Talk:The Black Book of Communism

Undue weight given to introduction
The book is an anthology of several historians on the topic of communism, and yet it seems the entire article is about the controversy over the introduction. If we are going to have an article about the book, we should also cover the other parts as well. --Nug (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the weight given to the introduction in our article doesn't reflect the weight given to it in sources that have discussed the Black Book? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What happened to your inner self that wanted to know? Don't you want to know what the rest of the book is about, isn't that the whole point of an encyclopedia? --Nug (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How about answering the question I asked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the text in The_Black_Book_of_Communism is actually sourced from the book's introduction. The book's other parts ought to be mentioned as well. Criticisms should go into the section The_Black_Book_of_Communism. --Nug (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't answer my question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that everything prominently covered in RS should be prominently described on the page. This is simply per WP:NPOV. But was it significantly covered? For example, the entire Foreword section is referenced only to BBoC itself. Based on that, this whole section should be removed. So are several other subsections. Yes, some key points can be cited directly from the book, but only briefly. As about other views, a lot was written about BBoC, hence some selection is required. Some of the claims even look ridiculous. For example, as cited, The book's main thesis reads thus: our century's fundamental crime was not the Holocaust, but rather the existence of Communism. Through the manipulation of numbers ...". OK. But, first of all, how is this a "manipulation with numbers". Secondly, why is that antisemitic? Third, the book does not say at all anywhere that "our century's fundamental crime was not the Holocaust" (if it did, please tell where it was. I did not see this in the book; yes, it focuses on communist crimes because this is the subject of the book). We need a correct, short, logical and understandable description of the reception, not a scandal mongering, please. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And how exactly are you proposing that Wikipedia determines which descriptions to the Black Book are 'correct'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Wikipedia, but contributors/editors. To answer this question, I need to know if you actually read BBoC and if you are familiar with the subject of communist repressions. Basically, one needs to know well the subject to evaluate the literature on the subject, i.e. which sources should be used. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the weight is undue, because the book became famous mostly due to highly provocative claims made by Courois and Malia in the introduction and foreword. Without that, it would be just another history monograph. Most reviews on the BB discuss primarily the claims made by Courtois, some of them mention Werths and, rarely, Margolin. Other chapters are usually ignored. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course the introduction's notoriety has established the book's notability, enabling an article to be created, and once created a fuller description of the book is the encyclopedic approach, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid of provocative claims. Criticisms should go into the section The_Black_Book_of_Communism in any case. --Nug (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether we like it or not, the legacy of the Black Book are its introduction and the 100 million estimate number. As for the question about some attributed quotes, it is literally explained in the part of the quote (which, again, is properly attributed and not stated as fact) you decided, for whatever reason, not to quote: "Through the manipulation of numbers—only twenty-five million human lives fell victim to Hitler, one hundred million to Communism worldwide—the impression is created that Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime." If you cannot see it, I do not know what to tell you, and it is not the first time. You appeared to not understand that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fabricated antisemitic text either ... Davide King (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A "manipulation with numbers" typically mean a fabrication. Here, we deal merely with a comparison of two numbers. Do authors of the book say that "Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime."? As far as I remember, they did not; this is just a Reductio ad absurdum by the reviewer. Should we cite obvious distortions by highly politicized reviewers who apparently hate authors of the book? I do not think so; we must be more careful and conservative in selecting citations and reviews. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewers published in academic journals are generally more reliable than our own original research. Who and which are those "obvious distortions by highly politicized reviewers who apparently hate authors of the book"? We should cite them only if we have equally reliable sources pointing that out, though if what you wrote was true, I bet it would have been included already. All those academic reviews were found through Google Scholar, and I even added a few ones that are more positive, like The Russian Review, because that is what NPOV is about; if academic criticism is the majority view, we do not engage in false balance. You have shown a lack of understanding about the book and its legacy, and its scholarly criticism, which I suggest you to re-read. Davide King (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to broadly agree with and  here. I have made an edit to the lead to more precisely and concisely describe the actual criticism of the book's introduction, as well as to correct the obvious misrepresentation of widespread praise for the book by claiming only "several publications" were positive. The criticism is part of what is noteworthy about the book—but there seems to be short shrift paid to the book's impact, especially in the lead.
 * One suggestion would be to pull out the quote "The Black Book may be the single most influential text on the Soviet Union and other state socialist regimes and movements published since The GuLag Archipelago" and/or similar descriptions of TBB's importance and include it/them in the lead. (Side note: that quote is not appearing for me on any browser on any device—is there some reason I can only see it when editing?)
 * Putting aside scholarly disputes over whether Communism was responsible for 85 or 100 million deaths or whether Communism and Nazism are so different that comparisons are unwarranted, the book made an enormous and lasting impact by revealing the extraordinary death toll of Communist regimes around the world—not just for academics, but for the million-odd laymen who bought and read the book. And I do believe the book's effect risks being lost in the sensationalism of the controversy—which, while widely reported upon, is unlikely to be its real legacy from the perspective of an encyclopedia. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"consensus formed elsewhere"
Per this recent removal of sourced content, I'd like to know which "consensus formed elsewhere" is referred to, since the mere assertion that such a consensus exists clearly isn't adequate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look, but can't find any such 'consensus' anywhere obvious. There was a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability which mentioned the source, but it was made clear that what was being discussed was whether the source was reliable for one specific statement, and not the reliability of the source as a whole. And I don't really see how a source can be 'unreliable' when it is being cited for the opinion of its author(s). Lacking a proper explanation for the removal, I've restored the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the edit summary is obviously misleading. It is a serious violation of our rules. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend you are unaware of the discussion at Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes. Engel-Di Mauro paper is cited by nobody, he is a professor in Geography and his only qualification that is remotely related to communism is a Certificate in Russian, Central and East European Studies. Not even a degree, just a certificate. I guess you also think he is an expert in the Hungarian Language too? WP:UNDUE also applies, so please, there are better sources than this non notable geography academic. --Nug (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware that there is an ongoing discussion there. I can see no evidence that any consensus has been arrived at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Engel-Di Mauro text was removed a week ago from MKuCR and C.J. Griffin has since replaced it with a better source. I note you ignore the fact that Engel-Di_Mauro is a non-notable geographer who has no expertise in communism studies. --Nug (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring any facts. You stated that you were removing the material because "consensus formed elsewhere deemed this particular source unreliable". You have provided no evidence that such a consensus exists. And reliability has nothing to do with 'notability'. If you want to argue here that inclusion is undue, you are free to do so - but without making bogus claims in an edit summary regarding an imaginary 'consensus'. No such consensus exists, and your edit-warring is accordingly entirely unjustifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Engel-Di Mauro holds a certificate in Russian, Central, and East European Studies, and has extensive peer-reviewed publications on them; in fact, a large part of his work focuses on the intersection between socialist ideologies and the environment, particularly as it relates to agriculture.  Since large parts of The Black Book deal with blaming the Soviet Union for famines (and this is a core part of the number Engel-Di Mauro is discussing here) he is an ideal expert to reference on the subject. Even if that consensus were valid (which it isn't, since first I'm not actually seeing one in the discussion you reach, and second the people arguing for removal relied on the demonstrably false claim that Mauro lacked expertise), it still would not apply here, since applicability and WP:DUE weight are higher on an article for the book Mauro was criticizing directly. --Aquillion (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to what Aquillion said, the only use of the source being problematic was this (e.g. capitalism and mass deaths), but otherwise it was a reliable source properly attributed.1 Indeed, the part that was removed by Nug was precisely the part that took it to the RSN, and there was consensus to be usable in that context, so Nug's removal was not acceptable and they should have been much more careful (I have linked the RSN discussion at Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes when discussing the source, so they should have known better). Davide King (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Corrections and clarifications to lead
I made a few brief edits to a couple sentences in the lead: Thanks for any thoughts—and, per WP:REVONLY, I kindly request that you please do not wholesale revert my edit, but rather remove, add to, or change only any parts you believe to be inaccurate or otherwise unacceptable. I so appreciate it! ElleTheBelle 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the inaccurate quantification of positive reviews as "it received praise in several publications" (meaning more than two, but a small number or handful). The book received high praise from a broad spectrum of publications and widely cited criticism has largely focused on the introduction, which is covered in the same sentence.
 * Removed dicey diction of "accused" from "its introduction… was… accused of historical inaccuracies…" and "at the same time" from "The Black Book of Communism has been translated into numerous languages, sold millions of copies, and is at the same time considered one of the most influential and controversial books
 * Specified number of contributors who criticized introduction as three of twelve (I have included Courtois in that number, because a claim of "eleven contributors" in the lead is misleading without explaining his exclusion from the twelve total contributors, which strikes me as unnecessarily complicated and wordy for second paragraph of the article).
 * Corrected summary of the introduction's critics: no cited source reports allegations that the introduction contains "historical inaccuracies" or "manipulations" other than its comparison of Communism/Nazism and "inflated" or "manipulated" numbers, so to include "historical inaccuracies, manipulations, and inflated numbers" is both hyperbolic and incorrect. More specifically, the use of "manipulated" is redundant in the same way as "historical inaccuracies"; its use in cited sources appears to be limited either the juxtaposition of the victims of Communism/Nazism or inflation of the number for Communism (both of which are already covered). That being the case, I've changed it to "both for comparing Communism to Nazism and allegedly inflating the numbers of victims"—I believe that to be the most precise, concise, and complete summary. I'm of course than happy to be corrected on this—if there is widely cited and credible criticism of the introduction for "historical inaccuracies" or "manipulations" above and beyond to the comparison or allegedly inflated numbers.
 * The improvement is this but I wish for the removal of citations in the lead altogether, too plaintive and distracting ~ cygnis insignis 18:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input! I don't know enough about Wiki policy regarding citations in the lead, but agree that less is generally better. I certainly don't understand the need to put citations in the middle of sentences in the lead (or elsewhere, generally speaking). Appreciatively, ElleTheBelle 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it ought to be an irrefutable summary, barring another improvement to the body of the article … something like that ~ cygnis insignis 18:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A few notes — historical inaccuracies include those mentioned by Kenez about Werth and there could be more, while "manipulation" is explicitily, directly quoted at least two times by academic sources in the body, so I think they should be re-added; the criticism was not related just to inflation but on the category itself (e.g. see David-Fox and Werth's comments). I would also avoid "widely" because "broad range" already makes it clear and is more neutral; "received praise in many publications in the United Kingdom and the United States" is a good example in the body. Davide King (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Why was the criticism selection deleted?
A while back there was a section called criticism but its gone now, and the critics have been fused together with people who supported it. Culd I ask what the reason for this change was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Standalone "Criticism" or "Controversy" sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia due to our policy of neutrality. Therefore, the material was merged into "Reception."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But a "criticisms" section would actually make the page more neutral as it would show differing opinions. This book is inherently incredibly biased, so a "neutral" page written about it would also be similarly biased unless actions were made to show a differing viewpoint opposing the original authors. CertifiedSleepyy (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it make it more neutral, though? Even from the perspective you're taking? The criticisms themselves weren't deleted. And one problem with a criticism section is that "confining" criticism there can make the rest of the article unduly positive or can give the impression that even things that subject-matter experts raising clear-cut issues have said about the topic can be disregarded as the opinions of "mere" critics. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But its not actually been merged into "Reception" and even if it had been it's not a neutral page and needs a criticism section really — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:2000:2000:6:25CD:7031:245:548C (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regardless of whether this page currently meets our guidelines for neutrality or not, a "Criticism" section is definitely more appropriate than our current "Reception" section, which lumps together the "Academic press" [whatever that is supposed to mean?; I think "Academic literature" would make more sense here] and "Popular press" [Press] responses. The two subsections don't go well together—indeed, they are not at all alike—and it feels like what should have been two sections of the article got subsumed under one "common" section, just because both deal with reactions to the book. However, Wikipedia is not a book report, and criticisms/critiques of the book's substance, content and structure (the value of its research; its "academic value") should not be confused with surface criticisms of its language, style and impact (its "popular value"). More generally, the structure of this article is all over the place: The separate "Memorial analysis" contains material which should more properly belong to some kind of "Reception/Criticism" section, and information about the book's relative position in a larger collection of works (other "Black Books"; books written in response to it; other works edited or written by Courtois, which also apparently show the author engaging in historical revisionism??) are subsumed under a section inappropriately titled "Sequels"; it's a mess (but then again, this whole topic is messy).
