Talk:The Black Book of Communism/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Black Book of Communism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Covert persuasion

can the deaths during the Civil War be blamed on "the communists" or should they be seen as any other war casualties? Should the victims of the natural famine in 1922 be counted?

These "questions" are clearly not neutral. In the first question, the highlighted part implies that all other wars were treated in a different way than the Civil War. If you want to defend this phrase, please specify: which wars, how and by who? Otherwise, I assume that this phrase is not substantiated and only serves as an innuendo. As far as the second question is concerned, the real question is of course: was the famine natural or induced by communists? Should the victims of the natural famine in 1922 be counted? is not a question, but rather an answer and a POV, as is Should the victims of the famine in 1922, which was brought about by wrong economic policy, be counted?. I'll remove the first highlighted part and change the second question, so as to make it neutral. Boraczek 19:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prove that the economic policy was wrong and that it was the cause of the famine. Shorne 21:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't argue that the economic policy was wrong and that it was the cause of the famine and I didn't write anything like this in the article, so I don't know why I should prove that. Boraczek 21:21, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Latest restoration of article

Kind of problematical as not all was bad, but some was simply inaccurate, for example, the statement that the Black Book chronicles the "deaths caused by communism". It does not simply do that but, as the subtitle says, chronicles "Crimes Terror Repression", which I render as the "evils of communism". Adding POV edits with an edit summary that you have NPOVed it does not accurately reflect the changes you have made. Fred Bauder 21:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

If this page is protected pending the resolution of a dispute, then where's the dispute? I think it's about time to unprotect it, and start working from where we are now (reverts are counter-productive). For example, the phrase mentioned above should be edited to say "the perceived crimes of regimes pursuing communism" (without using the bold font, of course). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:37, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Necessary deportations

Did I really read this sentence:

"Were the deportations during World War II justified by the need to defeat Nazi Germany?"

What kind of NPOV policy does allow such a kind of sentence? What justifications could there be for such mass deportations? In how far did these deportations help the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany?

Concerning the other criticisms:

- the famine question is similar to the Great Leap Forward question. The impact of bad economic policies (mass collectivisation, price controls, etc.) is widely acknowledged (though there are, of course, dissenters). Some guy (don't remember who...) actually stated that in the 20th century, the worst famines happened to take place in communist states (Soviet Union, China, Ethiopia during its dictatorship).

On the other hand, both Russia and China had had famines on a regular basis for hundreds of years before they became communist states, and the famines under communist rule were the last in that line of historical famines. In other words, the communists ended the cycle of famine in Russia and China. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They definetely ended them with a bang! Seriously: it is obvious if you just know a tiny bit of economics that it's bad economic policies that created the famines in China and the Soviet Union.Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just like it is obvious to anyone with common sense that the Earth is flat... [/sarcasm].

I see you're out of arguments. Luis rib 23:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- the China/Taiwan question: I'm not sure that Taiwan's development can be entirely be attributed to American help. After all, Taiwan was only one of a handful of successful economies: the Tigers. Take South Korea: after the Korean War, it was completely destroyed and considered to be poorer than most African countries. Yet it managed one of the fastest development paces in world history.

The question was whether the small island of Taiwan can be compared to the huge continent-sized nation of China. It is certainly much more difficult to achieve economic development in China than in Taiwan. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why? Many Communsts argue for the benefits of large scale prodution. Ultramarine 22:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question to Minhea: how come China manages to develop at break-neck speed once it has implemented capitalist reforms? You don't need to compare CHina to Taiwan; just compare Mao's China to Jiang Zemin's China. Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- the India/China question: it is weird to claim that China saved lifes by raising living standards. After all, we have no idea how China would have developped if it had a Capitalist government. The comparison with India is not relevant since, as it was explained before, India had implemented socialist-style economic policies.

By the same token, it is weird to claim that the communists are to blame for the poor living standards in Eastern Europe - after all, we have no idea how the region would have developped if it had capitalist governments. Judging by the experience of the past 15 years, it would have probably ended up significantly worse off. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You seem to assume that the economic development in Eastern Europe has been bad. Do you have any statistcs to prove this? Ultramarine 22:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have my own experience as a Romanian, and [this archive of CIA world factbook statistics http://www.theodora.com/wfb/] (I should compile a relevant table using their stats, but I'm a little short on time right now - speaking of which, we really should work towards an end to this dispute). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea: you know pretty well that the collapse of Eastern European economies in the early nineties was due to the total malfunction of the communist economies before. The very high growth rates of Eastern Europe now show that capitalism does indeed work in those countries. Actually, those that adopted the most liberal policies (Slovakia and Estonia, for instance) are also those attracting most investment and growing fastest. Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If we can blame the dismal performance of capitalism in Eastern Europe on the evil commies who ruled those countries before, then, by the same token, we can blame any and all economic problems in the first 15 years of a communist regime on the evil capitalists who ruled the country before.

As for high economic growth rates, there are two points to be made: First, the highest growth rates are always in poor countries, not rich ones (much of the third world has higher growth rates than the first world). Second, a high growth rate does not mean a good living standard. In Romania, we've had a growth rate of over 4% in the past four years, but there has been ZERO improvement in the living standards of the majority of the population. The same applies to Slovakia, which is far poorer than its Czech neighbors. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What dismal performance of capitalism? I was in Hungary in 1994 it was just getting capitalist. The countries did not turn capitalist in one day in 1989. The transition was certainly painful, nobody says the contrary. Some countries make BIG mistakes (such as Russia, when it gave everything to the oligarchs). Those that managed the transition the best are those that are now doing best as well. Slovenia actually already managed to get in front of Portugal in GDP/head, I think.

Concerning high growth rates: I was talking of high growth rates compared to other countries with same level of economic development. Of course poor countries should have higher growth rates, that's just obvious. Actually, growth rates of 4 % in Romania are quite low, and should be much higher if the country wants to develop (but again Romania is one of the countries that was slow to move towards capitalism). Concerning poor population: only a fool would believe that adopting capitalism will automatically eliminate poverty. Portugal is capitalist too and has pockets of poverty. What people have to understand is that capitalism is just a word. What counts are specific economic policies, and if the right economic policies are implemented, the country can develop very fast. China and Ireland are excellent positive examples of that, Russia, Brazil and India are excellent negative examples. Luis rib 23:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And the exact same argument could be made on the "transition" to socialism in the Soviet Union. The transition was painful, and the country made BIG mistakes... The book in question is an ad-hoc polemic against the left. Nothing wrong with that, we need debate, but it is no more "fair and balanced" than Fox news...Ronnykj

- concerning the communist states apart from Soviet Union, China and Cambodia: the book does not only look at deaths, but also at other crimes, such as torture and human rights violations. Certainly, Ceaucescu is not known as a murderer. Yet it cannot be denied that torture was widespread in Romania. Also, Ceaucesu planned the organized destruction of Romania's architectural heritage (he succeeded in part in Bucarest). The Book also mentions all these crimes - that's why it is more than a black book on Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

The point was that most of the "crimes of communism" happened under three very specific communist regimes, rather than being distributed equally among all communist states. Therefore, the book's claim that communism in general has caused 100 million deaths is disputable. To make a comparison, if 3 capitalist regimes cause 90 million deaths and all the other capitalist regimes put together kill just a little over 4 million people, can we blame those 94 million deaths on capitalism in general? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is very logical that most crimes happened in China and the Soviet Union: those countries were by far the largest communist countries! So there should be no wonder that those countries concentrated most deaths. Cambodia, on the other hand, is an extreme example. Destruction of cultural goods was concentrated in Romania. Personality cult has reached its peak in North Korea. Ethiopia's famine (to which the Mengistu governemnt was totally indifferent) was also epic, given the country's population. True, other communist states were less violent, but human rights violations were common in ALL of them. That's why Communism is exceptional: all the countries that adopted it violated them in some way. There is no single example of a communist state that did not commit wide-spread human rights violations. Luis rib 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in death tolls measured as percentages of the total population rather than absolute numbers, please see this article. You will find that, far from supporting your case, these statistics actually show the crimes of Stalin and Mao to have been far less bad than they first appear. Mao killed tens of millions, but this was such a small part of China's huge population that he doesn't even rank in the top 25 killers of the century. In fact, only two communists do - Pol Pot and Stalin. Other communist regimes aren't even worth mentioning - keep in mind that besides Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, all the other communist leaders put together killed less than 4 million people (out of a total population of hundreds of millions in the countries they ruled, this accounts for less than 1%).

As for human rights, it could easily be argued that all capitalist countries violate human rights in one way or another as well. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of your argument: yes, as a percentage point there were worse dictators. Cambodia comes second, though, in your list. But there have been books written on most of those other brutalities too. This book just concentrates on the Communist countries, that's all. Concerning human rights violations, your comment is not true: not all capitalist countries violate human rights, on the contrary! Many capitalist countries are actually involved in preventing human rights violations all over the world. Think about the Scandinavian countries, for instance! Or Belgium, which allowed its courts to persecute human rights violations committed outside the country. True, some capitalist countries do commit human rights violations (the United States, for instance, or Israel vs the Palestinians). But most human rights violations are committed in dictatorships, which are not necessarily capitalist (Iran, Myanmar, several African countries). Also, all Communist states were dictatorships - which explains why human rights violations were wide-spread. Luis rib 23:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-External links: they are almost all against the book, apparently. In how far is that NPOV? The negative view of the book that transpires in this article also doesn't seem to be shared by the Amazon reviewers, which give the book an average of 4/5 stars.

As for my own opinion about the book: I actually found quite good, even though I have to agree that sometimes it adopts a rather extreme tone. Still, most of the figures seem to have been well researched. Luis rib 22:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Luis. I agree with most of them. As far as the NPOV policy is concerned, I think it requires that we report on the main (and reasonable) arguments raised by the critics. That is why I would leave the questions concerning the deportations and the famine. I think they do not imply that the critics are right, they just present the dispute around the book. As regards the external links, I think the solution would be to add more links.

You also posed a question I forgot to mention on this talk page. I think the statement that the book attempts to catalog deaths resulting from the pursuit of communism is not accurate. Maybe it would be better to give an exact quote from the book to desribe its aim.

Besides, I think the article should mention that the most part of the criticism comes from the left wing. It would help to signal that the controversy about the book has a political background. Boraczek 09:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy

however, I had to re-add my observations on east vs. west and east vs. south america

The argument at hand is about mortality and life expectancy. The comparison between Eastern Europe and South American can be made, of course, but in terms of life expectancy. Talking about relatively good performance of those same Eastern European economies when compared with their counterparts in capitalist South America is simply irrelevant to this article - what does it have to do with inflating the death toll of communism? As regards life expectancy, some South American countries, namely Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, achieved higher life expectancy rates than Eastern European countries. Boraczek 23:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a paragragh about whether these countries were actually communist or not. I was surprised this criticism wasn't in the article already as it is probably the most common one i come across regarding this book. - Dog Johnson

Thanks. Boraczek 10:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be noted that, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, life expectancy in Russia plummeted after the fall of the Soviet Union:

"Age-adjusted mortality in Russia rose by almost 33% between 1990 and 1994. During that period, life expectancy for Russian men and women declined dramatically from 63.8 and 74.4 years to 57.7 and 71.2 years" "he striking rise in Russian mortality is beyond the peacetime experience of industrialized countries, with a 5-year decline in life expectancy in 4 years' time. Many factors appear to be operating simultaneously, including economic and social instability, high rates of tobacco and alcohol consumption, poor nutrition, depression, and deterioration of the health care system. Problems in data quality and reporting appear unable to account for these findings. These results clearly demonstrate that major declines in health and life expectancy can take place rapidly. "[1] AndyL 11:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A short abstract about life expectancy in Russia in the 1990s: [2].

Generally, the mortality raised in Eastern European countries during a short period of transition (early 1990s). Later, the trend reversed. In Central European countries (for example Poland) mortality rates of 2000 returned to those from the 1960s (before the increase in mortality began) and kept rising. In the former USSR countries the increase in mortality in the early 1990s persisted for a longer period (4 years in Russia) and was more drammatic. Life expectancy has been improving since the mid-90s, but it didn't reach the highest level of the Soviet Union yet. Boraczek 12:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please don't attack NPOV

Wiki article is tackling the content that has a western stance from a western perspective. Of course the content is biased and makes false claims as well as statistics, etc. These just fortify the already biased views we have. We have to accept it, leave the article as it is. Articles like these are more interesting of the zeitgeist of our times (evil communists, 100 millions killed, no or false evidence). Leave it at that.-G

Is this an article about the book or its critics?

Jeebus cripes. Not that you can't mention the critiques. But this article needs a massive overhaul. J. Parker Stone 22:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is an article about the book and the controversy it raised. Boraczek 09:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An important purpose of writing this book was to incite debate. The author explains quite a bit about it. This alone makes it important to at least include some issues from the subsequent debate. RhinoMind (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Added Criticism

I added criticism to the material, methodology, and motives employed by the authors of the "Black Book of Communism". This article has been rather tame in showing criticism of this work by respected scholars.--Ploughman 26 January 2007, 00:42 (UMT)

The idea behind and the purpose of this book. As the article stands now, it does not include anything about the idea behind the book either. The book was not meant simply as a list of events and a number of deaths. The author explains quite a bit about why the book was written and the scope of it. It is important to include at least some text about this in the article. Just saying. RhinoMind (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Education, scholarly skills and occupation vs. ideological and political characterizations

Hello. In relation to the current quarrel, I just want to comment on one single issue. The issue of categorizing and describing individuals who have contributed to the subject or the debate about the subject.

