Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

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)

collapsed long tangent

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 – at minimum – hundreds of millions 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) There was a dramatic disbalance between male and female population. Don't tell me this was because of World War II, because communists exterminated way more wherever they raised the red flag of Marxism, and obviously the life expectancy increased only because the communists counted everyone that wasn't murdered. I report what sources ranging from Professor Hicks to Dr. Sabhlok to President Kaczynski say to inform our editing, while you attack it by arguing on the basis of your "original research." It's a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so you stop that. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC) For disbalance between female and male population to be responsible billions killed, every male in Communist states had to be killed several times. I do not need to provide any reliable sources to refute Kaczynski's bs. Again, statement of politicians is not Wikipedia is based on. If you want to add this statement into the article about him, please do that. However, it will serve just an additional evidence of his inadequateness. In addition, the term "original research" means "that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". Since I am adding nothing, you cannot blame me in that. Moreover, I am acting in full accordance with our policy that encourages us to apply common sense: since Communism could not kill more people than lived on the Earth, then the figure of "tens of billions murdered" is probably unrealistic, and the author in such statement is probably not fully responsible for his words (that is not unusual among politicians of certain sort). However, if you propose to step from a realm of original research to the realm of reliable sources, let's do that. You say that male/female disbalance was high, and you imply that males were treated more badly, hence their higher mortality. However, Stephen G. Wheatcroft in his detailed article "The Great Leap Upwards: Anthropometric Data and Indicators of Crises and Secular Change in Soviet Welfare Levels, 1880-1960" (Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring, 1999), pp. 27-60) demonstrates that the decline of overall mortality in Russia/USSR was more rapid than in all other developed countries (Britain, France, Japan, US, Australia, etc). Moreover, not only mortality rate dropped dramatically, the anthropometric data (height, weight, especially those of conscripts) also demonstrated significant increase, which meant significant increase of welfare level of young conscripts. You must agree that is would be totally senseless to falsify anthropometric data of infants, conscripts, students, etc. Moreover, had such attempt been taken, it would leave at least some indirect evidences (if not, at least, in memoirs, testimonies, etc.) Can you provide such evidences? Zloyvolsheb, I respect your balanced and thoughtful editorial style, and I simply refuse to believe that you can seriously discuss Kaczynski's bs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 22 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) Yes, Kaczynski's idea had a very reasonable ground. It's pretty easy to see why there was no sharp change in the growth curve. Do you realize that the capitalists killed on mass scale as well? That countless people are indirectly killed by malnutrition every day in the capitalist world? That there is The Black Book of Capitalism as well as a a Black Book of Communism? Capitalism murdered billions before communism did that, and that's why you don't observe a steep drop in the population growth curve in 1917 and 1947. But scholarship is well aware of this. Dr. Johan Galtung of the Oslo Peace Research Institute in Norway writes that "Communism kills upward in an attempt to control middle and upper classes. Capitalism kills downward in an attempt to control restless workers, including those created by its own dysfunctions." (The Web of Violence on page 199.) Don't look at the communists in isolation and you'll see why there was no sharp change in the world population growth curve. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:00, 22 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)
  • "Scolars disagree"? What scholars are you talking about? If there are any other estimates of total death toll by scholars (I did not see any, except maybe Rummel), let's expande the range of numbers per sources. No problem. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

MVBW, this argument has been answered multiple times. Firstly, scholars disagree on what should be considered as mass killing. This is a matter of political judgement, and different authors include or exclude different categories of premature deaths into "mass killings". Secondly, many single society studies exist that give different estimates, and, by strange coincidence, not all estimates are being taken into account by the authors who write about "communist genocide" (or similar things). Werth/Courtous controversy is a good (and not the only) example.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If a scholar disagrees with the Black Book death toll for any one of the regimes being discussed, then obviously that scholar also disagrees with the total Black Book death toll. If I say that five people committed 10 murders each, for a total of 50 murders, and you argue that one of those people only committed 3 murders, then obviously you disagree with my total estimate, as well. Scholars do not have to provide alternative total estimates as proof of disagreement. -- Amerul (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone agree that such estimates are approximate. Please provide alternative total numbers from other RS and let's use them. Another possible solution would be to create a Table with a range of numbers for every individual country (per RS) and include such Table in this article. I would ceratianly support this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

