Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

Vietnam

There are some extraordinary claims made in the Vietnam section, but are not accompanied by sources of sufficient quality to substantiate them. Wikipedia's policies state that "academic, peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." But in the section about Vietnam, neither Rosefielde nor the authors of the Black Book of Communism had their work peer-reviewed and published by a university press. Rosefielde himself is not an established expert on Vietnam because he has not written any noteworthy academic work about the country. The inclusion of the Black Book of Communism is inappropriate because it was not published for a scholarly audience, but is for a mass audience of a certain political persuasion.

Data is provided by B. Szlontai of Central European University. In his scholarly article published in the journal "Russian History/Histoire Russe,", he cites the following data about Vietnam. I will be replacing the current text of the section with this: The greatest purge the Vietnamese Workers' Party ever experienced took place in the course of the 1953-1956 land reform campaign, which was patterned after the Chinese model. By December 1955 the rent-reduction campaign had affected 7,77 million people, i.e., 63 per cent of the population. Of the 44,444 "landlords" identified, 3,939 were tried and 1,175 executed. The second stage of the campaign (the land reform proper) had affected 4 million people by December 1955, of whom 18,738 were "revealed" as "concealed landlords" (these "revelations" led to further 3,312 trials and 162 executions). The scope of the repression can be gauged from that during the "correction" of the land reform's "errors" (1956-1957), the authorities released 23,748 political prisoners. Jacob Peters (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that all authors of the BB had not their work peer-reviewed and published by a university press. The BB is in actuality a collection of separate articles of different quality, and, for instance, the Werth's chapter about the USSR is rather good, whereas the Courtois' introduction has been highly criticised. Similarly, the chapter about Asia is highly controversial. Therefore, I would use this chapter with cautions.

Re Rosenfielde, his peer-reviewed articles are devoted mostly to Stalinism, so I agree that he is not an expert in Vietnam. With regard to the proposed text, I agree.-Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism is basically a polemical work, written specifically for a certain political climate in France. It is not meant to be a scholarly work, but is geared toward a mass audience, having sold nearly 1 million copies as of 2001. There is nothing to suggest that Werth represents some kind of consensus about Russian revolutionary history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Noone can represent any kind of consensus about Russian revolutionary history, because no such consensus currently exist. However, what I read in the reviews on the BB (published in reliable peer-reviewed western sources) is that the Werth's chapter of this book is arguably one of the most balanced and good part of this, generally very controversial collection of works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• There are extensive peer reviewed journal articles covering the VWP's agricultural policy in the North prior to 1975. AFAIR they describe the land reform campaign as internally controversial in the VWP, and that the other line in the VWP shut it down for failure very rapidly. These lead the scholars' I've read to describe the VWP as sensible, and describe Northern internal politics to 1975 as being based on the application of the rule of law. OTOH, the sources that I've read are heavily split about the NFL/PRG policy in the South to 1975 (on polemical lines). The 1975 to 1980 period is similarly polemicised, but in this case, are reliant on "political science" data rather than "historical" data. Regarding the Black Book, Wirth is academically competent for his claims, and as noted was well reviewed. I haven't reviewed the Asia chapter in depth. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The BBoC was translated and published by Harvard in English, but the French version was published by a publisher called Robert Laffront, which is a commercial publisher, not an academic one. Robert Laffront publishes, "Commercial fiction, literary fiction, non-fiction, self-help, memoris, politics, biographies, current events, sprituality, poetry." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, however Wirth is an academic expert in Soviet Studies in precisely the period he covers. I disagree with Wirth's analytical perspective, but he is a scholarly expert. Other chapters need to be evaluated on their own merits. Courtois' introduction and conclusion are, for example, unreliable (Courtois claims in his introduction that non-Catholicism causes Communist mass killing). Fifelfoo (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia

If Amnesty International (AI) is going to be attributed with claims about an (implausible) 500,000 deaths in Ethiopia during 1977-78, then publications by AI need to be cited, not the popular press and certainly not literature that does not study the conflict. I own Amnesty International's report about the death penalty around the world during the 1980s, and it does not contain anything about half a million people killed in 1977-78.

The use of Andrew and Mitrokhin's book is completely inappropriate. Their book is about sensationalist details about the KGB, not Ethiopia. The depiction of events in scholarly sources shows a much more complicated situation than this article describes. There an urban guerrilla campaign waged by ultra-leftist political groups opposed to the Government. The Ethiopian authorities then responded by mobilizing supporters to root out their enemies, resulting in violent clashes between the two sides during 1977-78. Claims of half a million casualties during this period is not supported by what the scholars of the Ethiopia study for the Library of Congress found. country study: By late 1976, MEISON had become the most influential civilian group on the Politburo. However, the growing power of Abyot Seded was also evident, as it challenged MEISON and the EPRP within the Politburo and in grass-roots institutions such as kebeles and peasant associations. To counter this threat, the Derg began to prepare Abyot Seded to assume the role of chief adviser on ideological, political, and organizational matters. The aim seems to have been the creation of a cadre of Abyot Seded members with sufficient ideological sophistication to neutralize all civilian opponents, including MEISON. Abyot Seded members received ideological training in the Soviet Union, East Germany, and Cuba. On their return, they were assigned the task of politicizing the rank and file of the military.

The EPRP's efforts to discredit and undermine the Derg and its MEISON collaborators escalated in the fall of 1976. It targeted public buildings and other symbols of state authority for bombings and assassinated numerous Abyot Seded and MEISON members, as well as public officials at all levels. The Derg, which countered with its own Red Terror campaign, labeled the EPRP's tactics the White Terror. Mengistu asserted that all "progressives" were given "freedom of action" in helping root out the revolution's enemies, and his wrath was particularly directed toward the EPRP. Peasants, workers, public officials, and even students thought to be loyal to the Mengistu regime were provided with arms to accomplish this task.

Mengistu's decision resulted in fratricidal chaos. Many civilians he armed were EPRP sympathizers rather than supporters of MEISON or the Derg. Between early 1977 and late 1978, roughly 5,000 people were killed. In the process, the Derg became estranged from civilian groups, including MEISON. By early 1979, Abyot Seded stood alone as the only officially recognized political organization; the others were branded enemies of the revolution. Growing human rights violations prompted the United States, Ethiopia's superpower patron, to counsel moderation. However, the Derg continued to use extreme measures against its real and perceived opponents to ensure its survival. Jacob Peters (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan

M. Hassan Kakar argued that "the Afghans are among the latest victims of genocide by a superpower." Kakar would have to be classified as a primary source because he himself experienced and participated in Afghanistan's revolution and civil war. He was punished for going against the revolution, which perhaps explains his hyperbolic comments about "genocide". As such, Kakar's reliability is questionable. His book is not of scholarly notability, but reads like a personal memoir of events. Genocide is certainly not how scholars approach the conflict in Afghanistan.

A professor at Kabul University and scholar of Afghanistan affairs... Kakar vividly describes the events surrounding the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the encounter between the military superpower and the poorly armed Afghans.

Because of his prominence Kakar was at first treated with deference by the Marxist government and was not imprisoned, although he openly criticized the regime. When he was put behind bars the outcry from scholars all over the world possibly saved his life. In prison for five years, he continued collecting information, much of it from prominent Afghans of varying political persuasions who were themselves prisoners.

This is both a personal document and a historical one—Kakar lived through the events he describes, and his concern for human rights rather than party politics infuses his writing. Jacob Peters (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned.

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Unlike those who have held it against me, I will not hold it against you that you agree with a banned user. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On Soviet Famine of 1932-33

There is a problem with the sources cited in the article. There is an attempt to show some kind of consensus about genocide and a large death toll of 6-8 million. Yet, not a single Russian historian is cited in the article, such as V. Kondrashin, who strongly rejects to the genocide narrative and notes that the Soviet government took measures that contradicts the claims that it either imposed or desired a famine. There is also the noteworthy work of Tauger, who is an established expert on the famine. Basically, his work shows that the famine resulted from complex factors, such as drought and infestation.

Concerning the death toll of 6-8 million that is endorsed in this article, the scholar Tsalpin found that the famine was about 3.8 million

Из-за отсутствия надежного статистического материала изучать данную проблему и особенно определять число жертв голода трудно. Тем не менее, она активно стала разрабатываться отечественными исследователями во второй половине 1980-х гг. Историки накопили немало данных по голоду, предложили методы оценок людских потерь. Одним из первых число жертв голода пытался определить В. В. Цаплин. В своих расчетах он опирался на статистику ЗАГСов 1930-х годов. Ее изучение показало, что в 1932-1933 гг. годовое число умерших в СССР достигало 4 млн. человек против 2,6 млн. в 1927-1931 гг. Исследователь пришел к выводу, что в 1932-1933 гг. зарегистрированное число смертей от голода составило не менее 2,8 млн. человек (1,4 млн. ежегодно). Суммируя эту цифру с численностью незарегистрированных смертей (1 млн. человек), он получил 3,8 млн. жертв голода и его последствий.

Again, it is problematic to include such authors like Valentino and Snyder when discussing the famine. Neither of these authors are experts of the famine because they have not done original research on the topic for a scholarly audience and should therefore be removed. By contrast, Tauger has devoted a significant part of his academic career specifically for researching agriculture during the Soviet era. He did his doctoral thesis on the subject with "Commune to kolkhoz : Soviet collectivization and the transformation of communal peasant farming, 1930-1941". Someone like Valentino cannot seriously be put on equal footing with Tauger, who has much much higher qualifications on Russian agricultural history. Jacob Peters (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

According to his own words, Valentino made his estimates based on a wide range of secondary sources, so his book is hardly unreliable. Regarding Tsaplin, his works are frequently discussed in the articles of Western scholars (Wheatcroft, Ellman, et al), so this source seems to be reliable. However, to write about the famine based exclusively on the Tsaplin's works would be incorrect. In my opinion, the article should summarise the views of Wheatcroft, Conquest, Tauger, Davis, Ellman, along with the viewpoints of Tsaplin and some other Russian and Ukrainian scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Kampuchea

Allegations that Khmer Rouge forces carried out genocide are controversial. It would be helpful to incorporate the findings of the Khmer Institute:

...Charges against the Khmer Rouge for acts of killing minority groups may be unsubstantiated for the following reasons: (a) there was no state policy to eliminate them - the Khmer Rouge Directive issued in 1976 regarding minorities is far from useful as evidence against them; and (b) many of the top and notorious KR leaders in fact themselves came from these various ethnic groups. For example, Ieng Sary and Son Sen are of Sino-Vietnamese ethnicity; Pol Pot, Ta Mok, Khieu Samphorn and Tuol Sleng chief Duch were Sino-Khmer; Thiounn Prasith was of Vietnamese ethnicity (his grandparents were of Vietnamese origin). (c) Evidence indicates that ethnic minorities also took part in torturing and killing people. For example, one of the ruthless torturers of Tuol Sleng was a Cham by the name of Seum Mal. Mat Ly, another Cham (now a member of the CPP Central Committee), was also a high ranking KR cadre. A Khmer Loeu (Cambodian highlander) by the name of Savonn who succeeded Pol Pot's adopted son Phum was one of the cadres in charge of the B-30 or Boeng Trabek Re-education Camp - out of more than a 1000 returnees only about 250 survived this camp. Y Chhien, the Pailin govenor, is also a Khmer Loeu-Jarai, Gen. Bou Thong is Khmer Loeu-Tampuan, Gen. Soey Keo is Lao, Say Phuthong is Thai, and Ny Korn is Sino-Khmer.

Human Rights scholar Professor William Schabas finds: "A strict construction of the scope of the term...suggests the conclusion that the Khmer Rouge atrocities were not genocide."

And in a book review: Human Rights Quarterly 23.2 (2001) 470-477 "Nevertheless, many still point to the destruction of the Buddhist monkhood and the attacks on the Muslim Cham in an attempt to salvage the relevance of the term genocide with respect to the Cambodian atrocities. But even on this more narrow basis, the evidence of genocide, at least as presented in this volume, is unconvincing. What the record of the 1979 trial shows is that the Khmer Rouge were vicious in their attempts to stamp out organized religion. They considered the Buddhist monks to be social parasites, forcing them to abandon their religious robes and to work in manual labor alongside the Cambodian peasants. Those who refused were punished with great brutality. Symbols of the religion, including the pagodas, were vandalized and pillaged. The Khmer Rouge were no more tolerant towards minority religions than they were towards Buddhism, that of the majority. Thus, the Muslim Cham institutions were also singled out for attack. The documents regularly use the term "assimilation" to describe the goal of the Khmer Rouge with respect to the Muslim Cham and other ethnic minorities."

Jacob Peters (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the mainstream viewpoint is that KR mass killings was genocide. However another problem exists with KR: this genocide can hardly be considered as Communist genocide, because the KR Communist doctrine (btw, a very exotic doctrine, which was a huge deviation not only from classical Marxism, but even from Maoism) was only one factor affecting the onset of the mass killings. Other two factors were specific exclusively for Cambodia, so many, if not majority, scholars prefer to speak about "Cambodian/Kampuchean" (not "Communist") genocide, or to use the term "Communist" just as a synonym for "revolutionary".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits not discussed

I think that a "newbie" editor hasn't processed the process at the top of the page. Millions of deaths got reduced to thousands - it certainly needs to be discussed. I'll revert until consensus indicates otherwise, and inform Sandstein - after all the rules are pretty complicated. Smallbones (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand these complicated rules at all. I was under the assumption that the normal rules applied.Jacob Peters (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Banned user. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Read prior discussions - the ones above and the metooism does not represent existing consensus whatsoever. And, in case you did not know this, Harvard University Press is considered one of the best RS sources out there. Dismissing stuff you do not like as "polemical" and reducing numbers of dead by orders of magnitude is not going to cut it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The estimates in the introduction to the Black Book have been widely discounted. TFD (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And when you finally get non-banned users to actually get the current consensus changed, and you can get WP:RS deleted, then maybe the WP:TRUTH will get in the article. Meanwhile, seems like status quo ante reigns. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read up on the literature. The intro to the Black Book has been widely criticized (in reliable sources) as presenting unreliable estimates. It may be that the book tells the truth, but I am more concerned about reliability and weight. TFD (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Call your bluff here and now. Please just list these reliable sources. No commentary needed. Smallbones (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please write respectfully to other editors. Both Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, who contributed to the Black Book criticised the editor for his mathematics, and no mainstream writer accepts the totals. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Valentino and other experts on mass killings do not accept these figures. TFD (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A little respect shown by yourself would go a very long way. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well...

1. "That said, this thick volume is seriously flawed, incoherent, and often prone to mere provocation." Amir Weiner (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter, 2002), pp. 450-452)
2. "It would be uncorrect to say that the book tells us more about the authors than about the subject; however, it be equally fallacious to omit the time and place ... from its etiology"
   "The book must have required an immense effort by a groop of dedicated contributors. It is unlikely that its impact will be commensurate." Alexander Dallin (Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois ; Nicolas Werth ; Jean-Louis Panne ; Andrzej Paczkowski ; Karel Bartosek ; Jean-Louis Margolin ; Jonathan Murphy ; Mark Kramer. Slavic Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 882-883)
3. "Courtois' attempt to present communism as a greater evil than nazism by playing a numbers game is a pity because it threatens to dilute the horror of actual killings."
   "Courtois is irritated by his perception that most western intellectuals are softer on communism than on nazism and that therefore the crimes of communism have not been fully exposed." Hiroaki Kuromiya (Reviewed work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression by Stephane Courtois. Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)
4. "The 1997 brouhaha over Le Livre noir du communisme at least posed the possibility of an unself-righteous and non-propagandistic perspective towards Communism, one which might combine a critical stance, a self-critical spirit, and a genuine effort to give the facts their due. An adequate moral history of Communism is still worth writing, and still to be written." Ronald Aronson (History and Theory, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 222-245)
5. "What Werth and some of his colleagues object to is "the manipulation of the figures of the numbers of people killed" (Courtois talks of almost 100 million, including 65 million in China); "the use of shock formulas, the juxtaposition of histories aimed at asserting the comparability and, next, the identities of fascism, and Nazism, and communism." Indeed, Courtois would have been far more effective if he had shown more restraint" (Stanley Hoffmann. Source: Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 166-169)
6. "For an argument so concerned with justifying "The Black Book", however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count, especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger. In the context of the Soviet-Nazi comparison Stephen Wheatcroft insisted before the publication of The Black Book on the relevance of distinguishing between "purposive killing" and "deaths from criminal neglect and irresponsibility." In response to The Black Book, Hiroaki Kuromiya has criticized the results when "'indirect deaths' are indiscriminately lumped together with deliberate political killings."" Michael David-Fox. On the Primacy of Ideology.Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia) Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5.1 (2004) 81-105
7. "Whereas Hobsbawm and Mazower compare communism and fascism, preserving their distinguishing differences while elaborating their similarities, Furet and Stéphane Courtois, the editor of the Black Book, go much further and equate them. These passionate critiques of the Left are distinctly products of the French intellectual environment - the long hegemony of a Stalinoid communist party, the counter-influence of the nouvelles philosophes, the enormous impact of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, and the turn from structuralism and Althusserian Marxism to Foucauldian post-structuralism and Derridean post-modernism. Both Furet and the authors of the Black Book take on those intellectuals whom they see as naïve or venal apologists for brutal totalitarian regimes. As Bartov mentions, there is nothing new about the trahison des clercs, but ideological intoxication seems to affect intellectuals most extremely, and not only among those on the Left."Ronald Grigor Suny. Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History" 3.2 (2002) 303-319.

I believe that is enough for the beginning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "widely criticised", cannot completely agree. This book does not seem to be discussed widely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of heat and very little direct criticism here, for example what is actually said in number 2? More or less the usual academic back and forth. Smallbones (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot provide larger quotes due to copyright reasons. To learn more, you should probably read these sources by yourself. Meanwhile, could you please redact your grossly offensive statement about bluff? Regardless of the behaviour of your opponents, this statement is extremely rude (and, as you can see, false).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for reliable sources is not rude, it is an essential part of Wikipedia, and many times folks have refused to provide sources here. Could you provide a source of two on what you think is the mainstream view of mass killings under Communist regimes? Smallbones (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Asking for anything cannot be rude per se, everything depends of concrete wording. You question ("Call your bluff here and now. Please just list these reliable sources. No commentary needed."), has been made in an extremely rude form, and by doing that you just made your point weaker.

Regarding "mainstream", it is hard to tell, because mainstream scholars prefer to focus on different Communist countries separately, and leave generalisations for political journalists. Thus, the part of the Black Book that is the most close to mainstream views is the Werth's chapter about the USSR. Interstingly, Werth disagrees with many claims made by Courtois in the introduction (which is the most controversial part of the book), and, one of the sources of disagreement is the number of deaths. It is also interesting to note that almost every reference to the BB in Wikipedia is in actuality the reference to the Courtois' introduction, not on the book itself.

Other sources that are mainstream for the USSR are the works of Wheatcroft, Conquest, Tauger, Davis, Ellman, along with the viewpoints of Tsaplin and some other Russian and Ukrainian scholars. Generally speaking, recent articles in western peer-reviewed journals present views close to mainstream ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And who do you believe represents the mainstream view on Communist China? Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do please come up with some sources that you think represent the mainstream view on the PRC. If we have reliable sources then it should be very easy to proceed with the article, if all you can do is say "your sources are not mainstream" then progress is likely to be very difficult. Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It means that the intro does not have the respect of the academic community and that it should not receive the same weight as mainstream commentary. One could argue that it represents the truth, but cannot argue that it is mainstream. TFD (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Show me what you consider to be a mainstream source. Smallbones (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is not the first time for this discussion. Consensus appears to not agree with the "truth" I suppose, but that is how consensus works. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is the first time that one group of editors has bothered to propose a set of sources that they consider to be mainstream. Consensus (even if you can use the word on this article) cannot over-ride the need for reliable sources. I'd like to see what people think are mainstream sources. Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say, this is a first time that you bothered to read the posts where I present mainstream sources. I am doing that permanently.

