spouting hyperbole are not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Nutcases spouting hyperbole are not WP:RS. But not only nutcases say that many hundreds of millions were killed. Dr. Sabhlok, an economist, is telling us that indirect killings may be in the billions range. National leaders are usually well-informed individuals. I have no doubt that Lech Kaczynski's tens of billions is at most within the upper bound of the range of innocent Jews and Christians butchered, but his statement is a notable, verifiable fact that was reliably reported, appearing in the Polish media, regardless of how accurate the president's estimate may really be. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Zloyvolsheb, what you write is in a stark contradiction with common sense. If "the women could have received a preferential treatment in terms of healthcare or provisioning" they of course could be less affected, however, in that case we would have a dramatic disbalanse between male and female population (ca 10:1), which had never been observed. Moreover, the opposite disbalance is observed in China now. Re elderly people, the actual situation is that life expectancy dramatically increased in the USSR, and that is a well established fact. The sources can be provided upon request. Your hypotheses have no connection with reality and contradict to what reliable sources say. Please, stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC) There was a dramatic disbalance between male and female population. Don't tell me this was because of World War II, because communists exterminated way more wherever they raised the red flag of Marxism, and obviously the life expectancy increased only because the communists counted everyone that wasn't murdered. I report what sources ranging from Professor Hicks to Dr. Sabhlok to President Kaczynski say to inform our editing, while you attack it by arguing on the basis of your "original research." It's a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so you stop that. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC) For disbalance between female and male population to be responsible billions killed, every male in Communist states had to be killed several times. I do not need to provide any reliable sources to refute Kaczynski's bs. Again, statement of politicians is not Wikipedia is based on. If you want to add this statement into the article about him, please do that. However, it will serve just an additional evidence of his inadequateness. In addition, the term "original research" means "that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". Since I am adding nothing, you cannot blame me in that. Moreover, I am acting in full accordance with our policy that encourages us to apply common sense: since Communism could not kill more people than lived on the Earth, then the figure of "tens of billions murdered" is probably unrealistic, and the author in such statement is probably not fully responsible for his words (that is not unusual among politicians of certain sort). However, if you propose to step from a realm of original research to the realm of reliable sources, let's do that. You say that male/female disbalance was high, and you imply that males were treated more badly, hence their higher mortality. However, Stephen G. Wheatcroft in his detailed article "The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960" (Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60) demonstrates that the decline of overall mortality in Russia/USSR was more rapid than in all other developed countries (Britain, France, Japan, US, Australia, etc). Moreover, not only mortality rate dropped dramatically, the anthropometric data (height, weight, especially those of conscripts) also demonstrated significant increase, which meant significant increase of welfare level of young conscripts. You must agree that is would be totally senseless to falsify anthropometric data of infants, conscripts, students, etc. Moreover, had such attempt been taken, it would leave at least some indirect evidences (if not, at least, in memoirs, testimonies, etc.) Can you provide such evidences? Zloyvolsheb, I respect your balanced and thoughtful editorial style, and I simply refuse to believe that you can seriously discuss Kaczynski's bs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Politicians spouting hyperbole are not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC) Zloyvolsheb, if you honestly don't understand the problem with this, you may not be qualified to participate here. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC) I think I am qualified. I am not making stuff up, but quoting what was actually stated by others. Lech Kaczynski, a president, seems ipso facto notable even for a topic like this. I also provide a quote from Dr. Sabhlok, an Indian-Australian economist. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but you are not. To demonstrate that, just try to go to RSN and ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Ask what? I am not saying that Kaczynski is a reliable source. I am saying that he held an ipso facto notable opinion. Fidel Castro's view that capitalism is "causing deaths and suffering on a scale comparable to the Nazi Holocaust" [26] would be equally relevant in an article entitlted Mass killings under capitalist regimes as an opinion or a position assumed in a controversy. I did not call such people reliable scholars, but their views - properly attributed - have a certain relevant standing. The appropriate guideline is WP:YESPOV: instructions there state that we present "all notable and verifiable points of view." As views held by the movers and shakers of history, these views are notable and verifiable, even if not they are not mathematically accurate. The reliability we are concerned with here is solely the reliability of the sources reporting these views, since we are not dealing with scholarly statements. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC) As it turned out, Castro's views (as well as chomsky, davis, and a number of peer reviewed articles, and works of a similar merit to the black book of communism) relevant to an article on mass killings under capitalist regimes are not permissible (it would seem). And as we saw, this article was again deleted. This indicates to me that sources should be carefully selected, and they should not be questionable at all. All of what you (zloy) are suggesting is highly questionable. AnieHall (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia articles should be filled with the views of notable people who don't have a clue what they are talking about, merely because they are notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC) No, I am not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that opinions of notable people connected with the subject at hand be included, per WP:YESPOV. A statement made by the Polish president regarding communism or communist mass killing is directly relevant. It isn't the opinion of an actor from Hollywood, it's the reported statement of an national leader. We expect the statements made by people like that to be well-informed and to have a highly significant effect of influence of people. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC) You might "expect the statements made by people like that to be well-informed". I don't. Particularly since he self-evidently wasn't - assuming it wasn't a slip of the tongue, or a typo in the source - and as far as I'm aware, neither does WP:RS policy]]. Anyway, this is wildly off-topic for this thread, which is supposed to be discussing the merits of a particular proposed edit. If you want to propose any edit concerning adding the opinions of Lech Kaczyński to this article, start another thread. 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC) I'll take a look at what will happen to the lede as far as this proposal first - because I see no use in clouding the discussion with another, simultaneous proposal. We're having a crack-addled mess right now. To address your last point, though: there is no reason to believe it was a slip of the tongue or a typo in the source because the same text appears verbatim on the Law and Justice Party website. We have had a pleasant chat. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC) Well, if some notable politician claims the Earth is flat, such a claim is germane to the article about that person, not to the article about astronomy/geology. Similarly, when a notable politician claims that Communists killed more people then had lived on the Earth ... --Paul Siebert (talk) By the way, had Kaczyński's idea had any reasonable ground, we would observe sharp change in the world population growth curve in 1917 and 1947 (the years of Russian and Chinese revolution). However, that is not what the demographers observe. As Chaadaev said "Socialism will prevail not because it is right, but because its opponents are wrong".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, Kaczynski's idea had a very reasonable ground. It's pretty easy to see why there was no sharp change in the growth curve. Do you realize that the capitalists killed on mass scale as well? That countless people are indirectly killed by malnutrition every day in the capitalist world? That there is The Black Book of Capitalism as well as a a Black Book of Communism? Capitalism murdered billions before communism did that, and that's why you don't observe a steep drop in the population growth curve in 1917 and 1947. But scholarship is well aware of this. Dr. Johan Galtung of the Oslo Peace Research Institute in Norway writes that "Communism kills upward in an attempt to control middle and upper classes. Capitalism kills downward in an attempt to control restless workers, including those created by its own dysfunctions." (The Web of Violence on page 199.) Don't look at the communists in isolation and you'll see why there was no sharp change in the world population growth curve. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as being a dramatic revision from a long-established consensus arrived at after much discussion Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That argument is false. The article was fully protected as a result of the edit war over this concrete statement, and, since you were a party in this war you are perfectly aware of this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I think that if such a consensus had existed, we wouldn't be discussing this. The "long-established" lead does seem to be a symptom of the sanctions, rather than consensus. To be clear, I support using Courtois as a source, and I am very skeptical of the politicized criticism of him and his book, but I recognize that using his estimate as "the" estimate is not proper when there are other out there which must also be included. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - we shouldn't be representing controversial 'rough estimates' from one individual as anything more than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. You should not just remove the range of numbers. Take more sources, for example books by Rummel, and come up with a wider range of numbers per multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rummel is wrong and obsolete. The evidences had been presented to you in the past. In addition, the proposal was not to remove this information, but to move it to the more appropriate place. Please, read carefully the text you are commenting on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My very best wishes, this proposal does not remove Courtois' range from the article, it just moves it as we begin to flesh out the issue of estimates. I agree with your second sentence and that is part of the idea to be begun by this proposal. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we must provide an estimate per multiple sources in the beginning. Yes, it is exactly the problem here and in many other articles that certain editors declare RS they do not like to be "wrong", "obsolete" or whatever, without even having consensus about these sources on RSN. That is why editing restriction for this article is equal to permanent protection. My very best wishes (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. To not even mention a range of victims leaves the impression in the lede that this is not even a matter of concern. This violates a long-standing consensus for no benefit to the article. Sometimes less is more, in this case, less (simply eliminating any and all estimates) is frankly inexcusable. If someone has a proposal for a wider range of numbers, I'll listen. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What 'long standing consensus' is that? I've never seen anything on this talk page that remotely resembles a 'consensus' yet. (Though we may yet arrive at one soon if Zloyvolsheb keeps up with his implausible demographics...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should we keep the estimate of one person until we can determine what range should be mentioned? It's like saying that we should keep the 10s of billions estimate until a better source is found. TFD (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, this proposal would not result in no mention of a range of victims in the lead. This proposal affects only the first sentence of the lead. There are two other mentions in the lead which are unaffected ("...many tens of millions;" and "...a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million."). And when we have built out an estimates section and established what the boundaries are in the available sources, a better range will be added to the lead than what we are moving lower down the page. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This wording is at least an improvement. I think it is safe to say that the the source used is not considered acceptable, and similar sourcing for the deleted antithetical article was (as we saw) not acceptable. Also, the very nature of having a lump sum for all the mass killings under communist regimes is questionable, and even attributing the deaths directly to communist regimes is questionable, or at least as questionable as linking mass killings under capitalist regimes. Also, this proposal is not suggesting the complete removal of death tolls, only moving it to its own special section, which seems more than reasonable.AnieHall (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Scholars disagree regarding the death toll, so we should not give the false impression that they agree. Instead, we should have a section where we mention each estimate individually, including the Black Book but without presenting the Black Book as absolute truth. Also, there is no long-standing consensus among wikipedia editors regarding this article lede. The only reason the lede has remained unchanged for a year is because the article is protected. And the reason it was protected was because of serious disputes over its content. The current version of the lede is not a consensus version in any way, but merely the version lucky enough to be in place when the article protection went up. -- Amerul (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • "Scolars disagree"? What scholars are you talking about? If there are any other estimates of total death toll by scholars (I did not see any, except maybe Rummel), let's expande the range of numbers per sources. No problem. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