In general, education, scholarly skills and occupation is much more important and informative than just stating ideological or political characterizations. Ideological and political characterizations can sometimes be a murky affair, they are sometimes sensible to POV and they often serves other purposes than simply informing about things said or argumented about. In a few instances I could see that it makes some sense, without diverting the information towards an overall ideological conflict that serve external purposes. But as a general rule political affilitations comes second to education, scholarly skills and occupation. If anyone wants to investigate things further and construct their own politically biased idea of what things are all about, they could turn to the pages on the individuals themselves where these issues are often explained and reffed properly (though not always). Wikipedia is not a media to serve ideological constructs. We provide information that is as un-biased as possible. Thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite right—ideological labels are not terribly constructive and liable to be abused by POV-pushers. The sad thing is that amateur POV-pushers often fail to realize that this strategy will seldom be effective in discrediting the sources they find politically disagreeable. This is because the label is just that—it points to no concrete facts and therefore carries little weight. And it often outs the editor inserting the label more than it outs the source. If you really want to discredit someone, attack their credentials and their work! That stuff is much harder to fudge, and the POV will be harder to place! It may still be POV-pushing and not very nice, but at least you give readers and other editors something to chew on.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yes what you describe is not uncommon, but in some cases (and this may be one of them) it is not necessarily a discrediting agenda that might motivate some editors. It could simply reflect the fact that the issue is highly ideological in nature. And in some instances people who have contributed to the work or the debate of the work could very well have been doing so out of an ideological motivation, instead of a purely scholarly one. It can sometimes be hard to tell in cases like this which one is more important. I think editors should at least be given this much benefit of doubt. However, if an argument, is exactly that: "An argument", it can stand on its own and it is only secondary what ideology or political orientation motivated it. I do not completely argue against all ideological or political characterizations on Wikipedia, which I think my initial post also explains, I just tries to mediate that it is secondary to education, scholarly skills and occupation in most cases. Ok, so much for now. My intention was really just to state a point, not to incite a lengthy philosophical discussion. RhinoMind (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I admit I got a tendency to assume bad faith. I do of course agree that editorial bad faith is not the only reason—not even the major reason—to prefer job descriptions to ideological labels. Unambiguous facts are always preferable to labels and opinions in an encyclopedia.Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:TAGBOMB

Moved from User Talk:Guccisamsclub#The_Black_Book_of_Communism

Can you take your concerns of my edits to the talk page? It doesn't help the either of us when you make reverts to (or edit war over really) edits like this one, the legitimacy of which incontrovertible. Wingwraith (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

And can you not do this again? We don't do mass reversions like this. Wingwraith (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you've posted something just now, after you reverted me and said you took the issue to my talk page. Ok then, what IS your point?Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you needed to revert an edit like this as part of your mass reversion of my edits? Wingwraith (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Because the tags make no sense. The claims you tagged with {{fact}} have citations, those tagged {{or}} are not WP:OR, while those tagged {{Not English-inline}} show no awareness of what that tag even means. Of all the tags you added, only {{dead link}} makes any sense.Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wingwraith:. just a ping get an answer.Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you cared to even look at your reversion that I was referring to in my immediately preceding post, it doesn't even involve the issue of tagging. But since you seem to be concerned by my use of the {{fact}}, {{or}} and {{Not English-inline}} tags, I'll address them directly, specifically and in that order: the use of that ^{[citation needed]} tag was entirely legitimate as that completed sentence had no source to which it should've been cited (and in any case, it was an edit that was deemed by an unrelated editor to be one that was made in good faith); unattributed statements like "they felt he was obsessed with arriving at a total of 100 million killed" is clearly an example of original research and articles which are written in French and Spanish are articles that are not written in English. However, as you've now written that my {{dead link}} tags are the only ones that "makes any sense," I'll be reinstating those tags shortly.

Now, on to the more substantive (i.e non-tag or non-tag related) areas of disagreement. Please tell me what is wrong with each of the following edits which you reverted as part of your mass reversion of my edits. Please also do not delete (or in any other way negatively modify), ignore and/or overlook this request as I will take any one (or a combination) of those action(s) to be indicative of WP:SQS and respond accordingly:

[3] qua [4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Wingwraith (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Wingwraith, and CopperPhoenix:. I'll reiterate that you've been tag bombing the the article without: 1) giving any reason other that they are "legitimate" for ... reasons; 2) indicating you've read most of the sources; 3)knowing what all the tags even mean. That's why you're being reverted. Some of the "substantive edits" you've listed are OK: the ones on Tismaneanu and Tauger are completely fine, the one on Amir Weiner is arguable fine too, but the ones where you replaced job descriptions with political labels are arguably not improvements (as I and others have already explained). The ^{[dead link]} tags are fine. Unfortunately all this is drowned out by your disruptive editing and reverts without discussion (which you justify with BRD, an acronym you don't appear to comprehend)Guccisamsclub (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I've already given you the reasons in my immediately preceding post for why my tag/tag-related edits are justified and your reverts don't make sense, so the fact that you're basically transcribing what you wrote in your immediately preceding post shows that you haven't read or understood what I've written. Your further implication that you fully understand the stipulations for tags like {{OR}} is invalidated (or at least seriously undermined) when you revert(ed) my criticism of this bare and unattributed assertion which proves that you don't really know how that tag operates.

As your specific objection over what I deduce, unless you state otherwise, to relate directly to this edit, I will give you at least five major reasons which I would ask for you to individually address as to why my version of the text is preferable to your version of the text qua your most recent mass reversion of my edits and latest series of consecutive edits which spanned the period of time from 09:15, 31 July 2016‎ to 10:48, 31 July 2016‎:

1) It removes a job description that is immaterial and irrelevant to the letter and spirit of what he's said about the book.

2) It includes a job description (and thereby accommodates your concerns of my putative replacement of "job descriptions with political labels") that is material and relevant to the letter and spirit of what he's said about the book.

3) It includes a political label which: a) helps the reader by clarifying the ideological context of his criticism of the book; b) has been used by him in a self-referential capacity; c) pertains to an object domain (the domain of political commentary) which legitimates its inclusion; d) is not a description of his political orientation that is excessive in length; e) is constitutive of a job description for which he is (or perceived to be) globally prominent; and f) does not exclude an inclusion of a(ny) description of his job title(s).

4) It reflects a POV bias on your part to represent his views in a politically objective way through a neutral description of his job title(s).

5) It demonstrates your inconsistency on the issue of 'ideological pidgeonholing' by removing the ideological descriptors for just him but not the other critics of the book who have had their (e.g. Perrault and Becker) political orientations explicitly stated.