Speaking seriously, your request to provide the sources that I see as mainstream is a very reasonable step. However, before we will go further, I would like to know if you agree that these sources are mainstream, and if you disagree, then I would like to see the sources that are mainstream according to you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction; the 2004 Duff Cooper Prize; and it was nominated for the National Book Critics Circle prize and for the National Book Award. It is published by Penguin and is generally hailed as a great history of the Soviet camp system. Presumably we can all agree that it fully satisfies all the WP criteria for mainstream and reliable sources; yet it is not referenced anywhere in the article. Not even once. Why? Jprw (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Anne Applebaum's views have not gained widespread acceptance outside her target audience. Note that she is a journalist, with no academic credentials in history or genocide studies. Note that other winners of the award include Norman Mailer, George Wills, and Will Durant. TFD (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is rather syllogistic to contend that people who don't care much about the subject don't care much about her book. Google scholar lists 217 citations of her Gulag: A history alone, in addition to other works. I see no justification for Applebaum's works to be censored. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not censorship, it is WP:WEIGHT. If you can find among the Google scholar references a discussion about how widely accepted her views then we reflect that weight in the article. TFD (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I can not find any policy or guideline which says "count Google scholar hits" to see if a reliable source can be used in an article. If the source is reliable, it can be used. "WEIGHT" is not a reason to completely exclude a reliable source. Your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. Collect (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to show sarcasm toward Peters' comments. BTW could you please explain how you believe WEIGHT should be applied. And what specific use of the source do you think could improve this article? TFD (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect. Try this[1]. This essay, which is cautious about general search engines, contains well sources information about gscholar (I think you are not going to question the statement supported by peer-reviewed publications?). It says:

"This search engine is a good complement for the commercially available Thompson ISI Web of Knowledge, especially in the areas, which are not well covered in the later, including books, conference papers, non-American journals, the general journals in the field of strategy, management, international business, English language education and educational technology. The analysis of the PageRank algorithm utilised by Google Scholar demonstrated that this search engine, as well as its commercial analogs, provides an adequate information about popularity of some concrete source, although that does not automatically reflect the real scientific contribution of concrete publication."

@Peters. Glad that you realised that gcholar is a useful tool. Re Appelbaum, she is a journalist, not a scholar. She uses the data from peer-reviewed scholarly articles (for instance, she used for GULAG the figures from the GRZ article you dismissed so categorically), but gives more emotional interpretation to them than the scholars do. The language is more vivid, hence the wider popularity among public. It is not a non-reliable source per se, however, it is more tertiary rather than secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Jprw. Because Applebaum's book is about GULAG, not about mass killing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that "mass killings" had to be the primary topic of a reputable source to gain admission here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement that works cited here be scholarly works: see WP:RS "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." This is particularly so, in that there seems to be a range of academic views rather than a strict academic consensus on many issues discussed here, and the contention among some of our editors that academics only look at one country at a time, leaving cross-country generalization to journalists. We need to get out of the mode that reliable sources can be removed simply because somebody doesn't like it. Smallbones (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources used should be relevant to the topic. My understanding of rs is that we use journalism when academic literature is unavailable. For example, the recent death of Bin Laden can only be sourced to journalism. But for an article about the American revolution, it would be tendentious to demand inclusion of views from the National Review or Mother Jones. We should use common sense rather than a legalistic interpretation of policy. Ask yourself this - if one wanted to know what happened during a period of history, would one read a book by a journalist or by an historian? TFD (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a partisan and highly subjective view. Is it not the case that one of the crucial tenets of Wikipedia is that articles be written for a general readership? Thus a book such as Applebaum’s should suit the purposes of this encyclopedia perfectly. Your line of reasoning would work if WP were a reference source aimed exclusively at the academic community. Jprw (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• While we write for a general audience, we must write using the highest quality sources available to us. Conversely, while we write using the highest quality sources available to us, we must write for a general audience. Also, Applebaum is repeatedly cited at GULAG where she's dead on topic. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about Mother Jones or National Review. In many cases of modern history, journalism can be better or equal to academic work, academics simply haven't gotten around to it yet, give 'em a couple of decades. And let's stick to policy - there are probably lots of folks here who wonder whether others have lost their common sense. Smallbones (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Recent journalism may be better than academic work. Also, our opinions may be superior to anything dreamt of in philosophy. But we must wait until we have independant corroboration. TFD (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability versus High Quality Reliability; Synthesis

I'd like to restate two arguments relevant to the discussion immediately above:

1. This argument as a history article is covered by History sourcing stipulations which are the stipulations at WP:MILMOS#SOURCES. HQRS are very strongly favoured with regards to historical articles. Obviously, in this case, which is about a theorisation of multiple events in multiple societies, works of scholarly political science and theoretical sociology are just as valuable. We should, as always, avoid FRINGE theses, such as Courtois' "Non-catholicism" thesis. We should also avoid popular theses unless they are discussed specifically in academic works, for example, the solid critique of the populist early "Genocide" conception as driven directly by emigre funding immediately post WWII which was presented at length in a scholarly journal.
2. That the key sources used to derive the articles structure, and to discover examples to illustrate the various theoretical conceptions of a common cause of mass death, ought to specifically advance a theory of the cause of mass death in multiple societies. A scholarly work which advances a society or mass death event specific thesis ought not to be used to structure the articles, or as an example of theory. The theories discussed here are the theories of causes of mass mortality in multiple societies; a theorisation which is specific to the Ukraine famine is not relevant to this article's topic (but is of course, highly relevant to Holodomor). Single case works may be used to fill out examples where the examples are derived from multiple-society works (but not to the extent to weight particular examples beyond their measure of weighting in the multiple-case theorisations). Single case works may be used to contrast their theorisation with multiple-society works (for example, "Jane in her Mass killings by Bolshevists claims that the man in the moon causes mass deaths, giving as one example the Holodomor. However, Judy, a historian of Holodomor studies argues that the causes of the Holodomor were specific to the Soviet Union"). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1.WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is good as a standard, although it seems to me to differ very little from Wikipedia's basic policies. Ignoring the characterization of the topic as a "theorisation of multiple events", which I would not use, I do have to ask what you are referring as "Courtois' FRINGE 'Non-catholicism' thesis". I read his introduction to the Black Book some time ago and while I do remember brief mention of Catholicism, I don't remember anything like this.

2.I agree that article structure should imitate the structure found in sources which discuss multiple societies and that single society sources should be used to supplement their portions of the article as necessary, including any single society causes they propose. I think this is essentially what has been followed already. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't check back here or notice your post. I replied in detail regarding Courtois' non-catholicism thesis on my talk page. You may be particularly interested in the section on the Swedish research review which I just posted: as a scholarly tertiary (historiographical) review it allows us to have a solid, scholarly, high level method of cross weighting, principles of including single society case studies (at weight), etc. It also assures us that this article has a separate notability claim to be in the encyclopaedia, and cannot be subsumed beneath articles on the "Totalitarian thesis," the "Black Book" or the "History of Genocide theory". I'd also note that according to the Swedish text's report of the scholarly consensus, our article sucks! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Edit: Modify presentation of footnotes, citations, references and bibliography to a single unified citation format

Initial discussion

After an initial sounding discussion, I will move a section for !votes to indicate consensus. I am not asking for consensus formation yet, but rather the discussion and clarification of the idea itself.

1. The article currently contains about four citation styles, including [footnote]:[page range], footnotes with pages at the end, citations, and references with further readings. Within this there is probably a great variety of styles in use.
2. I do references good. I am making an offer to homogenise the method of citation to a single method. I propose
   1. Footnotes using short citations for works in bibliography, and long citations for works only cited once: (Author (date if author used multiple times) Title if author used multiple times, p. pages cited; [line break] next citation in foot note. ie: Tomson paragraph 3; [br] Janedaughter (1970) Causes of mass killing, pp. 20–40; [br] Janedaughter (1972) Causes of mass killing: a reconsideration, p. 70; [br] Kevinson, Eric, Tony Janedaughter, Sally Tomson, and others (2007) "Analysis of the causes of mass killing," Journal of Mass Killings 4(2): 102–195; pp. 110–117.
   2. A bibliography giving full citations in alphabetised order for works cited multiple times
   3. A further reading section complying with policy for works listed in the article meeting policy guidelines which are not cited.

Does anyone believe that this would be a bad idea; doesn't trust me to do it by myself with honesty and fairness; or, have an alternate suggestion for citation style, citation/bibliography arrangement, inline citation with bibliography, etc. etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand there is a new bot which can do most of this, which might save you some dint of effort? I know there was a long discussion on one noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a bot that'll fix the reference formatting in this one I'd be surprised. Once it's fairly good the bots ought to keep it steady. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it that nobody is opposed to the citation style being unified. I'm moving on to seek formal consensus or a time out around the proposal to allow me to do this. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for consensus

• That the article contain a single unified citation style, built around short citation endnotes and a full listing in a bibliography. That Fifelfoo do this.
  • Support as proposer. I like clean citations. Maybe having such will help other editors in general with this article. It will certainly make it easier to read. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, although that is not the most serious article's problem. In addition, since this is just a technical change, which hardly will cause anyone's objection, I do not see why do you need a consensus for doing that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, although I would like to know which citation format is being proposed as the standard. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted changes

PS changed "tens of millions" to "millions" in the lede (and a rather minor change of "a number of" to "some"). I think it has been decided that major changes should be discussed here 1st and consensus reached before changing the article. If that is not the system now, that needs to be discussed and changed 1st as well. As far as the substance, the source cited clearly puts the number in the tens of millions and I think we have to respect the source. More significantly, does anybody really question whether Communist regimes killed at least 20 million people in the course of mass killings. If so please note this below and provide a reliable source that explicitly says so. Smallbones (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I changed it to tens of millions is that "millions" suggests a figure less than 10 million (as least that was my strong impression), which would clearly be nonsense. Jprw (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The new addition you made is a considerable change of the lede. Per edit restriction imposed on this article you should have to discuss them first on the talk page, and, if a consensus will be achieved, to add them to the article.