MVBW, this argument has been answered multiple times. Firstly, scholars disagree on what should be considered as mass killing. This is a matter of political judgement, and different authors include or exclude different categories of premature deaths into "mass killings". Secondly, many single society studies exist that give different estimates, and, by strange coincidence, not all estimates are being taken into account by the authors who write about "communist genocide" (or similar things). Werth/Courtous controversy is a good (and not the only) example.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If a scholar disagrees with the Black Book death toll for any one of the regimes being discussed, then obviously that scholar also disagrees with the total Black Book death toll. If I say that five people committed 10 murders each, for a total of 50 murders, and you argue that one of those people only committed 3 murders, then obviously you disagree with my total estimate, as well. Scholars do not have to provide alternative total estimates as proof of disagreement. -- Amerul (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone agree that such estimates are approximate. Please provide alternative total numbers from other RS and let's use them. Another possible solution would be to create a Table with a range of numbers for every individual country (per RS) and include such Table in this article. I would ceratianly support this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

collapsed discussion concerns particular sources

Just to clarify, what do you propose that we do about RS that do not provide total numbers for communism-in-general, because they only focus on one specific country? There are many such RS. To use only the RS that provide total numbers for communism-in-general is to use only a minority of the available sources. This is why I don't like providing estimates of total numbers in the lede: because only a small minority of the RS on this topic actually try to estimate total numbers. -- Amerul (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC) So, just to get started, here is "20th century democides causing more than one million deaths" according to Rummel: 20th century democides causing more than one million deaths. From Death by Government, Rummel, 1987: Location Dates Est. Deaths Cambodia 1975–1979 2,035,000 China (PRC) 1949–1987 77,277,000 Poland 1945–1948 1,585,000 North Korea 1948–1987 1,563,000 Vietnam 1945–1987 1,670,000 Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000 U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000 the book was published (see here). Please note, this is more than 100 million in communist countries and 20-25 million in the Soviet Union (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Please, no more Rummel. You perfectly know that Rummel's "estimates" include, for example, ca 40 million killed in Gulag. However, we know that Robert Conquest had summarised current scholarly consensus that the amount of those passed through Gulag was 14 million. Therefore, Rummel's "estimates" are just a fact of his own biography. Serious scholars writing about victims of Stalinism cite him very rarely, and they do not use his figures. Current consensus is that Gulag had no appreciable demographic effect (see Ellman). Another example. Rummel claims that during post-Satlin period Soviet Communists killed 6.6 million 10 million their own citizens. Do you really believe in that? In any event, I recall, I had a dispute with you on that account. I presented all necessary evidences and sources, and you stopped to argue, probably, because your own arguments had been exhausted. Why did you come out with Rummel again? Is it really a good faith attempt to come to some consensus? You persistent attempts to push the author who is known for his bias towards highest possible figures (see Harff), demonstrates your own bias, and the first step towards consensus would be your recognition of that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) There are estimates by academic researchers that are relatively high (such as this one), and there are estimates that are lower ("Black book" and others). Let's use all of them to create a range of numbers for each country. That is what we suppose to do per NPOV. You can not dismiss an RS by an academic researcher simply because a few people criticized it. Everyone criticizes everyone in this subject area. Yes, I remember some discussions before (e.g. here) and found your arguments completely unconvincing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Firstly, before we start to produce such a table, I would like you to provide an evidence that the "range" you are talking about reflects scholarly consensus. Currently, we know the following: 1. Rummel is known to chose "numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses" (Barbara Harff. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119), and his figures, and his approach has been seriously criticized (Geoffrey Swain. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766; Tomislav Dulić. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106) 2. The introduction the the Black Book of Communism does not adequately summarise even the book itself, and is highly controversial (Aronson, see below) Therefore, both sources are not reliable even within the frames of their own concepts, so the figures cannot be presented in the table, without necessary explanations. Secondly, it is clear that the very subject is defined extremely vaguely. Thus, according to Ellman, in the case of the USSR that the number of victims is a matter of political judgement. That means that to determine the amount of people who died prematurely or who were killed is not sufficient: it is necessary to determine, which death falls into a category "mass killing". For example, was a convicted murdered, who died in Gulag during 1942 starvation a victim of Communists? That is "a matter of political judgement": he was imprisoned for real crime, and the famine was a result of desperate food shortage caused by WWII, so, frankly speaking I, following Ellman, cannot agree that murdered was a victim of Communists. Another example: were all victims of the Vietnam war victims of Communists mass killing? Obviously no. See Aronson for details. Were all victims of Chinese famine the victims of mass killing? Again no. If such an approach is applicable to famines at all (Ellman, for example, speak about consensus among historians not to include famines in mass killing death toll), it is more applicable to relatively wealthy Ukraine, which experienced no famine in past, rather then to China, were major famines were routine events. In other words, whereas significant number of peoples died prematurely in Communist led countries (a figure of 60 million seems quite plausible, and it does not seem to big, taking into account huge population of the USSR and China, and taking into account duration of Communist rule), it would be completely incorrect to describe all those death as "mass killings", thereby drawing analogy with Nazi mass killing. Even Steven Rosefielde separated homicides ("Deaths directly attributable to Stalinist oppression, whether or not judicially sanctioned through execution, brutalization, forced labour and starvation") from excess death (i.e. overall body count). Obviously, if we discuss the latter, we can speak about deaths caused by Communist policy. However, that goes beyond the scope of this article. Moreover, if we speak about excess deaths as a result of Communist policy, we also should discuss excess lives. The reason is as follows. The authors of the BB and similar writings argue that Communism was a lethal system that caused death of tens of million peoples, thereby dwarfing Nazism. However, they forget to mention that in pre-Communist Russia and China life expectancy was extremely short (in Russia, it was 32 years in 1900). China suffered from major famines that routinely were killing millions. In other words, in pre-Communist China and Russia peoples were routinely dying prematurely, including deaths of starvation. In 1950, the life expectancy was in the USSR was 60 years, thereby demonstrating unprecedent growth (not recorded in history before). Similarly, Great Leap Forward famine was the last famine in Chinese