Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:23, 25 September 2011

In application and enforcement of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, the following discretionary sanctions apply to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): No editor may make edits to the article unless such edits are either minor edits as described at WP:Minor edit and marked as minor, reverts of obvious vandalism or an obvious WP:BLP violation, or have consensus as described below, and the edit summary contains a link to the talk page discussion establishing that consensus. Procedural details The rules at WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans apply to reverts of vandalism or BLP violations. (For clarity's sake, the removal or addition of cleanup tags, for any reason, are neither minor edits nor vandalism.) For the purpose of this sanction, an edit may only be deemed to have consensus if the following minimum procedural requirements are met: It has been proposed on the talk page, in a dedicated section or subsection, for at least 72 hours. In that section, the proposal has been either unopposed or at least four registered editors (including the proposer) have commented about the proposal. The proposal does not substantially duplicate a previous proposal that failed to achieve consensus, or seek to undo a previous change that did achieve consensus, if that previous proposal or change was made less than a month before the new proposal. The editor who makes an edit is responsible that the edit has consensus as outlined above. To prevent the risk of being sanctioned in the event that an administrator finds that the edit did not have consensus, any editor may ask on a community forum for an uninvolved administrator to determine whether or not consensus exists for the proposal. Such determinations are binding for the purpose of this sanction, but do not prevent consensus from changing by way of a new proposal. Administrators may ask for continued discussion if they believe that this would help consensus-finding, and they may weigh the arguments advanced in the light of applicable Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in order to determine consensus or the lack thereof. Editors who violate this editing restriction may be sanctioned with escalating blocks or other discretionary sanctions per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. In addition, a previously imposed WP:1RR restriction concerning this article continues to apply.  Sandstein  20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Russia / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Deletion discussions: Keep, 13 July 2010, see discussion. Keep, 13 April 2010, see discussion. No consensus, 8 November 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 24 September 2009, see discussion. No consensus, 3 August 2009, see discussion.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 10, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus September 1, 2009 Peer review Reviewed October 2, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus November 15, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus April 22, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept July 19, 2010 Articles for deletion Kept

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
• There I must agree with Fifelfoo. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • He does have a point, this article is complete POV. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 02:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• The problem is not this article, the problem is the lack of other articles like it. As it stands now, the only link to something close to that is Anti-communist_mass_killings in the see also section. I would think an obvious topic would be mass killings in the name of religion (you hear that so much, there are bound to be sources for it), and crimes by U.S. sponsored regimes (pretty much everything that happened in South America). Or Killings with CIA involvement. The Human rights violations section of School_of_the_Americas is a joke, more than one article could be written about it. Adding articles is better than deleting. DS Belgium (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sidebar

Redthoreau (talk · contribs) has removed a sidebar and replaced it with an image without gaining consensus. I've ask this be undone. --Martin (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seconding on Policy—there appears to be copyright issues with the image due to US law, and the use of the image on this page wouldn't meet free use exemptions. I'm indifferent about image versus sidebar in general unless someone has the policy on this stuff in the back of their mind. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is no freedom of panorama in the US, so this image will be removed from Commons, and it can be used only in the article about this monument itself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The Commons license information seems quite adequate, and no such removal discussion is there. "Will be removed" is thus rather irrelevant. Cheers. BTW, photos of government owned property is not barred under US law - for example the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial inter alia. But I assume from your post that you are expert on such matters possibly? Collect (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there WAS a discussion on deleting this at Commons , and it has been decided that these images will be KEPT. Smallbones (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I only looked at the current status - I agree that there would have been no grounds for deletion <g>. Collect (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies and I have reverted myself. At the time of my additions I was not aware of the stringent sanctions on adding content. For the record, I thought the chosen image (stylistically acting as a quasi-info box) made more aesthetic sense than the sidebar – but I will leave it up to others here if they wish to reinstate my former additions.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Additions (expansion of content) welcome. Substitutions (replace prior content, presumably agreed to by numerous parties, with yours) can be problematic. Best to discuss first here on article talk. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Defination of communist regimes is WTF?

""Communist regimes" refers to those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition (in other words, "communist states") at some point in their history."
So any country that used to be communist is still a communist regime and the death tolls of post-communist countries can be blamed on communism?

This needs to be changed, now. 216.105.64.144 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then change it. TFD (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

External links

There is currently a link to a website called the Global Museum on Communism, which appears to be contrary to WP:EL.

• 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
• 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article....

The website does not offer any sources for its claims although its claim that there were "more than 100 million victims of communist tyranny" shows that it is probably using the estimates of Stéphane Courtois's introduction to the Black Book of Communism, which have been widely seen as exaggerated. The list of directors does not appear to reflect one would expect of a serious neutral museum. The chairman, Lee Edwards, for example, is described as a "Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation". The site fails to mention his involvement with the World Anti-Communist League (WACL), which was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as "a point of contact for extremists, racists, and anti-Semites", and has links to right-wing groups. All of the articles appear to be written by right-wing authors.

To state high-end estimates as facts is to be "factually inaccurate" and providing no sources is to provide "unverifiable research". There is also a secondary issue, whether the webiste is even relevant, since it covers communism more broadly.

TFD (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be reflected by the way it is cited. Reo 21:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Global Museum of Communism is a museum established by an Act of the United States Congress. The Holocaust Museum is also a museum established by an Act of the United States Congress. Both are reliable sources in their area of study. If you delete references or links to one museum established by an act of Congress as unreliable, then you must delete all. @TFD, you are using your personal speculation to besmirch a reputable source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

