Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes

1RR restriction

I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have concluded that additional remedies are needed to stop the edit warring. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case and clarified to apply to this article by the Arbitration Committee, I am hereby placing this article under 1RR. Any violation of this restriction will lead to either a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. NW (Talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The time stamp above has deliberately been altered. The original message was placed on 22:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC). NW (Talk) 03:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted "anti-communist"

Nikita Krushchev apparently was an anti-communist, as he is noted for decrying the mass killings by Stalin. Collect (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not remember reading anything he said about "mass killings under Communist regimes". Can you please provide a source. TFD (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Try his anti-Stalin speech for starters. [1]

This term automatically rendered it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven; this term made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. This concept, enemy of the people, actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight or the making of one's views known on this or that issue, even those of a practical character. In the main, and in actuality, the only proof of guilt used, against all norms of current legal science, was the confession of the accused himself, and, as subsequent probing proved, confessions were acquired through physical pressures against the accused.

Stalin, on the other hand, used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the revolution was already victorious, when the Soviet state was strengthened, when the exploiting classes were already liquidated, and Socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of national economy, when our party was politically consolidated and had strengthened itself both numerically and ideologically. It is clear that here Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality, and his abuse of power. Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the party and the Soviet Government. Here we see no wisdom but only a demonstration of the brutal force which had once so alarmed V.I Lenin

Now when the cases of some of these so-called spies and saboteurs were examined it was found that all their cases were fabricated. Confessions of guilt of many- arrested and charged with enemy activity were gained with the help of cruel and inhuman tortures

Very grievous consequences, especially in reference to the beginning of the war, followed Stalin's annihilation of many military commanders and political workers during 1937-41 because of his suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations. During these years repressions were instituted against certain parts of military cadres beginning literally at the company and battalion commander level and extending to the higher military centers; during this time the cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and In the Far East was almost completely liquidated

The question arises: Why is it that we see the truth of this affair only now, and why did we not do something earlier, during Stalin's life, in order to prevent the loss of innocent lives? It was because Stalin personally supervised the Leningrad affair, and the majority of the Political Bureau members did not, at that time, know all of the circumstances in these matters, and could not therefore intervene

Clearly the rantings of an "anti-communist"?

Stalin's willfulness vis-a-vis the Party and its Central Committee be came fully evident after the XVIIth Party Congress which took place in 1934. It was determined that of the 139 members and candidates of the Party's Central Committee who were elected at the XVIIth Congress; 98 persons, i.e., 70 percent, were arrested and shot (mostly in 1937- 1938).[2]

All those who interested themselves even a little in the national situation saw the difficult situation in agriculture, but Stalin never even noted it. Did we tell Stalin about this? Yes, we told him, but he did not support us. Why? Because Stalin never traveled anywhere, did not meet city and kolkhoz workers; he did not know the actual situation in he provinces. He knew the country and agriculture only from films. And these films had dressed up and beautified the existing situation in agriculture.

Gosh -- an "anti-communist" pointing out that Stalin knew of what was happening on the farms?

In short - Nikita is an "anti-communist" because we are assured that only "anti-communists" point out the mass killings under Stalin. Neat. Collect (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To avoid any cavil "physical annihilation" is quite likely to include "killing." Collect (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Krushchev was an anti-communist sounds weird taking into account that his major slogan was "The next generation of Soviet people will live under Communism". He was anti-Stalinist, and he treated Stalinism as a revision of Marxism and as a deviation from the Communist doctrine. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Irony alert if you did not read earlier posts: The claim was made that it was "anti-communist" propaganda that Stalin killed people. I asked, rhetorically, whether this meant Nikita was an "anti-communist." TFD asked for some evidence that Nikita decried Stalin's ruthlessness - Stalin's specific indifference to the deaths of farmers, and his "annihilation" of his imagined "enemies." To which I furnished ample evidence, I rather think. Inless, of course, you think Stalin did not run a "communist regime" which would be a rather interesting claim, overall. Collect (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, could you please stop misrepresenting what other editors state. No one has claimed that Stalin did not kill people and it is extremely offensive for you to suggest they did especially considering that there are laws in many countries against this type of historical revisionism and your comments could be interpreted as accusing other editors of committing a criminal offense. TFD (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you in any way, shape, manner or form implying that my post is against the law in any country? Which one? Nor have I accused anyone at all of "committing a criminal offense" and would ask that you redact such a claim or charge. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I`d remove that if i were you, it sounds like a legal threat. BTW it is only holocaust denial which is illegal, and i believe it is just germany which has that law mark (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you are right. The article in its present version states:

"According to the laws in Czech Republic the person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify nazi or communist genocide or other crimes of nazis or communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years."

In other words, TFD was partially right pointing out that that there are laws in some countries against this type of historical revisionism.

@ Collect. I doubt someove can claim that Stalin did not kill people. Moreover, to claim that Stalinist regime committed mass killings is neither anti-Communist nor any other type propaganda, simply because this is true. However, to equate Stalinism (a very specific version of Communism, which had been later characterized as a deviation from Marxist doctrine by Communists themselves) with Marxist Communism, or to claim that mass killings were immanent to Communist societies, or to Communist ideology, were inevitable, and that the call to mass killings can be found in the basic works of Marx or Lenin is propaganda, and this propaganda is anti-Communist.

