Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:14, 10 November 2011 editColchicum (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers19,162 editsm →Suggestion for lede← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,841 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High), Politics (Rater) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{afd-merged-from|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes|Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (2nd nomination)|28 August 2024}}
{{ombox
| type = speedy
| text = In application and enforcement of the ]'s decision at ], the following '''discretionary sanctions''' apply to the article {{La|1=Mass killings under Communist regimes}}:
*No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either
:*minor edits as described at ] and marked as minor,
:*reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious ] violation,
:*or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus.
{{collapse top|1=Procedural details}}
#The rules at ] 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 ] 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 ] 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.
{{collapse bottom}}
*Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per ].
*In addition, a ] restriction concerning this article continues to apply. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
}}

{{skip to talk}} {{skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{talk header|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|ee|1RR=yes}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{round in circles|search=no}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject History
{{tmbox
|small=
|image=none
|class=start
|style=background-color:#CCFFCC;text-align:center;
|importance=low
|text=''Due to the editing restrictions on this article, ] to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.''
|Attention=yes
|A-Class=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all
major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and
does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=no
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including
a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=no
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials,
such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=no
<!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. -->
|B-Class-6=no
<!-- Task forces -->
}} }}
{{WikiProject Politics |class= |importance= }} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Human rights |class=C |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Cambodia|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Socialism |class=C |importance=mid}} {{WikiProject China|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union |class=C |importance=mid|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=mid|hist=yes|rus=yes|rus-importance=mid}}
}} }}
<!--Clearly of relevance as a long-standing talking point-->
{{Old AfD multi
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|1=
|date=3 August 2009|result='''No consensus'''|page=Communist genocide
{{American English}}
|date2=24 September 2009|result2='''No consensus'''|page2=Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
{{Old XfD multi
|date3=8 November 2009|result3='''No consensus'''|page3=Mass killings under Communist regimes
<!-- 1st -->
|date4=13 April 2010|result4='''Keep'''|page4=Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
|date5=13 July 2010|result5='''Keep'''|page5=Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|result = '''no consensus'''
|collapse=yes
|page = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide
|link =
|caption =
<!-- 2nd -->
|date2 = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|result2 = '''no consensus'''
|page2 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
|link2 =
|caption2 =
<!-- 3rd -->
|date3 = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|result3 = '''no consensus'''
|page3 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
|link3 =
|caption3 =
<!-- 4th -->
|date4 = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|result4 = '''keep'''
|page4 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|link4 =
|caption4 =
<!-- 5th -->
|date5 = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|result5 = '''keep'''
|page5 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|link5 =
|caption5 =
<!-- 6th -->
|date6 = 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
|result6 = '''no consensus'''
|page6 = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)
|link6 =
|caption6 =
}} }}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
| action1 = AFD | action1 = PR
| action1date = 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | action1date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide | action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1
| action1result = no consensus | action1result = reviewed
| action1oldid = 307184164 | action1oldid = 311235290

| action2 = PR | action2 = PR
| action2date = 10:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | action2date = 10:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Communist genocide/archive1 | action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Mass killings under Communist regimes/archive1
| action2result = reviewed | action2result = reviewed
| action2oldid = 311235290 | action2oldid =
| action3 = PR

| action3 = AFD | action3date = 11:41, 1 June 2018
| action3link = Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/Archive_38#Peer_review
| action3date = 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
| action3result = reviewed
| action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide (2nd nomination)
| action3oldid =
| action3result = no consensus
}}
| action3oldid = 317412005
{{Press

| action4 = AFD |collapsed = yes
|author = Lott, Maxim
| action4date = 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|title = Inside Misplaced Pages's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried
| action4link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes
|date = February 18, 2021
| action4result = no consensus
|org = ]
| action4oldid = 325967284
|url = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed

| action5 = AFD |author2 = Abbott, Joel
|title2 = The Misplaced Pages page titled "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes" is being considered for deletion 😬
| action5date = 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
|date2 = November 24, 2021
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination)
|org2 = ]
| action5result = keep
|url2 = https://notthebee.com/article/wikipedia-is-considering-the-deletion-of-the-page-titled-mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-/
| action5oldid = 357657757
|author3 = Kangadis, Nick

|title3 = 'Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes' Misplaced Pages Page 'Being Considered for Deletion'
| action6 = AFD
|date3 = November 24, 2021
| action6date = 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
|org3 = MRC TV
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)
|url3 = https://www.mrctv.org/blog/mass-killings-under-communist-regimes-wikipedia-page-being-considered-deletion
| action6result = keep
|author4 = Johnson, Autumn
| action6oldid =
|title4 = Misplaced Pages Contemplates Deleting Article On Communist Mass Killings

|date4 = November 25, 2021
| currentstatus =
|org4 = MRC News Buster
|url4 = https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/autumn-johnson/2021/11/25/wikipedia-contemplates-deleting-article-communist-mass
|author5 = Simpson, Craig
|title5 = Misplaced Pages may delete entry on ‘mass killings’ under Communism due to claims of bias
|date5 = November 27, 2021
|org5 = ]
|url5 = https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/27/wikipedia-may-delete-entry-mass-killings-communism-due-claims/
|author6 = Nolan, Lucas
|title6 = Misplaced Pages Community Considers Deleting Entry on Mass Killings Under Communism over Claims of ‘Bias’
|date6 = November 29, 2021
|org6 = ]
|url6 =
|author7 = ((]))
|title7 = Deletion Report: What we lost, what we gained
|date7 = November 29, 2021
|org7 = ]
|url7 = https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-11-29/Deletion_report
|author8 = Chasmar, Jessica
|title8 = Misplaced Pages page on 'Mass killings under communist regimes' considered for deletion, prompting bias accusations
|date8 = November 29, 2021
|org8 = ]
|url8 = https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-page-mass-killings-communist-regimes-deletion-bias
|author9 = Blair, Douglas
|title9 = Misplaced Pages Threatens to Purge ‘Communist Mass Killings’ Page, Cites Anti-Communist Bias
|date9 = December 12, 2021
|org9 = ]
|url9 = https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/12/12/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page-cites-anti-communist-bias
|author10 = Blair, Douglas
|title10 = Misplaced Pages threatens to purge ‘communist mass killings’ page, cites anti-communist bias
|date10 = December 14, 2021
|org10 = ]
|url10 = https://www.christianpost.com/voices/wikipedia-threatens-to-purge-communist-mass-killings-page.html
|author11 = Edwards, Lee and Hafera, Brenda
|title11 = Why We Should Never Forget the Crimes of Communism
|date11 = December 14, 2021
|org11 = ]
|url11 = https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/why-we-should-never-forget-the-crimes-communism
}} }}
{{old moves
{{controversial (history)}}
|date1=13 September 2009 |from1=Communist genocide |destination1=Communist politicide |link1=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 2#Requested move |result1=no consensus
{{pbneutral}}
|date2=16 September 2009 |from2=Communist genocide |destination2=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link2=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 3#Requested move II |result2=moved
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=20 |units=days }}
|date3=16 April 2010 |destionation3=Classicide |link3=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 14#Requested move |result3=not moved
|date4=13 August 2018 |destination4=Communist states and mass killing |result4=no consensus to move |link4=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 40#Requested move 13 August 2018
|date5=31 July 2019 |destination5= |link5=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 31 July 2019 |result5=not moved
|date6=14 August 2019 |destination6=Mass killings under Communist regimes |link6=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 41#Requested move 14 August 2019 |result6=not moved
|date7=31 January 2022 |destination7=Mass killings by communist regimes |result7=procedural close |link7=Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive 59#Requested move 31 January 2022
}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 28 |counter = 60
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(20d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{TOC left}}
{{Clear}}


== Request for comment == == Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer ==

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.


] (]) 18:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

] (]) 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 ], 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.<ref name="Valentino">] p. 91.</ref> Scholarship focuses on the specific causes of mass killings in single societies,<ref>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</ref> though some claims of common causes have been made, including the role of Communist ideology,<ref>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</ref> the totalitarian nature of Communism,<ref name="Rummel">R. Rummel. Death by government. Transaction Publishers, 1997, ISBN 1560009276, 9781560009276, p. 87 </ref> the strategic calculations of a small group of leaders seeking to communize the society.<ref name="Valentino">p.4</ref> The number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited,<ref name="Valentino"/><ref name="Rummel"/><ref>Rosefielde, Steven (2010) Red Holocaust Routledge ISBN 978-041577757</ref> and different definitions of mass killings have been proposed.<ref>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.</ref> There are scholars who combine deaths as result of executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, ]s, ] campaigns, and ]s, with the deaths as a result of war, famine and disease into a single category "mass killings",<ref name="Valentino"/> or "]."<ref name="Rummel"/> The estimates of total death toll of mass killings defined in such a way are coloured by political opinion,<ref>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)</ref> and sometimes approach to 100 million.<ref>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</ref> The highest death tolls occurred in the ] under ], in the ] under ], and in ] under the ]. 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,<ref name="Valentino"/> Although most Communist regimes have not engaged in mass killings,<ref name="Valentino"/> according to some evidences, there have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.<ref name="Valentino"/>