@TFD, and on Edwards, you ignore "Edwards was the founding director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University and a fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University", so give it a rest. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, you also ignore "by 1985 , the Anti-Defamation League declared itself "satisfied that substantial progress has been made since 1981 in ridding the organization of racists and anti-Semites" re World Anti-Communist League. IMHO, you are just retreading all the past tired arguments to get rid of a source that is not slavishly pro-Communist. Let's not appear to attempt to rope uninformed newbies to support your uber-cherry picked narrative looking to discredit a reputable source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You have, if I recall correctly, raised the same issue a bunch of times and nevergained consensus for your view. I doubt you will this time either. Collect (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Web site provides articles by well-known historians, such as Robert Conquest, precisely on the subject of this article . Hence the link should stay. Biophys (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• What Biophys said. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly speaking, I see no problem to link the article to some web site containing the articles of such reputable writers as Robert Conquest. However, the problem with this particular site is that it is sponsored by some concrete state (more concretely, by a conservative part of this state) to advocate some very concrete views. This site is highly ideologically charged and by no means is it purely informative. In particular, the main thesis it advocate ("to commemorate 100 million victims of Communism") is rather problematic: similar to the Black Book, whose editor used the names of Werth and Margolin to push weird ideas about "more than 100 million murdered by Communist" of "equivalence of Communism and Nazism" (the ideas these scholars, especially Werth, opposed to), the authors of the site use the names of reputable authors to advocate similarly weird ideas. Moreover, the most strong theses published on this web site are not supported by any references and are anonymous: we do not know who is an author of the thesis that, e.g. "the USSR murdered 20 million people" (it is simply not true according to such a reputable scholars as Nicolas Werth)?
  In connection to that, I suggest to replace the link to this museum with several links to some articles on this web site that were written by really reputable authors. That would be useful, because not all their works are available free of charge and a reader can find something useful there. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points to notice: (a) this is an educational organization established by US Congress, not an advocacy web site; (b) by providing a link we do not endorse their views and numbers, but merely provide a link that would be useful for a reader of this particular subject. Biophys (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The museum is not "an educational organization established by US Congress". Title IX, Section 905 of Public Law 103-199, the relevant legislatiion to which you refer, merely states, "The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is authorized to construct, maintain, and operate in the District of Columbia an appropriate international memorial to honor victims of communism. The National Captive Nations Committee, Inc., is encouraged to create an independent entity for the purposes of constructing, maintaining, and operating the memorial." The Committee is an anti-Communist advocacy group. The website contains among other things a documentary by Dr. Glenn Beck, founder of Beck University. Beck btw is known to promote conspiracy theories including FEMA concentration camps and can hardly be considered academic. TFD (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see a difference between the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (which one could call "anti-fascist") and the museum about communism victims. Let's keep the link. Biophys (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is obvious: whereas there is no non-fringe sources that deny the fact that Nazi killed 6 million Jews, only minority of sources support the idea that Communism murdered 100 millions, and the USSR murdered 20 million. That is simply not true, and the site advocating such an idea is not a reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Holocaust Museum, unlike the Victims of Communism museum, was chartered by Congress, is supported by the government and has representatives from Congress and the cabinet on its council. The Museum also has an academic reputation. For example, it produces the peer-reviewed journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, published by the Oxford University Press. Also, you are drawing a false equivalency between anti-fascism and anti-Communism. Mainstream academic thinking has a strong aversion to fascism, while mainstream views on Communism range from strong aversion to strong support, with a middle ground that is non-Communist but not described as anti-Communist. TFD (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dancing on the head of a pin. Where the parent foundation of the museum is chartered established by Congress, and the museum is established subsequent to such a charter, it is clear that the distinction being made is totally worthless. As for what you assert you "know" about the "truth" of how scholars look at communism -- find a reliable source, else the assertions are of no value here whatsoever, and have ansolutely no relevance to the Congressional charter! Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, could you please at least present intelligent arguments. See charter: "the granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified" (my emphasis). It does not provide endorsement of rights not specified. The "museum" itself does not make any such claim, nor does any reliable source. Such a claim is mere synthesis. And yes, you will find that there are Marxist scholars that publish within the academic mainstream, including Courtois, the scholar used as the source for 100 million. (He had abandoned Marxism by the time he wrote that, but had been a Marxist earlier in his academic career.) But there are no few if any fascist scholars. You should WP:KNOW this. TFD (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Off the deep end again as an argument. Where the Congressionally chartered established organization states that is is behind the museum, then it is not SYNTH to state that the charteredestablished organization is behind the museum. And the museum website itself? Has Copyright © 2011 The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. I trust the connection is exceedingly clear. Are you through attacking me, by the way? Now that I have shown the clear connection, it is SYNTH to deny it as a bare minimum. Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(I believe the previous post has been made by Collect).

@TFD. I am not sure Courtois abandoned Marxism, I recall some review on the BB stressed the fact that the main purpose of the attack of Communism mad in this book was to defend Marxism.

@Collect. I believe noone can deny the following facts:

1. The Museum (and its web site) was established and sponsored by the governmental body of some particular country, and main museum's objective, which is highly ideologically motivated, was declared clearly and unequivocally;
2. The Museum web site contains numerous anonymous statements that are (i) unsourced, and (ii) contain the claims that are at least questionable, according to some reputable scholars, which nevertheless are presented as an ultimate truth. In particular, the claim about 100 million victims of Communist regime and 20 million murdered by the USSR is not supported even by the Black Book Communism (of course, if we do not equate the poorly written and highly criticised introduction with the Book as whole);
3. In addition to numerous anonymous and questionable materials, the site contains several articles authored by quite respectable scholars as Robert Conquest, whose opinion deserves to be presented on the WP pages.

In connection to that, the best solution is to replace the link to this web site with several links to the separate articles from this web site which meet out WP:SOURCES criteria. I respectfully request you to explain me if you agree with that, and if not, then what concrete objections against my ##1-3 do you have.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The claim was made that the museum was unrelated to the Congressionally charteredestablished foundation - and that connecting it was SYNTH. I believe that SYNTH argument was deflated utterly. I would suggest, in fact, that almost every external link found on Misplaced Pages has "unsourced" statements, as (amazingly enough) outside sources do not have the Misplaced Pages requirement to footnote every single word on a site <g>. If you find any external site which follows the Misplaced Pages citing methodology, I would love to see it! Thus that argument is also rather deflated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(out) It is not a charter, which comes under Title 36 of the United States Code, and includes the Holocaust Museum. The legislation merely "encourages" the foundation to build a statue. TFD (talk)

Nitpicking over the difference between "established by Congress" and "chartered by Congress"? Really???? Sorry - that argument does not wash whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Note also the Act provides spcifically: Once created, this entity is encouraged and authorized, to the maximum extent practicable, to include as active participants organizations representing all groups that have suffered under communism. which seems quite adequate, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk)

It was not "established by Congress". Even if it had been, that would not (on its own) make it a reliable source. Even if you are a great admirer of Glenn Beck, you cannot seriously believe that his program is a reliable source for Communism. TFD (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not like Beck, and if I did, it would not make any difference whatsover here in my position. Are you making snarky comments for any real reason here? Cheers, and try to stick to actual arguments as Paul does. Collect (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the question remains: should we replace the link to the questionable anonymous content with the link to the better content written by well established authors? The answer seems to be obvious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Noting that I demur on "questionable", and that I know of no article which requires ELs to be cited per Misplaced Pages footnoting policy, the answer to "Should this particular site be rejected on political grounds, or on grounds that it is not 'chartered' but only 'established' by Congress" type of argument? No. Cheers. There have been far too many iterated straw man arguments presented here for me to entertain that thought. Noting also that this same argument for removal has never gotten a consensus agreeing to eliminate this EL. Collect (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So you consider the Glenn Beck show unquestionable. TFD (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Your post makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing a link to a website that presents Glenn Beck's show, originally on its main page. In the show, Beck interviews Jonah Goldberg. This is not acceptable scholarship. High school students who used these sources for school projects would fail. TFD (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

You are exceedingly far afield of the discussion on this article on this article talk page. I have not the foggiest idea what you are trying to prove, but it sure as heck is totally irrelevant. The only topic we are discussing is the site presented by a Congressionally created organization. Nothing more. Nothing less. Your point (?) would say we could not link to the New York Times because it has links which you know are not reliable sources. That is not remotely relevant to the discussion here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The source you revere does not provide links to the Glenn Beck show. (Here is the link.) It presents an episode as an explanation of history. I doubt that the NYT would ask Beck to write factual articles for them. CNN and FNC did not present Beck's program as a news show, and it would fail rs. This is a real degradation of scholarship. It is worrying that you think a connection with the federal government makes something reliable. TFD (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That link shows only that the chairman was interviewed for Becks show. Why is he being interviewed as issue? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not the issue. The "documentary" is posted on the "museum" website, originally on its home page. In other words, they are endorsing it. TFD (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that claim is OR and SYNTH on your part. Congrats. But not a reason to remove an existing EL by a mile. Collect (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that the Foundation does not endorse what is published on its website which therefore fails rs. TFD (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said nothing of the sort, and such would be totally irrelevant, and the entire argument is now in cloud-cuckoo land, I think we have gone quite far enough, thank you very much. This stuff is far afiekld from any proper use of the article talk page, and is actually a gross abuse of this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you saying then? The documentary was published on the home page. If you think that it is OR to assume that they are endorsing it, would it not be OR to assume that they were endorsing anything? In which case, what value would the website have? Might not an innocent reader assume that the website was endorsing its own contents? TFD (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am saying none of this has anything whatsoever to do with this article, that iterating the nonsense makes no difference in the price of eggs, and that John Cleese surely foretold this colloquy in the famous Argument Sketch. Though right now the Dead Parrot Sketch runs a close second. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about an external link which fails WP:EL; "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Which is a good description of Glenn Beck's history lessons. TFD (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)@PS "100 million victims of Communist regime and 20 million murdered by the USSR is not supported even by the Black Book Communism" 20 million is the total number killed under Stalin, there are more than enough sources stating this Stalin's Genocide pp 11&71 The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your source says "If as many as twenty million Soviet citizens may have died at the hands of the regime during Stalin's rule...." (p. 77) There is a distinction between saying something is true and something might be true. That is the difference between this article and articles in the Victims museum and the Mises wiki. We cannot state something as fact unless sources say it is a fact. TFD (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What doe it ay on page 11 TFD? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

From Yes, Minister:

Bernard: Anything might be true.