Wingwraith (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You should really read what I wrote in the section below this one. POV-pushing is an artform, and you are doing it a great disservice. If you want to discredit Chomsky (and the ^{[unreliable source?]} tag makes it clear that you do), your priority should be making sure that readers know Chomsky is NOT a specialist historian. In fact, the earlier version of this page made him out to be a "historian" and I replaced that label with "linguist and social critic". I didn't do it for any POV-reason: I respect Chomsky a great deal. I did because it was accurate and clear cut. However it does make it clear that Chomsky's is a non-specialist's perspective. On wikipedia that means his opinion carries less weight and cannot be cited as a "fact".
Perrault and Becker...it was long-standing text... and I don't really care, nor does anyone else.
The stuff you claim is unattributed is in fact attributed, in the next sentence. We don't need a citation after every word. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wingwraith is completely wrong on the not English tags. The refs are in another language: why would you tag that?

Gravuritas (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wingwraith's arguments are not worthy of much time or consideration, but the tl;dr version was succinctly explained by Gucci above: "We don't need a citation after every word."

Wingwraith, if there are two sentences that refer to Amir Weiner, and only the second sentence is sourced to an article written by Weiner, it is absurd to tag the first sentence with ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[original research?]}. Unless you have taken the time to read the source and found that it says nothing of the kind, common sense suggests the claims are related. And if the cited source fails to support a statement, there is only one appropriate tag: ^{[failed verification]}. I hope that was clear enough for you to follow, because it will be hard for any of us to to take seriously continued professions of willful ignorance on this point.

Now, to the rest of the community: Wingwraith may actually have half a point: If Google Translate is anything to go by, the implication that Courtois was "obsessed" with the 100 million figure does seem stronger than anything Margolin and Werth wrote in Le Monde. If my reading is correct, our summary of their critique should be revised for neutrality. But perhaps Google just missed something?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you just have to google "Courtois obsessed with 100 million" and you'll get EL sources. I am not sure what you've been "reading"—the article is behind a paywall. I'd be reluctant to give the latest frenzy of contributions any points, since the blatant POV-pushing and disruptive editing outweigh any "points" they managed to score in the process.I've already done my best to separate out and keep the few pieces that remotely made sense.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Gucci, it is plausible that many of those search results are merely parroting Wikipedia through citogenesis, as none seem to tell us where, specifically, Margolin and Werth engaged in that bit of psychoanalysis—if they did not do so in the cited 1997 Le Monde article. That article is not behind a paywall, so you are free to examine it for yourself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've read that article before, but it was too long ago for me to remember the exact wording. Now the article IS behind a paywall and costs 2 euros.Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've verified the wording in the french article: Werth et Margolin reprochent à Courtois son « obsession d'arriver aux cent millions de morts'Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, certainly not the French Wikipedia which could well be the original source for any citogenesis. I'm not sure why you're unable to access the cited Le Monde article, but there is no such issue on my end. And, as far as I can tell, the only relevant part is the very first paragraph, which states:

"LES lecteurs du Monde n'ignorent pas la sévère controverse qui a opposé certains des auteurs du Livre noir du communisme, dont nous sommes, au rédacteur de son chapitre introductif, Stéphane Courtois. Rappelons seulement que les principaux points mis en cause par nous dans ce texte ont été : la centralité du crime de masse dans les pratiques répressives des communismes au pouvoir ; l'assimilation entre doctrine communiste et mise en application de celle-ci, ce qui fait remonter le crime jusqu'au coeur même de l'idéologie communiste ; l'affirmation qui en découle de la grande similitude du nazisme et du communisme, tous deux intrinsèquement criminels dans leur fondement même ; un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif, non clarifié (85 millions ? 95 ? 100 ?), non justifié, et contredisant formellement les résultats des coauteurs sur l'URSS, l'Asie et l'Europe de l'Est (de leurs études, on peut tirer une « fourchette » globale allant de 65 à 93 millions ; la moyenne 79 millions n'a de valeur que purement indicative)."

The flawed translation provided by Google is as follows:

"THE World readers will not ignore the severe controversy that pitted some of the authors of the Black Book of Communism, which we, the editor of his introductory chapter, Stéphane Courtois. Recall that only the main points challenged by us in this text were: the centrality of mass crime in the repressive practices of communism in power; assimilation between communist doctrine and implementation thereof, making up the crime to the very heart of Communist ideology; the statement that follows the great similarity of Nazism and communism, both intrinsically criminals in their very foundation; a figure for victims of abusive communism unclarified (85 million? 95? 100?), not justified, and formally contradicting the results of the sponsors of the Soviet Union, Asia and Eastern Europe (graduation one can draw a "fork" from global 65-93000000; the average 79 million has value purely indicative)."

The criticism seems to be that Courtois is playing fast and loose with his proposed 85-100 million range—not that he had some sort of personal obsession with reaching the specific figure of 100 million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me try again:

That full article should be at least 1 printed page long, single-spaced. What do you see? Two short paragraphs? See a yellow button saying "... 2 euro"? It's saying you can buy the full article for 2 euros.
Nobody's citing fr.wiki or random google search results as a source. This is what I used. The reason I pointed you to the french wiki, was because it quoted the point about "Courtois' obsession" verbatim, not as paraphrase.Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the entire article:

Complete text of "Communisme: retour à l'histoire" by Jean-Louis Margolin and Nicolas Werth

LES lecteurs du Monde n'ignorent pas la sévère controverse qui a opposé certains des auteurs du Livre noir du communisme, dont nous sommes, au rédacteur de son chapitre introductif, Stéphane Courtois. Rappelons seulement que les principaux points mis en cause par nous dans ce texte ont été : la centralité du crime de masse dans les pratiques répressives des communismes au pouvoir ; l'assimilation entre doctrine communiste et mise en application de celle-ci, ce qui fait remonter le crime jusqu'au coeur même de l'idéologie communiste ; l'affirmation qui en découle de la grande similitude du nazisme et du communisme, tous deux intrinsèquement criminels dans leur fondement même ; un chiffrage des victimes du communisme abusif, non clarifié (85 millions ? 95 ? 100 ?), non justifié, et contredisant formellement les résultats des coauteurs sur l'URSS, l'Asie et l'Europe de l'Est (de leurs études, on peut tirer une « fourchette » globale allant de 65 à 93 millions ; la moyenne 79 millions n'a de valeur que purement indicative).

On chercherait cependant en vain, dans le chapitre introductif comme dans le reste de l'ouvrage, la discussion serrée et approfondie que nécessiteraient des questions aussi complexes et délicates que la comparaison entre fascisme et communisme, ou la présence de potentialités terroristes dans la théorie marxiste elle-même. Nous n'entendons pas disqualifier ces indispensables questionnements. Mais, tout simplement, notre livre ne porte pas là-dessus.

