Talk:The Black Book of Communism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sourcing for reception in Eastern Europe

The source for this statement, The book has also been influential in Eastern Europe, where it was enthusiastically embraced by prominent politicians and intellectuals, was to this source, and apparently specifically intended to paraphrase these lines: This dispute is beyond the focus of this study, but it is important to note that Courtois’s controversial propositions have had a great impact in Eastern Europe, where prominent politicians and intellectuals have uncritically embraced them. and In Romania, prestigious intellectuals such as Tudoran, Manolescu, and Liiceanu preferred to popularize the opinions of Revel and Courtois rather than that of Besançon, and they did so by using provocative concepts (“Red Holocaust,” “monopoly on suffering,” “Judeocentrism”) that are widely popular in radical-right circles. I don't think "enthusiastically embraced" is an accurate summary. By saying that it was embraced uncritically, the author is saying that it was embraced out of political expediency without regard for its content (a vital clarification if we're going to present that embrace as "support"); similarly, the latter section implies that rather than neutrally embracing it for its accuracy, intellectuals embraced it as part of a larger political project to undermine the significance of the Holocaust. We can't strip out that context and present it as mere generic "enthusiastic support", especially in the context of a section otherwise referring to scholarly reception (which gives the impression that it was embraced for reasons that the source definitely does not imply.) Obviously, one option would be to find another source - this one is extremely hostile to the Black Book of Communism -- but while we have that as our source, we have to reflect what it says rather than stripping it down to a generic sense of support. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Le livre noir de communism vs The Black Book of Communism

Shouldn't the title of this article be changed to Le livre noir de communism?

It is a French book and the title of the book is "Le livre noir de communism". The same procedure has been used on the "Le Livre noir du capitalisme" page. Either way, these two wiki-articles must be harmonized. RhinoMind (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-scholarly opinion

If we are not going to include non-scholarly criticism then surely we must not also include non-scholarly support?95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research

As I know about Wikipedia, this place is against "original reasearch". It should be sourced from relevant sources about what someone who is in that relevant source made or said about or so. Original researches are for blogs, personal websites etc etc. And this article seems as a little controversial so probably need some better care and more attention even to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP has deleted a summary of the Overview section I added to the lead. My addition stated:

The authors use the term Communism to mean Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communism, i.e. the actually existing Communist regimes and "real socialism" in the 20th century, stating that it began in Sarajevo with World War I in 1914, more specifically with the Bolshevik Revolution which they describe as a coup, ending in Moscow with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While distinguishing between small-c communism (the theory) which has existed for millennia and capital-c Communism (the practice) which started in 1917, Courtois argue against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism.

The distinction between small-c communism (the theory) which has existed for millennia and capital-c Communism (the practice) is right in the book and not my original research. Of course, authors such as Courtois argue against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism, but they make the distinction. "We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia" (here, for example, it is uncapitalised). Authors such as Courtois and Malia also make clear they are referring to Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communism by stating that "Communism" began in 1917 and Malia stating that "more than eighty years after 1917, probing examination of the Big Questions raised by the Marxist-Leninist phenomenon has hardly begun" and that "The Black Book offers us the first attempt to determine, overall, the actual magnitude of what occurred, by systematically detailing Leninism's 'crimes, terror, and repression' from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989". It is not really controversial. Davide King (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

109.92.11.101, please do not edit warring and let us actually discuss this, thank you. Davide King (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You see all what you need are sources, you know, reliable, published sources. There is no edit war. Just following politics of wikipedia. If you do your own work, maybe you should make a book review website where you can totally add what you want, say how you want etc. And btw I opened this talk page so this is that IP what you tried to address "nicely". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

109.92.11.101, the sections Estimated number of victims and Comparison of Communism and Nazism, which I did not actually write, are are all sourced to the book itself. That paragraph I added to the lead was merely a summary (as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body) of the Overview section which includes quotes right from the book and I did not add my own views or original research, I merely reported what the authors actually wrote and quoted them, then I summarise that in the lead; and as I explained above, it is not really controversial that the book is about Communists states and Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communist crimes. After all, why would they capitalise Communism? It should not be capitalised, unless they are referring to a specific type; and they do make the distinction between small-c communism and capitalised-c Communism, straight from the horse's mouth, or in this case, fingers. Davide King (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If everything is soured. How is it original research is that your point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You see, how it is stated unted overview section whole first part all to the names of politicians and leaders examples seems fine. Pretty clear it is. And if we put all in lead as summary of this article seems to than need to put numbers of death people cuz it is also there in the content and big part of it. Better to don't make it that complex. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So your point is that it is not lead worthy? Why though? The book is titled The Black Book is Communism and right in the introduction Courtois asks "What exactly do we mean by the term 'Communism'? We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia". So why would it not be lead worthy or relevant to explain what the authors mean by the term, what they are actually discussing? Are they discussing all communism or only a specific part of it that arose in the 20th century? Why would they distinguish between communism and Communism otherwise? Malia also clearly uses the terms Leninism and Marxist-Leninist. Davide King (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Then we came again to the original research and how we see it as editors. In their words it is more about utopian or theoretical and how it looked everywhere in practice. How it is said: doctrine of communism and its practice. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtois states "We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia". So maybe I am not the one doing original research. In other words, the book is about Communism in practice; it is more about Communist states than communism. After all, why would it states that "Communism" began in 1917? This terminology is very relevant and lead-worthy, considering that they actually use Leninist and Marxist-Leninist as terms, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the lead. What is original research and POV pushing is not providing the actual nuance of the authors regarding the term Communism and how they basically use it to mean Bolshevik, Leninist and Marxist-Leninist, hence they write "Communism" was born in 1917. Davide King (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should contact autors, and tell them to instead of communism they should change the name of that book. Or you can make a book somethings about crimes or small c communism or capital C communism and then find a relevant publisher and then it can be added at wikipedia. I don't know what to tell you. You need a source about review and not your views and not your capital c classificstions and to source says about this book in question cuz this article is about this book. Also I saw some ip user comming to support you and Im reading sockpuppet and meatpuppet at wikipedia rules right now. And main communism aricle I will check a little later. I feel to sources also can be a lil questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is not me who is making this small-c, big-c distinction, but the authors themselves. If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, you are wrong. I did not contact TimothyBlue and the other IP is not me, nor someone I know or contacted. Making such false claims and bad faith accusations may result in your block. Davide King (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@109.92.11.101: Davide King and I share many of the same interests, so we frequently see each others contributions. He has shown great patience with you, patience that I do not possess. If I were in your place, I would go to the AN3 board and explain yourself, instead of wasting time on puppet investigations. I'd also retract your accusation that I am a meat puppet.   // Timothy :: talk  04:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

