Talk:The Black Book of Communism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newimpartial (talk | contribs) at 17:20, 27 August 2020 (→Self published source: note re Puedo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:20, 27 August 2020 by Newimpartial (talk | contribs) (→Self published source: note re Puedo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Black Book of Communism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union: Russia / History Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Russia portal This article is supported by WikiProject Russia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cambodia Low‑importance

The Black Book of Communism is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Misplaced Pages, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cambodia To-do:

Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc.

Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values.

I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG

Thankfull for this info.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sourcing for reception in Eastern Europe

The source for this statement, The book has also been influential in Eastern Europe, where it was enthusiastically embraced by prominent politicians and intellectuals, was to this source, and apparently specifically intended to paraphrase these lines: This dispute is beyond the focus of this study, but it is important to note that Courtois’s controversial propositions have had a great impact in Eastern Europe, where prominent politicians and intellectuals have uncritically embraced them. and In Romania, prestigious intellectuals such as Tudoran, Manolescu, and Liiceanu preferred to popularize the opinions of Revel and Courtois rather than that of Besançon, and they did so by using provocative concepts (“Red Holocaust,” “monopoly on suffering,” “Judeocentrism”) that are widely popular in radical-right circles. I don't think "enthusiastically embraced" is an accurate summary. By saying that it was embraced uncritically, the author is saying that it was embraced out of political expediency without regard for its content (a vital clarification if we're going to present that embrace as "support"); similarly, the latter section implies that rather than neutrally embracing it for its accuracy, intellectuals embraced it as part of a larger political project to undermine the significance of the Holocaust. We can't strip out that context and present it as mere generic "enthusiastic support", especially in the context of a section otherwise referring to scholarly reception (which gives the impression that it was embraced for reasons that the source definitely does not imply.) Obviously, one option would be to find another source - this one is extremely hostile to the Black Book of Communism -- but while we have that as our source, we have to reflect what it says rather than stripping it down to a generic sense of support. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Le livre noir de communism vs The Black Book of Communism

Shouldn't the title of this article be changed to Le livre noir de communism?

It is a French book and the title of the book is "Le livre noir de communism". The same procedure has been used on the "Le Livre noir du capitalisme" page. Either way, these two wiki-articles must be harmonized. RhinoMind (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-scholarly opinion

If we are not going to include non-scholarly criticism then surely we must not also include non-scholarly support?95.153.48.2 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research

As I know about Misplaced Pages, this place is against "original reasearch". It should be sourced from relevant sources about what someone who is in that relevant source made or said about or so. Original researches are for blogs, personal websites etc etc. And this article seems as a little controversial so probably need some better care and more attention even to sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP has deleted a summary of the Overview section I added to the lead. My addition stated:

The authors use the term Communism to mean Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communism, i.e. the actually existing Communist regimes and "real socialism" in the 20th century, stating that it began in Sarajevo with World War I in 1914, more specifically with the Bolshevik Revolution which they describe as a coup, ending in Moscow with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While distinguishing between small-c communism (the theory) which has existed for millennia and capital-c Communism (the practice) which started in 1917, Courtois argue against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism.

^ Cite error: The named reference Courtois_et.al_1999 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The distinction between small-c communism (the theory) which has existed for millennia and capital-c Communism (the practice) is right in the book and not my original research. Of course, authors such as Courtois argue against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism, but they make the distinction. "We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia" (here, for example, it is uncapitalised). Authors such as Courtois and Malia also make clear they are referring to Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communism by stating that "Communism" began in 1917 and Malia stating that "more than eighty years after 1917, probing examination of the Big Questions raised by the Marxist-Leninist phenomenon has hardly begun" and that "The Black Book offers us the first attempt to determine, overall, the actual magnitude of what occurred, by systematically detailing Leninism's 'crimes, terror, and repression' from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989". It is not really controversial. Davide King (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

109.92.11.101, please do not edit warring and let us actually discuss this, thank you. Davide King (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You see all what you need are sources, you know, reliable, published sources. There is no edit war. Just following politics of wikipedia. If you do your own work, maybe you should make a book review website where you can totally add what you want, say how you want etc. And btw I opened this talk page so this is that IP what you tried to address "nicely". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

109.92.11.101, the sections Estimated number of victims and Comparison of Communism and Nazism, which I did not actually write, are are all sourced to the book itself. That paragraph I added to the lead was merely a summary (as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main body) of the Overview section which includes quotes right from the book and I did not add my own views or original research, I merely reported what the authors actually wrote and quoted them, then I summarise that in the lead; and as I explained above, it is not really controversial that the book is about Communists states and Leninist and Marxist–Leninist communist crimes. After all, why would they capitalise Communism? It should not be capitalised, unless they are referring to a specific type; and they do make the distinction between small-c communism and capitalised-c Communism, straight from the horse's mouth, or in this case, fingers. Davide King (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If everything is soured. How is it original research is that your point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You see, how it is stated unted overview section whole first part all to the names of politicians and leaders examples seems fine. Pretty clear it is. And if we put all in lead as summary of this article seems to than need to put numbers of death people cuz it is also there in the content and big part of it. Better to don't make it that complex. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So your point is that it is not lead worthy? Why though? The book is titled The Black Book is Communism and right in the introduction Courtois asks "What exactly do we mean by the term 'Communism'? We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia". So why would it not be lead worthy or relevant to explain what the authors mean by the term, what they are actually discussing? Are they discussing all communism or only a specific part of it that arose in the 20th century? Why would they distinguish between communism and Communism otherwise? Malia also clearly uses the terms Leninism and Marxist-Leninist. Davide King (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Then we came again to the original research and how we see it as editors. In their words it is more about utopian or theoretical and how it looked everywhere in practice. How it is said: doctrine of communism and its practice. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtois states "We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia". So maybe I am not the one doing original research. In other words, the book is about Communism in practice; it is more about Communist states than communism. After all, why would it states that "Communism" began in 1917? This terminology is very relevant and lead-worthy, considering that they actually use Leninist and Marxist-Leninist as terms, yet they are nowhere to be seen in the lead. What is original research and POV pushing is not providing the actual nuance of the authors regarding the term Communism and how they basically use it to mean Bolshevik, Leninist and Marxist-Leninist, hence they write "Communism" was born in 1917. Davide King (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should contact autors, and tell them to instead of communism they should change the name of that book. Or you can make a book somethings about crimes or small c communism or capital C communism and then find a relevant publisher and then it can be added at wikipedia. I don't know what to tell you. You need a source about review and not your views and not your capital c classificstions and to source says about this book in question cuz this article is about this book. Also I saw some ip user comming to support you and Im reading sockpuppet and meatpuppet at[REDACTED] rules right now. And main communism aricle I will check a little later. I feel to sources also can be a lil questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is not me who is making this small-c, big-c distinction, but the authors themselves. If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, you are wrong. I did not contact TimothyBlue and the other IP is not me, nor someone I know or contacted. Making such false claims and bad faith accusations may result in your block. Davide King (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@109.92.11.101: Davide King and I share many of the same interests, so we frequently see each others contributions. He has shown great patience with you, patience that I do not possess. If I were in your place, I would go to the AN3 board and explain yourself, instead of wasting time on puppet investigations. I'd also retract your accusation that I am a meat puppet. // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

heheh you are also pretty fast, not patient cuz maybe you are strong and doing things on some other way hahahah gosh. Noone mentioned user with a name, that one dangerous without patience, but that IP user is interesting. IP user mentioned you by your username in his edits description. He appeared as discussion started immidiately. Somehow as I saw, you and that IP editor edit the same pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you are just retorting to false accuses and personal attacks. Davide King (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So what if the IP mentioned me in the edit summary? It is not uncommon to mention users or IPs in edit summaries to better explain the reason for the edit. Both you and I referred to each other as you in our own edit summaries to justify and explain the reasoning behind our edits. By the way, I provided you below with some sources that talk and discuss about the communism/Communism, among others, distinction, so it is not my original research. Davide King (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You attacking yourself and you answer on that attacks also by yourself. Noone mentioned user with a name, Timmy is name or so, who also found himself even if not mentioned and he wrote to he is not patient. Now I worry to he dont do something bad to himself, if he is without patience. Btw also about IP user, I said to it is interesting, he comes to talk page immidiately to "form" "consensus" and mantioned you as a source. Ah somehow edit the same pages. Maybe you can call him to come back.109.92.11.101 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect and trying to assume good faith, you are again writing nonsense and making false accuses, besides writing in a contorted and unclear manner. Why do you not ask for a CheckUser? So you will see that I am neither the IP 174.57.156.122 nor TimothyBlue and we can end this nonsense and false accusations. Davide King (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Page protected which should end this 109.92.11.101's nonsense. // Timothy :: talk 06:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Western historians and journalists have used the terms Communism or Communist state to refer to 20th century Communism. See the following sources:

Williams, Raymond (1983). "Socialism". Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society, revised edition. Oxford University Press. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-19-520469-8. The decisive distinction between socialist and communist, as in one sense these terms are now ordinarily used, came with the renaming, in 1918, of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks) as the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). From that time on, a distinction of socialist from communist, often with supporting definitions such as social democrat or democratic socialist, became widely current, although it is significant that all communist parties, in line with earlier usage, continued to describe themselves as socialist and dedicated to socialism.

Steele, David Ramsay (September 1999). From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. Open Court. p. 45. ISBN 978-0875484495. Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring: regimes which insisted that they were not communist but socialist, and movements which were barely communist in any sense at all.

Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (23 July 2003). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0262182348. Ironically, the ideological father of communism, Karl Marx, claimed that communism entailed the withering away of the state. The dictatorship of the proletariat was to be a strictly temporary phenomenon. Well aware of this, the Soviet Communists never claimed to have achieved communism, always labeling their own system socialist rather than communist and viewing their system as in transition to communism.

Wilczynski, J. (2008). The Economics of Socialism after World War Two: 1945-1990. Aldine Transaction. p. 21. ISBN 978-0202362281. Contrary to Western usage, these countries describe themselves as 'Socialist' (not 'Communist'). The second stage (Marx's 'higher phase'), or 'Communism' is to be marked by an age of plenty, distribution according to needs (not work), the absence of money and the market mechanism, the disappearance of the last vestiges of capitalism and the ultimate 'whithering away' of the State.

Hence why it is capitalised, something which is followed in The Black Book of Communism. Most sources capitalise Communism for the same reasons. As explained by Sara Diamond in Roads to Dominion: Right-wing Movements and Political Power in the United States, "I use uppercase 'C' Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase 'c' communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society." Davide King (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Find a reliable source where it is said something like authors of The black book of communism in their book talk about capital C communism not about communism at all in general. You are right now doing original research and doing synthesis of sources not correlated with this article and it is about this book 109.92.11.101 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Do we also need a reliable source where it is said that the authors of the book consider Communism and Nazism to be distinct yet comparable totalitarian systems? Yet, we cite the book for claims in the "Estimated number of victims" and "Comparison of Communism and Nazism" sections, so why is it wrong to quote Courtois as stating that "e must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia" or that they make clear the "Communism" they are talking about started in 1917? The authors speak of the "Marxist-Leninist phenomenon" and "detailing Leninism's 'crimes, terror, and repression' from Russia in 1917 to Afghanistan in 1989". Those are not really controversial claims. The lead states the book is about "documenting a history of political repressions by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, killing populations in labor camps and artificially created famines." Before you falsely accuse me again, I did not actually write this. Davide King (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Authors said it, it is their book, book became notable but also for that there is one criticism section here under reception. In their words it is about theoretical and how it looked everywhere in practice. That is enough said. That what you wanted to add as c C communism is as you saw it and you decided to little put own light on, to make it more wide and to put that words as authors own words, to add own discussions of communism, e you see, that is called original research. Here we don't do book reviews and own conclusions. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

What is exactly your issue with the wording I used? The small-c communism vis-à-vis big-c Communism comes from the book itself, with the author using communism when stating "e must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia" and then using Communism elsewhere. In his own words, "the Communism that concerns us does not exist in the transcendent sphere of ideas. This Communism is altogether real; it has existed at key moments of history and in particular countries, brought to life by its famous leaders", i.e. the "Communism" that started in 1917 and ended in 1991, the "the Marxist-Leninist phenomenon" and the "real socialism" of the 20th century. So what is wrong with stating "While distinguishing between small-c communism (the theory) which has existed for millennia and capital-c Communism (the practice) which started in 1917, Courtois argues against the claim that actually existing communism had nothing to do with theoretical communism." which is a summary of the above quote? Thus far, you are also the only one who has reverted me or think this is original research, so I remain in my belief that my addition was not really controversial as you make it out to be. Davide King (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Self published source

I removed part of the content what is about historian William Blum statement about this book. It is writen like this "Historian William Blum stated that it is "a book that is to the study of communism as the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Judaism".

Well the problem is to the source for this words is self-published,blog or personal website and seems not notable, if it is, it won't be a problem to find a source what someone made with similar words as notable contribution to this article. Everyone can write anything or say but notablity is important and infulence what is made with that saying or writting. Not everything has encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

109.92.11.101, let us see "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" and whether it fits this. Davide King (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So it looks like Dave king is right about this for the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Pay attention especially about using self published sources. Still seems highy not supported to use that type of sources and as I said if it is really notable saying someone would take it and push that and publish it under some notable relevant source label. As I wrote it is not everything for use at encyclopedia. 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we wait for more people to join in? instead of removing sources Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#:~:text=A%20self%2Dpublished%20source%20can,party%20claims%20about%20living%20people). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Source should stay. Consensus is required before removing information and the onus is on the editor wanting to make the change to demonstrate it should be changed. The sources should stay until a consensus is reached to remove it. Further, the individual wanting to remove is edit waring // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well well, Maybe but not in a case to it is highly unencycopledical source and that sources are highly discouraged from use. Personal blogs, sites, self published thoughts, also not notable at all otherwise it would made some impact and there would be academical sources who use that phrase or words etc. Anyway. Here need to come someone with some more "privileges" about Misplaced Pages to solve this. It is not about even what is said but about relevance and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.11.101 (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are academical sources who use the same phrase or words, they are used on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.57.156.122 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

So, we have to be consistent in our standards. Either (1) we do not consider self-published opinions, even if by experts, to have WP:Due weight, and we remove them, including this one; or (2) we do, and other historians and other relevant experts who have supported this book on their sites and blogs get added to the support section. I don't think Blum's comment carries due weight and should be removed. But if editors want it to stay, then we know what standard we're following then. Crossroads 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Blum is not a trained historian or subject matter expert. His self-published comparison of an academic book published by Harvard University Press to the anti-Semitic fabrication The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is non-notable, WP:FRINGE nonsense of literally zero encyclopedic value.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, we do state at William Blum that he is a historian, so which is which? Either way, I believe Aquillion has solved the self-published issue, so we need to discuss what to put there. We either put only trained historians or perhaps distinguish between scholarly and non-scholarly reception. We should probably only put historians and scholarly reception, but I would not be opposed to a few relevant, notable or due non-scholarly reception in a subsection. Davide King (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

He appears to have said the same thing in a properly published book. It was published by Zed Books, which, while it is a collective, has a rigorous editorial process that they say rejects the vast majority of submissions they receive. We could argue over how good Zed Books is as a publisher or over William Blum's qualifications, but unless I'm misunderstanding something it's at the very least clearly not self-published, so this should at least resolve that part of the dispute. I would probably not want to give it any more text than it has now, but I think a brief one-sentence mention in the criticism section is not WP:UNDUE (although the whole WP:CSECTION structure is its own problem.) Blum is also a WP:BIASED source (to put it mildly) and we might want an in-line citation characterizing him as a critic of American foreign policy or something of that nature - an uncontroversial descriptor that reasonably summarizes how he portrays himself in the source. I would also particularly compare the brief sentence devoted to one quote from Blum to the massive paragraph we currently devote to Last Exit to Utopia, which is an extremely similar source - a book by someone with no relevant formal education who nonetheless published extensively and was prominent in anti-Communist political circles, which was published by a partisan press outlet; that one could probably stand to be toned down dramatically. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- That removal does not follow. There is no evidence Blum has any additional points that are not already covered; while Jean-François Revel's points should be covered as WP:Due. And Revel is a philosopher, which is relevant expertise. Not only Marxist or communist philosophers get their say. As for being prominent in anti-Communist circles or "partisan", that is irrelevant. That doesn't discredit him in any way, and many of the book's critics are just as prominent if not more so in far-left partisan circles. Crossroads 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  Crossroads, I did not remove it, I merely left a shorter summary. It is almost ten lines long and the longest of all section. Davide King (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  Some of his points were removed, though, but in any case I removed the excess verbiage so it doesn't appear overly long. Crossroads 06:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The point of the 'partisan press' bit is to compare him to Blum (who also has extensive expertise with the CIA, having worked with them both professionally and, later, when writing his books) - they are similar in that both their books were published by a partisan publisher and that their prominence was largely limited to people who shared their views. In any case, as was said, I wasn't arguing for complete removal, just pointing out that the amount of text given to Revel was WP:UNDUE compared to... well, not just Blum but to almost everyone else in the section. There's no indication that his book was actually particularly noteworthy or attracted much attention, so while we can mention it briefly it seems inappropriate for it to be nearly 1/5th of the Support section. We devote as much text to Revel's book as we do to Werth and Margolin, professional historians whose expertise focuses on the subject who wrote for the book and who are cited to multiple secondary sources. We devote more text to Revel than we do to Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty, who, again, are experts on the subject and who we cite via multiple secondary sources, including peer-reviewed papers. I have nothing against a sentence or two mentioning Revel's opinions, but if you want more than that (and especially the massive paragraph he has now) you will need to produce secondary coverage and cite him through that in order to demonstrate that his WP:DUE weight is comparable to the people we are giving similar amounts of text. Right now I am not seeing it - he seems to be a random opinionated philosopher whose book (and, therefore, whose opinions on this topic) were not of particularly of enough note to be worth a massive paragraph. Again, if you think his book is noteworthy, find secondary coverage comparable to what we have for the people I mentioned. Otherwise I'll trim it down to a sentence or two in a bit. If you think his points are WP:DUE, you demonstrate this via secondary coverage - but arguing that they are inherently due is WP:FALSEBALANCE; we don't give people massive paragraphs just because a random editor likes what they're saying or because their views happen to exist. WP:DUE is about giving them weight in accordance to their prominence, so if you want to give Revel nearly the largest paragraph in the entire section, you must show that he has attracted the most secondary coverage out of everyone in the section, or at least some secondary coverage at all. --Aquillion (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case would you be applying the same standard to Chomsky's long paragraph (no secondary sources), and to the journalists who are mentioned at all but who have zero relevant expertise, like Perrault and Milne? And if not, why not? Crossroads 15:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, Blum's claims about CIA intervention are largely sourced from fragmentary reports in leftist press outlets, as he makes clear in his published work. Blum never worked for or with the CIA. He had a relatively short stint working as a computer programmer at the State Department, from which he was eventually pressured to resign due to his anti-Vietnam War activism. Furthermore, the CIA as an institution most certainly did not approve or review any of Blum's published work about the agency or U.S. foreign policy generally. Davide King, the William Blum article may have some sort of local consensus to describe Blum as an historian (frankly, for all I know, its contributors may include a disproportionate number of fans of his work, as is common for biographies of obscure subjects), but what happens there is not necessarily binding on us here and is open to challenge. From what I can find, Blum is not widely described as an historian in reliable sources and is rarely cited by academic sources. I checked Blum's obituaries in both The New York Times () and The Washington Post (), and neither include any mention of Blum having been an "historian"; instead, both refer to him by some variant of "U.S. policy critic." As an indication of just how marginal Blum's opinions are, The Washington Post states that "For years, William Blum toiled largely without notice on writings in which he railed against the imperialism of U.S. foreign policy. ... even left-wing publications such as the Nation declined to publish his works, Mr. Blum said, because they judged him too fanatical." (If you are wondering, then, why the mainstream press is covering him at all, it's because of the Osama bin Laden endorsement.) Regardless, any notoriety that Blum has is related to his criticism of the United States rather than relevant subject matter expertise on the former communist regimes of Europe and Asia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced claim that Blum is a historian from his article. This is a good example of why Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Crossroads 15:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case would you be applying the same standard to Chomsky's long paragraph (no secondary sources), and to the journalists who are mentioned at all but who have zero relevant expertise, like Perrault and Milne? I have no problem with your proposal. Chomsky himself is one of the book's more prominent critics, so finding a secondary source for him was trivial. With him aside, can I take this to mean that you'd agree to have the amount of text devoted to Revel reduced to equivalent to the amount devoted to Perrault (one sentence, without its own paragraph) or Milne (two sentences, about half the size of Revel's current paragraph)? Milne's degree is in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, so his expertise is in fact slightly more specifically-relevant than the expertise of "has a philosophy degree" you're claiming for Revel.

Again, I'm not suggesting removing Revel entirely; the reason why I suddenly shifted to focus on him was because I noticed that he has more text than anyone else in either section, including people who are far more prominent and qualified. If you want him to retain that plainly WP:UNDUE focus you must demonstrate that his views really are that important. Otherwise, I have no objection to mentioning his position in a sentence or two, but the massive paragraph that takes up 1/5th of the entire support section has to go. I mean... do you honestly believe he is the most prominent person to have ever commented on The Black Book of Communism, and that his description of it is the most significant description of it that exists? Because that is what the amount of text we are currently devoting to his views implies, and I am simply not seeing it at all - he is plainly one of the less important voices mentioned in those sections, and his book seems to have had no significant impact. We can mention it, yes, but by what standard are you arguing we should devote so much more text to him than to Anne Applebaum, or Mark Tauger, or Kristen Ghodsee, or Scott Sehon, or the Wiesel Commission, or Jolanta Pekacz, or Tony Judt? All of these sources seem more significant than him, yet they're each given only a fraction of the text (in fact I suspect all of them combined would barely equal the massive paragraph we inexplicably devote to Revel.) Why do you think Revel deserves so much weight? It looks like textbook WP:UNDUE to me. --Aquillion (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion, I agree. Revel is also essentially saying that "Communism" and 'socialism' are not criticized enough and that capitalism is criticized too much. But that is false. 'Socialism' may be held in a more respectable regard because it is associated with social-democracies and other democratic socialism while "Communism" is used to refer to "Communist" states. However, 'socialism' is routinely criticized and compared to "Communism" and Nazism. Indeed, "Communism" and 'Communist' crimes are used against any social change, radical or not, or socialist system. We do have a Black Ribbon Day commemoring "Communist" and Nazi crimes as well as a Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism. We do not have a Black Ribbon Day that also add Capitalist crimes to "Communism", Nazism and other authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. We do not have a Black Ribbon Day comparing Capitalism to Nazism, although the Nazis and fascist presided over capitalist regimes and "Communist states" as routinely described as de facto 'state' capitalist or 'command economies', or simply "totalitarian". We do not have a Prague Declaration on Western Conscience and Capitalism, Colonialism, Imperialism and Slavery.

Chomsky's comments make more sense and are more warranted because Capitalism is simply not held to the same standard given to Communism and Nazism. By following the same methodology of The Black Book of Communism, Capitalism has actually killed more than Communism and Nazism. Since the book makes the point that Communism is worse than Nazism because it killed '100 millions' and criticises the criticism regarding the comparison of Communism and Nazism that it should be weighted 'qualitatively' rather than 'quantitative', hence Communist crimes are worse than the Holocaust and the Holocaust was not at all unique, Capitalism is actually worse than both of them, but it is not held to the same standard. In other words, Chomsky criticises a double standard that actually exists whereas Revel criticises one that does not. Because Capitalism is simply not criticized as much as "Communism" or 'socialism' and its colonial, imperialist and slavery crimes are not considered along with Communist, Nazis and other authoritarian/totalitarian regimes.

By the way, this is not just my personal opinion, but it is essentially what anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee and philosopher Scott Sehon argue in Ghodsee, Kristen R.; Sehon, Scott (22 March 2018). "Anti-anti-communism". Aeon. Retrieved 24 August 2020. Yet, we use that merely to state that they Courtois' death toll estimate for Nazism "conveniently" excludes those killed in the Second World War rather than the 6–9 of lines we use in the paragraph about Revel which is undue per Aquillion's reasoning. At best, it may be summarised in one or two short sentences. Revel also seems to excuse Capitalist crimes (colonialism, slavery and Nazism) by linking them to collectivism and statism ("social slavery"/"state slavery"). So how is that different from communists arguing that "Communism" did not commit any crimes because it was not true communism and that "Communist" states were not really communist? Certainly, I would have expected more from such a book and philosopher than this. Davide King (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, your statements about capitalism are all highly contentious, and per WP:NOTFORUM, it is best we do not discuss such matters here. Crossroads 05:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

And your statement Chomsky criticises a double standard that actually exists whereas Revel criticises one that does not means you are judging sources based on whether you agree with them, which is how WP:POV enters articles. The standard has to be based on source quality. Crossroads 05:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, the crux of the matter is that, unlike Revel, Chomsky is also a historian (Otero 2003:416 and Barsky 2007:107) and has been cited in secondary sources as provided by Aquillion. Can you provide a secondary source for Revel too? Davide King (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with having Chomsky, and we don't require secondary sources for book reviews. The reviews are secondary sources about the book being reviewed, which is why we include them in articles about books. I only made the point about a secondary source for Chomsky because there was a claim about a secondary source for Revel to justify the length, but now that's been trimmed, so let's just move past that. Crossroads 05:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, but we need secondary sources to establish weight, no? Chomsky's comments about the book have appeared in secondary sources. Has Revel's book been mentioned in reviews or in other secondary sources? Davide King (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked. But we're not removing it. He has relevant expertise and it is a published book, and a secondary source about The Black Book of Communism. Chomsky's comments appearing in a secondary source are highly unusual. Again, book reviews are not required to be mentioned in sources secondary to the review to be described. We don't follow an infinite regress like that. Crossroads 06:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're suggesting removing it, merely trimming it down in size to the amount of text (and weight) given to comparable sources. Again, do you think Revel is WP:DUE more weight than everyone else in the section, including the other people I listed above (whose expertise is clearly superior and who were published academically or by more significant publishers)? If so, why? Also, I feel you misunderstood my agreement on Perrault and Milne - you suggested treating them the same as Revel, and I agreed; they have comparable expertise and WP:DUE weight. Perrault studied at the Instituts d'études politiques, which focuses on political science; Milne in particular (with a degree in philosophy, politics, and economics) has more precisely relevant qualifications than you have claimed for Milne, while being published in a higher-quality / higher-profile source; Perrault has an extremely brief mention. That is to say that, after walking through the relevant qualifications and how they compared, as well as the source where they were published, interpreted your suggestion that we hold them to the same standard as being that Revel should have about the same amount of text devoted to him as Milne in particular (who is an a very comparable source with the same qualifications.) If you want to remove those sources on the grounds that a philosophy degree is insufficient qualification you must remove Revel as well to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to one particular side by including lower-quality sources from one position and excluding comparable sources that disagree. My point was to demonstrate that they were comparable sources to Revel and yet Revel was inexplicably getting far more text. --Aquillion (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Revel is now shorter than other reviews and you've restored the other authors. I don't see what there is to discuss further. No, I do not believe two opinion pieces in The Guardian constitute a "higher-quality" source than a published book, nor that we need to get exact parity specifically between Revel and Milne or whatever. Crossroads 16:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We devote more text to Revel than we do to Jean-Jacques Becker and J. Arch Getty, who, again, are experts on the subject... J. Arch Getty is a part of the Soviet revisionist school which is not mainstream historiography. The Daily Telegraph has aptly summed him up as "Stalin's apologist" who was proven wrong by the opening of the archives. --Pudeo (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, are there any other fringe authors lurking in the section that we don't know about? Crossroads 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't answer for Puedo, but any summary of the revisionist debates as "Robert Conquest wins and his opponents are all FRINGE" is not a very accurate statement concerning reality as we know it. And The Telegraph is a terribly biased and unreliable source in this contest. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Categories: