Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Request for comment (prelims)

RFC has been moved, see further down
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Option 1 Note. this is not a final version. Editors who support this option may make changes so that it is ready by Thursday 00:01 GMT Mass killing of Non-combatants have occoured under communist regimes.These killings carried out in the pursuit of the communist ideology of forming a Utopian society were caused for the most part by terror-starvation, terror, lethal forced labor and Ethnic cleansing. Estimates for those killed range from some 60 to 100 million.. The highest documented death tolls have occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin with estimates for those killed ranging from 20 to 40 million during Stalin`s rule to some 60 million for the USSR as a whole. In the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, with estimates ranging from 65 to 72.3million. And in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge with an estimated death toll of between 2 and 2.5 million. There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries. References Bibliography Rosefielde, Steven (2010) Red Holocaust Routledge ISBN 978-041577757 Courtois, Stéphane (1999) The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression Stéphane Courtois (ed.) (Harvard University Press): 1–32. ISBN 978-0674076082 Staub, Ervin (2011) Overcoming evil: genocide, violent conflict, and terrorism Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0195382044 Kurtz, Lester R. Turpin Jennifer E. (1999) Encyclopedia of violence, peace & conflict Elsevier ISBN 978-0122270116 Combs, Dick (2008) Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe The Cold War's End and the Soviet Union's Fall Reappraised Penn State University Press ISBN 978-0-271-03355-6 Naimark, Norman (2010) Stalin’s Genocides princeton university press ISBN 978-0691147840 Valentino, Benjamin A. (2005) Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century Cornell University Press ISBN 978-0801472732 Hosking, Geoffrey A. (1993) The first socialist society: a history of the Soviet Union from within Harvard University Press ISBN 978-0674304437 Gellately, Robert. Kiernan, Ben. (2003) The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0521527507 Option 2 Note. this is not a final version. I expect some users to discuss it and to contribute to it Mass killing of non-combatants occurred under some Communist regimes. The highest death tolls that have been calculated are for the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. These mass killings include murders or executions that took place during civil wars, mass elimination of political opponents, mass terror campaigns; violence that accompanied land reforms in the Soviet Union, China and some smaller countries also led to death of the immense amount of peasants. Significant part of population perished during the genocide organized by the proponents of agrarian Communism in Cambodia. In the USSR and China, major amount of deaths were caused not by repressions, genocides of executions, but by war, famine and disease. It is currently believed that the total number of peoples who was killed by all Communist regimes taken together, or whose deaths were facilitated by the actions of these regimes amounted to 80 millions. Different explanations of the onset of mass killings in each Communist country taken separately have been proposed that trace the roots of the violence in the combination of Communist ideology, the past history of each particular country, traditions, and other factors. In addition to that, several general theories has been proposed that ascribe the onset of mass killings to totalitarian nature of Communist regimes, to Communist ideology, or to the strategic calculations of the Communist leaders. These theories apply the concepts of "mass killings", "democide", "politicide" or "classicide" to characterize there events. References: since the lede is supposed to summarise the article's content, no new references are required there. Most statements in this text are supported with the sources cited in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Comments on Procedure Section not needed The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Per Ed I have written a succinct lede which I believe covers the issues above. PS or TFD you guys need to write an alternate for this proposed RFC. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Let's have the final versions ready by Thursday 00:01 GMT (Wednesday 6:01 PM New York time) when we can formally start the RfC. Your lede was full of typos, capitalisation issues, spacing issues, correspondence between plurals issues, non-standard treatment of mass numbers "millions" when referring to a singular collective subject, purple adjectives "some…[number]", and mis-citations. I have corrected these. While we can easily subedit bad writing, solving bad citations takes ages. In future please correctly cite chapters: each chapter should be identified by the author of the chapter, the chapter's title, and the full page span for the chapter. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Please read Rule 2 under "500 Words or less" - i.e. you should only edit the version you support - no game playing. You wouldn't want to be accused of confusing a citation, would you? So to keep things simple and straightforward, please only edit the version you support. Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Smallbones, that is ridiculous. Fifelfoo obviously acted in good faith, and this your comment does not promote creation of collaborative atmosphere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC) No game-playing Don't even think about editing a version which you don't support. Paul - this is the 3rd time on the current talk page that you've moved my comments. The first time you moved my support for EdJ's proposal right below your new proposal, implying that I supported yours. I asked you to apologize, instead you've moved my comments twice more. Please don't do that again. I still expect an apology. Smallbones (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Let's keep the supports and opposes separate. Paul's opinions have been heard many times before and he has adequate opportunity to express them again under Option 2. Let's include sources in both options Leaving out sources looks like a sure loser - it does not explain where the material comes from It does not address the main point of EdJ's proposal - Are the sources reliable? It disrespects the reader, forcing him or her to search for references on another page that can be difficult to find It leads to an uneven playing field, forcing Option 1, which includes sources, to be shorter than Option 2. Do you want to include the bibliography or footnotes in the "500 words of less" restriction? If you don't answer, I'll assume the bibliography is excluded from the restriction, but not the footnotes, which have sometimes included extensive quotes or comments. Smallbones (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Option 1 Old Support Option 1 seems like a fair representation of the sources. Well done. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Somehow this seems to have been transformed into a total re-write of the lede. I oppose a complete re-write. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Option 1 is a clear winner, and not only a win by default. I suggest if there is consensus on this, and if no Option 2 is presented, that we just put this in as the lede without an RfC. An RfC would be preferable, but not without an Option 2. Smallbones (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Old Oppose The TLAM's text is not satisfactory. The article does not discuss the figures presented in the lede, and it provides quite different description of the events. This text is the lede of some different article, so it cannot be used per WP:LEDE. The lede should discuss not only the figures, but the causes, mechanisms, it should at least mention different explanations of the reasons of these mass killings. In addition, immense number of studies analyse each particular communist society separately from each other, and provide different reasons for the outbursts of violence in each particular cases. Thus, in Kampuchea we have an example of pure anti-urbanist genocide, in the USSR mass deaths of peasants were caused by the forceful urbanisation policy: many authors argue that we have more differences than commonalities here. In any event, the proposed text is one-sided, it ignores nuances, and is too focused on figures (as if by providing exact figures we achieve neutrality and objectivity).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The choice of the sources is questionable. The most authoritaitve sources on the USSR are Conquest, Wheatcroft, Werth, Rosefielde (the latter produced the highest figures). The top margin is no more than 20 million. In addition, the proposed draft is more suitable for future section "The range of the number of victims" (which is currently absent from the article), than for the lede, which is supposed to summarise the article. It currently is not doing that. Moreover, as a rule, the lede should be based mostly on the same sources that are used in the article, and it should represent them fairly and proportionally. I am not sure the proposed draft meets this criterion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Should you have issues with the sources please take it to the RSN board. You need to prepare an alternate which then goes up in an RFC per ED`s suggestion. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Paul. Highly dubious and inflated low border of the range of sources. Moreover, I think that such contentious topics will always do better without naming any figures in the very first line. Better to present the table of different estimates and explain methods of counting so that the readers could judge themselves. GreyHood Talk 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC) All the sources used describe the deaths estimated as mass killing. If you have sources for lower estimates please present them, I`ll happily change the low end numbers. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Option 1 seems to stretch opinions into rather boldly stated facts. BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Option 2 Old Support 2 I'll prepare the alternative version, although I always prefer collective work (you edit - I edit - you edit again - we discuss - put to the article). With regard to the sources, the issue is not in reliability, but in the choice. For instance, you decided to use questionable Courtois, and ignored highly commended Werth. Why do you prefer to use the worst part of the book? In addition, if you write the lede, you are supposed to use the same sources as those used in the article. The article cites Ellman, Conquest and Wheatcroft, each of them, by contrast to Naimark, did their own demographis studies for the USSR. Why you preferred to ignore them?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC) The version 2 have been presented above. It is not a final version, so I propose everyone to contribute. Regarding the number of killed/prematurely died, I think only a top margin should be presented, because the lower estimate depends not on the real number of people killed, but on what different scholars see as deaths caused by the regimes (see, e.g. the Ellman's opinion). --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Support naturally. Paul's version does not present excess deaths as mass-killings at least. GreyHood Talk 17:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Old Oppose 2 The scale of the mass killings, which PS has called the "upper limit" is only given as 80 million despite RS's that go to 100 million, and it is played down by being buried in the middle of the text. What's more important in an article about mass killings than the mass of people that was killed? No sources. Reads more like an apology for the mass killings rather than a simple description. Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Smallbones. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Smallbones - Wikipedia is here to reflect reliable sources, and not to act as apologist for any group where the reliable sources are substantially in accord. "Premature deaths" is a wondrous example of Newspeak as a minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Firstly, there is no term "premature deaths" in the proposed text, so your criticism is irrelevant. Secindly, the proposed text is supported by the sources that have already been cited in the article, so this criticism is also irrelevant. Thirdly, this "newspeak" is a language used by serious scholars (e.g. Conquest, see R. Conquest "Excess Deaths and Camp Numbers: Some Comments". Soviet Studies, Vol. 43, No. 5 (1991), pp. 949-952)). This source have been already presented by me in a responce on your request ("Starvation by governmental act is just "premature death"? Neat argument. Leaky as heck. Collect (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC) "). I can provide more sources where the same terminology ("excess/premature deaths/mortality") is used, for instance: Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s Author(s): Steven Rosefielde Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 On the Human Costs of Collectivization in the Soviet UnionAuthor(s): Massimo Livi-BacciSource: Population and Development Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 743-766 A Note on Steven Rosefielde's Calculations of Excess Mortality in the USSR, 1929-1949 Author(s): S. G. Wheatcroft Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Apr., 1984), pp. 277-281. and others. Not only your argument about newspeak is false, it is a direct allusion to Orwell's "1984". Therefore, I find your comment and your parallelisms grossly offensive and interpret it as your refusal to collaborate. (It is impossible to collaborate with the person who accuses you in advocacy of totalitarian ideology). From this moment on I expect you to provide serious evidences of your good faith, because the evidences of your bad faith are obvious, and per WP:AGF I don't have to assume good faith in this situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Oppose all options No option is currently adequate, see Siebert on the Soviet Union, see my repeated past discussion of Courtois' introduction's quality here, Malia's foreword doesn't meet the definition of scholarly research (context in literature by citation). I quite like some of the expression in Option 1, but I've not come across a number of the terms used over redirects before ever in the scholarly literature despite being involved with this article for three years now. No Option 2 exists. Option 1 further includes fundamental miscitations of text. Option 2 contains poor phrasing and expression. The current lede is superior in terms of discussing the actual coverage of the article: unresolved disputes between scholars. Plus TFD's concerns which I've shared since I first saw this as an afd years ago. Therefore: no option is currently adequate. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Re "Option 2 contains poor phrasing and expression." Then fix it. Despite obvious weaknesses, the Option 2 has one major advantage: it explain what different authors see under MKuCR, and only after that it provides qualitative data.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo, you misunderstood that. The option 2 has been just recently added by me. This text is rather crude, so I suggest you to edit it directly (or to discuss with me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC) In order to be neutral the article must first explain the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes - who makes the connection, how they explain it and how accepted their views are. Otherwise the article is merely a collection of evidence to prove a point. We should explain viewpoints rather than advocate them. TFD (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The article already does this in Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Proposed_causes, so I am scratching my head trying to figure out what you are on about. Do you think it would be possible for you to focus on the lede here? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Martin, I think TFD means exactly what I explained below: most studies of the events the article discusses have been done by scholars who deal with each particular country taken separately, or who grouped these events according to some different traits, not according to the leaders' adherence to Communism. Thus, one of the most detailed work devoted to Cambodia performs the analysis of two genocides, in Cambodia and Indonesia, and does it not in a context of Communism. Such works are numerous, and by omitting them we introduce a bias towards a studies that see more connection between ideology and mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Not necessarily. For instance, we can say that a scholar X sees the cause of mass killings in the USSR, China and Cambodia in the totalitarian nature of all three regimes, however, we can add to that that a scholar A sees the roots of violence in the USSR in a combination of such factors as in half-hearted land reform, in brutality of the World War I and in radicalism of new Bolshevic authorities, that an author B traces the roots of the violence in China to the millenial autocratic traditions, that prof C explains the Cambodian genocide by a combination of several factors: desperate situation of Khmer peasantry, long Cambodian traditions of revenge, the tensions between poor Khmer rural population and relatively reach and mostly non-Khmer urban population, the Stalinist ideas KR leaders transformed in an exotic theory of rural Communism, etc. That would not be a syntheis, imo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC) We could and should report notable opinions in articles about individual articles. But unless scholars are specifically addressing MKUCR, then it would be synthesis, an attempt to support or discredit the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes. TFD (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Why? To write that one scholar sees common causes of deaths in the country X and country Y, but other scholars believe that in country X additional important factors should be taken into account is not synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC) It is, because we are presenting evidence in order to support or rebut the connection between mass killings and Communist regimes, which has not been noted by MCUKR scholars or their critics. TFD (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Not necessarily. We just provide alternative explanations. I see no violation of the policy here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) On review, the current lede as it now stands, is prefectly okay. No change is needed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The lede is almost ok. The figures taken from the BB should be removed. Valentino's estimate for the Big Three (already in the lede) are quite sufficient, because the scale of other killings was negligible as compared to them. In addition, last changes were made with violation of the restrictions, and should be reverted. Alternatively, we can consider the option 2. Do you have anything to say about it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Ther than IDONTLIKEIT, no actual reason for removal of the estimate from a reliable source has been given. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC) The reasons are simple: serious scholars disagree with that, and the changes have been made in violation of the procedure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC) You make an assertion without providing any substantial sources to back what you assert you know. As a result, your argument's value is nil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I don't see that Courtois' summary is far different from any other numbers, the BB is a compendium which brings different pieces of the story together into a whole, and the BB is widely respected. Paul, your logic is flawed, as: Paul: "A" disagrees with Courtois/BB = BB not reliable = omit BB Peters: "A" disagrees with Courtois/BB = there is a # or there are #'s in BB with which "A" disagrees regardless of who or where those #'s are published—however, because BB is a recognized, respected, and widely cited source, it will always be the deer with the birthmark target on its back in the gun-sights of hunter-scholars who disagree with some set of #'s = we represent scholar "A" as to their contentions of # or #'s appropriately, and BB remains exactly as is, with content narrative reflecting the source precisely and accurately. IMHO, we spend far too much fruitless time and effort disputing Paul's syntheses of "why this doesn't belong." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Pushing the figures which actually represent estimates of excess deaths, not mass killings, to the intro of this article (also violating procedure) sounds much more like synthesis. GreyHood Talk 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I wonder, at Holodomor recently the article was frozen on the last relatively stable, status-quo version. Here we have a similar situation and the article is even on a restriction when it comes to major changes. GreyHood Talk 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Peters, your statement is totally misleading. Starting from the end, you accuse me in synthesis, in other words in combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In connection to that, I do not understand what sources I combined, because the sources I quoted tell clearly: "this figure is not correct, it is a result of manipulations, and the actual number is lower". I combined nothing, so I expect you to apologise. Regarding your position on the BB, yes, this book is highly recognised, but it, especially the introduction (which we discuss), it is highly recognised as a highly controversial and provocative book. The lede cannot use this book without needed reservations. Regarding my position, you misinterpreted it. I didn't propose to "omit BB" completely, my proposal was to omit it from the lede for two reasons: firstly, because it is controversial, and, therefore, if we mention the BB, the controversy must be mentioned also, and, secondly, because this figure simply is not present in the article's body as a commonly accepted figure, so, per WP:LEDE, it should not be there. You also totally ignored one additional point made by me: if you insist on usage of the BB, why do you prefer to take the figures from the most controversial author of this collection, not from much better chapter written by Werth? This my point seems to be totally ignored by you. And one more point on that: the last TLAM edit does not reflect adequately what Courtois says. Courtois never claimed "Communists killed 100 millions", his claim was that rough approximations "approach 100 millions". In contrast, current text says: "estimated death toll numbering between 85 & 100 million." which is not what Courtois says. In summary, I have no problem to add the statement that the number of excess premature deaths (Conquest's, Wheatcroft's Ellman's terms) was estimated to approach 100 million, provided that all needed reservations will be added also per WP:NPOV. I also would like to point the attention of all of you at the fact that the dispute over 100 million is de facto a dispute about China: we see that a lion's share of deaths (65 million out of 92 listed by Courtois) were the deaths in China. If we accept the Werth's opinion (supported by most contemporary sources) that only 15 million were killed or died in the USSR due to Communists, this share becomes even greater. In connection to that, can anybody testify that 65 million is a currently accepted amount of deaths in China? I am asking because I am not too familiar with recent literature about China, but my experience with the USSR suggests that more recent studies tend to reconsider the scale of mass deaths downward in light of fresh documentary evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Your obsession with the BBoC is most peculiar, have you not noticed there are three citations for the high end number? I can add more if you like? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Your obsession with figures is much more peculiar, because any figures are totally misleading here. By contrast to the Holocaust, when, as we currently know, all 5+ million Jews were being killed deliberately and systematically, the mortality in the Communist states was much more complex figures. As Ellman noted, the exact number of the victims of Communism (in the USSR, at least) is mostly a matter of political judgment (i.e. it depends on what some particular author sees under "killings". For instance, we know that more than 2 million prisoners died in Gulag. However, we also know that most of them were ordinary criminals, and a significant part of these deaths falls on the period of 1942-43, when the situation with food was desperate in the USSR for the reasons the Communists bear almost no responsibility for. Should all Gulag deaths be ascribed to Communism or not? Different opinions exist on that account.). Therefore, to give any number without explanations would be equally misleading. Moreover. In a hypothetical situation when a consensus will be achieved on this page that the casualties under Communist regimes were, e.g. 5 million, I will equally object to that, because that would live beyond the scope all studies that ascribe most premature deaths, not only shootings and other executions, to Communism. Any figures in the lede (except Kampuchean genocide) that are not supplemented by proper explanations will be misleading, and I deeply disagree with the idea that the key issue is to find and present some "correct" figures. Am I clear enough?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC) I don't understand your objection. No one is proposing an absolute figure. When the text states "an estimated death toll numbering between XX to YY million", that is stating neutrally what is reported in reliable sources. Nor can we describe every objection to a particular estimate in detail in the lede, that is is the purpose of body of the article. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC) That is sad. I thought I was clear enough. Let's try again using the USSR as an example. I believe you we both recognise Ellman as an authoritative source on that account. He writes: "Many writers want to give a single figure for the 'victims of Stalinism' or 'victims of Soviet power' and are surprised to find such confusion in the literature. Apart from inaccurate estimates of particular categories, an important part of the explanation is simply disagreement about which categories of deaths in the Stalin period should be labelled as 'victims of Stalinism'. Most of the excess deaths in the Stalin period were victims of the three Stalin-era famines or of World War II (these two categories overlap since the second Stalin-era famine was during World War II). Whether these last two categories should be considered to be as much 'victims of Stalinism' as repression victims is a matter of judgement and heavily coloured by political opinion." (Michael Ellman. Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172) "It should be noted that the categories 'war victims' and 'repression victims' also overlap since approximately 1 million prisoners died during the war and there were also political arrests and shootings during it. As for the wider category of 'victims of Soviet power', that also includes the victims of the demographic catastrophe of 1918-23.80 Who-if anyone-is to blame for that catastrophe is also a matter of political and historical judgement. In addition, whether or not it is appropriate to reduce the total of those unjustifiably sentenced for political offences on the grounds that some of the sentences were 'justifiable' is also a matter of judgement"(Ellman Op.cit.) In other words, according to Ellman, exact scale of repressions is impossible to establish not only due to the lacunae in statistical data, but also because different author disagree about what should be considered as "repressions". Note also, that under "repression victims" Ellman frequently mean what Valentino describes as "mass killings". In conclusion, since the repression/killings figures are a matter of political judgement, any "range between the figure X and figure Y" mush be supplemented with the "range between the opinion A and opinion B", where A and B denote the opinions on what can be described as mass killings, according to this particular author, and what cannot. All said above has little relation to some specific cases, especially to Kampuchea. In this case, the scale and the reasons of the onset of this short and intense mass killing are well known, and even a legal characteristic of this event had been given, so we can speak about pure genocide ("politicide", according to Midlarsky) of about 2 million of victims. However, in most other cases, any concrete estimate of the number of killed must be supplemented with the description of the historical or political concept based on which such an estimate has been made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC) "Many writers want to give a single figure" - this doesn't relate to anybody here, we have presented a range, not a single figure, of 60-100 million - that is a very wide range. You've been invited multiple times to contribute a believable lower end to this range, but have refused. Assumptions have been noted in the lede and can be discussed further in the body of the text. Smallbones (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I refuse, because I don't want this article to be an amateurish potboiler. To understand that, one should realise where this range comes from. Look at the quote form Ellman again. If we write: "Mass deaths occurred as a result of executions, deportations, war, famine and disease; the estimated death toll varies from (for example) 10 to 30 millions", this will mean that, according to some scholars, the number of peoples who died as a result of "executions, deportations, war, famine and disease" was 10 million, and according to others, this number was 30 million. However, that is WRONG! In actuality, the figures are more or less known, however, some scholars include, e.g., all famine deaths, including the Volga famine or war time famine, into a category "mass killings", and others exclude them, hence a difference. Similarly, you may ascribe deaths of Axis POWs or ordinary criminals to the murderous nature of Communist regimes, or you may exclude them, and the total figure will be different. Do you understand now? In addition, since new archival evidences demonstrate that the scale of mass killings in the USSR did not exceed 15 million, then the lion share of other deaths are the deaths in China, so it is somewhat misleading to ascribe one single figure (or range, if you want) to all "Communists". Moreover, if we look at excess deaths in terms of total mortality, then 2 millions of Kampuchean genocide will be the example of the most horrendous mass murder (1/3 of total population perished), comparable only with the Holocaust. In contrast, if you look at the deaths caused by Gulag, they look not so impressive: I was greatly surprised to learn that Gulag had virtually no demographic consequences for the USSR. I fully realise that every human live is precious, however, to claim that the regime that caused the deaths whose scale was insignificant as compared with normal mortality was "murderous" would be at least superficial. A proverb about lie, big lie and statistics is well known, why do we need to add such "statistics" to the lede without needed reservations? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC) No one disputes that the numbers are approximate (including authors of Black Book), but we can only quote numbers as provided in RS. If you quote source X that tells: "the number is N", this is N per that source. That simple.Biophys (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Wrong. We must be sure that the numbers we quote refer to the same phenomenae. If one source tells that the mass killing victims were those who was executed, or died from starvation or from disease, and the total number was X we must write accordingly. If another source states that the victims of mass killings were only those who were executed, and the number was Y, we also must write accordingly. In a situation when considerable disagreement exists among scholars on what "mass killings" are, to quote just numbers means to mislead a reader and to perform synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC) This RS tells "100 million killed by all Communist regimes", and we quote this source. If another RS tells something different, we also quote another source. Right? Biophys (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) No. A source A tells that "rough approximations of the number of people killed by Communism approach to 100 million"; a source B claims that the source A misinterpreted the figures; a source C claims that it is a normal historical practice to exclude some categories of mass deaths from killing statistics; a source D claims that the number of victims of Communism is a subject of political judgement, and therefore varies widely. And your conclusion is that the number of 100 million should stay in the first sentence without reservations or supplemented with a lower estimate, without explanation what different scholars understand under "mass killings" and where the discrepancy come from? Being familiar with Russian culture, you should know the famous Chaadaev's words: "Socialism will prevail, not because it is right, but because its opponents are wrong". During Chaadaev's times, the word "Communism" was not known in Russia, however, his words can be equally applied to Communism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Where do we go from here By my count there are 2 supports for Option 1 vs. 3 opposes, 2 supports for Option 2 vs. 3 opposes. And there are also 3 "oppose both." Obviously there is no consensus for either Option. It looks like we are stuck with the current version, which was made with the then-consensus, and (at least temporarily) accepted by Paul. Paul had also mentioned that we might go to the Mediation Cabal, and that he would accept their decision. I'd like to know how this would work before signing on. In particular, I would want to insure that we had experienced mediators who have not expressed opinions on this subject (broadly construed) before. Can we do this? I have to say that I am quite disappointed that Paul now seems to have hardened his views considerably. Now he insists (immediately above) that no numbers - not even ranges - can be quoted in the article, no matter what the source. This is a direct contradiction to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. If anybody has any suggestions where we go from here, I'd love to hear them. Smallbones (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC) How about actually doing the RFC? I assumed someone would start it last night. 2.124.35.180 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Three comments. Firstly, the current version does not reflect consensus, because some changes have been made with clear violation of the editing restrictions. If we will not come to consensus in close future, I'll revert the recent changes back. Secondly, when we speak about mediation, the only question we have to answer is if everyone is ready to accept the results of mediation (independently of what these results will be). Thirdly, I started to doubt in my writing abilities. I concede I am not a native English speaker, however, I though I am able to express some primitive concepts by means of my primitive English. Where did I write that I object to providing the figures? The only my objection is that the figures should not be used in the misleading manner, for instance, in the opening sentence of the lede, before the meaning of the term "mass killings", as different scholars see it has been explained. Moreover, since there are different levels of ambiguity for different countries (both in terms of figures and in terms of interpretations), the figures for different states can be presented with different degree of uncertainty. I object to primitive and misleading usage of figures, and the only explanation for the present conflict, as I see it, is that someone, for some reasons, wants the lede to start with the words "Communism killed 100 (or 120, or 80, or 40 to 90) million victims" without providing any details. That is unacceptable, because most school students will limit themselves with reading of just few first sentences, and their impression will be that these 100 million were deliberately executed or starved to deaths by Communists, in the same way as Nazi destroyed Jews. However, I believe I was able to explain that that was no the case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Re suggestion. The ideal structure of the lede would be as follows: Mass deaths occurred under several Communist regimes. These deaths included ....., most of them as a result of famine, wars and diseases; Total estimates of all these deaths varies widely; some highest estimates approach to 100 million (as in Courtois or Rummel) Several authors combine some or all categories of mass mortality under the term "mass killings" (or "democide", if we consider only the deaths related to communist regimes not to communists in opposition to the existing regimes). No more figures are needed in the lede. Other figures should be discussed in the article's body, and I'll start to prepare the sources for the section devoted to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Obviously the current version stands until a new consensus is reached. You even suggested that this version be used. When it was put back in it was consensus. If you want to write the version you've started as "the ideal structure" just do it on this page and we can comment, but let's stick with the title of the article at the front: "Mass killings" not "Mass deaths" and a range of numbers is clearly more appropriate. I mean nobody puts the numbers of mass killings below 60 million do they? Who? Smallbones (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Firstly, of course, the current version will stand except few recent changes. In the absence of progress in close future, they will be reverted to the previous stable version. Secondly, as I demonstrated, there is no consensus about what "mass killings" mean, some (few) authors include all mass premature deaths to this category, whereas others do not. Therefore, as I explained before, we can chose between two options: To include all "excess premature deaths", per some authors, and to explain clearly that that is not an approach most single society studies (except Cambodia) follow, or To include only those deaths that are seen by majority of authors as "mass killings", so famines etc go to the "Controversial cases" section (as the opinion of some authors, Valentino, Rummel, Courtois, Rosefielde and some others). Incidentally, the article's structure is currently organised in this way, so the current version (with the figures we are arguing about) simply does not reflect what the article says. Thirdly, re "nobody puts the numbers of mass killings below 60 million do they?" Many, if not most single society studies devoted to the USSR do not describe most events of mass mortality as "mass killings". Therefore, according to them, the scale of mass killings in the USSR did not exceed several millions, and the remaining part of 15 million "excess deaths" were not victims of "mass killings". That is not the case for Cambodia: almost all victims were the genocide victims, and there in no disagreement on that account. If you want, I can look at the sources for China, however, if there were some parallelism with the USSR there (which is likely), then only smaller part of those 30-60 million victims were the victims of "mass killings". If you really interested, I can look at the sources on China, however, I'll do that if you promise to treat my arguments seriously, otherwise I'll not waste my time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Read Fu - the "excess deaths" as you so euphemistically call them were the direct result of gross government acts during a famine - with at least 43 million "excess deaths" in a mere three year period. In addition, the number of "political deaths" is set at 12 million to 25 million (non-famine) (32 to 57 million with famine - the Fu minimum of 43 million in famine is RS as well) (Friedman [1]. Brzezinski per [2] gives for "Communist oppression" 60 million. Yang Su gives a minimum of 1.5 million killed in the 1967-8 "Cultural Revolution" and so on. Figure the most conservative death toll for "excess deaths" or (an even stranger euphemism "premature deaths" would be in the 50 to 75 million range for China under Mao's regime. This is less than the USSR total of between 10 and 20 million. Adding in Kampuchea etc. as another 3 to 5 million - we have a minimum total of 63 million, and a high end of roughly 100 million. Without even touching Rummel who is still RS as well. Cheers. (I somehow think "Premature deaths under Communist regimes" would make Wikipedia an international laughingstock.) Collect (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I see no sense in disputes with you: despite the sources provided by me you persistently maintain that "excess deaths" is my euphemism. If the references to the top quality mainstream reliable appeared to be unable to convince you - what else can? Regarding Fu, I was unable to find the term "mass killing" in the Fu's book.[3] Please, advise me on what page did you find it? Of course, one can argue that Fu uses the word "killed" and confirms the fact that many people were killed in China. However "mass killing" is not "killing of many people", such a conclusion would be your own personal synthesis. For example, Staub defines the term "mass killing" as follows: "In my view, killing large numbers of people without the apparent purpose of eliminating the whole group is best regarded as mass killing. The purpose of mass killing may be to eliminate the leadership of a group, or to intimidate the group, and in general to reestablish dominance. Although the number of people who are killed can be much smaller in mass killing than in genocide, it can also be very large."(Ervin Staub. Genocide and Mass Killing: Origins, Prevention, Healing and Reconciliation. Political Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 367-382) In other words, according to Staub, the difference of mass killing differ from genocide is in the absence of the intent to destroy the whole group, just to intimidate, change the balance, etc. However, although it is generally agreed that both Soviet Great famine and Chinese collectivisation famine were caused mostly by social transformations, there is no evidence that they were designed to kill a significant amount of peasant. Therefore, we cannot speak about mass killing in that sense here, and Harf (American Political Science Review Vol. 97, No. 1 February 2003) does not include Chinese famine into the list of genocides and politicides.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Paul - you never cite sources when you are asked for them. Not even above in the "RfC". Don't waste our time. Smallbones (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Are you serious? I provided more sources than all of you taken together, however, I cannot provide sources in a responce on incorrectly stated questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC) For example, I already explained, Barbara Harf, one of two authors, per Wayman and Tago, (another one is Rummel) who collected a data set for geno/politicides in world scale, did not include Chinese famine in the list of geno/politicides (the article tells that "politicide" is a term that has been applied to describe Communist mass killings, so "geno/politicides" is supposed to cover mass killings also. Therefore, if you act in good faith you cannot accuse me in syntheses). However, we cannot write "Barbara Harf estimated the Communist mass killings death toll to be XXX million" for a very simple reason: she never used the concept "Communist mass killing", because this concept is not common in literature. In other words, we have a vast amount of literature devoted to these events, but only few scholars subdivide some of geno/politicide events into a category "Mass killings under Communist regimes". And one more issue. You treat the sources as if the human knowledge does not develop. Yes, Rummel was reliable source for demography 25 years ago, however, many events happened since those times: new data become available (especially for the USSR), and many inflated figures have been re-considered. importantly, the world is not divided onto two camps any more, and most authors are not interested in "their mass killings", preferring to study, China, Cambodia, etc, separately. You should have to know that Cold War ended more than 20 years ago, and the style of Wikipedia should not reproduce Cold War propaganda.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) I think you are trying to provoke me, calling me a Cold Warrior. When you give up on the insults and abstain from the Wall of Text method of communication then we'll probably be able to edit this article together. Smallbones (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Of course, no. I just remindind you that Cold war left extensive heritage, which can be traced even in some contemporary writings. I agree that we cannot disregard such sources completely, however, we cannot fully rely on them either. One has to have a very developed imagination for interpreting my words in the way you did. By the way, what about the major points of my post? To ignore them, and to focus on some imaginary insults, is somewhat impolite.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Horseradish. Smallbones (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC) What?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Paul, filtering sources on that basis of one's perception of what is deemed a "Cold War viewpoint" is in itself imposing a particular POV. What is this "Cold War viewpoint" anyway? That the Commies were bad? Do you really think writing that communist regimes only "killed tens of millions" will make people view these regimes more sympathetically than if we write communist regimes "killed between 85 to 100 million"? Some how I don't think so. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Firstly, noone speaks about "filtering" according some artificial procedure. Things are changing, and now (by contrast to the Cold War times) (i) a wast amount of formerly classified information became available for scholars, which was not available during the Cold War era, and (ii) the world is not divided onto two warring camps, and there is no ideological rivalry any more. That allowed some authors (a) to look at those time events more soberly, and (b) to do that based on new information. Some of them, e.g., Rummel, refused to reconsider his old views, but others, including Conquest, or Werth, a co-author of your lovely BB, do that. Obviously, being a scientist, I am more sympathetic to those researchers who are ready to re-consider their views in light of new facts, and I am suspicious of those who refuse to recognise the obvious. Secondly, if you believe I am trying to advocate Stalin's crimes, you are totally wrong. However, I am talking about real crimes. If majority single society studies demonstrate that the Great famine was (fully or partially) a result of Stalin's collectivisation policy, which lead to poor harvest and the need of forceful confiscations of food, regardless of the danger of starvation, I fully agree with that. However, almost no not-nationalistic scholarly sources claim that it was a deliberately organised genocide, and most scholars believe that the opposite was true: the famine was a result of the policy of Stalin's authorities, but it was not intentional, so it was not mass killing, at least according to one of few definitions. Therefore, it should be mentioned with reservations, what the article (but not the lede) is doing. And, finally, what "filtering" are you talking about? For example, I took the work of Harf, who, according to a reliable mainstream source, is one of two experts having the world wide statistics for all geno/politicide? (Another is Rummel, and I didn't use him because I read a lot of sources critical of him, and none sources who criticised Harf). And what kind of filtering are you accusing me? I would say the opposite: those users who google the web using "Communist mass killings" keywords perform screening, because serious scholars who study what others call "communist mass killings" prefer to use different terminology and to focus on single society studies. You want a proof? Open Valentino's "Final solution", and look through the literature. You will find that Valentino cites the same authors I do, and many of authors use quite different terminology (note, Valentino performed no his own work with primary sources, so all information he obtained from the above mentioned single society studies). As a result, they are beyond the scope of the google search "Communist + mass + killings". And when I am trying to point their attention at this mistake, they accuse me in "filtering"! Unbelievable!--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Yes Paul, Valentino cites the same authors you do. Valentino forms one viewpoint based upon these sources, you form another viewpoint based upon these same sources. However the difference is that Valentino has published his conclusions while you haven't. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Excellent! We eventually come to agreement that I do not screen sources (or, at least, that I am not more biased in the choice of sources than Valentino). That is a big step forward. (I am serious. No irony.) Regarding the rest, your considerations would be absolutely correct, had the sources used by Valentino been primary sources. That is not the case, however, he himself conceded that his estimates have been made based on the available secondary sources. That means that the sources used by him (and by me) can be used in Wikipedia directly, and that that would be in full accordance with our policy. And that also means that the opinions of the authors of these sources have the same, or even greater weight than Valentino's opinion (because his book is a tertiary source for the figures of mass killings, whereas Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources). Therefore, I respectfully and substantiatedly disagree with your second thesis, and I expect you to seriously respond on my arguments, which simply reproduce the opinions of established scholars published in mainstream and reliable books and journal articles. P.S. As I already pointed out, without any irony and sarcasm, I am really satisfied with the recent progress in our discussion. I am glad I was able to explain you my viewpoint (at least partially), and I sincerely believe that we will resolve other misunderstandings sooner or later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'm truly amazed that you see no problem in synthesising a counter argument to Valentino using the same sources he does. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Please, look again at what synthesis mean, per our policy, and explain me which my statement is not explicitly present in at least one of the sources I use? Until you demonstrated that, you have no ground to blame me in violation of our policy. In addition, per G. John Ikenberry (Foreign Affairs, Vol. 83, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2004), pp. 164-165) Valentino's "Final solution" is "astute and provocative study", which implies that it is, at least, not fully mainstream. Therefore, it would be absolutely in accordance with our policy to balance Valentino's views with the opinions of other scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Our next steps