===Lede 2===
:'''Mass killing''' of non-combatants has occurred '''under several Communist regimes''' in the pursuit of the communist ideal of a ] society<ref name="Valentino 1">Valentino p. 91</ref><ref name="Gellately 1">Eric Weitz "The Modernity of Genocides" in Gellately, p. 69</ref> Estimates for those killed range from 60 million<ref name="Rosefielde 2">Rosefielde p. 2</ref> to 100 million.<ref name="Rosefielde 3">Rosefielde p. 126</ref><ref name="Courtois 1">Courtois et al p. IX</ref><ref name="Staub">Staub p. 8</ref> 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.<ref name="Valentino 2">Valentino p. 10</ref> Thus starvation deaths in the 1932-1933 ],<ref name="Snyder">Snyder p. VII</ref> and in the 1958-1961 ], lethal forced labor in ] and ] in ], have all been described as mass killings.<ref name="Rosefielde, Steven 1">Rosefielde p. 114</ref>

:The highest documented death tolls have occurred in the ], the ], and ]. Estimates of mass killings in the Soviet Union under ] range from 15 million<ref name="Hosking">Hosking p. 203</ref><ref name="Naimark">Naimark p. 11</ref> to 40 million.<ref name=”Combs”>Combs p. 307</ref> In the People's Republic of China under ], mass killings are estimated from 65<ref name="Courtois 2">Courtois et al p. 4</ref> to 72 million.<ref name="Rosefielde, Steven 1"/> And in Cambodia under the ] the estimated death toll is between 1.5 and 2.5 million.<ref name="Courtois 2"/><ref name="Rosefielde 3"/>

:There have also been mass killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.<ref name="Valentino 1"/>

===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.''
{{reflist|2}}

===Bibliography===
*{{cite book
| last =Combs
| first =Dick
| title = Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised
| publisher =Penn State University Press
| year =2008
| pages =361
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=U9twRiRKd6wC
| doi =
| id =ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Courtois
| first =Stéphane (editor)
| authorlink =Stéphane Courtois
| coauthors =Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer (translators)
| title =The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression
| publisher =Harvard University Press
| year =1999
| pages =858
| url =//books.google.com/?id=H1jsgYCoRioC
| doi =
| id =ISBN 0-674-07608-7 }} Translation of Le Livre noir du communisme: Crimes, terreur, répression, published in 1997 by ].
*{{cite book
| last =Hosking
| first =Geoffrey A.
| authorlink =Geoffrey Hosking
| title =The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within
| publisher =Harvard University Press
| year =1993
| pages =570
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=l9wbbiJV5WkC&dq
| doi =
| id =ISBN 978-0674304437 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Gellately
| first =Robert
| authorlink =Robert Gellately
| coauthors =]
| title =The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective
| publisher =Cambridge University Press
| year =2003
| pages =396
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=k9Ro7b0tWz4C
| doi =
| id = ISBN 978-0521527507 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Kurtz
| first =Lester R.
| coauthors = Jennifer E. Turpin
| title =Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict
| publisher =Academic Press
| year =1999
| pages =809
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=TG2kN033mDkC
| doi =
| id =ISBN 978-0122270116 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Naimark
| first =Norman M.
| authorlink =Norman Naimark
| coauthors =
| title =Stalin’s Genocides
| publisher =Princeton University Press
| year =2010
| location =
| pages =163
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=F3UwF1eqb0AC
| doi =
| id = ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Rosefielde
| first =Steven
| authorlink =Steven Rosefielde
| title =Red Holocaust
| publisher =Taylor & Francis
| year =2010
| pages =358
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=_vFEPi_c-ooC
| doi =
| id =ISBN 978-041577757 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Snyder
| first =Timothy
| authorlink =Timothy Snyder
| title =Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin
| publisher =Basic Books
| year =2010
| pages =524
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=n856VkLmF34C
| doi =
| id =ISBN 9780465002399 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Staub
| first =Ervin
| authorlink =Ervin Staub
| title =Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism
| publisher = Oxford University Press
| year =2010
| pages =576
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=CKXKSAAACAAJ
| doi =
| id =ISBN 978-0195382044 }}
*{{cite book
| last =Valentino
| first =Benjamin A.
| authorlink =
| title =Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century
| publisher =Cornell University Press
| year =2005
| pages =317
| url =http://books.google.com/books?id=LQfeXVU_EvgC
| doi =
| id = 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? --] (]) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
::I don't get it. Why did you remove the middle ground 3rd option? --] (]) 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. --] (]) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. More neutral, more sensible approach to figures. Also because of this explanation by Paul: ]. ] ] 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

