Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:01, 11 November 2011

In application and enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, the following discretionary sanctions apply to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either minor edits as described at WP:Minor edit and marked as minor, reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious WP:BLP violation, or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus. Procedural details The rules at WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans apply to reverts of vandalism or BLP violations. (For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, for any reason, are neither minor edits nor vandalism.) For the purpose of this sanction, an edit may only be deemed to have consensus if the following minimum procedural requirements are met: It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours. In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal. The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal. The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof. Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. In addition, a previously imposed WP:1RR restriction concerning this article continues to apply.  Sandstein  20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep, 13 July 2010, see discussion. Keep, 13 April 2010, see discussion. No consensus, 8 November 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 24 September 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 3 August 2009, see discussion.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 10, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus September 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed October 2, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus November 15, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus April 22, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept July 19, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Request for comment

The editors of this article have long been divided into two groups, each having a different concept of how the article should be approached. While the whole article needs extensive work, the difference in concept shows up most clearly in the lede: one group does not want to include more than a couple of numbers in the lede, another believes that the scale of the mass killings needs to be clearly explained there. Rather than continue endless pages of argument on this matter, we've decided to ask the general population of editors on Misplaced Pages to decide which approach is best. Please make brief comments below.

Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Concept 1

"Definition of "mass killings under Communist regimes" is a matter of judgement and heavily coloured by political opinion, so the figures are not separable from the opinions, and should not be provided in the opening sentence. A lion's share of mass deaths under Communists was not a result of repressions or executions, but of famine, disease and similar causes, which are not considered as a mass killings according to the normal historical practice. Most single society studies exclude famine deaths from the mass killings deaths toll, however, most studies devoted to "world Communism" as whole combine all deaths together, hence the astronomic figures of "Communist mass killings" in this type sources. Obviously, that fact should be explained before any figures have been provided, otherwise a reader will be mislead and undue weight will be given to the latter type of sources at cost of the former.

In addition, since the article is primarily devoted not to the deaths toll, its lede, which serves as the article's summary, should provide just a couple of the most general figures. "

Concept 2

"Use of the term "mass killings" requires judgement and we need to rely on the expert judgement published in reliable sources and to document those sources. The scale of the mass killings is very important and summarizes much of what should appear in the body of the article. Reasonable estimates of the scale should be represented in the lede as ranges and in the body of the text in more detail."

Lede 1

"Mass killings of non-combatants occurred under some Communist regimes. Scholarship focuses on the specific causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes have been made, including the role of Communist ideology, the totalitarian nature of Communism, the strategic calculations of a small group of leaders seeking to communize the society. The number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited, and different definitions of mass killings have been proposed. There are scholars who combine deaths as result of executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, with the deaths as a result of war, famine and disease into a single category "mass killings", or "democide." The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion, and sometimes approach to 100 million. The highest death tolls occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million, Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, according to some evidences, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Lede 2

Mass killing of non-combatants has occurred under several Communist regimes in the pursuit of the communist ideal of a utopian society Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. The term "mass killing" refers not only to direct methods of killing, such as executions, bombing, and gassing, but also to the deaths in a population caused by starvation, disease and exposure resulting from the intentional confiscation or destruction of their necessities of life, or similarly caused deaths during forced relocation or forced labor. Thus starvation deaths in the 1932-1933 Holodomor, and in the 1958-1961 Great Chinese Famine, lethal forced labor in North Korea and ethnic cleansing in Asia, have all been described as mass killings.

The highest documented death tolls have occurred in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cambodia. Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin range from 15 million to 40 million. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, mass killings are estimated from 65 to 72 million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.

There have also been mass killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

References

While not all these footnotes need to be in the lede, it is important for reviewers to know that these exist and can be included in the body of the text if they are not already.

1. ^ Valentino (2005) Final solutions p. 91. Cite error: The named reference "Valentino" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. for the USSR, see. Werth, in Livre noir du Communisme: crimes, terreur, répression, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, eds. Translated by Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Harvard University Press, 1999, ISBN 0674076087, 9780674076082, for China, see Zhengyuan Fu, Autocratic tradition and Chinese politics. Cambridge University Press, 1993, ISBN 0521442281, 9780521442282, for Cambodia, see Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966 Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823
3. Malia M. in Livre noir du Communisme: crimes, terreur, répression, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, eds. Translated by Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Harvard University Press, 1999, ISBN 0674076087, 9780674076082, p. xix
4. ^ R. Rummel. Death by government. Transaction Publishers, 1997, ISBN 1560009276, 9781560009276, p. 87
5. Rosefielde, Steven (2010) Red Holocaust Routledge ISBN 978-041577757
6. For differeent definitions see, e.g., Ervin Staub. Genocide and Mass Killing: Origins, Prevention, Healing and Reconciliation. Political Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 367-382, Valentino, Benjamin; Paul Huth & Dylan Balch-Lindsay. ‘Draining the sea’:Mass killing and guerrilla warfare. International Organization, 2004 58(2): 375–407.
7. Hiroaki Kuromiya (Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression by Stephane Courtois. Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201), Donald Reid. In Search of the Communist Syndrome: Opening the Black Book of the New Anti-Communism in France. The International History Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jun., 2005), pp. 295-318)
8. Courtois S. in Livre noir du Communisme: crimes, terreur, répression, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, eds. Translated by Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Harvard University Press, 1999, ISBN 0674076087, 9780674076082, p. 14
9. ^ Valentino p. 91
10. Eric Weitz "The Modernity of Genocides" in Gellately, p. 69
11. Rosefielde p. 2
12. ^ Rosefielde p. 126
13. Courtois et al p. IX
14. Staub p. 8
15. Valentino p. 10
16. Snyder p. VII
17. ^ Rosefielde p. 114
18. Hosking p. 203
19. Naimark p. 11
20. Combs p. 307
21. ^ Courtois et al p. 4

Bibliography

• Combs, Dick (2008). Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised. Penn State University Press. p. 361. ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6.
• Courtois, Stéphane (editor) (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. p. 858. ISBN 0-674-07608-7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Translation of Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression, published in 1997 by Éditions Robert Laffont.
• Hosking, Geoffrey A. (1993). The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within. Harvard University Press. p. 570. ISBN 978-0674304437.
• Gellately, Robert (2003). The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective. Cambridge University Press. p. 396. ISBN 978-0521527507. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Kurtz, Lester R. (1999). Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict. Academic Press. p. 809. ISBN 978-0122270116. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Naimark, Norman M. (2010). Stalin’s Genocides. Princeton University Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Rosefielde, Steven (2010). Red Holocaust. Taylor & Francis. p. 358. ISBN 978-041577757.
• Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Basic Books. p. 524. ISBN 9780465002399.
• Staub, Ervin (2010). Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism. Oxford University Press. p. 576. ISBN 978-0195382044.
• Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005). Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 317. ISBN 978-0801472732.