Many, if not majority of facts presented in this article are correct and are not propaganda. However, redundant stress on theoretical generalisations made by the works or opinions of some scholars, or even extracted from the works having a broader scope, turns this article into a piece of propaganda. I already proposed a way to fix that, however, the editors who belong to a party which I would conditionally call "anti-Communist" (just for simplicity) fully ignored my proposal. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Kindly recall, moreover, that I never asserted that Marxism etc. inevitably resulted in killings - nor that I ever said such should be a fundamental basis of the article - only that the article title only requires that it deal with killings under communist regimes. Collect (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, could you please comment on the following statement:

"The article's POV issues could be significantly rectified by moving the section containing general considerations about genocide, democide etc., to the end of the artcile under the title "Views of some scholars etc... ""

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This link may be relevant to the question whether R.J. Rummel and Robert Conquest etc. should be described as anti-communists: Other Anti-Communist Sites It is a page maintained by Prof. Bryan Caplan of the Dep't of Economics at the George Mason University. Is seems to be related to something called Museum of Communism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on lede section

In the recent edit war on the lede section it has become clear that a number of editors on one side of the dispute object to having any mention in the lede of the theory or idea that mass killings and Communist ideology are causally related. Yet these are the same editors who are arguing that such a relationship exists. If we cannot say this in the article, then what is the point of having the article under this name? The article should be renamed to List of mass killings... and any speculation about causality removed.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I demur that an "edit war" existed. I would further say that any claims in the lede which are not properly cited per WP:BLP and WP:RS are problematic at best. I would also aver that no causal relationship must be proven in order for the article, representing, as it does, rather incontrovertible fact, to properly reside in mainspace. Nor have an extraordinary number of AfDs made such a claim. Collect (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

object to having any mention in the lede of the theory or idea that mass killings and Communist ideology are causally related I don`t object to it being said they are related, i do object to it being described as a right wing conspiracy job though, I have actually asked TFD and Snowded this but they decline to give an answer for some reason, so perhaps you will are the following people right wing purveyors of anti communist propoganda? Midlarsky, Manus I. (20 October 2005). The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 315. ISBN 978-0521815451. ^ Kersch, Kenneth Ira (1 March 2003). Freedom of speech: rights and liberties under the law. ABC-CLIO. p. 194. ISBN 978-1576076002. ^ Staub, Ervin (31 July, 1992). The roots of evil: the origins of genocide and other group violence (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (). p. 86. ISBN 978-0521422147. ^ Weitz, Eric D. (3 March, 2003). A century of genocide: utopias of race and nation. Princeton University Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-0691009131. ^ Kiernan, Ben (14 September 2007). Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0300100983. ^ Cahill, Kevin M. (31 August 2003). Traditions, values, and humanitarian action. Fordham University Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0823222889. All are from academic publishers and all connect ideology to mass killing mark (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is in a constant edit war state which suspends from time to time only to start again later. The major reason for that, in my opinion is that, whereas (mostly anti-Communist) sources do exist that derive mass killings from the Communist ideology, majority of other sources do not state the opposite explicitly, although numerous reliable sources exist that explain these events in each particular country taken separately, and not in connection with Marxist ideology. A typical quote is below:

"There was no blueprint for the creation of socialism. Marxist ideology provided party leaders with a virulent anticapitalist orientation, but it was their day-to-day, often ad hoc decisions that created the concrete features of Soviet socialism" (David L. Hoffmann Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Winter, 1997), pp. 786-787)

However, it would be incorrect to combine this type quotes, which relate to some Communist country taken separately, with the works of, e.g. Rummel who draws general conclusions, although these two type works are in a direct contradiction. In connection to that, I again propose to move all general theorising to the end of the article as opinions of some scholars. That would be a big step towards ultimate cessation of this edit war and removal of the tag.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please move the "general theorizing" to the end of the article, but keep the facts in front. Please don't argue that since there are different theories about this, that there cannot then be an article about the facts of the case. That some folks have one point of view and others another - are facts that can be documented, but let's concentrate on the basic facts first. Smallbones (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile

Does anybody else feel that there should be a page entitled Mass killings under Islamofascist regimes? As this article is currently on the lockdown for a month, intermittently working with various people on that subject might even get you all doing some more productive edits. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is rather off-topic, isn't it? Personally, I'd suggest that the very title looked like an incitement to POV pushing, given the controversy of the very term Islamofascism, and would add little clarity to a complex issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alas, nothing is completely uncontroversial. If the radical chic editors try to push their agenda at the hypothetical Mass killings under Islamofascist regimes page the way they do on this one, we'll simply have to lock that article for a month as well. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, that answers that then. Propose a hypothetical article, then cast aspersions at the hypothetical editors hypothetical actions in advance, and impose hypothetical sanctions. We could perhaps save a lot of effort if we merely collectively imagine this hypothetical article already actually exists, but all have been banned from editing it. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kategorien

Surely the most appropriate categories for this are Homocide and Communist States? Also, I don't see why it's part of decommunisation. Munci (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Conquest vs. Soviet archives

This is an interesting comparison between Robert Conquest and the post-Soviet Russian studies based on Soviet archives – as presented from a "apologist Stalinist" point-of-view.