Sir Humphrey: Exactly, well done Bernard.

TFD (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the opinion of most reviewers, the best part of the BB, its core, is the Werth's chapter about the USSR. Werth does not support the number of 20 million killed by the Stalinist regime and explicitly disagrees with what Courtois says. Even this single (although highly commended) source is sufficient to speak about lack of any consensus about 20 million killed, and any source that pretends that this figure is commonly accepted is unreliabe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I`m sorry, are you actually saying that any source which says stalin killed 20 million is automatically unreliable? Exactly which policy doe this fall under? Is Routledge a good publisher? Revolution from above: the demise of the Soviet system By David Michael Kotz, Fred Weir pp25 Or Princeton University Press are they not a reputable publisher? They published Stalin`s Genocides which you have just aid is not a reliable source. Try your luck on the RSN noticeboard getting these sources called unreliable The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Which policy? WP:NPOV and WP:V. We cannot present the opinion that contradicts to what reliable sources state as the fact, as if no other studies have been made on this subject. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

With regard to Stalin's victims, all numbers are scholarly opinion, opinion of administrators who were part of the system, etc. All estimates from reputable/reliable sources count. We don't decide what goes in or not based on personal contentions regarding sources from reputable publishers. You cannot make your own judgments (censorship) on what reputable sources are reliable as opposed to following an inclusive policy and constructing a fair and accurate narrative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Change without consensus

@Paul Siebert. There was no consensus for making this edit. Please self-revert. This is also an obvious misinterpretation of the source quoted in the end of phrase: you refer to a book that tells "100 million", as you know. Biophys (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This was not an edit, but a revert of the edit that has not been discussed on the talk page (as the editing restrictions, described on the top of the talk page, require). I prefer to revert such edits rather than to report a violation. And, frankly speaking, the introduction to the BB, which is being extensively criticised by scholars, is hardly a good source for the lede. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see this statement has been re-added . Since that major change has not been supported by consensus on the talk page, I recommend Collect to self-revert to avoid sanctions for violation of the edit restrictions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that a deliberate misrepresentation of a source ought be left in the article? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Misintepretation of the questionable source, I would say. We need to replace the reference to the dubious Courtois' introduction with something more reliable. However, due to obstructionism of some users, who are gaming the system, we cannot do that. Therefore, in the situation when, according to the reliable sources, the total amount of the victims of mass killings in the USSR was far less then 20 million (even if we add famine, disease and similar deaths to this category, the step that is not supported by many authors), we must conclude that about 80 millions were killed in China. Are you sure it is true?

In any event, if someone wants to use formal procedure to add dubious statements to the article, I have no other choice but to use the same procedure to remove nonsense from it. Both you and Collect have had already violated the editing restriction (no major edits without discussion and consensus), and you both can be sanctioned for that. I recommend you to demonstrate your good faith and to resolve the issue peacefully. I am waiting you to self-revert in close future (you or Collect can revert the change you made, and that will not be a violation of the edit restrictions). Please, do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert should be commended for removing a non-mainstream opinion that was represented as a fact in the article. While all of us have our own opinions about history, we should appreciate that Misplaced Pages readers want to know what mainstream opinion is, not be confronted with views outside the mainstream. TFD (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You are 180 degrees off -- the mainstream consensus is that the number killed is far closer to 100 million than to 10 million. Sorry -- the POV that somehow only 10 million were killed does not even have fringe support. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, could you please read the discussion before commenting. The 10 million figure refers to the number of people killed by Stalin in the Ukraine. TFD (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, I see you have read my post. I conclude from that that you have been informed about the fact that you made a major edit without discussing it on the talk page and obtaining consensus, as the rules require, and, therefore, you may be sanctioned per WP:DIGWUREN if someone will report you. Since that moment on you may be reported by anyone at any moment. Please, self revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

'I reverted a vandalism edit which was not supported by talk page consensus that I could find. Unless and until you provide reliable sources for your apparent claim that only 10 million or so were killed, and that the number was not generally accepted to total in the 80 - 100 million range, I shall continue to suggest that it is vandalism to go against consensus. At this point, it is clear that the vast majority of writers in the topic use the higher figure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, separate the procedural details from the content dispute. You clearly violated the editing restrictions, and you can be sanctioned for that. With regard to the idea to include the ref to highly questionable BB into the lede, let me point out that this reference is still there for exactly the same reason: replacement of this reference became impossible because some users utilised edit restrictions to sabotage such a step. That is a pure example of double standards. Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Some" editors? "Sabotage"? Sigh. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

range of "number killed"

We have Rummel at with figures of over 100 million.

Courtois at over 100 million.

Valentino at 110 million, with a range stated as being from multiple sources of 21 to 70 million for USSR, PRC and Cambodia alone, and noting that most such regimes have not engaged in "mass killing." His cite inplies that the likely range for the three nations then is on the order of 40 million to 50 million.

Gurr and Harff are cited in (Wang) as citing the USSR for "11 million murders" in theperiod 1029 - 1936. This is the only estimate I found for anything approaching only 10 million deaths, and restricts itself to actual "murders" in a seven year period - so is far from inclusive. Wang sees "totalitiarianism" as being the problem.

Lansford appears to cite Rummel at implying that Rummel is generally accepted as mainstream.

Kurtz and Turpin arrive at over 115 million at

Using the fact that the most widely cited figures are in the total range of 80 to 100 million, it seems that this is the "mainstream" position, and any claim that 10 million is remotely near the mark is clearly WP:FRINGE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, can you please not misrepresent sources. Valentino wrote, "Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million". He did not endorse that figure. TFD (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

TFD, take care not to misrepresent what I wrote. I fear you missed the entire sentence following. Cheers - but take care not to be so quick to assert errancy when it is your post which was errant. Collect (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1 Rummel is obsolete and unreliable.

"In a series of nine chapters Rummel then explains how he reaches the figure of sixty-one million dead, and despite the complex tables and intricate computations, his explanation is quite unsatisfactory. Some general points first: Rummel uses no Russian-language sources and cites a variety of secondary sources as if they were all of equal worth, when some are scholarly and some far from it. He also assumes that the entire labour camp population was innocent: for Rummel, deaths in labour camps while serving a prison sentence are legitimate elements in what he calls 'democide' and much space is devoted to computing death rates in camps, yet some of those who died in this way were common criminals or actual Nazi collaborators, while a camp death rate of twenty-six per cent seems hard to credit, even at the height of Stalinism.

"Rummel is at his least contentious when dealing with collectivization and purges."

"Ironically, given Rummel's rather naive mission to show the utter inhu- manity of 'Marxism', his own figures can be turned against him."(Geoffrey Swain. Reviewed work(s): Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 by R. J. Rummel. Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 765-766)

"Rummel chooses numbers of deaths that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses. When judging particular countries, he repeatedly draws the conclusion that the more people died the worse the regime. This connection is true for some cases, but not others. Often deaths are attributable to neither direct governmental action nor governments' tacit approval of vigilante activity, but, rather, to the consequences of war, displacement, or famine."(Barbara Harff. Reviewed work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel. Source: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119)

2 Courtois is not reliable. His figures are not supported even by the co-author of the BB (Wertht et al)

"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)

3 Valentino, as TFD correctly noted, just made a compilation of the secondary sources made by others, and he did not endorse these figures. In addition, Valentino's definition of mass killing is dramatically different from how other people understand this term, so before citing Valentino it is necessary to explain what "mass killing" means according to him.

4 Before discussing Harff, I would like to see a real text. You provided nothing, and, taking into account that Harff disagree with Rummel (see above), I have some reason to doubt in correctness of your interpretation.

5 Rummel was accepted in past, however, no serious genocide scholars take his estimates seriously now (see above reviews)

6 Re Kurtz and Turpin, for some reason your link does not work, so I cannot discuss it.

Re "This is the only estimate I found for anything approaching only 10 million deaths" You cam found reliable figures for the USSR in the BB, not in the introduction, but in the Werth's chapter. Another good source is Ellman (Soviet Repression Statistics: Some Comments. Author(s): Michael Ellman Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 54, No. 7 (Nov., 2002), pp. 1151-1172)

"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. The decline in mortality rates during the Soviet period led to a large number of excess lives."

Obviously, this, as well as many other authors, do not consider deaths from disease or hunger as killing.

"Accordingly the present author considers it appropriate to place the famine victims in a different category from the repression victims, even if one judges Stalin during the famines to have been guilty of causing mass deaths by manslaughter or criminal negligence. Both categories contain huge numbers of victims, but only the latter was unusual by international standards. About 12 million people were arrested or deported, and at least 3 million died, as a result of political persecution by their own government. This distinction between famines and political persecution corresponds to normal historical practice. The victims of the 1943 Bengal famine are usually considered to be 'famine victims' rather than 'repression victims' even though by appropriate actions the British Government could have saved many of the lives of those who died. Similarly with the Irish famine of the 1840s. It also corresponds to current international law. Unintentional famine, unlike murder or deportation, is not classified as a crime against humanity (see article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)" (ibid.)

It is interesting to note that Ellamn stresses the fact that in overall, mortality was constantly declining in the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your chief problem is that the 100 million figure is accepted by a great majority number of sources, and your 10 million figure is exceedingly fringe, with not a single source supposrting that low number. When the ratio of those who end up with >50 million is so overwhelming, and the number < 50 million is near zero, I suggest that it is vandalism to say anything implying that only 10 million or so were killed. Cheers, but you really need to read the current books and not rely on a source I can not find which says ten million. Collect (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Per our policy, "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." All sources I use fit these criteria, and none of them are fringe. No serious scholars who study Soviet history (Wheatcroft, Nove, Conquest, Ellman, Maksudov, Davis, Rosefielde) support the figures of higher than 20 million. According to Rosefielde (Cmrnunrst and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 32 l-33 I. 1997), the range of excess deaths in 1930s (the most lethal years in the USSR, except the WWII) ranged from 5.3 to 14.5 million. However a major part of those deaths should not be considered as mass killings per Ellman.

Let me also point out that the claim that I use fringe sources is an indication that you exhausted your arguments. I can easily demonstrate that my sources are reliable and mainstream just by going to appropriate noticeboards (my previous experience demonstrates that persuasively), however I prefer to save your and my time. Just stop your ridiculous and offencive arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhengyuan Fu lists a number of cites for "excess deaths" in China - citing Coale for 16.5 million "excess deaths" in 1958-61 alone, Aird a "population loss" of 23 million for that period, Ashton Hill et al 30 million deaths and 33 million lost or postponed births. He lists Bannister and Kane as agreeing wth Hill. Z. Fu then ascribes a figure of 43 million deaths in 1959-61 to Chen Yizi as his source. WP:RS from Cambridge University Press in 1993. Need more milk? I dount this manages to back your insistence on a fringe view of 10 million total for all the countries. Collect (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we accept the number of 100 million, that would mean that 32 million excess death in the USSR, which is not true. In addition, as I have demonstrated with the reputable source, according to standard historical practice, the famine deaths are not considered as mass killing. Only Valentino (and, probably Rummel) do that. Accordingly, if the you want these figures to be presented in the article, we need to re-write it. We need to start with the statement that, according to Valentino and some other authors, deaths from disease and starvation, as well as other excess deaths, constitutes mass killing. Then we can explain that some authors believe that the total number of excess deaths amounted to 100 millions in the countries ruled by Communists. Then we should add alternative opinions, and that would be ok.

Meanwhile, I would prefer the editing restriction procedure to be observed. I would like you to self-revert, which would be a demonstration of your good faith and of abandonment of the system gaming tactics by you. Otherwise, I will have to take other measures.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

All TFD and PS have to do is come up with a reasonable source that says the total killings (in the 20th century, not just in the 1930s) were only 10 million (or whatever number) and we can put in "with an estimated death toll numbering between 10 and 100 million." Absent any such source, we have to stick with what the currently used sources say. Please just provide a source and page number. Without it PS's Wall of Text approach above just amounts to a cross between "I don't like it" and OR. Smallbones (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since most serious sources deal with Communist states separately, and since the such sources as Rummel (but not Valentino) describe the procedure they used to obtain the overall figures, it is quite possible to verify the latter using the former. For instance, if Rummel says "the USSR killed 45, China 65, so totally we have 110", by showing that the present days scholars disagree with the number of 45 million killed by the USSR I thereby demonstrate that the total figure is wrong and obsolete. In addition, my walls of text are in actuality the quotes from reliable sources that confirm that Rummel is wrong. Therefore, we cannot use his figures.

In summary, your statement is baseless and offensive. I believe I have a full right to disregard it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Smallbones, you it bass ackwards - you need a source to support what you put into articles. Incidentally, sources have been provided above debunking Courtois's reasoning, including by the main Black Book contributor Nicolas Werth. Even worse, reliable sources have accused them of ideological reasons for their estimate. (PS - the figure of 10 million comes from Collect, who appears to be misrepresenting another editor.) TFD (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You have consoistently misrepresented the facts, and consistently insisted that the firncge view of minimal deaths is the mainstream one. I have sghown that if you take the lowest view of 11 million deaths over a seven yearperiod for the USSR, and the 43 million ascribed by a Chinese RS to China for a three year perion, we have for that limited period allone (3 years in China, 7 in the USSR) more than 54 million excess deaths. I fail to see how anyone can conceivably make a comment that "tens of millions" is in any manner a mainstream view when the mainstream view is for over 80 million (China did, presumably, have deaths other than in the 3 year period, and the USSR did not miraculously go free of excess deaths outside of the seven year period.) Nor can any reasonable person ascribe ideology to the Chinese source for those deaths, nor for the more than a half dozen other sources listed. Cheers - now can we simply accept the "80 to 100 million" figure which is so overwhelmingly accepted by the sources? As for the position of Paul -- he sought as "neutral" which says even the tens of millions figure is "disputed." He also even tried to change "tens of millions" to mere "millions" in the lede. ( 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)) So much for your odd claim that I misrepresented what Paul has written. In fsact, he seemed to argue that the number coulsd well have been under 10 million. If anyone else makes a claim that this 'misrepresents 'Paul's precise words, I shall have a good laugh. Cheers. Now can you go back and accept that Paul said what I said he said? Collect (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert actually put in "an estimated death toll numbering in the tens of millions". Incidentally, your version ("between 85 & 100 million") is not the same as the "over 100 million" that is the subject of this discussion thread which you set up. TFD (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reread what Paul said which is in bold face above. I trust this is clear enough. Need I repeat it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please not take my words out of context? I don't know from which concrete archive discussion have you taken my words, however, I clearly remember my rationale. My rationale was as follows:

1. "Mass killings" ≠ "excess deaths", according to many scholars.
2. Valentino, as well as few other authors, consider mass deaths from famine or disease as mass killing (concretely, as "disposessive mass killing"), so most excess deaths under Communists fall into that category, according to them.
3. The amount of victims of mass killings defined in a Valentino's way is equal to the number of excess deaths, which, for such large countries as China or the USSR, simply by virtue of their size, amounted tens of millions.
4. Therefore, we can speak about tens of millions, provided, but only provided, that all needed reservations (##1-3) have been made first.
5. Otherwise, we can speak only about the victims of the sensu stricto mass killings (executions, part of deporation deaths, part of camp mortality, Civil war victims, etc), which amounted several millions in the USSR, probably, more then 10 million in China, plus all victims of Kambodian genocide (which is a totally separate story).