collapsed long tangent

Just to clarify, what do you propose that we do about RS that do not provide total numbers for communism-in-general, because they only focus on one specific country? There are many such RS. To use only the RS that provide total numbers for communism-in-general is to use only a minority of the available sources. This is why I don't like providing estimates of total numbers in the lede: because only a small minority of the RS on this topic actually try to estimate total numbers. -- Amerul (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC) So, just to get started, here is "20th century democides causing more than one million deaths" according to Rummel: 20th century democides causing more than one million deaths. From Death by Government, Rummel, 1987: Location Dates Est. Deaths Cambodia 1975–1979 2,035,000 China (PRC) 1949–1987 77,277,000 Poland 1945–1948 1,585,000 North Korea 1948–1987 1,563,000 Vietnam 1945–1987 1,670,000 Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000 U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000 the book was published (see here). Please note, this is more than 100 million in communist countries and 20-25 million in the Soviet Union (see here). My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Please, no more Rummel. You perfectly know that Rummel's "estimates" include, for example, ca 40 million killed in Gulag. However, we know that Robert Conquest had summarised current scholarly consensus that the amount of those passed through Gulag was 14 million. Therefore, Rummel's "estimates" are just a fact of his own biography. Serious scholars writing about victims of Stalinism cite him very rarely, and they do not use his figures. Current consensus is that Gulag had no appreciable demographic effect (see Ellman). Another example. Rummel claims that during post-Satlin period Soviet Communists killed 6.6 million 10 million their own citizens. Do you really believe in that? In any event, I recall, I had a dispute with you on that account. I presented all necessary evidences and sources, and you stopped to argue, probably, because your own arguments had been exhausted. Why did you come out with Rummel again? Is it really a good faith attempt to come to some consensus? You persistent attempts to push the author who is known for his bias towards highest possible figures (see Harff), demonstrates your own bias, and the first step towards consensus would be your recognition of that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC) There are estimates by academic researchers that are relatively high (such as this one), and there are estimates that are lower ("Black book" and others). Let's use all of them to create a range of numbers for each country. That is what we suppose to do per NPOV. You can not dismiss an RS by an academic researcher simply because a few people criticized it. Everyone criticizes everyone in this subject area. Yes, I remember some discussions before (e.g. here) and found your arguments completely unconvincing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Firstly, before we start to produce such a table, I would like you to provide an evidence that the "range" you are talking about reflects scholarly consensus. Currently, we know the following: 1. Rummel is known to chose "numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses" (Barbara Harff. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119), and his figures, and his approach has been seriously criticized (Geoffrey Swain. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766; Tomislav Dulić. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan., 2004), pp. 105-106) 2. The introduction the the Black Book of Communism does not adequately summarise even the book itself, and is highly controversial (Aronson, see below) Therefore, both sources are not reliable even within the frames of their own concepts, so the figures cannot be presented in the table, without necessary explanations. Secondly, it is clear that the very subject is defined extremely vaguely. Thus, according to Ellman, in the case of the USSR that the number of victims is a matter of political judgement. That means that to determine the amount of people who died prematurely or who were killed is not sufficient: it is necessary to determine, which death falls into a category "mass killing". For example, was a convicted murdered, who died in Gulag during 1942 starvation a victim of Communists? That is "a matter of political judgement": he was imprisoned for real crime, and the famine was a result of desperate food shortage caused by WWII, so, frankly speaking I, following Ellman, cannot agree that murdered was a victim of Communists. Another example: were all victims of the Vietnam war victims of Communists mass killing? Obviously no. See Aronson for details. Were all victims of Chinese famine the victims of mass killing? Again no. If such an approach is applicable to famines at all (Ellman, for example, speak about consensus among historians not to include famines in mass killing death toll), it is more applicable to relatively wealthy Ukraine, which experienced no famine in past, rather then to China, were major famines were routine events. In other words, whereas significant number of peoples died prematurely in Communist led countries (a figure of 60 million seems quite plausible, and it does not seem to big, taking into account huge population of the USSR and China, and taking into account duration of Communist rule), it would be completely incorrect to describe all those death as "mass killings", thereby drawing analogy with Nazi mass killing. Even Steven Rosefielde separated homicides ("Deaths directly attributable to Stalinist oppression, whether or not judicially sanctioned through execution, brutalization, forced labour and starvation") from excess death (i.e. overall body count). Obviously, if we discuss the latter, we can speak about deaths caused by Communist policy. However, that goes beyond the scope of this article. Moreover, if we speak about excess deaths as a result of Communist policy, we also should discuss excess lives. The reason is as follows. The authors of the BB and similar writings argue that Communism was a lethal system that caused death of tens of million peoples, thereby dwarfing Nazism. However, they forget to mention that in pre-Communist Russia and China life expectancy was extremely short (in Russia, it was 32 years in 1900). China suffered from major famines that routinely were killing millions. In other words, in pre-Communist China and Russia peoples were routinely dying prematurely, including deaths of starvation. In 1950, the life expectancy was in the USSR was 60 years, thereby demonstrating unprecedent growth (not recorded in history before). Similarly, Great Leap Forward famine was the last famine in Chinese history. Again, I have no objections against inclusion of all deaths caused by the policy of Communists (although not under the category "Mass killings": this Valentino's idea has not become a mainstream view). However, neutrality would require us to describe the net effect of Communist policy on the demographics of Communist countries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) @Paul, perhaps life expectancy went up because of a combination of better conditions in the recently conquered territories and that there were millions less mouths to feed, so more food available. Your WP:SYNTHESIS of what we need to keep in mind defies any rational scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Your hypothesis is totally unsubstantiated; it is a piece of your own original research. In addition, this hypothesis is as weird as Kaczynski's revelation: if we assume that 100 million people lived on "newly occupied territories", and that the population of the USSR was 180 million, then, for life expectancy to grow from 32 to 60 year the life expectancy of in "newly occupied territories" had to be about 90 years. I don't think further comments are needed. Moreover, the demographic data show steady and linear decrease of mortality until 1960s. There were three major interruption in that trend: (i) 1914-1923 (WWI/Civil war/Volga famine); (ii) 1931-35 (Great Soviet Famine) (iii) 1941-47 (Great Patriotic war and subsequent famine). In addition, the data of terminal height for central regions of the USSR show steady growth with three crises, roughly corresponding to the same events. That means that the decline of mortality was due to the improvement of life condition of the Soviet population as whole. Re "there were millions less mouths to feed, so more food available". Absolute nonsense. Food doesn't fall from the skies: the less mouths to feed, the less hands to work. Please, read more before attempting to propose such weird hypotheses. Wikipedia is not a forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Obviously, different researches (and sources) are using different methodologies to count the numbers. Hence, we may have a very wide range of numbers. That's OK. But as long as they claim these to be numbers of people killed (by the governments; this is very definition of democide), such numbers belong here. An once again, everyone criticizes everyone in this subject area. This does not disqualify any books published by Transaction Publishers and written by academic researchers like Rudolph Rummel. My very best wishes (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Much better to use sources published by the academic press instead. Also better to use secondary sources to report opinions so that we can avoid neutrality issues, e.g., what weight to assign different opinions. TFD (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Sure, they do belong, along with their criticism. Contested statements should be presented as opinia, obsolete data should be presented as obsolete. In contrast, the attempt to mix everything together is an attempt to mislead a reader (probably, to advance some position). In addition, this edit summary is totally unacceptable. I do not dislike sources, I demonstrate their flaws. In my opinion, the difference is obvious for every good faith person.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC) One could just as easily provide criricism of Zemskov using references from this review. And so on. So I do not see a lot of difference. As about opinions, yes, I can easily agree that the numbers by Yakovlev are only his opinion because he did not explain in the book how exactly he came up with such numbers. On the othe hand, the estimates by Rummel are based on statistical analysis of data, on analysis of other published sources and so on. Hence, this is not simply an "opinion" but an estimate by researcher. It can be very approximate, yes, but this not a hearsay. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC) What do you mean under "and so on"? Criticism of Rosefielde, who authored the article you cite? In actuality, the very fact of criticism means nothing. Yes, Rosefielde points at some inconsistency in NKVD data used by Zemskov, however, he concedes that is arguments "do not discredit the entire corpus of NKVD evidence". Moreover, he concedes that his own early estimates were too high. And, importantly, even his early estimates were much lower than Rummel's "estimates". Interestingly, although Rosefielde cites earlier estimates made by various authors, he does not cite Rummel's figures at all. He just mentioned Rummel in "Bibliography" section (along with, e.g., Orwell), but not in the "References" section. That is a demonstration that Rosefielde does not consider Rummel (and Solzhenitsyn, who has not been mentioned at all) as an expert in the field. To summarise, the first step would be to throw away all belletristic, hearsay and archaic studies. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC) "In actuality, the very fact of criticism means nothing. - Paul Siebert" Paul - please remember this. Every time you argue that a reliable source has to be removed because it has been criticized, you'll see this quote. Now, starting from that quote and logically going to your ending statement "the first step would be to throw away all belletristic, hearsay and archaic studies," is quite a feat. It sounds like you just want to exclude "all studies criticized by Paul Siebert"! Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC) A typical example of arguments for sake of argument. Of course, the very fact of criticism doesn't matter, but the essence of criticism does: whereas Rosefielde points at some problems with the data used by Zemskov, he does not reject them completely and does use GRZ in his own studies. In other words, although GRZ were not fully correct, their findings deserve serious discussion. In contrast, he simply ignores the data from Rummel and Solzhenitsyn. More importantly, you seem to totally forget that I never proposed to rely on the GRZ data for the estimates of the number of victims of Stalinist repressions. Biophys seems to refer to our old dispute about reliability of the data on GULAG population. These data, summarised by GRZ are generally accepted by scholarly community, according to Robert Conquest. In contrast, GRZ's conclusions about the amount of deaths have been criticized by many authors, this criticism is serious, and I never advocated usage of GRZ's estimates of deaths figures. Therefore, your criticism is totally baseless: the data of GRZ about the amount of repression deaths have been seriously criticised - and I never propose to use their estimates; however, since their data on Gulag population are generally accepted - and I insist on their presentation as mainstream views in the Gulag article. Therefore, there is no inconsistencies in my approach, and have other users stuck with the same approach, the whole dispute would be easily resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Smallbones, when high quality reliable sources criticise "facts" found in polemical writing then we go with the better sourcles. For example, mainstream US papers say that the American president was born in America, is not a Muslim, etc. We do not argue over which facts to use. TFD (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: as AmateurEditor pointed out, at the moment, death tolls given in the first sentence of the lead are 85 to 100 million. The last two sentences of the lead state that estimates for the three largest mass killings are 21 to 70 million, with other killings on a smaller scale not included in this (in the article, totalling about 5 million). This seems self-contradictory. Hal peridol (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:18, 16 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."[11] 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 agree to any form of mediation, of course - although I am more of an interested spectator than a participant in this dispute. However, any mediation or other form of dispute resolution will take a long time, if it is successful at all. In the mean time, this article should feature a tag informing readers of the content dispute. The NPOV tag may not be ideal, but it is appropriate, because the dispute is ongoing and has not been resolved by the "silent consensus" of everyone dropping the discussion. A custom tag would be much better, because this is indeed an exceptional situation, but I fear that trying to design such a custom tag would only lead to yet another dispute about what the tag should say. -- Amerul (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that although the situation faced by this article may not be absolutely unique, it is at the very least extremely rare. There are very few other permanently-locked articles, and almost all of them are either redirects or low-traffic stubs. Given the fact that the English Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, the situation faced by mass killings under Communist regimes is almost one in a million (or, at least, one in a hundred thousand). Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures. We should not go on thinking that we are dealing with a normal wiki dispute here. As the protection statistics show, this is anything but normal. Everything done from now on must be done in full knowledge of the fact that we are dealing with a very special and rare problem here. -- Amerul (talk) 06:26, 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)