• Mario Sousa (April, 1998). "Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union". Proletären. Swedish Communist Party. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Alternate link

Well, it seems that this is nothing new, Mario Sousa is already mentioned in the article Denial of the Holodomor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed astonishing what one can find on these foreign communist websites. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've removed the NPOV tag in accordance with the discussion above - nobody wants to add any other POVs to the article. This was reverted saying "Please tetain tag until POV issues are resolved."

OK - let's be extremely clear here. State the POV that is MISSING from the article, and if there is any documentation for it, we'll add it. Smallbones (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Missing POV -
2. Missing POV -
3. Missing POV -

Currently the article does not present any mainstream views. We need a lead that represents mainstream thinking on the topic and I propose the following:

"The debate over the comparison of Communism and Nazism re-emerged in France in the 1990s, popularized by Francois Furet's The passing of an illusion (1995) and the Black Book of Communism (1997). The comparison became popular with the far right, who now claimed that Communism killed more than Nazism. The "genocide of a class" was seen as the moral equivalent of the "genocide of a race".[Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared (2004) Henry Rousso, Richard Joseph Golsan, pp. xi-xv] This new thinking, which is especially popular in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, where Communism is associated with Jewry, has been to diminish the significance of the Holocaust, with the Holodomor presented as a crime of equal magnitude. This reasoning has been described as a new form of anti-semitism.["Anti-Semitism in Europe, 1914 - 2004" (2006) Jan Herman Brinks, pp. 17-18)]"

TFD (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with these sources is that they do NOT give any evidence on Mass killings under Communist regimes. Rather they are attacks on the POV that Communism has committed similar atrocities to Naziism. Hopefully we will concentrate here on exactly what mass killings were committed under Communism, and there is little need for comparisons. To the extent that you want to include this material, I think it has to be secondary, included after the main discussion about the facts of the mass killings under Communist Regimes. That is, it is about the interpretation of the facts, and how some authors considered that some other authors misinterpret the facts. Clearly secondary or even tertiary. Could you spell out in plain English an example of what you want to include?

Then maybe include a couple of paragraphs in the section Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Comparison_to_other_mass_killings, as long as it is not just saying "everybody who thinks that Communist Regimes killed tens of millions of people are Anti-Semites." That would simply be rediculous and has nothing to do with any mainstream views. Smallbones (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand the lead I wrote. Please read the source documents and recommend how it could be written morely clearly. TFD (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No way could what you wrote above be the lede - most importantly because it doesn't address mass killings under Communist regimes. As far as a tight rewrite and the sources - I can't find that Brinks has been published - could you give a reference for the published work - "Scribner's Encyclopedia" is actually pretty vague. Summarizing Rousso and Golsan in the "Comparison" section might be something like:

Rousso and Golsan view the comparison of Nazi and Communist crimes as a tactic of the far right and particularly object to "genocide of a class" being seen as the moral equivalent of the "genocide of a race".

I'll put that in the Comparison section and remove the POV tag unless you want to summarize it in a different way. Smallbones (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a rigid view of the topic that prevents you from seeing that it is not mainstream. You assume that there is a connection between Communism/communism (the article does not even explain which one it is) and mass killings which needs no explanation. That may be fine for some types of writing but inevitably leads to a POV article, which is why it has been tagged. TFD (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See 2nd and 3rd sentences of the article. If you can't see the connection, please don't accuse me of being biased. "The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[nb 1] " Smallbones (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not I "can see the connection", the point is that the reader must be able to see the connection which must be done by explaining what the connection is, who has made it, and how accepted their views are. Otherwise it is POV. TFD (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

But them being communist isn't necessarily relevant to them having caused mass killings. There are commonalities between the three governments other than communism: they're all single-party states. Someone could equally say that single-party states have a connection to mass killings. Also, all of Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge took their ideas partly from Lenin so one could also say that only communism with influences from Lenin have a connection to mass killings. Or maybe they just don't think the three massacres had much to do with each other. Munci (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that the claims MUST derive specifically from the cites, and not represent "combinations of cites". The amonth of SYNTH and OR in the proposal is excessive. Collect (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no SYN, and could you please explain how you WP:KNOW that policy about more than one source for the lead. The first sentence: "The killing of a large numbers of non-combatants has occurred in certain states, including some that have declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine". This needs to be removed because it implies a causal connection between communism and mass killings, which is not found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any claim of causality in that sentence. I suppose I need stronger glasses. Collect (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between an implication and an overt claim? TFD (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I find the sentence to be NEITHER an "implication" NOR "an overt claim." Do "NEITHER" and "NOT" elude clarity? Collect (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and also that you are wrong. It is an implication. For example if one were to write "mass killings under democratic regimes, "The killing of a large numbers of non-combatants has occurred in certain states, including some that have declared adherence to some form of democracy", it would imply a connection. We could then put American and Soviet mass killings in the same article. TFD (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces, The CCCP communists, the NAZIs (also communists), etc. were all democracies. There is no mandatory connection between the political system and the economic system (although theoreticians claim a "de facto" requirement for a police state to have a communism).Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an entry for an 'How many things can you get wrong in two sentences' competition? Complete bollocks, and best ignored. If Aaaronsmith wants to dispute this, can he do it somewhere else (eg his talk page - he can PM me if he likes)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea that the Nazi were Communists is funny. That suggests that in your mind "Communists" and "Bad Guys" are synonyms. Please, educate yourself.