Comments on the lede 1

Support

• Support - I think a middle ground between 1 and 2 is best ... sort of what Hipocrite proposes below. But of the two choices above, I'd go with the tone of (1). The (2) choice strike me as a rather strident anti-communist POV, that tries to bludgeon the reader with figures. (1) is phrased more neutrally and encyclopedically. Granted, the accuracy issues (listed below in the Oppose section) have to be dealt with, but I'm !voting based on the tone of the proposals. BTW: If there are two factions of editors, and (1) represents one of the two factions, why is no one else !voting for it? --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why did you remove the middle ground 3rd option? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I put that middle ground in, but then figured it may confuse other editors, so immediately removed it. If you want it in, go ahead and put it in. --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. More neutral, more sensible approach to figures. Also because of this explanation by Paul: User_talk:Paul_Siebert#The_top_margin_is_no_more_than_20_million. GreyHood 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not even close to what reliable sources - in fact the mainstream sources - state. Misplaced Pages should not be used to mislead readers in such a manner. Collect (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. This version is clearly problematic. (1) It misinterprets sources. It tells: "but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease". No, the numbers in Black book and other sources do not include people who were killed at war or died from diseases. (2) It is too wordy and non-informative. It tells: "Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made." So, what exactly causes have been proposed? This should be explained. (3) No need to repeat expression "mass killings" many times. Biophys (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Does not summarize what a good article would look like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Opposing per Biophys and collect. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose per others - but I have to add that, after reading it multiple times, I just don't understand what it actually means. Smallbones (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose per others. And per Smallbones, seems to spend more time on what it's not than what it is. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hipocrite and TFD's reason for opposing on the second proposed lede. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

In regard to Biophys:

1. I would be grateful is you explained me where Courtois took the figures from. However, since his intro contains no references, we can only guess. Usually, the figure of 20 million deaths in the USSR include population losses during major famines (post Civil war famine, Great famine and post WWII famine). A significant part of deaths during these famines were the deaths from typhus (for sources see, Donald Filtzer, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 51, No. 6 (Sep., 1999), pp. 1013-1038, Michael Ellman, Cambridge Journal of Economics 2000, 24, 603–630, David C. Engerman The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 383-416 ). I believe the sources I cite are reliable enough.

2. The causes proposed by single society studies are specific for each particular society. Thus, Werth argues that the reasons for the outburst of violence in post-revolutionary Russia was a combination of several factors, which included poorly organised agrarian reforms in Tsarist Russia, which lead to enormous social tensions, and of the overal brutality of the WWI. These factors were exacerbated by the brutality of the Civil war (from both sides). Of course, Communism contributed to that, but it was not the sole factor.
Fu speaks about long traditions of Chinese autocracy, so Maoism was just one more reincarnation of that.
Fein discusses specific problems, real and perceived, Cambodian Communist authorities faced, but she does not discuss the genocide in connection to Communism. All these three studies just the examples of numerous single society studies, I cannot review them all on the article's talk page. I think, you should read them by yourself.

I believe I addressed your criticism, so, I believe, you have no objections against this version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

None of this includes "lives lost due to war". Biophys (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see you agreed about "disease". With regard "wars", the text does not claim the figures include "all lives lost due to all wars". Courtois makes a reservation that "civil wars" are more complex subject, however, it is unclear from his words what part of civil war deaths does he include into the overall death toll. Lives lost during the Vietnam war are also attributed to Communism. Therefore, statement is fully correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, none of the sources currently quoted in introductions (and in particular Black Book) counts deaths due to wars. Neither they discusses statistics of deaths from infectious or other diseases. Biophys (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The BB does count 1.5 million of Afghan deaths, which were a result of counter-guerrilla warfare (btw, Valentino explicitly excludes these deaths from Communist mass killings, see his "Final solution"). With regard to the Courtois' figures for the USSR and China, since the author did not explain the procedure he used for his estimates, and since no references have been provided, we can only guess about the origin of these figures, and about what they include. However, it is known that most high estimates of death toll in the USSR include the Civil war and a part of WWII deaths. In any event, we have at least one direct evidence (Afghanistan) that the deaths as a result of guerrilla war were included in the total death toll.

I believe, I addressed all your objections. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments on lede 2

Support

1. with changes removing the bit about "utopian society" etc, and the detailing of causes etc. The lede should be a summary, not an exposition of the entire topic. I would prefer to support something on the order of:

Mass killing, excluding war-related deaths, has occurred under several Communist regimes. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. The term "mass killing" includes deaths from various ideological and governmental causes, acts or decisions. The highest documented death tolls occurred in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cambodia. Collect (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Support obviously, naturally could do with tweaking but overall the better of the two. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Support (as previous participant) Smallbones (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Support, particularly if some of what Hipocrite proposes below is rolled into the text. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
4. Support, China would come first in death toll as opposed to the USSR, and per Martin. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Does not summarize what a good article would look like. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Although the proposed text is too focused on numbers, it definitely has problems with elementary arithmetic. Thus, we have

• 60 million to 100 million total deaths
• 15 million to 40 million in the USSR
• 65 million to 72 million in China
• 1.5 million to 2.5 million in Cambodia

However, if we add 65, 15 and 1.5 (lower estimates for the three countries) we get 81.5 million (as opposed to claimed 60 million totals). If we add 72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5 (as opposed to 100 million totals).

That is just one of several issues with the lede, which, in addition to that, does not summarise the article at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things, the number are estimates from scholars. The USSR PRC and Cambodia, "72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5" are not the only communist regimes mentioned who have partaken in mass killings. We can but use the estimates provided by reliable sources after all. The Last Angry Man (talk)

Re "The USSR PRC and Cambodia, "72, 40 and 2.5 we get 114.5" are not the only communist regimes mentioned who have partaken in mass killings." Correct. However, that means that either the total estimates should be higher, or that the individual total estimates for each country have been made based on the obsolete data, and are exaggerated (the last possibility is more likely).

Re "the number are estimates from scholars." Then the selection of the figures are problematic. It is quite possible that, e.g. 40 millions in teh USSR were the population losses, which is a totally different category. Alternatively, it is highly likely that this figure includes all famines and some war time deaths. The source (Combs) refers to some unnamed "Western sources", and it claims that Stalin "caused the deaths". Since the definition of "mass killings" implies some intentionality, I do not think this claim from this fersion is supported by the cited source. Similarly, the problem with 15 million is even more serious, on the page 203 the source tells not about 15-20 million as the established number of "casualties of terror", but about the upper limit ("it may be that casualties totalled 15-20"). In addition, since these books just use the secondary sources, may be it makes sense to use these secondary sources directly?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the following reasons:

Dubious numbers and counting methodology as explained above.

False supposition that various kinds of excess deaths could be so easily summed up and dubbed equal to mass killings.

Dubious claim of the killings in pursuit of utopia, when in reality the reasons were much less idealistic and much more complex in each case. GreyHood 17:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to assert that reliable source figures are "dubious" - perhaps you have sources which are much lower and which also pass WP:RS without falling into the "premature deaths don't count" argument? Did you note my suggested wording which does not use the "utopia" language? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. That is why I provided several reliable sources that clearly tell that those claims are dubious. You persistent attempts to ignore these sources are not an indication of your good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas - you assert that your sources give numbers - but some of your posts indicated that (for example) "premature deaths" were self-inflicted because of opposition to "agrarian reform." Such claims, as far as I can tell, are exceedingly WP:FRINGE and should not be given any substantial weight. Now can you give any mainstream sources with numbers which can really be used? Or are WP:FRINGE sources the best you can come up with now? If so, then you really should accept that Misplaced Pages does not say we should use the fringe sources as the primary ones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I never use fringe sources. Formally, all sources I use meet all non-fringe reliable source criteria. In that situation, I don't have to prove the opposite, and I do not have to provide the evidences that my sources are not fringe. However, if you think they are, please, provide needed evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Takes singular opinions and states them as declarative fact far too often and much too strongly. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We need to explain why we are telling this. I could write for example that education levels are lower in U.S. states that start with an "A" (Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska), but would need to explain the connection between the group and the topic. TFD (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hipocrite, Paul Siebert, Greyhood, BigK HeX but most particularly TFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Figures should add up. The exact totals are uncertain, both on the facts, and above all on the definitions; a good lead would say this. One proper phrasing would be tens of millions, which nobody disputes as the right order of magnitude; the disputable estimates belong in the body of the article; and in the Soviet Union (chiefly under Joseph Stalin), Maoist China, Kampuchea, and elsewhere is the right level of generality for a lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

This version does much better work with numbers. But there were also some practical reasons to conduct each specific terror campaign (such as Great Terror), not only ideology: preparation for WWII, establishing personal dictatorship, etc. This must be explained in body of the article and in introduction. Unfortunately, no one can edit this article in present situation. Biophys (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Better in some ways - but overly detailed in listing "every possible cause" instead of saying "various causes, including ideological and governmental causes" which would be sufficient IMO. Ledes should summarize, and leave the detailed cites to the body. Collect (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• The key sentences of lead 2 run Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin range from 15 million to 40 million. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, mass killings are estimated from 65 to 72 million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.