heheh you are also pretty fast, not patient cuz maybe you are strong and doing things on some other way hahahah gosh. Noone mentioned user with a name, that one dangerous without patience, but that IP user is interesting. IP user mentioned you by your username in his edits description. He appeared as discussion started immidiately. Somehow as I saw, you and that IP editor edit the same pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just retorting to false accuses and personal attacks. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So what if the IP mentioned me in the edit summary? It is not uncommon to mention users or IPs in edit summaries to better explain the reason for the edit. Both you and I referred to each other as you in our own edit summaries to justify and explain the reasoning behind our edits. By the way, I provided you below with some sources that talk and discuss about the communism/Communism, among others, distinction, so it is not my original research. Davide King (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You attacking yourself and you answer on that attacks also by yourself. Noone mentioned user with a name, Timmy is name or so, who also found himself even if not mentioned and he wrote to he is not patient. Now I worry to he dont do something bad to himself, if he is without patience. Btw also about IP user, I said to it is interesting, he comes to talk page immidiately to "form" "consensus" and mantioned you as a source. Ah somehow edit the same pages. Maybe you can call him to come back.109.92.11.101 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect and trying to assume good faith, you are again writing nonsense and making false accuses, besides writing in a contorted and unclear manner. Why do you not ask for a CheckUser? So you will see that I am neither the IP 174.57.156.122 nor TimothyBlue and we can end this nonsense and false accusations. Davide King (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Page protected which should end this 109.92.11.101's nonsense.   // Timothy :: talk  06:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Western historians and journalists have used the terms Communism or Communist state to refer to 20th century Communism. See the following sources:

Williams, Raymond (1983). "Socialism". Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society, revised edition. Oxford University Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-19-520469-8. The decisive distinction between socialist and communist, as in one sense these terms are now ordinarily used, came with the renaming, in 1918, of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). From that time on, a distinction of socialist from communist, often with supporting definitions such as social democrat or democratic socialist, became widely current, although it is significant that all communist parties, in line with earlier usage, continued to describe themselves as socialist and dedicated to socialism.

Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. p. 45. ISBN 978-0875484495. Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all.

Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0262182348. Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism.

Wilczynski, J. (2008). The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945-1990. Aldine Transaction. p. 21. ISBN 978-0202362281. Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism' is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State.

Hence why it is capitalised, something which is followed in The Black Book of Communism. Most sources capitalise Communism for the same reasons. As explained by Sara Diamond in Roads to Dominion: Right-wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, "I use uppercase 'C' Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase 'c' communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society." Davide King (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Find a reliable source where it is said something like authors of The black book of communism in their book talk about capital C communism not about communism at all in general. You are right now doing original research and doing synthesis of sources not correlated with this article and it is about this book 109.92.11.101 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we also need a reliable source where it is said that the authors of the book consider Communism and Nazism to be distinct yet comparable totalitarian systems? Yet, we cite the book for claims in the "Estimated number of victims" and "Comparison of Communism and Nazism" sections, so why is it wrong to quote Courtois as stating that "[w]e must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia" or that they make clear the "Communism" they are talking about started in 1917? The authors speak of the "Marxist-Leninist phenomenon" and "detailing Leninism's 'crimes, terror, and repression' from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989". Those are not really controversial claims. The lead states the book is about "documenting a history of political repressions by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, killing populations in labor camps and artificially created famines." Before you falsely accuse me again, I did not actually write this. Davide King (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Authors said it, it is their book, book became notable but also for that there is one criticism section here under reception. In their words it is about theoretical and how it looked everywhere in practice. That is enough said. That what you wanted to add as c C communism is as you saw it and you decided to little put own light on, to make it more wide and to put that words as authors own words, to add own discussions of communism, e you see, that is called original research. Here we don't do book reviews and own conclusions. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What is exactly your issue with the wording I used? The small-c communism vis-à-vis big-c Communism comes from the book itself, with the author using communism when stating "[w]e must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia" and then using Communism elsewhere. In his own words, "the Communism that concerns us does not exist in the transcendent sphere of ideas. This Communism is altogether real; it has existed at key moments of history and in particular countries, brought to life by its famous leaders", i.e. the "Communism" that started in 1917 and ended in 1991, the "the Marxist-Leninist phenomenon" and the "real socialism" of the 20th century. So what is wrong with stating "While distinguishing between small-c communism (the theory) which has existed for millennia and capital-c Communism (the practice) which started in 1917, Courtois argues against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism." which is a summary of the above quote? Thus far, you are also the only one who has reverted me or think this is original research, so I remain in my belief that my addition was not really controversial as you make it out to be. Davide King (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Self published source