Personal essays still support the author's view of the world. I'll be happy to critique, though. —VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, if you contend that there is no dispute, then the article should be unprotected. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute, then we need a NPOV tag to let readers know about the issue. There is simply no justification for keeping the page protected without having some sort of content tag on it. -- Amerul (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Amerul, your logic is impeccable. The article can be permanently protected either due to permanent vandalism, or due to permanent edit war. We have no vandalism here, which means we deal with some dispute, so the tag is warranted. I believe we have to file AE/amendment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. agree.AnieHall (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that the non-FRINGE sources and consensus on this talk page are in accord with the numbers currently in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, provide a proof that Aronson is fringe. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that we are arguing about the numbers and words in the lede proves that a content dispute exists, and therefore the NPOV tag is warranted. Are any editors contending that a dispute does not exist? I see none, so I will go ahead and request that the NPOV tag be added. -- Amerul (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

How does what is in my personal essay differ from Vecrumba's view of the world? TFD (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So... it appears there is an unfortunate tendency on this talk page for old discussions to simply get dropped with no resolution and no action taken, as soon as a new topic of conversation is brought up. I do not wish that to happen with this proposal. Seeing no objections to the addition of a NPOV template to the top of the page, seven days after the measure was proposed, I hereby make the following official edit request:

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the content of the article Mass killings under Communist regimes, as shown by the lengthy discussions on this talk page. The dispute has been going on for a particularly long time, which is the reason why the article has been placed under permanent full protection. The article will only be unlocked once the dispute is resolved. Thus, I request that the {{POV}} template be added to the top of the article until the dispute is resolved - that is to say, until the article is unlocked. -- Amerul (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, the addition of the template will attract new editors with new perspectives, who may help to finally resolve the dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion:

Here is a chart showing the appropriate protection templates. The POV template is not appropriate for the reasons I explained above (which can also be read in its template usage notes here). The only two templates on that chart appropriate for this article are Template:Pp-dispute and Template:Pp-protected. Pp-dispute seems best to me. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think, loren ipsum is better. I suggest all involved parties to write together a brief description of the essence of the dispute. We may disagree on various issues, however, it would be ridiculous to expect that we may disagree about the essence of our disagreement. Nug, Vecrumba, Collect and Smallbones, can you briefly describe what are, in your opinion, the main points of disagreement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, in your comments above you pointed out that one of the original arguments I had used in favour of the {{POV}} template was mistaken. Specifically, you said that warning readers is an improper use of that tag, which is true. However, I also brought up a number of other reasons why we should use it, and it did not seem to me that you raised any objections to them. The template usage notes clearly state that the template is to be used to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. That clearly holds true in the case of this article. Here we have an ongoing content dispute that has been going on for over a year, with the same editors rehashing the same old debates, and no progress being made. Attracting new editors would be a very good thing. Also, it seems evident to me that the {{POV}} template is appropriate on any article with an active content dispute - and here we have an active content dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Amerul, in your initial post for this section, the POV tag as a permanent warning for readers was the only reason you gave ("then shouldn't we warn readers with a permanent NPOV tag, or even a custom-made tag"). Both the warning and the permanence are explicitly rejected for the POV template on its page here. I didn't see where you gave other reasons. If your other reason is just to shoot up a flare to attract new editors, then that is a different issue. I don't think our problem is a lack of perspectives, but this template has been used here before for that purpose and it can be again. It is also important to note that the POV template is intended for very specific violations that are spelled out on the talk page by the person adding the template, not for general and vague assertions of bias in the article as a whole. The templates for informing readers of the protection status of the article are given in the chart I linked above. AmateurEditor (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was talking about having given other reasons above, I was referring to my observation that this article finds itself in a highly unusual situation, a situation that has already lasted far too long and that needs to be pointed out to readers in the hope of getting help to resolve it. Looking over my initial post, I realize that I was unclear on this. I focused on explaining just how unusual the current situation is (permanent protection), and on making the case that the article should be either unprotected or tagged with a template. I did not even specifically say which of the two courses of action I preferred, let alone argued clearly for that course of action. I apologize for the confusion.

To avoid any further confusion, let me say exactly where I stand: I believe the de facto permanent protection on this article has been a complete failure in achieving its intended purpose (promoting consensus). I believe the effect of protection has been to give a veto right to editors who prefer the current form of the article, thus effectively making it impossible to enact any changes at all. I believe the article should be unlocked, the special sanctions should be lifted, and normal editing should be allowed subject to the normal rules of Wikipedia. There is no danger of vandalism, and I see no reason to believe that any of the editors here would break the rules, so I see no reason for continued protection. However, I also believe that any proposal to this effect would be quickly buried under layers of debate, and I do not currently have the time to engage in that debate or go through the procedures required to make it happen. So, as my second-best option, I want to put something on the article that might get readers to join in this discussion here on the Talk page and hopefully help us make some progress. I expected some editors to oppose both my preferred option and my second-best, which is why I spent my entire first post explaining that it is illogical to oppose both - either the article needs to be unlocked or it needs a template.

Having said that, I understand that you do not consider the {{POV}} template to be appropriate. I have already stated that the main reason I proposed this particular template was because I did not believe we could get consensus on any other. I do not object to the templates you proposed - I was only afraid that someone else might. But now it seems I was wrong. Let's continue the discussion at the bottom of this thread about which other templates might be appropriate. -- Amerul (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I suggested the {{POV}} template, and not any other, precisely because I do not believe we are in a position to reach consensus on anything - not even on a description of the issues we are debating. The fact that we cannot reach consensus on anything is in itself sufficient proof that the {{POV}} template is necessary. As far as I can see, this is the only template that specifically indicates lack of consensus, as opposed to the presence of a consensus on the existence of problems X or Y with an article. -- Amerul (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this article could not be seen as POV. It specifically ignores all genocide and repression studies that point to authoritarianism, anocratic, and the point on the democratic continuum that a state is in, and pulls out the parts that mention communist states. It does not present counter-theories. It entirely neglects historical context. Please, someone, anyone, enlighten me as to how this is article is not pov. AnieHall (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate: I understand that some editors believe a more specific template would be better than {{POV}}. I myself believe the same thing, as I've said in the discussion further above. It would be great to have something like the loren ipsum template, describing the essence of the dispute here. However, the history of this talk page has led me to believe that we cannot agree on anything except the obvious fact that we have a dispute. As long as a dispute exists, and as long as we could benefit from the participation of new editors, the {{POV}} template is appropriate. Yes, a loren ipsum template would be better, but, at this point, asking for that template would only lead us into a pointless tangential debate about the best way to describe our dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion,the difference between the POV template and the loren ipsum template is that, whereas the former just informs users about POV issues, the latter informs about permanent page protection that has been caused by that dispute. The former should not be used just as a badge of shame, and that is why it was removed. However, a situation when the article is de facto permanently protected is outstanding, and we need to inform a reader why the article has been protected. Therefore, we need a hybrid between Pp-dispute and Pp-protected templates, namely, the loren ipsum template that says that the article has been protected because of the dispute over neutrality, AND that protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Theoretically, we could use Pp-dispute template, however, I believe it would be better to inform a reader about the essence of the dispute (neutrality issues).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well, you and AmateurEditor have persuaded me that we should use either Pp-dispute or Pp-protected, with the latter being the better option. The question is, can we find a text to put in place of the loren ipsum that would be acceptable to all editors involved? I hope so. Let's give it a try. How about this as a proposed template?