Those are assertions about what the range of scholarly estimates is; saying that, on a subject on which estimates are likely to be challenged, requires a source which says that the range of estimate runs from X million to Y million. Individual extimates which Misplaced Pages editors happen to have found do not verify the assertion being made. In particular, the sentence on China implies that the variance of estimate on Mao's murders

• varies by less than 10%,
• and that The Black Book of Communism offers the lowest figure in all the historiography of China.

Both are preposterous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

General Comments

??? I thought we just had an RFC above. Why are we doing this all over again? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no RfC template was placed on the top of the last RfC, it was just a preliminary discussion between the users who have been already involved in it. Other users were not notified, so formally the last RfC never started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I was notified via RFC-bot. I find both of these lacking. I suggest the following alternative, which does summarize what a good article would look like:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation.

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I see some issues with this version. Firstly, it assumes that the lives lost lost due to famine and disease are excluded from the lower estimates (60 millions), although I doubt that is the case: in the USSR and China, the lion's share of deaths was caused by these reasons, so, if they are excluded, the deaths toll would be much lower. Secondly, the article devotes a considerable attention to various explanations of mass deaths; therefore, the lede is supposed to do that. However, your version lives this issue beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you intend to argue with outside views that disagree with what you want. I don't think that's very productive. I presented you a way forward - a middle ground between two embarrassingly biased ledes. If you choose to ignore the outside views, that's on you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've just updated the lede 1 as I promised to Smallbones yesterday. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You really think The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion is going to fly? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only I think, I know, and my knowledge is based on what the reliable sources say. Just read the articles I cited, and answer the following question:

"Do you really think that the authors of these reviews do not blame Courtois in playing with numbers in pursuit of a some concrete goal?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Not only I think, I know", Yup, sums it up in a nutshell. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, "I know" is short for "I know that the assertion I make is supported by reliable non-fringe sources". I believe, I made myself clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Could editors please show respect when discussing the deaths of tens of millions of people. TFD (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead 3

To me, not knowing much about the facts, lede 1 reads like (I exaggerate a bit to get the point across): "Some scholars exaggerate, they are politically motivated, actually the situation was not so bad". Lede 2 reads: "Bad communists!". To me the best lead is the one that has been removed: lede 3. Without POV, without spin, and to the point. But as I said, I'm not expert on the subject. --Dia^ (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century. Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation.

The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

The only real problem with it is the "most countries didn't" sentence. Ceraucescu may not have been Stalin, but he would have been described as a mass murderer in any other century than the twentieth. Amd if we exclude the USSR, the PRC, three of the East Asian Communisms, part of Eastern Europe, and much of Africa, what's left to be "most"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with the proposed text. Firstly, the statement "Estimates for those killed range from 60 million to 100 million. Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation." implies that 60 millions were the victims of "mass murders and executions", and remaining 40 millions died as a result of "famine and disease etc." That is not the case. For most countries (except Cambodia, were we can speak about a pure genocide of 1/3 of population), both lower (60) and higher (100) estimates include the deaths from all causes. For instance, if we exclude "avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation" from the USSR mortality figures, i.e. we count only "murders and executions", we get ca 1.2 million deaths for the Great Purge (including the camp executions and similar deaths) plus several millions Civil war death, so the amount of death falling into the first category would be far below ten million. A situation in China was not completely the same, however the overall tendency was similar: most deaths were a result of famines and forced relocations. Theefore, this statement is simply misleading, because all authors that give the figures from 60 to 100 million do include both categories of deaths, although the estimates of famine victims are different from study to study.

A second problem with this text is that it completely ignores the analysis of causes of these killings, as if the article hadn't discussed them at all. However, this article is devoted not to the statistics of deaths, as on might conclude from the proposed Lede 3.

With regard to "most countries", I also am not comfortable reading this. However, that is an almost verbatim quote from Valentino's "Final solutions" (see the ref. provided in my version of the lede). That is exactly what he says, and we have no ground to question his conclusion.

Re Ceaucescu, as Valentino says, we cannot discuss this regime, because the existing data do not allow us to discuss the scale of mass killings in Romania, the very fact of them, as well as the motives of the perpetrators.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the close reading. But those are fixable difficulties: for example, replacing higher by these, or these, in varying degrees, will remove the implication that there is a 40 million "other causes" figure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If we will fix all difficulties we will probably get the lede #1 (or something of that kind). However, we can try.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the clarification about the first sentence. I was not aware of the issue. Would be possible to change the given estimates (60 -100 millions) with whatever is the lower estimate without famine and so on (the same for the highest if it is contested)? Otherwise what about Septentrionalis' suggestion?

For the "most countries" bit, would be possible to give a percentage to avoid to give a subjective quantification? Or something like "Of the ...(put correct number) communists regimes that existed/exists ... definitely carried out mass killings, ... are debated and ... probably/possibly/surely didn't."?

For the missing sentence about the analysis of the causes I'm not 100% sure that I understand. I would expect that any half decent article on such a subject would include a detailed analysis of the causes.

Maybe is missing a "warning" that because of the political issues involved, complexity of the subject (span over decades, many different countries, many different causes, secretive regimes) is difficult to get an accurate disinterested picture? Maybe a sentence could be added between first and second paragraph?--Dia^ (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Re the lower estimates, the problem is that whereas the higher estimates are available from the books about the crimes of Communism as whole, lower estimates can be found mostly in the single society studies.

Re percentage, please keep in mind that we deal with very vague terminology: no commonly accepted definition of mass killing exists, and there is no consensus among the scholars on what can be considered as "Communist mass killings" and what cannot. So the percentage you are talking about is a matter of judgement, which depends on the political beliefs of some particular author. How can we seriously speak about any percentage in this situation?

Re analysis of the causes, different authors provide different explanations, including the explanations which are specific for each particualr society, and only few authors see direct linkage to Communism. However, by omitting the discussion of causes we create an impression that the commonality and the direct linkage to Communism is the sole mainstream view.

Re a "warning", that is exactly what I wrote in the first version of the lede. Maybe, the wording is not optimal, however, we can discuss its improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not what sources tell (as was already discussed above). Consider this phrase: "Higher estimates include not only mass murders or executions but also avoidable lives lost due to famine and disease due to confiscation or destruction of property, in addition to deaths in forced labor camps or during forced relocation." The higher estimate (100 million "killed") is apparently "Black book". But it does not tell "due to famine and disease". It tells: something like that: "due to intentional starvation of population, man-made hunger" (maybe not an exact quotation, but that is what authors tell). The number also does not include civilians executed during Russian civil war, etc. Biophys (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The sources that attribute all excess deaths in Communist states to Communism speak about "intentional starvation" etc. However, many single society studies use quite different terminology and provide quite different explanations for the actions of the authorities. In other words, the categorisation, and, accordingly, the figures are a matter of judgement, and, as a result, are highly controversial.