Dans l'histoire des pratiques répressives du communisme, nous avons tenté, en historiens, de repérer points communs et différences, continuités et discontinuités, moments paroxystiques et périodes de ressac, espaces de barbarie et aires de semi-liberté. Nous nous sommes efforcés de contextualiser aussi précisément que possible ces expériences si diverses.

On n'y retrouvera pas à chaque page cette sanglante essence du communisme, une, indivisible et éternelle que Stéphane Courtois entend dénoncer. On y discernera par contre, et on y comprendra peut-être un peu mieux bon nombre des pires drames de ce siècle de fer, mais aussi, au-delà, ce que, des décennies durant, le tiers de l'humanité vécut d'insupportable.

On y trouvera également des éléments de réponse à l'incontournable interrogation : comment l'espoir vira-t-il au cauchemar ? Au terme des années de réflexion, individuelle aussi bien que collective, qui sous-tendent ce livre, nous pouvons avancer quelques pistes.

Le « Livre noir du communisme » n'est pas une somme définitive, encore moins une Bible. Etape d'une indispensable réflexion, il aura rempli son but s'il stimule de nouvelles recherches, sans tabous, mais aussi sans préjugés.

Le communisme au pouvoir fut partout antidémocratique et répressif ; il ne fut ni partout ni constamment massacreur. C'est que, à côté du projet initial commun, du « noyau dur » universel élaboré à partir de 1917, deux facteurs particuliers structurent les divers régimes. La tradition nationale est une première variable : la place de la violence, en particulier, n'est pas constante ; que l'idée d'Etat de droit soit presque absente en Asie, et vacillante en Russie, facilite les dérives totalitaires ; les millénarismes religieux peuvent être récupérés en redoutables prurits éliminationnistes et « purificateurs ».

L'insertion spatiale et temporelle précise est tout aussi déterminante : ainsi la puissance du communisme asiatique, son maintien au pouvoir aujourd'hui sont liés à sa captation réussie de la volonté de sauvetage national de peuples soumis au défi de l'Occident et du Japon. L'intensité même de ce défi servit à justifier l'atmosphère de camp retranché soumis à la loi martiale, si sensible encore en Corée du Nord.

Le « temps mondial » a aussi son importance : que les Khmers rouges soient parvenus au pouvoir en 1975, au déclin de leur modèle maoïste, et non loin de « dragons » capitalistes en plein essor, rend sans doute compte de leur tragique fuite vers un hyper-volontarisme ; il leur fallait construire le communisme tout de suite, ou périr.

Mais le projet communiste n'a pas non plus la belle unicité qu'on lui prête souvent. La matrice en est certes le bolchévisme de pouvoir structuré en Russie pendant la période du « communisme de guerre » (1918-21). Cependant, pour l'Asie, le maoïsme exerça un profond remodelage : au pouvoir dès 1930-31 sur un fragment du territoire chinois, il y construisit aussitôt un appareil d'Etat complet, et inaugura des formes de répression aussi massives qu'originales (en particulier la « rééducation » généralisée, correspondant à un encadrement idéologique extrêmement contraignant) avant donc la grande terreur stalinienne de 1937-38, seconde expérience fondatrice du totalitarisme soviétique.

En Europe de l'Est, à l'inverse, la fréquente importance de la tradition socialiste et marxiste pré-léniniste continua d'irriguer directement, plus ou moins discrètement, les sociétés et même les partis au pouvoir. Ces variations produisent des systèmes répressifs aux effets différenciés, non seulement quantitativement, mais aussi qualitativement : ainsi les persécutions sont en Chine plus étendues qu'en URSS, mais aussi relativement moins sanglantes, particulièrement en ce qui concerne les militants communistes.

De tout cela, il résulte que le crime de masse, s'il scande l'histoire du communisme, n'en remplit pas l'horizon entier. Il ne fut pas universel : on ne le distingue guère à Cuba, au Nicaragua ou dans certains pays de l'Europe de l'Est. Et là où il eut lieu, ce fut par « bouffées », temporellement circonscrites (sauf au Cambodge sous Pol Pot : est-ce un hasard si son régime s'effondra en moins de quatre ans ?) : une dizaine d'années au total en URSS (1918-22 ; 1930-33 ; 1937-38), une quinzaine en Chine (1946-55 ; 1959-61 ; 1966-68).

Il convient, de plus, de distinguer, parmi ces épisodes paroxystiques, les cas où l'intention « exterminationniste » est indiscutable (il s'agit bien sûr avant tout des exécutions), et ceux où sont plutôt engagés l'utopisme dogmatique, le prélèvement prédateur, l'incurie et le mépris de l'élite politique pour ce qui n'est pas elle : grandes famines de 1921-22 et de 1932-33 en Russie, de 1959-61 en Chine à elles seules responsables de la moitié au moins de l'ensemble des victimes du communisme.

A quelle logique d'ensemble correspondent ces moments abominables, par-delà leurs différences ? En URSS comme en Chine se révèle une manière de « courbe en U » de la mortalité politique : un premier pic dans les années d'installation du régime ; une « trêve », SW,0Õrelative et assez courte (NEP en URSS), qui précède un retour de l'horreur, d'abord sous la forme de famines, puis sous celle de « purges » massives.

Le premier flot de victimes, ce sont ceux qui résistent, ou qui pourraient résister au projet d'arasement de la société : les adversaires du régime en Chine, par exemple, les élites traditionnelles des campagnes (propriétaires fonciers, paysans riches) et des villes (entrepreneurs, fonctionnaires, intellectuels).

Le second flot paraît plus difficile à expliquer : on a souvent recouru à son propos aux catégories de la psychologie collective (exaltation, dérapage dans l'irrationnel) ou individuelle (paranoïa d'un Staline, mégalomanie d'un Mao).

Loin de nous l'idée de nier toute pertinence à cette façon de voir : il est vrai que la disparition des deux autocrates met fin, définitivement, aux répressions de masse. Mais le secret, y compris de ce triomphe de la déraison, gît dans l'incapacité constitutive des idéocraties messianiques en place à accepter l'idée que tout n'est pas politique, et que la volonté correctement dirigée n'est pas toute-puissante.

Or, justement, avec l'échec économique de la collectivisation soviétique et des communes populaires chinoises, ce sont les choses qui se sont mises à résister : la « ligne juste » ne peut suffire à faire croître le blé et le riz. Cela, le Parti ne peut ni l'accepter, ni même le voir. D'où, dans un premier temps, la contemplation irritée de ceux qui meurent de faim, et qui le méritent sans doute puisque normalement ils n'auraient pas dû avoir faim. Et, ensuite, la recherche obstinée des hommes « coupables » de cette résistance du réel : au plan « théorique », cela donne l'« aggravation de la lutte des classes en période de construction du socialisme », lancée par Staline, reprise par Mao ; au plan concret, cela débouche sur la chasse aux « saboteurs » et autres « révisionnistes ».