====Oppose====
# 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. ] (]) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
#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. ] (]) 01:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Does not summarize what a good article would look like. ] (]) 14:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Opposing per Biophys and collect. ] (]) 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Oppose per others - but I have to add that, after reading it multiple times, I just don't understand what it actually means. ] (]) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Oppose per others. And per Smallbones, seems to spend more time on what it's not than what it is. ]<small> ►]</small> 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite and TFD's reason for opposing on the second proposed lede. ] (]) 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.<br>Fu speaks about long traditions of Chinese autocracy, so Maoism was just one more reincarnation of that.<br>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.--] (]) 19:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::None of this includes "lives lost due to war". ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 17:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

===Comments on lede 2===
====Support====
# 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.'' ] (]) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Support obviously, naturally could do with tweaking but overall the better of the two. ] (]) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Support (as previous participant) ] (]) 18:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Support, particularly if some of what Hipocrite proposes below is rolled into the text. --] (]) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
# Support, China would come first in death toll as opposed to the USSR, and per Martin. ]<small> ►]</small> 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

====Oppose====
* Does not summarize what a good article would look like. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (])
:::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?--] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ] without falling into the "premature deaths don't count" argument? Did you note my suggested wording which does not use the "utopia" language? Cheers. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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 ] and should ''not'' be given any substantial weight. Now can you give ''any'' mainstream sources with numbers which can ''really'' be used? Or are ] 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Takes singular opinions and states them as declarative fact far too often and much too strongly. <i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> ] (])</i> 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. ] (]) 05:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Hipocrite, Paul Siebert, Greyhood, BigK HeX but most particularly TFD. ] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 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 ]), 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

===General Comments===
??? I thought we just had an RFC above. Why are we doing this all over again? --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.
: ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}Sorry guys, I've just updated the lede 1 as I promised to Smallbones yesterday. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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?"''
::--] (]) 19:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
:::"Not only I think, I '']''", Yup, sums it up in a nutshell. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

{{hat|This part of the discussion not needed}}

I think the following could be removed as vandalism - but I'd hate to completely remove what some might see as a comment at or on the RfC. Based on the anon's ], there is no need to ], so I'll say it looks to me like an intentional provocation, like some of the other provocations in his history. So please, nobody fall (anymore) into his trap. Don't respond to provocations.

If anybody, after review of the anon's edit history, really thinks that this really belongs in the RfC, just remove the "hat" at the top and "hab" at the bottom. ] (]) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

---

All of these are bad and confusing. This is a simple article intended for the simple reader. I will suggest:
:'''Mass killing''' on the scale of hundreds of millions (possibly thousands of millions, that is, billions) of people occurred in communist and socialist countries. The highest death tolls occured in Russia and Red China. The Reds deliberately killed millions using guns, knives, bayonets, poison gases, artillery shells. The lion's share was caused by inaccessible and inadequate socialized medicine, land reform, and tort reform. These mass killings are known as the '''Red Holocaust''', mirroring ] in Nazi Germany. ] (]) 02:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::you forgot to mention the well known habit of "jewish bolshevik cossacks" to drink Christian infants' blood ...-] (]) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
:::When in doubt, accuse everyone else of being Anti-Semitic, eh? Paul - you know better! Cheers, and suggest you redact that strange and quite worthless slur on other editors. ] (]) 12:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::::That is a quote from one novel, and this quote has nothing in common with anti-Semitism. This double ] is supposed to demonstrate how ridiculous the anonym's post is. If my opponents are not familiar with this novel, I am not responsible for that.--] (]) 16:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Tell ya what - post it on Slrubenstein's user talk page and ask him whether it is an "anti=semitic" charge. Cheers. ] (]) 17:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::I have no idea on who Slrubenstein is. --] (]) 19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ha, this is funny indeed.. ] ] 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Just in case all you haven't understand the double ]: real Cossacks were anti-Bolsheviks and were ethnically Russian/Ukrainian. Hence Bolshevik Cossacks and Jewish Cossacks are nonsense, and no any anti-Semitism here. Cheers! ] ] 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Other than the fact that Jewish and Bolshevik Cossacks did, in fact, exist, and absolute claims are generally errant <g>. ] (]) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Did they? Please, give me a name of at least one Jewish Bolshevik Cossack.--] (]) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Copying post: ''As to the second claim that all Cossacks were anti-Bolshevik -- that is belied by , thus such a group certainly did exist. Ditto the existence of "Jewish cossacks" per , etc. It is amazing how often absolute statements turn out to be errant. Cheers. ] (]) 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)'' Cheers. ] (]) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::The question was about Jewish Bolshevik Cossacks. The books you refer to are about pre-Civil war Cossacks. I need a name of some Red Cossacks with Jewish ancestry. Can you provide it?--] (]) 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I gave sufficient RS sources to show that the absolute claim was errant. You are now using the "let's pretend he didn't answer the question by making a different question" system of debate. I do not follow that sort of line, and I am aghast someone else would try it. Cheers. ] (]) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