I agree that some sources exist that fully support your assertions. However, since many single society studies provide quite different description of the same events, we should either present all opinions fairly and proportionally, or to explain, from the very beginning, that the article reflects the viewpoint of some authors (Courtois, Rummel, Rosefielde, et al), who see a commonality between all these events, and who attribute them primarily to Communism.

Re civil wars, it is not clear from the Coirtois' text if he excluded the Civil war executions into the total death toll or not. He just says that civil wars are more contrioversial cases.

In any event, since no explanations have been provided in the BB on what sources had been used by Courtois, we cannot speak about these figures seriously. It seems to me that you insist on the usage of this introduction simply because you like this source (despite its obviosly poor quality).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see the discussion has abated. In a situation when no progress can be expected in close future, I revert last changes that have been made to the lede in violation of the procedure described by Sandstein on the top of this talk page. We can continue the discussion about further improvements of the lede later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And you clearly do not have consensus for any such revert. Cheers, Paul - but that sort of act is precisely what gets admins here on the double. Collect (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since the edits I reverted have been made in violation of the Sandstein's procedure, they were supposed to be reverted immediately. The fact that I allowed them to stand for almost a month is a demonstration of my good faith. Please, self-revert, otherwise I'll have to take other steps. You have 48 hours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Unless you demonstrate that you have consensus for the huge revert, it is you who is in the hot seat. As for the threat of YOU HAVE 48 HOURS - that belongs in a B-movie, not on any article talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul is right - the edit he reverts was against procedure in the first place. I wonder why it wasn't reverted so long ago. But it was moderately interesting to watch the resulting discussions, though.. And there is no need to use drama language. GreyHood 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For him to make a change, he ought to establish a consensus first. That is a core principle of Misplaced Pages, and the "drama" was injected with his deadline. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So TLAM's edit did not need consensus, and Paul's revert does need. How utterly nice. GreyHood 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that the status quo is what we are dealing with - and it requires a consensus to alter it. Cheers. And read WP:CONSENSUS. Nowhere in that does it suggest issuing an ultimatum. Collect (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is needed to change the article. TLAM did not obtain that and therefore Paul Siebert was correct to revert him. TFD (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a POV Trojan Horse. The topic is unencyclopedic because it attempts to add politically-motivated killings, civil war death tolls, disease deaths, famine deaths, war deaths as if those are somehow additive as common phenomenon. And then it adds different countries in different historical settings as if those are somehow logically additive. And then it takes every half-assed POV-driven published statement from the Cold War (Conquest, Solzhenitsyn, et al.) — there IS serious scholarship on execution death, camp death, famine death in the USSR or China or Kampuchea, but you won't find it here — as if that is somehow indicative of objective reality. Cold Warriors have a field day selecting high numbers and adding everything possible for a max score in a great POV-driven mission. Others object and the dog chases its tail. Whatever.... Have fun, POV warriors. Carrite (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not belittle victims of the Communist Holocaust. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, noone is trying to belittle them. We are talking about correct representation of the facts. What would you say if someone claimed that the number of the Holocaust victims was not 6 million, but 26? Do you think a person who rejects such a claim would be a Holocaust denier? By no means no. Indeed, Nazi were responsible, directly or indirectly, for deaths of more than 50 million people. However, we cannot combine all of them into a category of Nazi mass killings. Secondly, usage of the (not commonly accepted) term "Communist Holocaust" is a trivialisation of the Holocaust.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation would go much better if everyone stuck to the topic. @Paul Siebert, if you wish to add war casualties, then we can add all the Eastern Europeans who the Red Army killed in WWII, after all, they weren't Germans and did not start the hostilities whereas Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union did. Please stop going off topic with unrelated and polarizing "What about the Nazis?" contentions, all that does drive discussion further away from a solution. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Peters, I took this thesis from one of reviews on the BB, this is a Werth's opinion, which is directly related to the Courtois' figures we discuss. If you are unable to see commonality that does not mean it doesn't exist. Please, do not disrupt a discussion by frivolous requests to stick to the topic. Noone deviates from the topic here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You will forgive the metaphor, but if WP is a cookbook and fish are totalitarian regimes, an article about herring is not about salmon. That a chef specializing in fish dishes has a book which discusses herring and salmon doesn't bring salmon into the article. This article is not about commonality, there is a separate article for that for relevant scholarship if you would like to expand content there. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You metaphor has been accepted and understood. Let me propose another metaphor, however. If WP is a zoology textbook, then some facts, observations and conclusions made in the chapter about salmon can be used in the chapter about herring, because, although these are two different subjects, the approaches to their description are similar. When we discuss Nazi crimes we clearly separate the victims of Nazi mass killings from the deaths indirectly caused by them. However, when we discuss Communists, we, for some unclear reason, combine them together. Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion below has a direct relation to the lede 3: since the very idea to put some numbers into the opening sentence of the lede is methodologically flawed (see below), the lede 3 is also unacceptable. In my opinion, the old lede (before TLAM made his edit) is a least controversial version, although its further improvement is still possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Shall we try again?

It's pretty clear that it's still very divided here. I don't really know where to take this, or even how the extra rules applied here should be interpreted. Lede 1, which PS seems to want to put in still, had 2 supports and 7 opposes, Lede 2, by my count, had 5 supports and 7 opposes. Lede 3 - which hasn't been put in a ready-to-go cited format - seems to have lots of support. Could somebody write it up and we could !vote on it (vs. the current lede)? If this doesn't work, we could try again (and again and again). Or somebody else could come up with a better way to move forward. Smallbones (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We are probably not going anywhere because no one has ever provided any evidence that the subject of this article exists in either mainstream academic literature or even in fringe writing. TFD (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

What is the Americanism to describe the results? Is it "duh" or "doh"? TFD (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably "d'oh". BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree that the article's subject itself seems like questionable synthesis supported by synthesizing together a book on Stalin, a book about Mao, and a small smattering of obscure writings. BigK HeX (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument of TFD and BigK HeX is essentially the same argument put forward FIVE (5) times to delete the article, and definitely is not an argument about what should be in the article. I don't think that deletion has ever had a majority in an AfD, and KEEP has had a definite consensus the last 2 or 3 times. In short that argument has been tried over and over again and found lacking. At this point bringing it up again is simple obstructionism. There are plenty of sources that justify the existence of the article in the article now. I'll suggest that folks who want to delete the article just refrain from editing the article or even commenting on this page. We've just heard it too many times. Spouting the same old nonsense is not a way to move forward. Come up with a way to move forward or just get out of the way. Smallbones (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick around all the same. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's go with lede 3 then. Using, or course, the current refs from the lede I left the article with. Cheers, and glad this drama is over. Collect (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Collect. Ever the optimist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1. It appears to address all the main issues. 2. This has now dragged on for too long. 3. Rehashing old and interminably repeated "stuff" does not advance the encyclopedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify, please, where the 21 million number for three countries (in version 3) comes from? Biophys (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It comes from sources proffered by Paul - the idea was to get the lede done finally - rather than have anyone feel their sources had no representation in the lede. Alas - it seems that such an attempt at compromise has been rejected per the ultimatum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we add the word 'between'?

