Talk:Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin

Events - a typo

The sentence The deaths of 5.7 [30] to prehaps 7.0 million people should be The deaths of 5.7 [30] to perhaps 7.0 million people

Why not merge it into History of the Soviet Union (1927–53)?

As stated in the header, why not merge this into History of the Soviet Union (1927–53)? Why do we have only Communist-related articles about such things, even though there are sources and a literature about the excess deaths under capitalism or the excess death under the democratic capitalist experiment in India and Russia? Of course, the latter is not a good enough reason for a merge but what it does show, and what I really wanted to highlight, is that there is a bias. The mere fact this exists as a standalone article, when it is only one part of historiography that highlights excess death (completely ignoring the excess in lives also created and saved), only exacerbates this bias, which results in original research and synthesis, among other issues. I do not see why a short summary could not be added at Stalinism if the topic is so notable and the content be moved and merged into History of the Soviet Union (1927–53), where context and background is actually provided and is not put into a vacuum. Would this not have been there in the first place and only be moved here if required? It was actually moved here from the Joseph Stalin article, but the better solution would have been to move it to History of the Soviet Union (1927–53).

The mere fact this article exists precludes us to highlight the excess lives several scholars such as Ellmann did indeed highlighted and which would be discusses if the content was merged there. Especially since we write "Number of deaths of people by Stalinism, 1924—1953 (*excluding killings outside of Soviet borders)." Surely this content is better suited for those two articles since it is about the Stalin era; or even Demographics of the Soviet Union. While I appreciate all the good works, C.J. Griffin and Paul Siebert did, I wonder if the article existing only exacerbates and if it would not be better to merge the content, which would not be lost.

A quick research on Google Scholars reveals that it does not seem to be a uniform topic, with one article focusing on the scale of repression and excess mortality in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, another specifically about the demographic consequences of forced industrialization 1929–1949 and yet another about the human costs of collectivization in the Soviet Union; in other words, they do not seem to be lumped together the way the current article does. This one about demographic analysis and population catastrophes in the USSR seems to be more relevant for Demographics of the Soviet Union and not specifically about Stalin or excess deaths. "The demographic history of the Soviet Union is market by catastrophes. Even in 1970 the age distribution of the Soviet population displayed large gouges caused by World War I, the Revolution and Civil War, the collectivization of agriculture and the famine, and World War II. These calamities led to an increase in deaths, a decrease in births, massive displacement of population, and emigration from the Soviet Union. Territories with a large population was also annexed to the USSR." It does cite the "intense debate" of Rosefield and Wheatcroft but I do not see how that is enough for a standalone article. Both "Adult Mortality in the Former Soviet Union" and "The Seeming Paradox of Increasing Mortality in a Highly Industrialized Nation: The Example of the Soviet Union" are not specifically tied to Stalin or the Stalin era. Davide King (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, by the second page the results move to a broader Soviet topic, so if all we have is the source discussing the diatribe between Rosefield and Wheatcroft, it is a little too little, or am I missing something? The Four Deuces, Rick Norwood, do you think this is similar to, and hence has the same problems, of Mass killings under communist regimes, or is it different? Either way, the fact this was at Joseph Stalin and was moved here, rather than the article discussing the whole, actual period all this took place (how this was not even discussed is beyond me), shows an implicit bias.​​ Davide King (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly in the right, and think that rational argument will have some effect. I hope you are successful. But I have argued with anti-communists (and with communists, and with Trump supporters, and with never-Trumpers, and with people who think there is a vast conspiracy to do this, that, or the other thing. These people do not respond to reason. They do, sometimes, change their mind, but the change has to come from within. Argument only stiffens their resolve. This will come down to a decision by some Wikipedia administrator. When it does, make your argument to him (it is almost always a him). Meanwhile, edit boldly, to the best of your ability. Insist on the three-revert rule. Let me know if I can help. Good luck. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin and Paul Siebert, is there any reason why no attempt was made to merge it there in the first place? It is pretty short and repeats many information that should be there. Did I miss any source that considers it as a separate topic rather than essentially tied to the Stalin era? This article would be better served there and there is no need have all those Communist-related articles just to highlight how bad Communism was when sources themselves do not do this; they discuss excess deaths as part of the Stalin era, as part of the Holodomor, as part of the Soviet industrialisation, so surely all this would be better discussed there and individually? If there is no source that ties all those together, we should not do it either, lest engaging in original research and synthesis. Several scholars also noted how several Communist regimes saved many lives by simply increasing the standard of living and life expectancy, which are just as noted, if not more, than all those unfortunate and tragedical excess deaths. Davide King (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no attempt because no one discussed the matter of moving it there. While I would not object to such a move, I do want to point out that this article is on much more solid ground than MKuCR. Unlike that article, which is basically propped up by a handful of scholars and non-experts - like Rummel, Courtois, Rosefielde and Valentino, there has been plenty of ink spilled on the violence and excesses of Stalin's rule. The sources in the article demonstrate this I believe. Much of this is indeed separated into certain events as you point out above, but not all. There were many debates on this topic in prestigious journals such as Europe-Asia Studies, and in particular the heated exchanges between Wheatcroft and Conquest, in which Ellman, Keep and others joined the fray. And these are serious academics and experts on the subject of Stalinist repression, which is in stark contrast to those aforementioned authors writing about "Communist mass killings" (with the one exception being Rosefielde perhaps. Valentino might be a decent scholar but is not notable IMO, and not an expert on the subject). Speaking of mass killings, It was discussed that the article might be moved to something like "mass killings under Stalin regime", but this was nixed as sources such as Ellman highlight that the vast majority of deaths fall into the category "excess deaths", not deliberate killings. This is another way this article is superior to MKuCR, as the vast majority of deaths described in that article would no doubt fall into the former category as well, hence the "debate on famines" section, which is probably the only decent part of that article. So, honestly, a more apt title for MKuCR would be "Excess Deaths under Communist Regimes".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin, first of all, thanks so much for your comment. I agree this article is in much better shape, mostly thanks to you and Paul Siebert; and I think your comments about the Mass killings under communist regimes article would be much useful. :) That article mixes more than one topic as it takes the Communist genocide/mass killings concept from Strauss' and Valentino's books, even though the first one is a book about genocide and the second is a chapter about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century (with Communism simply being one type), not about Communism; then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pol, adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars, etc.), to suggest all those are victims of Communism, its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues (undue weight, original research, synthesis, more than one topic, NPOV, etc.) I have highlighted and which could be easily avoided by re-structuring, move content and merge.

Until the lead is not fixed, a Criticism of the concept is added, it is not renamed Excess deaths/mortality under Communist Regimes or Victims of Communism (more accurate summary titles of the content) and in general most scholars' views opposed to the ideological and other proposed causes, and the account and views of Ellman, Getty, Wheatcroft et al. are added as balance, I believe the article is not only helpful or useful but actively harmful as it gives the misleading notion that it is an agreed fact among scholars and for many years I was misled to think that until I actually went to look at the sources and found that even those who are claimed to support the topic do not actually support it. Even The Black Boof of Communism only "presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of 'Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism'"; and Conquest, of all scholars, treated the Great Purge, the Holodomor, etc. as separate subjects did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes like Rummel and Valentino may have done; yet basing such an article on non-experts or fringe people like Rummel and non-notable scholars or experts on the topic such as Valentino is beyond me but I digress. If all we have are those two, who are then mixed with scholars who do not support the topic and only report the killings and deaths that did in fact happen, I think that is a little too little and that the article is a gross violation of NPOV in presenting their views as facts and mainstream scholarship. Hence, it should be deleted but its content should be moved. But back to this article.

Still, the Stalin era article is not too long or big yet and this one is very short, so I see no harm in a merge, unless of course the implicit bias in having so many separate Communist-related articles to show how bad Communism was, even though they may not meet criteria to be standalone articles and violate important policies such as undue weight to one side of historiography, original research and synthesis (a merge would mostly avoid both of those), and NPOV. I did point out this article as an example for possible Excess mortality in China under Mao Zedong and Excess mortality in Cambodia under Pol Pot (although the latter may be more accurately titled Mass killings in Cambodia under Pol Pot) articles which would be more in line with historiography, since only few scholars and from one side lumps all those together. Still, I do not see why most of the content cannot be at Communist state, each Communist state's history and each proponent individual/scholar's article. I agree the debates on famine is the only decent part of the article.