I doubt it is possible to collect more wrong statements in such a short post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait... so communists aren't bad guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSoundAndTheFury (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 November 2010

They may well be, but this is a neutral encyclopedia, not a U. S. high school textbook. TFD (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please -- we all know very well that genocidal slaughter in order to steal people's treasured property and various personal possessions is what communism is about. "Communism's goal is a society without rulers. A society where the people govern themselves. But until this is accomplished a superior government has absolute power. The people do not have any private possessions. Everything belongs to the government. One of communism's worst effects was in 1933. Adolff Hitler was a communist dictator. Under his instructions, the holocaust began. Over six million Jewish people died. Not counting the people fighting in the war.The holcaust lasted until 1945..." ([3]) Please educate yourselves before making further claims on these talk pages. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a high school essay. TFD (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Zloyvolsheb. All of that would be quite correct, had the definition of Communism proposed by you been commonly accepted. However, in actuality, Communism is something else. In particular, the idea of internationalism ts one of the most essential part of its concept. This fact is quite sufficient to claim that Hitler could not be a Communist even in theory, and Nazims and Communism are two quite different things. Therefore... "physician, heal thyself"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Paul,

There is a raging discussion going on now on the "NAZI" discussion page over exactly that point.

As for the other two points: You got me on Stalin, although it gets murky as Lenin believed in a form of democracy. But I hold to a half correct on Hitler. He ran for president - lost, was appointed chancellor by an elected president, and took over power in what was a constitutional democracy by intimidating and unarmed populace to look the other way while he ignored the constitution and his thugs murdered. At one time he was officially president AND chancellor.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(I believe you don't mind me to format your post).

Re Hitler, although it is a deviation from the talk page's subject, let me point out that he was not a dictator according to a Roman definition of this word. The power of old Roman dictators was enormous, but it was limited by time and in some other aspects. The most adequate term to describe Hitler is tyrant, a leader, who was democratically elected by ordinary people to fight against aristocracy, and who had absolute power in his police. You probably know that Plato considered tyranny and democracy (as opposed to monarchy and aristocracy) as a manifestation of the power of demos. In that sense, yes, Hitler was a democratic leader (as well as all other tyrants).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If Hitler had been a democratically elected leader, 'tyrant' might apply. He wasn't. He was appointed, as Aaaronsmith states, though whether those that appointed him had the legal power to do so is questionable at least. In any case, mere labels tell us little, particularly when trying to compare ancient Rome with 20th-century Germany. And for the record, if he was a 'communist' then I'm a cheese and pickle sandwich. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By contrast to dictators, tyrants were not elected or appointed according to some formal procedure. Early tyrants used to come to power as a result of informal support of the demos. That is exactly what happened in Germany: although legality of Hitler's power was questionable, he was supported by a large fraction of the German society.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with "democratically elected by ordinary people to fight against aristocracy". He did not fight the aristocracy to any great extent. He did fight the communists a lot though. In fact, that was often part of the reason those that voted for him did so, especially the upper classes (they were generally more likely to vote for him more than the lower classes. see 'Who voted for Hitler?' by Princeton) Munci (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, many tyrants didn't fight the aristocracy. However, people frequently believed they did, and that was the way tyrants used to come to power. That is exactly what happened in the Hitler's case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

for Hitler doing this. I have read about this in any of the articles or books I have been reading. There was no aristocracy in power in Germany at the time. And the NSDAP was allied with and supported by the monarchist DNVP for some time. Who else would you think of doing this anyway? Munci (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Documentation of massive killings (2.5 million) by CCP cadres during GLF warrants its removal from “Controversies” section

The evidence provided in Frank Dikötter's new book Mao's Great Famine, hailed by other China scholars such as Andrew J. Nathan as "the most detailed account yet," demonstrates that not only do many of the famine deaths constitute mass killing (Dikötter: “In most cases the party knew very well that it was starving its own people to death”), but the mass violence practiced by party cadres and militia resulted in an estimated 2.5 million people being tortured or beaten to death. The latter ALONE constitutes mass killing according to Valentino's criteria (50,000 or more mass killings of non-combatants over a 5 year period). While Dikötter isn't the first to discuss mass violence during the GLF (Valentino himself, citing Jasper Becker, notes that "communist officials sometimes tortured and killed those accused of failing to meet their grain quotas" p.128), he is the first to DOCUMENT it using Chinese archival sources. In light of this, I am removing the Great Leap Forward from the “Controversies” section again.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We should always be careful of new books making new claims because we do not yet know what acceptance if any they will receive. This book in particular presents problems because, although it is by a scholar on Chinese studies, it was published outside the academic mainstream ant the author has received funding from the Kuomintang-backed "Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation". It may be that it will gain acceptance, but we have no way of evaluating this. TFD (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly mainstream and there is NOT any policy, guideline, etc. to "go slow" on new academic work. Take it to WP:RSN if you don't accept this source. Smallbones (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Directly to the point is [4] When I do research on articles I use recent books by experts which seems at odds with the position that new books are not to be used. Note also the discussion at RSN which seems to agree that this book is absolutely RS. Collect (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent books are helpful because they explain how subjects are viewed in previous literature. That does not mean that we abandon accepted views every time a new book is published. That should be clear to you and I do not understand why are talking about this. If you have difficulty in understanding how to use sources, please post a note on my talk page, and I reply to you. When I used the term "recent" I meant more recent than the 1958 Cold War text that had been presented. Do you believe that articles should be based on 1950s Cold War texts? TFD (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