history. Again, I have no objections against inclusion of all deaths caused by the policy of Communists (although not under the category "Mass killings": this Valentino's idea has not become a mainstream view). However, neutrality would require us to describe the net effect of Communist policy on the demographics of Communist countries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) @Paul, perhaps life expectancy went up because of a combination of better conditions in the recently conquered territories and that there were millions less mouths to feed, so more food available. Your WP:SYNTHESIS of what we need to keep in mind defies any rational scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Your hypothesis is totally unsubstantiated; it is a piece of your own original research. In addition, this hypothesis is as weird as Kaczynski's revelation: if we assume that 100 million people lived on "newly occupied territories", and that the population of the USSR was 180 million, then, for life expectancy to grow from 32 to 60 year the life expectancy of in "newly occupied territories" had to be about 90 years. I don't think further comments are needed. Moreover, the demographic data show steady and linear decrease of mortality until 1960s. There were three major interruption in that trend: (i) 1914-1923 (WWI/Civil war/Volga famine); (ii) 1931-35 (Great Soviet Famine) (iii) 1941-47 (Great Patriotic war and subsequent famine). In addition, the data of terminal height for central regions of the USSR show steady growth with three crises, roughly corresponding to the same events. That means that the decline of mortality was due to the improvement of life condition of the Soviet population as whole. Re "there were millions less mouths to feed, so more food available". Absolute nonsense. Food doesn't fall from the skies: the less mouths to feed, the less hands to work. Please, read more before attempting to propose such weird hypotheses. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Obviously, different researches (and sources) are using different methodologies to count the numbers. Hence, we may have a very wide range of numbers. That's OK. But as long as they claim these to be numbers of people killed (by the governments; this is very definition of democide), such numbers belong here. An once again, everyone criticizes everyone in this subject area. This does not disqualify any books published by Transaction Publishers and written by academic researchers like Rudolph Rummel. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Much better to use sources published by the academic press instead. Also better to use secondary sources to report opinions so that we can avoid neutrality issues, e.g., what weight to assign different opinions. TFD (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Sure, they do belong, along with their criticism. Contested statements should be presented as opinia, obsolete data should be presented as obsolete. In contrast, the attempt to mix everything together is an attempt to mislead a reader (probably, to advance some position). In addition, this edit summary is totally unacceptable. I do not dislike sources, I demonstrate their flaws. In my opinion, the difference is obvious for every good faith person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC) One could just as easily provide criricism of Zemskov using references from this review. And so on. So I do not see a lot of difference. As about opinions, yes, I can easily agree that the numbers by Yakovlev are only his opinion because he did not explain in the book how exactly he came up with such numbers. On the othe hand, the estimates by Rummel are based on statistical analysis of data, on analysis of other published sources and so on. Hence, this is not simply an "opinion" but an estimate by researcher. It can be very approximate, yes, but this not a hearsay. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC) What do you mean under "and so on"? Criticism of Rosefielde, who authored the article you cite? In actuality, the very fact of criticism means nothing. Yes, Rosefielde points at some inconsistency in NKVD data used by Zemskov, however, he concedes that is arguments "do not discredit the entire corpus of NKVD evidence". Moreover, he concedes that his own early estimates were too high. And, importantly, even his early estimates were much lower than Rummel's "estimates". Interestingly, although Rosefielde cites earlier estimates made by various authors, he does not cite Rummel's figures at all. He just mentioned Rummel in "Bibliography" section (along with, e.g., Orwell), but not in the "References" section. That is a demonstration that Rosefielde does not consider Rummel (and Solzhenitsyn, who has not been mentioned at all) as an expert in the field. To summarise, the first step would be to throw away all belletristic, hearsay and archaic studies. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC) "In actuality, the very fact of criticism means nothing. - Paul Siebert" Paul - please remember this. Every time you argue that a reliable source has to be removed because it has been criticized, you'll see this quote. Now, starting from that quote and logically going to your ending statement "the first step would be to throw away all belletristic, hearsay and archaic studies," is quite a feat. It sounds like you just want to exclude "all studies criticized by Paul Siebert"! Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC) A typical example of arguments for sake of argument. Of course, the very fact of criticism doesn't matter, but the essence of criticism does: whereas Rosefielde points at some problems with the data used by Zemskov, he does not reject them completely and does use GRZ in his own studies. In other words, although GRZ were not fully correct, their findings deserve serious discussion. In contrast, he simply ignores the data from Rummel and Solzhenitsyn. More importantly, you seem to totally forget that I never proposed to rely on the GRZ data for the estimates of the number of victims of Stalinist repressions. Biophys seems to refer to our old dispute about reliability of the data on GULAG population. These data, summarised by GRZ are generally accepted by scholarly community, according to Robert Conquest. In contrast, GRZ's conclusions about the amount of deaths have been criticized by many authors, this criticism is serious, and I never advocated usage of GRZ's estimates of deaths figures. Therefore, your criticism is totally baseless: the data of GRZ about the amount of repression deaths have been seriously criticised - and I never propose to use their estimates; however, since their data on Gulag population are generally accepted - and I insist on their presentation as mainstream views in the Gulag article. Therefore, there is no inconsistencies in my approach, and have other users stuck with the same approach, the whole dispute would be easily resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Smallbones, when high quality reliable sources criticise "facts" found in polemical writing then we go with the better sourcles. For example, mainstream US papers say that the American president was born in America, is not a Muslim, etc. We do not argue over which facts to use. TFD (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: as AmateurEditor pointed out, at the moment, death tolls given in the first sentence of the lead are 85 to 100 million. The last two sentences of the lead state that estimates for the three largest mass killings are 21 to 70 million, with other killings on a smaller scale not included in this (in the article, totalling about 5 million). This seems self-contradictory. Hal peridol (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been no argument presented against making the change. You may be right about consensus, but the consensus is in opposition to Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If consensus can't be gotten, is there a format to have an outside/neutral party determine which argument makes the most sense? Basically anyone can make an account and agree or disagree for whatever reason, no matter how illogical or unreasonable the reason.AnieHall (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Permanent protection can only be justified by a permanent dispute