@ Smallbones, since Jpwr's edits were a violation of the edit restrictions imposed on this article, my revert was completely justified. By contrast, your revert, independent of your real intentions, looks like an attempt to game a system. I explain this your step by the fact that, since I didn't use the button "revert good faith edit" but, for some technical reasons, did that manually, you assumed that my revert was a new edit (which was not the case). Now, when I explained that to you I expect you to self-revert, because, once again, you revert is a violation of the edit restrictions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I don't like being accused, even indirectly, of gaming the system. After a point, reverting an old edit becomes the same thing as making a new edit. I'll revert Jprw's edit from today, but not his previous one - made almost a week ago. If you don't like my call, please get an admin to look at it. Smallbones (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not accuse you in gaming a system. As I already wrote, you probably haven't noticed that my edits were not additions, but reverts of undiscussed changes. I simply warned you that, independently of your intentions, your revert looked like an attempt to game a system. I appreciate your partial self-revert, however, I do not understand your refusal to do that completely. The fact that I haven't timely noticed the first Jorw's edit does not mean that it have been done in accordance with the new procedure. Please, revert it also.

Anticipating accusations in redundant formalism, let me explain why these changes were not appropriate. Firstly, since Valentino, a major source for mkucr, clearly wrote that most Communist regimes weren't engaged in mass killings, some transmits his thought better. Secondly, although the fact that excess mortality under Communist regimes was huge and amounted tens of millions, there is no consensus which part of those deaths should be considered as "killings". If we leave Valentino's "dispossession mass killings" beyond the scope, the total amount of deaths as a result of what is commonly accepted as "killings" was much smaller. Therefore, we need either not to mention any concrete figures in the lede at all, or to speak about "millions".--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see you reverted my revert. As I have already explained, I reverted the change made by Jprw, which by no means is a minor change. Per current edit restrictions, such a change cannot be made without discussion, so by doing that change Jprw violated the edit restriction. Since you are aware of this fact, your last revert is an attempt to game a system. Please, self-revert, otherwise I will have to request for sanctions against you. Your self-revert will be a demonstration of your good faith, and it will be helpful for the reason I explain below.

Since the current edit restrictions are de facto an endorsement of the current version, and they do not allow us to work on this article, I suggest to start a discussion about mutually acceptable rules which would allow us to modify this article, which still has multiple problems. Since the admin who imposed the edit restrictions is not active in this area any more, we will have to address to another admin, or to use AE tools to implement them. However, before that, I would like to achieve a preliminary agreement between the users working on this article about mutually acceptable rules. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the changes have been disputed, it seems the restrictions require us to revert them completely for now while further discussion takes place. This includes reverting the "tens of millions" back to "millions" (which I am surprised to see was in place, since I remember Paul Siebert and I having earlier had consensus for using "tens of millions" rather than a range of estimates - when did that get changed?). I also agree with Paul Siebert that we should discuss the rules for editing this article, since the current situation is exactly as I predicted it would be when these sanctions were proposed: article paralysis. AmateurEditor (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Re tens of millions, the problem is that by writing "tens of millions", we have to specify what do we mean under "killings", otherwise a reader can understand that as if tens of millions were killed in the same way as Nazi killed Jews. The latter idea has been widely disputed, because only Valentino, Rummel and several other writers consider famine as "killing" (and Valentino does that with reservations). In addition, "tens of millions" you refer to is curently present in the lede (" There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars.") By placement of "tens of millions" in the first sentence, Smallbones violated old consensus, and created an absolutely false impression that all scholars agree that Communist regimes killed tens of millions.

Regarding the article, I see the solution as follows: firstly, we all have to come to some consensus about some unwritten rules according to which we are going to edit this article. Secondly, based on that, we can request to lift all sanctions. I am not sure if we will need in any formalisation of new rules, because a consensus that every edit that violated these rules can be reverted by anyone woyld be quite sufficient. This scheme works for some other articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IOW, excusing your slow motion edit war here? Sorry Paul - the 1RR rule is there for a reason, and trying to gain an exemption for yourself will not fly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

????--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones and Collect, Paul Siebert did not change the lead to "millions" after the sanctions were enacted, so we are obligated to keep it that way until there is consensus to change it. Please revert "tens of millions" to "millions" so that we can get on with the discussion. I agree with you, by the way, that it should be "tens of millions", but Paul is right on the revert regardless of which is the better phrase. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a good reason that nobody reverted the edit for a week. The edit simply made the sentence consistent with the cited source; before it was off by almost 2 orders of magnitude. To put it back in would, at this point would be to intentionally mislead our readers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no Wikipedia policy or rule requires an editor to intentionally lie to readers. Bring in an admin and we can sort it out, otherwise it has to stay as is. Smallbones (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That means that you concede that my edit was a revert, and that was a revert of not a minor edit, which has been done without discussion. The fact that the edit has been unnoticed for one week means nothing: since the article is effectivelly frozen, not many users look after it carefully. In any event, your action is a violation of edit restrictions, and you leave no choice for me but to address to admin. Please, self-revert within one day.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi I have been looking at Paul sieberts contributions list and found this subject of interest. I would also support a change from millions to tens of millions given tens of millions have met untimely and grisly ends due to communist regimes. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I should like to add a source which says tens of millions of innocents died under communism but am unable to do so, would another editor add it please? The sources is Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world By Walter Russell Mead page 220 publisher Routledge. I any other information needed for a reference? The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The facts are as follows:

1. Tens of millions died prematurely under Communist regimes as a result of civil wars, political repressions, executions, famines, diseases, etc. That fact is impossible to deny.
2. Most scholars describe deaths as a result of repressions, and civilian victims during civil wars as killings, although there is no consensus about the victims of famines, diseases, and similar deprivation deaths.
3. Some scholars believe that all these deaths were mass killings, and, therefore, they claimed that Communist regimes killed tens of millions.
4. Currently, the lede reflects that fact as follows " There are scholars who believe that government policies and mistakes in management contributed to these calamities, and, based on that conclusion combine all these deaths under the categories "mass killings", democide, politicide, "classicide", or loosely defined genocide. According to these scholars, the total death toll of the mass killings defined in this way amounts to many tens of millions; however, the validity of this approach is questioned by other scholars."

Therefore, the statement about tens of millions is already in the lede, the only thing I object against is the attempt to present the viewpoint of some scholars as the universal and mainstream point of view.

One way or the another, that is a subject of a serious discussion, however before we start it, the change we are discussing must be reverted, and if it will be reverted by AE decision, that would be not a good start for the fruitful dialogue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I know of no source asserting under 20 million - so your cavil is remarkable indeed. The edit therefore is proper, and your assertion that you will yell to an admin is remakably reminiscent of WP:ABF indeed. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, let's separate edit restrictions and a content dispute. The rules are obligatory for everyone, so either (1) the edit that have been done without discussion is reverted, or (2) the user who knowingly re-inserted it will be sanctioned. My choice is #1, by the way.

Secondly, I suggest you to carefully read my previous post, and to explain me where concretely have I argued that the total number of deaths was less than 15-20 million? The problem is, however, that many scholars do not consider a major part of these death (famine deaths, deaths of civil war combatants, etc) as mass killings. For instance, the Courtois' introduction to the Black Book has been criticised specifically for that. In other words, although I do not argue about the number of deaths (which are present in the lede's end, btw), I, following what the scholars say, object against presenting of all these deaths a mass killings. Such a theory is not mainstream, it is just one of POVs, whereas this POV cannot and should not be ignored, to present it as a sole mainstream POV is a major breach of the WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit restrictions are clearly broken, I've been asking you to call in an admin for days, rather than blather on and on about making a totally inappropriate edit. Intentionally inserting a gross mis-statement of the cited source is simply impossible. I will not do it, and I doubt that any admin worth his salt will do it. Smallbones (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the edit restrictions have been violated by you, when you re-added this non-minor and not discussed edit made by Jprw. I just reverted this edit to the version that had been written not by me[2], therefore, any your allegations have no relation to me. Note, these diffs (along with the evidences of my attempts to persuade you to self-revert) are almost ready to be filed to AE. The reason why I am still procrastinating with filing a request is that you have already been placed on notice per DIGWUREN, so your problems may be more serious than you and I want. Please, self-revert, and then we will be able to speak calmly.

Regarding the essence of the dispute, your choice of the source for the lede (the ref to the BB was added by you, wasn't it?) is highly questionable. The scholars generally disagree about which death should fall in category "mass killings" and which shouldn't. This dispute has been summarized by RG Suny as follows:

"Both in Werth and throughout the Black Book the body count mounts, as all forms of violence and official repression, as well as deaths from famines, are homogenized by the various authors into a single bloody stream. The war against the peasants of Tambov, the show trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries (which in some ways was an alternative to the summary justice of the Civil War years), the famine of the early 1920s (the result of years of war and disruption of agriculture, as well as forced requisitions of grain), and the exiling of intellectuals abroad are treated by Werth as different modalities of the same terror extended into the immediate post-Civil War years. The greatest number of dead came with the war on the peasants in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the ensuing famine, and the Great Purges of the late 1930s. The first and the last events had their origins, initiation, and execution in the party-state; the famine, however, is more complex. Historians divide between those who see the famine as the deliberate policy of the regime against Ukrainian peasants, aimed at deracinating nationalism and separatism, and those who argue that it was an unintended consequence of the disastrous program of collectivization and dekulakization." (R G Suny Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 3.2 (2002) 303-319)

and by Kuromiya

"The 20 million referred to above include not only those executed but also those who died in the Gulags as well as the victims of the famous 1932-33 famine and other casualties of political, social and economic upheaval. It may also include those unborn who would have been born under normal circumstances. The famine, for example, took more than six million lives (as Werth notes 159). The brutal agricultural policy and the callousness of the Stalin regime were responsible at least in part for this calamity. Indeed the government, in cold-blooded indifference to life, let the peasants die in order to save the cities. Yet there is no conclusive evidence that Moscow deliberately caused the famine in order to punish recalcitrant peasants, especially in Ukraine, the chief victim of the famine. It is not possible, contrary to Courtois' contention, to show convincingly the 'systematic use of famine as a weapon' by the Soviets. That 'in the period after 1918, only Communist countries experienced such [large-scale] famines' does not in itself constitute evidence of the use of famine as a political weapon." ( Hiroaki Kuromiya Communism and Terror Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201)

In other words, whereas the source you used in the lede does support the statement about "tens of millions" victims of Communism, it (i) does not support the statement about "mass killings", and, imporatntly, (ii) does not reflect the scholarly consensus. By using the questionable source and by pretending that it reflects the sole mainstream POV you violated the WP neutrality policy. We need to fix this issue in close future, and it would be good if we will do that in respectful and polite manner.