IOW you back "recent" work which coincides with what you "know" and oppose "recent" work which does not so coincide. Thanks for making this crystal clear. Collect (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid attempts at sarcasm. You need to understand the difference between facts and opinions. Notice that I argued for the use of a 2010 book by a member of the Shah's administration in an article about the 1953 coup:

The source is fine - it is published by Palgrave MacMillan. While the author is not neutral (no author is), we can expect based on the publisher that the facts would be accurate and complete and that it would provide a good summary of the various interpretations of the events as well as explaining the degree to which scholars have accepted different views.... The fact that the book is "revisionist" means that we must be careful in including the conclusions reached. We must not represent them as the agreed interpretation, and must present them using proper WP:WEIGHT. The nature of the publication however means that it is a reliable source for facts and for a description of how historians interpret the events. If there are errors and omissions in the book then they can be addressed on a case by case basis. However, most high quality sources are written from a unique view. Scholars usually write books to present new opinions.... There seems to be confusion about the nature of peer-review. During the process, independent scholars are asked to review a manuscript to determine whether the facts are accurate and complete. Book reviews by "peers", even in learned journals, are not "peer review". It must also correctly acknowledge how scholars interpret the events, even if the author is arguing against them. We can expect the facts will be the same regardless of the viewpoint of the writer.[5]

The difference here is that the book was published outside the academic mainstream and we are giving weight to the opinions without any evidence that scholarship has given them any weight.

Notice also my opposition in the Tea Party article to include criticism of the Tea Party from non-academic sources and also arguing to exclude sources that connect the U.S. to terrorism, war crimes and human rights abuses, when the claims come from non-notable sources, or to describe the John Birch Society as "far right", to use the term terrorism without inline attribution, etc., when scholars do so, etc. We need to enforce standards and you should stop assuming that people oppose you for ideological reasons rather than a simple desire for neutrality.

TFD (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see too much mentioned in his text that can't be found in other scholarly materials on Mao. As far as a higher death toll than 15-30 million, Yang Jisheng confirms this in his groundbreaking study "Tombstone," which has been lauded by Western scholars (although not by Dikotter).[6] Other researchers have come to death tolls as high as Dikotter's, such as Chen Yizi, a CCP member who was an architect of the economic reforms of the 80's, who estimated that some 43 million people perished in the GLF.[7] Regarding violence practiced by cadres during the GLF, Jasper Becker (1998, p. 93), Dali Yang (1996, p. 36) and Benjamin Valentino (2004, p. 128) all note this in their respective texts. As far as Mao and the CCP's complicity in the mass destruction that followed, Jung Chang discusses this in her controversial yet well sourced biography on him, which also prompted R.J. Rummel to reconsider the mass deaths during this period as democide and revise his own estimates accordingly.[8] Ralph Thaxton's research shows that there was significant resistance to Mao's destructive policies by villagers.[9] Dikotter's work is unique because he is the first to be granted access to large swaths of archival materials, which basically confirms much of what the aforementioned scholars have written about. That along with praise from several China specialists (such as Jonathan Mirsky, Andrew J. Nathan, Jonathan Fenby, Orville Schell, and Jasper Becker) seems far more significant, to me at least, than where he gets his funding (which isn't mentioned in one single review I've read - although, interestingly enough, I have seen this point brought up on blogs and forums where blatant Mao sympathizers are trying desperately to discredit his book) and that his book was published outside the academic mainstream. I've seen his book in at least 3 different local bookstores in my area, so I'm thinking he might have made a wise choice in choosing a publisher. I imagine his book will be read by a great many people, as it should be.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the book was published outside the academic mainstream, you are suggesting that we conduct our own academic scrutiny of the book to determine whether it is reliable. If a similar book coming to different conclusions is published I doubt that you would find it acceptable. Scholars do of course publish books in the popular press. But if they want their research to enter the academic mainstream then they also publish in the academic press. At present, I can find zero citations of the book in Google scholar.[10] It may be that he will publish his findings in the academic press and they will be considered the final truth. But I do not have a crystal ball. TFD (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea that this "book was published outside the academic mainstream" is your own invention and, basically nonsense: "(Dikotter) is Chair Professor of Humanities at the University of Hong Kong and Professor of the Modern History of China on leave from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.". That sounds like "academic mainstream" to me. Also, see [11]. You can't just label sources you don't like "outside the academic mainstream", especially when they clearly are well within it. Perhaps what needs adjusting is your definition of what "academic mainstream" is. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It was published by Bloomsbury Publishing which is not an academic publishing company. As someone with a PhD in economics you are well aware of the difference. TFD (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So? The author is an academic who specializes in China. There's no requirement, implicit or otherwise, that only titles with the words "University Press" are acceptable. At the very least you might wanna drop the terminology of "outside of academic mainstream" as it insinuates things which are not true. Your (false) analogies with books by John Birchers and Shah administrators also insinuate the same thing. The book is mainstream. And it's academic enough. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All these sources satisfy WP:RS. They are not self-published, but published by experts and authors of numerous books, such as R. J. Rummel. No, you can not claim any sources of your choosing to be "outside the academic mainstream", based on your personal opinion. Doing so is against RS and NPOV policies.Biophys (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that as a biophysicist you would object to new books published outside the academic mainstream that contained original research and challenged existing views being used as sources for articles about biology, even if they were written by experts. Your comment about my "personal opinion" is insulting. I do not use mainstream sources because they reflect my personal opinion but use them because they reflect mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. I am not sure what is your field of study if any. Just a few very basics. A typical scientific publication describes someone's original research. Everyone reads and publish it. Publications by good experts that challenge existing views are the most valuable scientific contributions, and I enjoy reading them as everyone else. However, telling that studies by established researchers belong to bad science (and that is what you apparently mean) is indeed insulting and goes against WP:BLP policy.Biophys (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it belonged to "bad science", just that it is published outside the academic mainstream. If a scientist wants an article to enter academic discourse they publish it in an academic journal, not in Popular Mechanics or as an editorial in a local newspaper. Incidentally, when new scientific papers challenge existing understanding we do not assume that the science has changed, but wait to see whether the new thinking has gained acceptance. If a new paper for example claims that the estimate the universe began 15 billion years ago is wrong, we do not immediately change articles to reflect that scientist's findings. TFD (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually if that new paper is a RS, then yes we do. We also don't make this distinction you've created regarding papers and books, at least not in terms of RS. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me provide an example. Aspartame is the most widely tested food additive, and the scientific consensus is that there is no evidence it is harmful. However occassional studies have claimed that it is harmful, although all these claims have later been disproved by subsequent research. Using your reasoning, we would change the aspartame article to say that it is unsafe every time one of these studies emerges, rather than wait to see whether the scientific consensus has changed. TFD (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is not Aspartame, but the Frank Dikötter's book Mao's Great Famine that received positive review and satisfy WP:RS. You are trying to disqualify the source by merely claiming it to be "outside academic mainstream", which is your personal opinion. You do the same with regard to other academic sources. Doing so in inconsistent with RS, NPOV and BLP. This is all I wanted to tell.Biophys (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Both of us understand the difference between an academic publisher and a publisher of popular books, and the difference between peer-review and a book review. We also know that new research may or may not be accepted by the academic community. TFD (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you please stop referring to people's real life occupations? They are mostly irrelevant here and though it's not Outing per se, it is unconstructive and can make the discussion uncomfortable. BTW, what is your profession and education? Might as well as tell us your first and last name while you're at it. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It says on your user page that you have a Ph.D. in economics and I assume that Biophys is short for "biophysics". I have said nothing beyond that. I do not believe it is advisable to provide personal information on Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the Dikotter issue: he is an impeccable scholar and easily a reliable source. So what if his book was published by Bloomsbury? It means more people will read it and he gets more royalties. Great. Oh, and it won't be full of PoMo jargon. It has nothing to do with reliability. Who could impugn the rigorousness of this man's scholarship with a straight face? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