I removed part of the content what is about historian William Blum statement about this book. It is writen like this "Historian William Blum stated that it is "a book that is to the study of communism as the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Judaism".

Well the problem is to the source for this words is self-published,blog or personal website and seems not notable, if it is, it won't be a problem to find a source what someone made with similar words as notable contribution to this article. Everyone can write anything or say but notablity is important and infulence what is made with that saying or writting. Not everything has encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

109.92.11.101, let us see "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" and whether it fits this. Davide King (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like Dave king is right about this for the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Pay attention especially about using self published sources. Still seems highy not supported to use that type of sources and as I said if it is really notable saying someone would take it and push that and publish it under some notable relevant source label. As I wrote it is not everything for use at encyclopedia. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we wait for more people to join in? instead of removing sources Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#:~:text=A%20self%2Dpublished%20source%20can,party%20claims%20about%20living%20people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Source should stay. Consensus is required before removing information and the onus is on the editor wanting to make the change to demonstrate it should be changed. The sources should stay until a consensus is reached to remove it. Further, the individual wanting to remove is edit waring   // Timothy :: talk  03:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well well, Maybe but not in a case to it is highly unencycopledical source and that sources are highly discouraged from use. Personal blogs, sites, self published thoughts, also not notable at all otherwise it would made some impact and there would be academical sources who use that phrase or words etc. Anyway. Here need to come someone with some more "privileges" about Wikipedia to solve this. It is not about even what is said but about relevance and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are academical sources who use the same phrase or words, they are used on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• So, we have to be consistent in our standards. Either (1) we do not consider self-published opinions, even if by experts, to have WP:Due weight, and we remove them, including this one; or (2) we do, and other historians and other relevant experts who have supported this book on their sites and blogs get added to the support section. I don't think Blum's comment carries due weight and should be removed. But if editors want it to stay, then we know what standard we're following then. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Blum is not a trained historian or subject matter expert. His self-published comparison of an academic book published by Harvard University Press to the anti-Semitic fabrication The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is non-notable, WP:FRINGE nonsense of literally zero encyclopedic value.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, we do state at William Blum that he is a historian, so which is which? Either way, I believe Aquillion has solved the self-published issue, so we need to discuss what to put there. We either put only trained historians or perhaps distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly reception. We should probably only put historians and scholarly reception, but I would not be opposed to a few relevant, notable or due non-scholarly reception in a subsection. Davide King (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• He appears to have said the same thing in a properly published book. It was published by Zed Books, which, while it is a collective, has a rigorous editorial process that they say rejects the vast majority of submissions they receive. We could argue over how good Zed Books is as a publisher or over William Blum's qualifications, but unless I'm misunderstanding something it's at the very least clearly not self-published, so this should at least resolve that part of the dispute. I would probably not want to give it any more text than it has now, but I think a brief one-sentence mention in the criticism section is not WP:UNDUE (although the whole WP:CSECTION structure is its own problem.) Blum is also a WP:BIASED source (to put it mildly) and we might want an in-line citation characterizing him as a critic of American foreign policy or something of that nature - an uncontroversial descriptor that reasonably summarizes how he portrays himself in the source. I would also particularly compare the brief sentence devoted to one quote from Blum to the massive paragraph we currently devote to Last Exit to Utopia, which is an extremely similar source - a book by someone with no relevant formal education who nonetheless published extensively and was prominent in anti-Communist political circles, which was published by a partisan press outlet; that one could probably stand to be toned down dramatically. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That removal does not follow. There is no evidence Blum has any additional points that are not already covered; while Jean-François Revel's points should be covered as WP:Due. And Revel is a philosopher, which is relevant expertise. Not only Marxist or communist philosophers get their say. As for being prominent in anti-Communist circles or "partisan", that is irrelevant. That doesn't discredit him in any way, and many of the book's critics are just as prominent if not more so in far-left partisan circles. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

    Crossroads, I did not remove it, I merely left a shorter summary. It is almost ten lines long and the longest of all section. Davide King (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