In the section beginning here we have three sentences that begin with a number. Here's the first:

It looks weird to start off a sentence with a number. I propose we add the word 'Between' to the beginning of each of these 3 sentences. This is, IMO, a pretty minor change, but I'm not sure if it truly qualifies as a WP:MINOR edit. Can I get consensus for this change? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support as long as you change the internal join to reflect the comparator, "Between 1 and 5" versus "Between 1 to 5" Fifelfoo (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Sorry, I missed that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support and Fifelfoo is grammatically correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's been a week and no one has objected. The change is pretty minor so I will go ahead and make the change incorporating the grammatic correction suggested by Fifelfoo and Collect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Two small changes

I would like to make two proposals for small changes of wording, mainly in the interest of NPOV. One of them would be a change in the lead. I know that the current lead needs to be replaced with a better one, but the discussion above is dragging on and we should not abandon all attempts to make small improvements while waiting for eventual consensus. So, having said that, here are my proposals:

1. In the lead, replace the words "between 85 and 100 million" with "in the tens of millions." There is nothing remotely resembling consensus in the academic scholarship about the precise number of victims of individual Communist regimes, or all Communist regimes put together. We can discuss the various estimates elsewhere in the article. Putting specific numbers in the lead will just get us entangled in endless controversy, as can be seen from the discussions above. In some cases the use of specific numbers, or other sentences surrounding those numbers, has been the main reason why editors could not agree with a proposed lead.
2. This is a small point, but we really should replace the phrase "socialist bloodletting" under the Personal responsibility sub-header with something like "killings." The phrase "socialist bloodletting" seems like a pointless POV epithet only intended to score political points. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that Stalin was a communist. In any case, the phrase is not mentioned by the source.

-- Amerul (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1 - We don't require a consensus among sources, rather NPOV requires us to report all widely held views. But actually, I believe that there is something of a consensus of something over 60 million going up to about 100 million deaths. The only sticking point, which tends to get over emphasized here, is how they should be classified. Different folks use different terms. It has been the consensus here that "tens of millions" tends to minimize the number actually killed - it's off by almost an order of magnitude, at least if you read it quickly. There has been a tendency to minimize things here, to say there is no consensus among scholars (with no evidence saying that there isn't), or as above to say that we can never make progress, because the concept of Mass Killings under Communist Regimes doesn't exist anywhere but here. If that's anything like what you want to do, I don't think your proposal will help anything. Smallbones (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I basically just ran across this article a short while ago, noticed that it seems to be in dire need of major editing, and went to the talk page to see what others are doing with it. What I concluded after reading this talk page was that even small edits can't be done without massive controversy and weeks of debate, so I started thinking of ways to make everyone happy. Proposal 1 was my first idea.

The evidence of a lack of consensus among scholars is simply the fact that so many different opinions and estimates have been published. A difference of 40 million people between the highest and lowest estimates is enormous. It means a population equivalent to a medium-sized country may or may not have died. Sources do not need to explicitly say "we disagree with each other" in order for us to note that they do, in fact, disagree with each other.

So, let me change my proposal 1 to address your concerns. How about using the following wording: "in the tens of millions, with the highest estimates reaching close to a hundred million." That eliminates the problem that some people may misread "tens of millions" as "10 million," but it does not commit us to any sharp numerical bounds. What do you think? -- Amerul (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that as a new editor (97 edits?) you should read the prior discussions on this. If a person stole 65 - 100 million dollars, would you think "tens of millions of dollars" was accurate where the sources all point to the 100 million or close thereto? If a serial rapist committed 65 to 100 rapes, would "tens of rapes" be accurate? Misplaced Pages has an obligation to accurately state what the sources state, not to weasel down to mitigate the claims. And the highest estimates are well over a hundred million, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

People are not dollars and are not so easy to count. Different countries, different periods, different causes of death. Such general figures are meaningless without giving details, and have a huge misleading potential. GreyHood 11:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From the sources given, do you feel that the number range of 65 to 100 million is an exaggeration of the figures in the body of the article? The purpose of the lede is to give a summary of what is in the body of the article. Might you give sources giving the much lower figures Paul suggested (IIRC, he opined that "opposition to land reform" was the cause of many deaths). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@Amerul. Regarding your first request, I suggest to wait for the AE decision: since the statement "between 85 and 100 million" has been added with clear violation of the procedure, it is very likely that the admins will revert it back to "tens of millions." Regarding "socialist bloodletting", that is definitely non-encyclopaedic language, and no good faith editor can object against the change you propose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is exceedingly unlikely that your position about the numbers will be adopted by any admins at all, Paul. Cheers - no admin will wilfully adopt a clearly non-consensus edit just because of your "knowledge. Collect (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That the edit was made without consensus has been confirmed by EdJohnson here. By the moment the edit had been made no consensus had been reached, and the Sandsten's procedure does not allow post factum approval. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You made that argument and iterated that argument and repeated that argument at AE. Remember? WP:DEADHORSE Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This argument has not been addressed yet. I am still waiting the answer from the admins, therefore it is premature to speak about WP:DEADHORSE here. However, if you think my point is mute, feel free to ask Ed for explanations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Amerul states "The evidence of a lack of consensus among scholars is simply the fact that so many different opinions and estimates have been published." Actually, that's no evidence at all - the way folks of that persuasion commonly argue here.

• If there are different estimates, let's include them in the article with sourcing.
• If there are people who say that the whole concept of combining mass killings by Communist regimes is flawed, then let's cite them in the article.
• But if an editor here simply says "I see a lack of consensus among scholars," I say that you need to come up with sources.

Smallbones (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

By requesting to prove the opposite you act against our policy. A burden of proof that consensus exists on this subject is supposed to be provided by the user who adds the content. In connection to that, do you have an evidence that consensus does exist? No such evidences have been provided so far. In contrast, the evidence that some authors (including Werth, a co-author and a major contributor of the same book) consider the source we discuss (and the figures in particular) disputable have already been provided. Moreover, the opinion of the reputable scholar (Ellman) has been provided, according to whom the figures of the number of victims are (at least in part) the matter of judgement and are politically motivated. In other words, we have the evidences that these figures are disputable, and the alleged lack of alternative figures does not make these figures and this source impeccable.
In addition, to re-iterate the same arguments (which have already been refuted on the talk page) before a new user is hardly appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you repeatedly cite Werth, without including his estimates??? Give us a quote or similar from Ellman - we can include it. But frankly, you never deliver when called for facts. Rather you just say in effect, "I don't think the quotes, sources, citation, facts, etc. that you've provided are good enough to be included." Your opinion on this has been heard over and over. I will not pay attention to any more of your lengthy opinions, "just the facts, ma'am." Smallbones (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Because (i) Werth provided no general estimates (just for the Soviet Russia/USSR; according to him, the total number of victims was less then 15 million), and (ii) because he disagreed with the very Courtois' approach (to play with figures without explaining what they mean with the obvious goal to shock a reader and push some concrete political agenda). The problem is not only in the quality of the sources you use, but in the way these figures are presented: by providing bare figures without any attempt to explain details you totally mislead a reader. Remember "devil hides in details", and the details in this particular case are so important that providing just bare figures is tantamount to direct lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your approach ("if no other estimates exist, the available estimates can be used without reservations") is totally unacceptable. If some data have been criticised, they cannot be used without needed reservations, and they definitely cannot be used in the opening sentence of the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Too many uncompromising opinions, but sadly lacking in facts. You do not provide a quote from Ellman when asked directly - are you just making things up? And Werth and Margolin give an estimate (with proper qualifications of course) of 65 to 93 million. Le Monde, 14 November 1997. You should be ashamed. Smallbones (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked evidence was uncountable. Colchicum (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidences of what? If we speak about, e.g., Cambodian genocide, which lead to up to 3 million deaths, or the Great Purge with 1.2 million casualties, no good faith person can claim the evidences are insufficient. All of that are well documented and well established facts. However, if we speak about, e.g. Holodomor, the situation becomes more complicated: you probably know that MedCab is currently discussing the question if this famine was deliberate and can it be considered as mass killings. As some existing evidences suggest, it was not more a mass killing than, e.g., the Bengal famine of 1943. And that is a direct and clear distinction between Nazis and Communist mass killings: whereas a definition of the Holocaust is quite clear and indisputable, it is absolutely no consensus about what mass deaths under Communists should be considered as Communist mass killings and what are not. Some authors (e.g. Courtois) argue that all (or almost all) excess deaths under Communists were Communist mass killings ("Red Holocaust" according to Rosefielde), and the scale of this Red Holocaust dwarfed the crimes of Nazism (100 million vs 6 million). Other authors argue that that approach is totally misleading and immoral, and it is impossible to accuse Communists genocide via starvation if other famines (e.g., Bengal or Irish potato famine) are not considered as mass killings. In addition, these authors point at the obvious fact that if the same approach to calculate the scale of mass killings will be applied to Nazi, they should be accused in deaths of 50 more million peoples as a result of the WWII (which was unleashed by Hitler). Who should be accused in e.g. mass deaths of Gulag prisoners during 1942-43 (caused primarily by desperate shortage of food in the USSR as whole) or in the post-war Soviet famine (a direct result of the war)? And so on. In other words, whereas some mass killing events allow no double interpretation and should be ascribed directly to the regimes, an overwhelming majority of mass deaths fall into a grey zone, so the scale of Communist mass killing depend strongly on what one or another scholar see under that. I have an impression that the authors writing about Communism in general tend to combine all excess deaths under Communists into a category of "mass killings", "Red Holocaust", "Communist democide" etc. By contrast, many single society studies are much more cautious, and by making a focus on the sources that come out with some general figures we introduce a bias to the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The English word evidence. Of whatever. And here we go again... Amazing. Colchicum (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your claim is too general to be addressed. Care to specify?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, this is getting ridiculous, you make me feel like a satisfied troll. The English word evidence is not countable. Colchicum (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Smallbones...