Les victimes sont encore, par routine, les survivants de la première grande vague répressive. Mais leur dépossession, leur marginalisation sont désormais telles que, pour la vraisemblance, il convient de leur adjoindre des intellectuels et cadres compagnons de route, puis finalement des militants et des dirigeants du Parti.

La terreur est donc beaucoup moins ciblée, beaucoup plus généralisée que dans la première phase. Elle peut déboucher sur un massacre sans limites (Cambodge), sur un accès de totalitarisme anarchique (révolution culturelle), sur une auto-dévoration du Parti (grande terreur stalinienne).

Néanmoins, la fuite en avant, la redoutable tendance à l'emballement de cette terreur sans plus de vrai objet que de bornes finit par vacciner l'appareil communiste lui-même : globalement, il a bien plus à en craindre qu'à y gagner. D'où l'abandon définitif de semblables méthodes, et leur non-imposition en Europe de l'Est soviétisée ; la répression devient sélective et limitée, cependant que, inévitablement, l'idéologie se délite, jusqu'au coeur du régime.

Nous aurions aimé que semblables hypothèses aient pu être débattues dans le chapitre introductif. Mais le Livre noir n'est pas une somme définitive, encore moins une Bible. Etape d'une indispensable réflexion, il aura rempli son but s'il stimule de nouvelles recherches, sans tabous, mais aussi sans préjugés.

I'm not seeing anything about "obsession."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow, you're right. Still don't know how you got the full article for free, but whatever. On closer inspection of the french wiki, I found that it does not cite the same source as the english wiki. I bought the full text cited of the article in the french wiki from the Le Monde archive, and it checks out:

Tout était prévu, sauf l'essentiel, la préface, qui, seule, pouvait donner son sens au livre et en faire plus qu'une somme lisse et comptable. Ce texte, rédigé par Stéphane Courtois, tout comme le choix du titre de l'ouvrage et de la quatrième de couverture commencent, en septembre, à inquiéter plusieurs collaborateurs. Parmi eux, Nicolas Werth, qui a rédigé la plus grande partie du livre (la terreur et la répression en Union soviétique), Karel Bartosek, qui s'est attelé à l'Europe centrale et orientale, et Jean-Louis Margolin, qui a étudié les communismes asiatiques notamment le génocide de Pol Pot au Cambodge.

[...]

Jean-Louis Margolin et Nicolas Werth reprochent à Stéphane Courtois de considérer « la dimension criminelle comme l'une des dimensions propres à l'ensemble du système communiste », ainsi qu'il l'écrit dans son texte. « Cela revient à enlever son caractère historique au phénomène, affirme Jean-Louis Margolin. Même si le terreau communiste peut aboutir aux crimes de masse, le lien entre doctrine et pratique n'est pas évident, contrairement à ce que dit Stéphane Courtois ». Contestant des « approximations », des « contradictions » et des « maladresses qui font sens », les deux auteurs reprochent à Stéphane Courtois son « obsession d'arriver aux cent millions de morts ». Nicolas Werth décompte ainsi quinze millions de victimes en URSS, quand Stéphane Courtois, dans son introduction, en ajoute cinq. M. Margolin explique « qu'il n'a jamais fait état d'un million de morts au Vietnam ». Ce dernier avait déjà réussi, il y a quelques semaines, à imposer à l'éditeur un changement de titre (l'ouvrage devait s'appeler Le Livre des crimes communistes) et a imposé un sous-titre : Crimes, terreurs, répressions.

This is a news report that quotes Margolin and Werth. Among other things, it notes the bitter controversy over publication and quotes Margolin and Werth about Courtois' "obsession" with the grand tally and his tendency to pull country-specific numbers out thin air without consulting the contributors.Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for straightening that out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Caplan

Bryan Caplan's comments about mortality in China and India have nothing to do with The Black Book of Communism, and as such are altogether inappropriate for this article. The material added here is quite simply off-topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The subject of the paragraph in question is Noam Chomsky's comparison of mortality in China and India. Even without naming the BBoC, Caplan's remarks directly relate to the thing itself, i.e. the subject of the paragraph and Chomsky's specific factual claims. Moreover, this isn't just a Wikipedia editor adding a footnote to the effect that "capitalist India" was at this time an avowedly socialist state in formal alliance with the Soviet Union (which could still be defended as editorial discretion but is more clearly original research); Caplan is specifically addressing the methodology used to quantify the alleged human costs of communism and capitalism by Chomsky et al. (Indeed, one of his main points is that even if the Chomskyite conclusion is accepted, "Letting strangers die from poverty is not morally equivalent to murder" [emphasis added].) It's more misleading to readers to allow Chomsky's comments to stand unchallenged than it is to include Caplan's rebuttal to Chomsky's very common line of reasoning. Policies like WP:NOR are designed to make articles better, not to encourage bureaucrats to override common sense through a technicality (hence Wikipedia:Ignore all rules).

If you can pardon the digression, I have experience editing Wikipedia articles based on video game consoles, such as Dreamcast. That article is filled with a vast array of information on the manufacturer's background/financial history, as well as a huge "Game library" section with detailed analysis of several of the system's top exclusive games. Who's to say much, if not all, of that material isn't UNDUE or OR? Truth is, no one video game console article looks the same, because policy can only go so far in shaping the focus and organization of any article. You might think an article on The Black Book of Communism is more clear-cut, but I would be remiss if I didn't state my objection here.