Regards,

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue these two authors speak of is whether or not the famine was deliberate punishment or an unintended consequence of communist policy, either way, mass killings resulted. As pointed out previously, the term "killings" is a neutral term that does not imply willful intent. Afterall, tsunamis regularly cause mass killings of human populations. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not mass killings, but mass deaths. Obviously, the article implies "killing" by Communist regimes (otherwise it is not clear why these events have been grouped according to this particular trait). Therefore, killing in this context is closer to "homicide", the deaths from natural causes cannot be considered as killing in that context. In any event, that is just our speculations. We have the source, which, as I have persuasively demonstrated on this talk page and elsewhere, is considered as controversial. Therefore, it cannot be used in the opening sentence of the lede as if it presented the universally accepted truth. In actuality, the issue is not in having or not having "tens of millions" in the lede (it will be there even when the statement we discuss will be removed), but in placing it into the proper context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul has no substantive disagreement with the edit. He knows what the source says, and the edit reports that. So is he saying that he has the right to revert in an intentional misrepresentation of the source at anytime following the edit without any substantive disagreement? That's just nonsense and has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules nor with the edit restrictions. If you think that the source says that its only millions of victimes say so, but you can't say that without being laughed at. If you don't have a substantive disagreement, quit pretending that this is a controversial edit. Smallbones (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you argue against WP:NPOV referring to WP:V. In actuality, since both variants have serious problems, we must elaborate something else. I am ready for a dialogue, however, since your behaviour strongly resembles an attempt to game a system, we need to resolve the formal issue first. I expect you to self-revert within next 12 hours, and, after that, we will discuss new wording, which will be both neutral and precise. In addition, we definitely need a new source, because the present one, which you added unilaterally is highly controversial (as I have already demonstrated), and not-neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

But Paul, Valentino who is used as a source in this article says few scholars disagree that tens of millions were killed by communist regimes, I also gave a source in this section which says the same. What exactly is your issue with this? I have also taken care to read the restrictions on this article, it clearly says that if at least four editors agree with an edit then the edit may go ahead, and I believe four have agreed with the edit. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the edit should be discussed on the talk page first, and after that it can be added to the article, not vise versa ("It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours."). This minimal requirement has not been met, and, therefore, the edit must be reverted. After that has been done, we can return to the content dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

How crazy is this?

I marvel still at the hundreds of hours spent over the past few years by people trying to save this article, fighting to win a battle they won during the Reagan administration. I say again, almost nobody under thirty knows what "communist" means, and anti-communists are as obsolite as antidisestablishmentarians. The article is an embarassment to Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not WP:SOAPBOX on wikipedia article talk pages, particularly on contentious talk pages: it is inherently disruptive. Thank you, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Russell (2001)

While the addition was in good faith: Russell, Walter (2001). Special providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world. Routledge. pp. 220. ISBN 978-0375412301; is insufficient for the claim. Both Russell's theme and expertise isn't on target for this article, his assertion is almost certainly an aside. I'm sure that the figure you support can be found in more appropriate sources, which make communist death figures the central point of their claims. Just remember that they'd need to meet the other scholarly criteria too. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, this edit is a violation of the edit restrictions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please explain how the adding of a reference is a breach of the restrictions on this article. i should also like to know how the source does not support the fact that tens of millions died prematurely under Communism, thanks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Any non-minor edits must be discussed on the talk page first. In addition, since I do not question the fact that "tens of millions died prematurely under Communism", I suggest you to comment on the edit I proposed below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This specific issue is now moot given Jprw's revert. However while a particular reference may not be that suitable, in general can we all agree that adding a reference isn't a violation of the edit restrictions? To my mind policy requires us to reference articles with reliable sources and such a strict interpretation of the edit restriction would seem to be working against policy in this case. --Martin (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A proposal

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that the dispute can be resolved by changing the first sentence as follows:

"Mass killings deaths occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering in the tens of millions."

I believe, that would be factually correct, and, therefore will cause no objections from any side. Firstly, since the article's title is descriptive, the initial words (which, by the way, do not reproduce the title verbatim) should not be bold per MOS. Secondly, if we replace "killing" with "deaths", that would be what all mainstream sources agree with. The characteristics of these deaths ("genocide", "democide", etc.) has been made in the lede later, so there is no need to place the opinion of few scholars in the first sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, "deaths" would make the scope too broad, as it would also include natural deaths. "Killings" on the otherhand implies human agency, and the majority of scholars support the view that, at the very least, the famines were exacerbated by poor implementation of communist policy. --Martin (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we need to remove the figures attributed to famine and diseases from the lede (a major part of premature deaths were a result of these two causes), because at least part of them were caused by natural reasons. In addition, we have reliable sources (see above) that specifically criticise the idea to lump together mass executions and famine deaths.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? This article isn't titled Mass executions under Communist regimes. Most scholars agree that premature deaths attributed to famine and disease were a result, at the very least, of communist policy. I don't think any scholar today claims it was entirely natural. Although a lack of food obviously causes famine, implementation of communist policy contributed to this lack of food. --Martin (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because "killing" is generally associated with "homicide", especially in this article. We should either specify what "deprivation mass killing" mean, according to Valentino, or focus on mass executions, political repressions, etc. However, in that case we should speak about "millions", not "tens of millions".--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Conjecture over the meaning of "killing", "homicide", "death", etc, has been done previously, see the archives. Since the very next sentence in the lede states:

"Some higher estimates of mass killings include not only mass murders or executions that took place during the elimination of political opponents, civil wars, terror campaigns, and land reforms, but also lives lost due to war, famine, disease, and exhaustion in labor camps"

so the first sentence should state for consistency:

"Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering in the up to tens of millions."

--Martin (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you describe the scale of mass killings before the definition has been provided. We need to define the term first, and then to speak about the figures. If you want the figures to be presented in the first sentence, this wording is more adequate:

"Mass killings occurred under some radical Communist regimes, mostly as a result of almost complete material dispossession of vast population, with an estimated death toll numbering in tens of millions.

In addition, since the term has been borrowed from the Valentino's book, the source should be this book, not the (highly controversial BB).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WRT "deaths" - unless mortality was ended in some places <g>, that sort of sentence would be nonsensical. As for the interpolation "but most of them were actually natural" or the like is also not borne out by prior discussions on this page. So the issue was, and remains, whether a number of deaths which (by the most conservative accounts) were over twenty million should be described as "millions" or as "tens of millions" - I suggest "over twenty million" as a nice low compromise at this point (using the lowest figure so far produced). Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Different estimates take into account the deaths from different causes. Re "not borne out by prior discussions on this page", you do not follow the discussion carefully: most deaths in the USSR and China were a result of famine and deportations, so if we leave these deaths beyond the scope (as some scholars do) the figures will be dramatically lower. Re "I suggest "over twenty million" as a nice low compromise ", this figure is not a subject of compromise between us: if this figure is a subject of debates, no single figure should be in the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest putting a series of figures in the lead as suggested by Jprw below. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

revert

I've self-reverted back to "millions"; I still consider the change that I made to be non-problematic—indeed, an improvement, more accurate, less misleading etc.—but I wasn't aware of the particularly strict restrictions on this page. So, let's discuss first. My main bone of contention is that "millions" suggests a figure of less than 10 million, which would be grossly misleading. My preferred wording would be "tens of millions, perhaps upwards of 100 million deaths". Jprw (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Whereas I agree that scholarly consensus is that tens of millions died prematurely under Communist regimes, the scholars, as a rule, prefer not to combine these deaths into a single category. For instance, Courtois has been criticised specifically for that. In connection to that, I propose to separate figures from interpretations (see above). In other words, I suggest to write about "tens of millions" mass deaths, or mass mortality, and then to discuss the causes, terminology, etc. The lede is already doing that, btw. In addition, since "100+ million" come mostly from Rummel, who is known to give dramatically inflated estimates, that figure should not be mentioned. In that sense, the BB estimate should serve as an upper bound.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That certainly gives plenty of food for thought, thanks. For the time being, the table given on page 15 here seems to be supported well enough with reliable sources. Perhaps we can write "some contend that XXX millions (upper bound; quote Rummel, who is still a WP:RS), others believe (lower bound; quote WP:RS of more conservative estimate); most scholars however do agree that the figure is in the tens of millions". Jprw (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Rummel's estimates and conclusions have been widely criticised (see, e.g. the Democide talk page[3]). In addition, whereas most scholars reconsidered their estimates after the release of formerly classified Soviet archival documents, Rummel refused to do so, therefore, his estimates are based on the obsolete data. For instance, whereas it is generally agreed that the number of GULAG deaths amounted 2 millions, Rummel claims that 40+ millions died in GULAG, which exceeds the total number of GULAG intake (14 millions from 1929 to 1953).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, we oughtn't use Transaction Publishers editions of anything. (I'm not commenting generally on Rummel here. Rummel in a right press is fine). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is rs and weight. While Rummel's books published outside the mainstream are obviously not rs, his views that have gained no acceptance at all lack weight. Therefore forget about it. TFD (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As I already explained elsewhere, Rummel is a reputable scholar, whose works devoted to the application of factor analysis to the genocide studies are highly commended. However, in addition to that, he has published the books where he presents his estimates of death toll under various authoritarian regimes, and draws far reaching conclusions based on that. By contrast to his articles in peer reviewed journals, these books have been extensively criticised by scholars, so we should not use them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was using Rummel as an example for a provisional wording along the lines of "some contend that XXX millions (upper bound; quote WP:RS), others believe (lower bound; quote WP:RS of more conservative estimate); most scholars [here adduce two or three references], however, agree that the figure is in the tens of millions, while according to some the death toll may exceed 100 million." I think that the last bit is important as it is backed up by this, to quote one example. Jprw (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No respected source places the death toll at over 100 million. That figure has been criticised for holocaust trivialization. TFD (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Jprw's suggestion--and if there is no reputable source that puts the DT over 100mill, then use whatever is the reputably highest. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey of what the sources say regarding number of killings

There seems to be two schools of thought with regard to Soviet mass killings. There is the "Communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race" mega-death school, and the "Stop exagerating, Communism wasn't that bad" not-so-mega-death school.

The following sources support the mega-death school:

• Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993 cites these:
  • Chistyakovoy, V. (Neva, no.10): 20 million killed during the 1930s.
  • Dyadkin, I.G. (Demograficheskaya statistika neyestestvennoy smertnosti v SSSR 1918-1956 ): 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin.
  • Gold, John.: 50-60 million.
• Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses. This would divide (more or less) into 33M pre-war and 17M after 1939.
• Solzhenitsyn, Gulag Archipelago,
  • Intro to Perennial Classics Edition by Edward Ericson: Solzhenitsyn publicized an estimate of 60 million. Aleksandr Yakovlev estimates perhaps 35 million.
  • Page 178: citing Kurganov, 66 million lives lost between 1917 and 1959
• Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
  • 1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
  • 1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
  • 1939-45: 18,157,000
  • 1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
  • TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine
• William Cockerham, Health and Social Change in Russia and Eastern Europe: 50M+
• Wallechinsky: 13M (1930-32) + 7M (1934-38)
  • Cited by Wallechinsky:
    • Medvedev, Roy (Let History Judge): 40 million.
  • Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr: 60 million.

Average: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.

From the not-so-mega-death school:

• Nove, Alec (Victims of Stalinism: How Many? in J. Arch Getty (ed.) Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives, 1993): 9,500,000 "surplus deaths" during the 1930s.
• Cited in Nove:
  • Maksudov, S. (Poteri naseleniya SSSR, 1989): 9.8 million abnormal deaths between 1926 and 1937.
  • Tsaplin, V.V. (Statistika zherty naseleniya v 30e gody 1989): 6,600,000 deaths (hunger, camps and prisons) between the 1926 and 1937 censuses.
  • Dugin, A. (Stalinizm: legendy i fakty 1989): 642,980 counterrevolutionaries shot 1921-53.
  • Muskovsky Novosti (4 March 1990): 786,098 state prisoners shot, 1931-53.
• Gordon, A. (What Happened in That Time?, 1989, cited in Adler, N., Victims of Soviet Terror, 1993): 8-9 million during the 1930s.
• Ponton, G. (The Soviet Era, 1994): cites an 1990 article by Milne, et al., that excess deaths 1926-39 were likely 3.5 million and at most 8 million.

Average: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.

However a consensus seems to be forming around a death toll of 20 million:

• In The Great Terror (1969), Robert Conquest suggested that the overall death toll was 20 million at minimum -- and very likely 50% higher, or 30 million. This would divide roughly as follows: 7M in 1930-36; 3M in 1937-38; 10M in 1939-53. By the time he wrote The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (1992), Conquest was much more confident that 20 million was the likeliest death toll.
• Britannica, Stalinism: 20M died in camps, of famine, executions, etc., citing Medvedev
• Brzezinski: 20-25 million, dividing roughly as follows: 7M destroying the peasantry; 12M in labor camps; 1M excuted during and after WW2.
• Daniel Chirot:
  • "Lowest credible" estimate: 20M
  • "Highest": 40M
  • Citing: Conquest: 20M; Antonov-Ovseyenko: 30M; Medvedev: 40M
• Courtois, Stephane, Black Book of Communism (Le Livre Noir du Communism): 20M for the whole history of Soviet Union, 1917-91.
  • Essay by Nicolas Werth: 15M
• John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M
• Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin: directly responsible for 20 million deaths.
• Tina Rosenberg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europes Ghosts After Communism (1995): upwards of 25M
• Time Magazine (13 April 1998): 15-20 million.

Average: 20 Million

• Conclusion: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims just for the case of Stalin, tens of millions is absolutely correct for this article. --Martin (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you provided no full citations, so it is hard to verify what the sources say. Most of those sources from this list I am familiar with are either obsolete (e.g. Solzhenitsyn, Conquest), unreliable (e.g. Rummel), or they reproduce the results of others (e.g. Courtois). Dugin is a neo-Stalinist author, and is hardly reliable. Maksudov and Tsaplin speak about population losses, not about the victims of mass killings. Britannica cites the former Communist leader Medvedev, who was not an established scholar. Brzezinski is a politician, not a scholar. Antonov-Ovseyenko is treated with cautions by Western scholars.

An authoritative source about the victims of Stalinism (Ellman) says

"The best estimate that can currently be made of the number of repression deaths in 1937-38 is the range 950,000-1.2 million, i.e. about a million. This is the estimate which should be used by historians, teachers and journalists concerned with twentieth century Russian-and world-history. Most of these repression deaths were deliberate NKVD killings ('executions') but a significant number were deaths in detention (some of which were also deliberate)." (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman. Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)

"Estimates of the total number of Soviet repression victims depend both on accurate estimates of the numbers in particular sub-categories and on judgement of which sub-categories should be included in the category 'repression victims'. The former is a matter of statistics on which we are better informed today than previously but on which the figures are still surrounded by a significant margin of uncertainty. The latter is a matter of theoretical, political and historical judgement." (Ellman. Op. cit)

Therefore, before we speak about the figures, we must agree about what we define as victims.

"During the Soviet period the main causes of excess deaths (which were mainly in 1918-23, 1931-34 and 1941-45) were not repression but war, famine and disease.83 The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period led to a large number of excess lives."(Ellman, Op. cit)

Therefore, if we give the numbers for the USSR, we must clearly explain that the victims died mostly as a result of war, famine or epidemia, and, as a rule were not executed or murdered. Importantly, since the overall result of the Communist rule in the USSR was a decline of mortality rates (which was high in pre-revolutionary Russia), to write about the policy of Communist authorities in a context of excess deaths and to ignore the excess lives, which were also a result of this policy, would be ahistorical.

And the quote below explains that the situation was even more complex:

"It seems that in the 27 years of the Gulag's existence (1930-56) the number of people who were sentenced to detention in prisons, colonies and camps was 17-18 million. This figure excludes the deportees, prisoners of war and internees, those in the post-war filtration camps, and those who performed forced labour at their normal place of work, and counts people sentenced more than once just once. The number of prisoners in the Gulag (camps and colonies) in 1934-53 was 18.75 million (a figure which exaggerates the number of people involved since some people were detained more than once). These huge figures are not a measure of political repression. A large number of inmates of the Gulag were criminals. However, the distinction between criminals and politicals was blurred under Soviet conditions, the statistics on the classification of the prisoners are misleading, and the concepts themselves are problematic under the conditions of the 1930s. Some (e.g. the homeless) are difficult to classify either as criminals or politicals. The large number of Gulag inmates is mainly an indication of the large number of people dealt with by the criminal justice system in this period and the harshness of that system."(Ellman. Op. cit)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ellman concludes in his 2005 paper The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931 – 1934, (EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES, Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2005, pp 823 – 841):

"As far as leadership perceptions are concerned, it is important—especially for nonspecialists unfamiliar with Bolshevik thinking—to realise that the party leaders (unlike Tsar Alexander III in 1891 or NGOs and the general Western public today) did not perceive the famine as a humanitarian catastrophe requiring a major effort to relieve distress and hence made only limited relief efforts. As Leninists they looked at it from the standpoint of the historical process and of the class struggle. They regarded it as a necessary cost of the progressive policies of industrialisation and the building of socialism under conditions of fierce class warfare. Not only was it just one aspect of a necessary policy of extracting resources from agriculture for industrialisation, but it also eliminated ‘class enemies’ more efficiently than deportation, improved the grain balance by reducing rural overpopulation, and was a disciplinary measure which made a useful contribution to socialising the rural population into their new role as collective farmers.

As far as intent is concerned, there is some evidence that in 1930 – 33 in addition to deportation, sending to prisons and the Gulag, and shooting, Stalin also used starvation in his war against the peasants. In other words, there is some evidence that an unknown fraction of the mortality in the 1931 – 34 Soviet famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation."

So clearly the Bolsheviks used starvation as just another weapon, along with deportation, imprisonment and execution, in its class warfare. The humanitarian consequences was of little consequence to Leninists. That is why famine deaths are correctly included when we speak of Communist regimes. --Martin (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not take a quote that says "there is some evidence that in 1930-33... Stalin also used starvation" and rewrite it as "clearly the Bolsheviks used starvation as just another weapon". TFD (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, communists had novel ways in dealing with issues like reducing rural overpopulation, like starvation, apparently more efficient than deportation according to Ellman. Not a humanitarian disaster, just a historical process, a necessary cost of the progressive policies, apparently. --Martin (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of this discussion shows the synthesis problem with using single society papers to deal with this article. Valentino's proposed cause of "dispossession" indicates why mass agricultural deaths by famine occurred in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. Valentino notes, in relation to this, that similar events didn't occur in other societies (Vietnam and Hungary, for example, hard large rural proletarian or "peasant" groups). To continue, without reference to Valentino, in both these cases dispossession went ahead by other means—the socialist market economy, legalistic persecution, humanitarian changes to land laws which amounted to land reform. Ellman's thesis is excellent for the Soviet case study; but it isn't a universal thesis, even for "high Stalinism" such as Hungary 1948-1953. In relation to methodology and death totals—we ought to use death totals from studies which are explicitly multi-social instead of adding up single case study totals. I suspect that the statistical synthesis in us editors adding up individual case studies is obviously original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The idea that Soviet authorities deliberately tried to reduce rural population does not follow from the Ellman's works; that is purely your conclusion. Ellman clearly writes about some unknown fraction of the mortality in 1931-34 that can be attributed to deliberate starvation. The fact that some famine victims were probably a result of deliberate starvation does not allow us to describe all famine deaths as a result of mass killings.