This article has been fully protected for about a year now, and it was placed under very strict editing restrictions for some six months before that. To my knowledge, these measures are unprecedented. This search for all indefinitely protected pages in the article namespace reveals that mass killings under Communist regimes is one of only two non-redirect articles on the entire English Wikipedia placed under permanent full protection since 2011 for a content dispute.

To be more exact: There are 23 articles with a size over 500 bytes in the main namespace on the English Wikipedia that have been placed under indefinite protection. One of them is the Main Page. Four of them are redirects to Wiktionary. Eight are biographies of living persons protected against vandalism. Three are other pages protected against vandalism. Five were protected due to content disputes, but have been protected for less than five months (one since May, one since July, the others since August or September).

Only two articles - mass killings under Communist regimes and Lofoi, a stub about an obscure Greek village - have been under indefinite protection due to content disputes since 2011. Lofoi has a NPOV tag.

If that is necessary - if this article is so disputed that it needs to be under permanent full protection, like no other article on the English Wikipedia - then shouldn't we warn readers with a permanent NPOV tag, or even a custom-made tag? If this is an extraordinary case needing extraordinary measures, then it needs to be flagged as such.

On the other hand, if you believe the dispute is over and we do not need a warning to readers, then the reasons for full protection and editing restrictions are no longer valid, and the protection should be removed.

Thus, I make the following formal proposal:

Given that the article mass killings under Communist regimes is the only non-redirect article on the English Wikipedia placed under indefinite full protection for content disputes since 2011 without a NPOV tag, and given that such protection is beyond the normal practice of Wikipedia, the article should either (a) feature a special tag warning readers of its exceptionally controversial status and permanent NPOV dispute, or (b) be unprotected.

To me, it's a simple logical choice: either the content of the article is continually disputed, in which case it merits a permanent NPOV tag; or it isn't disputed any more, in which case it should be unprotected. -- Amerul (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Outstanding situations requires outstanding measures. In my opinion, this text, with minor modifications, may serve as a base for AE/Amendment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Amerul, thank you for your thoughful suggestion. I was opposed to these sanctions when they were proposed and things have turned out just as poorly as I predicted. Your idea to use a NPOV tag to warn readers of the controversy, however, is not new, and has been a source of dispute itself in the past here. The NPOV tag on the Lofoi article should have been removed a long time ago, because warning readers is an improper use of that tag. The page for the NPOV tag states that "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." and it also states that "In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."[27] A custom tag notifying readers of the controversy here may be warranted, but I don't see how it will help us to resolve anything. I don't agree with your analysis that this page is all that exceptionally controversial, I just think the efforts to resolve the controversy here have been exceptionally poor. There has been a lot of "I didn't hear that" type behavior and far too much toleration of disruptive behavior. I think that mediation is required here. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The template documentation says the template should be removed when POV issues have been resolved. If they have been resolved then the page should be unlocked. If they have not been resolved, then there should be a template. TFD (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and apparently everyone-dropping-the-discussion is recognized as a form of resolution to a dispute: silent consensus. Of course, this is a weak form of "resolution"(if it even is one) and I don't think it would exist for long in our case. Mediation is a better bet here. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, mediation is a long process. Meanwhile, the accidentally frozen version (the version that contains a blatant violation of our content policy in the very first sentence) stays, and may stay indefinitely. For the ordinary reader, stability of the article means that the community fully supports it, which is obviously not true. In addition, as Amerul demonstrated, the situation is outstanding, so it gives us a right to request for some outstanding measures (under "outstanding" I mean not to put a standard NPOV template, but some specific message informing a reader that the article was frozen as a result of a permanent edit war; if the Wikipedians appeared to unable to resolve this issue using standard means, it does not mean that an ordinary user should be mislead by non-neutral content) . I was shocked to learn that this is the sole article which is permanently locked. My proposal is to directly address to the Arbitrators. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation will not take as long as avoiding mediation will take, I think. It could be hastened dramatically by using representatives, rather than allowing everyone to participate individually. I could support adding a neutral tag on the article that says this is a frozen version in dispute (such as this one). It would indeed be shocking - and "outstanding" - to learn that this is the sole article which is permanently locked, but that is not what Amerul actually said. He said that there "are 23 articles with a size over 500 bytes in the main namespace on the English Wikipedia that have been placed under indefinite protection." He then narrowed down that list down using more specific criteria until only 2 were left: this one and Lofoi. Since the list he linked to is only of currently protected articles, we can't judge from that how outstanding this length of time has been historically on Wikipedia. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, of course, I meant "the only article that is permanently protected due to a content dispute", not due to mere vandalism. The Lofoi article doesn't count, it is not a popular article, and it does not discredit Wikipedia. Meanwhile, the content of this article is being reproduced many thousand times, it is being sold by Amazon, and every day the non-neutral information is being amplified, thereby continuing to discredit Wikipedia.

Of course, I support any option, including mediation, that may help to resolve the issue. However, for some reasons I am skeptical about the possibility to achieve anything by mediation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Amerul mentioned above a total of 7 articles currently under full protection due to content disputes, and he then narrowed them down by time-under-protection to arrive at the two longest. I don't think this article discredits Wikipedia, by the way. I think the article is in a middling state and needs to be improved. I have no experience with mediation or arbitration but I'm willing to participate, if only through a representative. Why do you think mediation will not help? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it will not help, I just strongly doubt it can help. However, we can easily check that. For the beginning, let's ask the participants of this discussion if they agree on formal mediation (informal mediation seems to be too light weight procedure for this case). If the distribution of those who will agree will be significantly different from the result of vote regarding your proposal, there will be some hope on a positive outcome of mediation. Otherwise...--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree to any form of mediation, of course - although I am more of an interested spectator than a participant in this dispute. However, any mediation or other form of dispute resolution will take a long time, if it is successful at all. In the mean time, this article should feature a tag informing readers of the content dispute. The NPOV tag may not be ideal, but it is appropriate, because the dispute is ongoing and has not been resolved by the "silent consensus" of everyone dropping the discussion. A custom tag would be much better, because this is indeed an exceptional situation, but I fear that trying to design such a custom tag would only lead to yet another dispute about what the tag should say. -- Amerul (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that although the situation faced by this article may not be absolutely unique, it is at the very least extremely rare. There are very few other permanently-locked articles, and almost all of them are either redirects or low-traffic stubs. Given the fact that the English Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, the situation faced by mass killings under Communist regimes is almost one in a million (or, at least, one in a hundred thousand). Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. We should not go on thinking that we are dealing with a normal wiki dispute here. As the protection statistics show, this is anything but normal. Everything done from now on must be done in full knowledge of the fact that we are dealing with a very special and rare problem here. -- Amerul (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read User:Collect/Collect's Law wherein one may gain insight into the "dispute" by noting the volumes of posts by editors who iterate the same claims over and over, but without gaining consensus for their view that only ten million or so actually were "killed" under communist regimes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Or read my essay, "How to spot a POV article". TFD (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal essays still support the author's view of the world. I'll be happy to critique, though. —VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, if you contend that there is no dispute, then the article should be unprotected. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute, then we need a NPOV tag to let readers know about the issue. There is simply no justification for keeping the page protected without having some sort of content tag on it. -- Amerul (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Amerul, your logic is impeccable. The article can be permanently protected either due to permanent vandalism, or due to permanent edit war. We have no vandalism here, which means we deal with some dispute, so the tag is warranted. I believe we have to file AE/amendment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. agree.AnieHall (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the non-FRINGE sources and consensus on this talk page are in accord with the numbers currently in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, provide a proof that Aronson is fringe. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that we are arguing about the numbers and words in the lede proves that a content dispute exists, and therefore the NPOV tag is warranted. Are any editors contending that a dispute does not exist? I see none, so I will go ahead and request that the NPOV tag be added. -- Amerul (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How does what is in my personal essay differ from Vecrumba's view of the world? TFD (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So... it appears there is an unfortunate tendency on this talk page for old discussions to simply get dropped with no resolution and no action taken, as soon as a new topic of conversation is brought up. I do not wish that to happen with this proposal. Seeing no objections to the addition of a NPOV template to the top of the page, seven days after the measure was proposed, I hereby make the following official edit request:

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the content of the article Mass killings under Communist regimes, as shown by the lengthy discussions on this talk page. The dispute has been going on for a particularly long time, which is the reason why the article has been placed under permanent full protection. The article will only be unlocked once the dispute is resolved. Thus, I request that the {{POV}} template be added to the top of the article until the dispute is resolved - that is to say, until the article is unlocked. -- Amerul (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, the addition of the template will attract new editors with new perspectives, who may help to finally resolve the dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion:

Here is a chart showing the appropriate protection templates. The POV template is not appropriate for the reasons I explained above (which can also be read in its template usage notes here). The only two templates on that chart appropriate for this article are Template:Pp-dispute and Template:Pp-protected. Pp-dispute seems best to me. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think, loren ipsum is better. I suggest all involved parties to write together a brief description of the essence of the dispute. We may disagree on various issues, however, it would be ridiculous to expect that we may disagree about the essence of our disagreement. Nug, Vecrumba, Collect and Smallbones, can you briefly describe what are, in your opinion, the main points of disagreement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, in your comments above you pointed out that one of the original arguments I had used in favour of the {{POV}} template was mistaken. Specifically, you said that warning readers is an improper use of that tag, which is true. However, I also brought up a number of other reasons why we should use it, and it did not seem to me that you raised any objections to them. The template usage notes clearly state that the template is to be used to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. That clearly holds true in the case of this article. Here we have an ongoing content dispute that has been going on for over a year, with the same editors rehashing the same old debates, and no progress being made. Attracting new editors would be a very good thing. Also, it seems evident to me that the {{POV}} template is appropriate on any article with an active content dispute - and here we have an active content dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Amerul, in your initial post for this section, the POV tag as a permanent warning for readers was the only reason you gave ("then shouldn't we warn readers with a permanent NPOV tag, or even a custom-made tag"). Both the warning and the permanence are explicitly rejected for the POV template on its page here. I didn't see where you gave other reasons. If your other reason is just to shoot up a flare to attract new editors, then that is a different issue. I don't think our problem is a lack of perspectives, but this template has been used here before for that purpose and it can be again. It is also important to note that the POV template is intended for very specific violations that are spelled out on the talk page by the person adding the template, not for general and vague assertions of bias in the article as a whole. The templates for informing readers of the protection status of the article are given in the chart I linked above. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was talking about having given other reasons above, I was referring to my observation that this article finds itself in a highly unusual situation, a situation that has already lasted far too long and that needs to be pointed out to readers in the hope of getting help to resolve it. Looking over my initial post, I realize that I was unclear on this. I focused on explaining just how unusual the current situation is (permanent protection), and on making the case that the article should be either unprotected or tagged with a template. I did not even specifically say which of the two courses of action I preferred, let alone argued clearly for that course of action. I apologize for the confusion.

To avoid any further confusion, let me say exactly where I stand: I believe the de facto permanent protection on this article has been a complete failure in achieving its intended purpose (promoting consensus). I believe the effect of protection has been to give a veto right to editors who prefer the current form of the article, thus effectively making it impossible to enact any changes at all. I believe the article should be unlocked, the special sanctions should be lifted, and normal editing should be allowed subject to the normal rules of Wikipedia. There is no danger of vandalism, and I see no reason to believe that any of the editors here would break the rules, so I see no reason for continued protection. However, I also believe that any proposal to this effect would be quickly buried under layers of debate, and I do not currently have the time to engage in that debate or go through the procedures required to make it happen. So, as my second-best option, I want to put something on the article that might get readers to join in this discussion here on the Talk page and hopefully help us make some progress. I expected some editors to oppose both my preferred option and my second-best, which is why I spent my entire first post explaining that it is illogical to oppose both - either the article needs to be unlocked or it needs a template.

Having said that, I understand that you do not consider the {{POV}} template to be appropriate. I have already stated that the main reason I proposed this particular template was because I did not believe we could get consensus on any other. I do not object to the templates you proposed - I was only afraid that someone else might. But now it seems I was wrong. Let's continue the discussion at the bottom of this thread about which other templates might be appropriate. -- Amerul (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I suggested the {{POV}} template, and not any other, precisely because I do not believe we are in a position to reach consensus on anything - not even on a description of the issues we are debating. The fact that we cannot reach consensus on anything is in itself sufficient proof that the {{POV}} template is necessary. As far as I can see, this is the only template that specifically indicates lack of consensus, as opposed to the presence of a consensus on the existence of problems X or Y with an article. -- Amerul (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this article could not be seen as POV. It specifically ignores all genocide and repression studies that point to authoritarianism, anocratic, and the point on the democratic continuum that a state is in, and pulls out the parts that mention communist states. It does not present counter-theories. It entirely neglects historical context. Please, someone, anyone, enlighten me as to how this is article is not pov. AnieHall (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate: I understand that some editors believe a more specific template would be better than {{POV}}. I myself believe the same thing, as I've said in the discussion further above. It would be great to have something like the loren ipsum template, describing the essence of the dispute here. However, the history of this talk page has led me to believe that we cannot agree on anything except the obvious fact that we have a dispute. As long as a dispute exists, and as long as we could benefit from the participation of new editors, the {{POV}} template is appropriate. Yes, a loren ipsum template would be better, but, at this point, asking for that template would only lead us into a pointless tangential debate about the best way to describe our dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion,the difference between the POV template and the loren ipsum template is that, whereas the former just informs users about POV issues, the latter informs about permanent page protection that has been caused by that dispute. The former should not be used just as a badge of shame, and that is why it was removed. However, a situation when the article is de facto permanently protected is outstanding, and we need to inform a reader why the article has been protected. Therefore, we need a hybrid between Pp-dispute and Pp-protected templates, namely, the loren ipsum template that says that the article has been protected because of the dispute over neutrality, AND that protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Theoretically, we could use Pp-dispute template, however, I believe it would be better to inform a reader about the essence of the dispute (neutrality issues).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well, you and AmateurEditor have persuaded me that we should use either Pp-dispute or Pp-protected, with the latter being the better option. The question is, can we find a text to put in place of the loren ipsum that would be acceptable to all editors involved? I hope so. Let's give it a try. How about this as a proposed template?

• {{pp-protected|reason=of disputes regarding [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] and content. This protection is '''not''' an endorsement of the current [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=history version].}}

The second sentence was simply copied from Pp-dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you close your request? I support this idea, AE seems to support it too, and noone has put forward any reasonable objections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the request was specifically for the addition of the POV template. I was under the impression that you and AE opposed the use of that template, and supported the use of a different one. So my idea was that we would figure out a consensus template and then I would put in a new request for the addition of that. -- Amerul (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, do you support my newly proposed version of the pp-protected template, above? -- Amerul (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to post if you would like some changes made to the template before I officially request its addition to the article. I would not like a repeat of the situation where a proposal appears to have consensus, only for objections to be raised after I make a formal edit request. I will give it a few more days before making the request... -- Amerul (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support your last proposal. Sorry for delayed responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I support either the Pp-dispute template or the Pp-protected template. The language you proposed looks fine to me. I think it would be easier to counter objections to the Pp-dispute template, however. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick responses! I think we can go ahead with the formal edit request now. -- Amerul (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

It is requested that the following template be added to the top of the article:

{{pp-protected|reason=of disputes regarding [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] and content. This protection is '''not''' an endorsement of the current [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=history version].}}

This template is necessary to inform potential editors of the fully protected status of the article and the reason why it was locked, especially considering the unusually long amount of time that the article has been locked (almost one year). As the history of this talk page shows, the disputes here have proved remarkably difficult to resolve. If new readers of the article are informed about the existence of such disputes, it is more likely that new voices will join the discussion, hopefully leading to a resolution. -- Amerul (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - the gold lock symbol is in place and that is all that is needed. The template info says "The following templates may be added at the very top of a page to indicate that it is protected:" (where I've bolded may). Note that it does not say "should be" or "must be". So there must be a consensus to make this change. The reason that I understand that this change is suggested is to put some sort of badge of shame on the article. Following 6 or so unsuccessful AfDs, it is no surprise that some editors will do anything possible to discredit the article, but that is not a reason to put a badge of shame on it. The simple way forward here is just to accept that reliable sources should not be removed in this article simply because somebody does not like them, and to also accept that the overwhelming consensus is that the article should exist. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason for this edit is not to put any "badge of shame" on the article, but rather to attract more editors to resolve the outstanding disputes that have resulted in this article being locked for almost a year, which is an extremely rare situation for an article on Wikipedia. Please read the initial observations that prompted the request, at the top of this section.

If you believe that consensus has already been achieved with regard to the content of the article, then why is the article still locked? The only reason to keep an article locked is to resolve a dispute. If we have a consensus, then the dispute has been resolved and the article should be unlocked. Thus my initial argument: Either the article needs to be unlocked (if we have consensus), or a template needs to be placed to notify readers of the dispute and attract more editors (if we do not have consensus). I contend that a dispute exists, and readers need to be informed of its existence so they are more likely to contribute to its resolution. Do you disagree? -- Amerul (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The best way to attract more editors is simply to make a proposal with an RfC. When you proposed the template, it was as a badge of shame. TFD below is still using it as a badge of shame. And the reason the article is locked is not because of differences in POVs, it is because folks edit war to remove reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The pp-protected template is not for attraction of new editors, its purpose is to inform a reader that, in contrast to overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles, it cannot be freely edited by anyone, and that the content of the article does not reflect users' consensus. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, to say that the article is locked "because folks edit war to remove reliable sources" is to say that it was locked due to vandalism. That is incorrect. The article was locked due to content disputes, not vandalism. But, even assuming you were right, how much longer do you think the protection should remain in place? There has not been an edit war - or, in fact, any content edits at all - for almost a year. Are you saying that as long as certain editors remain on Wikipedia, this article must remain protected just in case they might try to edit war? -- Amerul (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - as per the reasons given above. I would also like to note that this proposal has been discussed for weeks, and I only moved forward with the formal edit request once it appeared that no editors were opposed to it. It would have been nice to notify us of any objections before we got to this stage. -- Amerul (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support We should disclose that the article is locked because there is a POV dispute. TFD (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Protection applies only for people who wish to edit the article - which is a tiny fraction of Wikipedia readers. Placing a red flag on the article is not the way to go as far as any Wikipedia policy I can find states. Collect (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, which can be edited by anyone. In contrast, this concrete article has been locked permanently, although it is neither a subject vandalism nor the policy page. That is a very unusual situation, and an ordinary reader must be informed that the article contains statements that raised reasonable concern of many (if not majority) of users, and, therefore, that permanent protection is not an endorsement of the article's content. The article does deserve a red flag, and the reader has a right to be informed about an outstanding issues that lead to indefinite article's protection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"an ordinary reader must be informed" and "The article does deserve a red flag." This is just using the template as a "badge of shame." Not allowed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I found illogical that two users who opposed to the edit request had abstained from the discussion, although I have serious reasons to suspect that they carefully monitor this talk page. In connection to that, I am wondering what was the reason for such strange behaviour: to wait for consensus to be achieved (among the users who have been involved into the discussion of the template) and then, after the edit request has been posted, to jump out with their "oppose"? By no means it can be considered as a demonstration of collaborative spirit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus and no reason to believe that there could be a consensus that a badge of shame should be put on the article, just a couple of folks pretending to have a discussion. I do monitor this page for this type of silly attempt to change the page, and will oppose them whenever they come up. All you have to do to resolve the conflict on this page is just to allow reliable sources to be included, the same as in any other article. Any attempt to resolve the conflict without allowing reliable sources to remain on the page is bound to fail. So you might as well just state that you will not attempt to remove the reliable sources in the article, and we can get on with it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Smallbones, Paul Siebert did as you ask in the "Formal Edit Request" section above. That is, he supported keeping the Black Book in the article by moving it from the lead. So aren't you now the one preventing us from getting on with it? AmateurEditor (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not - I saw some handwaving about, 1st we have to remove the reliable source, then we might talk about putting it back in. Pure nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So if Paul did agree (say, right now) that Courtois' intro/summary in the Black Book may be kept in the article at least as part of an Estimates section, you could also support that? AmateurEditor (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only I agree, I already wrote that the BB does belong to this article. However, since this book is simultaneously the most influential and the most controversial book about Communism, the info from this book should be supplemented with necessary commentaries. I fully realize that the section where the info from the BB should be placed in is not ready yet, however, that fact is not an excuse for keeping the non-neutral statement in the lede. The statement we are discussing directly violates our policy, and it should be removed. That is not negotiable. If you want the Courtois' info to be re-added to the article, let's discuss concrete text, however, that has no relation to the figures in the first sentence.