• "If there are different estimates, let's include them in the article with sourcing."
• "If there are people who say that the whole concept of combining mass killings by Communist regimes is flawed, then let's cite them in the article."

@Paul, stop arguing over what should or should not go into the article based on your own contentions, e.g., 1942-1943 in the Gulag doesn't count. It may be true there is a tendency for authors writing about Communism to combine so-called excess deaths into mass killings, and if so, there's probably a good reason, and a much better one than it's all just a remnant of the Cold War character smear seeking to defame Communism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As for Hitler's "unleashing," let's not forget Hitler's buddy Stalin. Partition of Poland with the USSR getting the majority? Premature congratulatory telegram to Adolf on the fall of Warsaw? A bit of a skirmish when German and Soviet forces didn't quite stop at the agreed upon line in one spot? Don't even get me started on the Soviets recycling Nazi concentration camps for Eastern Europeans after the war. Try not to digress, we're not discussing Hitler here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Hitler and Stalin were close buddies and had a pact to kill as many people as possible. I've already proposed that this article be renamed Mass killings under socialist regimes to include both Hitler and Stalin (as well as other socialists of various classifications: Ne Win, Saddam Hussein, Gadhafi and others). I'm already working on that article, which will make this a subarticle of the main one. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: User:Greyhood's "Such general figures are meaningless without giving details, and have a huge misleading potential."

I think this point deserves further emphasis. Seems to do the opposite of WP:SURPRISE BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Peters. I fully agree with the following:

• "If there are different estimates, let's include them in the article with sourcing."
• "If there are people who say that the whole concept of combining mass killings by Communist regimes is flawed, then let's cite them in the article."

What I cannot understand, however, and what I disagree with is your guys vehement attempts to push a single (and a very disputable) source to the opening statement of the lede. Yes, different estimates exist, and most of them deserve mention in the article, yes, different authors support or criticise the concept as whole. However, what relation does it have to the first lede's sentence? If different opinions and figures exist, why only a single (and not the most reliable) source is represented in the first sentence of the lede?
And one more point. Could you please stop using the word "contentions" to describe the statements I make. I believe I have already demonstrated for many times that all assertions I make are based on what reliable sources say. Your wording is insulting and uncivil.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair characterisation. Right from the beginning we have always wanted a sourced upper and lower number of estimated deaths in the lede, it is you who has wanted to synthesize it to "tens of millions". Does this means that you are dropping "tens of millions" and agree to having two numbers for the upper and lower estimates? --Nug (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this requires more detailed answer

The last Smallbones' post deserves more detailed answer. Before answering, let me explain that the below text is based mostly on what I learned reading reliable sources, therefore, any attempt to present it as my "personal contentions" will be treated as incivility. I do not, however, provide citations, because all of that is supposed just to demonstrate my point, and is not supposed to be added to the main article directly.
Re "Why do you repeatedly cite Werth, without including his estimates???" Because he does not provide them. One review on the BB specifically notes that Werth, by contrast to Courtois, who wants to shock a reader with figures, pays little attention to the overall numbers, preferring to focus on the essence of the events, because the history of these events, and cannot be reduced just to the numbers of victims. That is why the opinion of this serious author and the major contributor of the BB should have much more weight on WP pages.
Let me explain that using the following examples. Everyone knows the proverb about lie, big lie and statistics. Let me demonstrate how can it work here.

1. "More than 10 million died in the USSR as a result of Communist policy." Although that is factually correct, this statement is misleading, because it presents Communists as a murderous regime that lead to population losses due to malnutrition (which otherwise would not take place).
2. "The life expectancy and living standards of Soviet peasantry were steadily growing under Communists, and this process was interrupted only by three major famines and the WWII". You will be surprised, but this statement is also totally factually correct. However, that is also a lie, because it creates an impression that Communist authorities should be credited for that. In actuality, however, only the next statement can be considered as more or less correct:
3. "During the last century, starting from 1890s, the living standards and life expectancy of Russian population were demonstrating a fast and steady growth, and this process was interrupted by several short period of famines (both under Tsarist regime and under Communists) and two wars. Communist regime had no appreciable effect on that." Again, that is the most correct and neutral representation of the events, and any attempts to tell a story of famines under Communists will be totally misleading if they are taken out of this context.
   In connection to that, I suggest to leave the overall numbers for such crap sources as the Guinness book, and to focus on the correct representation of the essence of the events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You are using the words lie and crap pretty freely. You refuse to provide facts when asked for them. You totally ignore the fact that Werth estimates that 65 to 93 million were killed by Communist regimes in Le Monde, 14 November 1997. You owe all of us an apology. Smallbones (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read this article? Can you provide a quote?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I found it. Here it is:

"la centralité du crime de masse dans les pratiques répressives des communismes au pouvoir ; l'assimilation entre doctrine communiste et mise en application de celle-ci, ce qui fait remonter le crime jusqu'au cœur même de l'idéologie communiste ; l'affirmation qui en découle de la grande similitude du nazisme et du communisme, tous deux intrinsèquement criminels dans leur fondement même ; un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif, non clarifié (85 millions ? 95 ? 100 ?), non justifié, et contredisant formellement les résultats des coauteurs sur l'URSS, l'Asie et l'Europe de l'Est (de leurs études, on peut tirer une « fourchette » globale allant de 65 à 93 millions ; la moyenne 79 millions n'a de valeur que purement indicative)."

Sorry me for my French, but "un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif" means "a quantification of the victims of communist abuse". If I am not wrong, they do not speak about "killings" only: even former (survived) Gulag prisoners are considered as "des victimes du communisme abusif". In connection to that, are you sure that is me who have to apologize?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say whether or not he supports the figures. Is this topic so obscure that the only sources we can find have not been translated into English? TFD (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones seems to have used either the WP article about the BB, or one of numerous WP mirrors. A common mistake of newcomers. It is strange that such an experienced user committed so stupid mistake.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul's translation is clearly overly-literal. Werth is directly comparing his numbers to Courtois's, which are on mass killings or genocide, so translating "abusif" here as "abuse" is misleading. There should be no question about Werth's views about the intention of Communists in these killings in the USSR. Regarding just the famine of 1932-33, he states that

"the forced collectivization of the countryside was in effect a war declared by the Soviet state on a nation of smallholders.... (The famine of 1932-1933 was) a terrible famine deliberately provoked by the authorities to break the resistance of the peasants. The violence used against the peasants allowed the authorities to experiment with methods that would be later used against other social groups."

Werth estimates the total death toll of the famine as 6 million.

That is not the usual meaning of "abuse" in English. Abuse in English, is more like using the words on this page "tantamount to direct lie," "stupid," "lie" (several times), "crap," and "Your wording is insulting and uncivil," directed toward me and other editors - that is "abusive" and should not be tolerated.

How can Paul use Werth as the centerpiece in his argument that we can't put numbers on the death toll?

Smallbones (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Does he speak about "mass killings"? How do you translate "victimes du communisme abusif"? English literature on Stalin repressions available for me uses the word "victims" to describe not only killings, but also what the authors call as "excess mortality". Camp survivors are also called "victims". Moewover, an author quoted below explicitly says that "'victims of Stalinism' or 'victims of Soviet power' are poorly defined and controversial categories". Do you have an evidence that under "victimes" Werth meant the "victims of mass killings"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

More on that

I fully understand a desire of some users to come out with some concrete figures of those who died under Communists. The motif is obvious: a reader, who will not probably read the article as whole, after seing the first sentence will say: "Look, Hitler killed just 6 million Jews, and Communist killed 100 million people. Definitely, Communism is much more deadly than Nazism." That is exactly what Courotris wanted to say, and that is exactly he was criticized for by many authors, including his own co-authors, Werth and Margolin:

"What Werth and some of his colleagues object to is "the manipulation of the figures of the numbers of people killed" (Courtois talks of almost 100 million, including 65 million in China);" the use of shock

formulas, the juxtaposition of histories aimed at asserting the comparability and, next, the identities of fascism, and Nazism, and communism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint." (Stanley Hoffmann. Source: Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 166-169)

In other words, not only the authors like Werth and Hoffman criticize the Courtois' figures, they criticize the very approach (an attempt to describe such a complex event with just one figure, or range of figures). And I see that Smallbones et al are trying to push exactly the same approach here. However, since this approach has explicitly been criticized, it cannot be implemented in the first sentence of the lede.

Recently, I have been surprised to learn that, despite its large scale, Gulag had no appreciable demographic consequences for the USSR. At the first glance, that sounds cynically, because every life is precious, and we are not supposed to speak in these terms. However, can you tell me, in which country more people are being killed in car accidents, in USA or in France? Of course, in the US. However, does this fact per se is an indication that cars in America much more deadly? Obviously, whereas the overall number of car accident victims was higher in the US, that is mostly due to the larger size of American population, so the probability to be killed in car accident is not much higher in the US than in France. Similarly, whereas a probability of a Jew to be killed under Nazi was >90%, the probability of ordinary Belorussian to be killed under Nazi occupation, and the probability of ordinary Khmer to be killed during KR genocide, were ca 40%, the probability of an ordinary Soviet citizen to be killed during the Great Purge was 1%. A difference was quite obvious, however, bare numbers conceal it quite effectively, which helps some authors (Courtois, Rosefielde et al) to use them for pushing their agenda (that is not my conclusion, almost every review on the BB states that).
Similarly, although noone can negate an obvious fact that totalitarian Communist regime in China killed tens of million people, the scale of those killing is partially explained simply by large size of this country.
It has already been demonstrated for many times that some parallelism between Nazi mass killings (the Holocaust, execution of the population of occupied territories, etc) and similar events in the Soviet Union can be drawn. However, the scale of these killings in the USSR did not exceed 1 million (Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353) All other deaths fall into quite different categories and cannot be combined together. An example of a sober and reasonable approach to description of these events is presented in the article of another serious scholar (Ellman):

"Since 'victims of Stalinism' or 'victims of Soviet power' are poorly defined and controversial categories, differing estimates would be inevitable even if we had perfect statistics. Since the currently available statistics are imperfect, the wide range of estimates for these categories is unavoidable. In this situation the best that academic analysis can do is to try to generate the most accurate data possible on the various sub-totals and explain the nature of the different categories and the differing ways in which they can be evaluated." (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)

Although the latter work is a single society study, I suggest to follow this methodology in the lede: to pay much more attention to the explanation of different categories of mass deaths in different countries, and of different ways that have been used to evaluate these numbers. An attempt to come out with some exact number (or range) is totally misleading, and now, when I have explained that (with sources), every attempt to push this idea without providing serious counter-arguments against the approach I propose is tantamount to deliberate attempt to mislead a reader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Paul has indeed perfectly explained and supported by sources, that using total absolute figures without providing a scale background of the respective countries and without giving detailed explanations of sub-totals, is manipulation on the readers. The figures like 100 million might belong to the article, however certainly not to the lead, but to some other section where they should be placed alongside the all due criticism of such an approach. GreyHood 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

As was already noted, this approach totally fails WP:SURPRISE, with the 100 mln figure (estimate, not fact) astonishing the readers and being given before any key concepts of what constitutes mass killings under Communist regimes are presented in the article. We should be writing encyclopedia, not propaganda aimed to catch the readers with the very first phrase and sacrificing accuracy for that.

Given that the figures used are not facts but estimates, not universally accepted (not supported even by the co-authors of the scholar who produced them), and the very approach being criticized, placing those figures in the lead fails WP:NPOV. GreyHood 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul should not want to hang his hat on anything that Ellman writes. Ellman cites many statistics and death tolls, and of course we can include those, with explanations. But Ellman is not somebody whose work can be cited as requiring a ban on death tolls here. And it should be useful to note that in regard to the 1932-33 famine in the USSR that he states that "the debate is between those who consider Stalin guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter, and those who consider him guilty of (mass) murder." . If Ellman quantifies mass-killings like this, and Werth quantifies mass-killings (as above), and these are Paul's only two examples, we cannot conclude that quantification of mass killings should be disallowed here. You won't convince anybody with these examples. End of story. Let's procede with suggested new ledes. Smallbones (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"A ban of death toll" and "a ban of death toll without necessary reservations in the first sentence of the lede" are two quite different things. In addition, I quoted another source that specifically objects against this approach. With regard to "only two examples", firstly, not the number of sources matters, but their quality, and, secondly, I provided more sources during the past discussion. Feel free to look at the talk page archives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS Regarding the suggested new ledes, none of them have been supported, so the existing one is a clear winner (of course, I do not mean the last illegitimately added changed).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Smallbones, Paul's quotes directly address the discussed question in full essense, while your constant appeals to subtopics such as 1932-33 hunger are not entirely relevant and do not disprove the main point. If Ellman or Werth consider the actions of Soviet authorities intentional or criminal, that does not mean we should ignore or judge in some special non-literal way their point of view on total figures, since it is a different question. GreyHood 15:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ok, I was clearly wrong to believe that I could help reconcile the two sides and reach consensus. Never mind, then. I am now inclined to believe that this article can never achieve NPOV. But I will go ahead and implement my second proposal, since that seems to be unopposed. -- Amerul (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A hopefully less controversial change

I have decided that, at least for now, I will stay out of the debate about whether to include exact numbers in the lead. When I made my first proposal above, I did not realize how controversial it would be. I thought it was a good way to satisfy all sides. I was wrong.
But I do not want to completely give up the idea of making small improvements to the lead. So here is a different proposal, which is hopefully uncontroversial. As it currently stands, the lead includes the following sentence:

Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps.

This sentence gives the false impression that the "100 million" estimates include victims of war, famine and so on, while the "85 million" estimates do not. That is not the case. All estimates include famine victims. Even the lower estimates include at least the victims of the Great Chinese Famine during the Great Leap Forward. In fact, this one event seems to be responsible for 40-50% of all deaths attributed to Communist regimes, depending on the source.
As such, I propose replacing the words "Some higher estimates of mass killings" with "These estimates". -- Amerul (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the estimates do not include war deaths due to combat etc. I suggest you read the sources given and the prior discussions inthe archives here. And your casual use of "famine" seems to indicate that you feel premature deaths due to removal of food from a region is simple "famine" which no source agrees with. Cheers, but we are required to use what tthe sources say and not what any editor avers he knows. Collect (talk) 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I second Collect on process. You need to read the sources, and use what the sources say and not what any editor avers he knows. (Editors of long standing know that, at least on this article, Collect and I have been on opposing sides regarding content; but we agree on process). Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check on my posts across Misplaced Pages, you will find our opinions are close in a number of WP pages when it comes to process - really. The problem here has always been editors asserting that what they "know" is right, and all else is "fringe." I rather think Franklin's advice about us being willing to doubt our own infallibility is sound. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The civil war deaths were not only a result of deaths due to combat. Thus, majority of deaths in Afghanistan were the civilian deaths as a result of counter-gueriila warfare which are not included into the Communist mass killing chapter by Valentino. Similarly, the deaths during Vietnam war are ascribed to Communists exclusively by the BB, an approach that has been criticised by other authors. Courtois does not specify if he included the Russian Civil war victims in Communist deaths toll, however, he definitely includes "the extermination and deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920". However, taking into account that overwhelming majority of male Cossack population were directly involved in Civil war (on the Whites' side), the "extermination" was definitely a part of Civil war hostilities. Courtois includes the Volga famine and all other famines as Communist mass killing, although only Great Soviet famine is being described (by some authors) as the result of Communist policy. However, as Ellman noted, it is a "normal historical practice" to treat famine deaths separately, and not to combine them with other victims of regime in a single category. In any event, if we follow the Fifelfoo's advice and read the sources, we understand that Amerul's point is totally valid: for the USSR, for example, the number of victims excluding famine, labour camp and deportation victims was no more than 2 million. A huge numbers come mostly from the second category deaths, and that should be clearly explained. (Of course, the Cambodian case is totally different).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to get into the hermeneutics of the wikipedia editorial process amongst high quality editors who read the same, or similar sources, closely—over a beer. I'm not going to over Talk:MKUCR again. The last number of times I engaged here, I ended up reading texts of low to FRINGE quality; where the authors steadfastly refused to actually state their theses… the reading process itself was frustrating beyond belief. Then of course the greater disappointment that my readings confront your own, and that there is the deep shock, and eventually while trying to discuss inevitable hurt, that another editor who shares my commitment to process can have a divergent close reading. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand. Is this your post addressed to me or to Collect? Do you mean your and my reading?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Posts at the same depth of indentation are (generally) both replies to a preceding post with less depth of indentation. I was replying to Collect. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for lede

I can't help but notice that the lead seems to switch back and forth between two different topics:

1. Death toll estimates
2. Causes

Currently, the first sentence is about #1. The second is about #2. Third sentence switches back to #1. Fourth sentence switches back to #2 and then back to #1. Add. Rinse. Repeat.

I attempted to re-arrange the lede so that all the content about the estimates is in one spot and all the content about the causes is another spot. I know that this is a contentious article, so let me emphasize the following:

• I did not add any new content.
• I did not remove any existing content.
• I simply re-arranged the sentences.

The only exception to the above is that I combined (what used to be) the final two sentences and inserted a single word 'but' as a transition. I did this only because I thought the prose flowed better that way. If this is a sticking point, I'm fine with keeping them separate sentences.

Here's my suggested text:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million. Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge but there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. Scholarship focuses on the causes of mass killings in single societies, though some claims of common causes for mass killings have been made. As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars.
It's not 100% perfect. By the end of the lede, it switches back to the death toll estimates, but my goal was not to modify any of the sentences, just simply re-arrange them. But at least there's not the constant back and forth.
I'm just throwing out a trial balloon here and see what others think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure you correctly summarised the subject. As it has already been explained during the previous discussion, the two first sentences, combined together, are totally misleading. They create an absolutely false impression that 85 million were the victims of "mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms", and the figure of 100 million is obtained by addition of " lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps." That is simply not the case. Both higher and lower estimates belong to the authors who believe that the category "Communist mass killing" includes all deaths described in the second sentence, the difference come from the discrepancy in the methodologies for calculation of these figures. In actuality, if we take the USSR as an example, the second category (" lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps") is a lion's share of deaths under Communists. The same is true for China. Only in Kampuchea can we speak about something similar to what happened in Nazi occupied Europe.

The key issue is that the very term "mass killing under Communist regimes" is poorly defined, and different authors see it absolutely differently. Therefore, to provide any figures before the very definition of the event has been discussed is totally unencyclopaedic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. However, in general this version looks good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How about replacing the contentious sentence with something like The estimates of mass killings variously include mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, and lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps? Also note that the expression these three regimes cannot precede the sentence which identifies the regimes, please fix this. Colchicum (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that not all sources would be summarised by such a sentence. Many, if not majority of single society studies do not consider "lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps" as the victims of mass killings. In actuality, the sources can be separated onto two major categories: the first category sources see Communism as a primary (if not the sole) cause of all premature deaths in the Communist countries. They combine death statistics for all Communist countries together, and come out with shocking general figure of 60, 80 or even 100 million victims of Communist mass killings ("Red Holocaust", "Democide" etc). Other sources, primarily single society studies, analyse the issue separately for each country and outline several different categories of excess premature deaths, and several different causes of those deaths. In the USSR/Russia they were the hate of land owners by peasantry, brutality of the WWI, etc. In Cambodia they were the tensions between urban and rural population (whose misery was desperate), Khmer nationalism and revenge traditions, etc. Of course, different versions of Communist ideology played rather important role, however, many authors warn against oversimplifications. Accordingly, different authors have different opinions on who should be considered as a victim of repressions/killings, and who should not. Therefore, by presenting the figures in the first sentence, in combination with the sentence you propose we make a redundant stress on the first type sources, and totally ignore serious single society studies, which is unacceptable per our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled. This might be a language barrier, but I am not a native speaker of English either. Still, don't you know what variously include means? It does summarize all the sources coorectly. Colchicum (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Not very good. Looks like you just want to rearrange stuff, but there are existing problems. Starting an encyclopeida article off with such a dubious number is ridiculous. The only range worth mentioning is actual political executions. Opening an article by counting 30 million people who starved to death during a famine as a "mass killing" when only a handful of writings do so is such a deep violation of NPOV, that the work on this article has gotten to be just comical. BigK HeX (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes"? You need to explain who the agent was, who has made this observation and why. Avoid the passive voice. TFD (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Ledes are supposed to summarize the body - and they need not be separately sourced specific claims. With the content unquestionably in the body of the article, and sourced, the statement is a proper summary. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ASTONISH the lead should not start with attempts to astonish the reader (such as the given total victim numbers), and the text should flow in such a way so as to explain all the necessary terms first, such as what is Communist regime, what is mass killing, and what types of mass killings occurred under which communist regimes, how the figures were counted and by whom. GreyHood 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Courtois (1999) "Introduction" p. X: USSR: 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.
2. Valentino (2005) Final solutions p. 91.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Old requests for peer review