{{hab}}

:Could editors please show respect when discussing the deaths of tens of millions of people. ] (]) 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: . Without POV, without spin, and to the point. But as I said, I'm not expert on the subject. --] (]) 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"? ] <small>]</small> 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.--] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 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.--] (]) 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?--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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).--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 22:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::So TLAM's edit did not need consensus, and Paul's revert does need. How utterly nice. ] ] 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 ]. Nowhere in that does it suggest issuing an ultimatum. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
** Do not belittle victims of the ]. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ]<small> ►]</small> 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.--] (]) 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 ] if you would like to expand content there. ]<small> ►]</small> 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?--] (]) 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}In my opinion, the discussion 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:{{Find sources|Mass killings under Communist regimes}}
:What is the Americanism to describe the results? Is it "duh" or "doh"? ] (]) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
: Probably "d'oh". <i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> ] (])</i> 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. <i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> ] (])</i> 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. ] (]) 03:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
::: I'll stick around all the same. Thanks. <i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> ] (])</i> 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. ] (]) 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

::Ah, Collect. Ever the optimist. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

:Can anyone clarify, please, where the 21 million number for three countries (in version 3) comes from? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

== Can we add the word 'between'? ==

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

{{cquote|50,000 to 100,000 people may have been killed in Bulgaria beginning in 1944 as part of agricultural collectivization and political repression.}}

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 ] edit. Can I get consensus for this change? ] (]) 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" ] (]) 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, you are correct. Sorry, I missed that. ] (]) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and Fifelfoo is grammatically correct. Cheers. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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:
# 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.
# 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.
-- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 11:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::@]. 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.--] (]) 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.'' ] (]) 12:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::That the edit was made without consensus has been confirmed by EdJohnson . By the moment the edit had been made no consensus had been reached, and the Sandsten's procedure does not allow ''post factum'' approval. --] (]) 12:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::You ''made'' that argument and ''iterated'' that argument and ''repeated'' that argument at AE. Remember? ] Cheers. ] (]) 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 ] here. However, if you think my point is mute, feel free to ask Ed for explanations.--] (]) 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.

] (]) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:By requesting to prove the opposite you act against our ]. 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.<br>In addition, to re-iterate the same arguments (which have already been refuted on the talk page) before a new user is hardly appropriate.--] (]) 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." ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::Last time I checked evidence was uncountable. ] (]) 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. ], 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 ]. 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.--] (]) 20:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::::The English word ''evidence''. Of whatever. And here we go again... Amazing. ] (]) 20:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Your claim is too general to be addressed. Care to specify?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ]<small> ►]</small> 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. ]<small> ►]</small> 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 ] 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. ] (]) 21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::: RE: ]'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 ]<i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> ] (])</i> 22:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}@ 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? <br>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.--] (]) 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? --] (]) 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.<br>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.<br>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.
# "''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).
# "''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:
# "''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.<br>In connection to that, I suggest to leave the overall numbers for such crap sources as the ], and to focus on the correct representation of the essence of the events.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
::Did you read this article? Can you provide a quote?--] (]) 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 ; <u>un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif</u>, 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?--] (]) 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? ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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?