• {{pp-protected|reason=of disputes regarding [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] and content. This protection is '''not''' an endorsement of the current [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&action=history version].}}

The second sentence was simply copied from Pp-dispute. -- Amerul (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why did you close your request? I support this idea, AE seems to support it too, and noone has put forward any reasonable objections.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the request was specifically for the addition of the POV template. I was under the impression that you and AE opposed the use of that template, and supported the use of a different one. So my idea was that we would figure out a consensus template and then I would put in a new request for the addition of that. -- Amerul (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, do you support my newly proposed version of the pp-protected template, above? -- Amerul (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to post if you would like some changes made to the template before I officially request its addition to the article. I would not like a repeat of the situation where a proposal appears to have consensus, only for objections to be raised after I make a formal edit request. I will give it a few more days before making the request... -- Amerul (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support your last proposal. Sorry for delayed responce.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

list of claims linking communism and mass killings

• The following sentence has little if anything to do with the subject heading:

"Daniel Goldhagen,[35] Richard Pipes,[36] and John N. Gray[37] have written about theories regarding the role of communism in books for a popular audience."

Or this sentence doesn't accurately describe what the content of these works is. Or is this section just a collection of sources for "theories regarding the role of communism"? I propose to delete this sentence, or if someone has a suggestion for amendment that makes it relevant, then I would support that.AnieHall (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, that section was in response to some editors' assertion that no link was made in any sources between the communist ideology and mass killing. It is vague, but I read the sentence as saying (in contradiction of that assertion) that these three sources do in fact assert that communist ideology had a role in the killings. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct. However, neutrality requires us to list society-specific studies that discuss those deaths in historical context. Thus, ultra-radical Maoist ideology was just one factor (along with extreme nationalism and centuries long revenge traditions) that caused Cambodian genocide. In any event, this section, as well as many others, require major rewrite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If these three sources do in fact contain an explanation for the relationship between communist regimes and mass killings, shouldn't that explanation be iterated? All it states as they have written about "the role of communism". What about the role of communism? AnieHall (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• On another note, has anyone actually looked at the original source this:

"In The Lost Literature of Socialism, literary historian George Watson saw socialism as conservative, a reaction against liberalism and an attempt to return to antiquity and hierarchy. He states that the writings of Friedrich Engels and others show that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."[33] Watson's claims have been criticised by Robert Grant for "dubious evidence", arguing that "what Marx and Engels are calling for is ... at the very least a kind of cultural genocide; but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question."[34]"

--the citation links to the book and the page... and in the book, there aren't even citations for the claims made (no footnotes, no endnotes, no bibliography, etc (there are a few citations throughout the work, but none for this section, that is quoted)). It's more or less laughable (in my opinion more). Are there any reviews of this work that are reliable that don't smash it to smithereens? Or is it acceptable for this page to use authors who don't even cite their controversial and unusual claims within their own work?AnieHall (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RS. If you feel the book fails that policy, then ask at WP:RS/N. Clue" There is no requirement that a cited book have footnotes etc. So go to RS/N - the arguments you give here do not seem to apply. Collect (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Various cleanup

I've just made a series of edits to simplify the wording and clean up the grammar of this article. All of my edits were meant to fall under the definition of WP:MINOR (including the one that I forgot to mark as minor), with no changes in wording or meaning being intended. If you find such a change, feel free to revert me; I'll be surprised and perhaps confused, but I won't object that you've violated the sanctions. I've found a few things that need repair that can't be done by a minor edit, so I've created a subsection for each one with a proposed change. Since this is purely for housekeeping purposes, please limit your comments to clarifications of the current wording; it won't help if we get bogged down in discussing whether the existing content and themes should remain. Nyttend (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is fully protected, how can we revert you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely admins watch this page also? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

When admins start to modify context they are not deemed uninvolved any more. Therefore, they have no more rights then other users do. If your changes are minor per Sandstein's sanctions (see talk page's top) feel free to implement them. Otherwise, the Sandstein's procedure must be observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but your words sounded as if you meant "it's not possible to revert you". I'm not asking to implement any non-minor changes, except for the ones that I've listed in subsections of this section. You'll note that I directly addressed the sanctions at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that we have no physical possibility to revert you; in that situation we will need a help from some admin. You are an admin, therefore it would be logical to address to you directly. In other words, if you believe the change is minor (per Sandstein), feel free to implement it. If you believe the change is minor, but I (or someone else) believe it is not, please, self-revert after someone posted his objection, and let's discuss it. That is how I see it.

In any event, thank you for attempting to do at list anything with this highly problematic article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand you: what do you mean by "do at list anything"? Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant that, although cleanup in this situation does resemble rearranging chairs on the Titanic's desk, it nevertheless is better then nothing, and, probably, may give an impetus to more serious improvements. Please, continue that work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the content is so non-neutral that fixing grammar is hardly the most urgent task. I would say, poor grammar is a signal for a reader that something is wrong with the article. I would prefer to discuss neutrality issues first. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

By writing that, I by no means refuse to participate in fixing ambiguities. However, since that is by no means minor edits, we again need consensus to fix them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the longstanding disputes with which this page is involved, we might as well do a little housekeeping. It's hardly a matter of rearranging Titanic's deck chairs. Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to focus on fixing WP:V/WP:NPOV issues instead. However, I'll try to provided all help I can if needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

People's Republic of China chunk

"Based on the Soviets' experience, Mao considered violence necessary to achieve an ideal society derived from Marxism and planned and executed violence on a grand scale."

What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean "Mao considered...Marxism, and Mao planned...", or does it mean "Mao considered...Marxism and from violence that had been planned and executed on a grand scale"? Rewording an ambiguous statement either way would not be a minor edit, completely aside from the fact that I might misrepresent the sources thereby. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

p. 344, Worse than War, Goldhagen "For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. therefore the intention to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystalizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists' victory over the nationalists and assumption of power neared." [12] Your "Mao considered...Marxism, and Mao planned..." seems to capture it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to make sense of this article. It isn't supposed to make sense. It is supposed to tell you how to think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, how am I supposed to know how to think if I can't understand what it's trying to tell me? Ambiguity is a problem, no matter your POV and your opinion of what the article is doing. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, on page 344, Goldhagen says that Mao was inspired with ideas of Marxism, and he learned from the Soviet experience that violence is necessary to implement desirable social transformations. As a result, he came to understanding of the necessity of violence earlier then his Soviet predecessors did.

However, the problem with this text is more serious. The text takes historical events out of context, it totally ignores the fact that mass violence and killing was centuries long practice in authoritarian China. The example of correct and historical approach demonstrates Nicolas Werth (in his chapter about Russia), who saw roots of violence not only in Marxism, but in brutality of the First World War, inconsequent land reform, etc, which were exacerbated by cardinal social reformations of Communists. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Paul, as usual.AnieHall (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So neither of my proposed solutions reflects the source accurately? Meanwhile, I'm requesting that we not discuss content issues in this section, simply so that we can concentrate on cleaning up the wording and the grammar without distraction. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You may try to rephrase what I wrote. I hope I transmitted Goldhagen's thought correctly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If this text has been taken out of context, is it still acceptable? Perhaps context should be added, to reduce perceived bias.AnieHall (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a separate question, because it is not a minor edit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Vietnam

"launched a land reform" sounds rather awkward; is the insertion of "program" (or "programme", depending on how WP:ENGVAR is applied here), or another noun, acceptable to everyone? Nyttend (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

launched a land reform sounds more accurate. I think remaining as accurate as possible in this article is important. Perhaps "enacted a land reform programme" or some other less awkward noun verb to replace "launched", or keep launched and just add programme?AnieHall (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I've never heard "reform" used as a noun by itself. "Reforms" I've heard, and "reform" as an adjective is common, but "a reform" is a new usage for me. What about "started" instead of "enacted"? Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I was able to find the examples for "started the land reform", "enacted" sounds better [13].--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

But you enact laws, not programs. I looked at the bold text shown in all of the results of the first two pages of your search; except for one of them, all referred to the enactment of land reform decrees, acts, codes, etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think "launched a land reform program" is best. "Launched land reforms" also works. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Support. except, i think it is correct to write "programme", as program generally refers to a computer program. Or has American English excluded the varient programme? If that is the case, then if the article uses American spelling, should probably be consistent... I guess.AnieHall (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Program" is the only spelling seen in American English. I didn't check (and don't remember from a cursory reading) to see the spelling typically used here. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, American English spells it "program". The UK has only accepted that spelling when it refers to computers. In other places, both spellings are used. TFD (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Would anyone object to the removal of the link to "Soviet" at the end of the section? It seems rather pointless so far down in the article; if we already link "Soviet" higher up in the article, it will be a violation of WP:OVERLINK, and if we don't already link it, we need to move the link. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've looked over the whole article at once, I'd like simply to remove it: it redirects to Soviet Union, which gets a link in the intro and in the section dedicated to the USSR. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal prosecution

"On July 26, 2010, Kang Kek Iew (aka Comrade Duch), director of the S-21 prison camp in Democratic Kampuchea where more than 14,000 people were tortured and then murdered (mostly at nearby Choeung Ek), was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 35 years."

This sentence is way too long, due to the massive parenthetical section, but I can't figure out how to split it without going beyond the pale of a minor edit. Anyone care to propose a solution? Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, it's not in parentheses; I meant the chunk from "director" to "Ek". See how long and potentially confusing it is: you can easily misread it when looking at the code. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How about splitting it this way: "On July 26, 2010, Kang Kek Iew, also known as Comrade Duch, was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to 35 years. "Kang Kek Iew was director of the S-21 prison camp in Democratic Kampuchea, where more than 14,000 people were tortured and then murdered (mostly at nearby Choeung Ek)." AmateurEditor (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to explain the facts on which he was convicted. The implication is that he was convicted of crimes against humanity for his reponsibility for the deaths of 14,000 people, but it is not clear. TFD (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, AE, and I don't see it as changing the wording in any way. TFD, please note my comment at the start of this section — I'm asking for content issues to be ignored here so that we can focus on streamlining the existing wording. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Try fixing the content first, then it will be simple to break it into two sentences. The sentence is awkward because there is no connection between the subject's conviction and the events at the camp. TFD (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

• Blyth, S. (1995). The Dead of the Gulag: an Experiment in Statistical Investigation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 44, 307-21.

This should be added; it is also a nice exercise in Bayesian statistics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And its result is 9.7 million to 16.7 million deaths due to Gulag alone with a 95% probability. Neat stuff, and not polemic. Collect (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know this work. The problem with this work is that even a sophisticated statistics cannot give more then the initial data set contains. However, the data used by Blyth are obsolete. Thus, the article says:

"Conquest's estimates were a minimum of 2 million-2.5 million deaths in Kolyma (Conquest (1978), p. 228), 15.5 million camp deaths in total under Stalin, 1 million executions and 3.5 million deaths as a result of collectivization. All were minimal estimates and may require a 500/ increase (Conquest (1968), p. 533)."

However, this is the views of Conquest in 1968. In contrast, in his recent work Conquest says:

"We are all inclined to accept the Zemskov totals (even if not as complete) with their 14 million intake to Gulag 'camps' alone, to which must be added 4-5 million going to Gulag 'colonies', to say nothing of the 3.5 million already in, or sent to, 'labour settlements'. However taken, these are surely 'high' figures" (Robert Conquest. Victims of Stalinism: A Comment. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997), pp. 1317-1319)

In other words, Conquest now agrees that intake to Gulag was smaller than his early estimates of mortality. (Regarding colonies, they were intended for the prisoners who served short terms, shorted then 2-3 years; they were run by local administration, and most their inmates survived, so they do not add much to the mortality statistisc) He generally agrees with validity of new data of Getty, Rittersporn, Zemskov (1993), although the scholars generally disagree with the their estimate of death: mortality was higher, and probably amounted 2 million.

The same can be said about other authors. I saw no references in this article to the sources published after Perestroyka, when wast amount of archival data became available, which forced most scholars to re-consider their views. Meanwhile, Blyth uses Dallin&Nikolaevsky (1947), who in actuality just published the figures of Mora & Zwiernag(1945)(15 million GULAG population in 1940-42), however, he ignored Jasny (1951) (3.5 million) or Timasheff (1948)(2.3 million). However, the fact that most of the early authors who remain active now did reconsider their views on the scale of mortality in the USSR downwards.