In the last U.S. election did you vote for Obama because he told you to and he is an academic and therefore a reliable source or were you able to distinguish between his scholarly writings and his pronouncements in the popular media? TFD (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag

I have removed the NPOV tag since there was no ongoing discussion. A50000 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

First question. Did you familiarize yourself with the talk archives since the article's creation in 2009? (Igny (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

Why does that matter? Template:POV states:

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor. A50000 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing it right now. (Igny (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

No, we are not. A50000 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your reply here indicates otherwise. (Igny (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

We are discussing whether we are discussing it. A50000 (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. --FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that an admission that you are participating in an edit war without discussing your controversial edits to an article on a controversial topic on the talk page? Don't you think that it violates a WP policy or two? (Igny (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

How is it possible to remove an NPOV tag? A50000 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show that all POV issues raised since 2009 have been fixed? BTW, that us why I asked you whether you familiarized yourself with the talk page archives.(Igny (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC))

I don´t have to show that. If there is no ongoing discussion the NPOV tag may be removed at any time. A50000 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone attempts to remove the NPOV tag, I'll put it back in until the issue of how an article can legitimately discuss "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel" but not "discuss academic acceptance of such theories" is dealt with. This is an overt admission of a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Fair enough. --FormerIP (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's be done with all this arguing. Could editors please present examples of non-NPOV sentences for discussion? Obviously not all of us see them. I have responded to the two sentences raised in the section below. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First sentence: "The killing of a large numbers of non-combatants has occurred in certain states, including some that have declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine". TFD (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(See the section below) AmateurEditor (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparent POV-pushing in article

"The killing of a large numbers of non-combatants has occurred in certain states, including some that have declared adherence to some form of Communist doctrine".

Can anyone explain why mass killings in states that have declared 'adherence to some form of Communist doctrine' should be the subject of an article, rather than 'Mass killings' in general, or 'Mass killings under Stalinist and Maoist regimes'? Why is 'communist' the necessary criteria for analysis? With 'some' appearing in the sentence twice, it appears that this is almost certainly a synthetic intersection, arrived at to push a particular POV.

I note also that "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute; this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories". How can not discussing academic acceptance be anything but an admission that a POV is indeed being pushed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Communist", rather than "Stalinist and Maoist", is used in the article because that is the term used in the sources. "Some" is used in your first quoted sentence to address a criticism of the article that there was an implication that all communist regimes engaged in mass killing, which is not supported by sources. Your second quoted sentence was also included to address a criticism of the article: that the level of academic acceptance was in dispute by various Wikipedia editors. Since no source could be found which specifically discussed the "level of acceptance" of communism-as-cause, the issue was side-stepped. Both of those sentences are examples of attempts to avoid POV. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide evidence that "Communist" is the term used in the sources. TFD (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've highlighted the term in bold in the copied passages from four academic sources here.AmateurEditor (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes is the subject of the article because many people have noticed that Communist regimes have killed large numbers of people and made the connection between mass killing and Communist regimes, e.g. in the Black Book of Communism, Victims of Communism Memorial, Valentino, Benjamin A (2005). "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century in Cornell University Press, "From the Gulag to the Killing Fields: Personal Accounts of Political Violence and Repression in Communist States" Appelbaum; Fein, Helen (1993). "Soviet and Communist genocides and 'Democide'", "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes – Research review", etc., etc., etc. (Just look at the article and its sources). Given that many scholars and others have made this connection - this is a fair subject for Wikipedia. This has been upheld about 6 times in AfDs. Its time that folks who don't like this article in general for whatever reason accept that it is a proper subject for a Wikipedia article and try to avoid obstructing it - does that answer AndytheGrumps's question? Smallbones (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be able to explain (with reliable sources) what connection they have drawn and whether their viewpoint is consensus, majority, minority or fringe. Once you have done that we can re-write the lead and will have a neutral article. TFD (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One thing that has always been missing from this discussion is a source (other than Wikipedia editors) who say that there is no connection between Communism and the mass killings under Communist regimes. Apparently some Wikipedia editors think that it is just a coincidence that there were mass killings and that there were Communist regimes at the same time. But these same editors don't provide any sources that say this. Certainly if there were scholars who think this, they would present evidence on it! So include these, if they exist. Otherwise, you are being obstructionist. Smallbones (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Show us the WP policy requiring that we have such. Collect (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The policy requiring that we have a neutral article ??? Am I misunderstanding something here? --FormerIP (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding that editors have to imagine that there is some kind of opposing view and then explain it. See WP:Weight. If there is a view that opposes the connection between Communist regimes and the mass killings committed under them, please include it. But arguing that all POVs are not included without trying to include them is simply obstructionist.

WHAT SOURCE IS GIVING OPPOSING VIEWS? Please provide them. Smallbones (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Smallbones, I did not say there is no connection between communism and mass killings. It is not our role to decide that. I have asked that the article explain who makes the connection, what they say and what acceptance their beliefs have. This article should meet the same standards as any other article about history or social sciences. TFD (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See my response to AndytheGrump above about who says there is a connection. Or just look at the references. The article gives a lot on what they say. As far as their acceptance - scholars from Princeton and Harvard, etc., published by Harvard University Press, etc. That is a very basic case for acceptance - if you have a case that these views are not accepted or that there are other views that are also accepted - you have to provide reliable sources that make that point. I can not read your mind about who you think is accepted. PROVIDE THE SOURCES! Smallbones (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You might explain what the connection is. TFD (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See, e.g. "Anne Applebaum asserts that, "without exception, the Leninist belief in the one-party state was and is characteristic of every communist regime," and "the Bolshevik use of violence was repeated in every Communist revolution." Phrases said by Lenin and Cheka founder Felix Dzerzhinsky were deployed all over the world. She notes that as late as 1976, Mengistu Haile Mariam unleashed a "Red Terror" in Ethiopia.[150]" That seems pretty clear to me, and there are lots of other explanations in the text.

BUT YOU ARE AVOIDING THE QUESTION, AGAIN - please identify what you think is missing and give a source for it - we'll put it in if the source is reliable. Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out what is missing. As directed by WP:FRINGE#Notability_versus_acceptance, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance..."

Yes, we have a smattering of people drawing a connection, but the academic acceptance of these ideas receives no treatment in the article, though WP:NPOV policy suggests that it should. BigK HeX (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Furnish cites which contradict the RS sources then. WP does not say "as long as one editor asserts that he konws something is a 'fringe' opinion, then it must be removed." Add as many cites as you wish with differing opinions first. Collect (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

BigK has highlighted the part he wants you to read, Collect. The question is whether or not the article uses any sourcing to show what level of recognition there is for the concept discussed within the academic community, not whether there are any sources that contradict any particular claim. --FormerIP (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This article's topic appears to be universally recognized within the academic community, according to UCLA Sociologist Michael Mann, who said (bold added for emphasis), "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not." Please note that he treats "the Communist regimes" as a unit. If you want to read the context of that sentence, see here. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

All accounts, really? Like in each and every one of them? Are you sure such an extreme claim is recognized anywhere? (Igny (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

You may be confusing two different issues here. The Mann quote speaks to the acceptance of the article topic itself (a tangent we seem to have gone on), not to the acceptance of the communism-as-cause idea, the dispute of which resulted in the sentence about the level of academic acceptance not being discussed in the Wikipedia article. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The academic sources, e.g. Harvard University Press, are given in detail. That indicates a general level of acceptance by the academic community. The only thing that is missing is any source that contradicts the idea that there is a connection between the mass killings under the Communist regimes and the Communist regimes. NOBODY THINKS THAT THIS WAS PURE COINCIDENCE - not even the Four Deuces (aka TFD). Forgive me if I'm losing my patience but the idea that there isn't a connection is a fringe theory without any reliable sources. TAKE IT TO WP:FTN AND THEY WILL LAUGH YOU OFF THE PAGE. Now quit being obstructionist. Smallbones (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the publication of a theory does not indicate its level of acceptance, that can only be determined by reading subsequent writing. Nonetheless could you please explain the connection that these sources make. Imagine that you had never heard of Communism and came to this article for the first time, and asked someone to explain the connection and your reply was "NOBODY THINKS THAT THIS WAS PURE COINCIDENCE...TAKE IT TO WP:FTN AND THEY WILL LAUGH YOU OFF THE PAGE". Incidentally the book republished by Harvard has different writers who may have different views so you need to be more specific. TFD (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence

I've removed the following sentence from the lede Mass killings under Communist regimes occurred during the twentieth century with an estimated number of victims as large as 100 million. Even the Black Book of Communism does not imply that all people they count as "victims of Communism" were killed, not to say killed in course of "mass killings". This has been discussed many times, see the archive.--Dojarca (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to be careful on this - having been just placed on some sort of probation on this - please do not make this a battle ground. Yes the Black Book of Communism does count the dead as the victims, and not just any dead - the people whose unnatural deaths were caused by the Communist regimes. You seem to want to split some hairs here as to whether that is killing. In the normal everyday use of the word it is killing, and 100 million is mass killing. I'll revert the sentence back in. Smallbones (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:I'll revert the sentence back in. Don't. Apply your own judgment (please do not make this a battle ground) to yourself. (Igny (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Ugh this is almost the exact same argument about the opening phrasing which has resulted in numerous editwars already, is the article going to need protection again? Everyone please stop reverting and start discussing it here; otherwise the article will simply be protected yet again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The claim, which has been widely discredited, including by Nicolas Werth who contributed to the Black Book, only appears in the introduction. It's main significance lies in its use in right-wing literature. But yes it does refer to deaths. TFD (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I already pointed it out in this talk page, that the Black Book of Communism includes as "victims of Communism" many people who were not killed by Communists. Examples include:

• Demographic losses compared to the pre-Communist trends of population growth of the Russian Empire. This may include even non-born children
• People who dead as a result of incompetent or ineffective government policy (famines, excess casualties during World War II etc).
• People who were killed during military conflicts with other powers (i.e. casualties of Vietnam war, Afghanistan war).

These categories clearly do not fall under "mass killings" and the Black Book of Communism does not claim so.--Dojarca (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes occurred during the twentieth century with an estimated number of victims as large as 100 million. (See page x, page 10, and page 14 of the Black Book of Communism) The sentence is perfectly factual - the estimates on those pages go up to 100 million. I think people should be free to add what the minimum estimates are, but why should anybody delete what the high estimate (identified as such) is? The essence of NPOV is deleting POVs you don't like. Dojarca's deletion is NPOV. Smallbones (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is estimate of "victims of Communism", not of killings. They even add to the number of "victims of Communism" those Russian POWs who was starved or killed in Nazi POW camps, blaming that on Stalin's refusal to sign the Hague convention. Although they blame these deaths on Communism, they are certainly happened not "under Communist regimes" (unless you consider Nazi Germany Communist).--Dojarca (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Read please - Black Book of Communism "The total approaches 100 million killed." Smallbones (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh in that case it is probably used allegorically. Note also that they count any person who died in the prison from whatever reason, even natural. --Dojarca (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Allegorically"??? No way, no how. Read it. Smallbones (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Such an extravagant "estimate" does not belong to a a lede of an article per WP:UNDUE (to the first sentence even more so). Case to the point, take a look at this table, where any impartial editor would observe a significant drop in the death toll estimates after 1990, that is after Soviet archives have been opened. (Igny (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

Feel free to put your estimate in the 1st sentence as well - as long as it has a reliable source behind it. If you can find something with a publisher as prestigious as Harvard University Press it would be best, but any reliable source is ok with me. Smallbones (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, NPOV does not work this way. You can not put extravagant claims into the lede of the article only to rebuke it. That alone gives that claim too much credit. (Igny (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC))

This is reference work. Just look at good WP:RS and use the information. "Black book" (page 5, quote): "the total approaches 100 million people killed". Same book, page 15. It tells: 100 million, " in contrast to 25 million victims by Nazi". The book explains how did they arrive to such numbers and so on. If there are alternative estimates of the total numbers of victims then find these sources to provide a range of numbers. This is very simple. It does not matter if we talk about the numbers of people or the number of proteins in a human cell. Biophys (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I already said, they count people who died of natural causes or killed by foreign powers (i.e. US in Vietnam) as killed by Communists. That's why it it evidently allegorical meaning of the word. Anyway, the number certainly includes people who did not die as a result of "mass murder", it includes war casualties, those died in prison of unknown cause, those who died as a result of government's mistakes and poor performance and so on. That is it includes mostly people who died not in a course of mass murder. Finally, it includes victims of illegal Communist parties in non-Communist states, that's why those who died not under Communist regimes.

Anyway, academic level of this book is indicated by the fact that they use Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago" as a source, while it is not a scholarly work, but a fictitious novel. Even Solzhenitsyn himself denounced some criticisms of his book by just putting out that it was just a fictitious narrative.--Dojarca (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)