This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

History Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Human rights C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union: Russia / History C‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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.

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

A couple quick points:

• where is the mass killings under capitalist regimes article (ie war in Vietnam, Afghanistan, civil war in Russia, starvation, lack of medical access, etc.)?
• Where is the mass killings during WWI article?
• How about for WWII?

Also, if the article includes famines, then shouldn't the title be something like "people who died in communist states with some elaboration about intentional killings"? To try and reduce bias, I propose, at least, that an article like this be constructed for capitalism, or that the "killings" and "famines" and specific events be covered specifically rather than under an over generalized pseudo topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the contributors to this article were 'trying to reduce bias', the article wouldn't exist in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree completely (which is why I'm surprised this article exists). I would argue that this topic is absurd. But I'm not familiar enough with what is and what isn't a suitible subject for a Wikipedia article. AnieHall (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may need a frequently asked questions list for this article, because I have read some of these reactions before. AnieHall, if you want a mass killings under capitalist regimes article, or any other article, there need to be reliable sources to base it upon. A "Mass killings under capitalist regimes" was started and did not survive nomination for deletion, because no reliable sources were presented to justify it (you can read the deletion nomination here). But the existence of this article does not justify having another one to "balance" it in the first place. An article must not be biased within itself, regardless of the existence or absence of any other article. If you think this article is biased, adding another article with another bias does nothing to reduce bias within this article. Doing so increases bias on Wikipedia rather than cancelling it. If there are specific examples of bias within this article, then this talk page is the proper place to raise them for discussion (you may have noticed that editing the article is currently under a very peculiar set of restrictions), but you may want to review the extensive talk page archives first. I suggest reading the last two deletion nominations, which will be much quicker. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT: just because an article that violates Wikipedia's core policies exists, is no reason to create sister articles. You claim for example that capitalism mass killed 1.5 million people in Afghanistan. If you want to create a neutral article, then you need sources that explain what role capitalism had in the mass killings. The fact that the killings were carried out by people from capitalist countries is insufficient. TFD (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am surprised but for entirely different reasons to do with process. There are a number of editors here who have cogently (but to my mind, unsuccessfully) argued that this article's topic exists. There are other editors here who have cogently (and to my mind, successfully) argued that this article's topic does not exist. In both cases discussion has been with reference to scholarly literature, and in the case of this article's supposed topic the article's title comes from a subsection of a chapter of a comparative genocide text. While an editor in good faith could misread the literature to suppose that this topic exists; the same is not true about "mass killing in capitalist regimes" etc. It is impossible to read in good faith that such a construct exists in the scholarly literature—when mass mortality attributed to the capitalist mode of production (my construct) exists in the comparative scholarly literature, it is compared and discussed in terms of causation other than capitalism. Non-scholarly accounts, such as Andy Anderson on food charity, tend to be single society and do not contribute a sufficient body of literature to justify a wikipedia article. The real debate with this article is between the two kinds of editors previously mentioned, both of whom interpret their readings of the literature in different ways.

In the field of genocide studies (which I have come to know too much about), petty moralism went out with the Lemkin generation and attempts to actually grapple with the problem of inflicted mass mortality in modernity focus now on the massacre as the "single unit" of genocide. The massacre authors seem to be getting somewhere with their microstudies, so good for them. In the meantime this article will continue to be deficient in the area of topic, and what should be of greater concern to those who read it as legitimate, deficient in terms of synthesis and coatracking separate to the topic issue. AnieHall, your concerns aren't encyclopaedic in nature—to the extent that repugnant theoretical constructs exist, an encyclopaedia should report them and evaluate them in terms of the scholarships' opinions of them. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AnnieHall, what separates this from capitalism is state terrorism conducted against its own citizens and others under its jurisdiction, whether legitimate or not, as a matter of policy. And for capitalism we have the Holocaust et al. for Nazi Germany, etc., so you cannot say that Communism is being POV singled out. To NOT have this article would be POV. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. What 'separates this from capitalism' is that the supporters of this policy-violating article also support capitalism. It is an enencyclopaedic propaganda piece... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting McCarthyism, the war in Vietnam, the war in North Korea, the American attacks in Cuba and South America - all of these are examples of capitalist state funded terrorism, and there are many more - these are specific to the United States, one of many states with a capitalist economy. The US may have a 2 party system, but it has 1 economic system, and both parties subscribe to it, even though they may disagree on a few of the details. Capitalism is ideological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- there are articles on WP just for yoiu! See Anti-cmmunist mass killings for one splendid example. And List_of_war_crimes#United_States_perpetrated_crimes etc. Else kindly read WP:NPOV = this article uses as neutral an outlook as any in this area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence we have an article the United States and state terrorism, as well as articles about all the subjects you mentioned. But to have a neutral article about capitalism and mass killings you would need a source that the reason the U.S. and other countries carried out these actions was capitalism. TFD (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. you mean something like the black book of capitalism or hegemony or survival and quite likely numerous articles by socialist scholars? It makes more sense to me that the named articles (and the ones under “mass killings by communist regimes” be kept separate, and not be lumped together into categories like "mass killings under communist regimes" and "mass killings under capitalist regimes". But if the existence of one is legitimate, obviously the other follows. And to say that there is no literature to support “mass killings under capitalist regimes” seems unbelievable. The American interference in Vietnam and Korea was precisely because the Americans feared the “domino effect” and wanted to preserve capitalism in their own state as well as others because, well, it’s tough to trade with a nation that does not have an economic system in the same spectrum (obviously not only that, but I’ve already blathered on long enough).