In addition, you seem to ignore totally the point about "The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period". If we discuss the deaths that were an unintended result of the Communist policy, and forget about the overall decline of mortality during the Soviet period, we create an absolutely misleading impression about the Soviet regime. It would be absolutely ahistorical approach.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly speaking, I see no commonality between the famine deaths in the USSR and Cambodia. Whereas the USSR was building industrial society and needed grain and human resources for industrialisation - Kampuchean regime was building purely rural communism; whereas the Soviet Union relied primarily upon industrial proletariat and suppressed peasantry - KG de facto were forcefully converting urban population into peasants; whereas the USSR was internationalist state (during 1930s) - KR were extremely racist, and one of their major goals was to physically eliminate non-Khmer population. For these reasons, the scholars prefer to analyse the KR case separately from other Communist regimes, and even the foreword to the BBoC tells about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ellman never claimed all the deaths caused by famine was an "unintended result of the Communist policy", but "a conscious policy of starvation", so it seems your line of argumentation based on single society studies includes an element of synthesis, as Fifelfoo suggests. --Martin (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, provide a quote from the source where you have found this.

Re single society studies, you started that first by providing the sources about the USSR only. Let me also add to that that in a situation when some general source exists which makes some general statement, and the more detailed sources, devoted to the societies taken separately, come to different conclusions, we cannot totally ignore these single society sources. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Tammsalu quoted him above as saying, "there is some evidence that an unknown fraction of the mortality in the 1931 – 34 Soviet famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation". TFD (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, than Mr. Tammsalu is wrong: conscious policy of starvation is not necessarily aimed to decrease a population (sometimes it is needed just to break a resistance, or to convert rural population to urban one). Anyway, let's allow Mr. Tammsalu to explain that by themselves.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying "there is some evidence that an unknown fraction of the mortality in the 1931 – 34 Soviet famine resulted from a conscious policy of starvation", Mr. Ellman is saying this, I'm just quoting him. Mr. Ellman also states "Not only was it (famine) just one aspect of a necessary policy of extracting resources from agriculture for industrialisation, but it also eliminated ‘class enemies’ more efficiently than deportation, improved the grain balance by reducing rural overpopulation, and was a disciplinary measure which made a useful contribution to socialising the rural population into their new role as collective farmers", how exactly is Mr. Ellman wrong? --Martin (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, as far as the party's leaders' perception is concerned, let me remind that the Lenin's views on famine, which has been cited in the article's epigraph was that famine is a good tool for social transformation of peasantry to proletariat. However, there is a big difference between social and demographical transformations, so elimination of rural population non necessarily implied their deaths: most of them were converted to urban proletariate.

Secondly, the article you quote starts with the words:

"IT HAS LONG BEEN DEBATED whether the victims of the Soviet famine of the early 1930s died due to a conscious policy of starvation or whether they were unintended victims of unfavourable natural conditions and policies aimed at other goals. Although the difference was of no importance for the unfortunate victims, it is of considerable importance for historians. In their recent monograph, Davies & Wheatcroft, on the basis of detailed study of the sources-many of them previously unused archival documents -and an enviable knowledge of the period, come down strongly on the 'unintentional' side."

Then Ellman summarises the Wheatcroft's & Davis' monographs and formulates the major question as follows

"The Davies & Wheatcroft interpretation is powerful, and there is much evidence to support it. Unlike much writing on this topic it is also numerate, with extensive statistical data to back it up. However, is it complete? Is it really the case that no peasants were deliberately starved to death?"

In other words, in his article Ellman does not question or rejects the conclusions of these two scholars, he simply tries to complement them with circumstantial evidences that would allow him to hypothecise about the intents of Soviet leaders. And, as far as you decided to quote the conclusion of his article, let me quote the most essential part of it:

"The causes of the excess deaths in 1930-34 can be divided into three groups. First, deaths caused by exogenous non-policy-related factors. Examples include the 1931 drought and, in the interpretation of Davies & Wheatcroft, adverse weather in 1932. Second, deaths which were an unintended result of policies with other objectives. Examples of such policies are the tribute model of rapid industrialisation, the rapid and complete socialisation of livestock, and the emphasis on sown area at the expense of crop rotation. Third, deaths which were intended. Examples include the shootings policy of 1930-31 and the starvation policy of 1932-33. Quantitative estimation of the relative importance of these causes has not yet begun and is a fruitful area for future research."

Yes, according to Ellman, some peasants were probably deliberately starved to deaths, however, to tell for sure if they were, and what was a real number of them is hardly possible. I am not sure if additional comments are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you ought to realize that Stalin probably did not keep a list of those who starved to death as a result of deliberate government action? I do not find that a credible basis for asserting that therefore they did not die as a result of government action, for some odd reason. Collect (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the positive side. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We have reliable sources making claims - basically lots of people. We do not need to "prove" that anyone died - we only need to show what reliable sources clearly state. I addressed a claim that "some peasants were probably deliberately starved to death" with an implication that, since Stalin did not keep a roll, that since we can not count them that somehow the numbers presented by reliable sources are therefore not usable. I suggested that this is not how Wikipedia works - that the sources make the claim of tens of millions and it is not up to us to "prove" anything. All we do is report what they say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A 2007 Ellman paper (Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 – 33 Revisited, EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 59, No. 4, June 2007, 663 – 693) states:

"In 1932 – 33 Stalin caused numerous deaths by acts of omission. He omitted to appeal for or accept international help (unlike in 1891 – 92, 1921 – 22, 1941 – 45 and 1946 – 47) although this was proposed by the Ukrainian president in February 1932. He also omitted to import grain. His crime of omission is accepted by Davies and Wheatcroft. In 1932 – 33 Stalin also caused numerous deaths by acts of commission. Numerous deportees and camp and prison inmates—victims of a major Stalinist policy—died. Grain which might have been used to feed the starving population was exported (though in much smaller quantities than originally planned). Peasants who tried to flee from famine-stricken Ukraine and North Caucasus were turned back. Many of them will have died as a result.

From the standpoint of national criminal law, the debate is about whether Stalin was guilty ‘only’ of (mass) manslaughter or whether he was guilty of (mass) murder."

So taking the generous view that Stalin was only guilty of (mass) manslaughter, manslaughter is a form of homicide and thus fulfils the definition of "killing" thus it is correct to include famine numbers. --Martin (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

@Collect.

“There’s more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,” said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry: “this paper has just been picked up.”

“What’s in it?” said the Queen.

“I haven’t opened it yet,” said the White Rabbit; “but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.”

“It must have been that,” said the King, “unless it was written to nobody, which isn’t usual, you know.”

“Who is it directed to?” said one of the jurymen.

“It isn’t directed at all,” said the White Rabbit: “in fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.” He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added “It isn’t a letter, after all: it’s a set of verses.”

“Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?” asked another of the jurymen.

“No, they’re not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that’s the queerest thing about it.” (The jury all looked puzzled.)

“He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

“Please your Majesty,” said the Knave, “I didn’t write it, and they ca’n’t prove that I did: there’s no name signed at the end.”

“If you didn’t sign it,” said the King, “that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.”

@ Martin. Firstly, the Ellman's statement you quoted provides no evidences in addition to those already presented: yes, Stalin was definitely guilty of mass manslaughter, however, the question of scale is still open: never in his 2007 article did Ellman provide exact figures of those died as a result of deliberate starvation, although it is quite clear from his work that only part of victims can be attributed to that policy.

In addition, let's tell a full story. The 2007 article is a responce on the Wheathcroft's responce on the Ellman's 2005 article. Therefore, it is necessary to mention the Wheatcroft's article also. Wheatcrof argued as follows:

"However, we have found no evidence, either direct or indirect, that Stalin sought deliberately to starve the peasants...."

"Our view of Stalin and the famine is close to that of Robert Conquest, who would earlier have been considered the champion of the argument that Stalin had intentionally caused the famine and had acted in a genocidal manner. In 2003, Dr Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that 'Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it'."

"Ellman claims that there was a continuity in the attitude to famine between Lenin and Stalin, both of whom, he alleges, regarded famines (or possibly just their consequences) as progressive (Ellman 2005, p. 832). On this basis he holds that the 'political structural factor' which led to the 1931-34 famine 'was the communist victory in the Civil War and the resulting Communist dictatorship' (Ellman 2005, p. 829), rather than being a result of the Stalinist version of that dictatorship. But, as Ellman hints in passing (Ellman 2005, p. 824), there was a major famine in 1921-22 and the attitude and policy of the regime, and of Lenin personally, towards this famine was entirely different from Stalin's a decade later. The famine was openly acknowledged and substantial foreign, particularly American, aid saved many lives."

"Why should we take trouble to resist the charge that Stalin deliberately starved the peasants? After all, our book-though Ellman appears to deny this provides a mass of evidence that Stalin's policies towards the peasants were ruthless and brutal. Stalin was a dictator, and bore more responsibility for the famine than any other individual. But it seems to us important to establish how far the famine was a consequence of the workings of the institutions established under Stalin and how far it was the outcome of the exceptionally vicious personality of the ruler. Ellman has taken a step backwards in the study of the subject by turning attention towards speculation about the inner workings of Stalin's mind and away from examining his actual decisions, and analysing their intended and unintended results."(Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932-33: A Reply to EllmanAuthor(s): R. W. Davies and Stephen G. WheatcroftSource: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Jun., 2006), pp. 625-633)

And, importantly, in the dispute of two scholars it is always helpful to see a third opinion. I found a recent Kuromiya's essay on this account where the author summarises the dispute as follows:

"Recent advances in research on the 1932–1933 Soviet famine, most notably the monograph by R. W. Davies and S. G. Wheatcroft [2004, The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931–1933 (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan)], have generated a debate, involving Michael Ellman and Mark Tauger, on the pages of this journal. The present essay re-examines this debate in two areas: intentionality (did Stalin cause the famine in order to kill millions?) and the Ukrainian factor (was the famine a Ukrainian ethnic genocide?). I argue that there is not enough evidence to answer in the affirmative. The essay concludes by discussing the international context of the famine as a factor of critical importance."(HIROAKI KUROMIYA Debate. The Soviet Famine of 1932–1933 Reconsidered EUROPE-ASIA STUDIES Vol. 60, No. 4, June 2008, 663 – 675)