On your secondary point, that EconLib is a "blog posting, or something" (true), Spectrezine is a self-published "radical journal of the European Left". I could claim that any self-described "radicals" are inherently WP:FRINGE, but that would be preposterous; the relevant consideration is the author. Caplan may not be the world's most influential intellectual, but he is a professor of economics at George Mason University, and therefore a RS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a wall of text. You might want to read WP:TLDR. The problem here is very simple: you are trying to add material specifically to rebut claims made by Noam Chomsky, even though the material in question does not mention either Chomsky or the book the article is about. That's quite simply inappropriate. The material is off-topic and your use of it definitely violates WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't accept your reasoning. If the book says that the sky is blue, and Chomsky says that the sky is pink, then someone else's assertion that the sky is not pink is a perfectly valid 'rebuttal of a rebuttal'.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is not about the sky. It is about a particular book. The article exists only to document that book and things that people wrote about it. TheTimesAreAChanging is trying to tendentiously add material that has nothing to do with The Black Book of Communism, apparently simply out of a desire to refute Noam Chomsky. All your comment above really seems to amount to is, "I don't like Noam Chomsky, so let's add material to show him wrong." Sorry, but per WP:NPOV, that's not how things work here. Editors are not meant to take sides in such a fashion. Endless material could be added to support one side or another in an argument over the merits of communism versus capitalism, but that is the last thing that a neutral article should contain. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like my analogy, and even sorrier that you mis-state my argument. The article is about the book, but if material is used from Chomsky to contradict the book, then the validity of Chomsky's material becomes not just a possible inclusion in this article, but a necessary one. To use another analogy, if Mr.X says part of this book is untrue because the earth is flat, and if you wish to include that statement, then it becomes necessary in fairness to also include somebody's assertion that the earth is not flat. It is not WP:SYNTHESIS to do so, and it is not necessary to show that the earth-not-flat comment was produced by way of answer to Mr.X. Clearly if rebuttal leads to rebuttal leads to rebuttal, a fair summary of the arguments needs to be included, not 'endless material'. (Why include such rhetorical BS in your comment?). A tendentious criticism, which you wish to leave in unqualified, is not WP:NPOV, so Chomsky's line should not stand alone.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you are completely mistaken. The article is meant to be a neutral discussion of the book, and therefore it doesn't contain content intended to rebut Chomsky or anyone else who has commented on the book. The flat earth example - I take it you are comparing Chomsky's views to flat-earthism - is fatuous and unworthy of serious discussion. It's an exceedingly poor rationale for adding biased content, and you are only discrediting yourself by comparing political and social views that are a topic of ongoing debate to an almost universally rejected position such as flat earthism. You are avoiding facing the basic problem with the material that was added by TheTimesAreAChanging, which is that it is off-topic, not even about The Black Book of Communism. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your tendency to misinterpret analogies is quite extreme, so I will try to avoid them. For the avoidance of doubt, and for people who wish to misinterpret analogies to make silly rhetorical flourishes, I was not comparing Chomsky's views to flat-earthism. Chomsky has criticised the book. Is Chomsky's criticism based on plain, untendentious facts? If so, then it can stand in its vanilla form. If not, then it should not be reported as such. For comparison, try some other WP articles which include criticisms- large number include counters to the criticisms without either straying into WP:SYNTH or ending up with 'endless material'.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If you do not think Chomsky's views are equivalent to flat earthism you should not even have mentioned flat earthism. Why mention things that are irrelevant and have no connection with the subject we are discussing? It might well be better to just stick to the topic. Your comment, "Is Chomsky's criticism based on plain, untendentious facts? If so, then it can stand in its vanilla form. If not, then it should not be reported as such", is absolutely wrong. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to decide what is and what is not "based on plain, untendentious facts", and nor is Wikipedia simply reporting Chomsky's views the same as stating them as fact, as you apparently believe. Effectively, you are saying that because Chomsky is wrong in your opinion some criticism of him is called for. Sorry, that's not how things work here, per WP:NPOV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

wow. So far I've been completely mistaken; fatuous; unworthy; exhibited poor rationale; discredited my self; and avoided the problem. This seems unwarranted: are you just having a really bad hair day or do you normally conduct WP debates with this degree of over-reaction?.

Let's dispose of your post immediately above this one. I made an analogy, I did not equate Chomsky's views were equivalent to flat earthism. Be careful:- next time I might use a metaphor, or even a simile. That isn't the same as introducing an irrelevancy, and your, now wilful, literal-mindedness does not allow you to dictate how I can, and how I cannot, make an argument. That's not how things work here.

Returning from hysteria-land, let me try to understand your position. If I have understood it correctly, your point is that Chomsky has directly commented on the BBC, and hence it can be reported on in this article. I am unclear which of the following positions you are taking- please select one:

1.Any counter to Chomsky's comments, whether of his grounds, his reasoning, or his conclusions, is not to be included.
2. Only specific counters to Chomsky's comments, explicitly made as a 'rebuttal to his rebuttal' of the BBC, would be allowed in this article.
3. The WP policies are what you choose them to be on any particular day. That's how things work around here.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are tendentious and barely deserving of a response. The issue remains the same: the article is about The Black Book of Communism, not criticism of Noam Chomsky. Thus, criticism of Noam Chomsky is off-topic for this article. I think you will find that there is broad agreement than the content of an article should be specifically about the article's actual topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't expecting a response to the deserved mockery, but I'm glad to see that something is having a calming influence. I was hoping for some serious engagement on the article content. As you haven't made a selection, I will have to interpret your remarks to make one, which is a pity. I gather that you are selecting 1. out of the multiple choice answers to the question in my previous post. That's not a widely- held view in WP: you can find a number of instances where an article contains 'counter-counter' lines of argument. Hence Chomsky's critique of the BBC in it's turn, can be countered within the article.

Gravuritas (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Making comments to which you do not expect a response is inappropriate and an abuse of this talk page. You appear to be unable to address the point that content not about The Black Book of Communism does not belong in the article. The point stands. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lecturette is hypocritical. Your point is addressed in both my immediately-preceding posts, so an accusation of point avoidance is also hypocritical. Wake up and try reading my posts again. In getting away from the hysteria, I think you've overdone the sedatives. Try an upper.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If you persist in making borderline personal attacks, I may have to take this to WP:ANI. You have not quite crossed the line yet, but you are almost there. I am not interested in arguing with someone whose comments consist of nothing more than, "I am right", over and over again. You have done nothing whatever to justify including article content that is not about the specific book - The Black Book of Communism - the article is concerned with, and your assertions to the contrary accomplish nothing. Some response to Chomsky's comments would not be a problem at all if that response actually concerned Chomsky and what he wrote about The Black Book of Communism. The content you support doesn't meet that standard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"If you persist in making borderline personal attacks." Pot, meet kettle.