 * As suggested by, I would suggest we add a "Controversy" section to specifically deal with this problem (but see also: Don't "teach the controversy"). It would naturally fit into the article as it is, since a controversy is mentioned multiple times in multiple sections—so why not cover it explicitly instead of implicitly as we do know? We could get the timeline straight, cover the controversy as it evolved after the publication of the book (with a break occurring between the authors due to the opening/closing chapters) and integrate the "Academic press" subsection, and maybe even parts of "Memorial analysis" there. The "Popular press" subsection could be a subsection of "Controversy", or its own section, titled either "Popular reception" or "Impact". My suggestion for a new structure:


 * The Black Book of Communism
 * Overview
 * Controversy
 * Popular reception | Impact
 * Subsequent publications [this section can be expanded]
 * Edited or written by Courtois
 * "Second volume"
 * Dictionaire du communisme
 * The Black Book of the French Revolution
 * Le Siècle de communismes
 * Other "Black Books"
 * Other "Black Books"


 * Any thoughts or further comments? TucanHolmes  (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The popular and academic reception used to be separated; they were merged without discussion in an edit whose edit summary didn't mention that they were doing it or why, here. It was a while ago but as a starting point I'll just re-separate them unless someone objects. --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking over that edit, it looks like they just blanket-reverted the section, ignoring a lot of work that had been done to prune it for WP:DUE reasons and to organize it into something readable rather than just nose-counting. I've restored the edit before theirs; I made some effort to look for significant changes since then worth bringing over, but mostly they just turned it into a mess. Also, thoughts as to why the older version was better: Weiner and Hoffman are secondary / survey sources covering the reception rather than reviewing the book themselves, and belong at the top and separated out from the rest. Then, the academic section ought to start with the most significant points of contention; the first two paragraphs accurately summarize this. The third paragraph follows from the second and has a generally clear focus. The last two paragraphs (and the entirety of the popular press section) are what I would call "nose-counting", a disorganized collection of random thoughts from random reviewers, and aren't as useful in terms of telling the reader about the overall reception or what key points related to it were; yet when they were merged they were for some reason moved to the top, which seems like a mistake. The revised version is also more cautious about WP:DUE weight (the other one devoted entire paragraphs to fairly random commentators for no clear reason, while others just got single sentences; this was all discussed at length in the past when the section was revised before.) Overall the section should be structured thematically and cover key points of the book's reception rather than being a random assortment of things people have said. There's still a lot of room for improvement but I feel that that version is a better starting point and had a lot more work put into it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Define "Peasants"
"Malia also argues against what he terms "the fable of 'good Lenin/bad Stalin'", stating that there never was a "benign, initial phase of Communism before some mytical 'wrong turn' threw it off track", claiming that Lenin expected and wanted from the start a civil war "to crush all 'class enemies'; and this war, principally against the peasants,..."

Does the Article mean "farmers", "the underclass", "workers", or what?

2607:FB91:12A0:C78E:AC39:A177:4FD8:49F0 (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Article quality, copy editing, feedback
This article is in bad shape; oftentimes lengthy and difficult to read, and just in general doesn't seem to meet encyclopedic standards (see also: WP:NOT). I will start a massive copy editing effort soon, but first I would like to gather some feedback before implementing such a massive rewrite / restructuring. Please note that my aim is not to delete content from the article, but merely to restructure or rewrite existing content to fit the format of an encyclopedic article. TucanHolmes (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)