Talk:The Black Book of Communism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Don't pretend you are unaware of the discussion at Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Consensus_sought_for_removal_of_fringe_source_(Salvatore_Engel-Di_Mauro_et_al). 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  "consensus formed elsewhere" 

message: I made a few brief edits to a couple sentences in the lead:
*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.
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Corrections and clarifications to lead 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Define "Peasants" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article quality, copy editing, feedback