I see, the intensity of the dispute is decreasing, and the authors of the recent edits, made with violation of the edit restrictions, stopped to present new arguments and to respond on my counter-arguments. In this situation, my next steps are the following.

1. If no fresh arguments will be presented in close future, I'll revert the changes made with violation of the edit restrictions. If these changes will be restored, the AE request will be filed against the editor who restored them. We already have an opinion of one experienced admin that confirms that the procedure had been circumvented by the users who made this edit, so the request will likely be successful.
2. In close future, I plan to start a discussion about the addition of new chapter devoted to the scale of mass killings (and of the modification of the "Comparison to other mass killings" chapter, because it refers to some figures).
   Everyone is welcome to participate in preparation of the draft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would note that making threats is not exactly a means of promoting WP:CONSENSUS especially since you would have no consensus for your edits. I realize that you have opined that many of the"premature deaths" were due to people fighting "agrarian reforms" but that is not going to fly as a means of gaining concensus, Paul. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually, a notification that someone has violated editing restrictions and, therefore, may be sanctioned if that will repeat means "notification", and should be treated as such. In addition, one can refer to the policy about consensus only if s/he is genuinely trying to address reasonable concerns of others. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, it is you who would be the "guilty party" by insisting on editing against WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Completely disagree with Paul, completely agree with Collect about Paul's threats
  • Correcting a misrepresentation of a source, where the source is so clear and the misrepresentation so gross, is a minor edit akin to correcting an obvious factual error.
  • The last time the edit was put in there was a clear consensus to include it with 5 editors for and (sometimes) Paul against.
  • Paul proposed the following:

"# I revert last changes to this version. Per 1RR, I can do that. As a result of that, my request for self-revert becomes unneeded, and TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Peters can ignore it."

• Paul had his chance to document his views on the general question in the "RfC" and completely failed to include any documentation.

given all this if Paul reverts the changes that have been up there now for several days, he would be violating the editing restrictions, as well as intentionally misrepresenting a source. Smallbones (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only relevant edit restriction in the case if I'll make a revert is a 1RR. Therefore, there will be no violation from my side. If you will accept my revert (will not re-revert it again), everything will be fine, and I will have no formal reason for filing the request. However, if someone will revert it, he thereby will restore the version that has not been properly discussed on the talk page as Sandstein's rule require (see the Ed's notion), and the AE report will be filed. However, I'll request for the sanctions against one person only, about the person, who make the last revert. You can decide by yourself who this person will be (if anyone).

Let me point out, however, that on the top of this thread I proposed a compromise: no exact figures in the lede (in addition to the Valentino's figures that are already there), and detailed discussion of the number of the victims in the new separate section. You seem to be too preoccupied with the desire to see "100 million" in the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• There is an obvious consensus that the gross misrepresentation of the source should not stand, if PS reverts against consensus then he himself is in violation of the restrictions on this article and will find an enforcement request filed against him. I for one have had enough of his threats. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no signs of such consensus, however, you are free to disagree, and to act accordingly. I explained my future actions and you are free to choose between conflict and collaboration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you guys have gone to the trouble of clarifying the issues and collecting opinions, you should finish what you started. I see the draft of an RfC up above, but it looks like it does not have the formal RfC template yet. So the RfC did not start and is not registered in the RfC system. What is holding that up? EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What concrete RfC you mean, Ed? I initiated a straw poll about the edits mentioned in my AE draft. The second poll was about two possible versions of the lede. Which of these two you mean? If you mean the second one, then I believe we need to start it de novo, because I would like to replace my version with the text that addresses all reasonable sriticism. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I'll prepare a draft soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I prepared the RcF draft, so TLAM & Co can start it at any moment by adding the description of the alternative viewpoint and by presenting the alternative draft. Removal of "nowiki|" form the template will give a start to the process.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• @Paul. Let me repeat it once again: this talk page exists to discuss improvement of the article, not sanctions against other editors. This is especially the case for articles under editing restriction, like that one. Biophys (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Famine of 1932-1933

Paul writes "If majority single society studies demonstrate that the Great famine was (fully or partially) a result of Stalin's collectivisation policy, which lead to poor harvest and the need of forceful confiscations of food, regardless of the danger of starvation, I fully agree with that. However, almost no not-nationalistic scholarly sources claim that it was a deliberately organised genocide, and most scholars believe that the opposite was true: the famine was a result of the policy of Stalin's authorities, but it was not intentional, so it was not mass killing, at least according to one of few definitions. Therefore, it should be mentioned with reservations, what the article (but not the lede) is doing."

Actually the article doesn't do that at all. A sub-section is listed now under controversies, but the only real controversy in the sub-section is whether the killings should be called genocide, or were merely mass killings, or perhaps just ‘negligent genocide’ or "a series of crimes against humanity." Paul's POV that the famine was completely unintentional is almost completely missing in the sub-section, except for a sentence on the Russian government's view. I think that if he has a reliable source that says the famine was unintentional he should include it (briefly, since it appears to be a minority view). Notice, however, I don't mean to say that if he has sources that don't mention intentions, that he should include this as evidence that there were no intentions. Sources that don't mention mass killings or intentions are simply not evidence against intentional mass killings.

I would like to include a quote and brief explanation of it as the 2nd paragraph of the sub-section. This is from a Chapter by Werth in the Black Book of Communism, previously lauded by Paul. The inserted material would be:

Nicholas Werth states that "the forced collectivization of the countryside was in effect a war declared by the Soviet state on a nation of smallholders.... (The famine of 1932-1933 was) a terrible famine deliberately provoked by the authorities to break the resistance of the peasants. The violence used against the peasants allowed the authorities to experiment with methods that would be later used against other social groups."[4] Werth estimates the total death toll of the famine as 6 million, with 4 million of those being Ukrainians.

We should also move the sub-section up to the Soviet Union section, since there doesn't seem to be much real controversy among the reliable sources. Let me know whether you agree or disagree with making this change in the article. Smallbones (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's separates allegorical statements from serious opinions. Werth's estimates are is agreement with the data obtained by other serious authors. Werth's opinion that the famine was "in effect a war", is also partially correct, because at some point, when the famine became especially acute, Stalin, along with some concessions, took extremely severe measures against the peasants. However, the claim that it was "provoked", or "deliberately organised", as some authors argue, is not supported by many serious scholars. On this talk page, I already quoted the opinion of Michael Ellman, who notes that it is a common historical practice to treat famines separately from repressions ("mass killings", according to others), and that, in that sense, the parallelism between the Soviet Great famine, Bengal famine of 1942, and Irish potato famine is obvious. Note, also, that other famines (Volga famine, WWII famine) are also ascribed to the regime by Rummel and similar writers, however, in this case, we have no ground to speak about intentionality at all, and the authorities took measures (of course, insufficient) to provide a help for starving people.

Therefore, since different opinions about the great famine have been expressed by different authors, we cannot include this particular quote without providing the quotes expressing somewhat different opinions. However, Wikipedia is not a Wikiquote.

Re "the only real controversy in the sub-section is whether the killings should be called genocide" Incorrect. The term "genocide" is more or less well defined and widely used. By contrast, the term "mass killings" is vague, and is used by only few authors. I cannot even claim that there is a significant disagreement on what can be considered "mass killings" and what cannot, simply because, as I already explained, the term is not too popular. Rummel uses "democide" (only for the victims of government), Harf uses "politicide" (as a complement to "genocide", because the former deals with social/political group, and the latter with ethnic), and she does not include Chinese famine in this list (this list starts from 1950, so I don't know her opinion on the Soviet famine), etc. Many scholars use "repressions" as a synonym of "mass killings".

In other words, there is no uniformity in usage of the terminology. In this situation, to speak about "mass killings" as about some well established term (like "genocide") is deeply incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing again that a reliable source cannot be included simply because you don't like it. You were asked for a source that says the deaths were unintentional, and you come up with Ellman, who, as far as I can tell would just prefer not to address the question. Finally I have to say that this article is about Mass Killings under Communist Regimes. This title was chosen after long discussion as being the most neutral for the subject at hand. "Killing" differs from mere "Death" because "Killing" is about intention and in a general sense about assigning responsibility. Werth, a reliable source, clearly describes the intention and clearly assigns responsibility by doing so. You say "we have no ground to speak about intentionality at all." If you don't want to edit an article about 'Mass Killing" you may refrain from editing here. Or you might start an RfC about changing the name of the article. However I think the title "People who just happened to die while they were being annoyed by Communist Regimes" would be pretty silly. Smallbones (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "You are arguing again that a reliable source cannot be included simply because you don't like it." No. I argue that, since different opinions exist, all of them should be represented.

Re "you come up with Ellman, who, as far as I can tell would just prefer not to address the question" He did. And he concuded that the evidences that this famine was intentional are insufficient. Please, read the source.

Re "If you don't want to edit an article about 'Mass Killing" you may refrain from editing here." I want to edit the article about what all scholars define as "mass killing" (including "genocide", "politicide", "repressions", "classicide", as well as similar terms, because the term "mass killing" is not widely used). And I agree that the events that are seen as mass killings by only some authors should also be included. However, I insist that that should be done with needed reservetions, and in the separate section. Accordingly, the lede should not give undue weight to some opinions at cost of other. One more quote:

"However, whether these two items of evidence can be interpreted as meeting the specific intent criterion is doubtful. An analogy may make the legal problem clear. Was the policy followed in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first by the British Empire and then the USA, towards the Native Americans, an example of genocide? Many of them were killed by settlers, their land was expropriated, their population declined, and their way of life ended. A specialist in human rights law has argued (Bassiouni 1979), however, that this was not an example of genocide because of the absence of proof of specific intent. If the deaths were largely just a by-product of the spread of disease and agriculture, the deaths would remain a fact but would not constitute genocide. In addition, it is necessary to take account of the measures discovered by Davies and Wheatcroft to help Ukraine, such as the 11% reduction in the grain procurement quota in August 1932, and the further reduction in October, making a total reduction of 28% (Davies & Wheatcroft 2004, pp. 183- 185). Furthermore, the state allocated Ukraine 325,000 tonnes of grain as seed loans and relief in February-July 1933 (mainly February) (Davies & Wheatcroft 2004, Table 22). If the present author were a member of the jury trying this case he would support a verdict of not guilty (or possibly the Scottish verdict of not proven)." (Michael Ellman. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33 Revisited Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jun., 2007), pp. 663-693

Note, I even do not use the works of Wheatcroft and Davies, who are reputable scholars working in this area. Ellman's article I quoted is devoted to criticism of the W&D views, so I can safely conclude that Ellman represents a middle of the spectrum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones here. Ellman is only discussing whether the famine could be called a genocide or not. There is consensus among the authors that the famine was not entirely natural, but due to some human agency. Killing someone through negligence or incompetence is still a killing. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that Ellman considers two questions: firstly, if the famine was directed against some certain ethnic group, and, secondly, if it was designed to kill this group. Although the first question is specific for genocide only, the second question is equally relevant to both genocide and mass killings (for instance, in the Staub's definition). Therefore, the Ellman's conclusion is equally relevant for both genocide and mass killing.

Anticipating your accusations in synthesis (because Ellman does not use the term "mass killings") let me point out that ca 80% of sources used in this article do not use this term (which is not commonly used among historians and geno/politicide scholars). Therefore, to avoid double standards, you should remove these sources from the article and change the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

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

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

Concept 1

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

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

Concept 2

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

Lede 1

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

Lede 2

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

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

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

References

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

Bibliography

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

Comments on the lede 1

Support

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

I don't get it. Why did you remove the middle ground 3rd option[5]? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose

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

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

Comment

In regard to Biophys:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on lede 2

Support

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

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

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

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose for the following reasons:

Dubious numbers and counting methodology as explained above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Comments

??? I thought we just had an RFC above[6]. Why are we doing this all over again? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This part of the discussion not needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the following could be removed as vandalism - but I'd hate to completely remove what some might see as a comment at or on the RfC. Based on the anon's edit history, there is no need to WP:AGF, so I'll say it looks to me like an intentional provocation, like some of the other provocations in his history. So please, nobody fall (anymore) into his trap. Don't respond to provocations. If anybody, after review of the anon's edit history, really thinks that this really belongs in the RfC, just remove the "hat" at the top and "hab" at the bottom. Smallbones (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC) --- All of these are bad and confusing. This is a simple article intended for the simple reader. I will suggest: Mass killing on the scale of hundreds of millions (possibly thousands of millions, that is, billions) of people occurred in communist and socialist countries. The highest death tolls occured in Russia and Red China. The Reds deliberately killed millions using guns, knives, bayonets, poison gases, artillery shells. The lion's share was caused by inaccessible and inadequate socialized medicine, land reform, and tort reform. These mass killings are known as the Red Holocaust, mirroring the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. 24.146.224.106 (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC) you forgot to mention the well known habit of "jewish bolshevik cossacks" to drink Christian infants' blood ...-Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC) When in doubt, accuse everyone else of being Anti-Semitic, eh? Paul - you know better! Cheers, and suggest you redact that strange and quite worthless slur on other editors. Collect (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC) That is a quote from one novel, and this quote has nothing in common with anti-Semitism. This double oxymoron is supposed to demonstrate how ridiculous the anonym's post is. If my opponents are not familiar with this novel, I am not responsible for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Tell ya what - post it on Slrubenstein's user talk page and ask him whether it is an "anti=semitic" charge. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC) I have no idea on who Slrubenstein is. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Ha, this is funny indeed.. GreyHood Talk 17:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Just in case all you haven't understand the double oxymoron: real Cossacks were anti-Bolsheviks and were ethnically Russian/Ukrainian. Hence Bolshevik Cossacks and Jewish Cossacks are nonsense, and no any anti-Semitism here. Cheers! GreyHood Talk 11:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Other than the fact that Jewish and Bolshevik Cossacks did, in fact, exist, and absolute claims are generally errant <g>. Collect (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Did they? Please, give me a name of at least one Jewish Bolshevik Cossack.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Copying post: As to the second claim that all Cossacks were anti-Bolshevik -- that is belied by [7], thus such a group certainly did exist. Ditto the existence of "Jewish cossacks" per [8], [9] etc. It is amazing how often absolute statements turn out to be errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The question was about Jewish Bolshevik Cossacks. The books you refer to are about pre-Civil war Cossacks. I need a name of some Red Cossacks with Jewish ancestry. Can you provide it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC) I gave sufficient RS sources to show that the absolute claim was errant. You are now using the "let's pretend he didn't answer the question by making a different question" system of debate. I do not follow that sort of line, and I am aghast someone else would try it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Lead 3

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

That would be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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