Let me also point out that all these explanations have been made by me several times on this talk page, and refusal of some users to understand that shakes my believe in their good faith.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As the date and time stamp were included - what more do you need? I would have thought that quite sufficient to find the edit in the edit history of this talk page. Do you really need more? I could, of course, then add other interesting claims you have made which are fringe at best. Meanwhile, how do you deal with the figrue given by a seniour PRC official? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you insist. Below is the paragraph you cited so selectively. The words you have taken out of context are in bold:

"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) "

I believe, it is clear from this my post (for every reasonable person) that I never denied the fact that the excess mortality in Communist countries amounted tens of millions. My argument was that serious scholars do not call that "mass killings".

Finally, after seeing how did you misinterpreted my own words it is clear for me why you misinterpret the sources you use.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting -- an exact quote misrepresents you how? Sorry - that does not wash. Meanhile, did you think Fu is not RS about 43 million deaths in a 3 year period in China ? Collect (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If after my exhaustive explanations you appeared to be unable to understand that, I even don't know what to say...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Another source which says 100million, Philosophical melancholy and delirium: Hume's pathology of philosophy By Donald W. Livingston pp337 Re Conquest, he had a number of 170million dead? Retrieving the natural law: a return to moral first things By J. Daryl Charles pp32 The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What would you use a book on philosophy for a source? TFD (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes Conquest does give a figure of 170million, in Reflections on a Ravaged Century published in 2001. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Strength of Fu as a reliable source

Zhengyuan Fu is widely cited - and is RS -- he is cited for , , and on and on. Cambridge University Press, etc. As RS as they get with sound academic credentials. He does not use Rummel, so that old straw arguemnt fails utterly with his figures. Sorry - Elvis has left the building - unless you wish to discredit Fu for some reason. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He was actually writing about China. TFD (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, Fu writes nothing about mass killing in China . Remember, "excess deaths"≠"mass killings", according to most authors. Do you suggest to devote the article to excess deaths under Communist regimes?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What the he-double-hockey-sticks do you mean by that? Fu is extremely clear as to what he writes about - he was an important figure in the PRC, a noted scholar on the PRC (I rather think his c.v. is easily found) and he quotes a senior PRC official! I suggest that saying "Fu writes nothing about mass killing in China" is one of the most WP:FRINGE comments in the entire history of Misplaced Pages! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant? A very simple thing: if we approach the discussion formally and reject the each others arguments for purely formal reason we inevitably arrive to such a ridiculous situation. Of course, I fully realise that Fu wrote a lot about mass deaths in China, and a significant part of these victims were the victims of killings sensu stricto. Being a reasonable person I have no intention to deny that fact. However, I believe I can expect you to be equally reasonable, which implies that you must concede that this source cannot be used as a support for the statement that tens of millions were "killed", because he does not say that. In addition, Fu is a generally poor source for the thesis about Communist mass killing, because for him the Chinese Communist authorities were just a re-incarnation of the old Chinese autocratic tradition, so the mass death were not characteristic for the Communist rule only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that where killing occurs under a communist regime, that the killings occurred under a communist regime. I think this ia tautological - and should not surprise you. As for Fu eing a "poor source" I would suggest that the source being in the PRC hierarchy makes it, contrariwise, a very strong source for such numbers. And I iterate that where I quote you exactly, that you can not claim I misquoted you. So now can you be reasonable and admit that the 85 million figure is certainly the mainstream figure and that the 1 million or 10 million is a fringe figure? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a general note, I'll point out that if there are reasonable questions about whether the source considers the regime to be communist, then it's is rather irrelevant if some editor here believes that the regime was communist and to then try to use the source's statements in a context they were not meant for. BigK HeX (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Fu was definitely concerned about the communism aspect - read the chapters thereon. He did say China has a history of autocratic rule, but that did not stop him from criticising the communist regime. And the person he quotes, who had been a higher-up, is not decidedly persona non grata to China. You might wish to read the news articles <g>. But heck, you made me laugh. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

He's writing about famine. I haven't been following discussions here recently, but I thought it was the case that the article was supposed to distinguish famine from other causes of large-scale death. --FormerIP (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: "I would humbly suggest that where killing occurs under a communist regime, that the killings occurred under a communist regime." If. However, in actuality Fu speaks about various excess deaths, and as I have demonstrated, according to some reputable sources "mass killings"≠"excess deaths".--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Deaths which are a direct result, et al.

@Paul ("mass killings"≠"excess deaths" according to "some" sources): What is your position on suicides committed as a direct consequence of the Cultural Revolution? These are not strictly "killings" but they are direct results. What would be your proposal for insuring they are included? IMHO the purpose of this article is not to listify an inventory of those who got a direct bullet to the head. Perhaps others can present some thoughts on our purpose here before continuing to argue over sources at demonstrably crossed purposes. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to most sources. My position on suicides is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Much more important is to know what reliable sources tell. With regard to that, I can frankly answer: "I don't know". I can look through the literature, however, I see no need in that, because a wast amount of sources I already found and presented has been simply disregarded by some users, who block the consensus building process. In connection to that I suggest to you four to voluntarily restore the stable version as a sign of your good faith, and that may give a start to a constructive dialogue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm only here peripherally at the moment, other than your most unfortunate comments making me appear to be disruptive and threatening sanctions for simply filling in an existing reference for completeness. When other editors oppose your editorial POV, you are adamant. When your editorial POV is solicited, you have none, complaining you've been stonewalled (my word, admittedly). You'll pardon me if I'm a bit confused.

Consider suicides which reputable sources directly attribute to the Cultural Revolution.

• Do they get mentioned or excluded?
• If they merit mention, should the title be adjusted to not imply only the proverbial bullet in the head?

Not all the relevant questions, but a start. On the other, quite frankly, I haven't paid enough attention to even know who "us four" are. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you accuse me in not having a POV? Well, I explain you again: I have no sources to support my point of view on the subject you are talking about. When I have no sources to support my views on some particular subject, I never express these views on WP pages. I can, however, try to find some sources on that subject, however, I prefer to do that only if I will be sure that the time spent by me for finding the needed sources will not be wasted, i.e. if you will seriously discuss the sources I found. Unfortunately, the recent discussion suggest the opposite: the sources provided by me are ignored, the arguments are disregarded, and I have no reason to believe that the situation will change.

Regarding your last edit, you added more information from the sources I proved to be highly questionable. This edit is not minor, and you should have to discuss it on the talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that your questions deserve more concrete answer.

• Re your first question, I do not know how widespread the suicides were during the Cultural Revolution, and how voluntary they were. From my elementary school history lessons I know that it was an old Chinese tradition when a feudal sent a silk rope to his vassal, which meant he must commit suicide. Although this death was nominally voluntary, it was de facto execution. Since, according to the source provided by Collect (Fu) Communist repressions in China had their roots in millennial autocratic traditions, it is natural to propose that most of those suicides were de facto executions performed in accordance with Chinese traditions. Please, keep in mind, however, that that are just my speculations.
• Re your second question, I absolutely agree that, for an ordinary reader, the current title implies only the proverbial bullet in the head. In connection to that, to speak about "100 million killed", 95% of whom died from starvation or diseases is deeply misleading. In connection to that, the idea to bring the article in accordance with the title (to exclude famines etc, and to adjust the figures accordingly), or to bring the title in accordance with what the article says (to rename it) is quite correct and sober.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy... sanctions seem to gotten pretty stiff on this article

I made an edit before noticing the (rather draconian) sanctions. In any case, does anyone care to object that my elaborations differ from the material already present in the lede?

Mostly I noted that there is academic dispute with the tolls and that the tolls include famine, war, etc. As far as I can tell, no editor objects to assertions that A) there is academic dispute and that B) the tolls include famine/war/etc.

I assume this material is agreeable to editors here, especially since those points already have elaboration in the lede. The previous version of the opening sentence was awfully heavy on sensationalism, IMO. I've attempted to remedy this, per WP:SURPRISE. BigK HeX (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

With an undisputed RS source (Fu, giving a death toll of 43 million for China in a mere 3 year period, I do not think there is any real dispute now. Even if we cut the USSR to 1 million (a tad laughable since over 2 million died in Gulags in a 15 year period as a minimum estimate), the 85 million sure looks like a good baseline estimate. Cheers, I think this debate trying to make the numbers be ten million or so are now well and truly refuted. Collect (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to respond in this talk page section? BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Fu writes about excess deaths, not about mass killings. In addition, he writes about CPC as an instance of Chinese autocracy. Therefore, to use this (probably) reliable source for the statement "43 million were killed by Communist" would be synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change. Why say "disputed" if you don't have a source for a range of estimates? Please just come up with a sourced number for the lower limit. Without a sourced number, it will always appear that you are just disputing for the sake disputing. Show your source. Smallbones (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why say "disputed"? Because they have been disputed. The fact that no undisputable estimates are available does not make the provided figures undisputable. The figures you refer to are taken from Rummel or similar source, and these figures had been criticised as unreliable and dramatically exaggerated (see the sources presented above). I suggest to restore either BigK HeX's or the last stable version, and any attempt to change the lede without discussion may be reported per WP:DIGWUREN. I am reluctant to do so, because I realise that, since Collect, Smallbones and TLAM have already been placed on notice, the sanctions that may follow will be serious, however, you leave me no choice.

In summary, TLAM made the undiscussed major change, Collect re-inserted it, and Smallbones re-inserted it again. All three users are on notice per WP:DIGWUREN, and all of them have been notified by me about a violation they committed on the article's talk page (Smallbone has not probably read this notification, however, they are likely to read this talk page). I really, really don't like to play this game, so I beg you to accept one of reasonable and uncontroversial variants (either the stable version or the recent BigK HeX's one). Otherwise I'll have to report all of you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I see one more highly controversial, undiscussed and unsupported by consensus edit has been made by a user who also was placed on notice per WP:DIGWUREN. All these edits are sanctionable. That is my last warning.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not make a major change, I changed the text to accurately reflect the source, which you reverted back to a misrepresentation of the source. I was happy enough with BigKhex change also, but why not just supply a source for lower estimates and be done with it? I note that TFD has gone crying to teacher no doubt in the hopes that all are sanctioned, this will include yourself PS after all, your revert was n edit :o) The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, sorry, didn't realize it was a diff to my edit. I have not been active here recently. All I did was insert the actual text from the source as the source itself does NOT say "85-100" quote-unquote and Google Books does not have that page available online, which would be an issue for editors curious to verify the total indicated in the lede with regard to the source cited. There is nothing "controversial" about my edit, do not EVER threaten me like this again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• (Since I only put in the backup from the source already cited I should have marked it as a minor edit, apologies for that.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No. this edit is not minor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The page cited most certainly does say 85-100million, I have this book. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify (for all), the numbers I copied finish with the statement "The total approaches 100 million killed." "85-100" does not appear as text on page 4, at least my version, that what was I meant, not that the numbers don't add up. The point was, if we cite a number from a source and that source provides a breakdown, that should also be included for completeness especially if the book page is not readily available on Google Books and the subject matter is viewed by at least some as contentious. For anyone that didn't check, "85" million is the total for the USSR and China, the vast bulk, so "85-100" is an accurate representation of the information on page 4. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you took it from, and you used this source correctly. The problem is that this source as whole has serious problems, and the only reason it is still in the lede is the edit restriction. The same edit restrictions you just violated. See my explanations below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

One more attempt

Let's start from the beginning.

1. Current editing restriction prohibit any major (not minor) changes without discussion on the talk page and obtaining consensus according to a procedure described on top of the talk page. The sanctions for violations of these rules are also described there, and, since these sanctions are supposed to be imposed per WP:DIGWUREN, it is naturally to conclude that the users who have already been placed on notice per WP:DIGWUREN may be sanctioned more severely than others.
2. These restriction have nothing to do with the content dispute, and they should be observed independently on what some user think about the content.
3. The first user who violated these restriction was TLAM , Collect repeated the same violation, and Smallbones repeated it again. All these users are on notice per WP:DIGWUREN, and TLAM was specifically advised not to edit the Communism related articles. In that situation, all of them should be very cautious not to violate the rules. By contrast to the TLAM's claim, my revert of his edit was not a violation of the edit restriction, because no consensus is required for reverts. Peters continued this series of violation by adding more materials from the same source. Since he is also placed on notice, he ought to avoid such steps.
4. I admit these users genuinely believe they add correct information to Misplaced Pages. However, the editing restrictions I am talking about are totally unrelated to the content dispute. They must be observed in any event.
5. In connection to that, I again suggest to all of these users to self-revert, and we will start a discussion about the appropriateness of the usage of the BB's introduction (or similar sources) in the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to threats and editors pushing their POV talking to other editors as if they are doing so from a position of moral authority. I don't put stake in involved editors portraying why they did not violate rules while others did; of course a revert of someone else's edit is part of edit warring, arguing "consensus not required" is gaming the system. So, when you are ready to discuss sources without discussing editors or what "schools" of fringe theories they are looking to pass off as mainstream scholarship, we can discuss content further. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what Paul appears to be complaining about, this particular edit appears to be approved by TLAM, Collect, Smallbones, Vecrumba and myself. Seems like consensus exists on top of pre-existing community consensus of WP:V that requires text be aligned with sources. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First this is not a democracy, and even if it was, the vote of your team here would count as one. There is no consensus, I see no uninvolved editors approving the edit, I just see the same old team pushing its POV. (Igny (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Да, да, anyone who disagrees with you is a POV pushing meatpuppet. Да, да, there is no such thing as consensus when it does not agree with you. Or did you mean Misplaced Pages is an autocracy? Please discuss content not editors; chiming in simply to inflame the level of acrimony is not constructive. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re consensus when it does not agree with you Could you point me in direction to where this consensus you are talking about was established. I must have missed it. (Igny (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict)I thought I have already explained that, Martin. The editing restrictions imposed on this article do not allow major edits without previous discussion on the talk page. Therefore, independently on the amount of editors a posteriori voting for one or another change the users who made these changes violate the restrictions. Full stop. If you refuse to understand that I'll have no other choice but to request for some actions to be taken against all of you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

ec I really don't like Paul's threats, I know the not-so-veiled accusations of anti-semitism below by TFD are disruptive and completely out of line. PS and TFD need to ask themselves who is being disruptive here. In my case all I've done is revert an edit that Paul himself recognizes as being out of line. I guess his argument would be that he wants me to revert in the older material that misrepresents the source. I don't know of any rule anywhere in Misplaced Pages that requires me to put misleading information into an article. All Paul has to do to resolve this situation is get a source that he trusts that gives a lower limit to the range of the number of mass killings by Communist regimes. He refuses to do it. Does that mean he believes that it is zero? That would be pure nonsense, so the only alternative left to folks who want to improve the article is to put in the lower limit from sources we trust and know to be reliable. Smallbones (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, the most correct term would be not "threat" but "warning". By no means the warning about violation of editing restrictions can be disruptive. Try to understand a very simple thing: per editing restrictions, you must discuss the nonminor edit first, and only after that (if the change is supported) implement it. This order has been violated by TLAM, so we need (i) to restore a status quo; (ii) to start a discussion about the possible change.

I agree with you that the first step in this future discussion will be a request to provide a source. However, your request has been made incorrectly. By requesting to provide alternative total estimate you imply that , in the absence of alternative estimates the current estimate should stay whatever controversial it is. That is incorrect. If we have reliable sources that state that the current estimate is highly disputable and inflated (and I have provided such sources), we cannot use this source in the lede (without needed reservations).

In any event, I see that all of you, TLAM, Collect, you and Peters have already read my warning. I believe I made all needed explanations, so I expect you to restore the status quo ante bellum editorarum, and to start a polite and productive discussion.

Regarding TFD's accusations in antisemitism, I humbly ask for your permission not to comment on that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Peters, would you be so kind to explain to a broader audience what the non ASCII symbols "Да, да," mean, and why did you appeared to be unable to use English equivalent of them. If you did that not because of your insufficient English (which is perfect, IMHO), then what was a reason to resort to these words in the post addressed to Igny?
Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul, consensus isn't unanimity. We have five editors who all agree that reverting back text which misrepresents the source is against policy, versus yourself. Smallbones offers an easy solution of getting a source that you trust that gives a lower limit to the range of the number of mass killings by Communist regimes. Please stop threatening these editors. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, you forget that per discretionary sanctions, the consensus must be obtained before the edits has been made, so a posteriori approval does not work here.

In addition (although I object against mixing procedural issues with content disputes), your argument doesn't work: although consensus is not necessarily unanimity, it is not a vote either. Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised, and there are several legitimate concerns that have not been taken into account.

1. The source in the lede is highly questionable (per several reputable authors), and it has not been replaced simply because some users blocked this step using the same procedure I referred to above.
2. Although Smallbones' proposal has some merit, I disagree with the idea that in the absence of the good source that summarises the figures for all Communist states a knowingly disputable figures can be used instead.
3. The number of excess deaths ≠ the number of killings, and the lede must explain that fact before the figures describing what most scholars call "excess deaths" have been presented.

These concerns must be addressed before we can speak about any consensus. However, that should be made after the edits we discuss will be self-reverted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The signficance of the topic to some ideologies is explained in "Anti-Semitism in Europe" and other sources. TFD (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there an inference being made that Anti-Semitism is behind the positions of any particular editors here? Otherwise, I am at a loss to explain why you find the issue of "anti-Semitism in Europe" so compelling a topic here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No there is not. Also, we are discussing what weight to give various viewpoints, not our own views. TFD (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul, you are developing a pattern of threatening sanctions and resorting to administrative procedures to control article content as opposed to simply making your case. Consider that if other editors don't consider your arguments holding water, perhaps you need to do a better job, as much of your editorialization seems to focus on what does NOT apply as opposed to what DOES apply. You may find the latter approach (how to include, not exclude, sources) works better in a collegial, collaborative environment. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, I have no idea why you posted a link to the article in question, other than having the same reaction as Collect. And exactly what weight are you seeking to give to what viewpoint by introducing that source for discussion? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed that article and similar ones before. It explains the political significance of the estimates used by the Global Museum, and their popularization by the New Right in Europe. TFD (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you find the Global Museum to be founded on anti-Semitism? And the New Right is also anti-Semitic in your Weltanschauung? Is that really what you are asserting? Collect (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TFD, Your comment has nothing to do with my simply clarifying an existing citation with information which editors cannot verify online as when I went to double check the source, page 4 of the introduction was not available in Google Books. That said, Collect's response and question is really the one that is to the point. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My views are unimportant. I have presented an article from Scribner's Encyclopedia that explains the significance of the numbers used by the "Museum". See also Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared (2004) Henry Rousso, Richard Joseph Golsan, pp. xi-xv. You might want to read these sources before commenting on them. TFD (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet it appears it is precisely your views which you seek to promote using a non-peer-reviewed encyclopedia article! Sorry -- trying to tar every view but your own as "anti-semitic" is precisely what is the main problem here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Note: Rousso in pp xi - xv ... nowhere uses "anti-semitic" or "anti-semitism." What he does say in those pages is that the reason why the French did not compare Communism and Nazism ewas ... due to the French Communist Party. In short - Rousso, far from suggesting that anti-semitism was involved in the new comparisons, stated the problem was pro-communist partyism preventing any comparisons in the past! (page xii) Rousso then refers to "Communism's innumerable crimes". I like it when you cite a book which shows the precise opposite of what you asserted it to back! Then Rousso notes the "big fight" over the estimate of some of the USSR deaths -- whether 15 million or 20 million was a better figure -- which rather suggests Rousso supports at least the lower figure of 15 million. (page xiv of Rousso). Rousso iterates his belief that there is no hierarchical difference in the victims between any regimes practing terror. (also page xiv of Rousso). Rousso then states "for Werth and Margolin, Communism was less morally reprehensible because it embodied a noble ideal that tragically was not realized inpractice. (page xv). Thanks fro drawing my attention to this specific work - though doubtless not in the manner you intended. Cheers. Anent your post below - Rousso is a nice source - pity you appear to have totally misread it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, articles by academics in specialist encyclopedias are good academic sources, as you yourself have repeatedly stated. In any case I was replying to Big Hex the political significance of what should be an academic dispute and provided a helpful source. You yourself have backed away from presenting the museum version as factual. I trust you will now agree to its removal as an external link. Also, it is a bit much to accuse other editors of having views unless they actually state them. TFD (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, why are you talking about anti-Semitsm? TFD (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you raised the issue - note: The signficance of the topic to some ideologies is explained in http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/HBAntiSemEur.pdf "Anti-Semitism in Europe" and other sources. TFD (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC) as you surely should have realized from my direct and threaded response immediately thereto. Can you find it? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the name of one of the articles that explains the significance of the subject. Collect, why are you talking about anti-Semitsm? TFD (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It was you who raised the topic. Again The signficance of the topic to some ideologies is explained in "Anti-Semitism in Europe" and other sources. TFD (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC) shows your name and your use of the topic. So much for your outre and strange iterated query. Cheers. Did you read your own post? Collect (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed AE request

I am contemplating a possibility to file the AE request as explained below. Although that is not a common practice, I prefer to discuss this request on this talk page first to save the admins' time. Please, comment on that if you see any factual mistakes here. Peters', TLAM's, Collect's and Smallbones' contributions are especially wellcome.

Request concerning The Last Angry Man, Collect, Smallbones and Vecrumba and Paul Siebert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Paul Siebert (talk)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Per Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN, the discretionary sanctions had been applied to the article Mass killings under Communist regimes which prohibit any non-minor edits to that article without obtaining consensus on the talk page.

1. The user Last Angry Man made the non-minor edit without discussing it previously on the talk page.
2. After that edit had been reverted by me, Collect re-added it without obtaining consensus.
3. A user BigK HeX modified this change further. This user appeared to be unaware of the edit restrictions, however, in any event, his edit was quickly reverted by the user Smallbones, who restored the undiscussed edit made by The Last Angry Man.
4. A user Vecrumba expanded the Smallbones' text further, although without obtaining consensus. Although Vecrumba initially believed this edit was minor, it is not.
5. The requests to self-revert made on the article's talk page have been explicitly rejected by all four above mentioned users (see the article's talk page )

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

As per Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN, all four users were placed on notice. In addition, during the long discussion on the article's talk page their violations had been explained to them in details. Since all four users participated in this discussion, I assume they have read and understood the warning. The text of the current request has also been discussed with them.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

During the prolonged discussion of this incident of the article's talk page (starting from ) the four above mentioned users persistently refuse to accept the fact that the editing restrictions must be observed independently of the way the content dispute develops. Their claim is based on the fact that, since the proposed change has been post factum approved by some participants of this discussion, the edit made by TLAM was not a violation of the editing restrictions. Any attempt to convince them that the incident has no relation to the content dispute fail.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

(will be notified)

Proposed sanctions

The four above mentioned users should be prohibited from making edits to the (broadly defined) Communism related articles without obtaining consensus on the corresponding article's talk pages before the changes have been made.

Proposed duration of sanctions.

1 year.

I fully realise that that is an unusual practice to discuss the AE request with those against whom it is supposed to be directed, however, I sincerely hope that that discussion may help to resolve the issue without filing this request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added your name to those whom enforcement is being sought against as you did in fact make an edit by reverting my fixing the misrepresentation of a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is not correct. It does not follow from the sanctions that consensus is required to revert newly added text. Removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A revert is an edit, read WP:3RR, do not forget this article i under a 1r restriction which I presume extends to this talk page. The Last Angry Man (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. 1RR does not imply that removal of undiscussed content should be supported by consensus. Was it the only comment you wanted to make?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Paul, I am glad to discuss content and applicable sources any time. I really can't comment on the merits of your proposed attempt to take out everyone who disagrees with you as I am not intimately familiar with the POVs of some of the other editors you have named. As for my egregious behavior requiring a year long ban, regardless of consensus for the 85-100 million victims (for which I only added clarification in the reference, which is a minor edit in no way changing the intent or narrative of the article, i.e., the definition of minor), there is no issue either way, my edit in no way amplified or changed anything already in the article. You will pardon me if I view this as an cynical and acrimonious escalation of conflict. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I already explained, this is not a content dispute. I have no idea why don't you understand that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The first point to consider in any AE request is whether the request will have a salutary or a deleterious effect on collegial editing. Paul - do you feel this request would benefit the collegiality for the Misplaced Pages project? If not, I suggest you simply file it for a while. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat not to edit collegially, Collect. --FormerIP (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the biggest pieces of excrement I have seen on any talk page in aeons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. A group of the editors decided to reject the position of other users and violated the editing restrictions. It would be very beneficial for WP collegiality spirit if these users will be forced to discuss their future edits on the talk page before these change have been made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My only recent edit to the article was a revert of an edit by User:BigHex, who had made a prohibited edit, as Paul S. himself informed BigHex . Big Hex's edit simply confused an already difficult to read lede. His later justification was that his edit simply repeated material already in the lede. All-in-all there was no reason to accept this edit. Paul, on the other hand, wanted me to revert all the way back to an earlier version that misrepresents a source. A consensus of editors here believes that the earlier version misrepresents the source. There is no rule in Misplaced Pages that requires me to add (or revert back in) material that is misleading. I believe that Paul should apologize for accusing me of doing anything improper, and if he insists on taking this nonsense to AE he should himself be banned for making this a battlefield to the maximum ban that he asks for me. Smallbones (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the change made by TLAM had not been discussed, and you should have to restore the version prior to this edit. With regard to the alleged misinterpretation, the source itself provided wrong information (per many reputable authors whose opinions have been cited on the talk page). With regard to consensus, I see no signs of consensus here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Thanks to those who have been making an effort to comply with the editing restriction. I have made a few suggestions at User talk:EdJohnston#Mass killings under Communist regimes. My bottom line is there should be brief summary of the pros and cons of all the 'death' figures that could be used in the lead. Surely it can be done in 500 words. Then you could have a straw vote or an RfC to decide what option is the best. If it's an RfC, you are not likely to persuade any outsiders to give their opinion if they have to jump into a 10,000-word ongoing debate with no beginning and no end. So please try to be concise. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed, the prospective AE request is not about the content dispute but about violation of the editing restriction. In my opinion, a procedural issue should be resolved first. (edit conflict)In connection to that, I have a following proposal:

1. I revert last changes to this version. Per 1RR, I can do that. As a result of that, my request for self-revert becomes unneeded, and TLAM, Collect, Smallbones and Peters can ignore it.
2. As a result of my revert, there will be no need to file the above AE request, so I'll stop this process.
3. Since I also am not satisfied with the version I plan to restore, I will gladly join a discussion as proposed by Ed.
4. During the discussion, every factual statement must be supported with a reference to some reliable source (author, title, journal/publisher, year, page. Otherwise, such posts should be ignored.
5. Any discussion of reliability of disputable sources should proceed in separate threads, desirably, on WP:RSN. If reliability/unreliability of some source has been established, no discussion on the same subject can be initiated, unless fresh sources/evidences have been presented.
6. If the discussion will not lead to anything useful, we start a mediation process. I declare in advance that I will accept any decision of the Mediation cabal.

----Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposal looks like an obvious first step, and I'd urge everybody to sign on. Please note that I've asked many times that some folks supply a lower death figure that they can agree with, but they refuse to do this. Part of the above proposal has to be "What is a reasonable range of deaths caused by Mass killings under Communist regimes?" Folks who just say "we can't give any reasonable range" would not be meeting the requirements of the proposal: there are many academics and others who have addressed this issue. Answering "no, no, no, no, I just can't agree to any of this" is simply not an answer. Smallbones (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Your viewpoint sounds reasonable, however, it has some flaws. I am currently reading the reviews on the Black Book, and virtually every reviewer notes that the Courtois' introduction is controversial, and the figures are questionable. Even the reviewers who generally commend the book still criticise the introduction. Even the co-authors of this book disagree with Coirtous.

Therefore, to claim that in the absence of reliable estimates we can introduce questionable figures is hardly correct.

I agree that some other sources exist that claim that Communist rule lead to about 100 million of "excess deaths". However, most scholars do not qualify most of these deaths as "killings", because ca 90% of them were famine deaths and disease, which do not fit this definition. To call all of them "mass killing" would mean to mislead a reader, because for most readers "mass killing" means mass execution or other deliberate killing.

Moreover, if we decide to include "excess deaths", objectivity would require us to mention "excess lives", the fact, noted by many authors, that despite some disastrous periods in, e.g. Soviet history, the overall life expectancy and birth rate was steadily increasing under Communist rule (see, e.g. Ellman, Wheatcroft). If we mention those who died prematurely (or was never born) under Communists, we must mention those who lived longer that he could (also due to Communists).

--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Per your concerns I reverted back to your preferred version which misrepresents a source Per the obvious consensus here that sources ought not be misrepresented I self reverted to remove the gross misrepresented of a source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston. Your question was about figures in summary. Here are a few points about this.

1. Yes, the number of victims is important in an article about political repression. Therefore, the number (or a range of numbers) should be provided in the introduction.
2. The numbers of people "killed" and the number of people "who died as a result of Communist policies" are different. The second number is significantly greater: it is more than 60 million (rather than 20 million) in the Soviet Union alone according to The Guinness Book of Records.
3. I did not see any estimates of the number of people killed by all Communist regimes except "Black book", which qualifies as a secondary RS written by a group of European historians. It tells exactly this: "100 million people killed by all Communist regimes". They note that the number is approximate, which also should be noted in the introduction. If there are any other secondary RS that tell "N million people killed by all Communist regimes", they must be also used to obtain a range of numbers.
4. As a side note to others, it is grossly inappropriate to discuss sanctions at article talk pages. If you think that sanctions are needed, please go to appropriate administrative noticeboards and report your concerns there. Biophys (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• History articles needing attention
• WikiProject History articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Mid-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Old requests for peer review