] (]) 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"?--] (]) 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).<br>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. <br>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 <u>explain the nature of the different categories and the differing ways in which they can be evaluated.</u>''" (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.--] (]) 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. ] ] 14:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:As was already noted, this approach totally fails ], 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 ]. ] ] 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. ] (]) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:"''A ban of death toll''" and "''a ban of death toll <u>without necessary reservations in the first sentence of the lede</u>''" 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.--] (]) 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).--] (]) 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. ] ] 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. -- ] (]) 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.<br>
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.<br>
As such, I propose replacing the words ''"Some higher estimates of mass killings"'' with ''"These estimates"''.
-- ] (]) 06:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


Regarding removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from ], we also cite a paper published in the journal '''' by Ghodsee and '''' by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --] (]) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 10:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
::It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. ] (]) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed , or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and ] objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --] (]) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. ] (]) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
:Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. ] (]) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


Mere selection of which aspect to cover usually reflects a type of bias. This is a universal reality, and repeating a universal reality is not information. Trying to pretend that it is noteworthy information is itself bias. For example, if a researcher counts up the number of deaths from high-school sports, we don't put in a section that a critic says that merely counting those deaths reflects an anti-sports bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:47, 28 September 2024 (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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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).--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


:PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
== Suggestion for lede ==
:The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. ] (]) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't help but notice that the lead seems to switch back and forth between two different topics:
:To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? ] (]) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
# Death toll estimates
::{{Ping|The Four Deuces}} All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
# Causes
I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of ) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - ] (]) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
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.


== Recent removals ==
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.


I am starting this thread to discuss recent content removals by DaltonCastle. I disagree with them, because the removed content was well sourced and in line with the rest of the article. Much of the article consists of reporting the views of different academics on issues such as the proper names to be used for the mass killings (terminology), the numbers of people killed and how those numbers should be estimated (estimates), causes of the killings, comparisons to other mass killings, and so on. In many cases, there is no overall consensus on these topics, there are only different sources with different perspectives. So the article reports the conclusions of author A, then those of author B, then those of author C, etc. In cases where two authors directly disagree with each other, this is also noted. I think this is a good format, and actually I cannot think of any other way to organize this information. DaltonCastle has removed certain sentences and paragraphs on the grounds that they represent the views of only one author, or only two authors, or that they are "hardly a consensus". That is true, but the same could be said about every other sentence and paragraph immediately before and after the removed ones. Of course each paragraph (or part of a paragraph, or sentence) focuses on a single author, because that is the structure being used. We describe the various sources one by one, when there is no way to combine them without doing original research (for example, when they disagree with each other). The names of the authors are given every time, and the content makes it clear that it is reporting their separate conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. - ] (]) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Here's my suggested text:
:The issue is not about the quality of sourcing, its that there is a ] issue to insert a point of view. When the "Estimates" section starts off with "a communist-leaning academic believes the following estimates are exaggerated" (I'm obviously simplifying), there is a concern. It is a question of 1. due weight, 2. Coatracking, 3. POV-insertion/whitewashing. The near-majority of the article should not be weighted towards the handful of academics who say the numbers are overestimated. At most it is a quick mention. ] (]) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::The "Estimates" section begins by quoting ], who is not remotely communist-leaning as far as I can tell. He has written a book specifically about the crimes of communist states. Also, he is not saying that the estimates are exaggerated, but that they are contentious and debated. This is true, and it is a good summary of the literature. Every author who has estimated the number of people killed by communist regimes has arrived at a different number, and the differences between the numbers are in the tens of millions. It's not a question of high numbers or low numbers, it's just that they are very different from each other. For example, the three highest estimates cited in the "Estimates" section are 94 million, 110 million and 148 million. The differences between these "high" numbers are just as big as the differences between "high" and "low" numbers. So, it is not as if most academics agree on a single number, and a handful of sources say that this number is overestimated. There is no agreement on any single number, high or low. I think it is therefore good and important to cover all the estimates and the various debates about them.
::I don't see any particular weight in the article towards some estimates or authors as opposed to others. Every author gets about the same space as every other author. On the contrary, it seems to me that removing some authors would privilege those that remain. We should not give the impression that there is academic agreement on an issue when there is no agreement, by citing a single author.
::Finally, regarding ], I don't see that here at all. In my understanding, coatracking is when an article groups together different topics that are unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the article's topic. So, coatracking here would be if the article cited sources that don't talk about communist mass killings. But all the cited sources do in fact talk about communist mass killings. They disagree with each other on things like estimates or causes, but describing sources that disagree with each other is not coatracking. That's just standard academic debate. - ] (]) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Any academic work is going to full of things that can be critiqued. Respectfully, your edit had a massive amount of such material, (plus a whataboutism argument made by someone.) I think that a high-quality paragraph (information, not talking points) covering variability and possible bias in estimates would be a good addition. But IMHO the edit that I just described was not that. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