Based on that, Anti-communist mass killings seems like it should be lumped in with a "mass killings under capitalist regimes" since in capitalist states anti-communist propaganda has been prolific at times (i.e. the red scare), and drives people to fear supporters of communism. Also note that the title is "under communist regimes" not "by", and is "under capitalist regimes”. So there does not need to be anything that says it "was capitalism", it merely has to have occurred under a capitalist government.AnieHall (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Boy are we off the subject.

2. Anie. There have been several mentions on this site and others for the creation of a "Mass Killings under Capitalist regimes" (I was one of the suggesters). Somehow, no one evers seems to put together such a page. I can guess at the failures, but I won't.

3. Since when has the Holocaust been associated w Capitalism. Carefully unmentioned by the current MSM, Hollywood, and English profs is the fact that they were in love w National Socialism for the same reason they were in love w the communists. Hitler himself admitted there was no difference a National Socialist and a Communist. THE NAZIS WERE FAR LEFT! Something everyone w an ax to grind seems to ignore.

Let's get back to discussing the article.Aaaronsmith (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, re 3.:The National Socialist party was not communist – Hitler despised communists – he sent them to concentration camps – he invaded Russia – capitalism was alive and well in Nazi Germany if you were a member of the right race, religion, political part, etc. the “socialist” part was more about being an Aryan community member and about the government being able to redistribute the wealth that belonged to Jews, communists, people opposed to their regime, etc. The war was about acquiring more “living space” (property, factories, goods, etcetera) for the Aryans, and regaining the wealth that was lost from the great war and the treaty of Versailles. Also, the national socialist party was on the left????? No, it was not. Fist year political science courses will instruct you that the Nazi party was the far right, and fascist – not communist. Infact, they are polar opposites. There are similarities (at least between Hitler and Stalin), of course, but that is off topic. Unless my 101 textbook and instructor who has a PhD in political science and also teaches Germany in the 20th century and is also from Germany is a liar, you are mistaken. Maybe Hitler did make that comment (I’d like to see the source, but if it’s not being published – don’t waste your effort - unless you have it on hand) when he was pretending to be buddy with Stalin and signing a treaty (which he would eventually break). AnieHall (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the articles in peer-reviewed journals stating that Hitler's attacks were based on economic and political factors unrelated to capitalism entirely -- specifically the building of a new HRE under German rule, which is actually a step further than simply retaking the lands lost after WW I. Irredentism, to be sure, was part of his appeal, as was his vast undertaking of housing and road building programmes etc. Hitler, btw, sought and obtained a treaty with the USSR, in case you forgot that. I suggest you also read the peer-reviewed modern articles on "fascism" which make clear that in current views, the entire "left-right linear political spectrum" is considered out-of-date. Lastly, if you wish to start such an article - go ahead. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can try to edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"THE NAZIS WERE FAR LEFT!". Nope. An utterly ridiculous argument concocted by right-wing revisionist 'historians', given no credence whatsoever by academia - or by anyone else except a few right-wingers who evidently have some sort of guilt-complex. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, in the Greek legislature, deputies are seated from left to right: communists, socialists, conservatives, right-wing populists and neo-nazis. One of the socialist parties even calls itself the Democratic Left. Do your sources explain why they keep this "out of date" seating? TFD (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do your sources show why the Democrats in the US are seated on the right? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in spite of claims to the contrary, they aren't actually left-wing by most standards? Though of course this would imply that the Republicans should be seated in another room entirely... ;-) Seriously though, 'left' and 'right' still have meaning in most political contexts, and such meaning is a reflection of political perspectives, not seating arrangements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition of seating according to ideology began with the French legislature in 1789 and was not adopted by either the US or UK. Funny that you would imply that the Democrats are left wing as part of your reasoning that the terms left and right are meaningless. TFD (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such implication at all. Both parties are, by international standards, quite "centrist." What it does show is that seating is arbitrary and in many countries has zilch to do with any "political spectrum" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, i did not forget that Hitler signed a treaty with Stalin. I also did not forget that he broke that treaty the first opportunity he saw fit. And, yes, I am well aware that the Third Reich had dreamed of lasting a thousand+ years and had divided up the world into which sections it figured should be under German hegemony. That does not eliminate the "capital" factor. If other nations did not have food/factories/slave labour for the taking, Germany would not have been interested in adopting them into their “hre”. Motivation for invading other states is almost always economic, despite the other pretenses that are presented. Also, if the left/right-wing spectrum is out of date, then why are you bothering to arbitrarily rearrange it? And, I find it hard to believe it is out of date, since I can’t even count the articles in newspapers, magazines, and current university level text books I’ve seen it in (and used accurately, I might add), which leads me to believe that this is some fringe theory. Obviously, not all parties fit specifically in one category (left or right), it’s a spectrum, and a party can have mixed ideas. Anyways, preferably we can end reviewing 1st year university.AnieHall (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the journals - it is the specialists in political science who no longer adore the "linear spectrum". As for "popular usage" in newspapers - show me the ones which are peer-reviewed <g> as all the latest articles specify the limitations of a linear spectrum, and have done so since Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote against it a half-century ago. What is "right wing" in Putin's Russia is not the same as in Zimbabwe, or in Singapore, or in China, or in Canada, or in the US etc. Each place and each time has different criteria, and that is the inherent problem in the wonderful overly simplified "linear spectrum." "HRE" by the way is "Holy Roman Empire" as you appear not to have deciphered. And which was not "capitalist." Collect (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did decipher it. The holy roman empire is not a secret. Even if it were not obvious, everyone here has access to Google. You appear not to have completely read my post, i wrote "newspapers, magazines, and current university level textbooks". No one suggested that the "right-wing" was exactly the same in all states, nor did anyone suggest that all right-wing parties are identical. Also, the third reich was "not" the hre, it was used as more of a way to emphasize the expansion of power and influence throughout europe and the world... Hitler did not want his party to literally be the holy roman empire... and the holy roman empire was anything but communist. Also, just because a "specialist" in political science points out flaws in the left/right spectrum does not mean that the academic political science community has rejected it.AnieHall (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Hitler specifically called the HRE the "first Reich" - I suggest you read a bit more <g>. And "not communist" != "right wing." At any time or in any place. And I note that you do not furnish cites for what you assert you "know" to be the "truth" - making this colloquy pretty much non-utile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry for the absence of citation, I assumed much of this to be common knowledge and easily accessible, AND, also, I am not discussing publishing what I am discussing, I am merely pointing out the errors in dialogue as I see them. This discussion has been led astray by a red herring.

2. Hitler calling the HRE the first Reich does not = the third Reich being the third Holy Roman Empire (Fulbrook, Mary. History of Germany 1918-2000 . Second Edition. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. = my primary source, among various articles and The Third Reich)

3. Note how in my previous comment I mentioned, specifically, the Holy Roman Empire and the third Reich in the same sentence? That is because I am aware of the correlation between the two, and that correlation is empire. Key word is empire. Hitler wanted to create an empire (hence, Reich) that would last (hence me mentioning the 1000 years blah blah blah), like the Holy Roman Empire; not that he wanted to recreate the Holy Roman Empire exactly. Emphasis on lasting empire, not equivalent to the hre.

4. I did not say that "not communist" = right-wing; however, I was implying that an economy that is not communist is generally capitalist, unless it’s an indigenous economy based on hunting and gathering… which is often kind of like communism, usually (the sharing and egalitarian-ness). Although most, if not all, economies are mixed to some extent, I think it is safe to say that most economies can be defined as primarily command (generally synonymous with communist) or market (capitalist). And, I mentioned that hre = not communist because you (collect) said that national socialist = communist, and that national socialist = hre, so in short you suggested communism = national socialism = holy roman empire, and by extension communism = hre, which I disagree with.

5. This discussion has gone from “this article’s existence on Wikipedia is surprising to me” to a debate over the accepted definition of right and left wing (Source: Guy, James. People, Politics, and Government: A Canadian Perspective. Sixth Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. 2006. or there are most often decent wikipedia or britannica articles on many of these terms) and whether Hitler was communist and whether Nazi Germany was trying to be the holy roman empire. So, I’ve had enough of this red herring, and I imagine I am not unique in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 05:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So many misstatements of what I wrote and so little space to deal with them. I would point out that when you assert that an editor said something which he did not say, that such is non-collegial and a violation of the Five Pillars from the start. Almost all of what you claim I said falls into that category, and as such this colloquy hase become remarkably futile. Enough to point out that saying (collect) said that national socialist = communist is a blatant and outright lie, and I stand by using that strong word with regard to that claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, what you did say is this (following a comment asserting that national socialism = communism (paraphrasing)): “Hitler's attacks were based on economic and political factors unrelated to capitalism entirely -- specifically the building of a new HRE under German rule,”

And, “Hitler, btw, sought and obtained a treaty with the USSR, in case you forgot that” (collect, above). From these two comments, I gathered that you were suggesting that: 1. since the “economic… factors [were] “unrelated” to capitalism entirely” that you must have meant that they were related to some other form of economy (and I imagined that indigenous forms of economy, ie hunter gatherer, were obviously ruled out), which basically leaves communism, or an economy that is mixed but leans most greatly towards communism. 2. The purpose of you mentioning the treaty with the USSR was to emphasize the relationship between national socialism and communism (if this wasn’t the purpose, then what was?) So, yes, I apologize, you did not precisely write that “national socialist = communist”, I had inferred it from the above dialogue, and was not blatantly lying. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I won’t try and imagine what kind of economy you were thinking of when you made the above statements. On another note, kind of reminds me of how you wrote that I wrote the following: “- I suggest you read a bit more <g>. And "not communist" != "right wing."” – which was an inaccurate conclusion from what I had written. Don’t fret, my feelings were unscathed. Rather than asserting that you (collect) were blatantly lying, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that you had glossed over the comment (as I imagine that many of us here do not have all day to sit around reading wikipedia talk pages in detail), or that I had not been clear enough, or you had simply come to an erroneous conclusion, and I chose, instead, to clarify what I meant. Also, is this really the place for this kind of dialogue? If you think I’m being “non-collegial” and am “violating” the pillars, is it the custom to hash it out here, for everyone to suffer through, or should it go elsewhere? For some sort of moderator to decide if I should receive some kind of Wikipedia reprimand? I ask because I have no idea.AnieHall (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When caught telling such an outright lie, it is better to apologize instead of digging a deeper hole. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, perhaps you should report it.AnieHall (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened on this article and found missing some sort of comparison with other historical genocides. In the section "Comparison to other mass killings", it would be useful to have a 'see also' link to Genocides in history. Can an admin please add to the top of that section:

{{see also|Genocides in history}}

Much thanks, FurrySings (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

object no substantive source given for this edit Fifelfoo (talk) 11:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. It's a simple 'see also' link to the Wikipedia article about all genocides in history for the section titled "Comparison_to_other_mass_killings". This allows the reader to understand how 'mass killings under Communist regimes' fit into the larger picture of all mass killings in history. Why does that need a source, why is that objectionable? Could you explain a bit more? FurrySings (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weiss-Wendt, Anton (December 2005). "Hostage of Politics Raphael Lemkin on "Soviet Genocide"". Journal of Genocide Research (7(4)): 551–559. This is an article on fringe sociologies. See Valentino (2005) p9, or the article itself, "Theories, such as those of R. J. Rummel, that propose communism as a significant causative factor in mass killings have attracted scholarly dispute;[23] this article does not discuss academic acceptance of such theories." "This allows the reader to understand how 'mass killings under Communist regimes' fit into the larger picture of all mass killings in history. Why does that need a source, why is that objectionable?" because you're pushing FRINGE up hill without a source. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: For procedural reasons only: the conditions required in the sanctions box at the top of this page have not been fulfilled. Anomie⚔ 14:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie, according to the "Procedural Details" section of the discretionary sanctions box at the top of the talk page, the conditions can't be fulfilled until 72 hours have passed, so you have jumped the gun here. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the gun was jumped when FurrySings added {{edit protected}} before consensus was gathered. Should consensus eventually turn out to support this addition, a new {{edit protected}} may be added then. Anomie⚔ 07:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had thought that it was an uncontroversial proposal. I guess the problem is that 'mass killings' may or may not be the same as 'genocides'? FurrySings (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, genocide generally refers to the mass killing of a specific race/ethnic/religious group. Most of the mass killings here do not fit into the genocide category. Although there is a section of this particular article (the intro) that mentions something about 'loosely defined genocide' (or something similar). So, depending on how good the source is for that statement, there may be a loose connection between mass killings under commununist regimes and genocide - I've never read anything elsewhere to support it, so I'm not arguing in favour. But that, obviously, doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable argument out there in favour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnieHall (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry about it. A few articles, like this one, have been the source of much controversy in the past, so the community wants to make sure people discuss pretty much anything beyond fixing a spelling or grammar error or maintenance edits that don't affect the content in any way. Anomie⚔ 14:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leafing through the copious and, I must admit, rather amusing talk archives that accompany this page (after all, seeing the intellectual battles of the Cold War recapitulated at lightning speed over the Internet is something that cannot fail to please some rather twisted people, such as myself), I notice the lede for this page remains controversial. It is indeed strange that this page opens with, effectively, a decontextualised quote from a book already rather NPOV on the subject of Communism. The figure cited is preceded by this qualification:

"Nonetheless, we have to start somewhere. The following rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates, gives some sense of the scale and gravity of these crimes: "

Black Book of Communism, Introduction

Those two qualifiers, "rough approximation", and "unofficial estimates" make this statement substantially less strong than the mere qualification of "estimated" that we find at the top of the page. We could just edit that to better reflect what the source actually says... and end up turning the lede into a block quote from Courtois's masterwork.

I propose something a little more radical, and a lot more sensible. There is a reason Courtois uses this extensive qualification before he lists these numbers. This particular section, unlike the rest of the book - and indeed the rest of the introduction - is entirely uncited. Describing it as a "rough approximation" from "unofficial estimates" gives him an extremely large amount of leeway in what this actually means. I believe this isn't the level of rigour that an encyclopaedic work such as Wikipedia requires.

As such, at the very least when it comes to matters of pure number, I believe it should be made a policy for this page to only quote and cite sources which themselves have some backing more substantial than the author's assurance - ideally to the level required of a peer-reviewed article or similar. This might not even mean changing the lede particularly, as many seem quite happy with the numbers as they are, and so I'm sure they can find alternative and more rigorous sources for them.

Oh, and in addition - the Black Book of Communism is freely available on Archive.org. It might be a good idea to change citation links to lead there.HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. good concise points.AnieHall (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly disagree. I am very uncomfortable enacting narrower standards for this article than what Wikipedia requires for all its articles. We could change the wording in that first sentence to better reflect the source (and certainly that estimate should be stated as the specific estimate of that person, rather than as a straight statement of fact), but I think you will find that all the numerical estimates out there are similarly rough, or more so. I think we must attribute every numerical estimate to being the particular opinion of its author, with the particular criteria used noted (such as inclusion of famine deaths, etc.), and avoid crowning any particualar estimate over the others. In fact, I think the article needs a section specifically devoted to the numerical estimates, but I don't see that happening under the current editing restrictions. The actual numbers are simply unknown, and this should be made clear. AmateurEditor (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is a narrower standard than is required for all Wikipedia articles. WP:SOURCES states that sources should be "appropriate to the claims made". Given that statistical claims are quite clear-cut compared to other claims, particularly in the context of history, I don't see it as at all unreasonable that the source used to make such a claim is equally clear-cut. For a matter as grave as the possible deaths of millions of people, I'm not sure why standards shouldn't be closer to the level required for an article about a living person, rather than a Pokémon. If it is not clear-cut, then either make this obvious by giving due weight (WP:DUE) to other sources that make different claims, or remove that claim from the lede. Indeed, the former in itself would require removing this claim from the lede, as that is not the place to present competing claims of equal weight - it is the place to establish what an article is about. Hell, the very fact that all of this has been presented over hundreds of thousands of words of discussion in this talk page indicates that perhaps the controversy itself requires mention in the beginning of the article?HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 100 million, which has no acceptance in peer-reviewed writing, is an article of faith in fringe anti-Communist sources. The main problem with this article is that there is no literature specifically devoted to the subject and it is basically a polemical rather than encyclopedic article. TFD (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The article does appear to be polemical in nature to me, as well. But there must be some sort of consensus otherwise, since the article continues to exist. So, I think, since this article is (or at least the figures are) largely based upon the Black Book of Communism, the language surrounding the "unofficial estimates" should be true to the source, and not make the figures appear to be sounder than intended by the original authors. Since this is a contentious article, it seems wise that the language used be carefully and accurately selected. Not doing so certainly lends credence to the position that this article may be polemical. I would think that any good, reasonable and accurate suggestion that moves this article away from perceived bias should be acted on.AnieHall (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]