    Some of his points were removed, though, but in any case I removed the excess verbiage so it doesn't appear overly long. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• The point of the 'partisan press' bit is to compare him to Blum (who also has extensive expertise with the CIA, having worked with them both professionally and, later, when writing his books) - they are similar in that both their books were published by a partisan publisher and that their prominence was largely limited to people who shared their views. In any case, as was said, I wasn't arguing for complete removal, just pointing out that the amount of text given to Revel was WP:UNDUE compared to... well, not just Blum but to almost everyone else in the section. There's no indication that his book was actually particularly noteworthy or attracted much attention, so while we can mention it briefly it seems inappropriate for it to be nearly 1/5th of the Support section. We devote as much text to Revel's book as we do to Werth and Margolin, professional historians whose expertise focuses on the subject who wrote for the book and who are cited to multiple secondary sources. We devote more text to Revel than we do to Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty, who, again, are experts on the subject and who we cite via multiple secondary sources, including peer-reviewed papers. I have nothing against a sentence or two mentioning Revel's opinions, but if you want more than that (and especially the massive paragraph he has now) you will need to produce secondary coverage and cite him through that in order to demonstrate that his WP:DUE weight is comparable to the people we are giving similar amounts of text. Right now I am not seeing it - he seems to be a random opinionated philosopher whose book (and, therefore, whose opinions on this topic) were not of particularly of enough note to be worth a massive paragraph. Again, if you think his book is noteworthy, find secondary coverage comparable to what we have for the people I mentioned. Otherwise I'll trim it down to a sentence or two in a bit. If you think his points are WP:DUE, you demonstrate this via secondary coverage - but arguing that they are inherently due is WP:FALSEBALANCE; we don't give people massive paragraphs just because a random editor likes what they're saying or because their views happen to exist. WP:DUE is about giving them weight in accordance to their prominence, so if you want to give Revel nearly the largest paragraph in the entire section, you must show that he has attracted the most secondary coverage out of everyone in the section, or at least some secondary coverage at all. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• In that case would you be applying the same standard to Chomsky's long paragraph (no secondary sources), and to the journalists who are mentioned at all but who have zero relevant expertise, like Perrault and Milne? And if not, why not? Crossroads ^-talk- 15:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Aquillion, Blum's claims about CIA intervention are largely sourced from fragmentary reports in leftist press outlets, as he makes clear in his published work. Blum never worked for or with the CIA. He had a relatively short stint working as a computer programmer at the State Department, from which he was eventually pressured to resign due to his anti-Vietnam War activism. Furthermore, the CIA as an institution most certainly did not approve or review any of Blum's published work about the agency or U.S. foreign policy generally. Davide King, the William Blum article may have some sort of local consensus to describe Blum as an historian (frankly, for all I know, its contributors may include a disproportionate number of fans of his work, as is common for biographies of obscure subjects), but what happens there is not necessarily binding on us here and is open to challenge. From what I can find, Blum is not widely described as an historian in reliable sources and is rarely cited by academic sources. I checked Blum's obituaries in both The New York Times ([1]) and The Washington Post ([2]), and neither include any mention of Blum having been an "historian"; instead, both refer to him by some variant of "U.S. policy critic." As an indication of just how marginal Blum's opinions are, The Washington Post states that "For years, William Blum toiled largely without notice on writings in which he railed against the imperialism of U.S. foreign policy. ... even left-wing publications such as the Nation declined to publish his works, Mr. Blum said, because they judged him too fanatical." (If you are wondering, then, why the mainstream press is covering him at all, it's because of the Osama bin Laden endorsement.) Regardless, any notoriety that Blum has is related to his criticism of the United States rather than relevant subject matter expertise on the former communist regimes of Europe and Asia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed the unsourced claim that Blum is a historian from his article. This is a good example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• In that case would you be applying the same standard to Chomsky's long paragraph (no secondary sources), and to the journalists who are mentioned at all but who have zero relevant expertise, like Perrault and Milne? I have no problem with your proposal. Chomsky himself is one of the book's more prominent critics, so finding a secondary source for him was trivial. With him aside, can I take this to mean that you'd agree to have the amount of text devoted to Revel reduced to equivalent to the amount devoted to Perrault (one sentence, without its own paragraph) or Milne (two sentences, about half the size of Revel's current paragraph)? Milne's degree is in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, so his expertise is in fact slightly more specifically-relevant than the expertise of "has a philosophy degree" you're claiming for Revel.

Again, I'm not suggesting removing Revel entirely; the reason why I suddenly shifted to focus on him was because I noticed that he has more text than anyone else in either section, including people who are far more prominent and qualified. If you want him to retain that plainly WP:UNDUE focus you must demonstrate that his views really are that important. Otherwise, I have no objection to mentioning his position in a sentence or two, but the massive paragraph that takes up 1/5th of the entire support section has to go. I mean... do you honestly believe he is the most prominent person to have ever commented on The Black Book of Communism, and that his description of it is the most significant description of it that exists? Because that is what the amount of text we are currently devoting to his views implies, and I am simply not seeing it at all - he is plainly one of the less important voices mentioned in those sections, and his book seems to have had no significant impact. We can mention it, yes, but by what standard are you arguing we should devote so much more text to him than to Anne Applebaum, or Mark Tauger, or Kristen Ghodsee, or Scott Sehon, or the Wiesel Commission, or Jolanta Pekacz, or Tony Judt? All of these sources seem more significant than him, yet they're each given only a fraction of the text (in fact I suspect all of them combined would barely equal the massive paragraph we inexplicably devote to Revel.) Why do you think Revel deserves so much weight? It looks like textbook WP:UNDUE to me. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, I agree. Revel is also essentially saying that "Communism" and 'socialism' are not criticized enough and that capitalism is criticized too much. But that is false. 'Socialism' may be held in a more respectable regard because it is associated with social-democracies and other democratic socialism while "Communism" is used to refer to "Communist" states. However, 'socialism' is routinely criticized and compared to "Communism" and Nazism. Indeed, "Communism" and 'Communist' crimes are used against any social change, radical or not, or socialist system. We do have a Black Ribbon Day commemoring "Communist" and Nazi crimes as well as a Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism. We do not have a Black Ribbon Day that also add Capitalist crimes to "Communism", Nazism and other authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. We do not have a Black Ribbon Day comparing Capitalism to Nazism, although the Nazis and fascist presided over capitalist regimes and "Communist states" as routinely described as de facto 'state' capitalist or 'command economies', or simply "totalitarian". We do not have a Prague Declaration on Western Conscience and Capitalism, Colonialism, Imperialism and Slavery.

Chomsky's comments make more sense and are more warranted because Capitalism is simply not held to the same standard given to Communism and Nazism. By following the same methodology of The Black Book of Communism, Capitalism has actually killed more than Communism and Nazism. Since the book makes the point that Communism is worse than Nazism because it killed '100 millions' and criticises the criticism regarding the comparison of Communism and Nazism that it should be weighted 'qualitatively' rather than 'quantitative', hence Communist crimes are worse than the Holocaust and the Holocaust was not at all unique, Capitalism is actually worse than both of them, but it is not held to the same standard. In other words, Chomsky criticises a double standard that actually exists whereas Revel criticises one that does not. Because Capitalism is simply not criticized as much as "Communism" or 'socialism' and its colonial, imperialist and slavery crimes are not considered along with Communist, Nazis and other authoritarian/totalitarian regimes.

By the way, this is not just my personal opinion, but it is essentially what anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee and philosopher Scott Sehon argue in Ghodsee, Kristen R.; Sehon, Scott (22 March 2018). "Anti-anti-communism". Aeon. Retrieved 24 August 2020. Yet, we use that merely to state that they Courtois' death toll estimate for Nazism "conveniently" excludes those killed in the Second World War rather than the 6–9 of lines we use in the paragraph about Revel which is undue per Aquillion's reasoning. At best, it may be summarised in one or two short sentences. Revel also seems to excuse Capitalist crimes (colonialism, slavery and Nazism) by linking them to collectivism and statism ("social slavery"/"state slavery"). So how is that different from communists arguing that "Communism" did not commit any crimes because it was not true communism and that "Communist" states were not really communist? Certainly, I would have expected more from such a book and philosopher than this. Davide King (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, your statements about capitalism are all highly contentious, and per WP:NOTFORUM, it is best we do not discuss such matters here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And your statement Chomsky criticises a double standard that actually exists whereas Revel criticises one that does not means you are judging sources based on whether you agree with them, which is how WP:POV enters articles. The standard has to be based on source quality. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, the crux of the matter is that, unlike Revel, Chomsky is also a historian (Otero 2003:416 and Barsky 2007:107) and has been cited in secondary sources as provided by Aquillion. Can you provide a secondary source for Revel too? Davide King (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with having Chomsky, and we don't require secondary sources for book reviews. The reviews are secondary sources about the book being reviewed, which is why we include them in articles about books. I only made the point about a secondary source for Chomsky because there was a claim about a secondary source for Revel to justify the length, but now that's been trimmed, so let's just move past that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, but we need secondary sources to establish weight, no? Chomsky's comments about the book have appeared in secondary sources. Has Revel's book been mentioned in reviews or in other secondary sources? Davide King (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked. But we're not removing it. He has relevant expertise and it is a published book, and a secondary source about The Black Book of Communism. Chomsky's comments appearing in a secondary source are highly unusual. Again, book reviews are not required to be mentioned in sources secondary to the review to be described. We don't follow an infinite regress like that. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're suggesting removing it, merely trimming it down in size to the amount of text (and weight) given to comparable sources. Again, do you think Revel is WP:DUE more weight than everyone else in the section, including the other people I listed above (whose expertise is clearly superior and who were published academically or by more significant publishers)? If so, why? Also, I feel you misunderstood my agreement on Perrault and Milne - you suggested treating them the same as Revel, and I agreed; they have comparable expertise and WP:DUE weight. Perrault studied at the Instituts d'études politiques, which focuses on political science; Milne in particular (with a degree in philosophy, politics, and economics) has more precisely relevant qualifications than you have claimed for Milne, while being published in a higher-quality / higher-profile source; Perrault has an extremely brief mention. That is to say that, after walking through the relevant qualifications and how they compared, as well as the source where they were published, interpreted your suggestion that we hold them to the same standard as being that Revel should have about the same amount of text devoted to him as Milne in particular (who is an a very comparable source with the same qualifications.) If you want to remove those sources on the grounds that a philosophy degree is insufficient qualification you must remove Revel as well to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to one particular side by including lower-quality sources from one position and excluding comparable sources that disagree. My point was to demonstrate that they were comparable sources to Revel and yet Revel was inexplicably getting far more text. --Aquillion (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Revel is now shorter than other reviews and you've restored the other authors. I don't see what there is to discuss further. No, I do not believe two opinion pieces in The Guardian constitute a "higher-quality" source than a published book, nor that we need to get exact parity specifically between Revel and Milne or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• We devote more text to Revel than we do to Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty, who, again, are experts on the subject... J. Arch Getty is a part of the Soviet revisionist school which is not mainstream historiography. The Daily Telegraph has aptly summed him up as "Stalin's apologist" who was proven wrong by the opening of the archives. --Pudeo (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, are there any other fringe authors lurking in the section that we don't know about? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't answer for Puedo, but any summary of the revisionist debates as "Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE" is not a very accurate statement concerning reality as we know it. And The Telegraph is a terribly biased and unreliable source in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No challenges in "Overview"

Here, Crossroads reverted my addition, claiming that they were "WP:Synthesis, since he does not talk about the book, and there is no reason to single out this one relativizing view out of countless other views." Yet, this does not change the fact that the whole overview section, of which I have added much text, includes no challenge. I believe there should be at least some under "Estimated number of victims" which is what I added. That those two sources may not explicitly talk about the book does not mean they ought to be removed. The rest may be argued to be synthesis because some of the refs may not explicitly mention the book either, but they did criticise Rummel and Valentino, on which the book heavily relies. Nor, I think, can they be dismissed as "one relativizing view". You are free to add more, without removing those. Davide King (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are also the most controversial chapters (the "Foreword" and the "Introduction"). I ping Aquillion since they were recently involved in this discussion, but Newimpartial, Pudeo, TheTimesAreAChanging and TimothyBlue are also welcome to state their thoughts. Davide King (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Frankly I was already compromising by letting any of that remain there; in my view the remainder should be checked for synthesis and any remainder moved to "criticism". If you look at our other book articles, they relate the book's content and then the reception material comes after that. But at minimum, the material I took off is not usable per WP:Synthesis: If one reliable source says A [so-and-so said discussion of victim numbers is ideologically biased], and another reliable source says B [higher estimates of victim numbers have been criticized], do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C [so-and-so was talking about higher estimates in discussing ideological bias] that is not mentioned by either of the sources. And again: If one reliable source says A [so-and-so said Stalin could be defended because such-and-such], and another reliable source says B [the book said Stalin killed X number of people], do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C [so-and-so was criticizing the book] that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This article is not supposed to be a WP:CFORK or WP:POVFORK of articles about Communist regimes and what they did, ending up with two different sides that keep piling on favored unrelated sources. We need to stick to talking about the book and approach the subject with NPOV. I do not wish to have to spend time looking up sources on Stalin, nor explaining what is synthesis. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

But my intent was not saying that so-and-so was criticizing the book. Rather, it was criticism of the estimate of victims, hence why I added it there. I thought it was relevant or related enough to be mentioned since the book relies on them. Davide King (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove Ellman but not Snyder, even though I have checked that Snyder does not specifically mention the book either? The only reason I can see is that you did not like Ellman's analysis or conclusion because if not directly mentioning the book is enough for removal, then Snyder should be removed too; and I do not think we should, since it provides some context. The whole point of Ellman is that he rejects the concept of a Communist death toll, without denying that people did not die or that the event did not take place; and he discusses Stalinism, as does Snyder, which is still relevant to this article since Stalin and Stalinism are widely discussed in the book, so it provides a scholarly analysis. I also think you are overstimating how much praised the book actually was and understimating how much criticised it was. The book was praised by news media, some journalists and historians but Soviet and Communist studies scholars gave much more more mixed or critical reviews.

I believe Paul Siebert had a point when they wrote "[i]n reality, such authors as Courtois are revisionists, because they challenge the old concept that Nazism was the greatest evil. Their views caused hot debates, and their POV has never been mainstream. Moreover, there is a direct connection between the attempts to present Communism as greater evil and Holocaust trivialisation (including resurrection of antisemitism), and whitewashing of former Nazi criminals." You seem to view as though Courtois and The Black Book of Communism are mainstream in academia; they may be mainstream among news media and the population, especially in the Anglo-American sphere and in Eastern Europe, but it is not mainstream within academia and Soviet and Communist scholarship. Davide King (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It's simpler than that: I never systematically checked material that was in the article prior to my watching it - only changes thereafter. If it is does not discuss the book, then it is synthesis and should not stay. That's the only way to avoid coatracking as people pile on sources saying this or that about Communism. As for what is mainstream in academia, on Wikipedia we have to discuss topics based solely on sources; assertions based on personal authority won't go far. I am very skeptical that the book is that fringe. The sources in this article seem to suggest that it is disputed, but not fringe. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the question of how FRINGE the Black Book is in the academic world is more interesting than I expected. It certainly seems still to be mainstream in Poland :) (though I don't read Polish so I depend on abstracts for those references).

Outside Poland, it was certainly mainstream from 1998-2001 when many translations were issued or reissued and received with enthusiastic reviews. In terms of recent scholarship, though, the trend in the last few years has been to treat the Black Book as an outlier, or to read the underlying ideological moves embedded in the book itself rather than taking its historical claims at face value. It certainly represents a minority view, now, though I'm not certain that it's all the way over to FRINGE (after all, Poland counts too!). Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I am defining fringe "to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." I did not actually say the book itself was fringe; I am saying it is revisionist and a minority within its field, and that its praise or support in news media and popularity among politicians and the public at-large should not imply it is actually mainstream in academia. When I say fringe, I actually mean the definition above and what Newimpartial summarised below, not as "in a narrower sense as a pejorative, roughly synonymous with pseudo-scholarship." I do not know what exactly you were referring to when you wrote "assertions based on personal authority won't go far." Whether you were referring to what I wrote or what Paul Siebert wrote elsewhere, I think it is too simplicistic to dismiss those as our personal views, when we simply reached those conclusions based on an analysis of sources and scholarship on the subject, or we were simply reporting a summary of what scholars said. Davide King (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I see you removed Snyder but I think both Ellman and Snyder should be re-added because they provide scholarly context for the Stalinist death toll, which is widely discussed in the book. Davide King (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but this is not the article that should discuss the total death toll under Stalinism. Objections to the bizarrely selective statistics in the book need to be sourced to critics of the book in particular. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, which is what I was trying to do, because criticism of the book is not only about the estimates, but also about the narrative of communism as being the main culprit and being worse than Nazism, essentially amount to either Holocaust trivialisation or double genocide theory. The section about Criticism should include all this but I also think there should be criticism about the estimates at the Estimated number of victims. The point is that there is criticism of the whole "Victims of Communism" and "Communism worst than Nazism" narrative, which Ellman and Snyder summarised. I think it is relevant because the book itself largely popularised those views, so even if they may not mention it directly, it is still relevant to this article. See also The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War (2018) by Routledge. Davide King (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I am just saying that we need to use references that also reference the article topic (the book). Otherwise this article will become a WP:COATRACK for the victims of Communism debates, which should not be this article's focus. Newimpartial (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I do not support coatracking it, hence why I believe only Ellman and Snyder should be added for context, even if they do not explicitily reference the book. As an example, Snyder says "[e]ven historians of the Holocaust generally take for granted that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, thus placing themselves under greater pressure to stress the special character of the Holocaust, since this is what made the Nazi regime worse than the Stalinist one." He is also relevant because the book argues that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, which is false. Either way, I just wish this strict standard was applied equally to the coatrack and synthesis mess of Mass killings under communist regimes. By the way, you were spot on when you wrote "any summary of the revisionist debates as 'Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE' is not a very accurate statement concerning reality as we know it." Unfortunately, most Communist-related articles follow this view and hence violate NPOV. Davide King (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, even without the long quotations from Ellman and Snyder, we already have enough information in this article for readers to learn that the figures presented in the Black Book are not authoritative and are controversial. If there are other RS commentators who criticize the book specifically for including these figures, then I am all for inclusion, but otherwise I think that part of the section says everything it needs to. In fact, the presentation of the casualty arithmetic in this section is probably still excessively detailed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is this is not reflected in other articles, which use The Black Book of Communism like it reflects scholarly consensus and extensively use its estimates at Mass killings under communist regimes. Davide King (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

EU decision on the equivalence of Communism and Nazism as Totalitarian regimes.

I previously added a referenced quote to the state of art as to the comparison of Communism and Nazism as totalitarian regimes, especially with reference to the latest binding EU resolution on the matter. Despite this and despite the fact that I was adding nothing controversial, the sentence was removed, twice. I hope that, by adding this section here, those who made that decision will come to reason.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, we don't add commentary to the lead unless it is part of the actual article. Per WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK, we don't indiscriminately add sourced information, particularly when is not about the article's topic. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, we seek consensus on Talk rather than edit-earring to shoehorn in our preferred content. Thanks! Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This material fails WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR and WP:DUE. The primary source added does not discuss the BBoC or the controversy surrounding it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are different and are mostly unrelated. My edit is relevant in that it adds context. Criticising a book for something that has been settled against the critics, after the book has become a benchmark for all serious scholarship on communism and had so many new editions is instrumental to the content of the article. I shall re-edit and add more references. In any case, stop undoing the edit out of your personal ideological reasons.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy basis whatsoever for introducing this material to the lead of the article, so please stop doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You cannot be the judge in your own case. I have now revised the text, compliant with your indications: pointing to relevant studies, and reviews and contextualised the reference to the EU resolution. Stop deleting sentences because you do not like them as you are deleting reference material.--86.6.148.125 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't "my case". And the policies I linked above are not "my policies", they are WP policies. Have you read them? Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Just added a note (note 2 to be precise) which documents the direct connection between the "Black Book" legacy and the "EU decision". It should be clear now why the sentence is relevant and it is important where it is placed. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the note 11--86.6.148.125 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have moved the section to the body of the article, where (if anywhere) it belongs. Please do not continue the edit war. Newimpartial (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

IP, thank you for your interest in the topic; however, please keep in mind a few things. First, mind the WP:3RR, and avoid accusing opponents of ideological bias (but one can say that certain edits, not editors, are/introduce POV). Also, please only use sources that directly talk about the book, per WP:SYNTH. Lastly, make sure that the claim in the text matches the sources. For example, a claim about "most historians" needs a source saying that; it can't be synthesized by the editor based on certain reviews. That said, the article needs more editors who have the time and familiarity to find the sources that supported the book. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If my edits were synthesis, then so was this. It also contained original research in implying that since the European Union endorsed the book's equivalence between Communism and Nazism, then that must mean the book is no longer controversial, when that political decision is part of the "victims of Communism" narrative as described in "Advocating for the Cause of the 'Victims of Communism' in the European Political Space: Memory Entrepreneurs in Interstitial Fields". Since there is no actual mention of the book, it should be removed from the body for the same reason mine was removed, as the situation is the same. Davide King (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As I explained here, none of these sources mention the book and those who do, they are used in support of the claim the book is controversial which we already use in Reception, and they do not mention the resolution; it is pure synthesis, as neither source mention both, unless I missed something. Davide King (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this an example of edit war? Davide King what you say is false, the article I quote after the declaration of the European Union supports my argument. READ before undoing and as the other said to me, seek agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.148.125 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC) --86.6.148.125 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What I take from this is that Wikipedia and this page in particular is profoundly biased. I added 5 sources, almost all fo them from Jstor, and the quote has been suppressed, by Davide King --86.6.148.125 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