I also believe that a merge would give more weight to those such as Ellman who also highlight the lives saved and the account of Getty et al. who are mentioned only to support the lower estimates. In general, this is a problem that I have highlighted with most Communist-articles in that they rely mainly on a handful of scholars and non-experts (Conquest, Courtois, Pipes, Rosefielde, Rummel and Valentino) and do not given the warranted weight to Getty et al. I mean, Stalinism only lists Shelia Fitzpatrick's Everyday Stalinism and Stalin's Peasants in See also when the article should be rewitten to incorporate and rely on that; and Stalinism is another article where content could be merged since Wheatcroft wrote of "Stalinist repression" and "Victims of Stalinism". In addition, the Events section contains most content that is, or should be, already mentioned in the Stalin era article, so the only real content is the lead and Total number of victims section. Either way, the Events section seems more relevant to the Stalin era article and I find it weird some of which (a Gulag section, the post-war famine, etc) is not there already. The only reason I see for this is to keep this article and avoid that it violates content fork, but they are much more relevant and useful there and hence the lead and Total number of victims section, too.
—Davide King (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe Paul Siebert's comment here that "Ellman writes [...] the very category [of] 'victims of Stalinism' is a matter of political judgement" shows this should not be a standalone article but as part of Stalin era. Most of the estimates and victims sections are already replicated at Political repression in the Soviet Union which would need to be copy edited by using scholarly sources and not rely only on Courtois, Pipes et al., although I am not sure there is a literature around it and since it essentially replicates content from other articles, it would be better to turn Political repression in the Soviet Union into Stalinist repression, which seems to have an actual literature.

So this article and Political repression in the Soviet Union should be merged into Stalinist repression and follow the aforelinked literature, either as a new standalone article or as a redirect to section about Stalinist repression at History of the Soviet Union, although I wonder if Stalinist repression should not be already covered under the Stalin era article and may act as coattrack; hence, this article should be merged and expanded with Stalinist repression as part of the Stalin era and Stalinism. Political repression in the Soviet Union should be merged in a subsection about political repression (if it is not already) at History of the Soviet Union, with political repression under Lenin discussed at History of Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union (1917–1927), political repression under Khrushchev discussed at History of the Soviet Union (1953–1964) and so on.

C.J. Griffin and Rick Norwood, any thoughts? Davide King (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. And, where necessary, if there is referenced material about, say, Chairman Mao that is not already covered in the article on Mao, it could also be moved to that article.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. It might help to get other editors of the article on board before making such a move though. Maybe an RfC?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin and Rick Norwood, thanks for your comment. I was thinking of a merge request or a RfC since the page is protected, but which one would be better or more appropriate? I am also afraid this may end up like Communist mass killings, with one side arguing that the topic does indeed exist and the other side saying it does not. However, as I noted above, it is already covered at Political repression in the Soviet Union and scholarship seems to discuss the topic as part of the Stalin era and Stalinism, not as separate subjects, so this should be merged in both articles since it is well-sourced. Davide King (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The Social Disaster in the Ukrainian SSR (propaganda: Holodomor)

Judging by the work of Zemskov, which is based on data from the Central Department of National Economic Accounting of the USSR State Planning Committee, it seems, that the death rate estimate is overestimated. He points out that in 1932, 782,000 people were born in the Ukrainian USSR, and 668,200 people died. In 1933, 359,000 people were born in the Ukrainian USSR, and 1,309,000 people died. However, the data from this article for 1933 do not match. The data in that article cites the data that in 1933, 564,000 people were born in the Ukrainian USSR, and 2,104,000 people died. In the table, the spread of the dead people is 2,500,000–4,000,000. This is an oddity.

In this case, the excess mortality in one case is 933,560 people. In the other case, it is 1,540,000 people. However, this excess mortality cannot be considered only a case of famine. This would be a big mistake. And that's why. In the Russian SFSR, 3,296 famine deaths were recorded during the social disaster. The rest didn't die of famine. Whereas according to incomplete data, 77,000 people died of famine throughout the USSR.

Weddings in cities and villages also testify against propaganda of genocide: In total, 229,571 marriages were concluded in the Ukrainian SSR in 1933, 70,799 of them in cities and 158,772 in villages. Gnosandes (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Kazakh famine

You have forgotten to mention the Kazakh famine which killed ~1.5 million people in Kazakhstan.