In addition, the article has many other neutrality issues, many sources must be added, many statement must be brought in accordance with out policy. Permanent protection does not allow us to do that, and a reader must be informed about that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So, to be clear, Paul supports the specific edit proposal earlier for adding Courtois to an Estimates section, in effect moving Courtois from the lead to that section, and not removing him from the article. Smallbones, if you can also agree to this, then we can "get on with it", no? AmateurEditor (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul says that the reliable source must be removed from the lede and "That is not negotiable." Then he might discuss putting it back in somewhere else in some other form. He was arguing the same thing a month ago, and it still looks ridiculous to me. I am not in a position to repeal WP:Reliable Sources all by myself and I have no wish to do so. If Paul is serious he can just write up his proposed "estimates" section and we can directly discuss a direct proposal. I'm not interested in buying a pig in a poke or a cat in a bag. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Our neutrality policy says that its principles are non-negotiable. It also prohibits stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Therefore, my "non-negotiable" directly follows from our policy, and your refusal to obey to the requirements of our policy is a serious violation. Had article been unprotected, I would immediately removed this statement from the lede, and any your attempt to re-add it would result in your block. However, protection prevents me from doing that. Therefore, if the situation will not be resolved soon, I will probably have to ask ArbCom about explanations regarding that issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as the proper use of such a template. The complaint about this template being used as a "badge of shame" in unconvincing because this template is designed to be used in this situation. As far as I can tell, of the three templates discussed, only the POV template (which is a temporary tag designed to attract other editors to a specific problem) can be mis-used as a "badge of shame" because it is not intended to inform readers about the protection status of articles. That is, the POV template is only being mis-used as a "badge of shame" when it is used in place of this one or the Pp-dispute template. That is why neither the Pp-dispute nor the Pp-protected template pages say anything about mis-use as a "badge of shame". It cannot be a "badge of shame" violation to use the proposed template as it was designed to be used: to inform readers about the article's protection. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, this seems to be a somewhat WP:POINTish "badge of shame" that is apparently supported by a handful of editors who were unable to achieve consensus for their proposal to remove reliably sourced text from the lede. Note, no consensus achieved when that same group earlier proposed adding a regular POV tag. Besides, adding such a tag would only poison any future attempt to build any chance of consensus, so it seems somewhat counter productive. --Nug (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How is it a "badge of shame" to use this template as Wikipedia intended to be used? By the way, I opposed and still oppose using the POV template for this purpose but I support using this template, so it is not entirely the same group. But lets focus on content, rather than editors. And while the level of consensus for the earlier edit proposal has not yet been determined by an uninvolved admin, the opposition is the minority. AmateurEditor (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been so termed many times on Wikipedia - and since consensus is not a vote, but policies, guidelines, and past general community consensus also weigh in heavily, your dismissal of the "minority" avails you not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

While the POV tag has been termed a "badge of shame",I have not seen this template so termed. This template is actually offered for this use on the Protection Policy page (at the bottom, in the chart). Please provide a link to a policy/guideline page which terms using this template as a "badge of shame" and I will acknowledge the point. And I did not dismiss the minority for the previous discussion. I acknowledged that consensus there has yet to be determined. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Any template so used is a 'badge of shame' . Simple. Note: Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that result in the problem being fixed, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article., Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Available_templates does not envisage the use proposed here - to enshrine a dispute in the protection template which would clearly be a "badge of shame" in any other template ab initio. Collect (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be quoting from Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. That relates to cleanup templates, not (as in this case) to protection templates. It seems to me that there are two distinct issues here: the use of a protection template, and the wording of the template. Collect, is your opposition solely due to the specific wording chosen for this template, to its use, or to both? AmateurEditor (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that some arguments are being repeated again and again despite having been properly addressed. Thus, it has already explained that pp-protected is not a "badge of shame", however, Nug reproduced the same argument again (Nug seems to have taken the phrase "badge of shame" from the description of the neutrality template, which is totally misleading). The argument about attraction of new editors has also been addressed: pp-protected template is needed not for attraction of new editors, it plays purely informative role.

I have a feeling that some users decided not to understand some explanations under any circumstances. A am afraid, in that situation, we have no other choice then to ask for external help from the admins who protected this page or from the arbcom.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I do not understand the arguments made by the editors opposed to the use of a protection template here. What is the appropriate use of such templates, according to you? It seems that you are arguing that placing the pp-protected template on a protected page with a content dispute amounts to using it as a "badge of shame". But, in that case, where is this template to be placed? All protected articles are protected either due to content disputes or due to vandalism. Are you saying that articles protected due to content disputes should never have a template placed on them, because it would be a "badge of shame"? -- Amerul (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The intent of this template seems to be to warn other editors that this article was protected at m:The Wrong Version, hence it is a "badge of shame". --Nug (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So, are you arguing that there is no appropriate use of this template, thus it should never be used, and should not exist at all? -- Amerul (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the user who is citing humorous page when serious answer is expected had exhausted his arguments. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy cites this page, see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#See_also. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't cite it any more. I see no value in the links to humorous essays in the policy pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, let's not go off on tangents. I just want to know exactly where Nug stands. Compromise cannot be reached unless the sides explain where they stand and what they want. So, again, Nug, do you believe that the pp-protected template should never be used and should not exist? -- Amerul (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask again: Do you believe that the pp-protected template should never be used and should not exist? If not, then what is the proper use of that template, in your opinion? This is an important question, because it will help me understand your opposition to my proposal. I strongly believe that a template is required for this article, and I am trying to figure out if you think that no template should ever be placed on it, or if you are merely opposed to the current proposal. Please respond. -- Amerul (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - it needs to be made clear that there is no consensus for a lot of the content of the page. Claritas § 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment again, because there has been no response to my above comment in almost 10 days: It appears to me that the people voting "Oppose" are arguing that the pp-protected template is always a badge of shame, and so there is never a legitimate reason to use it on any article. Smallbones, Collect and Nug, please clarify: Is this, in fact, your argument? If not, then please let me know in what circumstances you believe the template may be legitimately used. -- Amerul (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)