== Bad sourcing and obvious bias. ==
'' '''Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes''' during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering between 85 and 100 million.<ref name="Courtois1999Introduction">] 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.</ref> Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, ]s, ] campaigns, and ]s, 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.{{Dubious|date=February 2011}}<ref name="Valentino">] p. 91.</ref> The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the ] under ], in the ] under ], and in ] under the ] but there have also been killings on a smaller scale in ], ], 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.'' <br />
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. <br />
I'm just throwing out a trial balloon here and see what others think. ] (]) 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, ]s, ] campaigns, and ]s''", 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.--] (]) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:PS. However, in general this version looks good.--] (]) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


This whole page needs to be cleaned up. ] (]) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <i style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555"> ] (])</i> 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. ] (]) 06:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC) :You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? ] (]) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (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. ] (]) 11:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC) *You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --] (]) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:46, 13 December 2024

Crimes against humanity under communist regimes was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 August 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mass killings under communist regimes. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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: 7 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page. Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

General Concerns and Questions Q1: Why does this article exist? A1: This article exists because so far there has been no consensus to delete it. The latest AfD (2021) said that the Misplaced Pages editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. Six discussions to delete this article have been held, none of them resulting in a deletion:
  • No consensus, December 2021, see discussion
  • Keep, July 2010, see discussion.
  • Keep, April 2010, see discussion
  • No consensus, November 2009, see discussion
  • No consensus, September 2009, see discussion
  • No consensus, August 2009, see discussion
  • Declined by creator 17:04, 3 August 2009
  • PROD 17:02, 3 August 2009
  • Created 17:00 3 August 2009
  • Related Talk discussions:
Q2: Why isn't there also an article for "Mass killings under _________ regimes"? Isn't this title biased? A2: Each article must stand on its own merits, as justified by its sources. The existence (or not) of some other similar article does not determine the existence of this one, and vice versa. Having said that, there are other articles such as Anti-communist mass killings and Genocide of indigenous peoples which also exist. This article has a descriptive title arrived at by consensus in November 2009.
  • Related Talk discussions: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a subpage has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.
This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconCambodia Mid‑importance
WikiProject icon Mass killings under communist regimes is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Misplaced Pages, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info.
WikiProject iconChina Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
          Other talk page banners
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
  • no consensus, 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC), see discussion.
  • keep, 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
  • keep, 17:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 11:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
  • no consensus, 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC), see discussion.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Removal of Ghodsee and Neumayer

Regarding this removal, we cite three sources for that paragraph, not just one; while the first one is just an essay from Aeon, we also cite a paper published in the journal History of the Present by Ghodsee and The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War by Neumayer; both of these are academically published and have been extensively cited themselves (, ) so they're reasonable to cover in a brief paragraph here. We could add some of those as secondary sources if necessary and replace the Aeon cite, but I don't see how total removal makes sense; and of course the rest of that edit summary seems to mostly just be expressing disagreement with them, which doesn't have anything to do with whether we cover their opinions or not. --Aquillion (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

IMO it's non-useful information at best. Somebody claiming that mere counting of mass killing reflects an anti-communism bias. North8000 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There's no question that part of the anti-Communist argument is how many people they killed. The Victims of Communism website for example says on its first page, "COMMUNISM KILLED OVER 100 MILLION." Why would they lead with this if it did not further their anti-Communist narrative?
It could be that is a very good argument against Communism. But it's still an argument, which by definition reflects a bias. TFD (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hrm. It is possible that some important context about the objection was removed here, or that we should go over the sources (and look for others) and elaborate on it a bit more. I think that it's an important and WP:DUE objection, but it is true that in its current form there's something important missing - it probably needs to be expanded at least a little bit to explain it further, not removed. --Aquillion (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
It needs further explanation, but it seems to be the most widely accepted explanation for counting bodies, particularly for the 100 million figure. TFD (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Seems well sourced but not very important. So I would be fine with it's removal. PackMecEng (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Mere selection of which aspect to cover usually reflects a type of bias. This is a universal reality, and repeating a universal reality is not information. Trying to pretend that it is noteworthy information is itself bias. For example, if a researcher counts up the number of deaths from high-school sports, we don't put in a section that a critic says that merely counting those deaths reflects an anti-sports bias. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

