Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Mass killings under capitalist regimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Formal Edit Proposal

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

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

to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, I found a good source saying (the obvious) what most deaths were due to [1]. It makes a few other interesting points. The author of the chapter is this guy. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support. It is obviously wrong to give an estimate of 100 million in the lede because this is a ridiculously low number. The late president of Poland Lech Kaczynski referred to tens of billions of victims (dziesiątek miliardów ludzi) in 2009 [2] (Translation: "He emphasized that communism was a 'genocidal system that led to the murder of tens of billions of people.'") No wonder communism failed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

There were billions of people alive at any one point in time throughout the twentieth century. Since communist regimes controlled nearly half the world, the number is plausible. Even if Kaczynski's estimate regarding tens of billions is too high, billions could still have been called in the regime massacres. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There were two major Communist states, China (500 to 1000 million population) and the USSR (150 to 250 million). If we assume that the total population of Communist ruled states was 1.5 billion, and four generation lived under Communists, the total number of peoples who lived under Communists was ca 6 billion (of course, those numbers are dramatically exaggerated; in addition, birth of the next generation does not automatically mean the death of the preceding one, they live, for some period, simultaneously.). That means that every person who lived under Communist regimes had to be killed twice by them to give a figure of 10 billion. And, taking into account that the population of former Communist countries and of China is still large, I cannot understand where it came from if all parents of those people were killed twice by Communists.

Meanwhile, Polish Institute of National Remembrance has recently re-considered the amount of Polish victims under Communist rule towards lower estimates.

Instead of that, try to think about the following. Famines were routine events in China since ancient times, and history knows many major famines in China that were more deadly (in relative figures) then the GLF famine was. However, the GLF famine was the last famine in Chinese history, and something suggests that famines will never repeat there. Noone can blame me in supporting Maoism, however, I have to concede that Mao learned due lessons from his (outrageous) blunders. Similarly, during its whole history the USSR demonstrated steady and remarkable life expectancy growth (exceeded only by Japan). Is it compatible with the statement that 10 billion people were killed by Communists?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe you're saying that - you can't just look at a number fixed at a certain discrete point in time. Billions were killed, billions were born. Your fallacy lies in looking at a number for one point, saying: 'look there were 1.5 billion people alive in the communist world during year 19xx.' But that obviously excludes those who had been killed. It also excludes those who would be born later and those who would be killed later and those would be born later and killed later still. The demographic number you're looking at would have been much bigger if not for the killings. You're comparing apples to oranges by drawing original conclusions, and I'm giving you an actual report of a real estimate. I have given you a source from the Polish media, from the Polish president, which he emphasized. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can look at numbers and make conclusions (that is what I am doing in my real life, although I am working in different area). And I can tell you that your statement "Billions were killed, billions were born" is in a direct conflict with elementary math. Currently, ca 7 billion people are living on the Earth, and until the end of XX century the population grew exponentially, doubling every 30-40 years. I built some mathematical model, which approximates the actual population data surprisingly well. The model works well assuming that 2.4 fertile infants survived per one fertile woman (quite a reasonable result, isn't it?). Since the function is exponential, it is easy to integrate. Integration gives 17 billions births (excluding infant mortality) and 11 billion deaths for the period from 1990 to 2000. If we assume that every 10th person born since 1900 was killed by Communists, then, to maintain the observed population growth, women fertility must increase to 2.57 survived children, and the Communist death toll would be 1.62 billion. To get 10 billions killed by Communists, we must assume that 67% of people who was born between 1900 and 2000 died because they were killed by Communists, and the average fertility should be 3.7 survived children per one fertile woman. This is a basic math, and, although I realise that is original research, I am pretty certain that more sophisticated demographic models produce quite close results. I am simply too lazy to look in the literature for those data.

Again, your statement "Billions were killed, billions were born" is not supported by elementary math: for billions to be killed an average woman had to be too fertile: 3.7 survived infants per fertile woman meant that the average amount of births had to exceed 8-10 per woman, and 67% of all survived children would be killed by Communists. Both assumptions are not realistic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

PS. BTW, you also forgot the fact that Communists controlled just one third of the world. Therefore, to provide 10 billion death toll, Communists had to kill their countries' population twice or trice, unless the women under Communists demonstrated fertility comparable to that of ant queen. Speaking seriously, Japan and the USSR, or India and China demonstrated similar population growth rates. Two explanations are possible for that: (i) for some reason the birth rate in Communist countries was much higher (which is strange, especially for such similar countries as China and India), or (ii) mass killing in India and Japan also took place in the same overwhelming scale as in the USSR and China. Both assumptions look totally unrealistic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I appreciate the detailed response, but I feel that Kaczynski's view is ipso facto notable because it was made by a prominent world leader. I'm not sure about the model you have created and the assumptions involved, such as how many men versus how many women were murdered by Marxism. If men were disproportionately slaughtered (as I suspect), the numbers may stand up. At any rate, I have seen similar statements. For example, at least one Indian neoliberal economist speaks of billions of "numerous indirect killings" that possibly run into the "billions." Dr. Sanjeev Sabhlok writes:

Taken to the extreme, as with the (erstwhile) Soviet Union, Maoist China, or Naxalites, socialism physically assaults and kills people. Millions of people have been murdered by Marx's equality-driven ideology over the twentieth century. If we add to this the far more numerous indirect killings - namely deaths through hunger and preventable disease arising from socialist mismanagement in countries like India - then the number of people killed in the cause of equality runs into the hundreds of millions; possibly a couple of billions. Equality is not a hot cup of coffee that we may order if available. It is deadly poison. Once this disease of equality infects somebody's mind, the consequences for society can become extremely bad. People infected by equality are infinitely more dangerous than those who go berserk and shoot people at random. Equality is as bad as religious fundamentalism in its disastrous consequences for society. - Sanjeev Sabhlok (2008) Breaking Free of Nehru: Let's Unleash India!. Anthem Press. p. 68.

The author, Sanjeev Sabhlok, is a man with a doctorate in economics who is now employed in the Australian public sector in regulatory policy. [3] The publisher, Anthem Press, is an "independent publisher of innovative academic research, educational material and reference works in established and emerging fields." [4] According to the cover, the book received a recommendation from Gucharan Das, an Indian public intellectual known for his liberal views, who said "it must be read by every Indian." It was reviewed by numerous publications [5]. Of course, there are many other claims of billions of deaths, but I chose this because of the WP:RS criteria regarding the author and the publisher. While I admit that this is most likely not a majority view, it seems to have a certain standing. We should present these estimates (with attribution). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with the model, because, as your own source says, majority of premature deaths were a result of hunger and similar indiscriminate factors, so the ratio between men and women should be close to 1.

Regarding Kaczynski, he is not a scholar, and his opinion was not published in peer-reviewed journal or university press. His opinion in this area is not more authoritative then in, e.g. astronomy.

Re your another source, do I understand correctly that the author adds Indian deaths to the Communist deaths toll? If that is the case, that undermines any credibility of this source. India is a democratic country, the world's largest democracy, so the statement you quote is absolutely weird. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re - "as your own source says, majority of premature deaths were a result of hunger and similar indiscriminate factors, so the ratio between men and women should be close to 1." Was it? The women could have received a preferential treatment in terms of healthcare or provisioning. We do not actually know what the impact of the mass killings on the gender balance of communist nations has been, and I do not know if you have a way of knowing that. Moreover, that is just one of the factors that deserve consideration. Another factor would be the age of those purged. That would be divided into two subfactors: (a) were infertile elderly people more targeted during the purges? and (b) were elderly people more likely to perish due to famine-induced starvation and disease. Given what we know about the demographic impact of famine, the obvious answer to (b) would be yes. Regardless of that, we are not in the business of promoting original research and are thus unable to consider your mass killings model.

Regarding Kaczynski, he is not a scholar, granted. However, he was a major figure of recent history who is ipso facto notable, particularly in relation to the post-communism debate in Poland. While he is not notable as a scholar, he is notable as a voice of that debate, and his statement on the subject of mass killings is pertinent to this topic. We do not need to present his view as a scholarly statement, but we should mention that estimate. The disanalogy between this area and astronomy is quite clear.

As far as Sabhlok, it is unclear whether he is referring to the Marxist regimes of Communist countries "like India" or to the Marxist democracy in India alongside them. He does literally state that there were "numerous indirect killings - namely deaths through hunger and preventable disease arising from socialist mismanagement in countries like India." These indirect killings were the outcome of "Marx's equality-driven ideology" - added to the direct killings, which Sabhlok places in the millions. If communist mass killing is connected to this ideological indirect slaughter, we see that estimates like Rummel's - even estimates running into the billions - are not absurd. Conservative economist Walter Williams relies on Rummel's figures. [6]

Countless lives were taken on the altar of the disease of socialism. Thus, Sabhlok's estimate of those "killed in the cause of equality runs into the hundreds of millions; possibly a couple of billions.... It is deadly poison. Once this disease of equality infects somebody's mind, the consequences for society can become extremely bad. People infected by equality are infinitely more dangerous than those who go berserk and shoot people at random." I therefore earlier suggested that we move the present article to a title like Mass killings under socialist regimes, and scholars like Dr. Sabhlok illustrate my point. (Also scholars like Stephen Hicks: "[P]ractice has time and again proved itself more brutal than the worst dictatorships prior to the twentieth century. Each socialist regime has collapsed into dictatorship and begun killing people on a huge scale.") Off topic, but I still believe we ought to reconsider that proposal. What most such scholars discussing the subject of communist/socialist butchering cite as the principal cause of the killings is not so much the undemocratic nature of the government as its economic basis, and the inclusion of the category of indirect killing within the total number, directly attributed to the economic structure of these societies, only underlines that point.

Also - not representing academia - Tea Party leader Judson Phillips has stated repeatedly that socialism has killed a "billion people" around the world. [7] While he is not a scholar like Sabhlok or a political leader like Kaczynski, this shows that there is a political impact of the mass killings caused by communist regimes, and it would be appropriate to include information relating the death toll to the dimension of political discourse. Also, John Ransom, whose "writings on politics and finance have appeared in the Los Angeles Business Journal, the Colorado Statesman, Pajamas Media and Registered Rep Magazine, amongst others" [8], has referred to "the socialism that worked out so well for so many since 1917, with great golden arch that says: Over One Billion Killed - so far... you have to admit socialists have the franchise down as far as murder is concerned." [9] The attack was on Obama's administration. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutcases spouting hyperbole are not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutcases spouting hyperbole are not WP:RS. But not only nutcases say that many hundreds of millions were killed. Dr. Sabhlok, an economist, is telling us that indirect killings may be in the billions range. National leaders are usually well-informed individuals. I have no doubt that Lech Kaczynski's tens of billions is at most within the upper bound of the range of innocent Jews and Christians butchered, but his statement is a notable, verifiable fact that was reliably reported, appearing in the Polish media, regardless of how accurate the president's estimate may really be. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, what you write is in a stark contradiction with common sense. If "the women could have received a preferential treatment in terms of healthcare or provisioning" they of course could be less affected, however, in that case we would have a dramatic disbalanse between male and female population (ca 10:1), which had never been observed. Moreover, the opposite disbalance is observed in China now. Re elderly people, the actual situation is that life expectancy dramatically increased in the USSR, and that is a well established fact. The sources can be provided upon request.

Your hypotheses have no connection with reality and contradict to what reliable sources say. Please, stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Politicians spouting hyperbole are not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, if you honestly don't understand the problem with this, you may not be qualified to participate here. AmateurEditor (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I am qualified. I am not making stuff up, but quoting what was actually stated by others. Lech Kaczynski, a president, seems ipso facto notable even for a topic like this. I also provide a quote from Dr. Sabhlok, an Indian-Australian economist. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not. To demonstrate that, just try to go to RSN and ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ask what? I am not saying that Kaczynski is a reliable source. I am saying that he held an ipso facto notable opinion. Fidel Castro's view that capitalism is "causing deaths and suffering on a scale comparable to the Nazi Holocaust" [10] would be equally relevant in an article entitlted Mass killings under capitalist regimes as an opinion or a position assumed in a controversy. I did not call such people reliable scholars, but their views - properly attributed - have a certain relevant standing. The appropriate guideline is WP:YESPOV: instructions there state that we present "all notable and verifiable points of view." As views held by the movers and shakers of history, these views are notable and verifiable, even if not they are not mathematically accurate. The reliability we are concerned with here is solely the reliability of the sources reporting these views, since we are not dealing with scholarly statements. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As it turned out, Castro's views (as well as chomsky, davis, and a number of peer reviewed articles, and works of a similar merit to the black book of communism) relevant to an article on mass killings under capitalist regimes are not permissible (it would seem). And as we saw, this article was again deleted. This indicates to me that sources should be carefully selected, and they should not be questionable at all. All of what you (zloy) are suggesting is highly questionable. AnieHall (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia articles should be filled with the views of notable people who don't have a clue what they are talking about, merely because they are notable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that opinions of notable people connected with the subject at hand be included, per WP:YESPOV. A statement made by the Polish president regarding communism or communist mass killing is directly relevant. It isn't the opinion of an actor from Hollywood, it's the reported statement of an national leader. We expect the statements made by people like that to be well-informed and to have a highly significant effect of influence of people. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You might "expect the statements made by people like that to be well-informed". I don't. Particularly since he self-evidently wasn't - assuming it wasn't a slip of the tongue, or a typo in the source - and as far as I'm aware, neither does WP:RS policy]]. Anyway, this is wildly off-topic for this thread, which is supposed to be discussing the merits of a particular proposed edit. If you want to propose any edit concerning adding the opinions of Lech Kaczyński to this article, start another thread. 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what will happen to the lede as far as this proposal first - because I see no use in clouding the discussion with another, simultaneous proposal. We're having a crack-addled mess right now. To address your last point, though: there is no reason to believe it was a slip of the tongue or a typo in the source because the same text appears verbatim on the Law and Justice Party website. We have had a pleasant chat. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if some notable politician claims the Earth is flat, such a claim is germane to the article about that person, not to the article about astronomy/geology. Similarly, when a notable politician claims that Communists killed more people then had lived on the Earth ... --Paul Siebert (talk)

By the way, had Kaczyński's idea had any reasonable ground, we would observe sharp change in the world population growth curve in 1917 and 1947 (the years of Russian and Chinese revolution). However, that is not what the demographers observe. As Chaadaev said "Socialism will prevail not because it is right, but because its opponents are wrong".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopelessly confused proposal

If you look above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well ofcourse the Forward of the Harvard University Press edition by Martin Malia addresses the controversy surrounding the BBoC and weighs up the arguments of the critics of the book[11]. He concludes:

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

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

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

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

That dog won't hunt. Richard J. Golsan, whose writing on Courtois I just mentioned and is the English editor of Stalinism and Nazism: History and Memory Compared,[12] wrote "But for many of Courtois's critics, including some of his coauthors, it wasn't so much the size of the figure that scandalized, it was the fact that Courtois had grossly exaggerated it.... But if Courtois's exaggerated figures of Communism's crimes outraged many, at least equally schocking--and more disturbing and compromising in the long run--were the uses to which he put these figures in historical terms. In effect, Courtois's body count became the starting point, first, for a comparison of Communist and Nazi crimes and then, more broadly, of Communism and Nazism themselves. The nature of these comparisons, and Courtois's zealotry and single-minded efforts to condemn Communism unequivocally, led ultimately to his complicity with a dangerous historical revisionism with very real political implications in the present." (p. 146)[13] TFD (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

China: 65 million deaths

Vietnam: 1 million deaths

North Korea: 2 million deaths

Cambodia: 2 million deaths

Eastern Europe: 1 million deaths

Latin America: 150,000 deaths

Africa: 1.7 million deaths

Afghanistan: 1.5 million deaths

The international Communist movement and Communist parties not in power:

about 10,000 deaths.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent protection can only be justified by a permanent dispute

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, I make the following formal proposal:

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

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

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

Amerul, thank you for your thoughful suggestion. I was opposed to these sanctions when they were proposed and things have turned out just as poorly as I predicted. Your idea to use a NPOV tag to warn readers of the controversy, however, is not new, and has been a source of dispute itself in the past here. The NPOV tag on the Lofoi article should have been removed a long time ago, because warning readers is an improper use of that tag. The page for the NPOV tag states that "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." and it also states that "In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."[14] A custom tag notifying readers of the controversy here may be warranted, but I don't see how it will help us to resolve anything. I don't agree with your analysis that this page is all that exceptionally controversial, I just think the efforts to resolve the controversy here have been exceptionally poor. There has been a lot of "I didn't hear that" type behavior and far too much toleration of disruptive behavior. I think that mediation is required here. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for formal mediation

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