In other words, independently of what general studies devoted to Communism related deaths as whole say, the studies devoted to the Soviet society demonstrate that there is no enough evidences for describing the famines on the USSR as mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Davies and Wheatcroft in their seminal work on the famine strictly avoided speculating on motivation. Tauger, IMHO based on his rantings, is incapable of a reasoned discussion without deriding anyone who doesn't agree with him and prefers to cite himself as an authoritative source. While one might wish to present this as: no man-made famine versus pre-meditated man-made famine, that ignores the nature of the situation which presented itself which Stalin used to wipe out Ukrainian opposition—why else would starving people be confined to their territory to finish them off while all their grain was requisitioned? In the famine of 1921 Russia asked for, and received, international assistance. American relief efforts were led by a future president. Why not this time? This is not rocket science. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's allow Davies and Wheatcroft to speak for themselves. The quotes from their later works have been provided above, and these quotes shed a light on their views on Stalin's motivations. Regarding your other point, it has been analysed in details in the articles I quoted, and the authors' verdict was: not enough evidence that would allow us to speak about deliberate killing of 6-8 million people by starvation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you agree "Stalin was definitely guilty of mass manslaughter, however, the question of scale is still open: never in his 2007 article did Ellman provide exact figures of those died as a result of deliberate starvation, although it is quite clear from his work that only part of victims can be attributed to that policy." no one has published a definitive number, it could have been anywhere between 10%, 30%, 60% or even 80%. In fact in all probability no one will ever truly know the exact figure of famine victims attributable to policy, but we do know a portion of them where. In fact a more recent study by Renate Starkin her 2010 paper Holodomor, Famine in Ukraine 1932-1933: A Crime against Humanity or Genocide? (Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies: Vol. 10: Iss. 1, Article 2):

"This paper has demonstrated that famines, contrary to the outdated popular belief that they are haphazardly caused by adverse climatic conditions and that they generally afflict developing countries, are more often phenomena consequent to man-made factors. It has indeed been established that particular adverse government policy and unequal food entitlement issues play a major role in the occurrence of famine, factors that are preventable. Furthermore, it has been determined that in particular cases a certain intentionality has sadly been implicated. This moves the study of famine into the field of international law, crimes against humanity and genocide."

Dennis Tao Yang in his paper China's Agricultural Crisis and Famine of 1959–1961: A Survey and Comparison to Soviet Famines (Comparative Economic Studies (2008) 50, 1–29.) states:

"Years later, based on population census and fertility survey data, demographers were able to estimate that the total excess mortality during the Great Leap Forward crisis ranged from 16.5 (Coale, 1981) to 30 million people (Banister, 1987). This monumental scale of the famine makes it arguably the largest in recorded history."

So the very best we can do given the sources with the opening sentence is this:

Mass killings occurred under some Communist regimes during the twentieth century with an estimated death toll numbering up to the tens of millions

--Martin (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You really need a source that defines and explains mass killings under Communist regimes, otherwise the article becomes just a mass of incidents with dubious connection. I still do not understand how Communism connects events in Russia and China that were decades apart, and would appreciate a source that explains it. TFD (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Clue: Each group of "mass killings" occurred under a (get this) "Communist regime". The title of the article is "Mass killings under Communist regimes." There is to many people a reasonable belief that where there are "mass killings under Communist regimes" that having them in an article called "Mass killings under Communist regimes" seems a tad logical. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and I would hope you would not accuse other editors of creating an article based on synthesis. There is for example a website about "Republican sex offenders". What each sex offender has in common (get this) is that he is a Republican. We need a nexus which should be provided by a reliable source, assuming any exists. TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• TFD, there are a number of non-reliable FRINGE claims, Courtois' non-Catholicism argument, arguements by literary academics that Communism is Absolutist Torydom, and the refuted LipsetLemkin apologies to Lipset that they constituted genocide. Then there is a series of multi-social studies which merely address mass deaths in parallel societies without stating a causative association (Rummel's academic work, Valentino). Sometimes a cause is presented for mass deaths in particular societies which is unrelated to communism (Valentino's dispossessive thesis, which has a slate of non-communist exemplars as well as China, Cambodia and the Soviet Union)—these scholars tend to very obviously limit the extent of their claims (Valentino notes that his theses are not applicable to all communist societies, and uses a communist society as an example in another category other than dispossessive mass killings). Finally I believe the only time I've seen a cause for communist mass killings in general was in the Swedish NGO's report on genocide theory. This should be in the archives, and is probably worth referring to. If you'd like to summarise past debates and start a separate article section, that'd be brilliant; but I'm too tired to revist the debate. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To that, I would add that Valentino, by contrast to the MCUCR article, does not consider mass killings in Afghanistan as Communist mass killings. These mass killings have been analysed in the chapter #6 named "Counterguerilla mass killings: Guatemala and Afghanistan", whereas the Communist mass killings have been analysed in the chapter 4.

In connection to that, let me point out that I agree that the single society studies cannot be used in this article (or at least be used with great cautions). I see only few sources here that are devoted to the analysis of Communist mass killings in general: Rummel, the BB (both of them already have their own articles), Valentino, Semelin, Goldhagen (who seems to reproduce major Rummel's theses) and few others. In connection to that, I suggest to remove all single state studies from the article, and to explain that the article is based on the work of some writers who believe that there was a linkage between Communism and the mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008) Crimes against humanity under communist regimes: Research review

Editors may be interested in reading Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes: Research review Stockholm: Forum for Living History, 2008 available here as PDF, 112 pages. I previously raised this item in Archive 24 of talk, but it went unnoticed. Forum for Living History is a scholarly press / institute. The authors have no sectarian opinion on the matter. In particular I encourage editors to read the Introduction (4–8) and the Summary (103ff). Karlsson and Schoenhals review the literature and provide a set of analytical tools. It is a masterful historiographical review of the field, "its purpose is to identify and analyse the main lines of research as they have appeared and been developed, primarily in the leading academic publications of recent decades." In particular detail:

• They establish the academically current term, "crimes of communist regimes"(5) being the superset of:
  • "Crimes against humanity"(5–6), which may be "intentional"(6) or "function[ally] reason[ed]" by evolution of circumstance (6);
  • "Terror" (6) a term with general currency "that researchers have long used the word terror to describe the crimes of the Soviet communist regime, regardless of the framework of interpretation to which they adhere."(6)
  • "genocide" (6) in particular circumstances (Cambodia), which is "relatively widely accepted and established in describing the systematic and selective crimes of the communist regime in Cambodia, although the use of this term is not entirely uncontroversial."(6)
  • where as "mass killing and massacre are used to refer to the general use of violence"(6)
  • And China has its own section on terminological analysis (not reviewed by me here)
• They also provide a scoping for case study inclusion "but is it possible to say that crimes against humanity are or have been committed in countries like North Korea and Cuba? The question is worth some discussion in the light of the research that is available, but in this context focus will be placed firmly on three communist-led countries where there is no doubt that crimes against humanity have been committed by individuals, parties and states that have defined themselves as communist: the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia." (6–7); (This scope could, of course, be expanded with reference to other scholars proposing a general theory covering what Karlsson and Schoenhals' superset of "crimes of communist regimes" are; their use is fairly explicitly one of mass criminality resulting in death, not of petty human rights abuses)
• They also scope time particularly well:
  • "It is clear that the question of how the communist utopia metamorphosed into a dystopia cannot and should not be ignored, especially since well-argued texts such as François Furets Le passé d’une illusion (1995)" … "However, the focus here, in terms of Russia and the Soviet Union, will be on Lenin and Stalin’s periods in power, characterised as they are by a fateful structure of ideological struggle, revolutionary pathos, hunger for power, total war, modernist zeal, and crimes against humanity." (7)
  • They address a post-modern literature in general (cultural and linguistic turns) that is unsystematised in historical presentations "What, however, are the outer limits of the context of these crimes, in a communist state structure where different institutions and social bodies are linked in an overall framework? Could issues concerning education, language and the situation for women form part of the context? Such aspects may seem far-fetched, but modern research devotes a significant amount of attention to issues relating to the social and cultural conditions of crimes committed in communist societies."(7)
• They identify three research perspectives and methodologies, "cumulative" "evolutionary" and "revolutionary" noting that "The different schools of thought to which researchers belong have largely been determined by their position on [Conquest's] The Great Terror."(8–9)
• They note the potential of ideological justification cause, "adherents to the ideology have used it as a source of ideas that dress historical events as ‘objectively’ regulated by law, which means that ‘victims’ along the way towards the ideal communist society can be viewed as both necessary and legitimate."(5)
• They even provide the four theories of causation: [Legitimate war on class enemies in the building of socialism] and (given their definition) similarly FRINGE conceptions coming from the West, a highly criticised non-school of "historical" writing; "Totalitarian theory"; revisionism; and, postrevisionism. (104–5&ff)

This text, as a scholarly tertiary review of the field of literature: a generalised historiography; makes the current basis of this article (effectively, the Black Book, or provisional scholarly alternatives such as Valentino's non-communist specific theorisation of mass killing) look like a ridiculous basis for scope, coverage, weight, classification, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember the discussion and it could be used as a source for the article. In fact it is the only source ever presented that is directly about the subject of this article. BTW the article qualfies as a secondary source under WP:RS. TFD (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It definitely is also a secondary source as a report of original research by academics; but, as a field review it also qualifies as a scholarly tertiary source: useful for adjudicating weighting issues (WP:MEDRS the criteria for medical science articles, also makes this kind of distinction about the value of field reviews). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS#Definitions for types of sources. There was some discussion at one time about extending MEDRS to economics, and it would improve all social science articles if we could apply it to them as well. TFD (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mea culpa, WP:MEDRS#Definitions says it better and clearer, and more correctly, than I was saying it, struck my "tertiary"s. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly this research review appears to be of broader scope than this current article. Perhaps we could have an overview article Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, with Communist terrorism, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist genocide as sub-articles. --Martin (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not talk about communist genocide and communist terrorism, and in fact terrorism is not considered a crime against humanity. TFD (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I began the article as was suggested above. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)