My conclusion is that we need a "History" section, similar to what we have in the GULAG article, where we could explain how the views of scholars on the scale of MKuCR developed. Blyth's article does belong to this section. BTW we can give there a credit to Rummel, who was among the first authors who drew attention to high mortality in Mao's China.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1995 is later than 1993, Paul. And after the era of perestroika. You want other Gulag death estimates? [14] per Soviet sources - 7 million outright executions. Or a 2010 book - its that sufficiently after 1991 to meet your cavils? Stalin's Genocides By Norman M Naimark, Princeton University Press. there can also no longer be any question that Stalin was fully responsible for the mass killing during this period and knew the details of all of the major actions involved. Ukrainian economic historian Stanislav Kulchytsky estimates that between 3 and 3.5 million people died of starvation and disease (from malnutrition) in the republic itself, but that the total demographic losses, including famine-derived decrease in fertility, was between 4.5 and 4.8 million. alone. Routledge Dictionary of the Politics of China states Although 1958 saw a very large harvest, waste and poor management exacerbated the natural disasters of the following three years, with estimates that famine and malnutrition resulted in 20 million to 30 million deaths. "Large harvest" != major crop failure. Need more cites for the numbers, Paul? I note that 1995 was too early by your standards. And your blanket assertion that "most authors" revised their esitmates downwards is not supported as far as I can tell by actual reliable sources - it seems you "know" stuff which ain't in the books. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please read my posts carefully? I wrote the Blyth article does not use the sources published after 1986, the only exception is Rummel, however he always reproduces his old estimates. Maybe, the poor choice of the data set is a reason why Blyth was totally ignored by scholarly community: just two references, one in the US military research paper, another in Russian master thesis.

Regarding, executions in Gulag, read the Black Book of Communism (not Courthois' bs, but a really good Werth's chapter). Ellman gives about 12 million repression (of whom at least 3-3.5 million were fatal)(Ellman, Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172), and we have no reason for not trusting him.

Re Parrish, the author describes his book as ""the first major study based on Soviet documents and revelations of the Soviet state security during the period 1939-1953." Unfortunately, it is not. And, despite claims that the book "documents the role of Stalin... in massive crimes carried out during this period," while providing "the first detailed biography of V.S. Abakumov, Minister of State Security, 1946-1951," it does none of these things." (Lesley A. Rimmel. The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953 by Michael Parrish. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes, Vol. 40, No. 1/2 (MARCH-JUNE1998), pp. 174-178)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Naimark, whereas the fact that Stalin was responsible for mass killings, it is not clear from the quote provided by you, which period did Naimark mean.

Re China, yes, you give the same figures as I presented yesterday. However, and the sources had already been provided on this page, many serious famine scholars describe those deaths in other terms than "mass killings". If you don't want the talk page to turn into the walls of text, do not reproduce the arguments that have already been addressed (with sources and quotes).

My assertion that "most authors" revised their estimates downwards was about the USSR: Werth, Wheatcroft, Conquest, Rosefielde, - is it enough? If you believe Ellman, who summarised the views of most of those authors (just look at the list of the references), is biased or non-qualified, feel free to go to RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Again - you seem to think that a total deaths in the USSR was only 3 to 3.5 million. Which is less than the documented toll from the one famine alone in Ukraine. So much for that argument. Blyth was a highly specialised study - so the fact that the main cite for him was in a 2010 Russian article that details findings on the Gulags is significantly in its favour, not to its discredit. On one single day, 12 November 1938, Stalin and Molotov ordered 3,167 persons to be shot per Stalinism: Russian and Western Views at the Turn of the Millennium By Alter Litvin, John Keep' Routledge 2004. Using released Soviet documents, of course.

And:

Yakovlev estimates that during the Soviet era the total number of people who lost their lives for political reasons (that is, executed plus deaths in camps or prisons) was somewhere between 20 and 25 million (in the USSR alone). This figure includes the victims of successive famines: over 5.5 million during or just after the 1918-21 civil war plus over 5 million in the 1930s. The Soviet penal system, he notes, inflicted suffering on such a vast scale that it is hard to grasp. In the RSFSR alone, the total number of individuals convicted between 1923 and 1953 was in excess of 41 million. (This figure includes those sentenced for common crimes as well as, for example, workers who were put behind bars for being late or collective farmers who failed to earn enough 'labour days' in the 'socialist sector'.) Yakovlev uses the term genocide for these excess deaths and indicts the CPSU élite as primarily responsible: the top leaders like Stalin and Molotov and senior police or judicial functionaries (N.I. Yezhov, L.P. Beria, A. Ya. Vyshinsky, V.V. Ul'rikh). 2 Exactly why Stalin destroyed millions of innocent lives cannot be explained satisfactorily. As well as simple hatred of actual or potential enemies, and sheer love of power, 'an incomprehensible, mystical and devilishly sadistic element is involved'

Is Yakovlev unreliable? I daresay he is notable enough, and wrote after "perestroika" as you seem to think is a dividing line for reliablity. Seems Yale University is a reliable source publisher, I would think. A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia Alexander N. Yakovlev; Yale University Press, Sep 10, 2002 is cited by a bunch of later authors. As he was heavily involved in "perestroika" I would hope you would readily accept his figures from the inside of the Soviet establishment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I don't believe my English is so poor that my posts can be so blatantly misunderstood. I cited Ellman (I believe you have no objections against usage of this source?) who states that the number of fatal repression victims was at least 3-3.5 million: executed by NKVD, in GULAG camps and in exile. Did I include famine death to those numbers? Please, quote my post where I did that.

Re Yakovlev, Ellman (op. cit.) writes:

"According to A.N. Yakovlev, speaking in November 1999 and placing his remarks in an openly political context, a recently unearthed document stated that the number arrested for political crimes in 1921-53 was actually approximately 8,000,000."

In any event, since Yakovlev is among the authors cited by Ellman, I have no doubts that that reputable scholar took into account Yakovlev's opinion in his estimates.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Soviet deaths statistics is a highly controversial matter. This is because Soviet KGB/NKVD archives were never opened to researchers, contrary to claims above, and a lot of documents have been destroyed to hide the tracks. Even Lev Ponomaryov's commission, which was officially authorized by the Russian government in the beginning of 1990s, was denied accesses and quickly disbanded, as described in the book on KGB history by Yevgenia Albats who was another member of this commission. Some historians believe that data by Zemskov (quoted here by Paul) were a KGB disinformation, as noted in this review. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Professional historians usually deal with incomplete and distorted information. The ability to draw correct conclusions from such information is the standard professional skill of a good historian (similarly to the ability of physicists to extract correct information from noisy data). In any event, did I understand you correct that you imply that, since full information is unavailable, the actual scale of killings was much higher? If yes, please, explain me why this simple conclusion didn't come to mind of professional historians cited by me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where this is explicitly connected to communism. prison camps existed in Russia before the Soviet Union, and the exist now. Dostoevsky was famously sent to Siberia, where he was sadistically sent to a mock execution - point being, executions and dying in the gulag system has little to do with communism, and more to do with the history of russia. Does this mean that the neoliberal regime is at fault for the executions and prison deaths that occur in the united states? Maybe, but unless a source states that it is, it is my understanding that it should not be included here.AnieHall (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

AnieHall, it was. More correctly, it was connected to the political repressions as a consequence of overall brutality of the Russian Civil war, and subsequent Stalin's program for consolidation of power in his hands. However, you are partially right, all those events must be discusses in their historical context (what Werth is doing, btw).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The paper is summarized in Bayesian Methods, pp. 58-62 as Example 2.5.[15] It is an interesting approach to the subject, but I would like to see a source explaining the degree of acceptance of the findings among mass killings experts before including it. Notice that the author averages estimates from 1965, 1973, 1978 and 1989. It would be interesting to compare his findings with current estimates. TFD (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The source cited by you correctly says that is the best estimate based on the sources used. However, since the used sources were Cold war era sources, it would be correct to say that it reflects those times' views, not contemporary ones. With regard to acceptance, see above: gscholar gives two references on that work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

By 1989, the demise of the USSR was clearly going to happen -- dismissing them all as "Cold War sources" is absurd - they are the best sources available, and the analysis was not coloured by any POV of those doing the analysis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be totally unfamiliar with the subject you are talking about. Blyth used Rummel (which is nonsense, it blatantly contradicts to current consensus views); he uses Dallin&Nikolaevsky (1947), Lorimer (1946), Timasheff (1948), Solzhenitsyn (1973, the work is based on hearsay only); yes, he uses the works of such leading expect in the field as Conquest, Wheatcroft and Rosefielde, however, these works are earlier works of those authors. However, it is well known that these authors reconsidered their earlier views after "archival revolution" of 1990s. Just compare Rosefielde(1981, the work used by Blyth) with Rosefielde(1996), or Wheatcroft (1981) with Wheatcroft(1999). Definitely, although Blyth's work was published in 1995, it summarises obsolete views. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No it was not clear in 1989 that the Soviet Union was going to collapse. In any case, none of these scholars saw it. But the main problem with Cold War literature is that the writers did not have access to Communist nations' records. TFD (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Amazing view, that. You mean no one seeing the many revolutions in Eastern Europe dared to think the revolutions might hit at the core of the USSR? I assert that I and many others did so view the massive revolutions of 1989, and am dismayed that you apparently missed out on noticing them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum. Obviously, under "Cold war era sources" I meant the sources that reproduce old stereotypes and rely only on Cold war era data. I provided exhaustive evidences that in his study Blyth overlooked post-Cold war era writings that had a revolutionary effect on our vision of Gulag. Therefore, if we drop the (very unrealistic) hypothesis that some editors are trying to use Blyth's study for pushing their own POV, that study has just historical value for us.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the experts cited here had Collect's foresight. TFD (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Was there a "Communist slaughter" in a vestibule in France?

Was there a communist mass killing in 19th century France? According to a short story by an American woman that was published in 1891-1892, there was some sort of "Communist slaughter by the troops":

'Hush!' said Berthe reprovingly. During the the remainder of the service she could feel nothing but the fulness of content. As they came out into the struggling dawn of Christmas morning, through the vestibule that was a few years later to be the scene of the Communist slaughter by the troops, she saw Colonel Ludlow with a party of Americans. To her present exalted state of mind he was an interruption, a cloud. While bestowing on him a frosty little nod, she wondered at a certain indefinable shadow in his eyes, which, from a person privileged to bestow on her compassion, might have been interpreted into expressing that emotion.

From "A Daughter of the South" by Mrs. Burton Harrison. In The Cosmopolitan: A Monthly Illustrated Magazine (1891-1892), pages 164-172.

This is a work of fiction from an American magazine, so we can't cite it. But it proves that the communists were already known for slaughtering people by 1892. What was the "Communist slaughter" in the vestibule in France that the story is referring to? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Constance Harrison was referring to the slaughter of between 10 and 50 thousand Communards by French troops in 1871. If anyone wants to read her short story, it can be downloaded from the Internet Archive here. The term Communist was not clearly defined until the 20th century, when the first Communist parties were formed. TFD (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication that her story is referring to the Communards. Perhaps Mrs. Harrison is actually talking about killings by the Communards. She is referring to the scene of "the Communist slaughter by the troops." Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't bring up irrelevancies, otherwise it looks like pure provocation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The writer is referring to the "the Communist slaughter by the troops." This article is about communist slaughter. Perhaps the Communards engaged in mass killing; I am simply inquiring about it because that may be relevant to the content of this article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the context what she means, government troops slaughtered "Communists". Read a few paragraphs later, "To have seen the society of Villa Bois Dormant at its best—before the siege of the Versailles troops in 1871". Harrison indicates where the story is set on p. 22: "drive along the Avenue de la Grande Armee, thence beyond the barrier to a villa boarding house, adjoining one of the chief gates of the Bois." That was the site of the government attack on the Communards, or as the Illustrated Universal History, p. 417, written several years later in 1878 phrased it, "On the night of the 15th of May [1871], the Communists were repulsed with heavy loss, in a sortie upon government troops in the Bois de Boulogne; and the Versaillists continued to fire around the ramparts from Port du Jour to Porte Maillot."[16] TFD (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, thank you TFD. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.