This ref, i.e. the resolution, makes not a single mention of the book. You are free to use ctrl and F to verify that. And you are the one engaging in edit warring by forcing your edit as consensus when you are the only one supporting the addition. I am merely trying to restore the status quo ante version as suggested by the BRD process. They have been removed because none of those sources discuss the book and the resolution together, or reach the conclusion your wording suggest, hence it is original research and synthesis. Davide King (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's possible the article is biased, so let's work collaboratively to fix it. For example, these two reviews [3][4] did not appear to be in the article previously, so thank you for finding them, and let's find a way to add them without WP:Synthesis. Again, any other sources used have to discuss the book itself. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, if you can check these two sources to see what they say, we may add them at Reception. Davide King (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, regarding this, I agree. I added it in the hope someone else who read the whole thing could provide context and expand it. I simply added what I was able to read. Davide King (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Reviews

It's actually quite difficult to find scholarly reviews of this book in English, which is in itself telling. However, I am going to quote this passage from a French language review by Jean-Jacques Becker[5]. He praises some chapters but on the introduction and concept of Communism as inherently criminal, he has nothing good to say:

Il y a la fameuse introduction dont se sont desolidarises plusieurs des plus importants auteurs de l'ouvrage! Que pouvait-on attendre de cette introduction? , Une comparaison argumentee entre les differents systemes communistes qui ont fonctionne dans le monde, Cela n'a pas ete le souci de Stephane Courtois. A grand renfort de citations d'origines variees, il n'introduit pas l'objet du livre, mais il conduit d'entree l'ouvrage dans des voies imprevues. D'abord, il entend etablir une sorte de statistique, a vrai dire assez aleatoire, des morts du communisme (on le sent d'ailleurs contrarie de ne pouvoir atteindre, malgre de grands efforts, les cent millions, un beau chiffre rond). Ce decompte portant sur des phenomenes en realite de natures tres diverses, a des moments tres differents, dans des pays oi les circonstances et les cultures n'ont pas ete les memes, revient, il faut bien le dire, on excusera la trivialite du propos, a additionner des carottes et des navets... La valeur historique est nulle et elle occulte au surplus un phenomene beaucoup plus important, la mise en place de systemes de repression multiformes qui echappent a toute comptabilite, mais qui, dans leur quotidiennete, ont accable d'immenses populations. Cette premiere ,idee, etait pourtant importante pour la logique de cette introduction. Ce decompte illusoire permet de developper une deuxieme idee. Les systemes communistes sont en soi ,criminels,, ce qui evite de s'interroger sur les raisons qui ont pousse tant de millions d'hommes a travers le monde a y <adherer> au moins pendant un certain temps. D'ou, troisieme idee, qui joue un role recurrent dans cette introduction, la comparaison avec le nazisme, reduite a une comparaison statistique. Autant etablir une comparaison entre deux systemes totalitaires est parfaitement legitime, autant la forme de cette comparaison est illegitime, d'autant que l'auteur s'en defend - et il n'y a pas de raison de ne pas le croire: il n'a aucunement voulu minorer le phenomene nazi pour mieux denoncer le phenomene communiste et le rendre pire que le premier. Mais le malheur est que c'est bien cela que le lecteur comprend ou risque de comprendre. A larrivee, l'extermination de six millions de juifs fait pale figure a c6te des < cent millions de victimes, du communisme. Derniere idee force de l'introduction, mais on a alors definitivement quitte le domaine de l'histoire, la condamnat des historiens qui ont failli a leur moral en ne mettant pas en valeur les crimes du communisme (ce qui est d'ailleurs faux).

(You can get a pretty good result from Google Translate). (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the main problem with that article is as follows. This article is not about the Black Book of Communism, this article is about the Courtois's introduction and Malia's foreword. The title of this article is totally misleading, and we should either bring the title into accordance with the article's content, or bring the article's content into accordance with the title.

The first approach requires renaming of the article to "Introduction to the Black Book of Communism".

The second approach requires complete re-writing of the article: one (big) section about Werth's chapter, another about Margolin's etc. After that, it should be discussed the very controversial introduction, including all negative reviews, and including a conflict between the two major contributors to the book and Courtois. It is actually quite necessary to explain that, whereas the BB is praised mostly due to the Werth's chapter, the article is focused almost exclusively on the worst part of the book (the introduction).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I think that is fine as an overview of the arguments made, so that the reader can make their own conclusions, but I agree it should also include Werth and Margolin's chapters, etc. The introduction is first simply because it follows a chronological order. I think we should indeed have a section dedicated to negative reviews of the very controversial introduction. Davide King (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I have already tagged the § Comparison of Communism and Nazism sub-section of The Black Book of Communism § Overview as overly detailed. I agree that the article should be further divided; moreover, the excessive direct quotations should be reduced by summarising their content. From a purely literary standpoint, the § Overview section (which, mind you, should give an overview of the subject) is, in its current state, indigestible. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)