Anyway, I agree this conversation isn't really going anywhere. So far there's two against one in favor of inclusion, but we really need more input to reach a clear consensus. Bickering—and repeated personal attacks of the sort FreeKnowledgeCreator has engaged in—are unlikely to change anyone's mind.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add a counter to Chomsky's comments about The Black Book of Communism, the appropriate thing to do is to simply find someone who responded to what Chomsky wrote and add a summary of his response to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100% with FreeKnowledgeCreator. The edit is in transparent violation of basic policy guidelines. All FKC did was try to explain this to a new editor, who unfortunately followed the example of the recent tag-bomber (see above) in his stubborn refusal to see the point, and an equally stubborn determination to waste everyone's time on his tendentious and irrelevant nonsense. However, unlike the tag-bomber, he's has also been overtly rude. I think TTAAC ought to know better than to call pox on both houses here.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll find 3 posts up, FKC's second last sentence is exactly equivalent to my option 2 that I offered him , about 9 posts up, and in successive posts he chose not to select any options. That settles who has been time-wasting. I'm not a new editor, and I don't initiate rudeness, but when someone is both rude and misrepresents my points then mockery might be appropriate. Tant pis. I am sorry in TTAAC's direction that his serious points got mislaid in the chaff. Gravuritas (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It should always have been clear that my objection to the added content was only that it was off-topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the problem. To criticize a notable book by notable academics (such as "Black Book"), one should use sources of similar quality written by mainstream academics, rather than by revisionist historians or by people without any real qualification. Otherwise, we have a number of ridiculous claims in the criticism section. For example, this source tells that The Black Book of Communism ... reaches a much simpler conclusion: the Germans and the Russians were merely terrible criminals who were members of a huge Communist gang. Well, but the book does not tell anywhere that German Nazi were members of "a huge Communist (sic!) gang". Such sources and authors simply should not be used. I think the "criticism" section should be summarized more briefly, given low quality of sources and poor reputation of authors used in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll grant you that Getty's essay is no masterpiece and I have no particular love for his work; but the rest I completely disagree with. Take Getty for example. There is absolutely nothing "revisionist" about his Atlantic piece and if Getty is not notable on the topic of Communist terror, nobody is. His "Communist gang" is an extremely sloppy way of saying that the BBoC (or at least Courtois) drives home the message that there is no major difference between Communist and Nazi butchery. That's certainly a theme in the book, but Getty worded it in a potentially misleading way. Nonetheless, this quote from Getty is not even in the section. As for the "low quality" of sources and the "poor reputation" of some of the authors and the "ridiculous" nature of the critiques, that's clearly in the eye of the beholder. Much of the commentary here comes from historians (and Chomsky is one too, though not professionally), including the very authors of the BBoC itself and the quality of the criticism certainly is no worse than the effusive praise that's also cited. The biggest problem with the article right now is that it focuses too much on Courtois' dubious introductionand not the individual chapters, which are generally of better quality.

There is also a fair amount of counter-criticism in the criticism section (4 sources of that nature). Guccisamsclubs (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, the comparison with Nazi is not a major theme of the book, but just a thought by one of authors in intro. Moreover, this is not an original comparison by the author, but a common place - see totalitarianism. Giving a lot of space to criticism of totalitarianism on this article is undue. Just to clarify, consider On the Origin of Species. Yes, this book was criticized a lot by religious fanatics, but giving a lot of space to their "criticism" on the page about this book would be undue. Yes, these ideological fanatics qualify as "fringe", but so are Getty and Chomsky. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

If you think it is undue to criticize the "comparison with Nazi", your first concern should be to expand the article with information about the rest of the book, provided you've read it. Currently, the article only covers Courtois' intro. There is little doubt that equating Communism to Nazism was a top priority for Courtois as editor. He even chose the title to echo the Black Book (World War II). Margolin and Werth—the two major contributors—did not see it that way and were eventually disappointed to see their work being marshalled in support of Courtois' narrative. The comparison of the Black Book of Communism to Darwin's Origin of the Species, and it critics to fanatics, proves exactly nothing and I for one do not buy it at all. I suggest closing this thread as the original edit being discussed has already been rejected and further discussion appears to be off-topic.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You tell: "Currently, the article only covers Courtois' intro". Yes, certainly! For example, most of the criticisms are about polemic Introduction to the book. But this page (mis)represents it as a criticism of the whole book. This should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify which criticisms pertain only to the intro. You cannot however completely separate Courtois from the book which he conceived, edited and introduced.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the book did not trivialize Holocaust in the introduction, as your new version tells. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hold on don't revert. Let me read the source.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Isolated the "trivialization" allegation to one source and moved it out of the lede sentence, since other sources do not use this language to my knowledge.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The description is far from neutral ("sparked controversy in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois' statements in the introduction" and "They felt Courtois was "obsessed"") and devotes too much space to claims that are sourced but do not add anything interesting or informative to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Really now, the objections of the two main authors of the BBoC to how their work was used by Courtois is not notable?Guccisamsclubs (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course they are notable and must be noted on the page, but in a way that explains what exactly they disagree about. I just fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed again - in a different way, especially since there was no any further objections here. The quotation from Chomsky was moved to first paragraph because it is about the same: disputing the number of victims. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I mass-reverted your edits. I further grouped the criticisms, partly in response your concerns. Your stylistic edits trimmed down the section, but at the expense of clarity. So I didn't feel they were warranted. Your deletions of three authoritative sources (Tauger, Dallin, and Kenez) were either unsupported or supported with a false allegation ("self-published").Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That was one self-published source, and this is also a self-published source, is not it? I did not remove anything else. Now, if you want to use "authoritative sources", this is great. However, "authoritative sources" are the ones published by peer reviewed journals and by academic publishers, not private letters and essays on the internet. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither was "self-published": Tauger's piece was written for the book "Roter Holocaust?" (google it); Kenez's piece was written for a prominent web-zine back in the day. Now please do us both a favour and stop making uninformed allegations about the content in the "Criticism and debate" section, in the hope that something will stick. This has been tried here before, and it won't work—it's simply a waste of time. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I placed these claims with refs back, not because I agree that these sources are "authoritative" (they are not!), but just to save time. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, "they're not". None of the sources cited here can hope to match Cathy Young's magisterial piece in the Weekly Standard. But you know, other stars can also shine, albeit less brightly.Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

An "authoritative source" is something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or by academic press and highly cited. None of these sources (including one by Young) belongs to that category. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we made good progress here. Why did you revert everything again? Fix current version, please. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Who's we? Are your edits exempt from BRD or something? Just FYI, things like "rv", "no", "i fixed it" do not satisfy the Discussion requirement. I've already addressed your substantive concerns about "self-published" and irrelevant sources—they were all completely baseless. BTW, if you really want to "fix" the article, read the book and summarize the chapters. That's something that needs doing. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war by Guccisamsclub and Guccisamsclubs

@My very best wishes: This is getting strange. Have a specific concern? Take it to a new section, so we at least have something to talk about. Want to make copy edits and change some of the phrasing? Please start small. Some of your style edits are fine and some are not. That's to be expected, since English is not your native language. We can take them one by one and see if genuine improvements can be made. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If my style edits were not good, please fix them. Do not revert everything to the initial version. And forget about WP:BRD. This is an essay, not a policy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I did, or at least tried to do (see the diffs). I did not revert "everything". The bulk of your edits consisted of deleting or cutting down material you didn't like (edits based on demonstrably false arguments), and there was no option but the nuclear one for those. I'll forget about BRD when the rest of the community forgets about it, i.e. probably never.Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Good luck with improving this page. I would be inclined not to edit any pages where people are engaged in sustained edit warring to enforce their version (as you do on this page), unless other contributors support my changes. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Du passé faisons table rase ! Histoire et mémoire du communisme en Europe (2002)

Should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a sequel. Burnt by the Sun 2 anyone? Anyway, sure, go ahead.Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you please be serious? I find your comment impolite and redundant.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)