PBS had a feature, "7 deaths linked to football raise concerns about sport’s risks for young players" The article came out after several publications noted the increasing number of high school sports deaths.
The number of deaths persuade people that there is a problem with high school sports and something should be done. That's because most people disapprove of unnecessary deaths. TFD (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
To put it another way, if you were told that the Communists killed 100 million people, would that tend to make you feel (a) positive about Communism, (b) more negative or (c) about the same? TFD (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: All good points, but that is not the topic at hand. Putting the question in the context of your first example, if somebody said "Counting the number of high-school sports deaths represents an anti-high-school sports bias", should we put what they said into the article? North8000 (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that the paragraph in question only ended up in its current state just four days ago. An essentially unexplained edit (one of several such edits) removed all the information that was previously there, except for the part that said that counting victims reflects an anti-communist bias. I agree that the paragraph as it stood when this discussion began was strange and not much of a criticism (of course critics of communism have an "anti-communist bias"!), but the information that used to be there until four days ago was much more substantial. I have restored it, as well as other information removed by the same editor at the same time, with a similar lack of explanation. I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. It was well sourced, and directly addressed the topic of communist mass killings. I do agree with one removal (the last removal, where the source was a newspaper), so I have not restored that one. - Small colossal (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent removals

I am starting this thread to discuss recent content removals by DaltonCastle. I disagree with them, because the removed content was well sourced and in line with the rest of the article. Much of the article consists of reporting the views of different academics on issues such as the proper names to be used for the mass killings (terminology), the numbers of people killed and how those numbers should be estimated (estimates), causes of the killings, comparisons to other mass killings, and so on. In many cases, there is no overall consensus on these topics, there are only different sources with different perspectives. So the article reports the conclusions of author A, then those of author B, then those of author C, etc. In cases where two authors directly disagree with each other, this is also noted. I think this is a good format, and actually I cannot think of any other way to organize this information. DaltonCastle has removed certain sentences and paragraphs on the grounds that they represent the views of only one author, or only two authors, or that they are "hardly a consensus". That is true, but the same could be said about every other sentence and paragraph immediately before and after the removed ones. Of course each paragraph (or part of a paragraph, or sentence) focuses on a single author, because that is the structure being used. We describe the various sources one by one, when there is no way to combine them without doing original research (for example, when they disagree with each other). The names of the authors are given every time, and the content makes it clear that it is reporting their separate conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that I do not see any difference between the removed information and the rest of the article. - Small colossal (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not about the quality of sourcing, its that there is a WP:COATRACKING issue to insert a point of view. When the "Estimates" section starts off with "a communist-leaning academic believes the following estimates are exaggerated" (I'm obviously simplifying), there is a concern. It is a question of 1. due weight, 2. Coatracking, 3. POV-insertion/whitewashing. The near-majority of the article should not be weighted towards the handful of academics who say the numbers are overestimated. At most it is a quick mention. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The "Estimates" section begins by quoting Klas-Göran Karlsson, who is not remotely communist-leaning as far as I can tell. He has written a book specifically about the crimes of communist states. Also, he is not saying that the estimates are exaggerated, but that they are contentious and debated. This is true, and it is a good summary of the literature. Every author who has estimated the number of people killed by communist regimes has arrived at a different number, and the differences between the numbers are in the tens of millions. It's not a question of high numbers or low numbers, it's just that they are very different from each other. For example, the three highest estimates cited in the "Estimates" section are 94 million, 110 million and 148 million. The differences between these "high" numbers are just as big as the differences between "high" and "low" numbers. So, it is not as if most academics agree on a single number, and a handful of sources say that this number is overestimated. There is no agreement on any single number, high or low. I think it is therefore good and important to cover all the estimates and the various debates about them.
I don't see any particular weight in the article towards some estimates or authors as opposed to others. Every author gets about the same space as every other author. On the contrary, it seems to me that removing some authors would privilege those that remain. We should not give the impression that there is academic agreement on an issue when there is no agreement, by citing a single author.
Finally, regarding WP:COATRACKING, I don't see that here at all. In my understanding, coatracking is when an article groups together different topics that are unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the article's topic. So, coatracking here would be if the article cited sources that don't talk about communist mass killings. But all the cited sources do in fact talk about communist mass killings. They disagree with each other on things like estimates or causes, but describing sources that disagree with each other is not coatracking. That's just standard academic debate. - Small colossal (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Any academic work is going to full of things that can be critiqued. Respectfully, your edit had a massive amount of such material, (plus a whataboutism argument made by someone.) I think that a high-quality paragraph (information, not talking points) covering variability and possible bias in estimates would be a good addition. But IMHO the edit that I just described was not that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sourcing and obvious bias.

This whole page needs to be cleaned up. 2601:248:5181:5C70:F407:1C36:A131:1B6D (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to get started. Have any suggestions? MWFwiki (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • You will have to be more specific. As you can see from some of the older discussions above and in the archives, there have been a lot of discussions of possible bias from different directions, some of which have resulted in changes and some of which hasn't; without more details we can't even attempt to answer you. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: